Youngest senator has worst attendance record (AKA Why won't CPC show up for work?)

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by psyang

While I agree that the system is partly to blame, I think this is still a moral issue. His job description details what his duties are. Just because the rules of the system do not provide repercussions for not performing those duties, it doesn't mean there is no moral obligation on his part to actually do what he is being asked to do (barring acceptable circumstances, like sickness, etc). Otherwise, you are saying that all morality must be legislated.

Hmmm. I see what you mean but I'm not sure that doing or not doing your job is a moral issue. I think there are certain aspects of jobs where that could come into play, a police officer seems like the most obvious example.

I feel no moral obligation to serve my clients. I do it for 2 reasons. Because I have to, to keep my job and because my ambition and competitiveness makes me want to succeed.

I'm not saying morality should be legislated, I'm saying stricter rules should be legislated.

Let me put it back on you, who is he hurting by not showing up to work? Again I'll use myself as an example. If I found out tomorrow that there were absolutely no meaningful consequences to not showing up to work, why would I? And if I didn't, who would I be hurting? My company? My fellow employees? Well maybe in a roundabout way because they may have extra work because of my absence but then again they wouldn't be under any obligation to show up either. And since I wouldn't be using my office, I'm sure the company could just hire to replace me.

I guess then you could say that I'm hurting the company because they are now paying 2 salaries for 1 job. And maybe the company ends up going under because of it. But at the end of the day, whose fault is it they went under? Mine for not showing up or theirs for being a ####ty company with stupid policies? I know which answer I'd choose and it's not even close.

Is he taking advantage of "loopholes" in the system? I guess you could phrase it that way. Is it a dick thing to do? Well I guess it depends on whether or not you think he's under some greater moral obligation than the rest of us just because he's a politician. I obviously don't think that way.

No one, in any profession, is under any obligation to show up for work, moral or otherwise (with very few exceptions like maybe a surgeon who is performing brain surgery later that afternoon and the patient will die if they take the day off). That is freedom of choice. However, by not showing up most people know they will get fired and replaced. Or at least reprimanded. There are numerous examples where someone could be considered a dick if they up and decide to not show up, for example your wedding photographer decides he's going to stop being a photographer on the day of your wedding and it is too late to replace him. This guy though? not so much.

This guy has a job where he knows he can't get fired. For that I blame his employer, not the employee.

[I_H8_Crawford]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

What other job is there where you can shirk your responsibilities without any real consequences?

President and GM of the Edmonton Oilers?

[Clarkey]

Some people work hard out of self respect.

[evman150]

Cecil, it seems you believe that no human being is capable of reward-less actions.

I, on the other hand, believe there are thousands of Canadians who would jump at the opportunity to serve their country meaningfully, substantively, and honestly as a senator.

Just because you can't conceive of a world in which someone does something for nothing, or does something without the fear of the consequences of non-action, does not mean people not like you do not exist.

This guy has a job where he knows he can't get fired. For that I blame his employer, not the employee.

This is on the right track. Sure the guy is a loser, but who appointed him? That's the guy who's really responsible for this. Senators have to be in it for the country, not for themselves, and it's the PM and those around him's job to figure out the difference between the two types of people. Of course I realize Cecil you will have trouble with this final point, as I'm sure you believe it is impossible for someone to be "in it for the country".

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by evman150

Cecil, it seems you believe that no human being is capable of reward-less actions.

I, on the other hand, believe there are thousands of Canadians who would jump at the opportunity to serve their country meaningfully, substantively, and honestly as a senator.

Just because you can't conceive of a world in which someone does something for nothing, or does something without the fear of the consequences of non-action, does not mean people not like you do not exist.



This is on the right track. Sure the guy is a loser, but who appointed him? That's the guy who's really responsible for this. Senators have to be in it for the country, not for themselves, and it's the PM and those around him's job to figure out the difference between the two types of people. Of course I realize Cecil you will have trouble with this final point, as I'm sure you believe it is impossible for someone to be "in it for the country".

I want to have a rational discussion, I really do, but daradon is right. If the only thing your capable of is ridiculous hyperbole, drive bys and making it personal and about what a terrible person I am, what is the point?

For you this isn't about the Senator, it is about feeling morally superior to me because you'd sacrifice yourself for your country , whereas I'd take a 38 year paid vacation if I had the opportunity.

Don't worry I'm sure your next point will be about how if it was WWII I'd be a draft dodger and you'd be winning medals for valor.

When you can avoid personal insults and character attacks, we can resume a discussion about who is to blame for this oversight that allows employees to take time off work at will. But for now feel free to resume your hilarious and pathetic holier than thou BS.

[SebC]

I hate to say this, but Brazeau looks like an affirmative action hire gone wrong. The pool of aboriginal conservatives can't be very big.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I want to have a rational discussion, I really do, but daradon is right. If the only thing your capable of is ridiculous hyperbole, drive bys and making it personal and about what a terrible person I am, what is the point?

For you this isn't about the Senator, it is about feeling morally superior to me because you'd sacrifice yourself for your country , whereas I'd take a 38 year paid vacation if I had the opportunity.

Don't worry I'm sure your next point will be about how if it was WWII I'd be a draft dodger and you'd be winning medals for valor.

When you can avoid personal insults and character attacks, we can resume a discussion about who is to blame for this oversight that allows employees to take time off work at will. But for now feel free to resume your hilarious and pathetic holier than thou BS.

I never said I wouldn't take the vacation. You're dodging the argument.

