Arrogance Inc.

[kcdist]

RR,

What you fail to realize, is that a culture of entitlement that exists among the Liberal Elite in this country. Just like Mr. Dingwall's "I'm entitled to my entitlements" comment.

In this case, there is a percentage, albeit a very small percentage, of Canadians who quite enjoy the CBC. They listen to the classical music on the radio, they love the cutting edge dramas, and they especially thrive on the biting political commentary, especially around election time. (Who will soon forget the vicious attack on Stockwell Day's religious beliefs in a 'documentary' one week prior to election. Good thing he was a Christian or some people might have really been offended!)

This small group of Canadians, spearheaded by groups such as Friends of Canadian Broadcasting, believe they are entitled to have 100% of Canadian taxpayers fund their fetish of watching and listening to the CBC. This, despite that fact that with the exception of some shows such as Hockey Night, the rating audience across the country is generally in the low single digits.

Could you imagine in the CBC didn't exist today, a political party running on a platform to spend one billion dollars annually to start up a broadcasting service (in competition with existing private companies) that would service 3-5% of the population?

Some day we may lose this culture of entitlement which isr responsible for much of the corroption in our country. Until then, we must put up with funding the CBC.

 

[Monsoon]

What you fail to realize, is that a culture of entitlement that exists among the Liberal Elite in this country. Just like Mr. Dingwall's "I'm entitled to my entitlements" comment.

Question: What on earth does the CBC have to do with the Liberal Party of Canada?
Answer: They're two things you don't like that you've lumped together in your mind.

The CBC (or, rather, its predecessor the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission) was formed by Conservative Prime Minister R.B. Bennett.  Parties of every stripe have both supported and undermined it.  If you want to try to determine a political affiliation for the journalists of the CBC, I think you'll find NDP is a better fit. That being said, the CBC does a far better job of journalistic non-affiliation that, say, Global and is every bit as non-biased as CTV.

As for Dingwall's "I'm entitled to me entitlements" - well, he was.  When you spend money on behalf of your employer on business-related matters, you're entitled (there's that hateful word again!) to be reimbursed.  I don't know where you're employed, but I wouldn't work at a company that soaked me as much as the Conservative Party wants the government to do to its employees.

 

[larry Strong]

But unless it's written into his contract that he receives a payout upon "voluntarily quiting", thats one entitlement he's not entitled to.

 

[kcdist]

Question: What on earth does the CBC have to do with the Liberal Party of Canada?
Answer: They're two things you don't like that you've lumped together in your mind.

As for Dingwall's "I'm entitled to me entitlements" - well, he was.   When you spend money on behalf of your employer on business-related matters, you're entitled (there's that hateful word again!) to be reimbursed.   I don't know where you're employed, but I wouldn't work at a company that soaked me as much as the Conservative Party wants the government to do to its employees.

If you read the post in context, it should be clear I was referring to the small-l liberal. Perhaps I shouldn't have capped the L.

That said, the CBC, especially at election time, takes on the roll of unabashed Liberal Party supporter. Nothing wrong with that, but they use your and my tax dollar to do so. Something like having your forced union dues used to support a cause you don't believe in. Under the Conservatives, expect the CBC to be paired back or privatized. I can think of better uses of almost one Billion Dollars anually.

As far as Dingwall, Mr Strong stole my thunder. Dingwall was referring to getting a payout for quitting his job. Clearly not an entitlement as far as the average working stiff is concerned.

Finally, if by soaking government employees, you mean make them account for and justify every penny spent (So long $200 'working' lunch tabs) I say "Soak Away".

 

[Monsoon]

As far as Dingwall, Mr Strong stole my thunder. Dingwall was referring to getting a payout for quitting his job. Clearly not an entitlement as far as the average working stiff is concerned.

It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to envision the government quietly asking him to resign and him agreeing to.  It's called "constructive dismissal" and there's not a court in the land that wouldn't have ruled in his favour.

Finally, if by soaking government employees, you mean make them account for and justify every penny spent (So long $200 'working' lunch tabs) I say "Soak Away".

He was running a large corporation (profitably, it should be noted) - that involves wining and dining clients.  Whether we like it or not, it's a fact of business.

 

[armyvern]

Where does the CBC mean we lose independence of word or thought? It's not as though it's the ONLY TV station. There's plenty to choose from and such independence is alive and well.

I believe that if you read recceguy's original post, in conjunction with the your post that he was answering,  one will find he is not inferring that 'we' will lose our independance or word or thought. When I read his response in conjunction with:
Yours first:

My point with the PBS being American thing is that you can't really say "we have PBS anyway" because it's not ours, nor do we have any appreciable measure of control over it. 

then his:

Exactly, nor should we. When they lose independence of thought and word, they become useless.

