The Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) is working on restoring Internet connectivity and email services after being hit by a "sophisticated cyberattack" five days ago.
It is not immediately clear if the attack resulted in any data being stolen or compromised. A lab spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment, but a message on the spokesman's voicemail noted that Internet and email services were down because of a sophisticated attack.
PNNL which is funded by the Energy Department and managed by Battelle, conducts research in areas such as information security, nuclear non-proliferation and counterterrorism. As of Wednesday afternoon, PNNL's main website at www.pnnl.gov was unreachable. An error message noted the site was down due to "system maintenance."
According to several media reports, PNNL, based in Richland, Wash., discovered the attack July 1 and moved immediately to suspend email services and to disconnect itself from the Internet.
Those actions suggest that the PNNL was likely a victim of a spear-phishing attack in the same manner that the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Tennessee was a few weeks ago, said Anup Ghosh, founder and chief scientist of security vendor Invincea.
Oak Ridge, which is also a DOE lab, took identical measures after discovering someone attempting to pilfer data out of its networks in April. According to the laboratory, the breach resulted when some employees clicked on a malicious link in a spear-phishing email message.
The email message, which appeared to have originated from ORNL's human resources group, infected a handful of computers with a sophisticated data stealing Trojan. The malware exploited an unpatched flaw in Microsoft's Internet Explorer software, and was designed to search for and steal technical information from Oak Ridge.
Though PNNL has not said how it was attacked, chances are that it too was felled by spear-phishing, Ghosh said.
Spear-phishing attacks involve the use of emails that are personalized, localized and designed to appear like they originated from someone the recipient knows and trusts. The emails look authentic and are typically targeted at high-level executives or employees with privileged access to corporate systems and data.
Despite heightened awareness and better employee training, about 5% to 20% of spear-phishing emails still get opened, Ghosh said. Often, all it takes for the attackers to succeed is one compromised desktop, he said.
"What they are after is not that user machine. They simply use it as a beachhead from which to move inside the network," he said. Once inside a network, attackers usually are able to move with the level of access that the compromised user has. "There tend not to be any barriers," Ghosh said.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Ford Nation’s grim future oh the Mayor Rob Ford,s Will Not be happy with this!!
After eight months in office some people think that Mayor Rob Ford is punching above his weight — a considerable feat. Others feel he has picked all the low-lying political fruit and his implosion is imminent. His boycott of Pride Week was widely criticized.
But what about his personal constituency, the “Ford Nation”? Who are they and what is Ford doing for them? More to the point, what is he doing to them?
Ford’s weakest showing in last year’s election was in the former City of Toronto — downtown condo owners, the “elites” in Rosedale, Forest Hill and Lawrence Park. Compared with their suburban neighbours, they have the highest average incomes and are prepared to suffer higher taxes if it means better city amenities.
A recent Canadian Political Science Association study found that over 80 per cent of Ford’s support came from the old Metro Toronto suburbs. If you accept its “policy voting hypothesis,” Ford’s core supporters are voters in areas of high automobile use. They have the greatest concern about property taxes and maintaining city services. They are “economically precarious residents” with high housing costs relative to their incomes.
Ford’s election platform: “end the war on cars,” “respect for the taxpayer” and “stop the gravy train” responded directly to the visceral concerns of these three overlapping constituencies. His low-tax message clearly resonated with the threatened middle class and lower income earners.
Given this definition of his supporters, how will they benefit from Ford’s war on cars?
They will no longer have to pay a vehicle registration tax. But this modest relief pales into insignificance when you consider the consequences of Ford’s rejection of the Transit City light rail plan, and his insistence on subways.
The Pembina Institute, which studies sustainable energy solutions, says that Ford’s subway plan will:
• Serve 30 per cent fewer low-income residents despite costing 40 per cent more.
• Mean no rapid transit access for the residents of northwest Toronto, who have the lowest incomes in the city.
• Leave rapid transit for northeast Toronto residents in limbo for years.
They conclude by saying, “Mayor Ford’s full $12.4 billion plan, which includes the Sheppard subway, will cost about $4 billion more than the original LRT plan and serve 25 per cent fewer Torontonians.”
Ford pushed a politically compliant premier, and a captive transit commission, to spend most of the province’s funding on burying the Eglinton crosstown LRT. The result? Thousands of Ford’s core constituents will remain car dependant, and stuck in traffic for decades.
Ford’s first budget shouldn’t give his supporters much comfort either. Their taxes will not increase this year. But what service cuts, tax increases and labour conflicts lie ahead for next year?
