Well all conservatives are apparently separatists. They want to separate "Main Street" from the elites.

That's okay, Gonzales told Bush the Geneva Convention was quaint and obsolete anyway. Stock needs to keep up. LOL

Except that it is obvious that this move by Harper relates to tea parties. Just because the liberals point that out does not make it untrue, nor does it mean, as you imply, that Transportation has not voted conservative all his life.

Don't pay much attention to American politics Jan, so can't answer that.
Frankly Scarlet…..

but I have noticed that all those 'Obama connections in high places' haven't yet paid off for you leader.

And also the banking problems, don't forget that.

Well, of course he's ignoring his own thesis! It was corrupted by statistics.

I will, then.

The Reform wing of the Conservatives is Tea Party North.

Socially extreme-right, allergic to facts, reliant on fundamental misrepresentations of American history for their raison d'etre, conveniently choosy with their application of libertarianism.

How could you possibly know that. The answer is that you could not, unless you were actually in on these meetings. Your faith in your party is sweet. Naive, but sweet.

It was obvious the timing of his resignation coincided with the interview with Clement that was published in the Globe. All you have to do is connect the dots. He was going to speak to his employees, and suddenly cancelled it in light of what was reported in the media that morning. That evening he resigned.

"corrupt sanctity of stats"

well, at least we agree on the effect of this latest act of vandalism

As a public servant Sheikh accepted that the Cabinet has the ultimate right to ignore his advice, which we now know was to maintain the mandatory census.. However, once Clement publically misrepresented the advice he received from Statistics Canda, Sheikh had no option but to resign. His honor is intact. Good for him.

Thumbs-up for both y'all.

The definition of objectivity is "agreeing with Scott", mind you. :)

I came across this frequently in my previous life: agree with progressives one day (i.e. harshly criticize Harper), you're applauded as one of the few 'reasonable', 'objective' conservatives; disagree with them the next (i.e. express the opinion that Harper may fall somewhere short of pure evil), and you're a CPC shill. I always found it breathtakingly arrogant.

"The definition of objectivity is "agreeing with Scott"…"

"I always found it breathtakingly arrogant."

Self-awareness is not your strong suit, eh?

Thank you Scott. Appreciate your comments. Just because some of us support the Conservatives over the Liberals (and NDP) doesn't mean we can't be disappointed at actions by the government when it makes stupid decisions. We are not all "Con-bots".

Incidentally the delay in my reply is that I am on the other side of the Pacific right now.

Are you expecting Minister Clement to show that writing to the committee? Are you expecting Minister Clement to show ALL of Sheikh's writings to committee, or just the one where he lays out the options–without the recommendations.

No, that's not the worst part. The worst part is that there are so many commenters unable to weigh serious issues with any semblance of objectivity, even among the readership of a fairly intelligent news magazine. It really is depressing.

Since the folks in this subthread may be the only ones who might be at all interested, the Corker's latest column appears a relatively balanced assessment of the census situation, one of the first I've read in the mainstream media.

I was surprised by the way Grumpy Uncle Corker described the results of the US Census Bureau report as well – since I get all my news from Wherry and his commenters on issues I don't really care about, I had understood that they found 'voluntary surveys can never produce useful information' not 'it costs more to produce equally accurate statistics'. Anyway, I certainly have no intention of reading the report, because none of this matters in the grand scheme of things, so I guess I'll remain in the dark (although I don't doubt that Terry is as willing to 'finesse' or 'selectively emphasize' the results of a report as Macleans commenters, mind you).

balanced assessment….

He didn't really say much about the intrusiveness (or lack thereof) of the questions, other than reporting an opinion poll about mandatory/voluntary.

When you're in an echo chamber long enough, you start to confuse shrill hyperbole with reality. Even those on the Maclean's masthead aren't immune from it.

I agree with you too. It's depressing when someone takes an issue that has two reasonable sides, declares the government side to be evil and the beginning of the end of the world, and that the government is intentionally bringing on the end of the world.

Yes, you missed something. Take a look through Potter's most recent piece. Then take a look through the comments. You'll find all kinds of references to how this is all a dastardly plan to ruin the entire Canadian government (or "see the whole [ship of state] scuttled", in Potter's words).

Society without government is called "anarchy".

Then take a look through the comments after most of Wherry's posts on the subject. You'll find more about this notion that Harper and his "neocons" are trying to destroy as much of government as possible. You will find, simultaneously and supported by the same commenters, the notion that Harper is trying to ruin StatsCan's credibility in order to hide crime rate stats so that he can push forward a law and order agenda. Yes, I know those two positions are laughably contradictory, and kind of laughable individually too. They are, nonetheless, somewhat popular hereabouts.

