Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

'An impossible position'

by Aaron Wherry on Saturday, July 24, 2010 5:29pm - 0 Comments

Alex Himelfarb, formerly the highest ranking civil servant in Ottawa, reflects on the resignation of Munir Sheikh.

Let me be clear about what this was not. This was not a public servant substituting his own judgment for that of the government or in any way being disloyal. Quite the contrary: in the face of criticism from colleagues, Statistics Canada seemed poised to implement the voluntary approach and, in the traditions of public service, Munir was and continues to be publicly silent about his advice. Nor was this an instance of a public servant fighting for turf or more resources. This is not about defending big government or public service jobs as some critics of government and public service will immediately assume … No, it was none of these things. This was about the integrity of Statistics Canada and of the public service. The decision to replace the long form census with a voluntary version put the Chief Statistician in a difficult position. The way the decision was handled put him in an impossible position.

Tags: alex himelfarb, census, Munir Sheikh, Statistics Canada

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Our political scandals in this country have just become so damn un-sexy since the Liberal and Mulroney eras.

Emily

I don't think we've ever had a sexy scandal.

Maybe Gerda Munsinger.

Patchouli

The Bernier/Couillard "scandal" had everything! Babes, boobs, bedbugs, bikers, briefs…what more do you want??

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

I don't know if that is completely true.
http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/422/maxime-bernier-fire…

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

Touche :)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jesse_Rosenberg Jesse_Rosenberg

But a lot more important to a lot more people.

Gaunilon

I'm not yet sure what to make of Sheikh's resignation, but I will say this: the fact that he posted his resignation letter, including commentary on the long-form census decision, on the StatsCan website before he left does not incline me to believe that he was merely trying to exit from an impossible position. Rather, it indicates that he was trying to make a point.

There are at least three possibilities here:

(1) He does not think he can do his job effectively without the mandatory long-form, so he resigned. This is the "hero resigns rather than be complicit in bad statistics" which most on these boards have eagerly embraced….for reasons that need no explanation.

(2) He advised the government that making the census voluntary was one among a list of options to choose from, and they chose it. Then he started taking flack from other statisticians. Then he was forced either to defend the decision or resign, so he resigned.

(3) Same as (2), but with the added wrinkle that he actually advised Clement that larger sample size would offset or partially offset the degradation in the census's usefulness due to voluntary return sample bias. In this scenario his professional reputation would have actually been headed into the mud, and his only salvation would be to pretend he never gave such advice and resign in protest.

I hope Clement releases the full correspondence between them on the subject. If he does, we'll know. If he doesn't, we can probably eliminate (3), but (1) and (2) would still be difficult to separate by the publicly available evidence.

Matlock

As someone with their Masters in economics, I can tell you that no one who went through the rigours of obtaining their doctorate in economics (from UWO no less) such as Mr. Sheikh would believe for a second that a voluntary survey was an acceptable substitute for a mandatory census – you get drilled into you thoroughly the importance of true randomization of treatment and control groups. This rules out (3), and rules out (2) unless he provided 'voluntary survey' as part of a complete list of options that included courses of action both recommended and not recommended.

I am only speculating, though based on my experience. As you say, though, the truth would come out if Mr. Clement would share his correspondence with Mr. Sheikh.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

As I understand it, the government is claiming that StatsCan presented a voluntary census as an acceptable option, however undesirable. This does not preclude their understanding that it would never be an equivalent substitute.

Matlock

When I hear that StatsCan presented policy options, from my experience 'policy options' means the full range of actions the government could take from the most recommended through to the least desirable. For example, 'nuke Kandahar' is a policy option to deal with the war in Afghanistan. That doesn't mean it's an acceptable course of action.
edeast

They did claim that. Turns out that they had decided previous and told him to work within their decision. So he did. They then said that it was stats can's idea. Hence the resignation.

http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

Edeast has it right. It was Clement's claim that Stas Can had recommened the voluntary long form that made Sheikh's position untenable.

http://intensedebate.com/people/YYZ YYZ

You are being spun.

