Friday, March 13, 2009
Leo Teahen - April 11,1936 -March 6,2009 The casino gunslinger and warrior
| |
Born in He was always active in his community, assisting political parties, groups and the taxpayer coalition in their quest to achieve accountable- cost effective government, build new revenue, and help the local taxpayers. He was instrumental in bringing and getting the necessary approvals for the Charity Casino in A Roman Catholic who enjoyed life, | Station coffee house and gallery 5 Garnet street Cainesville |
Station coffee house and gallery 5
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Time for a civil servant wage rollback
It is unfathomable in an economy where unemployment is reaching record levels, retail sales are dropping and once indestructible auto giants are staving off bankruptcy that across the province we should see the number of people in the once-elusive 'Century Club' growing.
In 2008, 69 Brantford city employees earned in excess of $100,000; nine employees (five more than 2007) made the list for Brant County.
The question shouldn't really be whether the city manager should have earned $213,586 last year, or whether the chief operating officer for Brantford Power Inc. should earn $125,520, or whether the other 67 people in the city should have earned more than $100,000. The question should be how can a municipality in good conscience continue to pay exorbitant salaries and increase taxes when people are losing their jobs, their incomes, their retirement pensions, and when simply living has become an increasingly difficult economic reality.
More than $7 million was spent in 2008 on salaries alone (for the 69 earning over $100,000). Some might say that is excessive.
Questioning the salaries of top employees isn't about questioning the employees themselves or their abilities, but rather a look at what the market can and cannot bear.
GM workers are voting on a wage and pension rollback, other employers are asking their staff to consider the same in taking wage reductions, freezes, rollbacks, not to mention voluntary and involuntary layoffs and staffing reductions.
It is easy to point the fingers at 'fat cat' salaries in Toronto or Ottawa, but when there is an increasingly greater disconnect between the public and the tax-paid staff that are in place to work on their behalf, there's a problem.
Perhaps next year, rather than looking at what services to cut or infrastructure projects to table to get the budget increase to a minimum, city councillors should look at asking their $100,000 club members to consider their own wage reduction in an attempt to lighten the burden on local residents.
After all, the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these salaries, the least council could do is recognize whose wallets that money comes from and recognize that there comes a time when they just have to say enough is enough.
Enough! by Expositor editor John Chambers
An excellent assesment or reality check of the present economic reality. This is not a good leadership precedent or example. Can we afford to over-inflat and insulate one sector of the economy at the expense of those that create the taxes to pay them? If it doesn't work at GMC ,why should we expect it to work in the civil service? PR
In 2008, 69 Brantford city employees earned in excess of $100,000; nine employees (five more than 2007) made the list for Brant County.
The question shouldn't really be whether the city manager should have earned $213,586 last year, or whether the chief operating officer for Brantford Power Inc. should earn $125,520, or whether the other 67 people in the city should have earned more than $100,000. The question should be how can a municipality in good conscience continue to pay exorbitant salaries and increase taxes when people are losing their jobs, their incomes, their retirement pensions, and when simply living has become an increasingly difficult economic reality.
More than $7 million was spent in 2008 on salaries alone (for the 69 earning over $100,000). Some might say that is excessive.
Questioning the salaries of top employees isn't about questioning the employees themselves or their abilities, but rather a look at what the market can and cannot bear.
GM workers are voting on a wage and pension rollback, other employers are asking their staff to consider the same in taking wage reductions, freezes, rollbacks, not to mention voluntary and involuntary layoffs and staffing reductions.
It is easy to point the fingers at 'fat cat' salaries in Toronto or Ottawa, but when there is an increasingly greater disconnect between the public and the tax-paid staff that are in place to work on their behalf, there's a problem.
Perhaps next year, rather than looking at what services to cut or infrastructure projects to table to get the budget increase to a minimum, city councillors should look at asking their $100,000 club members to consider their own wage reduction in an attempt to lighten the burden on local residents.
After all, the taxpayers are the ones footing the bill for these salaries, the least council could do is recognize whose wallets that money comes from and recognize that there comes a time when they just have to say enough is enough.
Enough! by Expositor editor John Chambers
An excellent assesment or reality check of the present economic reality. This is not a good leadership precedent or example. Can we afford to over-inflat and insulate one sector of the economy at the expense of those that create the taxes to pay them? If it doesn't work at GMC ,why should we expect it to work in the civil service? PR
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Mayor's Expropriation response to Brant Taxpayers Coalition
A informal information meeting was held on March 5,between Mayor Hancock and Sieg Holle of the Brant Taxpayers Coalition at the Station Coffee House and Gallery to review concerns and the status of the expropriation bylaw
Participants
Mayor Hancock (MH) City of Brantford
Sieg Holle (SH) Brant Taxpayers Coalition (BTC)
Questions answered – City (MH)
Are we paying too much? What is the future impact of the expropriation? SH
MH – The $11.5 m is a budget only; our internal target is lower and will reflect true market conditions. A seasoned third party professional has been assigned to ensure that reasonable, not windfall prices, will be paid
The success of Harmony square will be duplicated, resulting in an increased tax revenue base that could lower taxes in the future and finally revitalize south Colborne street to a better use.
Cities have other considerations to take into account in the public interest. Paying a social premium is often necessary to ensure good governance, and the meeting of strategic city plan objectives. Selling Moody’s adult entertainment building to Laurier University is a good example of a necessary social premium or cost that the city should incur.
People and existing business displacement costs? SH
MH-Using Harmony square as a recent example, where a block of buildings were demolished, people and businesses were successfully relocated.
This project is phased over time, and the City has and will work with those people affected in the next 2 years.
Compensation levels have yet to be defined and is part of the on- going legal expropriation process. Public works is involved to make sure that the people transition is painless and effective.
Who bears the costs of the land and building remediation? Will we sell the land to new users? SH
MH -The cost of remediation of land and buildings will be that of the new purchaser(S) from the city. The sale and terms of sale to new parties cannot presently be disclosed and the question is premature in the existing process. Such terms will be disclosed to the public and vetted by council prior to being implemented in the future.
Is the Process hasty? Will the process be challenged at the OMB? What safeguards are in place to ensure that money is not overspent? Are you open to an independent Auditor General function and other independent public project oversight methods? SH
MH- I do not believe that this Colborne revitalization process is hasty or as ill considered as suggested by some. The need to do something on South Colborne has been discussed and documented for many years. When elected, I had personally made the core revitalization a priority, and have only recently come to consider the expropriation option when negotiations with private developers failed. .Do nothing is in my opinion, not a option.
The process has been visible and not haphazard as reported. Both in camera committees and public meetings were held before this decision and bylaw was reached. Internal and departmental meetings have been held to ensure the proper execution and implementation of this plan of action. The use of an experienced third party to negotiate the best terms for the expropriated properties is also in place as a additional safeguard to property overspending.
An OMB expropriation bylaw challenge is possible in the next 30 days. The need for additional independent oversight resources, such as Auditor General is not necessary at this time.
SH- Thank you for your response Mayor Hancock
.
A better bailout strategy for car manufacturers-Incentive to buyers
Incentives, not bailout
OTTAWA (UPI) -- The Canadian government has been urged by a second automaker, Toyota Canada, to skip bailout measures and instead create buying incentives.
Speaking to a House of Commons committee Tuesday night, Toyota's Managing Director Stephen Beatty said it would be preferable to implement tax incentives or "holidays" to spur sales, the Globe and Mail reported.
"If the government wants to help the manufacturing activities of the auto sector, the best way to do that is ensure there's a healthy market for their products," Beatty said. "The fastest and most effective way to do so is to create immediate access to credit."
A night earlier, Ford Canada's chief, David Mondragon, urged the same committee give a $3,500 voucher for scrapping cars older than 11 years and buying a new car to create stimulus in the wallowing industry.