Few realize that it was the $286 million operating surplus left by former mayor David Miller that made Ford’s tax freeze possible. That money and much more will have to be found to avoid the projected shortfall of $800 million next year.
There is scant evidence so far that Ford can deliver on his promise to “spend smarter and still deliver better customer service to the taxpayer.” During last year’s mayoral campaign, Ford promised to cut the city’s workforce by 3 per cent this year. Instead, his debut operating budget is a record $10.6 billion. It adds 447 new jobs to the city’s workforce.
So much for the public perception that Ford is downsizing city hall.
Ford talked a lot about “stopping the gravy train.” But other than experimenting with private garbage collection and firing the housing authority board, he seems unable to identify major areas of excess spending. He spent a decade on city council but has had to hire outside consultants to tell him where the gravy train is running.
None of this augers well for the economically challenged members of Ford Nation. They are highly dependant on city services. Program cuts are bound to have a disproportionate impact on his supporters. A likely tax increase in 2012 will further stress residents who have high housing costs and declining incomes.
Finally, Ford’s push to have Toronto’s transit services deemed “essential” won’t stop that gravy train either. It allows Ford to sidestep a difficult labour relations challenge since outstanding bargaining issues will be settled by arbitration. Torontonians are assured of no interruptions in transit service. But at what cost?
Arbitration has proved to be an expensive way of resolving labour disputes. Arbitrators pay little attention to the taxpayer’s ability to pay. They seldom roll back excessive provisions in collective agreements. Instead, they are inclined to layer one compensation precedent upon another.
The 2011 “Sunshine List” illustrates the point. Toronto police constables and paramedics make from $100,000 to more than $130,000 a year, plus medical benefits and a defined-benefit pension. Some firefighters earn more than $100,000.
In all likelihood, an arbitrated settlement with the transit union will bring those grumpy station collectors, some of whom are already earning upwards of $110,000 plus benefits and a pension, to new highs of questionable compensation.
How is Ford’s arbitration solution going to slow the TTC gravy train? It won’t. That’s why the union showed only token resistance to Ford’s essential-service initiative.
Those who depend on the TTC and those whom the city wants to attract to transit will face hefty annual transit fare increases. The essential-service designation will severely limit the city’s ability to negotiate higher productivity and affordable compensation at the TTC.
It’s time to drop the bumper-sticker-bromides and level with Torontonians about the tough choices that lie ahead. The Ford Nation may be slow to realize what their mayor is doing to them. But when they do, expect their reaction to be crushing.
But what about his personal constituency, the “Ford Nation”? Who are they and what is Ford doing for them? More to the point, what is he doing to them?
Ford’s weakest showing in last year’s election was in the former City of Toronto — downtown condo owners, the “elites” in Rosedale, Forest Hill and Lawrence Park. Compared with their suburban neighbours, they have the highest average incomes and are prepared to suffer higher taxes if it means better city amenities.
A recent Canadian Political Science Association study found that over 80 per cent of Ford’s support came from the old Metro Toronto suburbs. If you accept its “policy voting hypothesis,” Ford’s core supporters are voters in areas of high automobile use. They have the greatest concern about property taxes and maintaining city services. They are “economically precarious residents” with high housing costs relative to their incomes.
Ford’s election platform: “end the war on cars,” “respect for the taxpayer” and “stop the gravy train” responded directly to the visceral concerns of these three overlapping constituencies. His low-tax message clearly resonated with the threatened middle class and lower income earners.
Given this definition of his supporters, how will they benefit from Ford’s war on cars?
They will no longer have to pay a vehicle registration tax. But this modest relief pales into insignificance when you consider the consequences of Ford’s rejection of the Transit City light rail plan, and his insistence on subways.
The Pembina Institute, which studies sustainable energy solutions, says that Ford’s subway plan will:
• Serve 30 per cent fewer low-income residents despite costing 40 per cent more.
• Mean no rapid transit access for the residents of northwest Toronto, who have the lowest incomes in the city.
• Leave rapid transit for northeast Toronto residents in limbo for years.
They conclude by saying, “Mayor Ford’s full $12.4 billion plan, which includes the Sheppard subway, will cost about $4 billion more than the original LRT plan and serve 25 per cent fewer Torontonians.”
Ford pushed a politically compliant premier, and a captive transit commission, to spend most of the province’s funding on burying the Eglinton crosstown LRT. The result? Thousands of Ford’s core constituents will remain car dependant, and stuck in traffic for decades.
Ford’s first budget shouldn’t give his supporters much comfort either. Their taxes will not increase this year. But what service cuts, tax increases and labour conflicts lie ahead for next year?