"Acceptable" but "Undesirable" ! That's a negative recommendation disguised in bureaucratic diplomacy!

http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

You might want to consider the other (more likely) possibilities. (Given that Clement has been caught in a handfull of lies lately, assuming his statements are truthful is statistically a losing proposition)

4) Sheikh told the government in no uncertain terms, that a volunteer census cannot be made equivalent to a mandatory one. He accepts that he is not an elected official, and that it is ultimately Clement's call and presents 3 scenarios that attempt to minimize the damage. Note: in public Clement's initial response was basically fu this is my call to make no consultation is necessary. This approach was then refined to Del Mastreo has done the math, it will be ok. It was only as the one-sided weight of the expert commentary mounted that Clement pulled out the "don't trust me, trust StatsCan." In interviews, he went quite a bit further, describing the approach as approved by StatsCan as equivalent.

After Clement did that, within 48 hours Sheikh called the townhall meeting. My guess would be that people were pretty upset that Clement was essentially lying about their advice. One day, later Sheikh decides that he can't work for a liar and/or can't clean up messes faster than Clement & co can make them.

It would be nice to see the full correspondence. Clement has already ruled this out. I wonder why?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Harbles Harbles

"The way the decision was handled put him in an impossible position."

Word Bro!

My thoughts at the time were of Shakespear's "This above all: to thine own self be true"
edeast

I admit to being skeptical at first, concerning the resignation. But the following day having the 'vandalism', and then the nasty Conservative email to supporters. I started to turn. I believe he resigned to dispute the claim that this was one of Stats Can recommended options to reduce the intrusiveness of the census. And Clement bears that out, with a tweet today saying that yes indeed the order came from the government "read pmo", faced with this directive Stats Can gave their options. For this I thank and apologize to Sheik.
Mike T.

Hear hear!

(or is it here, here! now?)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Douglass Douglass

definitely hear hear! You had it right the first time :)

wilson

When previous StatsCan boss came out against the change, loudly, after the change was already posted in the Gazette,
may have been applauded by the media/elites,
but it must have been hugely embarrasing to Shiekh,
(kinda like Chretien behind the scenes working on a merger with the NDP, not cool)
after all, it was his department that proposed the option to Clement.
That is not in dispute, that StatsCan recommended that option is.

Maybe he resigned because his peers made it known, in their expert opinion, it was a fail,
and he agreed.

Sheikh did make comment that it was because of the media reports.
I assumed it was Clements comments,
maybe it was peer comments.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

I'm beginning to suspect that Wilson here isn't so much a living, breathing, human but rather is a random Conservative talking point generator.

Matlock

Perhaps like the manatees that write Family Guy episodes? (Sorry to those that don't know the South Park reference).

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

(Thank you from one who does.)
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

That's one of the two South Park episodes I've seen in the last five years or so!

(The other being the Al Gore "manbearpig" episode)

cheers!

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Not so fast, RSA, not so fast….

There have been threads where wilson does deviate from "talking points" and does engage in a discussion; I specifically saw an example earlier today between Jenn and wilson.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Maybe when the autoparsing can't cope, a red light goes off and an actual person wo/mans the battle station.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Well, if that is the case I certainly wish that the red light would go off way more often. ;-)

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I actually think this is one of those times.

Read Wilson's comment again. It makes some sense, and is far and away the best rebuttal (not that I believe it, mind you) for Sheikh's resignation the Conservative side has come up with yet.

Jan

Or a monkey. Like Clement, Bernier and Day – just making it up as they go along.

Jan

wilson, you are contradicting what Clement said just yesterday on CBC. He said the government made the decision and then went to Statscan. No consultation first.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

Careful.. the newest Conservative talking points havent been sent out to everyone. It's entirely possible wilson is still using last week's.

Curt

I believe he might have just called it a day (retired) either because he was frustrated or tired of the job.

Mike T.

I think that may have played a role. The change could just have been the boneheaded stupid move that broke the camels back.

http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

I've mentioned this before.
He may have seen a career following the arc of Rémy M. Beauregard and decided to get out while the getting was good.

Geiseric

There was a good article in yesterday's Winnipeg Free Press reminding everyone that Ministers aren't supposed to drag the public service into things or pin their own decisions on them.

Clement is a coward for doing just that and an idiot for being so weak on the file he couldn't address it with any authority. And the opposition are fools for not having made mincemeat out of him on both accounts already.