This is a strategy that would increase return on public dollars - it would reduce the excess car inventory,provide needed cash flow to the manufacturers solving the immediate cash flow crisis problem. It is immediate . It is a direct win for the consumer or bailout funders, a win for the car manufacturer by providing needed cash flow through the sale of excess car inventory , a win for the government as it protects the manufacturing jobs /tax base and stimulates the economy immediately. A end user inentive is a win-win-win strategy PR
OTTAWA (UPI) -- The Canadian government has been urged by a second automaker, Toyota Canada, to skip bailout measures and instead create buying incentives.
Speaking to a House of Commons committee Tuesday night, Toyota's Managing Director Stephen Beatty said it would be preferable to implement tax incentives or "holidays" to spur sales, the Globe and Mail reported.
"If the government wants to help the manufacturing activities of the auto sector, the best way to do that is ensure there's a healthy market for their products," Beatty said. "The fastest and most effective way to do so is to create immediate access to credit."
A night earlier, Ford Canada's chief, David Mondragon, urged the same committee give a $3,500 voucher for scrapping cars older than 11 years and buying a new car to create stimulus in the wallowing industry.
This is a strategy that would increase return on public dollars - it would reduce the excess car inventory,provide needed cash flow to the manufacturers solving the immediate cash flow crisis problem. It is immediate . It is a direct win for the consumer or bailout funders, a win for the car manufacturer by providing needed cash flow through the sale of excess car inventory , a win for the government as it protects the manufacturing jobs /tax base and stimulates the economy immediately. A end user inentive is a win-win-win strategy PR
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
New Era- an opportunity for better government
Amid global economic turmoil, there is a broad consensus about two factors: Economic recovery depends largely on effective government action, and yet the public is also skeptical about government's ability to both fulfill its newly expanded mandate and achieve efficiency-minded savings that will help restrain overall spending.
Resolving this paradox requires pursuing a new era in government, upgrading its managerial capabilities to ensure a stronger return on taxpayers' investment. Political leaders and civil servants will need to go further and faster than they did in previous reform initiatives to meet this “whole-government transformation” imperative.
Canada's leaders can build on substantive steps already taken. Thanks to both federal and provincial reform efforts of recent years, Canada is better positioned than many other countries to deliver further change. Canadian leaders can also continue to learn selectively from what has worked well in other countries.
For example, New Zealand responded to an economic crisis in the 1980s by giving each government agency a clear set of objectives and an agency-level CEO with the flexibility to innovate – and it used this change to shrink the size of government while improving the quality of public services. Similarly, Sweden responded to a 1990s financial crisis by using top-down budgets to drive annual improvements in government efficiency that exceeded many parts of the private sector.
Larger and more complex countries have recently undertaken equally ambitious initiatives. For nearly 12 years, the British government, under Tony Blair and now Gordon Brown, has pursued an integrated reform program that links departmental budget allocations to predefined outcome targets – successes so far include reduced waiting times for medical treatment and improved test scores in public schools. In the past year, the French government under President Nicolas Sarkozy has launched a program to re-think every aspect of its public service model. In Washington, President Barack Obama has put government reform at the forefront of his agenda.
There is no single prescription for success, yet there is a core set of priorities that we believe define whole-government transformation. Foremost is the need to improve performance and delivery through focused objectives, consistent measurement of progress, accountability for success and failure, and alignment across government agencies on decision making, performance management and service delivery.
For example, lean operations can streamline decades-old processes and reshape public services around the citizen. Modern information systems can transform the use of data and analysis, enabling better decisions. And superior talent management can help public agencies attract, develop and retain highly skilled employees – especially important as Canada prepares for a wave of retirements by government employees.
Achieving clarity on such broad priorities is just the start of the reform process. Implementing truly transformational change is arguably a greater challenge. Many an ambitious reform initiative has delivered only part of its promise. Four factors are critical:
First, leaders should establish a vision of reform that tells public sector employees what is required of them and why, and that causes citizens to expect and demand high-quality services. Articulating a reform narrative has been a priority of Mr. Blair, Mr. Brown and Mr. Sarkozy, illustrating the importance of top leaders' full and sustained engagement in reform.
Second, leaders should articulate and deliver a prioritized program. This means being both comprehensive, touching all aspects of government; and specific, setting out objectives for performance improvement. There must be a clear sense of what “good” looks like, with change implemented in priority order and manageable chunks.
Third, a renewed institutional capacity should be built to drive reform at an accelerated pace and with sufficient rigour. The Blair government's “Prime Minister's Delivery Unit” was charged with meeting top-priority objectives for individual departments while embedding a delivery culture across government. More recently, the French government created a co-ordinating group to drive cross-government reforms, ensuring that top-quality performance is on the agenda of every department.
Fourth, there should be a new focus on building managerial capabilities. Managing talent in any decentralized, diverse organization is no easy task. The recent Harper budget's proposed centralization of the federal human resources function – realigning six separate federal agencies – marks an important step forward. Yet it does not address the human capital gap in attracting and developing high-potential employees, or the managerial gap in leading them.
The economic crisis presents Ottawa and the provincial governments with an opportunity to embrace a more radical phase of reform. In doing so, they can create a more agile and resilient public sector and help Canada become more competitive to meet future challenges. Jiri Maly is a principal and Nora Aufreiter is a director in the Toronto office of McKinsey
Do we have the will to do this? -the stakes are worthhile . leadership in the world by" creating a more agile and resilient public sector and help Canada become more competitive to meet future challenges." PR
Resolving this paradox requires pursuing a new era in government, upgrading its managerial capabilities to ensure a stronger return on taxpayers' investment. Political leaders and civil servants will need to go further and faster than they did in previous reform initiatives to meet this “whole-government transformation” imperative.
Canada's leaders can build on substantive steps already taken. Thanks to both federal and provincial reform efforts of recent years, Canada is better positioned than many other countries to deliver further change. Canadian leaders can also continue to learn selectively from what has worked well in other countries.
For example, New Zealand responded to an economic crisis in the 1980s by giving each government agency a clear set of objectives and an agency-level CEO with the flexibility to innovate – and it used this change to shrink the size of government while improving the quality of public services. Similarly, Sweden responded to a 1990s financial crisis by using top-down budgets to drive annual improvements in government efficiency that exceeded many parts of the private sector.
Larger and more complex countries have recently undertaken equally ambitious initiatives. For nearly 12 years, the British government, under Tony Blair and now Gordon Brown, has pursued an integrated reform program that links departmental budget allocations to predefined outcome targets – successes so far include reduced waiting times for medical treatment and improved test scores in public schools. In the past year, the French government under President Nicolas Sarkozy has launched a program to re-think every aspect of its public service model. In Washington, President Barack Obama has put government reform at the forefront of his agenda.
There is no single prescription for success, yet there is a core set of priorities that we believe define whole-government transformation. Foremost is the need to improve performance and delivery through focused objectives, consistent measurement of progress, accountability for success and failure, and alignment across government agencies on decision making, performance management and service delivery.
For example, lean operations can streamline decades-old processes and reshape public services around the citizen. Modern information systems can transform the use of data and analysis, enabling better decisions. And superior talent management can help public agencies attract, develop and retain highly skilled employees – especially important as Canada prepares for a wave of retirements by government employees.
Achieving clarity on such broad priorities is just the start of the reform process. Implementing truly transformational change is arguably a greater challenge. Many an ambitious reform initiative has delivered only part of its promise. Four factors are critical:
First, leaders should establish a vision of reform that tells public sector employees what is required of them and why, and that causes citizens to expect and demand high-quality services. Articulating a reform narrative has been a priority of Mr. Blair, Mr. Brown and Mr. Sarkozy, illustrating the importance of top leaders' full and sustained engagement in reform.
Second, leaders should articulate and deliver a prioritized program. This means being both comprehensive, touching all aspects of government; and specific, setting out objectives for performance improvement. There must be a clear sense of what “good” looks like, with change implemented in priority order and manageable chunks.