Few realize that it was the $286 million operating surplus left by former mayor David Miller that made Ford’s tax freeze possible. That money and much more will have to be found to avoid the projected shortfall of $800 million next year.
There is scant evidence so far that Ford can deliver on his promise to “spend smarter and still deliver better customer service to the taxpayer.” During last year’s mayoral campaign, Ford promised to cut the city’s workforce by 3 per cent this year. Instead, his debut operating budget is a record $10.6 billion. It adds 447 new jobs to the city’s workforce.
So much for the public perception that Ford is downsizing city hall.
Ford talked a lot about “stopping the gravy train.” But other than experimenting with private garbage collection and firing the housing authority board, he seems unable to identify major areas of excess spending. He spent a decade on city council but has had to hire outside consultants to tell him where the gravy train is running.
None of this augers well for the economically challenged members of Ford Nation. They are highly dependant on city services. Program cuts are bound to have a disproportionate impact on his supporters. A likely tax increase in 2012 will further stress residents who have high housing costs and declining incomes.
Finally, Ford’s push to have Toronto’s transit services deemed “essential” won’t stop that gravy train either. It allows Ford to sidestep a difficult labour relations challenge since outstanding bargaining issues will be settled by arbitration. Torontonians are assured of no interruptions in transit service. But at what cost?
Arbitration has proved to be an expensive way of resolving labour disputes. Arbitrators pay little attention to the taxpayer’s ability to pay. They seldom roll back excessive provisions in collective agreements. Instead, they are inclined to layer one compensation precedent upon another.
The 2011 “Sunshine List” illustrates the point. Toronto police constables and paramedics make from $100,000 to more than $130,000 a year, plus medical benefits and a defined-benefit pension. Some firefighters earn more than $100,000.
In all likelihood, an arbitrated settlement with the transit union will bring those grumpy station collectors, some of whom are already earning upwards of $110,000 plus benefits and a pension, to new highs of questionable compensation.
How is Ford’s arbitration solution going to slow the TTC gravy train? It won’t. That’s why the union showed only token resistance to Ford’s essential-service initiative.
Those who depend on the TTC and those whom the city wants to attract to transit will face hefty annual transit fare increases. The essential-service designation will severely limit the city’s ability to negotiate higher productivity and affordable compensation at the TTC.
It’s time to drop the bumper-sticker-bromides and level with Torontonians about the tough choices that lie ahead. The Ford Nation may be slow to realize what their mayor is doing to them. But when they do, expect their reaction to be crushing.
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
"Futures Commission Sweden's challenges"
Alliance in Almedalen: Sweden needs a broad and open to future discussions. Government therefore appointed in the autumn a Futures Commission under the State Minister. Each government has a responsibility to rehabilitate their country - not just for today or the next few years ahead - but for what awaits in the long run. When other countries are forced to deal with economic crises, we can look ahead to 2020 and 2050. The Government will therefore in the autumn to set up a future Commission with the Alliance party leader and independent experts. The work will be led by the prime minister and ending no later than 1 March 2013. Demographics, integration, democracy, equality, social exclusion, climate and environment are key areas for work, writes Fredrik Reinfeldt, Jan Björklund, Maud Olofsson, and Göran Hägglund.
.Sweden is a country that is constantly evolving. Every day we face new challenges to meet and new opportunities to seize. Some challenges require a national response, other global. Some can we influence, other challenges arise in the encounter with the world around us.
Each government has a responsibility towards its citizens to arm his country, not just for today or the next few years ahead, but also for those waiting in the long run. When visiting other parts of our world, not least here in Europe, have to deal with both economic and political crises, we can instead look forward. Then not only the coming years but also to the future, for 2020 and 2050. It is a strength of evidence for Sweden.
The future is shaped by our ideas and the decisions we make now. For that those decisions will be the best for Sweden, the citizens of today and future generations requires a broad and open to future discussions. Even today there is a continuous policy of development with important discussions about the future of our four games. Is needed while a future discussion also in the context of the Alliance and our work as government.
Now we take another step to lift Sweden's future issues. The government will in the autumn to set up a Futures Commission. The Commission shall consist of the Alliance's four party leaders and independent representatives and experts with the knowledge that represents the future of various dimensions.
Futures Commission will be chaired by the Prime Minister and given the task of describing the key societal challenges that Sweden needs to focus on the 2020th By 1 March 2013, the final report will be presented. The results will form a basis for addressing the challenges and map out the path we want Sweden to take in the long run.
Even today we are conducting an intensive reform effort to strengthen the value of work and employment. The Swedish tax burden has dropped significantly, especially for low and middle income earners. Labour market policies have been switched to focus on the activity and conversion. It is easier and cheaper to start and run businesses. Reforms in health insurance, with better support and more ways to return, means that Sweden in the short time left bottom position as the West's most sick country. More people have the opportunity to work to support himself.