I get: "Nor should we have any appreciable measure of control over the CBC. When the CBC loses independance of thought and word, they become useless." (Which I believe to be the case).

That's my take on his response.
The CBC is absolutely not independant, therefore tends not to remain unbiased, and ergo is useless. So don't bother, find better and varied, unbiased sources if you want to gain knowledge of the 'facts' vice gain knowledge of the 'spin.' I think you both are arguing the same point.

 

[S McKee]

[author=hamiltongs link=topic=34106/post-292909#msg292909 date=1131570893]
It's not too much of a stretch of the imagination to envision the government quietly asking him to resign and him agreeing to.  It's called "constructive dismissal" and there's not a court in the land that wouldn't have ruled in his favour.

According to the government he was not "constructively dismissed" he voluntarily resigned. So which is it? I agree that he was probably asked to leave because some of his "expenses" could be construed as being out in left field,( in light of Gomery, God knows the liberals don't need to deal with yet another scandal). However the government should have been up front about it instead putting on that farcical display in front of the news media.  Let's call a spade a spade - Dingwall is an old style Cape Breton politician with a rather nefarious past whose "entitlement" mentality was politically embarrassing to the liberals.

He was running a large corporation (profitably, it should be noted) - that involves wining and dining clients.  Whether we like it or not, it's a fact of business.

Wining and dining is one thing - claiming for a package of chewing gum? Come on man!

Sorry for taking the thread off track.  CBC = Liberals/Eastern Canada good! Tories/Western Canada "scary". Seriously, the CBC's relationship with the Conservatives went off the rails with the Mulroney government. I remember when the Liberals came to power in '93, it was a CBC/ Liberal lovefest.

 

[Monsoon]

According to the government he was not "constructively dismissed" he voluntarily resigned. So which is it? I agree that he was probably asked to leave because some of his "expenses" could be construed as being out in left field,( in light of Gomery, God knows the liberals don't need to deal with yet another scandal). However the government should have been up front about it instead putting on that farcical display in front of the news media.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make him any less deserving of a departure package.

Let's call a spade a spade - Dingwall is an old style Cape Breton politician with a rather nefarious past whose "entitlement" mentality was politically embarrassing to the liberals.

You know, I'm from the Maritimes originally and I never knew what it meant to be an "old-style" Maritime politician until I read about it in the National Post.  I guess their Halifax bureau must have filed that story, since they surely wouldn't make just go and make up something like that to fit their view of the world... right?

Wining and dining is one thing - claiming for a package of chewing gum? Come on man!

But Dingwall didn't claim a package of gum - that was a lie concocted by the Conservative Party.  The testimony he gave (and the evidence he gave supporting it) show conclusively that he had submitted a receipt for a number of items which included a pack of gum, but he didn't ask for reimbursement for the gum.  I feel silly arguing about gum, but if the Conservatives want to run an election on that then they can't be allowed to lie.

Sorry for taking the thread off track.  CBC = Liberals/Eastern Canada good! Tories/Western Canada "scary". Seriously, the CBC's relationship with the Conservatives went off the rails with the Mulroney government. I remember when the Liberals came to power in '93, it was a CBC/ Liberal lovefest.

You're right - enough Dingwall nonsense.  Anyway, everyone hated Mulroney back in '93.  The CBC was hardly alone there.  Maybe the hardcore Conservatives never forgave the CBC, but that doesn't mean it was being biased.

 

[xFusilier]

We will never know if Dingwall was fired/resigned/was asked to leave/laid off/etc, those types of arrangements in terms of patronage positions are never disclosed to the public and never will be.  The only reason that Dingwall is coming out somewhat vindicated by this is poor politicking on the part of the REEEFORM party, who went for hysteria over substance and when that hysteria turned out to be grossly blown out of proportion (or a pack of lies, you decide which one you like better) the media reported it as such.  But some people on this board don't see it being that way they see it as Dumb Political move on the part of the Cons+Reporting of said Dumb Political in the Media=Media Bias on the Part of the CBC ergo we obviously must disband the CBC.