Third, a renewed institutional capacity should be built to drive reform at an accelerated pace and with sufficient rigour. The Blair government's “Prime Minister's Delivery Unit” was charged with meeting top-priority objectives for individual departments while embedding a delivery culture across government. More recently, the French government created a co-ordinating group to drive cross-government reforms, ensuring that top-quality performance is on the agenda of every department.
Fourth, there should be a new focus on building managerial capabilities. Managing talent in any decentralized, diverse organization is no easy task. The recent Harper budget's proposed centralization of the federal human resources function – realigning six separate federal agencies – marks an important step forward. Yet it does not address the human capital gap in attracting and developing high-potential employees, or the managerial gap in leading them.
The economic crisis presents Ottawa and the provincial governments with an opportunity to embrace a more radical phase of reform. In doing so, they can create a more agile and resilient public sector and help Canada become more competitive to meet future challenges. Jiri Maly is a principal and Nora Aufreiter is a director in the Toronto office of McKinsey
Do we have the will to do this? -the stakes are worthhile . leadership in the world by" creating a more agile and resilient public sector and help Canada become more competitive to meet future challenges." PR
Monday, March 09, 2009
Never Forget the Victims of Intolerance and Oppression
Least we forget-It is now more than 60 years after the Second World War in Europe ended
This blog entry is in memory of the six million Jews, 20 million Russians, 10 million Christians and 1,900 Catholic priests who were murdered, massacred, raped, burned, starved and humiliated with the German and Russian peoples looking the other way!
Now, more than ever, with Iraq , Iran , and others, claiming the Holocaust to be 'a myth,' it's imperative to make sure the world never forgets, because there are others who would like to do it again.
We should never forget,never look the other way and never let it happen again PR
Wednesday, March 04, 2009
Brant Taxpayer Coalition Questions on the expropriation
click to enlarge
EXPROPRIATION QUESTIONS AND A NEED TO KNOW Pass along please
Questions asked
Are we paying too much based on market conditions? Is the $68K per building difference or $2.7 million, a 27% premium that we want to pay at taxpayer expense?
Where are the displaced people- our new dwellers going to go?
If the value is in the land only,should we buy the land not the buildings and save the added cost of demolition ?
Why are we buying dilapidated buildings at a premium to demolish them at Taxpayers expense? What is the Environmental clean up cost? What is the heritage cost? What is the legal cost? What are the contingency costs of the venture?
Why did we not follow the normal council procedure and open the Expropriation by law to public input, scrutiny and debate?
If the budget process ,is open to public input and takes 3 months, how can a expropriation budget by-law –that accounts for !0% of the annual operating budget be approved in a one session council meeting with little or no public input, scrutiny or debate ?
Contact your public representatives to get answers - it’s your money, use it wisely
Public Brantford Representatives
Mayor Mike Hancock
519-759-4150
mhancock@brantford.ca
WARD 1 Councillors
Jennifer Kinneman
519-717-3872
jkinneman@brantford.ca
Mark Littell
519-717-0403
mlittell@brantford.ca
WARD 2 Councillors
John Sless
519-717-0673
jsless@brantford.ca
Vince Bucci
519-717-0518
vbucci@brantford.ca
WARD 3 Councillors
Greg Martin
519-754-7269
gmartin@brantford.ca
Dan McCreary
519-761-2439
dmccreary@brantford.ca
WARD 4 Councillors
Richard Carpenter
519-770-6027
rcarpenter@brantford.ca
James Calnan
519-732-6476
jcalnan@brantford.ca
WARD 5 Councillors
Marguerite Ceschi-Smith
519-758-5093
mceschi-smith@brantford.ca
John Bradford
519-755-8255
jbradford@brantford.ca
Provincial representative Dave Levac dlevac.mpp@liberal.ola.org
Federal representative Phil Coleman McColeman.P@parl.gc.ca
Expropriating an $11.5 million gamble
We totally agree with the expositor editors assessment and compellling call for caution PR 'there has got to be a better way to spend that kind of money -or better yet, add the money to the public coffers and lighten the burden on an already stretched taxpayer
Expropriating an $11.5 million gamble pointof view Posted By JOHN CHAMBERS
Council should be commended for wanting to see improvements to the south side of Colborne Street. A derelect eye sore to be sure, a major face-lift and revitalization would be a major shot in the arm for a downtown begging to return to its former glory.
But should this council risk an $11.5 million price tag to expropriate a block of 41 properties in order to clear the way for redevelopment? In trying economic times, there has got to be a better way to spend that kind of money -or better yet, add the money to the public coffers and lighten the burden on an already stretched taxpayer. "We have waited for the private sector, but we have to accept now that it's not coming, so we have to do something bold," said councillor Mark Littell, chairman of the South Side of Colborne Task Force, on the proposal to expropriate the property, and he's right.
But if the private sector hasn't been able to address the growing concerns of the south side of Colborne Street to date, shouldn't alarm bells be going off around council chambers?
It's important to remember that council is elected by the constituents to represent them -council is not and should not be in the property acquisition business -especially at the cost currently pegged for this plan.
Bottom line, city residents can't afford to see any of their tax dollars go to a project that can't be fixed with a simple cash injection; $11.5 million is just a start for a project of this magnitude. The question remains of where some of the residents living in that block will go -an interesting social question and topic of future debate; How much will it cost to demolish the properties? Will we discover there are now environmental concerns or learn that a potential developments' footprint is too big for the allocated space?
There are just too many unknowns to move forward at the taxpayers expense.
And frankly there is nothing worse than taking on a multi-year commitment to pay for something that may not ever materialize.
If this council was truly interested in moving forward with the property and its redevelopment in the best interest of the taxpayers than they should have sought actual proposals from interested groups, businesses, individuals and government on what a redeveloped property would look like, and once an option is selected than move forward with expropriation if need be; but have the common sense to make sure all of the partners, and their money, is locked into the project before putting residents on the hook for a proposal they can't afford.
Expropriating an $11.5 million gamble pointof view Posted By JOHN CHAMBERS
Council should be commended for wanting to see improvements to the south side of Colborne Street. A derelect eye sore to be sure, a major face-lift and revitalization would be a major shot in the arm for a downtown begging to return to its former glory.
But should this council risk an $11.5 million price tag to expropriate a block of 41 properties in order to clear the way for redevelopment? In trying economic times, there has got to be a better way to spend that kind of money -or better yet, add the money to the public coffers and lighten the burden on an already stretched taxpayer. "We have waited for the private sector, but we have to accept now that it's not coming, so we have to do something bold," said councillor Mark Littell, chairman of the South Side of Colborne Task Force, on the proposal to expropriate the property, and he's right.
But if the private sector hasn't been able to address the growing concerns of the south side of Colborne Street to date, shouldn't alarm bells be going off around council chambers?
It's important to remember that council is elected by the constituents to represent them -council is not and should not be in the property acquisition business -especially at the cost currently pegged for this plan.
Bottom line, city residents can't afford to see any of their tax dollars go to a project that can't be fixed with a simple cash injection; $11.5 million is just a start for a project of this magnitude. The question remains of where some of the residents living in that block will go -an interesting social question and topic of future debate; How much will it cost to demolish the properties? Will we discover there are now environmental concerns or learn that a potential developments' footprint is too big for the allocated space?
There are just too many unknowns to move forward at the taxpayers expense.
And frankly there is nothing worse than taking on a multi-year commitment to pay for something that may not ever materialize.
If this council was truly interested in moving forward with the property and its redevelopment in the best interest of the taxpayers than they should have sought actual proposals from interested groups, businesses, individuals and government on what a redeveloped property would look like, and once an option is selected than move forward with expropriation if need be; but have the common sense to make sure all of the partners, and their money, is locked into the project before putting residents on the hook for a proposal they can't afford.
Sunday, March 01, 2009
BreakPoint: Chilling Free Speech, 2/24/09 - 2/24/2009 12:15:50 PM
BreakPoint: Chilling Free Speech, 2/24/09 - 2/24/2009 12:15:50 PM: "Chilling Free Speech
Mapping Political Persecution
February 24, 2009
Dotting the streets on a certain online map are hundreds of red teardrops. Click on a teardrop at a particular address, and come up with the words, “Patricia Greenwood. Insurance agent. $100.”"
