Even More Reliable than Glenn Beck!

...just click here...

Lies, Tony Clement, and Statistics

Canada's Conservatives have been trying to turn the Conservative Party into The Northern Tea Party, but unfortunately for them, Canadians do not tend to polorize along idiologial fracture lines as easily as do people in the US. Therefore, "Red Meat Treats," such as the Harper Government's decision to reward the Social Conservatives of the Prairie Provinces has rather backfired. (When only Alberta fails to disagree with you, in a conditional sort of way, it's not exactly a sign of broad consensus support.)

The Alberta government, however, said it backs the move, but wants to see details about how the quality and availability of data will be maintained – particularly so that it can still be compared to past records.

“We don't have a problem with removing threat of prosecution for the long form. We really don't. Quite frankly, it seems kind of heavy-handed,” said Cam Hantiuk, spokesman for Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach. 

And I'd agree with that. But it does go rather farther than that. It's not just making it voluntary. It's changes in the sampling rate, and also changes in what data is being gathered - and with little to tell me (or more importantly, the people with direct need for the data in order to plan budgets) what public good might be served. 

You see, we really do like having facts at hand when making decisions. And the Census - well that's the entire point to the damn thing. Of course, it does bring with it the possibility of providing demographic and economic information regarding government policies that a particular government might devoutly prefer to disavow.

But that's the entire point to the damn thing. Inconvenient truths. 


We have considerable aversion to autocratic and whimsical decision making, particularly when major stakeholders in the process and the results are pointedly ignored. The Globe and Mail (Canada's Grey Lady of Journalism, generally reliable in it's support of moderate conservatism,) grilled Industry Minister Tony Clement regarding the logic behind it. It's not in the least deferential. 

It's the Agenda, Stupid

A Digg commenter made this post come together for me:


It's a Corporate agenda, disguised as your mean old white alcoholic Dad's agenda, disguised as a Christian agenda, disguised as a Libertarian agenda.


And Alan Grayson, a Democratic Representative from Florida, is either courageous or desperate enough to just lay it out. H/t Down with Tyrrany.



Now, in a seeming non-sequeteur - this bit of news...

As ads on energy/climate go, the new one from VoteVets, a progressive organization founded by veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, is a little harder hitting than most.

The spot features commentary from retired Brigadier Gen. Steven Anderson, who was the chief of logistics for U.S. forces in Iraq under Gen. Petraeus, and who is now urging the Senate to pass a clean energy plan.
In the ad, Anderson tells viewers, “Breaking our addiction [to foreign oil] must not only be a military priority, but America’s mission, and why the Senate needs to pass a clean energy climate plan. It’ll put Americans to work developing new energy technologies that’ll save lives overseas, make us less dependent and more secure…. It’s time for our senators to choose: Pass a clean energy climate plan that makes us more secure, or let America keep paying the price.”

It’s a powerful argument from a compelling figure, and VoteVets is reportedly spending a half-million dollars to run the minute-long ad on national cable networks.

Why, you might wonder. There's a general, there's money, and it's talking about national security...



Oh. My.

CNN and MSNBC began airing the commercial today, but not Fox News. The Republican network has rejected the ad without explanation.

If this sounds familiar, it’s because it’s happened before. In May, VoteVets put together a similar ad, which Fox News deemed “too confusing” for its audience.

An American Hero talking about Green Stuff? I can see how they might think that would "confuse" their audience with "facts" and stuff. Like, all that money going to Iran. I wonder how much sticks to Murdoch's hands on the way there and back again.