If you expect the media to remain unbiased you are living in a drug addled dream world .  All media is biased...if simply through the fact that when one person tells you a story about something that happened their unconscious bias (observational bias) shades their account of the incident.  If anyone believes the tone of CanWest Globals coverage isn't set by the Asper's, or that the National Post didn't take its editorial policies from Lord Tubby back in the day...you're on glue.  What we really complain about when we complain that the media is biased is that we are not having the seal of correctness placed on our own biases...IE we are not being told what we want to hear.  Thus our own narcissism means that we see objectivity in those news sources that agree with our political ilk and opinions and bias in those that don't. That being said and I have had disagreement with things that the CBC has come out with through the years, a broadcaster which is not beholden to the almighty profit margin provides a crucial source of balance to the information that we are provided with and balance in the information that is provided to the public form a health democracy and thus worth the public largess that it receives.

I assure you though that the CBC in terms of a broadcaster is probably far more accountable (and I've had a  CBC reporter try to screw me over) through the political process to its viewers than any privately owned broadcaster.  However if you take an unquestioning view of the inherent "rightness" of big business and the conservative party don't be particularly surprised when an organization that is not accountable to those entities is critical of it.  Largely the image of left-wing bias in the media is a strawman that continues to be brought up be the right but one that under closer examination fails to hold up.  Personally I used to get my new from Frank Magazine(Dick Little for PM!), but that's just me.

 

[George Wallace]

But Dingwall didn't claim a package of gum - that was a lie concocted by the Conservative Party.   The testimony he gave (and the evidence he gave supporting it) show conclusively that he had submitted a receipt for a number of items which included a pack of gum, but he didn't ask for reimbursement for the gum.   I feel silly arguing about gum, but if the Conservatives want to run an election on that then they can't be allowed to lie.

OK

Just stop and think of what you just posted.   You say he submitted a receipt for a list of items, which included a pack of gum, then carry on and say that he did not ask for reimbursement for the gum.   If you and I submit receipts for reimbursement that is what is expected - reimbursement.   Two things here; either ensure that if it is an item on a long receipt, to scratch out the receipt for the gum,   or don't submit it.   Obviously a staff member (clerk) was not up to speed on entitlements in processing his claim (as is so often the case), and it should have been disallowed and noted at the initial application for reimbursement.   I agree, that if it is all a fabrication, it looks bad on the faces of the Conservatives for bringing it up.  Now it is all old news.

 

[Cloud Cover]

He actually was "entitled" to 20 bucks a day for "incidentals" like gum, for which he was not required to provide a receipt. Thats 50 percent more money per day than the parents of severely disabled children in Ontario recieve to help with the excess costs of caring for them- and that's if their gross employment income is low enough to qualify.  Apples to oranges, I know but it serves to illustrate the total disconnect between the government, crown corporations and real people with real needs that as a tax payer, I would gladly pay for.

This preck tried to claim the gum anyway, and it was rejected by the bean counters as already covered under his "incidental" expenses. Notwithstanding the problem that I have with $20 for completely discretionary incidentals [in addition to any other per diems such as meals or actual bona fide expenses such as cab [limo?] fare,] the fact he tried to claim the gum is the issue with me. Its called double recovery. It was rejected, so somebody was thankfully doing their job. Likely, they turned the ******* in too.
 
All of those political patronage jobs ought to be scrapped any person holding a senior management position by way of such appointments ought to be fired outright without severance - not the little people, just the senior management. The whole process should be opened up to a rigorous and scrupulous public competition and nobody with political service of any kind should ever be eligible for those positions without at least a good 5 years away from the political machine they were once attached to and even then it should be considered very carefully.
Remember that ficking Privacy Commissioner a few years back? Radwanski? Another deckhead.

The current son of a ***** actually had an exception carved out in his employment contract to permit him to do what is otherwise illegal for anybody else- to lobby for a private interest while holding a position that arose from public appointment.

Dirty.
Rotten.
Scoundrels.

 

[S McKee]

[author=hamiltongs link=topic=34106/post-293403#msg293403 date=1131646321]
You know, I'm from the Maritimes originally and I never knew what it meant to be an "old-style" Maritime politician until I read about it in the National Post.  I guess their Halifax bureau must have filed that story, since they surely wouldn't make just go and make up something like that to fit their view of the world... right?

Ok I'll field this one.... off the rails again. I'm from the maritimes too, many years ago my folks worked for the provincial liberals. Conjure up images of Boss Hog and you have an "old style" maritime politician. Bretoners seemed to love putting crooks in power. Anyway I would love to read that article from the NP. Do you have the link?

But Dingwall didn't claim a package of gum - that was a lie concocted by the Conservative Party.  The testimony he gave (and the evidence he gave supporting it) show conclusively that he had submitted a receipt for a number of items which included a pack of gum, but he didn't ask for reimbursement for the gum.  I feel silly arguing about gum, but if the Conservatives want to run an election on that then they can't be allowed to lie.

