Tuesday, April 17, 2012

Peter MacKay and the revolving money

 #Cdnpoli #F35 -

On Sunday, 15 April, the Department of National Defence sent out a press release which David Pugliese posted.
The Honourable Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence and Lead Minister for Search and Rescue, is pleased to announce an $8.1M federal investment in search and rescue prevention and response in Canada.

“Our government understands the importance of investing in new initiatives aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of search and rescue in Canada,” said Minister MacKay. “This money will support projects that build search and rescue capacity and strengthens the response of search and rescue.”

In 2012-2013, this new funding will allow for the purchase of life-saving equipment and tools; the development of training standards; collaborative interoperability exercises between the Canadian Forces, the Canadian Coast Guard, Parks Canada, and the over 15,000 specially trained air-ground-marine search and rescue volunteers; the development of outreach prevention and awareness programs to targeted audiences like flight safety for private pilots; the building of search and rescue capacity in the marine environment on the coasts; and the development of virtual trainers for the air and marine search and rescue environments.
All very nice, except for one small problem. This is not new money. This has been around for well over a decade. David Pugliese started to get a raft of emails.
As mentioned, Defence Watch readers took issue with the claim about new funding. They say the funding is awarded each year and has been for more than a decade.
In fact this fund was started back in 1988 and has been allocated annually since then. It also has never really grown from the amount originally set aside. 

Pugliese went to MacKay's office for an explanation and discovered ...
So it isn’t exactly “new” money after all. It’s the same money and each year the list with the $8 million worth of new projects is issued annually.
This is nothing more than MacKay trying to generate some "good" press. Here, however, is the best part.  (Emphasis mine)
That quest is, at times, reaching desperation, sources say. As an example, they point to the March 20th press release issued by DND, which NDHQ communications specialists are still talking about. That one had Mr. MacKay announcing a contract for $5,943 for a firm to put some barriers up.
This useless boob needs to be taken to lunch. Somebody can clean out his office while he's gone and remove his name from the DND telephone directory before he gets back.



harebell said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
harebell said...

And CF personnel still vote for this party of lying pricks because they are pro-military.
Jesus christ on a crutch; this bunch of twats only value the military for the usefulness that they provide in good publicity and covering their arses. Oh and the brass, they love them for the positions they will be offered after their service ends.
MacKay needs to be given a weapon and sent into theatre just to remind the shitbag that his posturing has consequences.
Fuck him and his handler Harper too.

the regina mom said...

Oh, Dave, c'mon! Why did you hafta go and ruin an excellent post with sexist language? "Useless boob" is so...I dunno...useless! Not to mention insulting to women. I mean, how would you like one of your body parts to be called useless *and* to have it compared to Peter MacKay?!?

Do a quick edit and delete my comment, if you like...

Dave said...

Actually, the boob I refer to is a properly defined noun and has had the same meaning in my language for as long as I can remember.

Nothing sexist about it.

It stays.

Holly Stick said...

Then there's the story of how God created the first woman with three breasts and asked her if she wanted any changes. The woman decided she would prefer to have just two, so God removed one. Then God thought "What should I do with this useless boob? Oh, I know!" and God created the first man. :)

I believe you are correct, Dave that it is not a sexist term. I wonder if it comes from the old slang booberkin? There's a nice list of old opprobrious names here: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/the-dulpickles-and-nigmenogs-of-1699/

Dave said...

Holly Stick, I like that! And that list is very cool.