The days of public servants speaking truth to power are officially over. I suppose its only the elite who think it's a shame.
Standing By

Maybe it's just me, but most conservative MPs seem to be kind of quiet on this topic.

Wuzzup with dat?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

Give the PMO a break, they've been busy, and sending out the "WHAT YOU ARE PERMITTED TO SAY" packages all across the country is complicated. It takes time and careful planning to do a job right.

Oh, yeahhhhh… maybe strike that last sentence.
Out There

They're waiting to see whether Harper will change his mind.

Olaf

The way the decision was handled put him in an impossible position.

Yea, impossible, like when the Riddler made Batman choose whether to save the life of Nicole Kidman or Robin.

Ugh. Why do Canadians have to be so dramatic about everything.

edeast

Because this is important.

Clement was using his agency to back him up, saying that if it's good enough for stats can, it's good enough for me. When he was actually lying/misleading/spinning, in saying that it was their idea. This made it impossible for Sheikh.
Maybe I should quote it all.

"“So I went to StatsCan. They’re the experts. I said to Stats Canada, ‘Give us some options. Is there a way that we can have a balance, get the data that everyone hankers for . . . but at the same time do so in a way where people can opt out if they have a conscientious objection,’ ” he said.

“StatsCan gave me three options, each of which they thought would work. I chose one of those options with their recommendation,” he said.

He said he asked whether the voluntary survey would produce “robust” data. Stats Canada replied “in no uncertain terms, ‘Yes, it would give us the data that everybody hankers for.’ ” '

I am glad he didn't resign over receiving orders from the elected representative, but when the representative was telling the electorate, 'it is just as good'. He had to.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

I get the impression Sheihk took his particular position, general vocation, and personal honour seriously. I don't think it's hyperbolic to suggest Clement and this goverment created a situation that was indeed impossible for him in those terms.

Now, many individuals face similar crises in their jobs every day (and often don't have the high pay and pension to make departure an option), so it's hard to feel too bad for the man. But as a symbol for the contempt these neocons hold for most (if not all) federal institutions and government itself, I'm hoping it leaves a sick feeling in many voters' guts.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

I am confident that Harper et al are not at all contemptuous of our Armed Forces.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Sir_Francis Sir_Francis

Harper et al are not at all contemptuous of our Armed Forces.

No, they love the Forces—so much so that the admiral-in-chief of our navy recently announced that he might need to slash our already miniscule fleet in half because of budget constraints.

Yeah, the CPC loves the CF when they're fighting in American missions on behalf of American priorities. When they're wasting their time protecting Canadian sovereignty, not so much.

Phil

Yeah, maybe.

They (Harper and supporters) want to have their cake (armed forces), they want to eat that cake (bask in the reflected glory), and then, just like a "good" politician they aren't quite as intererested in properly funding the excercise.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"I don't think it's hyperbolic to suggest Clement and this goverment created a situation that was indeed impossible for him in those terms. "

Agreed.

This, however, is hyperbolic: "But as a symbol for the contempt these neocons hold for most (if not all) federal institutions and government itself…"

Mike T.

jsut anything so large it could not be drowned in a bathtub….
austinso

This, however, is hyperbolic: "But as a symbol for the contempt these neocons hold for most (if not all) federal institutions and government itself…"

Oh I wouldn't say that…Sean is just trying to be a loud exponential for the truth…
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Man oh man. How do we get this turned down a notch or two or seven?

The long form questions are intrusive; basically anytime anyone (government, private business, whatever) asks a question of me other than "How are you today?" there is an element of intrusiveness to that question. But I didn't find any of the cencus questions to be so intrusive that I would not answer them; quite far from that level actually.

OTOH the cencus does produce (imperfect) data that is useful to some groups of people.

I really can't see why any changes need to be made, but if changes are made my world will not collapse. I'm sure that I'm not alone in this feeling.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

"Man oh man. How do we get this turned down a notch or two or seven? "

Here's a thought: when someone posts something over-the-top and/or insulting, call them on it rather than going along.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Wrt …over-the-top and/or insulting, call them on it …….which is only truly effective when it is done without being over-the-top and/or insulting – that's a general comment, not aimed at you in particular.

