Pentax has announced new roadmaps for Pentax K-mount, Pentax Q, and the Pentax 645. Things are looking up for Pentax users.
The old City of Saskatoon website had reached the end of it’s practical life. It was designed by Zu back before these new fangled things called CMS’s existed and when hand coding HTML was a way of life and while they did a great job of it when it was launched, it was coded in part by Microsoft Frontpage 97 (having used Frontpage 97, you can’t imagine how painful that must have been). The City of Saskatoon decided last year to get a new one. After ridiculous comments by city councillors (looking at you Councillor Hill who suggested once that we get a website like Calgary’s for cheap once the prices came down), RFPs, consultations, leaked screen shots, a website promoting the new website, and much hype. it finally launched.
It looks okay outside of some truly horrible font choices. When I say, “okay” I sadly mean that it looks like it was powered by Joomla (which is was). It is a lot faster then the old one but there were some problems. The search feature doesn’t work because someone forgot to upload a new site map to Google Webmaster Tools so all of the old results are there. Instead of forwarding all of those results to the matching pages on the new site, they left them there as dead links.
Most troubling is that not all of the old content made it over from one site to the other. Trimming content from a website is nothing new. Companies do it all of the time. Governments on the other hand rarely do it, even when they change parties. I can find press releases and reports on the Government of Saskatchewan or even Government of Canada website going back to the launch of the internet. Some governments have been aggressive in getting even older stuff online in a variety of searchable formats. It takes time but in some jurisdictions you have access to an incredible amount of historical information and not all of it flattering. Calgary, Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg are all great examples of cities who have large expansive archives that share the good and the bad.
With the launch of Saskatoon’s new website, we have lost a lot of that information. The City Clerk’s portion of the website used to hold the reports, papers, and even articles related to Saskatoon’s history that were accessible nowhere else. The City Clerk doesn’t even have a section on the new site. Old archived videos and council agenda minutes and reports are gone. They are supposed to be uploaded “soon” but why launch without the content that used to be there?
After I wrote Councillor Darren Hill about this. Within a day of that, there was a note say that if you were looking for that information, you could ask the city for it. So I did. I asked for all of it. So far I have been promised that someone will be in touch.
I could ask for it, because I knew about it but if you don’t know about those reports (last year I was sitting down with a City Councillor who had no idea that the City of Saskatoon had benchmark reports comparing us with other western Canadian cities), you won’t even know to get them. That is why you have a city website with all sorts of information on it, so people can browse. It is something that we have lost now and unless City Council puts their feet down, we won’t get it back.
Why does this matter? The City says that people rarely access those reports. They could be right. Maybe it was only Hilary and myself who poured through them (I know there were others) but they were there and gave anyone who cared enough to access them some insight into how the City of Saskatoon was run and the data, rules, and regulations that drove decisions (or in most cases, were ignored by councillors.
That information was commissioned by the City and now isn’t available to be browsed for really no reason. It isn’t 1995. The City of Saskatoon isn’t being hosted on the Saskatoon Free-Net or GeoCities. They have more than a megabyte of storage to work with. Actually if storage is a factor, then the City of Saskatoon has the most incompetent IT people in the world.
Apparently us wanting to look at that information is part of the problem. For long time readers of my blog and my column, I have used that information many times to praise or call out the city and their statements as being inaccurate. I have written many times that I tend to cover Saskatoon City Council as I would a sports team. I want them to do very well but when they don’t, we talk about that as well. If council wants better coverage, do better things. Instead of doing better things, the city is doing more and more to hide what it does. I have said this many times but it is easier to find out what other cities are doing across Western Canada than it is to find out what Saskatoon is doing. So what are we doing that is so secretive?
The reason is that Saskatoon doesn’t care about transparency anymore. It is all spin. The City comes out and spins Standard and Poor’s financial rating report and at the same time tries to refute Phil Tank’s fair summary of it. They do this without publishing the actual report. This is the same City that had attack ads of its own Transit Union after it locked them out. It is the same City Admin that underfunded roads for over a decade and then spent thousands on new decals for pylons that said, Building Better Roads. Press releases went from informative to almost partisan sounding complete with meaningless quotes from politicians and city managers.
Now we have a website that is the continuation of the same thing. It is another tool in spin. It may look good but everything is presented with City Hall’s slant on it. As far as I can tell, everyone on council is fine with it. Why wouldn’t they be fine with it, it communicates one thing and that is that everything is fine in the City of Saskatoon. For those that used data or facts to disagree or point out inconsistencies, well that data is all gone. To get it, you need to go through the city or file a costly Freedom of Information Act.
This is the new Saskatoon. Hope you like it.
Find your favourite photos of Winter and convert them to black and white in your favourite editing software.
- Upload those photos to the Sigma Canada User Gallery
- You are automatically entered to win a spot on our Facebook cover photo for a month and a credit with Sigma Canada for $500.00 towards the camera or lens of your choice.
- Contest is open until February 28, 2015 at 11:59PM.
Check out Sigma’s contest page for more details, rules, and conditions.
The Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), follows a distinctive variety of Islam whose beliefs about the path to the Day of Judgment matter to its strategy, and can help the West know its enemy and predict its behavior. Its rise to power is less like the triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt (a group whose leaders the Islamic State considers apostates) than like the realization of a dystopian alternate reality in which David Koresh or Jim Jones survived to wield absolute power over not just a few hundred people, but some 8 million.
We have misunderstood the nature of the Islamic State in at least two ways. First, we tend to see jihadism as monolithic, and to apply the logic of al‑Qaeda to an organization that has decisively eclipsed it. The Islamic State supporters I spoke with still refer to Osama bin Laden as “Sheikh Osama,” a title of honor. But jihadism has evolved since al-Qaeda’s heyday, from about 1998 to 2003, and many jihadists disdain the group’s priorities and current leadership.