This is unbelievable in a democracy. In fact, “domestic terrorism” is not too strong a word to use for what’s occurring in California—and it’s a reminder of what happened when citizens allowed similar tactics to go unchallenged in another time and place.
Seventy-odd years ago, Adolf Hitler turned loose his brown shirts on Germany. These vicious young thugs went street by street, seeking out Jews and communists and trade union leaders. They beat them up and destroyed their places of business. In this way, Germany, a strong country, was taken over by an evil man and regime.
Using Google maps to pinpoint opposition views is an abuse -whether you believe in either position -this is a bad precedent that should be discouraged PR
Mapping Political Persecution
February 24, 2009
Dotting the streets on a certain online map are hundreds of red teardrops. Click on a teardrop at a particular address, and come up with the words, “Patricia Greenwood. Insurance agent. $100.”"
This is unbelievable in a democracy. In fact, “domestic terrorism” is not too strong a word to use for what’s occurring in California—and it’s a reminder of what happened when citizens allowed similar tactics to go unchallenged in another time and place.
Seventy-odd years ago, Adolf Hitler turned loose his brown shirts on Germany. These vicious young thugs went street by street, seeking out Jews and communists and trade union leaders. They beat them up and destroyed their places of business. In this way, Germany, a strong country, was taken over by an evil man and regime.
Using Google maps to pinpoint opposition views is an abuse -whether you believe in either position -this is a bad precedent that should be discouraged PR
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Water footprint
Water is a scarce commodity... and we live in an age in which, for better or worse, people of all kinds are obsessed with reducing their "carbon footprint." Now there are more footprints to worry about: water footprints.
The Wall Street Journal recently gave some examples of this sort of thing:
It takes roughly 20 gallons of water to make a pint of beer, as much as 132 gallons of water to make a 2-liter bottle of soda and about 500 gallons of water, including water used to grow, dye and process cotton, to make a pair of Levi's stonewashed jeans.
Other examples include the nearly 35 gallons of water behind every cup of coffee, the 700 gallons behind the typical dyed T-shirt, and the 630 gallons to produce a single hamburger.
So a water footprint is basically how much water you use to produce a given consumer good. There is a lot more attention focused on reducing this water footprint, especially since water-scarcity issues are cropping up a lot more these days.
You may be familiar with these numbers: Two-thirds of the world's population face water shortages by 2025, according to the United Nations. And according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, about 36 states face water shortages by 2013.
These issues may not seem so pressing to you, since every time you turn on the tap, the water flows. And you can get all the bottled water you can buy at any grocery store. Unless you live in the Western states, where water rights are more of a concern, you may not appreciate water-scarcity issues.
But it is an important issue for industrial users of water all over the world. Nike, Pepsi, Starbucks, Levi's, and about 100 other companies recently held a conference in Miami on reducing water footprints. So this is serious business.
It's not just an attempt to be eco-friendly, either. It's nothing but good old-fashioned greed that compels companies to think about their water usage. If you are Coca-Cola, you need a good water supply. And you can't have locals railing at you for depleting their already low water supply to make fizzy sugar water. Coca-Cola either finds ways to use water more efficiently or the locals will shut production down.
The Journal notes in passing SABMiller's experience in Tanzania. SABMiller makes Miller Lite, Peroni, and Pilsner Urquell. Its factory in Dar es Salaam depleted local aquifers, causing them to grow increasingly salty. Meanwhile, the city has water shortages already. SABMiller has to find a way use water more efficiently or it will go out of business in Tanzania.
These kinds of stories repeat themselves in different settings all over the world. As one manager for the Freshwater Footprint Project for the World Wildlife Fund said, "Three billion more people are going to be on this planet" by 2050. "Somehow, we're going to have to use the same amount of water we use today."
Nalco is right in the heart of this issue. Nalco's customers are industrial users. Nalco's services improve water efficiency. The company also offers services to reduce air pollution, treat industrial wastewater, and more. In this, Nalco is the global leader, with a 17% global market share. It's bigger than GE in water.
The Wall Street Journal recently gave some examples of this sort of thing:
It takes roughly 20 gallons of water to make a pint of beer, as much as 132 gallons of water to make a 2-liter bottle of soda and about 500 gallons of water, including water used to grow, dye and process cotton, to make a pair of Levi's stonewashed jeans.
Other examples include the nearly 35 gallons of water behind every cup of coffee, the 700 gallons behind the typical dyed T-shirt, and the 630 gallons to produce a single hamburger.
So a water footprint is basically how much water you use to produce a given consumer good. There is a lot more attention focused on reducing this water footprint, especially since water-scarcity issues are cropping up a lot more these days.
You may be familiar with these numbers: Two-thirds of the world's population face water shortages by 2025, according to the United Nations. And according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, about 36 states face water shortages by 2013.
These issues may not seem so pressing to you, since every time you turn on the tap, the water flows. And you can get all the bottled water you can buy at any grocery store. Unless you live in the Western states, where water rights are more of a concern, you may not appreciate water-scarcity issues.
But it is an important issue for industrial users of water all over the world. Nike, Pepsi, Starbucks, Levi's, and about 100 other companies recently held a conference in Miami on reducing water footprints. So this is serious business.
It's not just an attempt to be eco-friendly, either. It's nothing but good old-fashioned greed that compels companies to think about their water usage. If you are Coca-Cola, you need a good water supply. And you can't have locals railing at you for depleting their already low water supply to make fizzy sugar water. Coca-Cola either finds ways to use water more efficiently or the locals will shut production down.
The Journal notes in passing SABMiller's experience in Tanzania. SABMiller makes Miller Lite, Peroni, and Pilsner Urquell. Its factory in Dar es Salaam depleted local aquifers, causing them to grow increasingly salty. Meanwhile, the city has water shortages already. SABMiller has to find a way use water more efficiently or it will go out of business in Tanzania.
These kinds of stories repeat themselves in different settings all over the world. As one manager for the Freshwater Footprint Project for the World Wildlife Fund said, "Three billion more people are going to be on this planet" by 2050. "Somehow, we're going to have to use the same amount of water we use today."
Nalco is right in the heart of this issue. Nalco's customers are industrial users. Nalco's services improve water efficiency. The company also offers services to reduce air pollution, treat industrial wastewater, and more. In this, Nalco is the global leader, with a 17% global market share. It's bigger than GE in water.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Municipal accountability- auditor general position needed
What we need is more aountaility the savings would be enormous . " auditors general have become more popular due to their use by senior levels of government.
"Everybody's heard the name Sheila Fraser," he said, referring to the federal public servant. "Everybody's concerned now where any dollar is going." We need some innovative thinking in this area - Brantford should consider this and the Brant Taxpayers Coalition should endorse this move . PR
C-K may get new position Posted By TREVOR TERFLOTH, THE DAILY NEWS In the interest of municipal accountability, the idea of an auditor general will come before council on Monday.
An administrative report released yesterday stated the main task would be performing value for money audits, as well as ensuring transparency and providing council with independent advice.
This report didn't make a recommendation on the position, but simply introduced the concept.
The function of this position differs from an external auditor, who concentrates on financial statements. The auditor general is not required to be a municipal employee, and in this case, would work on a contract basis.
"Should council wish to create an AG office, we would recommend an initial two-year pilot project during which its effectiveness can be evaluated," the report stated.
Including salary, benefits, professional development and equipment, the position would cost approximately $140,000.
However, the report stated some of the costs could be offset through savings found by the auditor general.
As the item is in Monday's consent agenda, it would take an act of council to bring it up for discussion.
Gerry Wolting, general manager of corporate services, said councillors wished to look into the idea after the recent budget deliberations.
West Kent Coun. Bryon Fluker said auditors general have become more popular due to their use by senior levels of government.
