Surely you've heard the lame-ass commercials the Telly is running on VOCM. They feature the voice of one Bill Rowe, former pseudo-high commissioner, author, cabinet minister, Rhodes recipient, provincial Liberal leader, failed Tory candidate and experienced brown envelope tosser.
Bill is back, of course, and while he is soon to start another two-hour afternoon radio call-in show on VOCM, he also has a writing gig courtesy of the in-laws over at the Telly. Bill used to write for the Telly before, back when it was a Thompson rag.
Well, the copy-writer for the radio spot should be tossed out a window somewhere just for the sheer inanity of the stuff that winds up flowing from Bill's mouth.
If Bill wrote it himself, then Nancy Riche had the right idea by just skipping the column altogether last week and hopefully in the future.
Seems Bill has "staggering" insights, now that he has had the experience of living in Ottawa at taxpayers' expense and apparently doing little more than figuring out the OC Transpo schedule.
Well, read today's Rowe column and you'll think Bill's staggering insights have something to do with a 40 of Lamb's.
Bill posits the idea that either Messrs Tobin or Williams could be prime minister of Canada very soon.
Now that all the mainlanders have clicked off this posting, I'll go on for the benefit of the others.
Contrary to Bill Rowe's assertion, Frank Stronach did not pay Tobin $2.3 million in retirement because Frank is betting on Tobin being PM. He paid it out because it was in the employment contract.
Frank and Brian departed company under mysterious circumstances. There are reports, like Greg Locke's. And then there is the cryptic comment in a Globe report here.
Make up your own mind on the relationship between Belinda's dad and The Brian. Let's just say Tobin didn't leave on good terms with Frank.
So that makes Bill's insights staggering only so far as they appear to be poorly informed or the extent to which Rowe assumes his readers count on him for their information about the world. Here's a clue Bill: this isn't VOCM.
As for the spec on Danny Williams, that's almost as laughable as the stuff about Tobin. The only people talking about Danny Williams as a future prime minister are people on Danny's payroll, those who want to be on his payroll, people who used to be, or close friends of Danny's bud Brian Tobin who just want to help out a friend with some cheap publicity.
After all, Tobin is the past master of the speculation story that has a much substance as a helium-filled mylar balloon. Remember the gajillions he supposedly raised and the thousands of delegates he had...right before he bailed out of the Liberal leadership for lack of support? Mainland papers ran those stories from Tobin's agents because they didn't have the facts - Martin was sweeping every riding in Newfoundland and Labrador and Tobin's ham-fisted attempts to get at least one riding onside fell apart due to amateurish organization.
So Danny has learned a lesson from Brian. Big deal.
Bill Rowe has staggering insights alright.
Staggering for the absence of any passing acquaintance with reality.
23 April 2005
and while we are riffing...
Wasn't this the message from Stephen Harper's speech the other night in reply to the Prime Minister?
or might this be an accusation soon to be leveled by...say...Peter Mackay?
Or is this in fact a recording soon to be entered into evidence at Gomery?
Ah well, if you can't laugh...
or might this be an accusation soon to be leveled by...say...Peter Mackay?
Or is this in fact a recording soon to be entered into evidence at Gomery?
Ah well, if you can't laugh...
D'oh! D'oh! D'oh! for Tommy O.
Ok.
As if John Efford hasn't had enough communications gaffes, cock-ups, shag-ups and outright blunders in the past few months, now his health is part of the same litany of Homer Simpson moments.
Those are the ones where you look at the news story and go "D'oh!" cause you can just see the predictable bad results from...well...the sort of obvious, simple thing even a beginner public relations person wouldn't do on their worst day.
Like Efford's comments yesterday that he may not run in the next election due to health. David Cochrane is one of the best reporters in the province. He doesn't screw up big stories like this one. If Cochrane said it, then it's an accurate paraphrase of Efford.
So why in the hell is Efford's ersatz communications director quoted by the company he once worked for, claiming that everything is hunky-dory and that John has no plans to retire? Here's the link to comments by Tom Ormsby, once known to thousands as Tommy O, saying Efford is not quitting and he has no plans to retire from politics. I am seeing Kevin Bacon in the scene from Animal House where, in the midst of the riot, he is encouraging calm.
This isn't just a matter of semantics, Tommy. This is a flat out denial on your part of comments the Minister made directly to a reporter. Got anything on tape to back up your contention?
Meanwhile, the story Cochrane had last night was that the Minister was consulting with his doctors and would follow their advice. Having worked with John myself, I can tell you the rest of the stuff in Cochrane's piece, including the lead, came out of John's mouth as surely as the take-it-or-leave-it thing he now denies.
Denials like that one would be fine if there wasn't enough other evidence on the ground to make a mockery of Tommy's instance that all is well. John has been talking about his poor health for months. He has been complaining to anyone and everyone, including Doug Letto in his piece last year, about the pressures and demands Efford's lifestyle is placing on him.
There's no secret John is not doing well with his diabetes and the stresses of his job.
The fact that he is in St. John's this week instead of being in Ottawa is proof enough he is having a rough time of it. Res ipsa loquitor, Tommy. The facts speak for themselves.
Denials at this point are bullshit.
So why would deny it, Tommy?
It's like Stephen Harper trying to deny he doesn't have his campaign bus waiting and all painted up or that candidate initiation...er...selection hasn't started yet.
Un-frickin-believable.
As if John Efford hasn't had enough communications gaffes, cock-ups, shag-ups and outright blunders in the past few months, now his health is part of the same litany of Homer Simpson moments.
Those are the ones where you look at the news story and go "D'oh!" cause you can just see the predictable bad results from...well...the sort of obvious, simple thing even a beginner public relations person wouldn't do on their worst day.
Like Efford's comments yesterday that he may not run in the next election due to health. David Cochrane is one of the best reporters in the province. He doesn't screw up big stories like this one. If Cochrane said it, then it's an accurate paraphrase of Efford.
So why in the hell is Efford's ersatz communications director quoted by the company he once worked for, claiming that everything is hunky-dory and that John has no plans to retire? Here's the link to comments by Tom Ormsby, once known to thousands as Tommy O, saying Efford is not quitting and he has no plans to retire from politics. I am seeing Kevin Bacon in the scene from Animal House where, in the midst of the riot, he is encouraging calm.
This isn't just a matter of semantics, Tommy. This is a flat out denial on your part of comments the Minister made directly to a reporter. Got anything on tape to back up your contention?
Meanwhile, the story Cochrane had last night was that the Minister was consulting with his doctors and would follow their advice. Having worked with John myself, I can tell you the rest of the stuff in Cochrane's piece, including the lead, came out of John's mouth as surely as the take-it-or-leave-it thing he now denies.
Denials like that one would be fine if there wasn't enough other evidence on the ground to make a mockery of Tommy's instance that all is well. John has been talking about his poor health for months. He has been complaining to anyone and everyone, including Doug Letto in his piece last year, about the pressures and demands Efford's lifestyle is placing on him.
There's no secret John is not doing well with his diabetes and the stresses of his job.
The fact that he is in St. John's this week instead of being in Ottawa is proof enough he is having a rough time of it. Res ipsa loquitor, Tommy. The facts speak for themselves.
Denials at this point are bullshit.
So why would deny it, Tommy?
It's like Stephen Harper trying to deny he doesn't have his campaign bus waiting and all painted up or that candidate initiation...er...selection hasn't started yet.
Un-frickin-believable.
Geez Warren. Use the other "n" word much lately?
Alright, I'll admit, I tried to ignore Warren Kinsella, but sometimes I just can't help it.
It's hard to ignore a phrase like the following that appears on Kinsella's blog yesterday in reference to Damien Penny. Kinsella is linking to a comment Damien made in one of his posts critical of the PM's speech Thursday night.
Don't be surprised about the criticismfrom Penny; Damien links to some assortment of characters called "Blogging Tories". Cons don't like the PM for some bizarre reason. The favourable comment from Warren should be enough to convince you that Kinsella has a head of steam up about Paul Martin and may be rapidly losing any passing resemblance to a sense of proportion or reality.
Anyway, try this on for size:
"Damian Penny, an oft-kooky but not-entirely-dumb Newf lawyer who keeps a blog,..."
A not-entirely-dumb Newf.
Uh huh.
I see.
As opposed to an entirely-dumb Newf.
Or maybe just a Newf.
For the record, Warren, newf is tantamount to calling someone of colour a nigger.
In all my time on this planet, I have never heard the word used by anyone, including Newfoundlanders, where it didn't have an extremely negative connotation. It's closest cousin is "paddy", the perpetually drunken, lazy Irishmen some Brits are fond of ridiculing.
If you don't call black people niggers and you don't call them coons and you don't call Italians wops and you don't call Irishmen micks and bogtrotters, and you likewise never utter the word spick or wog or junglebunny or kyke or hebe or slope or gook, then for the love of decency, Warren Kinsella, do not ever use the word newf or the other version, newfie, to refer to people from the island of Newfoundland.
Yeah, I know that Damien links back to Kinsella and copies the same quote word for word without comment. So what? Maybe Damien's tolerance for crap is stronger than mine. Maybe his anti-Liberal sentiments over-ride his distaste for ethnic slurs, no matter what the context.
Who knows? Who cares?
For anyone who ever had an inkling that Kinsella was worthy of positive attention, think yet again.
Don't expect to see Kinsella linking to anything on my blog, by the way, except maybe to lambaste me.
When he does, I'll know I am in fine company.
It's hard to ignore a phrase like the following that appears on Kinsella's blog yesterday in reference to Damien Penny. Kinsella is linking to a comment Damien made in one of his posts critical of the PM's speech Thursday night.
Don't be surprised about the criticismfrom Penny; Damien links to some assortment of characters called "Blogging Tories". Cons don't like the PM for some bizarre reason. The favourable comment from Warren should be enough to convince you that Kinsella has a head of steam up about Paul Martin and may be rapidly losing any passing resemblance to a sense of proportion or reality.