Slight tangent….do you agree that the proposed 2011 questions (are they even available for public viewing yet?) or the 2006 long form questions are too intrusive? All of them or are there one or two that are particularly troubling?

I did peruse a few pages of your comments but I wasn't able to deduce your stance on that narrow question.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I haven't seen the 2011 questions.

In general I think the questions that are going to bother people are the ones that might plausibly be used against them. For example, in 30's Germany I'd have been very reluctant to answer any census that asked about race or religion. In our society, race is not something one has to worry about the government using against us.

Since we are a left-leaning society one has to look to what left-leaning societies have been persecuting their citizens for recently: those would be religion and homeschooling. So I would say that anything relating to (a) religion, or (b) number of children in the home, what school they attend, and the way in which a stay-at-home parent uses her time should be off-limits.

Alternatively, if they wanted to ask those questions on the census but allow people to return it without names and with only general address info (e.g. nearest city and province) included, I think that would probably be ok too.
Mike T.

I'm not sure catering to paranoia is the best route.
Steve

Sure, the census can easily be cast in such cold terms. But the truth is it is entirely in your freedom to answer however you please on the census for both of those questions. Incidentally, that is why so many people write down 'Jedi' for religion in a mass effort to systematically change the data. There is a 'Canadian' option for ethnicity. And you can write whatever you want for religion, or none, or other. Your individual response is not going to effect the aggregate, and no one expects this statist need perfect regulation that Conservatives are so apt to portray.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

You are forgetting that there are some people who, on principle, will not tell a lie.

These people tend to be exactly the ones who have the most to worry about when the state begins to misuse census data against them.
Steve

Why tell a lie? You should be able to write down "none of your business" if you wanted to. I would be interested to know whether StatsCan would respond or not. It won't make much of a difference to them either way.

Heres the problem: the census is an operation that should happen with as little controversy as possible. Taking for granted that while it is technically a legal obligation, no one is asking for a statistically perfect response rate, because in a free society such as Canada nobody is pointing a gun to your ahead and you can write what you want down for a non-verifiable such as religion. And can chose Canadian for ethnicity (which cannot be a lie).
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

I have to agree with Gaunilon on this, particularly as I am one of those who 'will not tell a lie' and who has gotten into trouble over the religion question (not when asked on the census, but on the municipal property tax questionnaire).

On the other hand, when they want to 'use it against you' they ask you on something other than the census data. And that is because StatsCan, those wonderful statisticians, use your data only in the aggregate and nobody knows it is yours. They (the evil forces of government) need to ask you again on something else when they want to use it against you (such as the municipal property tax questionnaire). You can tell the truth to StatsCan.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

These people tend to be exactly the ones who have the most to worry about when the state begins to misuse census data against them.

Do you have a source for some statistical evidence to support this claim of a correlation?

And hopefully you are not implying that folks who don't home school or who don't "care" about religion are more likely to be comfortable lying on the form, are you?
Gaunilon

We're getting a bit far afield from StatsCan, which obviously has no intention of harming people with its data gathering. All I'm saying is that in recent historical cases where a state turned on its own citizens – which is not the case in Canada, thank God – they targeted people for race and religion.

With certain religions, the "no lie is a good lie" principle is taught. Yes, I think it is likely that devout members of a religion that teaches this are less inclined to lie in order to save their lives than those who aren't members of such a religion. Your "and hopefully" statement makes it sound like you hold this notion in contempt and unworthy of further consideration, whereas I think it's self-evident. If I had no a priori reason for believing a lie to be evil per se, I'd gladly lie to save my own life or the life of another.

Again, this is all pretty far afield from StatsCan, whose goal has nothing to do with persecution. But I can understand how others might view it differently. I think everyone on this board could benefit from recognizing the shocking fact that not everyone views things the same way they do.
Phil

I absolutely agree that we have drifted away from StatsCan/the census – that's probably a good thing, since the ground closer to the epicenter of the issue has been pretty well tilled by now, and we are unlikely to find any new morsels over there! ;-)

I also accept that many religions teach that "no lie is a good lie", although I would be surprised if the "sucess rate" is 100%. And certainly one does not need to be religious to subscribe to that belief, and to share it with others (children, co-workers, etc).