The Globalisation Council during the last Parliament opened a debate about Sweden's ability to compete in a global world with international competition. It helped to raise several important issues and highlight areas where Sweden needed reforms for the future.
Education, research, innovation, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship were some important parts in which several proposals now on the verge of becoming reality. Among other things, the government has begun work on a national innovation strategy. We will continue to provide the best possible foundation for work and business so that jobs can become more and more come to the part. We want a cohesive Sweden, where more people have become part of the work community and fewer people are mired in alienation. To create the development potential Sweden needs for the future.
The government's reform efforts and responsible economic policy makes a good opportunity now exists for a comprehensive future discussions. In Sweden we have a great trust between people that creates both security and opportunity for development. Sweden has a well-developed welfare equalize life chances and enable individuals to develop, but also a social climate that creates room for growth and dynamics. While no shortage of challenges. We therefore already highlight a number of areas central to the future Commission's work.
• It is about our demographics, we are living longer and the demands it places on Sweden. Already in 2021 our population is expected to pass 10-million mark. It is mainly the elderly who are more. We have before us a Sweden where one in five Swedish will be over 65 years. It will place enormous demands on our welfare system and our society, how we look at work in different stages of life and what we mean by aging. How we meet this challenge?
• Although integration, democracy and participation are important issues for the future. Sweden is a country where democracy is deeply rooted. While there are many issues related to democracy and participation, where the picture is not so rosy. It's about the young Sweden, where the feeling is of standing on the side. If those in society who feel they have no opportunity to influence their own lives and who may live in an exclusion that has emerged due to social problems or segregation. We have in Sweden has long been also a problem for newcomers to fit in the labor market. To give one more opportunity to be involved in the Swedish social structure is therefore an important future challenge.
• Sweden has a great strength in being an equal society. A good child care and preschool has enabled men and women to participate in the labor market on more equal terms. It not only creates greater personal freedom, but also higher growth and development. Despite the fact that we as a country well advanced in terms of gender equality is also well visible as invisible discrimination, low representation and changing conditions for women and men to participate fully in society. What does it take further steps towards a more gender-equal Sweden?
• The issue of cohesion is about fairness and values of identity and people's opportunities to communities. Despite his wealth, Sweden has citizens who live in very poor conditions. We have long seen a social exclusion emerge where those who are born in a home with small margins and weak roots in society, in turn, could have a child under the same conditions. Among children and young people are those who struggle with mental illness and rootlessness. Addition, we have regional differences that affect people's ability to live and work in Sweden. How we meet this?
• Last but not least, caught many future challenges in matters of our environment, our climate and our quality of life. How can we ensure the sustainability of Sweden, we want to see? Even today, we as a country, a pioneer in this field, while there is more work to do. This is not least on our ability to deal with issues like climate change and resource use. We also need to better develop how we evaluate the work of sustainable development.
In all of this and much more fit the challenges of the future that Sweden has to face. Now that we are filling a future commission is with the goal of deeper open to discussions about future challenges. Our starting point is that a good country to be better. The favorable market now being developed will allow us to grasp the issues of longer-term nature. We want Sweden to face the future with a broad and open public discussion.
.Sweden is a country that is constantly evolving. Every day we face new challenges to meet and new opportunities to seize. Some challenges require a national response, other global. Some can we influence, other challenges arise in the encounter with the world around us.
Each government has a responsibility towards its citizens to arm his country, not just for today or the next few years ahead, but also for those waiting in the long run. When visiting other parts of our world, not least here in Europe, have to deal with both economic and political crises, we can instead look forward. Then not only the coming years but also to the future, for 2020 and 2050. It is a strength of evidence for Sweden.
The future is shaped by our ideas and the decisions we make now. For that those decisions will be the best for Sweden, the citizens of today and future generations requires a broad and open to future discussions. Even today there is a continuous policy of development with important discussions about the future of our four games. Is needed while a future discussion also in the context of the Alliance and our work as government.
Now we take another step to lift Sweden's future issues. The government will in the autumn to set up a Futures Commission. The Commission shall consist of the Alliance's four party leaders and independent representatives and experts with the knowledge that represents the future of various dimensions.
Futures Commission will be chaired by the Prime Minister and given the task of describing the key societal challenges that Sweden needs to focus on the 2020th By 1 March 2013, the final report will be presented. The results will form a basis for addressing the challenges and map out the path we want Sweden to take in the long run.
