Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[para transit fellow]

Weird factoid: you also have blind spots looking forward due to the A & B pillars

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Weird factoid: you also have blind spots looking forward due to the A & B pillars

You should not be able to hide a vehicle in said blind spots.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You should not be able to hide a vehicle in said blind spots.

Pedestrians hide nicely in them

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Yoho

https://twitter.com/user/status/1676745248859652096

In that report, Trussler found no evidence of such emails but, based on other information, concluded Smith broke ethics rules and sought to undermine the rule of law by trying to persuade her then-justice minister to make a COVID-19-related criminal prosecution “go away.”

I agree with you that CBC was mostly right

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You should not be able to hide a vehicle in said blind spots.

Are you sure? Several rural collisions at secondary highway intersections have killed people because of these blind spots.

And several transit buses have injured pedestrians while making left hand turns.

[DoubleK]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree with you that CBC was mostly right

Mostly right or exactly wrong?

Posting that they were told that there were emails, and then no emails were found kinda makes them pretty wrong.

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree with you that CBC was mostly right

Huh? Lots of noise was made about her alleged ethical violations but hilariously when pushed CBC now adds this footnote.

Especially when considering prosecuting people over this nonsense didn’t ever make sense to begin with anyways in retrospect.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Huh? Lots of noise was made about her alleged ethical violations but hilariously when pushed CBC now adds this footnote.

Especially when considering prosecuting people over this nonsense didn’t ever make sense to begin with anyways in retrospect.

The ethical violations are not alleged. The ethics commission found that she broke ethics rules and sought to undermine the rule of law.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Mostly right or exactly wrong?

Posting that they were told that there were emails, and then no emails were found kinda makes them pretty wrong.

Editor's note (July 5, 2023): An earlier version of this story, published on Jan. 19, 2023, referred to emails allegedly sent by a staffer in Danielle Smith's office to the Alberta Crown Prosecution Service. Based on testimonies by confidential sources, CBC News at the time described those emails as "challenging prosecutors' assessment and direction on cases stemming from the Coutts border blockades and protests." An editor's note was added the following day to specify that CBC News had not seen the emails.

On May 18, 2023, Alberta's Ethics Commissioner Marguerite Trussler released a report that included an investigation of an "allegation published by CBC that a member of the premier's staff emailed a Crown prosecutor about a case before the courts." Trussler reported that she found "no evidence of such an email," adding she can only come to the conclusion, based on the evidence that she has, that "no Crown prosecutor was emailed directly about any of the cases." At the same time, Trussler found that Danielle Smith had contravened the Conflicts of Interest Act in an interaction with the Minister of Justice and Attorney General in relation to Coutts charges, for which Smith has since apologized.

After the Ethics Commissioner's report was released, CBC News reviewed its journalism and re-interviewed a number of sources and parties to the matter. Confronted with the Commissioner's report, our sources have insisted that Crown prosecutors felt political pressure regarding the Coutts cases, but they are not able to confirm that the emails they originally described were sent directly from the premier's office to the Crown. As such, we have updated this story and related pieces, removing references to direct contact between the premier's office and prosecutors – which the premier has vehemently denied. CBC News regrets reporting direct contact by email.

So I think this is a good question.

The original version of the article made it sound like they had seen the emails. That one was updated to clearly indicate they had sources that said they had seen the emails.

Now the CBC regrets that they posted that the Premiers office sent emails to the prosecutors office. So the CBC reported based on an anonymous source that there were emails from the premiers office to the crowns office. If you note CBC did not retract anything else about the content of the story so you are correct. The CBC relied on an anonymous source and overstated the evidence.

On the otherhand the result of this article and investigation was a finding by the ethics commissioner that Smith “ that she broke ethics rules and sought to undermine the rule of law” which is at a high level what the CBC article was alleging.

So did the CBCs journalism despite its flaws do its job of shining light in the halls of power? I think absolutely. They were correct about what was happening but incorrect on the detail.

I think it’s similar to the foreign interference leaks. Did Han Doang ask for the Michael’s to be detained longer? Evidence at this point does not support that. Do we have a problem with foreign interference in our elections that needs more public scrutiny? Absolutely.

So the takeaway here isn’t the media is wrong and out to get our politicians. Instead it’s journalism is hard but the work being done is extremely valuable and there will be errors made from time to time.

[Fuzz]

It's hilarious that Smith parades around declaring herself "vindicated". No, you stupid muppet, that's not how this works.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

So I think this is a good question.

