Showing posts with label Telegram. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Telegram. Show all posts

23 December 2010

The horrors of democracy

From a recent Telegram editorial:
Those same Republicans are now saying these heroes, many of whom suffer from chronic respiratory diseases, must stand aside until the country’s fattest fat cats get to keep their three per cent tax holiday. 

One could hardly imagine any greater depth of moral bankruptcy.
And from the news:
The US Senate on Wednesday approved a long-awaited multi-billion-dollar health package for emergency responders to the terrorist attacks of Sep 11, 2001.

The legislation was to be passed later Wednesday by the House of Representatives and sent to President Barack Obama's desk for signature. The approval by both chambers of Congress would come on the last day before lawmakers head home for a holiday recess.
Moral bankruptcy indeed.

Democracy is a messy business but as this bill demonstrates, in a healthy democracy parties can reconcile their contending points of view in a compromise that works for all.  In the end, the health care bill passed the Senate unanimously.

The Congress also passed a bill repealing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy that discriminates against homosexuals serving in the American military. And those are just some of the measures passed as the members head off to a Christmas break.  The legislators will be back in January, incidentally, hard at work passing laws and keeping the current administration accountable to the people whose money the government spends.

All that noise  that hurt the ears of the Telegram editorial board is, in fact, an essential feature of any democracy worthy of the name.  It is, to be sure, a very necessary and very natural expression of a thriving society where people can argue about ideas,  have strong disagreements and then find a middle ground that allows everyone to move forward.

Compare to the current goings on in Newfoundland and Labrador.  The legislature sits for a handful of days a year.  When it does sit, as in the eight day wonder just completed, the members spoke about a handful of pathetic bills that did little more than change the punctuation is some straight-forward bills.  They spoke about those bills – debate is hardly the word for it -  with some of the most incoherent speeches delivered in this or any other legislature on the planet.

At the same time, the governing Conservatives are busily working to avoid having any sort of open political competition within their own party for the Premier’s job recently vacated in an unseemly haste by Danny Williams.   These denizens of the proverbial smoke-filled rooms and politicians like Jerome Kennedy and Darin King are afraid. 

They are afraid not only of debate, perhaps, but of their own inability, ultimately, to bring people together.

They seem to be genuinely distrustful of politics itself.  After all, debate and reconciliation, are core features of politics in a democratic society.

Seriously.

The problem in 2001 that Tories are pointing to was not that the Liberal leadership produced differences of opinion.  Those differences exist as a matter of course in every group of human beings. The political problem for Liberals came from the fact that Roger Grimes hard trouble bringing people together on his own team in a common cause.

The Conservative effort to deliver a leader without an open competition will do nothing except point out that the Conservatives not only lack a suitable replacement for Danny Williams, they are desperate not to risk their hold on power.  What’s more, Jerome or Darin or Kathy know that they lack the leadership skills to reconcile the factions within their own party.  Otherwise they wouldn’t stand for a back-room fix.

And in the process, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians should be highly suspicious of whomever the back-rooms boys settle on to run the Conservative Party.  After all, how can the people of Newfoundland and Labrador trust them to bring people together in much larger causes than who gets to head the Tory tribe?

Politics is supposed to be adversarial and the more open the differences the easier it is for people to consider the various aspects of difficult ideas.  Consider what might have happened, for example, had the legislature done what it is supposed to do and forced the cabinet to explain and fully justify something like the Abitibi expropriation.

The job of holding government accountable is not just for the opposition. Government members have a role to play as members of the House.

Newspapers and other media also have a role to play in a healthy democracy.  Usually, the role is to question and to criticise those in power.  Yet instead of showing any enthusiasm for democracy, the Telegram editorial board is slipping into the same anti-democratic way of thinking it offered in March and April 1931.  At that time, the country supposedly needed a break from democracy and the Telegram was all in favour of it.

Simply put:  just as one could not be a democrat and support the imposition of an unelected government in 1931, one cannot support democracy and hold out the recent session of the legislature as anything other than the embarrassment that it is.
 
If, as the Telegram editorial board contends,  the most recent session of the United States Congress is a sign of moral bankruptcy and if  the House of Assembly is a repository of nobility and virtue by comparison, then let us all hope the province is very soon beset by every form of political debauchery the human mind can imagine.

There is, after all, something much more horrible than democracy.

- srbp -

22 August 2008

Welcome to the Hotel California, Hebron version

From the Friday Telegram, two examples of completely loopy comments, namely ones unsupported by fact.

First, the editorial on Hebron which states:

And because the province holds an equity position in Hebron, it will also have the chance to develop expertise in running an oilfield, which means employees won't only be welders and heavy-equipment operators, but will be managers, designers and engineers, too.

Now since the Telly-torialist has been following this project, he or she is aware that the equity interest in the project includes absolutely no management rights;  that is, there are no decision-making rights involved.

If that weren't enough, the managers, designers and engineers will not be employed by the provincial government's Ener Corp subsidiary.  The managers, designers and engineers are employed by the major players or the private sector contractors doing the work.

And if even all that weren't true, the Telly-torialist need only have read a news story which moved late yesterday afternoon and which is a front page story in the print edition of the Friday paper:

The ink has barely dried on the Hebron deal and a change of operators is taking place - ExxonMobil Canada will be the new lead partner among the five companies developing the oilfield.

Managing Hebron is not going to be a job rotating among the interest holders.

Nope.

Chevron was doing that job.

As of yesterday, ExxonMobil is slipping into the lead.

Second, there's a column by Brian Jones, one of the Telly's editors:

The province's political culture has also evolved, along with people's taste in wheels. The offshore oil debate used to revolve around royalties, a word seldom used by politicians in the 1990s. Despite lacklustre leadership, people became aware of the fact that, as owners, the public deserved a better share of offshore oil revenue.

Wednesday's Hebron announcement revealed that the provincial government will rake in about $28 billion, via royalties, taxes and profits.

The government will rake in $28 billion.

No question.

Definitely.

The problem for Jones is that, as he well knows, the $28 billion figure is based on the assumption that from 2018 until the last drop of oil is drained from Hebron, the price of a barrel of oil will average US$115.

With that kind of writing, Pollyanna must be on suicide watch.

Brian needs to check on both the average price of oil over the past 25 years and the typical price of a barrel. Let's just say that the number you come up with in either case is nowhere near one hundred and fifteen bucks.

Perhaps he is thinking the world price of oil will  be expressed in Weimar marks or Zimbabwe dollars, the latter of which has been valued against the American dollar at exchange rates that make the thing literally not worth the paper its printed on.

Such unsubstantiated commentary.

We really haven't had that spirit here since 1969.

 

-srbp-

09 August 2007

In defence of blogs

Who'd-a-thunk it?

The bastion of the mainstream print media in Newfoundland and Labrador leaps to the defence of blogs, specifically the political blogs in the province.

Well, parts of it were more like damning with faint praise.

And those were the parts that tried to discuss blogs generally while really talking about specific types of blogs and not really getting it right anyways.

Ah well, let's save the discussion of blogs and the conventional news media for another post.

For now, let's just note that this editorial - as thankful as bloggers are to see it - was really about an ongoing pissing match between the Telegram and an apparently very frustrated former Telegram reporter who now works cranking out another newspaper from offices on Harbour Drive.

Still, it's fun to read the two offering views on new media. It almost makes for a Sally Field at the Oscars kinda moment.

Well, not exactly.

But you get the idea.



-srbp-