Anyway, try this on for size:
"Damian Penny, an oft-kooky but not-entirely-dumb Newf lawyer who keeps a blog,..."
A not-entirely-dumb Newf.
Uh huh.
I see.
As opposed to an entirely-dumb Newf.
Or maybe just a Newf.
For the record, Warren, newf is tantamount to calling someone of colour a nigger.
In all my time on this planet, I have never heard the word used by anyone, including Newfoundlanders, where it didn't have an extremely negative connotation. It's closest cousin is "paddy", the perpetually drunken, lazy Irishmen some Brits are fond of ridiculing.
If you don't call black people niggers and you don't call them coons and you don't call Italians wops and you don't call Irishmen micks and bogtrotters, and you likewise never utter the word spick or wog or junglebunny or kyke or hebe or slope or gook, then for the love of decency, Warren Kinsella, do not ever use the word newf or the other version, newfie, to refer to people from the island of Newfoundland.
Yeah, I know that Damien links back to Kinsella and copies the same quote word for word without comment. So what? Maybe Damien's tolerance for crap is stronger than mine. Maybe his anti-Liberal sentiments over-ride his distaste for ethnic slurs, no matter what the context.
Who knows? Who cares?
For anyone who ever had an inkling that Kinsella was worthy of positive attention, think yet again.
Don't expect to see Kinsella linking to anything on my blog, by the way, except maybe to lambaste me.
When he does, I'll know I am in fine company.
22 April 2005
Hearn to head home
CBC News is reporting this evening that the long-rumoured departure of John Efford from politics is just about confirmed.
According to CBC and the ever-informed David Cochrane, Efford is planning to check with his doctors and make a decision this week based on his health. Efford is a life-long diabetic and reports that the long hours and travel requirements of his federal job have taken a toll on his health.
Well, as you have read here before a key part of the whole issue will be the future now of Loyola Hearn. Hearn parked his name in St. John's South-Mount Pearl just to mark time. He never intended to represent the riding for longer than he had to, planning from the beginning to run in the new Avalon riding either without John Efford as the opponent or with Efford severely weakened.
Hearn and long-time political buddy Loyola Sullivan did a ruthless, unprincipled tag-team routine on Efford over the offshore oil issue, aided, sadly, by Efford himself.
Far be it from me to call Hearn either a savage, self-interested opportunist or just plain chickenshit.
Expect Hearn to announce his departure soon to Avalon. If you think about it, that explains Hearn's recent comments about post office closures in his riding.
He meant Avalon.
Not St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
As a lifelong resident of the riding, I will be glad to see the dust as his campaign office shifts back up the shore, where he lives.
According to CBC and the ever-informed David Cochrane, Efford is planning to check with his doctors and make a decision this week based on his health. Efford is a life-long diabetic and reports that the long hours and travel requirements of his federal job have taken a toll on his health.
Well, as you have read here before a key part of the whole issue will be the future now of Loyola Hearn. Hearn parked his name in St. John's South-Mount Pearl just to mark time. He never intended to represent the riding for longer than he had to, planning from the beginning to run in the new Avalon riding either without John Efford as the opponent or with Efford severely weakened.
Hearn and long-time political buddy Loyola Sullivan did a ruthless, unprincipled tag-team routine on Efford over the offshore oil issue, aided, sadly, by Efford himself.
Far be it from me to call Hearn either a savage, self-interested opportunist or just plain chickenshit.
Expect Hearn to announce his departure soon to Avalon. If you think about it, that explains Hearn's recent comments about post office closures in his riding.
He meant Avalon.
Not St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
As a lifelong resident of the riding, I will be glad to see the dust as his campaign office shifts back up the shore, where he lives.
And in the same spirit...
Late on a sunny Friday, it sometimes pays to check out the local news websites.
Like this story, courtesy of CBC, on a stripper who has been charged with committing an immoral act in public. Apparently the young woman, originally from Quebec, employed a sex toy in her stage act hence bringing the local cops to the bar.
Okay, people.
There are a few things here that come to mind.
1. This is not an act that a cop stumbled across on the street. Either they were forewarned or one our finest local citizens observed the event while just happening to be present in the establishment partaking of the alcoholic beverages or merely observing the exotic terpsichorean entertainments offered in a place known as Bubbles.
2. CBC links us to the relevant section of the criminal code. Every story is not merely informative; it is also an educational experience.
3. In the realm of inadvertent humour, there is this comment from CBC relating an observation by the young woman's lawyer, Bob Simmonds. "Simmonds says he has not seen anything like it since he began his career in the 1980s."
Trust me, I will be asking Bob about this on Monday when I see him.
4. This comment raises some obvious implications of its own. Was Mr. Simmonds referring to the allegedly indecent act or the laying of the charge or the laying of the charge for the said act?
5. The young woman has been granted bail with the condition she cannot work at the establishment where the act is alleged to have taken place. She is now out of work. This hardly seems fair. Might she merely have been let out on the condition that she dispense with the use of the said object in her act, thereby leaving her with the means of gaining a living? This makes no observation on the priority of her occupation or of its social implications. I just wonder why someone is effectively being stopped from engaging in her work if she agrees to stop doing what the police say she shouldn't be doing.
6. As I typed this up, Bob was just on the radio doing an interview. His comments are interesting but I fell on the floor laughing as he struggled to describe with a straight and serious face the charges and circumstances.
Sex toy, Bob is a good phrase. Object or item might even be passable. However, the word "apparatus" carries with it connotations of some great medieval device involving steam machinery great gears and a huge amount of noise. One shudders to imagine what occurred if an "apparatus" had actually been involved.
Perhaps Bob needs to pay a visit to a shop just up the street from his office which specializes in presenting a modern attitude to consenting acts between adults. Bob has the right enlightened view but he may find some useful illustrations for presenting his case and reinforcing his argument.
Oh well. It is hard to find fault with Bob. He was speaking during an interview and sometimes simple words fail you in that circumstance. He just defaulted back to lawyer-speak when a perfectly simple and commonly used expression was available.
In fact, had he said sex-toy or even dildo or vibrator, he would have emphasized that the item involved in the charge is found in a great many homes in St. John's.
Like this story, courtesy of CBC, on a stripper who has been charged with committing an immoral act in public. Apparently the young woman, originally from Quebec, employed a sex toy in her stage act hence bringing the local cops to the bar.
Okay, people.
There are a few things here that come to mind.
1. This is not an act that a cop stumbled across on the street. Either they were forewarned or one our finest local citizens observed the event while just happening to be present in the establishment partaking of the alcoholic beverages or merely observing the exotic terpsichorean entertainments offered in a place known as Bubbles.
2. CBC links us to the relevant section of the criminal code. Every story is not merely informative; it is also an educational experience.
3. In the realm of inadvertent humour, there is this comment from CBC relating an observation by the young woman's lawyer, Bob Simmonds. "Simmonds says he has not seen anything like it since he began his career in the 1980s."
Trust me, I will be asking Bob about this on Monday when I see him.
4. This comment raises some obvious implications of its own. Was Mr. Simmonds referring to the allegedly indecent act or the laying of the charge or the laying of the charge for the said act?
5. The young woman has been granted bail with the condition she cannot work at the establishment where the act is alleged to have taken place. She is now out of work. This hardly seems fair. Might she merely have been let out on the condition that she dispense with the use of the said object in her act, thereby leaving her with the means of gaining a living? This makes no observation on the priority of her occupation or of its social implications. I just wonder why someone is effectively being stopped from engaging in her work if she agrees to stop doing what the police say she shouldn't be doing.
6. As I typed this up, Bob was just on the radio doing an interview. His comments are interesting but I fell on the floor laughing as he struggled to describe with a straight and serious face the charges and circumstances.
Sex toy, Bob is a good phrase. Object or item might even be passable. However, the word "apparatus" carries with it connotations of some great medieval device involving steam machinery great gears and a huge amount of noise. One shudders to imagine what occurred if an "apparatus" had actually been involved.
Perhaps Bob needs to pay a visit to a shop just up the street from his office which specializes in presenting a modern attitude to consenting acts between adults. Bob has the right enlightened view but he may find some useful illustrations for presenting his case and reinforcing his argument.
Oh well. It is hard to find fault with Bob. He was speaking during an interview and sometimes simple words fail you in that circumstance. He just defaulted back to lawyer-speak when a perfectly simple and commonly used expression was available.
In fact, had he said sex-toy or even dildo or vibrator, he would have emphasized that the item involved in the charge is found in a great many homes in St. John's.
Weekend creative writing assignment
This spring I started teaching in a public relations program. One of my courses is public relations writing.
So in that spirit, here is your creative writing assignment for the weekend. I'll give you three names, a federal riding, and an upcoming event.
Your task, should you chose to accept it, is to write a brief scenario in which these individuals, the place and the event are linked.
For those who may be reading way too much into this, let me say the idea came from a couple of different conversations I've had in the past week. Political events like the ones in Ottawa always seem to get the political pundits speculating on various scenarios. Let' see how you do.
There is no prize, save the satisfaction of getting the prediction right.
Feel free to e-mail me with your ideas.
Here goes:
John Efford
Loyola Hearn
Loyola Sullivan
St. John's South-Mount Pearl
A federal election called for June 27, 2005.
So in that spirit, here is your creative writing assignment for the weekend. I'll give you three names, a federal riding, and an upcoming event.
Your task, should you chose to accept it, is to write a brief scenario in which these individuals, the place and the event are linked.
For those who may be reading way too much into this, let me say the idea came from a couple of different conversations I've had in the past week. Political events like the ones in Ottawa always seem to get the political pundits speculating on various scenarios. Let' see how you do.
There is no prize, save the satisfaction of getting the prediction right.
Feel free to e-mail me with your ideas.
Here goes:
John Efford
Loyola Hearn
Loyola Sullivan
St. John's South-Mount Pearl
A federal election called for June 27, 2005.
Speaker Hodder: you have two, two last chances
The biggest story of the crab protest in the House is the Speaker's complete inability to do his job effectively. The disorder in the galleries matches the disorder he allows to reign on the floor of the Assembly.