The original version of the article made it sound like they had seen the emails. That one was updated to clearly indicate they had sources that said they had seen the emails.

Now the CBC regrets that they posted that the Premiers office sent emails to the prosecutors office. So the CBC reported based on an anonymous source that there were emails from the premiers office to the crowns office. If you note CBC did not retract anything else about the content of the story so you are correct. The CBC relied on an anonymous source and overstated the evidence.

I'm sure you know this, but many others seem to struggle with the concept...the source was certainly not anonymous to the CBC.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

I'm sure you know this, but many others seem to struggle with the concept...the source was certainly not anonymous to the CBC.

Journalism and anonymous sources just isn’t the same

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

Are you sure? Several rural collisions at secondary highway intersections have killed people because of these blind spots.

In the context of the original discussion? Yes.

Originally Posted by para transit fellow

And several transit buses have injured pedestrians while making left hand turns.

IIRC transit buses have additional mirrors fitted to mitigate these blind spots.

[flamesfever]

If I was a young person buying a car, I would look for two things:

1. A BSM or blind side monitor

2. An obstacle detection system

I believe that at some time in the future all cars will have to have these things...just like safety belts.

[belsarius]

Originally Posted by GGG

So I think this is a good question.

The original version of the article made it sound like they had seen the emails. That one was updated to clearly indicate they had sources that said they had seen the emails.

Now the CBC regrets that they posted that the Premiers office sent emails to the prosecutors office. So the CBC reported based on an anonymous source that there were emails from the premiers office to the crowns office. If you note CBC did not retract anything else about the content of the story so you are correct. The CBC relied on an anonymous source and overstated the evidence.

On the otherhand the result of this article and investigation was a finding by the ethics commissioner that Smith “ that she broke ethics rules and sought to undermine the rule of law” which is at a high level what the CBC article was alleging.

So did the CBCs journalism despite its flaws do its job of shining light in the halls of power? I think absolutely. They were correct about what was happening but incorrect on the detail.

I think it’s similar to the foreign interference leaks. Did Han Doang ask for the Michael’s to be detained longer? Evidence at this point does not support that. Do we have a problem with foreign interference in our elections that needs more public scrutiny? Absolutely.

So the takeaway here isn’t the media is wrong and out to get our politicians. Instead it’s journalism is hard but the work being done is extremely valuable and there will be errors made from time to time.

To add on, I also want to highlight

Trussler reported that she found "no evidence of such an email," adding she can only come to the conclusion, based on the evidence that she has, that "no Crown prosecutor was emailed directly about any of the cases."

This finding doesn't eliminate the possibility that those emails exist, only that they were not found to be brought into evidence. If I recall the when the emails were checked, it was noted they could only go back 60 days (mid November) and that the emails in question were supposedly from earlier.

So it makes absolute sense that the CBC trusted their source, but regrets not actually seeing the email before publishing it.

What I find the most interesting (ie disturbing) is that some people are more worried about the CBC reporting than the actual offense that did occur. The Premier may be corrupt but its the CBC that we are out to get.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If I was a young person buying a car, I would look for two things:

1. A BSM or blind side monitor

2. An obstacle detection system

I believe that at some time in the future all cars will have to have these things...just like safety belts.

And some way of detecting if the driver is just way to stupid to be on the road and either takes over or pulls into the nearest parking lot and calls you an Uber.

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Brendone

And some way of detecting if the driver is just way to stupid to be on the road and either takes over or pulls into the nearest parking lot and calls you an Uber.

That would be someone ignoring the signals the devices are giving him.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If I was a young person buying a car, I would look for two things:

1. A BSM or blind side monitor

2. An obstacle detection system

I believe that at some time in the future all cars will have to have these things...just like safety belts.

When we bought our RAV a couple of years ago safety systems like that were not on our shopping list but man, am I happy we have them.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

If I was a young person buying a car, I would look for two things:

1. A BSM or blind side monitor

2. An obstacle detection system

I believe that at some time in the future all cars will have to have these things...just like safety belts.

For me personally, I hate those things. In my Mercedes, I found they made me less aware of the things around me because the car was doing everything. Neither vehicle I own has them now, and I'm a more attentive driver for it.

[Monahammer]

Adaptive Cruise Control is another must have feature, IMO. Yes it does make me a worse driver when entering less advanced vehicles, but the comfort and safety of highway driving with that feature is remarkable. Add in Lane assist and you're pretty much a self driving vehicle on the highway.