Bin Laden viewed his terrorism as a prologue to a caliphate he did not expect to see in his lifetime. His organization was flexible, operating as a geographically diffuse network of autonomous cells. The Islamic State, by contrast, requires territory to remain legitimate, and a top-down structure to rule it. (Its bureaucracy is divided into civil and military arms, and its territory into provinces.)
We are misled in a second way, by a well-intentioned but dishonest campaign to deny the Islamic State’s medieval religious nature. Peter Bergen, who produced the first interview with bin Laden in 1997, titled his first book Holy War, Inc. in part to acknowledge bin Laden as a creature of the modern secular world. Bin Laden corporatized terror and franchised it out. He requested specific political concessions, such as the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Saudi Arabia. His foot soldiers navigated the modern world confidently. On Mohamd Atta’s last full day of life, he shopped at Walmart and ate dinner at Pizza Hut.
There is a temptation to rehearse this observation—that jihadists are modern secular people, with modern political concerns, wearing medieval religious disguise—and make it fit the Islamic State. In fact, much of what the group does looks nonsensical except in light of a sincere, carefully considered commitment to returning civilization to a seventh-century legal environment, and ultimately to bringing about the apocalypse.
The most-articulate spokesmen for that position are the Islamic State’s officials and supporters themselves. They refer derisively to “moderns.” In conversation, they insist that they will not—cannot—waver from governing precepts that were embedded in Islam by the Prophet Muhammad and his earliest followers. They often speak in codes and allusions that sound odd or old-fashioned to non-Muslims, but refer to specific traditions and texts of early Islam.
To take one example: In September, Sheikh Abu Muhammad al-Adnani, the Islamic State’s chief spokesman, called on Muslims in Western countries such as France and Canada to find an infidel and “smash his head with a rock,” poison him, run him over with a car, or “destroy his crops.” To Western ears, the biblical-sounding punishments—the stoning and crop destruction—juxtaposed strangely with his more modern-sounding call to vehicular homicide. (As if to show that he could terrorize by imagery alone, Adnani also referred to Secretary of State John Kerry as an “uncircumcised geezer.”)
But Adnani was not merely talking trash. His speech was laced with theological and legal discussion, and his exhortation to attack crops directly echoed orders from Muhammad to leave well water and crops alone—unless the armies of Islam were in a defensive position, in which case Muslims in the lands of kuffar, or infidels, should be unmerciful, and poison away.
The reality is that the Islamic State is Islamic. Very Islamic. Yes, it has attracted psychopaths and adventure seekers, drawn largely from the disaffected populations of the Middle East and Europe. But the religion preached by its most ardent followers derives from coherent and even learned interpretations of Islam.
Make sure you read the entire article. It’s a long read but worthwhile.
In the end, they are preaching a form of Islamic fundamentalism where violence, executions, and war is all normalized as a part of a bringing about the end times. Actually it seems more like a cult rooted in Islam rather than just fundamentalism (which when extreme leads to violence no matter what faith you associate it with) Even Al-Queda thought they were over the top.
During the last years of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, the Islamic State’s immediate founding fathers, by contrast, saw signs of the end times everywhere. They were anticipating, within a year, the arrival of the Mahdi—a messianic figure destined to lead the Muslims to victory before the end of the world. McCants says a prominent Islamist in Iraq approached bin Laden in 2008 to warn him that the group was being led by millenarians who were “talking all the time about the Mahdi and making strategic decisions” based on when they thought the Mahdi was going to arrive. “Al-Qaeda had to write to [these leaders] to say ‘Cut it out.’ ”
So this isn’t terrorism even in the way we think of terrorism (state sponsored or politically motivated). It is terrorism driven by a belief in the end times.
Earlier this month, as fighting raged in eastern Ukraine between pro-Russian rebels and forces loyal to the Western-backed government in Kyiv, Dmitry Kiselyov, the pugnacious, middle-aged journalist who heads Russia’s main state news agency, gazed defiantly into a TV studio camera. “What is Russia preparing for?” he asked. As if in reply, the director cut to an ominous backdrop image of an intercontinental ballistic missile emerging from an underground launch silo.
“During the era of political romanticism, the Soviet Union pledged never to use nuclear weapons first,” Kiselyov told the audience of Vesti Nedeli, his current affairs show, one of the country’s most widely watched programs. “But Russia’s current military doctrine does not.” He paused briefly for effect. “No more illusions.”
There was nothing out of the ordinary about this reminder that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to a “threat” to its statehood. Since the start of the crisis in Ukraine, which has massive geostrategic importance for Russia, state-controlled TV has engineered an upsurge in aggressive anti-Western sentiment, with Kiselyov as the Kremlin’s top attack dog.
Last spring, as Washington warned of sanctions over Russia’s seizure of the Ukrainian peninsula of Crimea, Kiselyov boasted about his country’s fearsome nuclear arsenal. “Russia is the only country in the world realistically capable of turning the U.S. into radioactive ash,” he declared.
Why is this happening?
“I wouldn’t take these statements about nuclear war literally,” said Pomerantsev, whose book, Nothing is True and Everything is Possible, dissects the Kremlin’s media manipulation tactics. Talk of impending nuclear conflict is “one of Putin’s mind-benders,” part of what he called an attempt to convince the West that the former KGB officer is this “crazy, unpredictable” leader whom it would be advisable not to push too far.
But the lines between fantasy and reality can all too often get blurred.
“There is always the danger that games somehow slip into reality – you start off playing with these narratives, and you end up stumbling into a real conflict,” said Pomerantsev.
The Kremlin’s masters of reality have uncorked the atomic genie. It is to be hoped they show the same aptitude when it comes to putting it back in the bottle.