In his windy decision on the points of order over House security Speaker Harvey Hodder reveals a number of interesting things. See the Hansard for 21 April. Here's the link.
This one is a quickie.
1. Speaker Hodder mentions other jurisdictions and their security requirements and fails to mention why they are relevant. They aren't.
2. Speaker Hodder acknowledges the conflict between government and the House over control of access. Penetrating insight into the obvious.
3. Speaker Hodder then pats himself on the back, saying nothing was done improperly.
4. In the best evidence yet that Harvey Hodder is in fact the missing Cardinal Fang from Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch , he gives the people in the gallery the same one last chance to stay quiet he has given them ever single day for the past week or so.
Just before they put 'er up and Harvey closed the House.
Here's what Harvey ignored in order to whitewash himself and the Premier:
1. The Speaker has duty to secure the House and maintain order to allow the House to function properly. Being in Day Eight of disruptions is prima facie evidence of his failure.
2. By failing to advise the House of a security decision in a timely way he violated their rights.
3. By sanctioning the Premier's action,s he has given license to the government to seize control of access to the legislature at any juncture.
4. He mentions entering into an agreement on jurisdiction with the government. Too little too late.
5. The House continues each day to be a disorderly mess on the floor itself.
It is time for the Speaker to vacate the chair.
In his windy decision on the points of order over House security Speaker Harvey Hodder reveals a number of interesting things. See the Hansard for 21 April. Here's the link.
This one is a quickie.
1. Speaker Hodder mentions other jurisdictions and their security requirements and fails to mention why they are relevant. They aren't.
2. Speaker Hodder acknowledges the conflict between government and the House over control of access. Penetrating insight into the obvious.
3. Speaker Hodder then pats himself on the back, saying nothing was done improperly.
4. In the best evidence yet that Harvey Hodder is in fact the missing Cardinal Fang from Python's Spanish Inquisition sketch , he gives the people in the gallery the same one last chance to stay quiet he has given them ever single day for the past week or so.
Just before they put 'er up and Harvey closed the House.
Here's what Harvey ignored in order to whitewash himself and the Premier:
1. The Speaker has duty to secure the House and maintain order to allow the House to function properly. Being in Day Eight of disruptions is prima facie evidence of his failure.
2. By failing to advise the House of a security decision in a timely way he violated their rights.
3. By sanctioning the Premier's action,s he has given license to the government to seize control of access to the legislature at any juncture.
4. He mentions entering into an agreement on jurisdiction with the government. Too little too late.
5. The House continues each day to be a disorderly mess on the floor itself.
It is time for the Speaker to vacate the chair.
The PM
It's amazing the amount of attention a simple seven minute speech can garner.
Over at the National Lampoon, they are so desperate to get out their attack on the Prime Minister that they have left a whole raft of comment available for free including a predictable piece in which the experts they consulted said the Prime Minister's speech was either ineffective or abysmal.
Ok. So some guy who no one ever heard of thinks it was appalling. I'm impressed. I have been in this business as long or longer than at least one of their experts. The Lampoon didn't call me.
I'll save my opinion for a later Post. In the interests of fairness, I'll comment on all the speeches - most media outlets doing "analysis" have focused on the PM. Well, they need to look at the "My fellow Americans" speech as wells the comments by Harper and Leyton to see how they stack up as well.
As Loyola Hearn and the comments I just heard on CBC radio as I typed this: be careful who you accuse of not being able to get stories straight.
The people in your riding are still waiting to hear you get facts straight on things you did 20 years ago.
Over at the National Lampoon, they are so desperate to get out their attack on the Prime Minister that they have left a whole raft of comment available for free including a predictable piece in which the experts they consulted said the Prime Minister's speech was either ineffective or abysmal.
Ok. So some guy who no one ever heard of thinks it was appalling. I'm impressed. I have been in this business as long or longer than at least one of their experts. The Lampoon didn't call me.
I'll save my opinion for a later Post. In the interests of fairness, I'll comment on all the speeches - most media outlets doing "analysis" have focused on the PM. Well, they need to look at the "My fellow Americans" speech as wells the comments by Harper and Leyton to see how they stack up as well.
As Loyola Hearn and the comments I just heard on CBC radio as I typed this: be careful who you accuse of not being able to get stories straight.
The people in your riding are still waiting to hear you get facts straight on things you did 20 years ago.
21 April 2005
Now stop that! It's silly
While looking for a Canadian Press story on a death overseas, I came across this column by Sun defence writer Peter Worthington.
Apparently, Liberals are to be blamed for the purchase of the Upholder class submarines from the United Kingdom.
Ok.
But then Worthy adds a litany of other fiascos, some from the Chretien era and others - much larger ones - from Brian Mulroney to bolster is argument.
And what is that argument? That defence decisions are inherently overly political. Therefore the subs are another reason to vote out the Liberals.
Apparently, this isn't the first Worthy missive against the subs. Here's a letter from a retired admiral from 1997 responding to one of his earlier columns.
Worthy rightly points to the overly political nature of Canadian defence procurement decisions. We buy stuff for reasons other than military necessity or operational requirements. Hunt around long enough and you'll find a paper I wrote a decade or more ago that carried a litany of asinine procurement decisions. They were asinine for a variety of reasons. The chief one was that the item bought was either inferior to other stuff available for the task, took too long to get into the system or was just flat out too costly when other stuff was available that was better and cheaper.
That said, voting out Liberals won't change that. In 1993, voting out the Tories who were responsible for some of the idiotic equipment purchases and a whole bunch more Worthy didn't find worthy of mention didn't change anything. That's because the roots of the defence procurement problem are much deeper than Worthy's superficial appraisal shows.
In order to tackle defence procurement you need to sort out priorities. Figure out the defence tasks, then buy accordingly. Resist the lobbying from interested parties and get the right tools once you have figured out the tasks.
If Worthy took a step back and off the soap box he'd notice the massive changes within National Defence in the past 10 years. New management, and real leadership from guys like Rick Hillier, have given us a much better military force and a solid set of plans to give Canada the defence capability it needs. Oddly enough, that is oddly if you adhere to Worthy's logic, National Defence is actually in better shape now than in was in 1990. I'd say that's actually a powerful reason to keep people like Bill Graham where they are.
Worthy thinks subs are useless. Ok.
Well, a lot of people thought tanks were useless in the 1970s when we bought Leopards, but more to the point today there are people advocating we buy tanks again. Maybe Worthy is among that group pushing for tanks, given his family background. Maybe Worthy favourably quotes the Conservative defence critic because Gordon O'Connor is... wait for it... a former tank guy.
Of course, Worthy forgets to mention that Canada was offered Bradley fighting vehicles and Abrams tanks in 1990 yet the Mulroney government turned the idea down on cost grounds. That sure doesn't fit into Worthy's rant today in which Liberals are to blame for everything including stuff they didn't even do.
But guess what, guys? Tanks aren't needed either.
Let's see Pete write a column that argues against buying tanks.
I am not holding my breath waiting for that one.
Apparently, Liberals are to be blamed for the purchase of the Upholder class submarines from the United Kingdom.
Ok.
But then Worthy adds a litany of other fiascos, some from the Chretien era and others - much larger ones - from Brian Mulroney to bolster is argument.
And what is that argument? That defence decisions are inherently overly political. Therefore the subs are another reason to vote out the Liberals.
Apparently, this isn't the first Worthy missive against the subs. Here's a letter from a retired admiral from 1997 responding to one of his earlier columns.
Worthy rightly points to the overly political nature of Canadian defence procurement decisions. We buy stuff for reasons other than military necessity or operational requirements. Hunt around long enough and you'll find a paper I wrote a decade or more ago that carried a litany of asinine procurement decisions. They were asinine for a variety of reasons. The chief one was that the item bought was either inferior to other stuff available for the task, took too long to get into the system or was just flat out too costly when other stuff was available that was better and cheaper.
That said, voting out Liberals won't change that. In 1993, voting out the Tories who were responsible for some of the idiotic equipment purchases and a whole bunch more Worthy didn't find worthy of mention didn't change anything. That's because the roots of the defence procurement problem are much deeper than Worthy's superficial appraisal shows.
In order to tackle defence procurement you need to sort out priorities. Figure out the defence tasks, then buy accordingly. Resist the lobbying from interested parties and get the right tools once you have figured out the tasks.
If Worthy took a step back and off the soap box he'd notice the massive changes within National Defence in the past 10 years. New management, and real leadership from guys like Rick Hillier, have given us a much better military force and a solid set of plans to give Canada the defence capability it needs. Oddly enough, that is oddly if you adhere to Worthy's logic, National Defence is actually in better shape now than in was in 1990. I'd say that's actually a powerful reason to keep people like Bill Graham where they are.
Worthy thinks subs are useless. Ok.
Well, a lot of people thought tanks were useless in the 1970s when we bought Leopards, but more to the point today there are people advocating we buy tanks again. Maybe Worthy is among that group pushing for tanks, given his family background. Maybe Worthy favourably quotes the Conservative defence critic because Gordon O'Connor is... wait for it... a former tank guy.
Of course, Worthy forgets to mention that Canada was offered Bradley fighting vehicles and Abrams tanks in 1990 yet the Mulroney government turned the idea down on cost grounds. That sure doesn't fit into Worthy's rant today in which Liberals are to blame for everything including stuff they didn't even do.
But guess what, guys? Tanks aren't needed either.
Let's see Pete write a column that argues against buying tanks.
I am not holding my breath waiting for that one.
The TorStar and the Dinner - Kinsella gets correction
Ok.
So I said I wasn't going to post any more on Warren Kinsella and his blog, but I changed my mind.
Two causes, one being an e-mail from a Warren Kinsella which appeared in the junkmail portion of my e-mail and got flushed inadvertently along with the numerous Viagra spams I get. That's what happens to 40 something males - all Viagra all the time. People not on my contacts list get sent to the junk box automatically. I have to go in and rescue them; while I had noted the name on the e-mail a hasty few click disappeared the e-mail.