So then we get to my question: Is it true that religious people lie less than non-religious people? You seem sure that that is the case and I'm not convinced that there is any difference. I'm not contemptuous of the possibility nor am I ruling out further consideration of the possibility. I'm only asking if you have actually perused some studies or something similar, or if it's something that you hold to be self-evident.
http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Hmmmmm,,,,

Please recognize that I am not 100% familiar with the existing privacy safeguards, but I'm having trouble reconciling the last paragraph with the two topics that you indicated to be most intrusive (ie could lead to persecution)……is the bottom line there that ultimately you don't trust the privacy safeguards that exist at StatsCan? I mean, theoretically that info can't be tracked back to you, at least not legally, or am I missing something?
Gaunilon

"…is the bottom line there that ultimately you don't trust the privacy safeguards that exist at StatsCan?

I do, but I can see how others might not, and that strikes me as a perfectly reasonable concern.
Mike T.

If by "perfectly reasonable", you mean "bordering on insane" then I agree with you completely. You can't run a society by placating it's most bizarre, silly element.
Gayle

Someone who complains about hyperbole probably should not say things like this:

"Since we are a left-leaning society one has to look to what left-leaning societies have been persecuting their citizens for recently: those would be religion and homeschooling."

Persecution???

Come on.
Bob

My thoughts exactly. What a ridiculous statement.
Mike T.

FIRST THEY CAME FOR STATISTICALLY RELIABLE DATA, AND I DIDN'T SPEAK UP BECAUSE I WASN'T STATISTICALLY RELIABLE DATA
Gaunilon

I'd say heavy fines, jail and attempts to take children from their parents constitute persecution, wouldn't you?

Don't confuse ignorance with impossibility.
Gayle

You're joking I hope.

"In September 2006 the European Court of Human Rights upheld the German ban on homeschooling, stating "parents may not refuse… [compulsory schooling] on the basis of their convictions", and adding that the right to education "calls for regulation by the State". The European Court took the position that the plaintiffs were the children, not their parents, and declared "children are unable to foresee the consequences of their parents' decision for home education because of their young age…. Schools represent society, and it is in the children's interest to become part of that society. The parents' right to educate does not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience." The European Court endorsed a "carefully reasoned" decision of the German court concerning "the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions and the importance of integrating minorities into society.""

A law that is aimed at ensuring all children are integrated into society is not persecution.

You want to learn about real persecution try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Chris…

And stop trivializing the real thing.
Jan

We have freedom of religion in this country. And home schooling is allowed as an alternative and provided for by Departments of Education. Just keeping your children out of school is not allowed.
So why would be enable breaking the law? And what persecution are you referring to?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

I am referring to Germany, Brazil, and Sweden.
http://intensedebate.com/people/auntie_em_m auntie_em_m

'left-leaning societies have been persecuting their citizens for …'

!!! 'when someone posts something over-the-top or insulting…'

calling you out, Gaunilon
Gaunilon

Germany is a left-leaning country. So is Brazil. So is Sweden.

Just because you're unaware of the facts doesn't mean that they aren't the facts.
Gayle

Germany's current governing party:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Democratic…

Anyway…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Iccyh Iccyh

It sucks when we're looking at this in terms of "will my world collapse?" instead of "is this the best way to do this?"

http://intensedebate.com/profiles/saskboy saskboy

Because it's an attack on our credibility and Canadians take our reputations very seriously.

http://intensedebate.com/profiles/saskboy saskboy

This is just a bump in the road for the PMO, they'll hand pick an unprincipled person to replace him, and Harper's machine will be back in business.
chet

And just when the media finished painting the horns over Clement's head…

he jumps into dangerous waters to save a woman's life.

The juxtaposition of reality and the leftist spin that is being peddled as "news and analysis" couldn't be more startling.

Guess which topic will have a greater chance of being discussed at barbecues this afternoon: the….ahem…Census, or the most daring,courageous act of a senior politician in our lifetimes.

Oh, wait…it gets better, the Liberal blog actually tries to paint Iggy as "courageous" for campaining on a bicycle.

Bob

… "the most daring, courageous act of a senior politician in our lifetimes."

