It’s all gone Tom Long

The Star has this alarming story about longtime Tory backroomer Tom Long, whose name has been floated around as the contact man for the job of Executive Director of CBC News.

He works for the headhunting firm Egon Zehnder International, which has been hired to help choose the new CBC President and CEO. And didn’t Tom Long also have something to do with choosing Stursberg? Charlie Angus:

Stephen Harper has been obsessive in his attempt to control, limit and spin the political media of this country. It is unacceptable that he has a key political buddy vetting the resumes of potential CBC news directors.


  1. Allan
    Posted August 11, 2007 at 3:02 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Yes, Tom Long is scary, because he’s quite clever.
    But should he be prohibited from doing business? On what grounds?
    You can’t have it both ways.
    Party affiliation doesn’t matter, and yet for him it does?
    Sorry, that’s life.

  2. Allan
    Posted August 8, 2007 at 6:14 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece


    if that was sincere
    then you may just be the better man
    of the two of us

  3. Allan
    Posted August 8, 2007 at 6:12 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    that is so cool

    did you know I’m also a drummer in Denmark?

  4. phil
    Posted August 8, 2007 at 6:04 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Wow. OK. You got me.

  5. Allan Sorensen
    Posted August 8, 2007 at 5:44 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    … tumbleweed …

  6. Allan
    Posted August 8, 2007 at 4:11 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Notice how phil and the other dork are putting requirements on me that are not to be applied to them?
    What do you call people who write laws like that?

    My blogs are not anonymous, and for people who find my views toxic, they sure take an interest in me.
    How is a blog with only one name not anonymous?
    I’ll tell you two stooges.
    Because I have not hidden my identity, except at the time of the lock-out when it seemed dangerous to stand in the middle of all these masked people like the CBC Drone.
    That Drone guy was beneath contempt, and for all I know still harbours a grudge and is even seen in these parts often using a new disguise.
    Just a simple coward, wanting to be a comic book hero without knowing what heroes are made of.
    They’re made of Rick Hansen, Patrick Watson and Deep Throat, and yes, even charming Ouimet.
    They are NEVER made of someone called Anonymous.

    Anyone who wanted to contact me could easily use their un-controlled-by-boss brain to message me through Ouimet. Her email address is right there.
    As for my blogs, leave a comment if you’re so desperate to see me in the flesh.

    Instead, you guys who can’t think for yourselves and needed the guidance I just offered, are concerned with two things:
    Is he a potential employer or current supervisor or the janitor?
    If he’s Moses. let the ass-kissing begin. If he’s the janitor, let’s shit on him.

    And then of course, there’s the “shut up, go away” approach.
    Neither of you two twerps have been paying attention at all.
    You fail to understand the ethics of Teamakers. You wouldn’t know an ethic if it fell on you.
    Teamakers is unique and wonderful precisely because no one can gang up and force anyone out. And that must drive assholes like you two crazy.
    A place you have no control over, and where your multiple pseudonyms won’t work.
    A place where people can spot an idiot a mile away, let anyone with tricks up their sleeve try but always fail to affect the results they want.
    A community that police’s itself, relying on the few who have intergrity to keep the little tykes from going too far.
    Teamakers isn’t perfect, but with Ouimet’s sincere effort to be fair to everyone (even two weasels) it’s about as perfect as you’re going to see anywhere.

    Almost no one (and I hold that Joe Clark guy in the same high regard as Ouimet) knows what free speech is, let alone that it has limits.
    Everyone who yells free speech seems to think that it means “I can say whatever I want”. Try it in public sometimes and see what happens.
    The other approach is “I would never say this in public or to anyone, but if I can hide my identity I can shoot my mouth off all I want. I can start rumours about other people, knowing that none of it is true, but also knowing that there’s more than one gullible person in town, and then, like pyromaniac, watch with glee as the destruction spreads. Ha! People are so stupid. They deserve to be robbed for trusting so much. It’ll be good for them. I’m helping them. I’ve always wanted to be the one who perpetrated a hoax that made headlines around the world. ‘Cause I’m smarter than the average bear.

    What you are is a criminal.
    What you are is someone who doesn’t like rules. And that honesty hasn’t made you rich.
    So you think, let’s try dishonesty.
    Do you think the world is a better place with you and that approach in it?

