6

Why am I short of attention/ Got a short little span of attention


 

So the Liberals lead Question Period with CAIRS for two days; and the Tories, to be genteel, blatantly and cheerfully mislead the House for two days, about the origins of CAIRS, its uses, its clientele base, the opinion of experts on access-to-information legislation, and basically everything else — so the Liberals drop the subject entirely?

Like none of it meant anything in the first place?

Basically now the Liberals are just doing random things to fill their days. I hear tomorrow they’re going to lead QP with a hymn sing and a game of Pictionary.


 

Why am I short of attention/ Got a short little span of attention

  1. I don’t know whether to be gratified or mortified that I’m ancient enough to have recognised the “You Can Call Me Al” lyric…

  2. There were incidents and accidents. There were hints and allegations.

  3. Chris said what I was going to say, except to add that now I’m going to be earworming the danged song all day long — plus flash repeatedly to the video with Chevy Chase.

    You can be my bodyguard; I can be your long-lost pal.

  4. “… the Tories, to be genteel, blatantly and cheerfully mislead the House for two days, about the origins of CAIRS, its uses, its clientele base …”

    I already posted a comment on another blog re: CAIRS. Here is the content (modified) of that comment:

    http://www.onlinedemocracy.ca/CAIRS/CAIA-OD.htm#limitations
    
“May 2003: On May 1, 2003, Privacy Commissioner George Radwanski provided a letter summarizing his investigation regarding the distribution of personal information through the CAIRS database. His letter can be downloaded here. …


    October 31, 2004. Research note on Treasury Board Secretariat survey of federal institutions’ views of the Coordination of Access to Requests System. Results show that compliance with CAIRS requirements is spotty; few institutions use CAIRS’ search functions frequently; only half of major institutions regard CAIRS as a “necessary tool” for their organization.”

    What is the point of gathering information that «only half of major institutions regard CAIRS as a “necessary tool”»?

    Or that may be contravening privacy laws?

    Also, during last Friday’s [May 2] Politics program, of the 4 journalists/pundits panelists (in addition to Newman), only ONE seemed to know what the CAIRS is.
    Only ONE said his news gathering service used it on a regular basis.

    The fact the demise of CAIRS was brought up during yesterday’s QP confirms one thing: the Liberals get their talking points from the CBC (does that ring a bell?).

    If a government department/program is not doing what it was intended to do – in this case provide information to journalists & other researchers because THEY ARE NOT USING IT and MAYBE DON’T EVEN KNOW IT EXISTS – why keep the program going?
    As another government make-work project?
    
What purpose, perhaps, other than keep some techies employed?

  5. #1 – I noticed that you contradicted yourself by noting “the Liberals get their talking points from the CBC” implying they are somehow complicit with the Liberal cause. But you then make reference to a CBC program (no less) to bolster your argument that CAIRS is useless.

    #2 – It should be noted that four journalists can hardly be used as a poll of the usefulness of a database. (ie. “Only ONE said his news gathering service used it on a regular basis.”)

    #3 – When arguing the usefulness or lack thereof with regards to any program or policy, it takes more than one source to prove a point. You failed to note any mention of MP or public usage (students, educators, etc) of the database.

    #4 – Raising questions does not prove a point but making a statement of fact does (ie. “that may be contravening privacy laws?” –> it either contravenes the law or it doesn’t).

    #5 – You should always make sure that when you quote someone (ie. “… the Tories, to be genteel, blatantly and cheerfully mislead the House for two days, about the origins of CAIRS, its uses, its clientele base …”) that you make full use of that quote. You somewhat addressed the “clientele base” part but made no mention of Harper misleading the House with regards to CAIRS use and origins.

  6. #1 – By using CBC references, I exercise my own critical judgement on which reports I think are biased or not. Would you have preferred a reference to The National Post? You would have accepted that reference, right?

    This little episode is a reminder of some CBC/Liberal … cooperation, shall we say? http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/editorsblog/2008/01/we_have_to_stand_apart.html
    “ … members of the CBC radio and television news operation on Parliament Hill took the position that what happened in this case was neither normal nor in keeping with the practices to which they are committed.”
    Do you dispute the CBC’s own findings?

    #2 – You take things much too seriously. Did I say it was a poll? It was merely an observation. Lighten up.

    #3 – And you failed to notice that the assertion regarding insufficient usage was not one I fabricated out of thin air, but rather the conclusion arrived at after a survey (not mine).
    I refer you once again to: http://www.onlinedemocracy.ca/CAIRS/CAIA-OD.htm#limitations

    «October 31, 2004. Research note on Treasury Board Secretariat survey of federal institutions’ views of the Coordination of Access to Requests System. Results show that compliance with CAIRS requirements is spotty; few institutions use CAIRS’ search functions frequently; only half of major institutions regard CAIRS as a “necessary tool” for their organization.”»

    Furthermore, those asking for the program to continue have equally omitted furnishing any actual data to prove the program’s usefulness.

    #4 – My, my, aren’t we absolutist?
    Not to put too fine a point on it, the use of the word “may” does not make it “a statement of fact.”
    It opens up a possibility, a hypothesis, a tentative reason for doing/not doing something.
    Once again, I refer you to the link I provided and urge you to read the letter by then Privacy Commissioner Radwanski, who was indeed concerned about “inadvertent disclosure of personal information.”

    #5 – And, pray tell, who appointed you the arbiter of which part of a statement I should or should not disagree with? I don’t think I signed up for any of your Rhetorics classes, Professor. But thanks for your input, anyway.

Sign in to comment.