OK I'll take your word for it...but I still think he's a dirtbag, and the libs were underhanded about his "resignation".

You're right - enough Dingwall nonsense.  Anyway, everyone hated Mulroney back in '93.  The CBC was hardly alone there.  Maybe the hardcore Conservatives never forgave the CBC, but that doesn't mean it was being biased.

On track....well consider when the libs came to power that Sheila Copps was made the Deputy PM/Heritage Minister and advocated a special "Let's keep the CBC on the air tax." I would say that the CBC had a vested interest in reporting the news with a slight, how shall we say, liberal flavour. I recently read that when Scott Brison made his inaccurate comments regarding Stephen Harper and the NCC visa-vi lobbyists, the CBC wasted no time airing his statements, however no mention was made after it was confirmed the Brison had lied and issued a written apology to the NCC and Harper. (Read Licia Corbella's columns 8th and 9th Nov at Canoe). Anyway, maybe it's just me but I find the tone of CBC reporting left of centre. Pay attention to the inflexion of the reporters' voices when they do a story on "conservative issues" or the evil empire to south. I even noticed at times they will add in an ominous musical track when they do feature stories on US involvement in Iraq. Pretty sad for a supposedly objective news agency. Since the lock-out I have ceased watching the National altogether and strictly watch CTV news net. 

 

[Monsoon]

Ok I'll field this one.... off the rails again. I'm from the maritimes too, many years ago my folks worked for the provincial liberals. Conjure up images of Boss Hog and you have an "old style" maritime politician. Bretoners seemed to love putting crooks in power. Anyway I would love to read that article from the NP. Do you have the link?

No - I subscribe to the hardcopy version, so I don't read it online.  It was a polemic against Dingwall by Bruce Garvey (or Don Martin - not sure) two or three weeks ago that tarred every politician east of Montreal with the same brush.

On track....well consider when the libs came to power that Sheila Copps was made the Deputy PM/Heritage Minister and advocated a special "Let's keep the CBC on the air tax."

Well, you're not going to get me to say that Sheila Copps isn't an idiot...

Notwithstanding the problem that I have with $20 for completely discretionary incidentals (in addition to any other per diems such as meals or actual bona fide expenses such as cab [limo?] fare)

You've never accepted TD, then?  My understanding is that it was a receipt submitted while travelling.

 

[armyvern]

Just stop and think of what you just posted.   You say he submitted a receipt for a list of items, which included a pack of gum, then carry on and say that he did not ask for reimbursement for the gum.   If you and I submit receipts for reimbursement that is what is expected - reimbursement.   Two things here; either ensure that if it is an item on a long receipt, to scratch out the receipt for the gum,   or don't submit it.   Obviously a staff member (clerk) was not up to speed on entitlements in processing his claim (as is so often the case), and it should have been disallowed and noted at the initial application for reimbursement.   I agree, that if it is all a fabrication, it looks bad on the faces of the Conservatives for bringing it up.  Now it is all old news.

George
The gum etc was stricken off his receipt (just as I do for hotel room movies etc on my receipts). I have also been led to believe that when the first public statements were made about the Dingwall affair, one of the people answering the reporters queries answered as follows: "I do remember that one of the receipts had included a package of chewing gum but it was not one of the claimed items." When the story got picked up, the struck-out part of the answer was not reported. Thus, everyone was all over it, even though it has never been said by the auditor's that he had or even attempted to claim a package of gum. Just one more quote by the media taken out of context. I do agree that some people abuse the Crown - thus the Taxpayer's trust - and that when they are caught no pension should come of it. I do not believe that Mr. Dingwall deserves one either.

For those who believe that he deserves a pension regardless....then re-instate them for all Federal workers who've lost theirs, including any personnel who have been "Dishonourably Discharged" and lost their pensions. Well, I think that's BS. If one loses his pension it's usually for a darn good reason. Why does this only seem to be applicable to all federal federal workers but not the politicians? After all, for being so deserving and having 'earned it', I'd argue that the little people (not the elected ones) have more rightly 'earned theirs' and absolutley have caused less of a financial boondoggle to the taxpayer than any corrupt politician who has been exposed lately.

 

[Acorn]

Dingwall would likely claim the mouthfull of garlic and the stake through his heart if his bloodsucking is really stopped.

 

[paul_h4554]

I like rick mercer?

 

[Brad Sallows]

No-one here can answer that question for you.  Only you can decide whether you like Rick Mercer.

 

[Bobbyoreo]

LOL...nice