    My full name, real name has appeared here.
    And you would know that if you were really paying attention.
    The regulars watched as some self-puffed-up smartie though he could embarrass me and shock me with his google skills, so happy himself that he almost wore my name out. Claiming to be a lawyer. More likely a student.
    Can you believe a lawyer would find time for this stuff AND use a fake name?
    Let’s say, I disappointed him, because I’m proud of who I am, and my name, and the part I’ve played in the evolution of a great blog, one of the best, and everyone knows it, and it’s pretty obvious that some are extremely jealous.
    I have the highest regard for Ouimet and Joe. It’s an honour to be accepted and respected by such a caliber of people. A total class act, every day, month after month.

    But what’s been your contribution, weasels?
    Trash, burn, destroy.
    I wonder if your I.P. address match, or match with a previous post by an identifiable person.
    What’s that? You want to be excused to go to the bathroom, change clothes and shower all of a sudden?

    I’m not asking for the identity of either of two weasels. You’re not people I want to know.
    But I’m ever so curious what excuse each of you can offer for why you chose to to do things this way, with fake names.
    Are you Rabinovitch?
    Of course not. You are little puddles of puke who have no valid justification to hide your names because you really just came here to create mischief, and that’s all.
    Show me one contribution of yours that you thought was intelligent and worthwhile.

    phil, want my social insurance number too, sir?
    do I have your permission to speak, sir?
    when did you write these new rules that are even more restrictive than for a blog that’s “official”?
    Is that my only choice? Name or shut up.

    You really do reveal the inner moron.
    Surely the CBC would never let you pass the screening process.

  7. Allan
    Posted August 8, 2007 at 2:51 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    What does my position have to do with anything?
    Think about that, you two weasels, while I prepare to educate you further.
    I don’t take orders from bullies/cowards.

    Let’s see the depth and courage of you two. Answer my question so that everyone can see where your intelligent and superior thoughts come from.
    What does my position have to do with anything.
    I already know – because you’re afraid of me, as you hide in the bushes shouting your curses and hoping you can control this blog.
    That’s the best think about Teamakers. Jerks like you two have no power here.
    Long live the principles and ethics of Ouimet!

  8. phil
    Posted August 8, 2007 at 3:55 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Allan . . . what horseshit. Post your full name and position, or shut the f#*% up.

  9. my name
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 11:16 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    oh “allan”, using a first name doesn’t make you any less anonymous than the rest of us.

    you have three anonymous blogs of your at last count.

    please shut up. This blog is too important for this kind of shit.

  10. Allan
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 8:50 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Just a litany of insults.
    Anonymous submissions are from the ones who want to do the most damage, and represent the most disreputable aspect of the internet.
    Imagine sitting at a computer and discovering that you can hide your identity within a discussion and choosing to work your purposes with seeming impunity.
    The people I associate with don’t operate like that.
    They have real reputations, and take no joy in ruining another’s.
    They believe in being up-front and accountable for their words and actions.

    I’ll be frank, and tell that I think anonymous bloggers are a hair’s breath away from being criminals.
    And in my Manifesto, it wouldn’t be allowed.

    Come back when you have a real name, and have developed some character and integrity, and then make the statements you insist are so valid and important.
    Ask your Ombudsman or new Chairman if they would ever resort to posting anonymously, and you’ll be able to gauge what a low-life you are by comparison.

    You write your venom on the premise that you have nothing to lose and can’t be harmed.
    Real people have something to lose because they have something of value.
    All you have is your cowardice.
    And you wear it so proudly!

  11. Anonymous
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 4:53 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece


    Take a break.

    Look at the number of comments on your own blogs and ask yourself – ‘who am I really reaching’?

    See, you’ve pulled so much taxi driver shit in the last couple of
    weeks that many no longer care what kernel of intelligent thought your missives might contain.

    No need to reply to this, either. My request is purely utilitarian. It’s tiresome to have to to sift through so much of your writing.

    Reminder — this is NOT a challenge for some carefully crafted reply. It as plea to prolong and enhance the life of this blog.

  12. AlanTdot
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 4:50 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    … thats ‘picking’ the head of the CBC.

  13. AlanTdot
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 4:49 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    To quote Freeman from The Wire – best show on Television – ” The man is a Virus”.

    Tom Long as the Head of the CBC.