Even today we are conducting an intensive reform effort to strengthen the value of work and employment. The Swedish tax burden has dropped significantly, especially for low and middle income earners. Labour market policies have been switched to focus on the activity and conversion. It is easier and cheaper to start and run businesses. Reforms in health insurance, with better support and more ways to return, means that Sweden in the short time left bottom position as the West's most sick country. More people have the opportunity to work to support himself.
The Globalisation Council during the last Parliament opened a debate about Sweden's ability to compete in a global world with international competition. It helped to raise several important issues and highlight areas where Sweden needed reforms for the future.
Education, research, innovation, entrepreneurship and entrepreneurship were some important parts in which several proposals now on the verge of becoming reality. Among other things, the government has begun work on a national innovation strategy. We will continue to provide the best possible foundation for work and business so that jobs can become more and more come to the part. We want a cohesive Sweden, where more people have become part of the work community and fewer people are mired in alienation. To create the development potential Sweden needs for the future.
The government's reform efforts and responsible economic policy makes a good opportunity now exists for a comprehensive future discussions. In Sweden we have a great trust between people that creates both security and opportunity for development. Sweden has a well-developed welfare equalize life chances and enable individuals to develop, but also a social climate that creates room for growth and dynamics. While no shortage of challenges. We therefore already highlight a number of areas central to the future Commission's work.
• It is about our demographics, we are living longer and the demands it places on Sweden. Already in 2021 our population is expected to pass 10-million mark. It is mainly the elderly who are more. We have before us a Sweden where one in five Swedish will be over 65 years. It will place enormous demands on our welfare system and our society, how we look at work in different stages of life and what we mean by aging. How we meet this challenge?
• Although integration, democracy and participation are important issues for the future. Sweden is a country where democracy is deeply rooted. While there are many issues related to democracy and participation, where the picture is not so rosy. It's about the young Sweden, where the feeling is of standing on the side. If those in society who feel they have no opportunity to influence their own lives and who may live in an exclusion that has emerged due to social problems or segregation. We have in Sweden has long been also a problem for newcomers to fit in the labor market. To give one more opportunity to be involved in the Swedish social structure is therefore an important future challenge.
• Sweden has a great strength in being an equal society. A good child care and preschool has enabled men and women to participate in the labor market on more equal terms. It not only creates greater personal freedom, but also higher growth and development. Despite the fact that we as a country well advanced in terms of gender equality is also well visible as invisible discrimination, low representation and changing conditions for women and men to participate fully in society. What does it take further steps towards a more gender-equal Sweden?
• The issue of cohesion is about fairness and values of identity and people's opportunities to communities. Despite his wealth, Sweden has citizens who live in very poor conditions. We have long seen a social exclusion emerge where those who are born in a home with small margins and weak roots in society, in turn, could have a child under the same conditions. Among children and young people are those who struggle with mental illness and rootlessness. Addition, we have regional differences that affect people's ability to live and work in Sweden. How we meet this?
• Last but not least, caught many future challenges in matters of our environment, our climate and our quality of life. How can we ensure the sustainability of Sweden, we want to see? Even today, we as a country, a pioneer in this field, while there is more work to do. This is not least on our ability to deal with issues like climate change and resource use. We also need to better develop how we evaluate the work of sustainable development.
In all of this and much more fit the challenges of the future that Sweden has to face. Now that we are filling a future commission is with the goal of deeper open to discussions about future challenges. Our starting point is that a good country to be better. The favorable market now being developed will allow us to grasp the issues of longer-term nature. We want Sweden to face the future with a broad and open public discussion.
Monday, July 4, 2011
G8 summit venue 'ideal' for snipers` RCMP review reveals security hole at last summer's leaders' event
An internal RCMP review says the Conservative government's choice of Ontario cottage country as the 2010 G8 Summit venue offered would-be snipers "ideal conditions" to assassinate a world leader.
It says the hilly, wooded terrain around Huntsville, Ont., featured not only excellent vantage points for gunmen, but covered approaches for intruders, and problematic land and water routes leading in and out of the area.
The 353-page review was released to The Canadian Press in response to an Access to Information request.
It also says the decision to host the G20 Summit in Toronto immediately afterwards "added a significant planning challenge" that prompted a "complete re-examination of the G8 Summit security."
Security for the G8 and G20 events in late June 2010 involved over 20,000 personnel from across the country and a budget of $930 million — the biggest domestic security operation in Canadian history.
Disclosure of the RCMP's security concerns about the Muskoka G8 venue follows an auditor general's report that said the federal government "did not clearly or transparently" explain how $50 million was going to be spent in the region, home to senior cabinet minister Tony Clement.