So, Warren, if you would please resend, I will reply. It's nice to hear from people in general, let alone those I offer opinion on. I guess I am now in the ranks of Giles Gherson and Andrew Coyne, inter alia, solely by virtue of having received the Kinsella e-mail. These guys normally work on a level far above mine.
The second cause is that in checking Warren's blog this morning, he has posted the text of a correction from the Toronto Star about this dinner in Ottawa. Frankly, having neither followed his blog closely nor having the habit of regularly reading Toronto newspapers, I have no idea of the import of this little dinner group. Not everything that happens in Ottawa matters south of the Queensway and east of the river. What happens in Toronto is...well...let's just leave that alone.
Nonetheless, it seems the Star, a Liberal-oriented paper sometimes, shagged up the background on the dinner and hence the implication that maybe Warren has been conspiring with nefarious sorts.
In the "I'll-make-up-my-own-mind" department, I can say that even without reading the Star account from a few days ago, and from what I know of Warren Kinsella from a great distance, he never struck me as the sort of guy who would conspire with Tories or Conservatives just to
slice into the current Prime Minister. he's doing a fine job of making his case with help. The fact that the Conservatives are making use of his testimony is natural; not everything has to be a conspiracy. Sometimes, excrement occurs.
Anyways, I'll just go back to watching my e-mail box for Warren's missive in the interim.
As for you out there reading this, I'd suggest you flip over and check out some of the links Warren has posted for 21 April. Follow the one that leads ultimately to a New York story about Bubba Clinton and Belinda Stronach. Nice smile for a Thursday afternoon.
So I said I wasn't going to post any more on Warren Kinsella and his blog, but I changed my mind.
Two causes, one being an e-mail from a Warren Kinsella which appeared in the junkmail portion of my e-mail and got flushed inadvertently along with the numerous Viagra spams I get. That's what happens to 40 something males - all Viagra all the time. People not on my contacts list get sent to the junk box automatically. I have to go in and rescue them; while I had noted the name on the e-mail a hasty few click disappeared the e-mail.
So, Warren, if you would please resend, I will reply. It's nice to hear from people in general, let alone those I offer opinion on. I guess I am now in the ranks of Giles Gherson and Andrew Coyne, inter alia, solely by virtue of having received the Kinsella e-mail. These guys normally work on a level far above mine.
The second cause is that in checking Warren's blog this morning, he has posted the text of a correction from the Toronto Star about this dinner in Ottawa. Frankly, having neither followed his blog closely nor having the habit of regularly reading Toronto newspapers, I have no idea of the import of this little dinner group. Not everything that happens in Ottawa matters south of the Queensway and east of the river. What happens in Toronto is...well...let's just leave that alone.
Nonetheless, it seems the Star, a Liberal-oriented paper sometimes, shagged up the background on the dinner and hence the implication that maybe Warren has been conspiring with nefarious sorts.
In the "I'll-make-up-my-own-mind" department, I can say that even without reading the Star account from a few days ago, and from what I know of Warren Kinsella from a great distance, he never struck me as the sort of guy who would conspire with Tories or Conservatives just to
slice into the current Prime Minister. he's doing a fine job of making his case with help. The fact that the Conservatives are making use of his testimony is natural; not everything has to be a conspiracy. Sometimes, excrement occurs.
Anyways, I'll just go back to watching my e-mail box for Warren's missive in the interim.
As for you out there reading this, I'd suggest you flip over and check out some of the links Warren has posted for 21 April. Follow the one that leads ultimately to a New York story about Bubba Clinton and Belinda Stronach. Nice smile for a Thursday afternoon.
Fighting on two fronts
Morning news always brings at least one laugh.
Today there were two.
Laugh one came courtesy of CBC Radio and the spectacle of Bernard Landry saying the Charest government was a disaster. Wow. Landry actually has experience in leading completely incompetent governments. Henceforth in politics, instead of "pot calling kettle black", let's all say "That's like Landry".
Laugh two came from the leader of Canada's other populous - but in this case amorphous - mass at the centre the ever popular Dalton McGuinty. Seems young Dalton has hit a wall in his efforts to squeeze more cash from Ottawa. He is now threatening to bruise the federal Liberals. He is threatening them with fighting a federal election coupled with attacks on a second front from Ontario.
During the Second World War, Ontario soldiers training for Normandy were known to have a peculiar habit. When moving through urban and suburban areas, they'd run along, open the gate, turn around, close the gate and enter the yard.
They never thought of just leaping over the fence, given the fear that maybe German machine guns were trained on the gate.
Polite little friggers those Ontarians.
Dalton McGuinty hitting a political wall.
Wind-up walking toy hits wall.
Same thing.
If Dalton wants to start boosting himself in the polls for real, then he needs to act like a politician. Gimme a call. I have a few spare minutes and no fence on my yard.
Today there were two.
Laugh one came courtesy of CBC Radio and the spectacle of Bernard Landry saying the Charest government was a disaster. Wow. Landry actually has experience in leading completely incompetent governments. Henceforth in politics, instead of "pot calling kettle black", let's all say "That's like Landry".
Laugh two came from the leader of Canada's other populous - but in this case amorphous - mass at the centre the ever popular Dalton McGuinty. Seems young Dalton has hit a wall in his efforts to squeeze more cash from Ottawa. He is now threatening to bruise the federal Liberals. He is threatening them with fighting a federal election coupled with attacks on a second front from Ontario.
During the Second World War, Ontario soldiers training for Normandy were known to have a peculiar habit. When moving through urban and suburban areas, they'd run along, open the gate, turn around, close the gate and enter the yard.
They never thought of just leaping over the fence, given the fear that maybe German machine guns were trained on the gate.
Polite little friggers those Ontarians.
Dalton McGuinty hitting a political wall.
Wind-up walking toy hits wall.
Same thing.
If Dalton wants to start boosting himself in the polls for real, then he needs to act like a politician. Gimme a call. I have a few spare minutes and no fence on my yard.
Ed Byrne? Meet Dr. Phil
This was originally written late on Wednesday night, but for some reason Microsoft decided to eat it.
Natural Resources Minister Ed Byrne spoke yesterday to the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association's supplier development forum. That brings a bunch of local suppliers together with oil industry buyers.
Ed's speech - which I didn't hear - included references to having a committee examine the prospects of expanding downstream production capacity in the province.
Now that's big stuff and it did sort of make the news. It wasn't near the top of the line-up in any cast. Over on VOCM, for example, it is near the start of the "other stories" pile under the super-stimulating headline: "Government seeking input from oil and gas sector".
On most casts, it was actually kind of down there somewhere long after the crab protestors and Joan Burke - acting acting health minister.
CBC did cover the story but the website still has some anti- Paul Watson tirade the Premier went on a couple of days ago.
Being the smart little fellow I am, I wandered over to the government news release page for yesterday. There's the media advisory about the speech - sent out the morning of the event. [Aside: Given that the gig was booked weeks in advance and Ed's staff hardly has a jammed up schedule, there isn't much excuse for the late advisory.]
Then there's some stuff from other ministers - oddly no Joan Burke release. [Sing to a well-known Julie Andrews tune: The Xing is alive with the sound of bulls****]
Anyway, back to the government website.
Oh, says me, there's something from Nat Res. Turns out they want some help finding the cause of mysterious fires.
Crimes Stoppers kinda stuff.
Oh. Loook.
Geez, they even included the Crime Stoppers number.
Oh.
aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnndddddd........................ that's it.
No speech.
No release.
Big policy step.
Plank from Blue Book set in motion.
And it merits the attention of a beer fart on George Street.
I must practice a different kind of public relations than government people.
Anyways, after you've followed the links, ponder this.
Given all the things I have posted about Ed Byrne, but especially this one, I think it is time Ed had a Dr. Phil moment:
"Is this working for you, Ed?"
Natural Resources Minister Ed Byrne spoke yesterday to the Newfoundland Ocean Industries Association's supplier development forum. That brings a bunch of local suppliers together with oil industry buyers.
Ed's speech - which I didn't hear - included references to having a committee examine the prospects of expanding downstream production capacity in the province.
Now that's big stuff and it did sort of make the news. It wasn't near the top of the line-up in any cast. Over on VOCM, for example, it is near the start of the "other stories" pile under the super-stimulating headline: "Government seeking input from oil and gas sector".
On most casts, it was actually kind of down there somewhere long after the crab protestors and Joan Burke - acting acting health minister.
CBC did cover the story but the website still has some anti- Paul Watson tirade the Premier went on a couple of days ago.
Being the smart little fellow I am, I wandered over to the government news release page for yesterday. There's the media advisory about the speech - sent out the morning of the event. [Aside: Given that the gig was booked weeks in advance and Ed's staff hardly has a jammed up schedule, there isn't much excuse for the late advisory.]
Then there's some stuff from other ministers - oddly no Joan Burke release. [Sing to a well-known Julie Andrews tune: The Xing is alive with the sound of bulls****]
Anyway, back to the government website.
Oh, says me, there's something from Nat Res. Turns out they want some help finding the cause of mysterious fires.
Crimes Stoppers kinda stuff.
Oh. Loook.
Geez, they even included the Crime Stoppers number.
Oh.
aaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnnndddddd........................ that's it.
No speech.
No release.
Big policy step.
Plank from Blue Book set in motion.
And it merits the attention of a beer fart on George Street.
I must practice a different kind of public relations than government people.
Anyways, after you've followed the links, ponder this.
Given all the things I have posted about Ed Byrne, but especially this one, I think it is time Ed had a Dr. Phil moment:
"Is this working for you, Ed?"
20 April 2005
Mr. Speaker - Do your job (revised)
As I finished off one post and tried to return to productive work, I caught the House of Assembly proceedings and a point of privilege raised by Opposition leader Roger Grimes about statements made by the Premier yesterday on security measures at Confederation Building.
I have already offered the view that Speaker Harvey Hodder has acted improperly here by sanctioning new security arrangements without advising all members of the House.
