this blog has moved to a new address: daveberta.ca

Please update your RSS, bookmarks, and links to http://daveberta.ca.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

the voice.

From Tuesday's intro to The Current on CBC Radio One...

It's Tuesday November 14th.

The federal government has committed $80 million dollars to safeguarding urban transit systems against terrorist attack. The money will be spent primarily on new surveillance cameras and communications equipment.

Currently, expect the cameras to pick up the following images: under-funded downtowns, pot-holed streets, ailing infrastructure.

(voice horrified, amazed) My God, the terrorists have already STRUCK...

This is the Current.
Let's all remember this when the election rolls around!

14 comments:

EX-NDIP said...

What fixing up your town is now Harper's problem . . . funny . . . didn't hear your voice wailing for the last 13 years, as Martin gouged every workin, taxpaying citizen of the country, cut transfer payments to the provinces and raised EU, CEP premiums. Where have you been???? I know . . . riding your 3 wheeler on the cracked sidewalks of North Edmonton.
Remember how they caught the bombers in London . . . I know that is fairly recent, but you have probably forgotten, they caught most of them on surveylance videos. Do you think the now one will ever try to do the same thing in Canada . . . boy I wish I could live in your dream world.

daveberta said...

To be fair, I've been saying this for at least the past 6 years.

You need to ask the fundemental question: What are we actually defending from "the terrorists?"

We need to be secure, for sure, but we also need to make sure that our own public infrastructure is being kept up and that we are not letting our own citizens fall through societal cracks.

Otherwise, what are we protecting and what kind of example are we sending?

Anonymous said...

You can't have it both ways. There are limited resources - the only issue is what is the priority to be? Personally, I'd pick security.

michael in calgary said...

Why can't you have it both ways?

Why should any Canadian have to chose between "security" and "quality of life?"

Shouldn't they be the same thing?

todd said...

I agree, Michael. We should be expecting much much more from "Canada's New Government"

Anonymous said...

"Why should any Canadian have to chose between "security" and "quality of life?"

Wow. Obviously the government spends in both areas. The recent announcement just illustrates the fact you can't have quality of life without the appropriate level of security. Filling pot holes or safety in public transit? Oh right, there is unlimited resources for doing everything. Let's all live in lala land and make everything all better. I'm guessing your Christmas wish this year is world peace.

I would agree with Todd - however, the liberals continue to act as if they are governing. The Liberal Senate blocking the Accountability Act, which was unanimously passed in Parliament, is a prime example. Hopefully this issue is brought to the forefront in the next election ... surprising? that Iggy and Kennedy refuse to discuss the liberal dominated senate's tactics.

christine said...

I dont think this has much with the Liberal senate (as lame as it is). I think this has more and more to do with the federal and provincial governments downloading more and more responsibility and less funding to municipalities.

Canadians shouldn't have to chose between security and quality of life because they deserve both. Canadians are hard working and their taxes should come back to them through safe streets and properly maintained public infrastructure. As much as Stephen Harper's Tories would like to cut and run from the idea, Government has a responsibility to take care of those who have fallen through societies cracks and help mend the gaps between the major social inequities.

If government does do this, do we really have a society worth securing?

Anonymous said...

Agreed - the $40 million the liberal party had not stole could have helped create safe streets and maintain infrastructure. But that money is now gone - only $2 million was repaid by the LPC.

Note that the LPC was the one that relied on huge corporate donations to run their elections. As well, should we not think of the human rights issue in China? Harper took a principled stance, while the LPC had many years to do something but instead sold themselves out.

jz said...

I blame the LPC for my spoiled milk this morning. Thank goodness for Canada's New Government.

Anonymous said...

I also blame the LPC for the downfall of MC Hammer.

Andy said...

People are being critical, anonymous, is because this is an assine waste of money. Let's get real, the money they are spending is not going to do anything to deter a terrorist attack on public transport. It is the nature of our open society that it is relatively easy to carry out a terrorist attack. We will just have to learn to live with the risk. We learn to live with much more pressing and likely risks, such as the risk of getting lung cancer from smoking. I have come to believe that the threat that terrorism poses to Canada has been overblown. Let's worry about more pressing problems and stop living in fear.

Anonymous said...

I guess you forget the attempted attack in the UK.

Andy, I'm not a US fear monger, but I don't want to say - we could have prevented this. $80 mil on security - I think there are worst ways to waste our money.

Sean Tisdall said...

It's interesdting that if Harper claims to have made a decision on principle with regards to our relations with China, why he won't make the same 'principled stand' on relations with the United States, given what they've done to the Geneva convention, for starters. There's been not a peep from the Canadian government.

Andy said...

Forgotten about the blast in the U.K? Have you ever been to London. There are security cameras everywhere. Did it stop the attack? Nope. Did it make the investigation easier? Perhaps slightly. It's a question of trade-offs. What is $80 million of enhanced security on public transport buying us, versus $80 million on, say, improving public transport? I agree that there are worse ways to spend public funds; I merely contend that there are better ways to spend public money.