"He's too controlling. He's not controlling enough!" Sure, let's put crazy Bob in and see if he can get it less wrong the second time around -- maybe he'll set up some sort of universal control system where we'll know where every document is minute by minute (perhaps IMed to our blackberries), humans will be perfected, and blue jays will have pretty chirps.

If this is all they got on Harper, I'd say they're in pretty good shape. You understand now why Harper has to take such an antagonistic stance toward the press -- how many trivialities do we need breathlessly magnified into The End of The Dominion As We Know it anyway? Sure Bernier is a loser -- that's politics; you have to work with what ya got and hope for the best. One day of feathers ruffled by some minor guy in Afghanistan or ... what was the negative outcome in this one anyway?

Re: Control

An organization is like an apple. A gentle hand keeps it safe and under control, an iron fist, when squeezed, results in applesauce and bruises.

Ummmm ... applesauce fortified with iron ;-)

David - so what you are saying is that you don't care that the Afghan mission plan was in the home of someone with known and prolonged connections to bikers gangs. That's the way good government works for David? You really can't be saying that.

Or is good government itself a triviality?

Just to play Devils Avocado:

I once dated a person who had at one time dated a biker. I brought confidential documents pertaining to a govt. project to her apt. to review, and left them there for a few days, till I finally remembered where they were. Not that they were of teh same leve of importance as anything dealing with the Afghan mission, but I wasn't exactly concerned that she ran out and phoned her ex-boyfriend to tell him about them.

Bernier is a bit of a loose cannon, like me, in a better suit, but everyone brings work home, everyone discusses things with their spouse/partner/main squeeze. Everyone's spouse/partner/main squeeze dated an idiot before they dated you. I think its a bit overboard really.

I think it's great that we live in a society that people can't be punished for their associations. I'm glad we live in a society that isn't based on internal surveillance and spying where we'd know instantly whether someone has a dubious past. I'm sad we live a society where the press spends all it's time out moaning about lack of access but can't obviously do reporting any more, like finding her decade-old connections months ago.

So, yes I care - and it was dealt with when it was found it. I'm not a progressive: I don't believe human beings are perfect or perfectible. I don't expect the people in government to be flawed and if they're too flawed I expect them to be dealt with. I differentiate between criminal activity, malice, stupidity and carelessness and I think most other people do too.

And I believe the core of good government is about _policy_, not statically predictable non-criminal irregularities that can and do happen to all parties and people. If my primary concern _was_ "good associations" then I'd weigh all parties on the balance.

If we are going to compare foreign policy and security intelligence mis-steps from Harper's 842 days in office versus Chretien's 3,690 and Martin's 787, let us not forget:

- Chretien's post-9/11 pronouncement that there were no terrorists in Canada, only to be contradicted by spokesmen from CSIS. Guess whose budget got cut next budget cycle?

- Chretien's 1997 comment over an open mic at a NATO conference that President Clinton was only pushing for NATO expansion as a vote-getting measure at home, much like Chretien himself supported Cuba as a way of standing up to the Yanquis and garnering votes.

- Foreign Minister Lloyd Axworthy criticised military exports to Indonesia prior to election, but greenlit these same export permits afterward. Not to mention giving assurance to (later deposed) President Suharto that he would not see or hear demonstrations against him at the APEC summit. And we all know what happened there.

And many others I don't really have the time or energy to recall. You could go on at length.

I am with Sean. Everyone has met or is acquainted with (or some cases, related to) somebody the police might consider a "person of interest" to a given case. And everybody takes work home.

Cabinet ministers should be a little more circumspect in their document handling, sure, but everyone is human. The idea that your colleagues have to vet your wife and kids' suitability is hilarious though. As if Bob should talk. His wife is on record in the <i>Star</i> bringing New Age crystal "power" pyramids to Blue Jays games in an effort to help them win.

David, seeing as global criminal/terrorist organizations speak with each other I think you are simply being naive that this was not an issue. You want a non-surveillance world, fine. I agree with that. You want to include in that a non-review of folks in whom the highest levels of trust are granted, that is scary idealism at its worst. What other country would not have a care about criminal connections of the circle of people around a cabinet level appointment - none.

And Chris, the CPC argument that "we are no better than Liberals" is stale. Sooner or later this government has to be measured for itself and upon its own claims as to itself. It was supposed to be a better government with an eye to not doing sloppy shit. Everyone does it is a craptastic excuse which is not, like David's, worthy of what I expect from you given everything else each of you have displayed in relation to your respect for integrity.

Alan: I don't use that as a defence of the CPC but politicians in general. I equate them with the criminal class in all respects, attitudes, etc. Regardless of party affiliation. My expectations of them are unfathomably low. I would rather see a return to government by descendants of club-wielders and their privy council. At least we know what sort of standard (best wielding of a club) has to be met there.

Oh - ok then. Then you are excused.

Was there a "non-review" of cabinet appointment girlfriends? That'd be an interesting to question to get the answer to, as well as "was there ever review of cabinet appointment girlfriends". OK: let's say there should be; I have no issue of that. Let me digress for a second (I get this bad habit from my childhood parish priest). Behind a cannon on a ship there is a ramp and a big mf-spring. Why? To absorb the recoil of the cannon. How did they discover that? Almost certainly some poor unfortunate got flattened. Was this the fault of the cannon designer? I don't think so -- sometimes you just learn stuff from experience.

Did Harper cancel reviewing of cabinet appointments? It seems to me that this would be something that's just in place ready to go. If that's true then by all means I'll agree that there's substantial egg on his face. If not, then sorry, I have to so not that I don't find this particularly something to be bent out of shape about.

Just for a laugh, I did some gc.ca googling. This is fun reading which doesn't talk about spouse, SOs or BFFs. Here's an application form another department, which does mention spouse but doesn't ask about their association with criminals.

"namath pleasure"

BTW, LOL and +1 at Chris':

<blockquote>
Everyone has met or is acquainted with (or some cases, related to) somebody the police might consider a "person of interest" to a given case. And everybody takes work home.

<p>
Cabinet ministers should be a little more circumspect in their document handling, sure, but everyone is human. The idea that your colleagues have to vet your wife and kids' suitability is hilarious though. As if Bob should talk. His wife is on record in the Star bringing New Age crystal "power" pyramids to Blue Jays games in an effort to help them win.
</blockquote>

Ah, Darcy will save us.

Good review of the silliness of the official story here by David Eddie.

I was going to point out in a previous entry that she has an amazing rack and that does weird things to the mind, but I thought it would be off point.

Only, apparently, if you are under the mind control of the PMO - though not (as I have heard it whispered) within the Harper breakfast table coffee clatch.

Funny, I was also thinking about pointing out the aforementioned rack, but thought it inappropriate. However, now that David has done so, I concur.

Separate from my previous comments, I do also note that I would not be hanging out with an ex months after the breakup. Its all too muddy and silly now. I'm going to go back to planning for the Lost season finale. It wil make mush more sense than Canadian politics of late.