In listening today to the Premier's comments on the point of privilege, I am going to point out another way in which Mr. Speaker is sanctioning unparliamentary language, the ultimate effect of which is to undermine the ability of the House to consider issues properly.
There is an extensive use by members of various personal pronouns like "you". Before you roll your eyes up in your head, here's the point. It is a long standing tradition to address members in the third person or by the name of their district. The reason is simple: when topics are controversial, there is less likelihood the matter will be sidetracked by ego and temper. Members speak to the chair and address the chair not their fellows directly as a further means of distancing individuals from ideas and issues.
Here are some of the Premier's comments as reported by CBC:
"You want to inflame [the situation] and you want to make it volatile and you want to incite those people who have a livelihood at stake, in the gallery," he [the Premier] said.
"If that's your game, you're playing a dangerous game."
He was jabbing his finger as he said that.
The more the House loses sight of these traditions, the more the Premier and other members point fingers and talk directly to their political opponents, the more the House degenerates into a yakking shop.
Mr. Speaker ought to be clamping down on this. Anyone used to appearing in court should be familiar with the concept. Anyone who has sat in the House for more than one term should already have this stuff in his or her skull.
Every time the Speaker fails to correct members and impose order on the proceedings, the House degenerates.
The genesis of the point of privilege today is actually the earlier failure of the Speaker and the members themselves to clamp down on an unacceptable situation.
Every single measure that has been taken to address the disorder in the public galleries, as innocuous as it might seem to some, or as virtuous as may be the Premier's intentions, has been ineffective and weak. The Premier's response, as I have said elsewhere, actually has the effect of usurping the power of the legislature to govern itself. There was not even the pretense of courtesy in the unilateral imposition of new security measures.
The result is that the response to an attempt to subvert the legislature feeds the disintegration of the House as a functioning body.
The House is becoming a laughing stock.
This only serves the interests of those who already view the House - a fundamental expression of our democracy - as inefficient and ineffective.
If Mr. Speaker was doing his job to the fullest extent he may, the House would not be in the situation in which we find it today.
I have already offered the view that Speaker Harvey Hodder has acted improperly here by sanctioning new security arrangements without advising all members of the House.
In listening today to the Premier's comments on the point of privilege, I am going to point out another way in which Mr. Speaker is sanctioning unparliamentary language, the ultimate effect of which is to undermine the ability of the House to consider issues properly.
There is an extensive use by members of various personal pronouns like "you". Before you roll your eyes up in your head, here's the point. It is a long standing tradition to address members in the third person or by the name of their district. The reason is simple: when topics are controversial, there is less likelihood the matter will be sidetracked by ego and temper. Members speak to the chair and address the chair not their fellows directly as a further means of distancing individuals from ideas and issues.
Here are some of the Premier's comments as reported by CBC:
"You want to inflame [the situation] and you want to make it volatile and you want to incite those people who have a livelihood at stake, in the gallery," he [the Premier] said.
"If that's your game, you're playing a dangerous game."
He was jabbing his finger as he said that.
The more the House loses sight of these traditions, the more the Premier and other members point fingers and talk directly to their political opponents, the more the House degenerates into a yakking shop.
Mr. Speaker ought to be clamping down on this. Anyone used to appearing in court should be familiar with the concept. Anyone who has sat in the House for more than one term should already have this stuff in his or her skull.
Every time the Speaker fails to correct members and impose order on the proceedings, the House degenerates.
The genesis of the point of privilege today is actually the earlier failure of the Speaker and the members themselves to clamp down on an unacceptable situation.
Every single measure that has been taken to address the disorder in the public galleries, as innocuous as it might seem to some, or as virtuous as may be the Premier's intentions, has been ineffective and weak. The Premier's response, as I have said elsewhere, actually has the effect of usurping the power of the legislature to govern itself. There was not even the pretense of courtesy in the unilateral imposition of new security measures.
The result is that the response to an attempt to subvert the legislature feeds the disintegration of the House as a functioning body.
The House is becoming a laughing stock.
This only serves the interests of those who already view the House - a fundamental expression of our democracy - as inefficient and ineffective.
If Mr. Speaker was doing his job to the fullest extent he may, the House would not be in the situation in which we find it today.
Res ipsa loquitor - the Kinsella case
Why would anyone waste any time trying to attack or otherwise malign Warren Kinsella?
Canadian Press is reporting that the intimidation story Kinsella floated to a Commons committee this week is "mysterious". Sheer bullshit would be a better description but that phrase isn't in the CP Style Book list of acceptable journalistic terms.
As CP reports, an individual, identified by CP as Frank Schiller called Kinsella to warn him that the PMO might pressure Kinsella's old boss David Dingwall to issue a statement disavowing Kinsella's allegation.
Well, d'uh.
That doesn't sound like a threat. It sounds like someone passing on a simple prediction so that Kinsella can be properly prepared.
So far, no one has come up with any aspect of this accusation that smells remotely like a threat or intimidation. Hard evidence is non-existent.
According to CP, even the parliamentary committees opposition members are leery of moving forward with anything on the Kinsella accusations because...well...ummm...on the face of it they lack substance.
Again. D'uh.
Meanwhile, over at Kinsella's blog there's the usual stuff he spouts. Today's post is a copy of an e-mail Kinsella sent to a TorStar reporter complaining about the veracity of a story concerning Kinsella's supposed association with a meeting of some group known, most likely, only to its members.
To cut a long post short, here's the last thing I am going to write about Warren Kinsella or anyone like him for that matter:
1. Res ipsa loquitor. Liberals in Ottawa should ignore Warren. He thrives on attention like other people need oxygen. Deny him attention, he dies.
2. Res ipsa loquitor. Everyone else out here should look at Kinsella and weigh what he is saying, how he says it and whether there is any substance to anything. We are smart enough to make up our own minds. Facts speak for themselves. If Kinsella is short on facts, draw logical conclusions.
So overall, let's just let the facts speak for themselves.
Accusations without evidence are merely words.
So far, we are long on Kinsella accusations and extremely short on evidence to substantiate them.
Let's get down to looking at something of substance and let Warren rant on in cyberspace.
I rest my case.
Canadian Press is reporting that the intimidation story Kinsella floated to a Commons committee this week is "mysterious". Sheer bullshit would be a better description but that phrase isn't in the CP Style Book list of acceptable journalistic terms.
As CP reports, an individual, identified by CP as Frank Schiller called Kinsella to warn him that the PMO might pressure Kinsella's old boss David Dingwall to issue a statement disavowing Kinsella's allegation.
Well, d'uh.
That doesn't sound like a threat. It sounds like someone passing on a simple prediction so that Kinsella can be properly prepared.
So far, no one has come up with any aspect of this accusation that smells remotely like a threat or intimidation. Hard evidence is non-existent.
According to CP, even the parliamentary committees opposition members are leery of moving forward with anything on the Kinsella accusations because...well...ummm...on the face of it they lack substance.
Again. D'uh.
Meanwhile, over at Kinsella's blog there's the usual stuff he spouts. Today's post is a copy of an e-mail Kinsella sent to a TorStar reporter complaining about the veracity of a story concerning Kinsella's supposed association with a meeting of some group known, most likely, only to its members.
To cut a long post short, here's the last thing I am going to write about Warren Kinsella or anyone like him for that matter:
1. Res ipsa loquitor. Liberals in Ottawa should ignore Warren. He thrives on attention like other people need oxygen. Deny him attention, he dies.
2. Res ipsa loquitor. Everyone else out here should look at Kinsella and weigh what he is saying, how he says it and whether there is any substance to anything. We are smart enough to make up our own minds. Facts speak for themselves. If Kinsella is short on facts, draw logical conclusions.
So overall, let's just let the facts speak for themselves.
Accusations without evidence are merely words.
So far, we are long on Kinsella accusations and extremely short on evidence to substantiate them.
Let's get down to looking at something of substance and let Warren rant on in cyberspace.
I rest my case.
I spy strangers! - revised
The crab protestors behaviour moved the provincial government today to invoke new security precautions at the Confederation Building requiring visitors to produce picture identification cards of any kind in order to gain entry to the building.
Predictably, and indeed understandably, the Opposition is protesting the move arguing that the change was introduced unilaterally by the government and, in effect, breaches privileges of members of the House of Assembly. The House is located in the building and one must gain entry to the building to gain entry to the House.
No sensible person would argue with the need to provide security for the House of Assembly. Any members of any parliament must be free from intimidation by force or threats of force. Strong action must be taken to ensure that public debate on the floor of the legislature can continue unfettered either by mob or by the Crown.
The crab protestors are being a mob and they must be prevented from taking the House on their back, as the saying goes, while still enjoying their free speech outside the House chamber. By tradition and sensible custom, the only people who speak in the legislature are its elected members and those called before the bar of the House. Everyone else, except for House staff, are strangers and are admitted, not as a matter of right, but as a matter of privilege. When the House is closed for six days in a row because of thuggery, then our entire democracy is being driven by brute force and testosterone rather than reason and sense.
That said, the legislature is in control of its own fate and each member is equal to every other member when it comes to matters of House procedure. The House, as a whole, controls its precincts.
By taking unilateral action to control access to the building which Houses the legislature, the Premier (or the government) has taken the House on his own back. This is as intolerable as the crab protestors' actions, no matter how well-intentioned the Premier might be.
Simply put, the Premier can neither bar nor impede access to the legislature through decree or any action of government without the concurrence of the legislature. It may be within his legal powers, but this is solely by virtue of physical construction not legal ones. He should not be using one power to gain another which he legitimately does not possess.
In his own defence, the Premier said that the protestors were blocking the operations of government or words to that effect. Not so. Government offices are not being affected by the crab protestors. The legislature is. This is a significant distinction. The Premier may be the government or the head of the government, but he is not the head of the legislature. He may be first among equals, theoretically in cabinet. Inside the House he is merely another member with a special seat. He enjoys no special status over the operation of the House whatsoever.