It is beginning to remind me of the left-leaning US blogs I frequented during the Bush Administration. I used to call them "fever swamps" because of their suffocating paranoia.

They've provided seriously believable explanations. It just happens that leftists don't like them, and find the need to go ape-sh*t over it.

Really? My perception is we have gone over the top as of Friday (maybe part of the day before), but up to that point were our normally charming, partisan selves.

If you mean left-of-centre partisans were taking pot-shots at this immediately after the announcement was made, uh, yeah, that's what partisans do. That, and the explanation given immediately on (in?) the announcement was laughable.

I can agree with that.

(But while I'm sure it's embarrassing to watch, it IS kind of fun to participate in. :) The thumbs rating is the bestest part! Yes, I expect I'll grow up tomorrow.)

Yes, crazy for people to jump to such a wacked conclusion. Of course, you're forgetting all the other strange made-in-the-dark choices Harper has pulled out of his but during the past 4 years, including but not limited to: imploding the accountability idea, selling out on fiscal responsibility, raising taxes while accusing your opposition of wanting the same, calculated dissections of government services and boards, stacking the senate with more stuffed turkeys than Loblaws in early October, using the guise of public safety as a means to gut nuclear safety industry for a sell-off, turning our election system into a knock-off joke of american version, creating the Canadian out-of-cycle negative ad monster, taking a minority win and doubling-down with a roulette-wheel like gambit on public funding of political parties — an issue he couldn't have campaigned on?!? — setting up a legalese wall of lies (as proven by his own witness) on the Cadman tape just to stall and successfully blunt out real questions. None of these are the regular workings of a government that has the interests of all the people in hand, but a government who's major goal and workings is just to change the Canadian political landscape.

Does your Progressive's Guide for Idiot's start out
the Statistics Act : mandatory census for population and agriculture
(that's why this long form can be eliminated or changed to voluntary)

I am sorry, but first of all, what on earth makes you think I am a liberal? Just because someone opposes Harper, that does not necessarily mean they are a liberal.

Second of all, how earth does what the liberals did make my statement any less true?

It is Harper's fault, and his fault alone, for why this has become a complete mess. I know this is hard for you, but why don't you consider holding him accountable for his decisions?

Further to that,

The federal government has argued that the long form census is intrusive and Canadians should not be forced to answer it. Only one-in-four Canadians (24%) agree with this assessment, while a large majority (58%) think the long form census yields data that is important to make policy decisions in all areas of public service, and should remain mandatory.

The only thing I'll say is we have a series of conflicting poll answers. You have the initial 47-38 oppose/support this decision. It then goes up to 52-27 calling on the Cons to reverse the decision… and then up to 58% agreeing it's important for policy and should be kept mandatory (against 24% who think its too intrusive).

So it really depends how the question is worded and what details are given the person getting the question.. but as people realize how important the census is for formulating accurate policy (the exact and real reason the Conservative Government want it gone,not for privacy issues, though thats what they use as an argument to try and ferment the Tea Baggers in their party), more and more people oppose this decision.

That's good news for facts and stats, and bad news for ideologues.

It's bad optics to cancel programs that are demonstrably working, even for conservatives. So you kill the tree by poisoning the roots.

(Sorry, I didn't have the discipline to let your rhetorical question hang in the air like that!)

Yes, it has a very exciting website.
But if you enter the actual building, you will find that it is now the Carp library.

If I see Dmitri hiding out there, perhaps between the fiction and juvenile stacks, I will say hello to him from you.

THAT'S WHAT THE CENSUS LOVING COMMIES WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!!!

Thanks, but I am not running for election.

Let's bring your second one up to modern times.

The coalition can start the "t-distribution party"

Great idea, Cal Junkie. Here's mine:

If statisticians vote Liberal, so should you.
Show Harper your sampling bias by voting Liberal.
Don't count on a leader who won't count everyone's bedrooms!

Don't hand a tory votes with no mandatory totes.

Yeah, but you're spending your creative energy on the wrong camp. It's Harper who needs the snazzy slogans: given his abyssal charisma deficit, he needs all the help he can get. So here are my two cents (far more than Harper's worth, I might add):

* "Our bedrooms have no place in the government of the nation"

* "Statistical sabotage you can believe in!"

* "Ask not what crass, moronic demagoguery can do for you. Ask what you can do for crass, moronic demagoguery!"

* "Paranoid, passive-aggressive nerds with latent Borderline Personality Disorder issues, unite! You have nothing to lose but senior public servants with records of calculable achievement that make yours look like they belong on the resumé of an autistic fifteen-year-old crystal meth addict!"