Hyperbolic, much? Not to knock him for doing the right thing or anything, because it is truly a nice story, but all Clement did was swim out to TRY to help someone in trouble, something anyone capable of swimming would do in that situation. Let's not go overboard, if you'll excuse the pun.

wilson

It's sunday.

Mike T.

If he was the Minister of jumping into a creek at the Muskoka Cottage to Aid in Rescuing Somebody, I think we cold all congratulate him on a job well done.

chet

That Iggy's people think that riding a bicycle is an act of courage, in and of itself, is worthy of some serious ridicule,

that it's posted at the same time as a Clement risks his life to save a women…it's too much for words to describe.

Better yet that this comes righ when dire language and hyperbole has been levied on the "life and death" census issue, complete with Wherry's picks of unflattering photos of the demonic Clement,

well that's just icing on the cake. Don't ya just hate when reality bursts a perfectly good leftist propoganda bubble.

http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/ Scott_Tribe

What Clement does in his off-time -brave as it may be – is quite separate from his work… and his decision still remains a dumb one (or the decision foisted upon him by Harper, which he has to publicly defend – and not doing a very good job of it)

"Look how brave Tony was – help him be brave in killing tyranny too!" isn't going to work to convince most level-headed people, I doubt, if that's attempted to be used as the new Con talking point – by either the PMO or their cheerleaders on message boards.
wilson

It is pretty brave for a 62 year old, to ride around on a bike, taking tough questions from toddlers,
particularly if he was still wearing those tight fit'n jeans!

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

@chet
thanks for the relevant references, so germane to this debate!

I am now 100% against the coward Iggy and 100% in favour anything SARs-Tony says and does!

chet

Not relevant to the debate?

Well it works both ways my friend. The leftist rag TO Star (Delacourt) described the event in the first line this way:

"Tony Clement took a break from the census controversy this weekend…"

So it's all census all the time apparently. Quite the impartial "journalism" there eh.

Gayle

Funny. On a board where a few people who feign objectivity and non-partisanship complain about the partisanship on the left, from the right we get this: the mere mention of the census means journalists are biased.

Sigh…

chet

"TAn Impossible Position"

There he was. In an impossible position. To his side his family who he risked never seeing again, should he dive in. Yet a woman was drowining.

Save her and risk himself. Or stay put and stay safe.

Judging from Clement being fully clothed and the pace of his sprint to the river's edge, that "impossible" decision lasted a split second.

An impossible position indeed.

Bravo Mr. Clement.

Bravo.

BGLong

After we give him a parade down The Highway of Heroes maybe we can read the article and
conclude that the actual assistance was provided by Mrs. Clement while Tony the Tiger went
for a swim and felt sore. Kudos are surely in order. Maybe the good lady can now find a way to
rescue him.
http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Clement+jumps…
http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Boy, he was brave! Good thing his house was right there. I mean, what with all the woman's friends just standing around and screaming until he got down there. Good thing, too, the woman realized she could float if she just turned onto her back. I'm glad she wasn't panicking, what with all her friends just standing around and screaming like that. I mean to say, its weird that her friends didn't have the wherewithall to jump into the water to save her until Clement did it first, huh? Also weird, nobody stayed at the house to call 911 until they'd gotten the woman out. Funny how the human mind works in a crisis.

wilson

'the woman realized she could float if she just turned onto her back'

yah, that was poorly worded,
rather than fighting the under currents, she realized if she floated on top she wasn't swept away from her rescuers.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Yes, your wording is much more clear and sensible. (I'm being sincere)

Blues Clair

Well written chet. Perfect script for the trailer of a movie of the week. In a deep voice;

There he was. In an impossible position. To his side his family who he risked never seeing again…

wilson

Casting call! http://www.fancast.com/blogs/files/2010/02/oldspi…

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Hilarious! Well done.

wilson

Bravo Clement family.

Down side,
now the 'progressives' will be lobbying for a program to keep all citizens safe at all water edges,
environmental groups will be seeking government funding to research the impact on 'water edges' due to the program.
Olaf

It's great to see that even the interpretation of entirely non-political events can be split so clearly down partisan lines.