The Premier ought to have brought the matter before the House during the private session prior to the admission of strangers or through the appropriate House committee. His failure to do so undermines the effective operation of the House. It robs members of their powers and in so doing promotes frustration and discontent that may well spill over into other areas as members seek to regain lost influence.
The Commons in Ottawa has descended to a yakking pit largely due to the self-interested action of one or another group; the House of Assembly cannot be allowed to go the same way on purpose or through neglect.
Curiously, neither the Speaker nor the Government House leader have used the standing orders of the House to proper effect.
In some British-style legislatures, the old cry "I spy strangers" by any member was sufficient to have non-members removed from the precincts of the House (including the galleries). Westminster has eliminated this practice. It remains in force in the House of Assembly in Standing Order 22. It would only take one member spat upon or with gum in his hair to cry "I spy strangers". The Speaker is required to immediately put a motion 'That strangers do now withdraw", without debate. If the motion is passed, the House must be cleared of all but its own staff. Since the televised proceedings may be considered part of Hansard the broadcast can proceed uninterrupted thereby giving wider public access to the proceedings than the mere presence of individuals in the gallery.
Under SO 23, though, there is a more pertinent rule. "Any stranger admitted into any part of the House or gallery, who misconducts himself or herself, or who does not withdraw when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House, or any Committee of the Whole House, is sitting, shall be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms and no person so taken into custody shall be discharged without a special order of the House." [Emphasis added]
The Speaker already has ample power to prevent disruptions in the House caused by strangers. The members also have the ability to prevent disruption. Their failure to exercise the powers they enjoy is no excuse for petty bureaucratic efforts that circumvent the privileges of elected members of the legislature.
The Speaker's explanation in today is that he had taken advice from the Sergeant at Arms and other officials such as police. He accepted the idea of requiring picture identification cards of all people entering the building. As he put it in the House: "The Speaker has had consultations with the Sergeant-at-Arms and with the other civil authorities in the last numbers of days, and security to this House and within the parliamentary precinct is, indeed, a concern for the Speaker and for all members in this House.
I want to say to all members, based on the recommendations that the Speaker has received from the Sergeant-at-Arms and from the civil authorities, that there will be a voluntary requirement today for a photo ID. On tomorrow, I do believe notice has been given, it will be a general requirement for all visitors to the parliamentary precinct."
The Speaker is right in saying that security is a concern of all members. However, the standing orders do not appear to delegate to the Speaker the right to make decisions unilaterally on safety and security. To have endorsed the security changes without advising all members is intolerable.
The House has given to the Speaker such authority and power as he needs to maintain order. He needs only to exercise his authority appropriately. He has failed to do so and this calls into question his overall performance in this affair.
Mr. Speaker is historically the chief guardian over members' rights. To take it a step further, by taking any action affecting access to the House without advising all members equally and in a timely way, the Speaker himself has breached the privileges of members. He has taken the House on his back in a way which is even more dangerous than the actions of the others.
I may risk a citation for contempt on this point, but until I have advice to the contrary, I conclude that Mr. Speaker has acted improperly. He should apologize publicly or resign without delay.
For his part, the Government House Leader, when he finally rose to address a point of privilege cited comments made by the former premier, Roger Grimes following 9/11. What Mr. Byrne failed to point out is that the heightened security measures imposed at the time did not include restrictions on the House of Assembly or indeed of government buildings other than that visitors sign into a log book. Mr. Byrne's point is irrelevant and ignores a more substantial failure of the House generally to secure order for its proceedings. As Government House Leader he ought to know better.
It seems odd to me that no person has been thrown in jail over this whole affair and left there legally until the whole matter settles down. Ringleaders of riots used to be identified as "every fifth man"; the same might apply here. Let the lawyers sort it out after order has been restored. If the Sergeant at Arms and her assistants cannot make order, then the police may be called.
One way or another, the House rules must be applied to preserve the proper, democratic and effective functioning of the legislature.
But most importantly, let no one - neither Premier, nor Speaker nor pot-hauler - seize control of the legislature irrespective of the motives.
The legislature is the body of our democracy. Its proper operation is the spine.
Anyone who treats the legislature with contempt and disrespect treats me as a voter in the same way.
He or she ought to vacate its premises, stranger or no.
Predictably, and indeed understandably, the Opposition is protesting the move arguing that the change was introduced unilaterally by the government and, in effect, breaches privileges of members of the House of Assembly. The House is located in the building and one must gain entry to the building to gain entry to the House.
No sensible person would argue with the need to provide security for the House of Assembly. Any members of any parliament must be free from intimidation by force or threats of force. Strong action must be taken to ensure that public debate on the floor of the legislature can continue unfettered either by mob or by the Crown.
The crab protestors are being a mob and they must be prevented from taking the House on their back, as the saying goes, while still enjoying their free speech outside the House chamber. By tradition and sensible custom, the only people who speak in the legislature are its elected members and those called before the bar of the House. Everyone else, except for House staff, are strangers and are admitted, not as a matter of right, but as a matter of privilege. When the House is closed for six days in a row because of thuggery, then our entire democracy is being driven by brute force and testosterone rather than reason and sense.
That said, the legislature is in control of its own fate and each member is equal to every other member when it comes to matters of House procedure. The House, as a whole, controls its precincts.
By taking unilateral action to control access to the building which Houses the legislature, the Premier (or the government) has taken the House on his own back. This is as intolerable as the crab protestors' actions, no matter how well-intentioned the Premier might be.
Simply put, the Premier can neither bar nor impede access to the legislature through decree or any action of government without the concurrence of the legislature. It may be within his legal powers, but this is solely by virtue of physical construction not legal ones. He should not be using one power to gain another which he legitimately does not possess.
In his own defence, the Premier said that the protestors were blocking the operations of government or words to that effect. Not so. Government offices are not being affected by the crab protestors. The legislature is. This is a significant distinction. The Premier may be the government or the head of the government, but he is not the head of the legislature. He may be first among equals, theoretically in cabinet. Inside the House he is merely another member with a special seat. He enjoys no special status over the operation of the House whatsoever.
The Premier ought to have brought the matter before the House during the private session prior to the admission of strangers or through the appropriate House committee. His failure to do so undermines the effective operation of the House. It robs members of their powers and in so doing promotes frustration and discontent that may well spill over into other areas as members seek to regain lost influence.
The Commons in Ottawa has descended to a yakking pit largely due to the self-interested action of one or another group; the House of Assembly cannot be allowed to go the same way on purpose or through neglect.
Curiously, neither the Speaker nor the Government House leader have used the standing orders of the House to proper effect.
In some British-style legislatures, the old cry "I spy strangers" by any member was sufficient to have non-members removed from the precincts of the House (including the galleries). Westminster has eliminated this practice. It remains in force in the House of Assembly in Standing Order 22. It would only take one member spat upon or with gum in his hair to cry "I spy strangers". The Speaker is required to immediately put a motion 'That strangers do now withdraw", without debate. If the motion is passed, the House must be cleared of all but its own staff. Since the televised proceedings may be considered part of Hansard the broadcast can proceed uninterrupted thereby giving wider public access to the proceedings than the mere presence of individuals in the gallery.
Under SO 23, though, there is a more pertinent rule. "Any stranger admitted into any part of the House or gallery, who misconducts himself or herself, or who does not withdraw when strangers are directed to withdraw, while the House, or any Committee of the Whole House, is sitting, shall be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms and no person so taken into custody shall be discharged without a special order of the House." [Emphasis added]
The Speaker already has ample power to prevent disruptions in the House caused by strangers. The members also have the ability to prevent disruption. Their failure to exercise the powers they enjoy is no excuse for petty bureaucratic efforts that circumvent the privileges of elected members of the legislature.
The Speaker's explanation in today is that he had taken advice from the Sergeant at Arms and other officials such as police. He accepted the idea of requiring picture identification cards of all people entering the building. As he put it in the House: "The Speaker has had consultations with the Sergeant-at-Arms and with the other civil authorities in the last numbers of days, and security to this House and within the parliamentary precinct is, indeed, a concern for the Speaker and for all members in this House.
I want to say to all members, based on the recommendations that the Speaker has received from the Sergeant-at-Arms and from the civil authorities, that there will be a voluntary requirement today for a photo ID. On tomorrow, I do believe notice has been given, it will be a general requirement for all visitors to the parliamentary precinct."
The Speaker is right in saying that security is a concern of all members. However, the standing orders do not appear to delegate to the Speaker the right to make decisions unilaterally on safety and security. To have endorsed the security changes without advising all members is intolerable.
The House has given to the Speaker such authority and power as he needs to maintain order. He needs only to exercise his authority appropriately. He has failed to do so and this calls into question his overall performance in this affair.
Mr. Speaker is historically the chief guardian over members' rights. To take it a step further, by taking any action affecting access to the House without advising all members equally and in a timely way, the Speaker himself has breached the privileges of members. He has taken the House on his back in a way which is even more dangerous than the actions of the others.
I may risk a citation for contempt on this point, but until I have advice to the contrary, I conclude that Mr. Speaker has acted improperly. He should apologize publicly or resign without delay.
For his part, the Government House Leader, when he finally rose to address a point of privilege cited comments made by the former premier, Roger Grimes following 9/11. What Mr. Byrne failed to point out is that the heightened security measures imposed at the time did not include restrictions on the House of Assembly or indeed of government buildings other than that visitors sign into a log book. Mr. Byrne's point is irrelevant and ignores a more substantial failure of the House generally to secure order for its proceedings. As Government House Leader he ought to know better.
It seems odd to me that no person has been thrown in jail over this whole affair and left there legally until the whole matter settles down. Ringleaders of riots used to be identified as "every fifth man"; the same might apply here. Let the lawyers sort it out after order has been restored. If the Sergeant at Arms and her assistants cannot make order, then the police may be called.
One way or another, the House rules must be applied to preserve the proper, democratic and effective functioning of the legislature.
But most importantly, let no one - neither Premier, nor Speaker nor pot-hauler - seize control of the legislature irrespective of the motives.