It says the hilly, wooded terrain around Huntsville, Ont., featured not only excellent vantage points for gunmen, but covered approaches for intruders, and problematic land and water routes leading in and out of the area.
The 353-page review was released to The Canadian Press in response to an Access to Information request.
It also says the decision to host the G20 Summit in Toronto immediately afterwards "added a significant planning challenge" that prompted a "complete re-examination of the G8 Summit security."
Security for the G8 and G20 events in late June 2010 involved over 20,000 personnel from across the country and a budget of $930 million — the biggest domestic security operation in Canadian history.
Disclosure of the RCMP's security concerns about the Muskoka G8 venue follows an auditor general's report that said the federal government "did not clearly or transparently" explain how $50 million was going to be spent in the region, home to senior cabinet minister Tony Clement.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear a human-rights case that could change the way public schools respond to their specialneeds students.
The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear a human-rights case that could change the way public schools respond to their specialneeds students.
North Vancouver, B.C., father Rick Moore, who has been fighting a legal battle on behalf of his dyslexic son and other severely learning disabled children for 17 years, said he was thrilled with the news.
"It's fantastic," he said in an interview Thursday, after hearing the news from his lawyer Frances Kelly. "It's a big day for me."
Moore filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in 1997 when his son Jeff was in Grade 3 at his neighbourhood school and still unable to read. The school referred him to the district's diagnostic centre for help, but the centre was closed for budgetary reasons before Jeff could attend.
Desperate for help, Moore pulled his son from Braemar Elementary and enrolled him in an independent school, despite hefty tuition fees. Jeff, now 24, learned to read, graduated from high school, attended postsecondary school and is employed as a plumber.
In what was described at the time as a groundbreaking decision, the human-rights tribunal agreed that the education system had discriminated against Jeff by failing to accommodate his learning disability, but that decision was overturned on appeal by the B.C Supreme Court.
Later, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling in a 2-1 decision, saying Jeff received as good or better service as other special-needs students in the North Vancouver school district.
But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Anne Rowles said equality of services was not the issue.
"Reading is part of the core curriculum and is essential to learning. The accommodation sought by Jeffrey and other SLD (severely learning disabled) students is not an extra, ancillary service; instead it is the way by which meaningful access to the service can be achieved," she wrote.
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/court+hear+dyslexic+case/5039635/story.html#ixzz1R1PytzKw
North Vancouver, B.C., father Rick Moore, who has been fighting a legal battle on behalf of his dyslexic son and other severely learning disabled children for 17 years, said he was thrilled with the news.
"It's fantastic," he said in an interview Thursday, after hearing the news from his lawyer Frances Kelly. "It's a big day for me."
Moore filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal in 1997 when his son Jeff was in Grade 3 at his neighbourhood school and still unable to read. The school referred him to the district's diagnostic centre for help, but the centre was closed for budgetary reasons before Jeff could attend.
Desperate for help, Moore pulled his son from Braemar Elementary and enrolled him in an independent school, despite hefty tuition fees. Jeff, now 24, learned to read, graduated from high school, attended postsecondary school and is employed as a plumber.
In what was described at the time as a groundbreaking decision, the human-rights tribunal agreed that the education system had discriminated against Jeff by failing to accommodate his learning disability, but that decision was overturned on appeal by the B.C Supreme Court.
Later, the B.C. Court of Appeal upheld the trial court's ruling in a 2-1 decision, saying Jeff received as good or better service as other special-needs students in the North Vancouver school district.
But in a dissenting opinion, Justice Anne Rowles said equality of services was not the issue.
"Reading is part of the core curriculum and is essential to learning. The accommodation sought by Jeffrey and other SLD (severely learning disabled) students is not an extra, ancillary service; instead it is the way by which meaningful access to the service can be achieved," she wrote.
Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/health/court+hear+dyslexic+case/5039635/story.html#ixzz1R1PytzKw
Saturday, July 2, 2011
A plurality of Canadians think the NATO mission in Libya is going badly, and Canadians are split on whether NATO should be there at all, a new survey has found.
OTTAWA - A plurality of Canadians think the NATO mission in Libya is going badly, and Canadians are split on whether NATO should be there at all, a new survey has found.
The Abacus Data national poll, conducted last week, found 41% of Canadians think NATO is right to conduct military operations in Libya, while 33% think it's the wrong thing to do. Thirty-eight percent of those polled believe the mission is going badly, compared to 31% who feel it's going well.
What surprised pollster David Coletto the most, though, is how many Canadians are unsure of whether the mission is right (25%), or how it's going (29%).