Bob

I'm conservative, I'm just not sycophantic enough to use phrases like "the most daring, courageous act of a senior politician in our lifetimes."
NorthernPoV

but Olaf – look at the "two sides" in this case

I did not see one (serious) put down of SARS-Tony for this, from the progressives – there is some well deserved push back about the relevance of this news to the Census fiasco.

It is the con bots who are pushing this latest shiny object as more worthy of discussion than the gutting of our civil society.

wilson

Well I totally expected to see some progressive fun poking at Tony jumping into a river, with his clothes on.
I mean the guy just ate!

http://intensedebate.com/people/NorthernPoV NorthernPoV

humour alert!

Well I just read the story and it seems Clement's relatives did the rescuing while Tony himself had to save his own skin after recklessly canceling the mandatory … oooops …. recklessly jumping in the raging river.
I dimly remember my water safety courses and recall that jumping in the water is the last option. Sounds like Tony's relatives are level headed and in fact, were the rescuers here!

Do we know the identity of the drowning woman? Could it be one of the conbots from this board here, desperate to turn the channel?
Wilson: where were you when this incident occurred? ;-)

wilson

LOL, sitting on my deck 2 provinces to the West, watching the rain water my lawn, thinking 'I like global warming'!

wilson

Some fun headlines appearing on the blogosphere

"Probablity of Drowning In Muskoka River Is Small According To StatsCan"

(ok, well I think it is funny)

Curt

According to StatsCan, the probability of drowning in the Muskoka River is infinitely greater when you jump in to save a person than not jumping in to save a person.

wilson

Study finds 'good samaritan' life style risky.

Curt

Ouch!

danby

I heard the woman was Helena Geurgis, and that Tony got a tweet from the PMO telling him to return to shore.
JoeC

Clement's decision to jump in was stupid, not heroic. You don't (a) jump into dangerous waters to try to save someone without help from a floatation device, and (b) jump into water of any sort to attempt a rescue with your clothes on. You're more likely to drown yourself than save the person in distress.

If someone's drowning, you throw them a floatation device or use something like a pole to help get them out of the water. If you swim up to a drowning person, they will likely grab onto you in what trained rescuers call "the grip of death", and you'll both drown. Panicking people have a ton of adrenaline pumping through their veins, and you will not be able to get them off of you. They will impede your ability to swim by grabbing onto you in a manner that prevents you from being able to swim, and you will both die.

You also need to take your clothes off before you go in the water (you can leave on a swimsuit or undergarments for modesty). They will prevent you from being able to swim yourself due to drag, and you'll end up doing what Clement did – swimming back for shore after a few seconds. However, given the situation, it's good that he jumped in with his clothes on – it prevented him from getting close to her, which may well have led to them both drowning.

In short: he's lucky he didn't drown.

I'm not saying this to get at him – I think that his intentions were good – but calling him a hero is going way too far. I'd call him "lucky to be alive", personally. I hope that people learn from his mistake.

wilson

And he just ate!

chet

Today's progessive left: damn that eeeeevil conservative for saving that woman's life.

Something similar to: damn those conservatives for saving those women in Aghanistan from the most repressive servitute known to humanit.

….or

Damn those conservatives for standing against the barbaric Iran regime, who regularly hangs homosexuals for their way of life.

Progressives. Where ideology comes before justice. Every day of the week.

JoeC

1) He didn't save her life.
2) No one's said he's evil for it. Jumping into a fast-moving river with all of your clothes on is foolish, not evil.
3) It was the Liberals who sent our troops into Afghanistan, for better and/or worse.
4) No one supports the Iranian regime. We may disagree about what to do about it, though.

But don't let reality or spelling get in the way of posting your deluded rants.
http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

Are you drunk?

chet

The leftist's attempt to put a negative spin on risking one's life to save a deperate soul: priceless.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Scott_Tribe Scott_Tribe

wilson – Is chet your husband, brother or in some other way related to you?
http://intensedebate.com/people/Dennis_F Dennis_F

Question: Is there not a valid position within the statistical community that endorses the use of a voluntary census in collecting the needed information from citizens? In fact, have not officials from Statistics Canada been advising the government to that end? ie) If you're going to do it this way, this is how you do it, etc.