  14. Allan
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 3:15 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    That’s what blogging is all about.
    To provide an alternative activity to fill your precious leisure time.
    And to control you.

  15. Anonymous
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 10:50 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Fog cutter is right. I speculate that there is no outrage because there really isn’t much an audience left. There’s not much audience because, well, the shows on television and radio aren’t very good anymore.

  16. Allan
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 9:42 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    A blog a day keeps the psychiatrist away.
    I once heard Dr. Karl Menninger say “a poem a day keeps the psychiatrist away”.
    He taught me an important lesson that night, that I’m still working on.
    He said to me privately afterwards …

    Never be afraid to stand up for what you believe
    UBC, 1989

    He probably says that to everyone.

    (click on the word blog, dimwit)

  17. fog cutter
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 8:52 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Now we’re getting to the crux of the issue; the CBC is slowly but surely being dismantled right in front of our eyes and the pressure is coming from all sides:
    populist/dumbing down programming, info-tainment, pack journalism, “free market” ideology and right-wing politics.

    NONE of these forces represent or defend the people’s right to an equitable, intelligent and responsible national broadcaster.

    Where’s the outrage?
    Not just surprise or concern…the outrage.

  18. Alan
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 8:14 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Go away Allan

  19. Allan
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 6:17 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I’m developing a new show called This Hour Has Seven Days.
    You got a problem with that, Alphonse?

  20. Allan
    Posted August 7, 2007 at 5:44 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    This is the new lockout.
    This is the real deal when it comes to being silenced.
    Tell me that you’ve ever seen anything like what has happened here in the past week, since last Tuesday.
    I’m about to find out what the CBC means when it lays claim to the phrase “high ethical standards”.
    Does the CBC view the public as the enemy?

    I really enjoyed Paul Gorbould’s essay.

  21. Allan
    Posted August 6, 2007 at 9:12 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Even with your supervisor’s permission, it’s amazing the things you can get away with.
    Just look at

    I can’t forsee people being denied the right to blog.
    Getting your supervisors permission is just a formality to alert the CBC that you are writing openly about them as an employee.
    It’s only fair that the CBC has a right to know of, and be able to read, your blog, isn’t it?

    If you lack the courage to tell your superior, then maybe you shouldn’t be taking on management in a public forum and identifying yourself with the CBC.
    You might get Googled.

    And if you have a legitimate gripe with the CBC, you could always approach your union rep.

    Stop laughing.

  22. Allan
    Posted August 6, 2007 at 8:34 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Yes, B.B.
    And there’s a certain T – t – chill in the air.

  23. Allan
    Posted August 6, 2007 at 8:31 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Nothing will ever prevent either of those, as long as just one ethical person exists.

  24. Anonymous
    Posted August 6, 2007 at 9:09 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    There is if it prevents good news reportage or honourable whistleblowing, Allan.

  25. Blistering Barnacles
    Posted August 6, 2007 at 8:26 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    It’s all gone Tao of Tod and all the comments. Sigh.

  26. Allan
    Posted August 3, 2007 at 3:18 pm | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    There’s nothing 1984 about an employer requiring it’s staff to respect the confidentiality of the workplace.
    Good luck, CBC.

  27. Anonymous
    Posted August 3, 2007 at 10:57 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    I note that Inside CBC is reporting on a new blogging policy according to which all CBC employees must get their supervisor’s permission to blog. It’s all sounding eerily 1984.

    Maybe we should cut out the middlemen and go straight to the PMO for sign off whenever we want to express anything.

    Harper’s wet dream.

  28. Anonymous
    Posted August 3, 2007 at 10:55 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Do you mean “whose name?”

  29. Anonymous
    Posted August 3, 2007 at 10:49 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    While the invasion of Reform screwheads seems worrisome … really, how much worse could they do than Bobby.

  30. Nostradamus
    Posted August 3, 2007 at 8:33 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Prediction for fiscal ’08: expect lots of NetPub updates on the tunnel between the TBC and the Albany club.

  31. Dwight Williams
    Posted August 3, 2007 at 7:28 am | # | Reply to this masterpiece

    Uh oh.

Post a Comment

Your email is never shared.

Upload Files

You can include images or files in your comment by selecting them below. Once you select a file, it will be uploaded and a link to it added to your comment. You can upload as many images or files as you like and they will all be added to your comment.

Write for us