"A large portion of the public is not paying attention to what is happening in Libya "¦ And it's not just disengaged young people who aren't paying attention, it's a large number of Canadians of all ages from across the country," said Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data. "If something bad were to happen to Canadian Forces over there, there is a potential for this mild approval to turn sour."
Coletto said he mirrored his poll to an identical one recently in Britain, which found respondents there are far more cynical about the mission.
Older men (51%), Conservative voters (58%), and Atlantic and western Canadians (51% and 43%, respectively) are more likely to support the mission, while Quebecers (37%) are the least likely.
Liberal voters are the least supportive along political lines, with 43% opposed to the NATO mission compared to 25% of Conservatives and 34% of New Democrats. NDP voters, in fact, are split on the issue, with 38% of them in favour of the mission.
"The traditional view of NDP supporters being pacifists and opposed to all military action all the time is no longer the case. This is not the same NDP support base that it once was," Coletto said. "The division along party lines was surprising."
Liberals are most likely to think the mission is going badly (52%), compared to Conservatives (28%) and the NDP (44%).
Since March, NATO allies -- including Canada -- have been enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya and arms embargo, following a United Nations resolution to protect Libyan civilians from Moammar Gadhafi and forces loyal to him.
Gadhafi began brutally suppressing uprisings in Libya after similar demonstrations toppled governments in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia.
Canada has committed six CF-18s to the NATO mission, as well as two air-to-air refuelling aircraft and more than 500 Canadian Forces personnel, and a Canadian general is in charge of the allied force.
In addition to the planes, the Canadian multi-role patrol frigate HMCS Charlottetown and two CP-140 Aurora aircraft -- former Cold War sub-hunters -- are enforcing the arms embargo against Libya on the Mediterranean.
Earlier this month, Parliament voted almost unanimously -- only Green Party Leader Elizabeth May dissented -- to extend the mission until September, and boost financial aid and recognize the Libyan rebels as the legitimate representatives of the people.
Gadhafi has ruled over Libya for more than 40 years. He seized power in a military coup.
The online survey of 1,005 Canadians was conducted between June 23 and 24 and is accurate to within 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
The Abacus Data national poll, conducted last week, found 41% of Canadians think NATO is right to conduct military operations in Libya, while 33% think it's the wrong thing to do. Thirty-eight percent of those polled believe the mission is going badly, compared to 31% who feel it's going well.
What surprised pollster David Coletto the most, though, is how many Canadians are unsure of whether the mission is right (25%), or how it's going (29%).
"A large portion of the public is not paying attention to what is happening in Libya "¦ And it's not just disengaged young people who aren't paying attention, it's a large number of Canadians of all ages from across the country," said Coletto, CEO of Abacus Data. "If something bad were to happen to Canadian Forces over there, there is a potential for this mild approval to turn sour."
Coletto said he mirrored his poll to an identical one recently in Britain, which found respondents there are far more cynical about the mission.
Older men (51%), Conservative voters (58%), and Atlantic and western Canadians (51% and 43%, respectively) are more likely to support the mission, while Quebecers (37%) are the least likely.
Liberal voters are the least supportive along political lines, with 43% opposed to the NATO mission compared to 25% of Conservatives and 34% of New Democrats. NDP voters, in fact, are split on the issue, with 38% of them in favour of the mission.
"The traditional view of NDP supporters being pacifists and opposed to all military action all the time is no longer the case. This is not the same NDP support base that it once was," Coletto said. "The division along party lines was surprising."
Liberals are most likely to think the mission is going badly (52%), compared to Conservatives (28%) and the NDP (44%).
Since March, NATO allies -- including Canada -- have been enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya and arms embargo, following a United Nations resolution to protect Libyan civilians from Moammar Gadhafi and forces loyal to him.
Gadhafi began brutally suppressing uprisings in Libya after similar demonstrations toppled governments in neighbouring Egypt and Tunisia.
Canada has committed six CF-18s to the NATO mission, as well as two air-to-air refuelling aircraft and more than 500 Canadian Forces personnel, and a Canadian general is in charge of the allied force.
In addition to the planes, the Canadian multi-role patrol frigate HMCS Charlottetown and two CP-140 Aurora aircraft -- former Cold War sub-hunters -- are enforcing the arms embargo against Libya on the Mediterranean.
Earlier this month, Parliament voted almost unanimously -- only Green Party Leader Elizabeth May dissented -- to extend the mission until September, and boost financial aid and recognize the Libyan rebels as the legitimate representatives of the people.
Gadhafi has ruled over Libya for more than 40 years. He seized power in a military coup.