I am making the point that the people exist, not that I am one of those people. Re-read my posts. You're the one who jumped to that conclusion.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by evman150

I never said I wouldn't take the vacation. You're dodging the argument.

I am making the point that the people exist, not that I am one of those people. Re-read my posts. You're the one who jumped to that conclusion.

See that's the problem. You haven't made any arguments. Except of course for the fact that you think this guy Gould have showed up to his job out of the goodness of his heart.

I'm saying we should be mad at the system that allowed this, not the guy who took advantage of the crappy system.

[LouCypher]

Whether its right or wrong I think it is a matter of incentive. He has every incentive not to show up and no incentive to show up. Incentive being the lack of consequence.

[Fire]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Harper asked all his appointees to step down after serving an 8 year term?

That's my understanding as well. Time will tell if they actually do leave after 8 years. I wish the Liberal appointees would do the same, but the lack of integrity in the Liberal party makes that very doubtful.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Fire

That's my understanding as well. Time will tell if they actually do leave after 8 years. I wish the Liberal appointees would do the same, but the lack of integrity in the Liberal party makes that very doubtful.

Right and the integrity here is awe inspiring I suppose?

The CPC apologists really blow my mind at times. Here is a guy appointed by glorious leader, who has shown complete contempt for his office and even more when its pointed out. Somehow though you manage to talk about the Liberals and them having no integrity. Simply perplexing.

[killer_carlson]

I think he might have post concussion issues

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Except of course for the fact that you think this guy Gould have showed up to his job out of the goodness of his heart.

No! That is not even remotely what I'm saying!

I'm saying we should be mad at the system that allowed this, not the guy who took advantage of the crappy system.

This is wrong as well, though I agree partly with it.

Here is my point boiled down: The system is FINE. You can't blame idiots like this guy for cheating the system. The appointees MUST be vetted properly in order to establish that they WILL NOT cheat the system. These ("good") people exist - many of them are in the senate right now. We just need more of them. In other words, I'm placing the blame for this clown DIRECTLY at the feet of the Prime Minister who appointed him.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by evman150

The system is FINE.

No it's not.

Originally Posted by evman150

I'm placing the blame for this clown DIRECTLY at the feet of the Prime Minister who appointed him.

There's a shocker. I wonder if you hate Liberal leaders for appointing Lavigne who was convicted of fraud, or Thompson who attended 5% of sittings over more than 10 years?

It's the systems fault for allowing these losers to be rewarded for not doing their job. They need to be elected and they need to be forced to seek reelection if they want to keep their job.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Jacks

There's a shocker. I wonder if you hate Liberal leaders for appointing Lavigne who was convicted of fraud, or Thompson who attended 5% of sittings over more than 10 years?

I don't hate anybody. Keep your inflammatory rhetoric out of this thread please.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by evman150

most people who want to abolish the senate or make it elected (LOL) need to look a little deeper at a lot of things to do with democracy and politics.

Originally Posted by evman150

Reminds me of the religious argument "how can people be good without God". Some of us are simply good people...

Originally Posted by evman150

You are totally missing the point.
Here's a hint: You'd make a very poor senator.

Originally Posted by evman150

Of course I realize Cecil you will have trouble with this final point, as I'm sure you believe it is impossible for someone to be "in it for the country".

Okay

Originally Posted by evman150

Keep your inflammatory rhetoric out of this thread please.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Okay

There's a difference between arguing and using inflammatory rhetoric. All of the quotes are fair points. Cecil has demonstrated throughout this thread his disbelief in pure altruism. Three of the quotes above are based on that. I fail to see how that is inflammatory at all.

And the first quote is the truth. Many people against the senate have A) little understanding of why we have a senate, B) why the senate is deliberately undemocratic, and C) what the senate does.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by SebC

I hate to say this, but Brazeau looks like an affirmative action hire gone wrong. The pool of aboriginal conservatives can't be very big.

Hey, on paper this guy looked like a great draft choice for the Senate. Who knew?

From February 2006 until January 2009 he held the position of national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
Brazeau is an Algonquin from the Kitigan Zibi reserve near Maniwaki. He served with the Canadian Forces Maritime Command Naval Reserve at HMCS Carleton, an administrative building in Ottawa, and also earned a DEC in social sciences from CEGEP Heritage College (Gatineau) and has studied civil law at the University of Ottawa.
Brazeau joined the Congress in 2001 and was elected vice-chief in April 2005. He served as acting national chief from February 2006 until his election later in November of the same year. He is a member of CAP's affiliate, Alliance Autochtone du Quebec Inc. also known as the Native Alliance of Quebec, or the AAQ or NAQ.[1]
Fluent in both official Canadian languages, English and French, Brazeau's language preference is French.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Brazeau


Edit: as I look further into this maybe his cv isn't that great. I didn't know what a DEC was but apparently its French for College Diploma.... so he's got a 2 yr diploma in Social Sciences. As to "studied civil law" all that could mean was that he took a single course in civil law at U of O.

It seems like the biggest feather in his cap was that he managed to get himself elected as national chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.

Hmmm ... looking into this further perhaps Harper and his advisors COULD have found someone perhaps a little better.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Hey, on paper this guy looked like a great draft choice for the Senate. Who knew?



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Brazeau

He's too young. Plus iirc there were red flags on his record. Not sure where I read that.

Here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/...-congress.html

LOTS of red flags. That article is from a month after he was appointed.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by SebC

I hate to say this, but Brazeau looks like an affirmative action hire gone wrong. The pool of aboriginal conservatives can't be very big.

Abhoriginals tend not to vote Conservative because of Brian Mulroney and the Meech Lake Accord.