The legislature is the body of our democracy. Its proper operation is the spine.
Anyone who treats the legislature with contempt and disrespect treats me as a voter in the same way.
He or she ought to vacate its premises, stranger or no.
19 April 2005
Warren Kinsella - smelling headlines
Warren Kinsella has appeared in various places where people are looking into actions at the federal public works department. He used to be executive assistant to the minister just before the sponsorship program started but while other actions were going on that have come under scrunity.
Warren's also a dramatic little fellow, with a flair for genuine self-promotion. I am a rank amateur in comparison to Kicking ass, Kinsella's lightweight book of a couple of years ago. That's the book that sits in plain sight on the bookshelf of political poseurs across the country and holds up the outhouse window at the cabin for the rest of us.
Yesterday's Kinsella testimony before a Commons committee looking at polling contracts was vintage. Tons of contrived intrigue. When asked about people being threatened, Kinsella drops in a totally unrelated tale of a mysterious phone call Kinsella claims to have received a mere moments before showing up. The supposed threat? That the caller would disavow whatever testimony Kinsella gave.
No breaking of legs.
No "we know where you live and where your kids go to school."
Nope.
The big threat: "I'll deny everything."
Obviously comparisons the Cons have been making between Liberals in Quebec and the mob are grossly overblown. Can you imagine say a Joe Pesci or a Bobbie de Niro calling up some guy about to rat them out?
Pesci: " Listen you little rat f***. No matter what you say, I am gonna stick my tongue out and blow raspberries.
So if you know what's good for you, you'll stop.
No matter what you say, I'll disavow you.
Calleee: Sorry, I just lost that last bit on the cell phone. Did you say disembowel me?
Pesci: Ewwwww. No. Don't be gross. I said disavow - d-i-s-a-v-o-w- as in deny. As in state words to the contrary."
Hurt me; whip me; call me Warren.
This is the stuff of Monty Python and the Spanish Inquisition not a serious parliamentary committee hearing into supposed wrong-doing.
Cripes, Warren, did you forget the Comfy Chair? Have the Cons got all the stuffing up one end of the Soft Cushion? Where exactly is Cardinal Fang, anyway?
To make matters all that much worse, there were the members of the committee looking appalled that someone would threaten witnesses. I think I heard audible gasps of shock. I'd call the whole thing a put-up job, but even that idea would be too bizarre for Warren Kinsella. It would mean a guy involved in battling separatists had to feed a question to a Blochead in order to whisper his tale of threats.
Meanwhile over at The Source of All Wisdom, otherwise known as Warren's blog, the man is threatening to sue Scott Reid for public comments after the Kinsella performance. (If you didn't see the tented fingers and hushed voice appearing by measures contrite or sincere, as appropriate, you missed a Juno award in the making. Warren's voice dropped to a mere whisper at several points, an old trick to draw in an audience already sucked in by your earlier theatrics and emphasize the melo-dramatic nature of the testimony. Perhaps Warren was conveying genuine fear that he would be "disavowed". Perhaps he was remembering his days treading the boards.)
By the way, Scott's heinous crime was to offer the opinion that Warren was telling lies. Maybe there is a case. We'll see.
I am not sure Warren is fabricating everything he said. Not being tied to either the Chretienites or the Martinites, I can look at Warren without animus. At the end of it all, I found his testimony lacking in credibility and perhaps in veracity. There was sufficient cause to doubt the accuracy of his accounts.
And in plain English: what I heard yesterday was a load of overblown, melodramatic bullshit. A least the bit about threats was bullshit. The rest of it was so burdened by Warren's "interpretation" - coming as a supplicant, for example - that I figure the guy should have written pot-boilers instead of briefing notes.
It got to the point where I could imagine former Kinsella university dates across the country pondering once again how much smaller Kinsella inches seem to be than the ones ordinary mortals use to measure stuff.
Ah well, there is a reason why government buildings are known among Ottawa types as Disneyland on the Rideau.
Oh yeah, and if you scroll down Warren's blog today, you can see Warren denying that he ever claimed he was threatened, slagging anybody connected to the current crowd of Liberals and finally claiming that he actually hates the limelight, like any good political backroom hack is supposed to.
Given Warren's public efforts to avoid anonymity, I find that last Kinsella claim as hard to swallow as anything else.
For another take on Warren, take a look at Damien Penny. The Corner Brook guy who is probably the province's most eclectic and widely known blogger has a set of links to the others who have either taken a swipe at Warren or felt his wrath.
Warren's also a dramatic little fellow, with a flair for genuine self-promotion. I am a rank amateur in comparison to Kicking ass, Kinsella's lightweight book of a couple of years ago. That's the book that sits in plain sight on the bookshelf of political poseurs across the country and holds up the outhouse window at the cabin for the rest of us.
Yesterday's Kinsella testimony before a Commons committee looking at polling contracts was vintage. Tons of contrived intrigue. When asked about people being threatened, Kinsella drops in a totally unrelated tale of a mysterious phone call Kinsella claims to have received a mere moments before showing up. The supposed threat? That the caller would disavow whatever testimony Kinsella gave.
No breaking of legs.
No "we know where you live and where your kids go to school."
Nope.
The big threat: "I'll deny everything."
Obviously comparisons the Cons have been making between Liberals in Quebec and the mob are grossly overblown. Can you imagine say a Joe Pesci or a Bobbie de Niro calling up some guy about to rat them out?
Pesci: " Listen you little rat f***. No matter what you say, I am gonna stick my tongue out and blow raspberries.
So if you know what's good for you, you'll stop.
No matter what you say, I'll disavow you.
Calleee: Sorry, I just lost that last bit on the cell phone. Did you say disembowel me?
Pesci: Ewwwww. No. Don't be gross. I said disavow - d-i-s-a-v-o-w- as in deny. As in state words to the contrary."
Hurt me; whip me; call me Warren.
This is the stuff of Monty Python and the Spanish Inquisition not a serious parliamentary committee hearing into supposed wrong-doing.
Cripes, Warren, did you forget the Comfy Chair? Have the Cons got all the stuffing up one end of the Soft Cushion? Where exactly is Cardinal Fang, anyway?
To make matters all that much worse, there were the members of the committee looking appalled that someone would threaten witnesses. I think I heard audible gasps of shock. I'd call the whole thing a put-up job, but even that idea would be too bizarre for Warren Kinsella. It would mean a guy involved in battling separatists had to feed a question to a Blochead in order to whisper his tale of threats.
Meanwhile over at The Source of All Wisdom, otherwise known as Warren's blog, the man is threatening to sue Scott Reid for public comments after the Kinsella performance. (If you didn't see the tented fingers and hushed voice appearing by measures contrite or sincere, as appropriate, you missed a Juno award in the making. Warren's voice dropped to a mere whisper at several points, an old trick to draw in an audience already sucked in by your earlier theatrics and emphasize the melo-dramatic nature of the testimony. Perhaps Warren was conveying genuine fear that he would be "disavowed". Perhaps he was remembering his days treading the boards.)
By the way, Scott's heinous crime was to offer the opinion that Warren was telling lies. Maybe there is a case. We'll see.
I am not sure Warren is fabricating everything he said. Not being tied to either the Chretienites or the Martinites, I can look at Warren without animus. At the end of it all, I found his testimony lacking in credibility and perhaps in veracity. There was sufficient cause to doubt the accuracy of his accounts.
And in plain English: what I heard yesterday was a load of overblown, melodramatic bullshit. A least the bit about threats was bullshit. The rest of it was so burdened by Warren's "interpretation" - coming as a supplicant, for example - that I figure the guy should have written pot-boilers instead of briefing notes.
It got to the point where I could imagine former Kinsella university dates across the country pondering once again how much smaller Kinsella inches seem to be than the ones ordinary mortals use to measure stuff.
Ah well, there is a reason why government buildings are known among Ottawa types as Disneyland on the Rideau.
Oh yeah, and if you scroll down Warren's blog today, you can see Warren denying that he ever claimed he was threatened, slagging anybody connected to the current crowd of Liberals and finally claiming that he actually hates the limelight, like any good political backroom hack is supposed to.
Given Warren's public efforts to avoid anonymity, I find that last Kinsella claim as hard to swallow as anything else.
For another take on Warren, take a look at Damien Penny. The Corner Brook guy who is probably the province's most eclectic and widely known blogger has a set of links to the others who have either taken a swipe at Warren or felt his wrath.
What happened to conduct prejudicial?
Seems that the soldier accused of deserting the Canadian Forces a few months ago has been charged by the National Investigative Service, after all.
Bravo, tetes de viande!
He's been charged with desertion, absenting himself without permission (that's a back-up in case they can't get desertion), and with theft of government property, namely the laptop with which he absconded.
The news release itself is a little sparse and of course, since the DND site redesign, anyone wanting to find DND news releases has to hunt around for them.
Oh yes, and contrary to the release, the JAG website doesn't have any details of the charges. In fact the court martial calendar that used to be published in the DND site seems to have disappeared entirely.
And for some bizarre reason, the NIS haven't charged the running man with the standard Section 129 charge. That's conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Canadian Forces.
If all else fails, that one might work.
Bravo, tetes de viande!
He's been charged with desertion, absenting himself without permission (that's a back-up in case they can't get desertion), and with theft of government property, namely the laptop with which he absconded.
The news release itself is a little sparse and of course, since the DND site redesign, anyone wanting to find DND news releases has to hunt around for them.
Oh yes, and contrary to the release, the JAG website doesn't have any details of the charges. In fact the court martial calendar that used to be published in the DND site seems to have disappeared entirely.
And for some bizarre reason, the NIS haven't charged the running man with the standard Section 129 charge. That's conduct prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Canadian Forces.
If all else fails, that one might work.
Acting alive will doom Liberals: Harper
In the latest twist in the ongoing election speculation from Ottawa, Conservative Party leader says any Liberal who breathes, twitches, emits any identifiable brainwaves or otherwise acts in a living manner will trigger an election. He said that despite the fact Canadians elected Paul Martin's Liberal party as the national government, only the Conservative Opposition can hijack the operations of government and hold up legislation in the midst of needless election worrying.