"Everybody's heard the name Sheila Fraser," he said, referring to the federal public servant. "Everybody's concerned now where any dollar is going."
According to the report, other municipalities with an auditor general include Toronto, Ottawa, Oshawa and Markham.
Fluker said it could be more efficient if the auditor general's duties were shared with other taxpayer-support organizations, such as school boards and the hospital.
However, he said there could still be controversy on spending.
"Value for dollar can often be very subjective," he said.
The Chatham-Kent Coalition of Concerned Citizens -- which is now on hiatus -- had called for an auditor general review in 2005.
Bob Kominek, who was a member, said the $140,000 cost for an auditor general would be "paltry" compared to the millions of dollars he believes are spent needlessly.
"I would go for that," he said. "Our taxes keep going up, and I don't believe we're getting value for our dollar."
"Everybody's heard the name Sheila Fraser," he said, referring to the federal public servant. "Everybody's concerned now where any dollar is going." We need some innovative thinking in this area - Brantford should consider this and the Brant Taxpayers Coalition should endorse this move . PR
C-K may get new position Posted By TREVOR TERFLOTH, THE DAILY NEWS In the interest of municipal accountability, the idea of an auditor general will come before council on Monday.
An administrative report released yesterday stated the main task would be performing value for money audits, as well as ensuring transparency and providing council with independent advice.
This report didn't make a recommendation on the position, but simply introduced the concept.
The function of this position differs from an external auditor, who concentrates on financial statements. The auditor general is not required to be a municipal employee, and in this case, would work on a contract basis.
"Should council wish to create an AG office, we would recommend an initial two-year pilot project during which its effectiveness can be evaluated," the report stated.
Including salary, benefits, professional development and equipment, the position would cost approximately $140,000.
However, the report stated some of the costs could be offset through savings found by the auditor general.
As the item is in Monday's consent agenda, it would take an act of council to bring it up for discussion.
Gerry Wolting, general manager of corporate services, said councillors wished to look into the idea after the recent budget deliberations.
West Kent Coun. Bryon Fluker said auditors general have become more popular due to their use by senior levels of government.
"Everybody's heard the name Sheila Fraser," he said, referring to the federal public servant. "Everybody's concerned now where any dollar is going."
According to the report, other municipalities with an auditor general include Toronto, Ottawa, Oshawa and Markham.
Fluker said it could be more efficient if the auditor general's duties were shared with other taxpayer-support organizations, such as school boards and the hospital.
However, he said there could still be controversy on spending.
"Value for dollar can often be very subjective," he said.
The Chatham-Kent Coalition of Concerned Citizens -- which is now on hiatus -- had called for an auditor general review in 2005.
Bob Kominek, who was a member, said the $140,000 cost for an auditor general would be "paltry" compared to the millions of dollars he believes are spent needlessly.
"I would go for that," he said. "Our taxes keep going up, and I don't believe we're getting value for our dollar."
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Native leaders willing to work out deal with city - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA
Native leaders willing to work out deal with city - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA: "Eventually, a formula would have been implemented to allow Six Nations to benefit financially from development projects.
But MacNaughton said both the Confederacy and elected councils had decided in a joint meeting last Sunday not to consider the draft memorandum, 'not because of its contents,' but because they believed an agreed process involving strict confidentiality was not being followed.
It was 'tainted' by a leak from Brantford's council immediately following its consideration of the document in a closed-door session last week, he said, and was further violated when Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock released it to the media.
MacNaughton also recounted an instance from last week when 'some lawyer' held up a document in a proceeding and said: 'There's an agreement' -- when it was still supposed to be confidential until all councils had a chance to review it.
He further insisted the memorandum was supposed to remain in a process of confidentiality all the way to the table of the ongoing land claims negotiations involving Six Nations, Canada and Ontario.
The leak not only 'disrupted' the process, he said, it also raises concerns in the eyes of Six Nations about the motives of Brantford council.""
"Interesting - the problem can be solved but not with those who breach confidentiality by grandstanding . In this case the adage -Loose lips sink ships-has proven true- discustingly" PR
But MacNaughton said both the Confederacy and elected councils had decided in a joint meeting last Sunday not to consider the draft memorandum, 'not because of its contents,' but because they believed an agreed process involving strict confidentiality was not being followed.
It was 'tainted' by a leak from Brantford's council immediately following its consideration of the document in a closed-door session last week, he said, and was further violated when Brantford Mayor Mike Hancock released it to the media.
MacNaughton also recounted an instance from last week when 'some lawyer' held up a document in a proceeding and said: 'There's an agreement' -- when it was still supposed to be confidential until all councils had a chance to review it.
He further insisted the memorandum was supposed to remain in a process of confidentiality all the way to the table of the ongoing land claims negotiations involving Six Nations, Canada and Ontario.
The leak not only 'disrupted' the process, he said, it also raises concerns in the eyes of Six Nations about the motives of Brantford council.""
"Interesting - the problem can be solved but not with those who breach confidentiality by grandstanding . In this case the adage -Loose lips sink ships-has proven true- discustingly" PR
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Time to put cap on public salaries
Wow -some common sense at last "Here's what doesn't make sense:
You don't go into deficit to give pay hikes to civil servants. That simply builds in more and enduring deficits. Now is the time to hold the line on obscene civil service salaries. There are very few people who are actually worth more than $250,000 on the public dime.
Cap public sector pay. Put an end to bonuses. You think they'll quit for the private sector? Not a chance. It's cold out here. " PR
Time to put cap on public salaries
Posted By CHRISTINA BLIZZARD
It was a rare glimpse of humanity you don't often get in rough-and-tumble scrums.
Finance Minister Dwight Duncan made a frank admission about just how close to home the fallout from the economic meltdown has hit.
Duncan, whose Windsor riding has been devastated by the havoc in the auto sector, has clearly seen the pain close to home.
Asked if he was daunted about the tough road ahead, he had this to say: "Frankly the challenges I face as finance minister aren't nearly as challenging as families who lose a job," Duncan said.
"I have a little house on a little cul-de-sac of 20 houses and I can tell you that even among my neighbours and friends and families what has gone on is deeply troubling."
It was refreshing to have a minister in a "this too will pass" government admit the unemployed are more than just numbers in a pie chart.
Duncan will deliver his budget on March 26.
It will be pivotal -- a document that could well define his government. Revenues are down and the demands on the public purse have never been higher. As the unemployment rolls soar, welfare costs will skyrocket.
Having wrestled public sector unions to the ceiling in salary negotiations, Duncan's going to have to come up with billions of dollars to pay for those pay hikes.
What worries me is the tacit permission we have given politicians to rack up big deficits.
I suspect Premier Dalton McGuinty is also concerned, and that's what prompted him to give a flurry of interviews where he talked about "stimulus
In tough economic times it makes sense to build public infrastructure. But you should build only what you need.
We need new roads, new sewers and an improved electricity grid.
When the Toronto Stock Exchange can't function because of a power outage, it's time to fix those hydro transformers.
It makes sense to build new rail lines, so people outside the downtown core have access to good mass transit.
Here's what doesn't make sense:
You don't go into deficit to give pay hikes to civil servants. That simply builds in more and enduring deficits. Now is the time to hold the line on obscene civil service salaries. There are very few people who are actually worth more than $250,000 on the public dime.
Cap public sector pay. Put an end to bonuses. You think they'll quit for the private sector? Not a chance. It's cold out here.
Don't give contracts to cronies. We need a nonpartisan arbiter with integrity to police the cash as it goes out the door.
If you're going to bail out the auto sector, union members are going to have to make concessions.
The unemployed, people who are doing twice the work for half the salary, people who are just hanging on by their fingertips, will not buy in to a budget that bails out fat cat car execs and well-paid auto workers. Ditto for public sector and auto worker pensions. Their gold-plated defined benefit plans have tanked? Too bad.