The online survey of 1,005 Canadians was conducted between June 23 and 24 and is accurate to within 3.2 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
Friday, July 1, 2011
Why Krista Erickson probably won't get far with her attack.
I really didn't want to give Krista Erickson any more publicity for her childish attack on dancer Margie Gillis.
But in the absence of any analysis of the bigger picture, I thought it was worth wading into this once again.
Don't kid yourself. Erickson isn't doing this on her own. If she didn't have the support of the big boss at Sun News, Kory Teneycke, she wouldn't be attacking public funding of the arts.
Teneycke is a former press secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Perhaps one day, Teneycke will be seen as Canada's equivalent to Roger Ailes—a former Republican propagandist who turned Rupert Murdoch's Fox News into a right-wing political force south of the border.
It's easy to see why Teneycke would go on a crusade against public funding of the arts, rather than raise hell about Harper wanting to blow $30 billion on fighter jets, and then lie about the cost to Canadian taxpayers. Attacking the arts will make the prime minister happy by shifting attention away from more important issues.
But Teneycke has a problem. He's not acting in isolation.
Sun News is part of Quebecor, which is a sprawling media giant that owns printing plants, newspapers (including 24 hours in Vancouver), and a large cablevision company in Quebec.
This gives artists and their supporters numerous targets should they choose to focus their attention on Quebecor rather than on one unimportant broadcaster who's probably just following her boss's instructions.
Look no further than Rogers Communications. It learned a lesson when its stable of right-wing polemicists at Maclean's magazine decided to slap a headline called "Too Asian" on an article about Canadian universities.
Asian Canadians noticed that Rogers Communications not only owned Maclean's, but was also in the cellphone business and operated multicultural television channels. And Rogers didn't want its cellphone business going down the tubes because of a few loudmouths at a relatively insignificant magazine.
Erickson and Teneycke may want to bring the hammer down on arts funding. But if the artists in this country use their imagination, they'll get under the skin of Quebecor boss Pierre-Karl Peladeau, who will tell the hired help to back off.
Peladeau's biggest concern is going to be the share price of his company. That was the same worry that Rogers had after the "Too Asian" article caused such a flap.
Many artists are exceptionally intelligent and creative. If they're in a mood for a fight, they can cause a lot of trouble—even if they're not always flush with cash.
The moment Quebecor starts losing lucrative printing contracts or its newspaper circulation goes into a freefall or there are massive cancellations of its cablevision service, you can be sure that Erickson will move onto a different target.
But in the absence of any analysis of the bigger picture, I thought it was worth wading into this once again.
Don't kid yourself. Erickson isn't doing this on her own. If she didn't have the support of the big boss at Sun News, Kory Teneycke, she wouldn't be attacking public funding of the arts.
Teneycke is a former press secretary to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Perhaps one day, Teneycke will be seen as Canada's equivalent to Roger Ailes—a former Republican propagandist who turned Rupert Murdoch's Fox News into a right-wing political force south of the border.
It's easy to see why Teneycke would go on a crusade against public funding of the arts, rather than raise hell about Harper wanting to blow $30 billion on fighter jets, and then lie about the cost to Canadian taxpayers. Attacking the arts will make the prime minister happy by shifting attention away from more important issues.
But Teneycke has a problem. He's not acting in isolation.
Sun News is part of Quebecor, which is a sprawling media giant that owns printing plants, newspapers (including 24 hours in Vancouver), and a large cablevision company in Quebec.
This gives artists and their supporters numerous targets should they choose to focus their attention on Quebecor rather than on one unimportant broadcaster who's probably just following her boss's instructions.
Look no further than Rogers Communications. It learned a lesson when its stable of right-wing polemicists at Maclean's magazine decided to slap a headline called "Too Asian" on an article about Canadian universities.
Asian Canadians noticed that Rogers Communications not only owned Maclean's, but was also in the cellphone business and operated multicultural television channels. And Rogers didn't want its cellphone business going down the tubes because of a few loudmouths at a relatively insignificant magazine.
Erickson and Teneycke may want to bring the hammer down on arts funding. But if the artists in this country use their imagination, they'll get under the skin of Quebecor boss Pierre-Karl Peladeau, who will tell the hired help to back off.
Peladeau's biggest concern is going to be the share price of his company. That was the same worry that Rogers had after the "Too Asian" article caused such a flap.
Many artists are exceptionally intelligent and creative. If they're in a mood for a fight, they can cause a lot of trouble—even if they're not always flush with cash.
The moment Quebecor starts losing lucrative printing contracts or its newspaper circulation goes into a freefall or there are massive cancellations of its cablevision service, you can be sure that Erickson will move onto a different target.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)