You can't expect taxpayers who have no pensions to bail out people who do.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to kick-start their domestic auto sectors, some European countries are offering big cash bonuses to taxpayers to buy new cars.
That makes sense. It would get workers back on the line and give hard-pressed workers a break.
I'll bet on budget day Duncan will be watching for the drapes to twitch around his street. My guess is his neighbours will be his toughest critics.
You don't go into deficit to give pay hikes to civil servants. That simply builds in more and enduring deficits. Now is the time to hold the line on obscene civil service salaries. There are very few people who are actually worth more than $250,000 on the public dime.
Cap public sector pay. Put an end to bonuses. You think they'll quit for the private sector? Not a chance. It's cold out here. " PR
Time to put cap on public salaries
Posted By CHRISTINA BLIZZARD
It was a rare glimpse of humanity you don't often get in rough-and-tumble scrums.
Finance Minister Dwight Duncan made a frank admission about just how close to home the fallout from the economic meltdown has hit.
Duncan, whose Windsor riding has been devastated by the havoc in the auto sector, has clearly seen the pain close to home.
Asked if he was daunted about the tough road ahead, he had this to say: "Frankly the challenges I face as finance minister aren't nearly as challenging as families who lose a job," Duncan said.
"I have a little house on a little cul-de-sac of 20 houses and I can tell you that even among my neighbours and friends and families what has gone on is deeply troubling."
It was refreshing to have a minister in a "this too will pass" government admit the unemployed are more than just numbers in a pie chart.
Duncan will deliver his budget on March 26.
It will be pivotal -- a document that could well define his government. Revenues are down and the demands on the public purse have never been higher. As the unemployment rolls soar, welfare costs will skyrocket.
Having wrestled public sector unions to the ceiling in salary negotiations, Duncan's going to have to come up with billions of dollars to pay for those pay hikes.
What worries me is the tacit permission we have given politicians to rack up big deficits.
I suspect Premier Dalton McGuinty is also concerned, and that's what prompted him to give a flurry of interviews where he talked about "stimulus
In tough economic times it makes sense to build public infrastructure. But you should build only what you need.
We need new roads, new sewers and an improved electricity grid.
When the Toronto Stock Exchange can't function because of a power outage, it's time to fix those hydro transformers.
It makes sense to build new rail lines, so people outside the downtown core have access to good mass transit.
Here's what doesn't make sense:
You don't go into deficit to give pay hikes to civil servants. That simply builds in more and enduring deficits. Now is the time to hold the line on obscene civil service salaries. There are very few people who are actually worth more than $250,000 on the public dime.
Cap public sector pay. Put an end to bonuses. You think they'll quit for the private sector? Not a chance. It's cold out here.
Don't give contracts to cronies. We need a nonpartisan arbiter with integrity to police the cash as it goes out the door.
If you're going to bail out the auto sector, union members are going to have to make concessions.
The unemployed, people who are doing twice the work for half the salary, people who are just hanging on by their fingertips, will not buy in to a budget that bails out fat cat car execs and well-paid auto workers. Ditto for public sector and auto worker pensions. Their gold-plated defined benefit plans have tanked? Too bad.
You can't expect taxpayers who have no pensions to bail out people who do.
Meanwhile, in an attempt to kick-start their domestic auto sectors, some European countries are offering big cash bonuses to taxpayers to buy new cars.
That makes sense. It would get workers back on the line and give hard-pressed workers a break.
I'll bet on budget day Duncan will be watching for the drapes to twitch around his street. My guess is his neighbours will be his toughest critics.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
feeding on failure industry
Feeding On Their Own Failure
Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, National Post, February 03, 2009
but is defined by the fact that its members are the initiators of the reactionary policies that maintain native people in the state of dependency that all three groups supply. They are the bureaucrats who instigate useless, money-gobbling policy programs, then quit the government and head the program. This raises critical issues about spending waste or trough feeding - PR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caregivers face a conflict of interest: Their advice, when followed, diminishes the demand for their services. Practising doctors and dentists make their living by treating health problems, not in eradicating their source. The dichotomy is reflected in many areas in which services are created to respond to preventable conditions.
The charity and poverty industries are examples. No one suggests that handing out soup and blankets to the homeless will affect the homelessness situation. Charity fundraising depends on whatever disease or disaster is the object of the campaign. Although fundraisers are rarely in a position to actively maintain the conditions that assure the need for their services, whole industries have developed around conditions for which the real remedy is fundamental change.
There is, however, a socially accepted industry that provides a product, the consumption of which actively increases the need for more. It is funded by Canadians through labour exploitation and taxation, and it is highly profitable. The Aboriginal Industry is an amalgamation of lawyers, consultants, anthropologists, linguists, accountants and other occupations that thrive on aboriginal dependency. The industry's strategy is pushing atavism -- reverting to the past for solutions to present problems.
The magnitude of the industry's processes can be seen in the number of government agencies among the participants. In addition to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, almost every government department now funds an aboriginal division and numerous programs that target the aboriginal population. Such funding enables the Aboriginal Industry to pursue endless negotiations, the main function of which is to pave the way for more meetings.
It is important to point out, however, that the actions of the Aboriginal Industry are not necessarily a case of vulgar opportunism -- like the hypothetical dentist proffering candy; its motivations are far more subtle and complex. Many members of the Aboriginal Industry are not even aware that they are part of it. There is no conspiracy being perpetrated by the lawyers, consultants and anthropologists working for aboriginal organizations. What exists is a natural impulse to follow material interests, to veer ultimately toward self-interest. It is understandable that industry members advocate policies that lead to jobs, contracts and payments to members of their group. Politics is all about interests, and so it is hardly surprising that political actors turn out to be self-interested.
What is notable about the Aboriginal Industry is its altruistic posture. Its members claim to be trying to "work themselves out of a job," while they pursue initiatives that ensure the continual need for their involvement in aboriginal policy. The atavistic programs and services they advocate as aiding "self-determination" actually maintain native dependency and dysfunction, thereby justifying demands for increases in government funding. And while they may truly believe their intervention is beneficial, their interests tend to prevent them from examining inconvenient facts and theories that would reveal the destructive character of the initiatives they propose and implement. Their arguments supporting current aboriginal policies become a form of mystification, and everyone involved in the industry is inclined to support them because they are all benefiting from keeping the processes going.
It is important to point out that there is a diversity of motivations within the Aboriginal Industry itself. First, there is the idealistic group, emotionally motivated by a sincere desire to help native people. Some uncritically accept that the best future for aboriginals is some level of return to the Rousseauian ideal, whereby they will live in some kind of mythic pre-contact Eden. Others simply support whatever aboriginal organizations demand because of the belief that this must be what aboriginal peoples "want."
A second group can, for lack of a better term, be considered professionals. They are hired to promote the cause within the capacity of their discipline. Their role is to fill the demand for a predetermined purpose; they may teach, consult, supply professional services and so on. Their attitudes range from cynicism to disinterest.
A third group often encompasses the attributes of the first two but is defined by the fact that its members are the initiators of the reactionary policies that maintain native people in the state of dependency that all three groups supply. They are the bureaucrats who instigate useless, money-gobbling policy programs, then quit the government and head the program. They are the linguists who promote unilingual native language teaching in elementary grades, then develop course materials and teach them, sentencing the children to a future of low academic achievement and the resulting social dysfunction. They are the anthropologists who encourage a backward spiritualism and mythology in which they themselves do not believe, but which keeps native people in a convenient state of passivity. And especially, they are the lawyers who collect enormous fees for conflicts they initiated, for agreements that require endless negotiations, for land claims settlements they use as retirement funds. - Excerpted from Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation, by Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, published by McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008.
Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, National Post, February 03, 2009
but is defined by the fact that its members are the initiators of the reactionary policies that maintain native people in the state of dependency that all three groups supply. They are the bureaucrats who instigate useless, money-gobbling policy programs, then quit the government and head the program. This raises critical issues about spending waste or trough feeding - PR
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caregivers face a conflict of interest: Their advice, when followed, diminishes the demand for their services. Practising doctors and dentists make their living by treating health problems, not in eradicating their source. The dichotomy is reflected in many areas in which services are created to respond to preventable conditions.
The charity and poverty industries are examples. No one suggests that handing out soup and blankets to the homeless will affect the homelessness situation. Charity fundraising depends on whatever disease or disaster is the object of the campaign. Although fundraisers are rarely in a position to actively maintain the conditions that assure the need for their services, whole industries have developed around conditions for which the real remedy is fundamental change.
There is, however, a socially accepted industry that provides a product, the consumption of which actively increases the need for more. It is funded by Canadians through labour exploitation and taxation, and it is highly profitable. The Aboriginal Industry is an amalgamation of lawyers, consultants, anthropologists, linguists, accountants and other occupations that thrive on aboriginal dependency. The industry's strategy is pushing atavism -- reverting to the past for solutions to present problems.
The magnitude of the industry's processes can be seen in the number of government agencies among the participants. In addition to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, almost every government department now funds an aboriginal division and numerous programs that target the aboriginal population. Such funding enables the Aboriginal Industry to pursue endless negotiations, the main function of which is to pave the way for more meetings.
It is important to point out, however, that the actions of the Aboriginal Industry are not necessarily a case of vulgar opportunism -- like the hypothetical dentist proffering candy; its motivations are far more subtle and complex. Many members of the Aboriginal Industry are not even aware that they are part of it. There is no conspiracy being perpetrated by the lawyers, consultants and anthropologists working for aboriginal organizations. What exists is a natural impulse to follow material interests, to veer ultimately toward self-interest. It is understandable that industry members advocate policies that lead to jobs, contracts and payments to members of their group. Politics is all about interests, and so it is hardly surprising that political actors turn out to be self-interested.
What is notable about the Aboriginal Industry is its altruistic posture. Its members claim to be trying to "work themselves out of a job," while they pursue initiatives that ensure the continual need for their involvement in aboriginal policy. The atavistic programs and services they advocate as aiding "self-determination" actually maintain native dependency and dysfunction, thereby justifying demands for increases in government funding. And while they may truly believe their intervention is beneficial, their interests tend to prevent them from examining inconvenient facts and theories that would reveal the destructive character of the initiatives they propose and implement. Their arguments supporting current aboriginal policies become a form of mystification, and everyone involved in the industry is inclined to support them because they are all benefiting from keeping the processes going.
It is important to point out that there is a diversity of motivations within the Aboriginal Industry itself. First, there is the idealistic group, emotionally motivated by a sincere desire to help native people. Some uncritically accept that the best future for aboriginals is some level of return to the Rousseauian ideal, whereby they will live in some kind of mythic pre-contact Eden. Others simply support whatever aboriginal organizations demand because of the belief that this must be what aboriginal peoples "want."
A second group can, for lack of a better term, be considered professionals. They are hired to promote the cause within the capacity of their discipline. Their role is to fill the demand for a predetermined purpose; they may teach, consult, supply professional services and so on. Their attitudes range from cynicism to disinterest.
A third group often encompasses the attributes of the first two but is defined by the fact that its members are the initiators of the reactionary policies that maintain native people in the state of dependency that all three groups supply. They are the bureaucrats who instigate useless, money-gobbling policy programs, then quit the government and head the program. They are the linguists who promote unilingual native language teaching in elementary grades, then develop course materials and teach them, sentencing the children to a future of low academic achievement and the resulting social dysfunction. They are the anthropologists who encourage a backward spiritualism and mythology in which they themselves do not believe, but which keeps native people in a convenient state of passivity. And especially, they are the lawyers who collect enormous fees for conflicts they initiated, for agreements that require endless negotiations, for land claims settlements they use as retirement funds. - Excerpted from Disrobing the Aboriginal Industry: The Deception Behind Indigenous Cultural Preservation, by Frances Widdowson and Albert Howard, published by McGill-Queen's University Press, 2008.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Save Canadian beef at MacDonalds - a hoax
Editors note and clarification : The supposed source of the the Macdonald beef boycott responded indicating that this is a hoax that he did not author. MacDonalds uses Canadian Beef. We apologize to him and our readers for any inconvenience. We have modified our information accordingly . We have left the modified information to show how hoaxes are made- and why it is important for readers to be skeptical of all inter net unchecked information sources. In the future we will be more careful with our information .Hoaxes are not funny , not cleavor -they damage people,companies and resources.
This is from a reader that has a beef that I believe is worth printing . For those that are concerned , I suggest that you write/e-mail MacDonald's in protest, copy your MP and start a petition to protect your quality Canadian beef supply. Boycott if you think it is effective and make as many people aware of the situation as you can PR
CANADIAN BeefTHE HOAX
This IS A GOOD DECENT MAN WHO TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE THIS
AND: HE SIGNED THE STATEMENT AND: INCLUDED HIS CONTACT INFO:
I'm sure those of you who aren't in the cattle business don't
understand the issues here. But to those of us whose living depends on
the cattle market, selling cattle, raising the best beef possible... This
is frustrating.
This will keep us from ever stopping there again, even for a drink.
The original message is from the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association
Canadian cattle producers are very passionate about this. McDonald's claims that there is not enough beef in Canada to support their restaurants.
Well, we know that is not so. Our opinion is they are looking to save money
at our expense. The sad thing of it is that the people of Canada are the
ones who made McDonald's successful in the first place, but we are not good
enough to provide beef.
We personally are no longer eating at McDonald's, which I am sure does not
make an impact, but if we pass this around maybe there will be an impact
felt.
Please pass it on. Just to add a note:
All Canadians that sell cattle at a livestock auction barn have to
sign a paper stating that we do NOT EVER feed our cattle any part of
another animal. South Americans are not required to do this as of yet.
McDonald's has announced that they are going to start importing much
of their beef from South America.
The problem is that South Americans aren't under the same regulations as Canadian beef producers, and the regulations they have are loosely controlled. They can spray numerous pesticides on their pastures that have been banned here at home because of residues found in the beef. They can also use various hormones and growth regulators that we can't.
The Canadian public needs to be aware of this problem and that they may
be putting themselves at risk from now on by eating at good old McDonald's.
Canadian ranchers raise the highest quality beef in the worldand
this is what Canadians deserve to eat. Not beef from countries where
quality is loosely controlled. Therefore, I am proposing a boycott of
McDonald's until they see the light.
I'm sorry but everything is not always about the bottom line, and when it
comes to jeopardizing my family's health, that is where I draw the line.
I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it
to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at
least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message
reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over
THREE MILLION consumers!
I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you?
Acting together we can make a difference.. If this makes sense to you,
please pass this message on.
THIS IS A HOAX DO NOTHING FOR INFORMATION ONLY
This is from a reader that has a beef that I believe is worth printing . For those that are concerned , I suggest that you write/e-mail MacDonald's in protest, copy your MP and start a petition to protect your quality Canadian beef supply. Boycott if you think it is effective and make as many people aware of the situation as you can PR
CANADIAN BeefTHE HOAX
This IS A GOOD DECENT MAN WHO TOOK THE TIME TO WRITE THIS
AND: HE SIGNED THE STATEMENT AND: INCLUDED HIS CONTACT INFO:
I'm sure those of you who aren't in the cattle business don't
understand the issues here. But to those of us whose living depends on
the cattle market, selling cattle, raising the best beef possible... This
is frustrating.
This will keep us from ever stopping there again, even for a drink.
The original message is from the Alberta Cattle Feeders Association
Canadian cattle producers are very passionate about this. McDonald's claims that there is not enough beef in Canada to support their restaurants.
Well, we know that is not so. Our opinion is they are looking to save money
at our expense. The sad thing of it is that the people of Canada are the
ones who made McDonald's successful in the first place, but we are not good
enough to provide beef.
We personally are no longer eating at McDonald's, which I am sure does not
make an impact, but if we pass this around maybe there will be an impact
felt.
Please pass it on. Just to add a note:
All Canadians that sell cattle at a livestock auction barn have to
sign a paper stating that we do NOT EVER feed our cattle any part of
another animal. South Americans are not required to do this as of yet.
McDonald's has announced that they are going to start importing much
of their beef from South America.
The problem is that South Americans aren't under the same regulations as Canadian beef producers, and the regulations they have are loosely controlled. They can spray numerous pesticides on their pastures that have been banned here at home because of residues found in the beef. They can also use various hormones and growth regulators that we can't.
The Canadian public needs to be aware of this problem and that they may
be putting themselves at risk from now on by eating at good old McDonald's.
Canadian ranchers raise the highest quality beef in the worldand
this is what Canadians deserve to eat. Not beef from countries where
quality is loosely controlled. Therefore, I am proposing a boycott of
McDonald's until they see the light.
I'm sorry but everything is not always about the bottom line, and when it
comes to jeopardizing my family's health, that is where I draw the line.
I am sending this note to about thirty people. If each of you send it
to at least ten more (30 x 10 = 300) ... and those 300 send it to at
least ten more (300 x 10 = 3,000) ... and so on, by the time the message
reaches the sixth generation of people, we will have reached over
THREE MILLION consumers!
I'll bet you didn't think you and I had that much potential, did you?
Acting together we can make a difference.. If this makes sense to you,
please pass this message on.
THIS IS A HOAX DO NOTHING FOR INFORMATION ONLY
Monday, February 16, 2009
Whistleblowers needed to protect stimulus package
This article by FAIR makes sense PR
Canada has also made little use of whistleblower protection—a highly effective method of combating misconduct and fraud. A 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers study showed that whistleblowers uncovered far more fraud than internal audit and all other management control systems combined. The study, which polled 5,400 senior executives from 40 countries, found that 43 per cent of corporate frauds had been initially detected by employee tip-offs.
The lesson is clear: top-down controls such as regulatory oversight and corporate governance standards are not sufficient: they need to be augmented by strong mechanisms that enable employees to safely report suspected misconduct.
This is why the U.S. is moving to strengthen its already wide-ranging whistleblower protection legislation. However, on this important front we Canadians are essentially naked.
For government whistleblowers the Accountability Act’s much-touted “ironclad protection” has been a huge disappointment, as predicted by critics even before this loophole-ridden legislation was passed into law. The new whistleblower watchdog, the public sector integrity commissioner, watches over approximately 400,000 federal public servants in a secretive bureaucracy that spends about half a billion dollars every day. It defies belief that, during her first year of operation, with a staff of 21 and a budget of $6.5-million, commissioner Christiane Ouimet has been unable to find a single occurrence of wrongdoing in the entire federal public service.
As for private sector whistleblowers, the government has not even made a pretence of any effort to protect them. While Canadians who work for corporations listed on a U.S. stock exchange may have some protection under the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, Canadians in the private sector have no such shield against corporate reprisals.
What this means in practice is that conscientious employees who courageously come forward in an attempt to halt misconduct not only have their allegations ignored, but are typically subject to the most determined and vindictive reprisals, orchestrated by their bosses, in order to silence and punish them. Most lose their careers and their livelihood, and in the process many also lose their families and their health.
We all lose as a result. Our government departments and corporations, unable to purge themselves of these self-serving actors, lose touch with their values and their purpose. And both investors and employees lose as our businesses stumble, shedding jobs and market value while our governments fumble.
In tough economic times it becomes even more important to ensure that scarce resources are available for vital services like education and health care, rather than being wasted.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper should follow U.S. President Barack Obama’s lead by providing real protection for both government and private sector employees who report misconduct. By doing so he would not only help to safeguard his multi-billion dollar stimulus spending, but would help protect the integrity of our institutions, our economy and our democratic way of life.
Canada has also made little use of whistleblower protection—a highly effective method of combating misconduct and fraud. A 2007 PricewaterhouseCoopers study showed that whistleblowers uncovered far more fraud than internal audit and all other management control systems combined. The study, which polled 5,400 senior executives from 40 countries, found that 43 per cent of corporate frauds had been initially detected by employee tip-offs.
The lesson is clear: top-down controls such as regulatory oversight and corporate governance standards are not sufficient: they need to be augmented by strong mechanisms that enable employees to safely report suspected misconduct.
This is why the U.S. is moving to strengthen its already wide-ranging whistleblower protection legislation. However, on this important front we Canadians are essentially naked.
For government whistleblowers the Accountability Act’s much-touted “ironclad protection” has been a huge disappointment, as predicted by critics even before this loophole-ridden legislation was passed into law. The new whistleblower watchdog, the public sector integrity commissioner, watches over approximately 400,000 federal public servants in a secretive bureaucracy that spends about half a billion dollars every day. It defies belief that, during her first year of operation, with a staff of 21 and a budget of $6.5-million, commissioner Christiane Ouimet has been unable to find a single occurrence of wrongdoing in the entire federal public service.
As for private sector whistleblowers, the government has not even made a pretence of any effort to protect them. While Canadians who work for corporations listed on a U.S. stock exchange may have some protection under the U.S. Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, Canadians in the private sector have no such shield against corporate reprisals.
What this means in practice is that conscientious employees who courageously come forward in an attempt to halt misconduct not only have their allegations ignored, but are typically subject to the most determined and vindictive reprisals, orchestrated by their bosses, in order to silence and punish them. Most lose their careers and their livelihood, and in the process many also lose their families and their health.
We all lose as a result. Our government departments and corporations, unable to purge themselves of these self-serving actors, lose touch with their values and their purpose. And both investors and employees lose as our businesses stumble, shedding jobs and market value while our governments fumble.
In tough economic times it becomes even more important to ensure that scarce resources are available for vital services like education and health care, rather than being wasted.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper should follow U.S. President Barack Obama’s lead by providing real protection for both government and private sector employees who report misconduct. By doing so he would not only help to safeguard his multi-billion dollar stimulus spending, but would help protect the integrity of our institutions, our economy and our democratic way of life.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Canada is free, but what about you?
Canada is free, but what about you? Good question .I am less free because I do not do enough to protect my freedom. I let others take away my rights by not speaking out , I deserve what I get because of my lazy complacency and blind indifference to abuses. Thank you for reminding me that I have a personal responsibiity to keep Canada and myself free by voicing my opinions and making a tipping point and pivotal difference through real action. PR
FREEDOM
Posted By Christi Chartrand Brantford
The more I think about Canada, and look around at all of the wars going on around the world, I am truly grateful to be where I am. I am free ... well, at least more "free" than others.
It's true, I don't have bombs blasting all around me, but the guns in schools and on the streets still frighten me.
It's true, I am free to believe in whatever religion I choose, but I must be careful, because even the slightest thing can offend my fellow freedom fighters (such as a nativity on my front yard).
I am free to live on a peaceful street, but must be sure to lock my doors at night, too many children disappear these days. I am a woman, and even though I have many rights, I am still scared to go out alone at night.
I am free to have children, but not necessarily free to keep them. I am free to vote and I do, but the majority of the country doesn't. Canada is free, it's true, but how free are you? Christi Chartrand Brantford
FREEDOM
Posted By Christi Chartrand Brantford
The more I think about Canada, and look around at all of the wars going on around the world, I am truly grateful to be where I am. I am free ... well, at least more "free" than others.
It's true, I don't have bombs blasting all around me, but the guns in schools and on the streets still frighten me.
It's true, I am free to believe in whatever religion I choose, but I must be careful, because even the slightest thing can offend my fellow freedom fighters (such as a nativity on my front yard).
I am free to live on a peaceful street, but must be sure to lock my doors at night, too many children disappear these days. I am a woman, and even though I have many rights, I am still scared to go out alone at night.
I am free to have children, but not necessarily free to keep them. I am free to vote and I do, but the majority of the country doesn't. Canada is free, it's true, but how free are you? Christi Chartrand Brantford
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)