Ok. I exaggerate.
But only just a bit.
Looking at the Globe this morning, I can see why Stephen Harper is upset at the Liberal government for re-scheduling the so-called Opposition day in the Commons this week.
But Stephan Harper, the elitist, is quickly discovering that the world does not dance to his tune and his tune alone. In fact, there are some legitimate parliamentary moves the Liberals have to frustrate Harper's efforts to become prime minister without really earning the job.
"If they want to try and govern without giving the opposition a democratic vote week after week after week, I think they are just signing their own death warrant," [Harper] said [in the Globe and Mail story.]
Any time a bill is brought before the House this week, next week, any week, the opposition parties get to vote on it as democratically as possible. In fact, there may well be a couple of opportunities to bring down the government before the Conservatives preferred time-table date of mid-May.
Look at Harper's language though: death warrant. Politicians don't just toss out words by accident. Leaders like Harper pick them. They get fed sound bites - phrases written by someone else and designed to appeal to specific audiences.
So there's Harper and his death warrant. That's the death warrant he's liked to wave these past few weeks as if Harper and Harper alone could execute Paul Martin for unspecified and unproven crimes, political and otherwise. Judge, Jury and Executioner Stephen Harper relishing his self-appointed status.
One of the many problems for Harper, of course is the fundamental clash between what he said about bringing down the government and the intentions that are obviously bringing out the nasty streak in him. Harper said he wouldn't vote non-confidence in the government until the public said they wanted a change. Every single recent poll says Canadians don't want an election by an overwhelming margin. Yet, Harper keeps waving around his death warrant for Martin.
Oh yes, and in a move reminiscent of his arrogance from the last federal election, Harper also has pulled together a transition team to help him take power in Ottawa.
Here's a clue, Stevie, it's our money, just like Preston Manning used to have to remind you every time you whined about having to explain your brilliant economic theories to the great unwashed out here.
and in the same way it is our call, not yours on who gets to be the next Prime Minister.
When Canadians want an election, they'll let you know loudly and clearly.
In the meantime, take off the hood, tell Mackay to put away his axe and get those back-room guys to stop building a scaffold.
Get down to the business of parliament.
And fire the idiot who fed you the line about death warrants.
Ok. I exaggerate.
But only just a bit.
Looking at the Globe this morning, I can see why Stephen Harper is upset at the Liberal government for re-scheduling the so-called Opposition day in the Commons this week.
But Stephan Harper, the elitist, is quickly discovering that the world does not dance to his tune and his tune alone. In fact, there are some legitimate parliamentary moves the Liberals have to frustrate Harper's efforts to become prime minister without really earning the job.
"If they want to try and govern without giving the opposition a democratic vote week after week after week, I think they are just signing their own death warrant," [Harper] said [in the Globe and Mail story.]
Any time a bill is brought before the House this week, next week, any week, the opposition parties get to vote on it as democratically as possible. In fact, there may well be a couple of opportunities to bring down the government before the Conservatives preferred time-table date of mid-May.
Look at Harper's language though: death warrant. Politicians don't just toss out words by accident. Leaders like Harper pick them. They get fed sound bites - phrases written by someone else and designed to appeal to specific audiences.
So there's Harper and his death warrant. That's the death warrant he's liked to wave these past few weeks as if Harper and Harper alone could execute Paul Martin for unspecified and unproven crimes, political and otherwise. Judge, Jury and Executioner Stephen Harper relishing his self-appointed status.
One of the many problems for Harper, of course is the fundamental clash between what he said about bringing down the government and the intentions that are obviously bringing out the nasty streak in him. Harper said he wouldn't vote non-confidence in the government until the public said they wanted a change. Every single recent poll says Canadians don't want an election by an overwhelming margin. Yet, Harper keeps waving around his death warrant for Martin.
Oh yes, and in a move reminiscent of his arrogance from the last federal election, Harper also has pulled together a transition team to help him take power in Ottawa.
Here's a clue, Stevie, it's our money, just like Preston Manning used to have to remind you every time you whined about having to explain your brilliant economic theories to the great unwashed out here.
and in the same way it is our call, not yours on who gets to be the next Prime Minister.
When Canadians want an election, they'll let you know loudly and clearly.
In the meantime, take off the hood, tell Mackay to put away his axe and get those back-room guys to stop building a scaffold.
Get down to the business of parliament.
And fire the idiot who fed you the line about death warrants.
18 April 2005
Province knew about rocket launch on 31 Mar 05
CBC news reports today that the provincial government knew about the Titan rocket launch as early as 31 March 2005. But for some reason that information didn't make it to Premier Danny Williams until 05 April 05, more than a week later.
Officials are said to be investigating the reasons for the delay.
As noted here last week, the problem is a systemic one within government and will need more than a quickie "review" to fix. It involves more than just the supposed delay in passing information to the premier.
It should involve how information is gathered, assessed and acted on. The review should include development of an integrated provincial emergency plan, similar to the ones in Nova Scotia and British Columbia.
In addition, the review should address specific issues that rose during the Titan case. These would include the collapse of public emergency communications on the first day of the crisis in a way that mirrored the collapse on September 11, 2001.
Smart organizations always go through a lessons-learned process after every incident. The one for the provincial government should be much more detailed and has much greater implications than the CBC story suggests.
As for the rest of the story on CBC - the launch delay - there's nothing surprising in that. The delay is caused by technical problems, as we reported here shortly after the initial launch delay.
Expect more.
Officials are said to be investigating the reasons for the delay.
As noted here last week, the problem is a systemic one within government and will need more than a quickie "review" to fix. It involves more than just the supposed delay in passing information to the premier.
It should involve how information is gathered, assessed and acted on. The review should include development of an integrated provincial emergency plan, similar to the ones in Nova Scotia and British Columbia.
In addition, the review should address specific issues that rose during the Titan case. These would include the collapse of public emergency communications on the first day of the crisis in a way that mirrored the collapse on September 11, 2001.
Smart organizations always go through a lessons-learned process after every incident. The one for the provincial government should be much more detailed and has much greater implications than the CBC story suggests.
As for the rest of the story on CBC - the launch delay - there's nothing surprising in that. The delay is caused by technical problems, as we reported here shortly after the initial launch delay.
Expect more.
SBX platform takes shape
A few weeks ago, I posted some information on an X band radar system being built in Corpus Christi Texas, for the American ballistic missile defence program. The SBX consists of an X band radar (Manufactured by Raytheon) and associated facilities being mounted on a semi-submersible platform originally designed for sea-bed oil drilling.
Well, apparently the mating of the topsides and rig have taken place, as this extremely brief story indicates.
Here's a more detailed version, datelined 05 Apr 05. It's actually the complete release from Raytheon as carried by a news release distribution service.
Rather than cut and paste the URL to the photo, here's the link. It's a mighty impressive thing.
Well, apparently the mating of the topsides and rig have taken place, as this extremely brief story indicates.
Here's a more detailed version, datelined 05 Apr 05. It's actually the complete release from Raytheon as carried by a news release distribution service.
Rather than cut and paste the URL to the photo, here's the link. It's a mighty impressive thing.
Tee minus whenever and holding
While the last Canaveral Titan mission (B-30) is on hold, it is apparently going to happen this week.
Since people are still hunting for information - my counter program tells me so) I thought I'd toss up some older but still curious stuff.
For example, this news story (datelined 08 Apr 05 - two days into the crisis) ledes with the oil companies being asked to evacuate by the rigs by government. An unidentified spokesperson for ExxonMobil" says that the rig kept producing as usual at that point, but that the company would comply with any order to evacuate.
Odd thing is that the Canada Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board release, issued on 07 Apr 05, says something a little bit different."The production operators HMDC and Petro-Canada informed the board of their plans to remove personnel, offload crude inventory and shut-in production over the weekend as a precautionary measure as debris from a rocket launch may fall within 15 nautical miles of the Hibernia platform. The drilling rig GSF Grand Banks will be towed out of the potential hazard zone."
The crisis story was picked up with varying degrees of accuracy by most of the major news services including Reuters and United Press International. Here's a UPI story, for example, that made the Washington Times. Here's one that made Agence France Press, albeit in English. Here's a Reuters one that was posted to DefenseNews.com.
Someone should find a decent-sized boat and sell tickets to spend the launch and impact time bobbing around near the platforms, just in case. At the very least there might be a decent light show as the sustainer falls into the ocean - likely up to 100 nautical miles away from the oilfields.
Since people are still hunting for information - my counter program tells me so) I thought I'd toss up some older but still curious stuff.
For example, this news story (datelined 08 Apr 05 - two days into the crisis) ledes with the oil companies being asked to evacuate by the rigs by government. An unidentified spokesperson for ExxonMobil" says that the rig kept producing as usual at that point, but that the company would comply with any order to evacuate.
Odd thing is that the Canada Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board release, issued on 07 Apr 05, says something a little bit different."The production operators HMDC and Petro-Canada informed the board of their plans to remove personnel, offload crude inventory and shut-in production over the weekend as a precautionary measure as debris from a rocket launch may fall within 15 nautical miles of the Hibernia platform. The drilling rig GSF Grand Banks will be towed out of the potential hazard zone."
The crisis story was picked up with varying degrees of accuracy by most of the major news services including Reuters and United Press International. Here's a UPI story, for example, that made the Washington Times. Here's one that made Agence France Press, albeit in English. Here's a Reuters one that was posted to DefenseNews.com.
Someone should find a decent-sized boat and sell tickets to spend the launch and impact time bobbing around near the platforms, just in case. At the very least there might be a decent light show as the sustainer falls into the ocean - likely up to 100 nautical miles away from the oilfields.
17 April 2005
Voice activated - Your scribe goes TV
For those who can access Rogers Cable community channels in Newfoundland and Labrador take a gander at their call-in show, Voice Activated, Sunday 17 April 2005, 8:30 PM to 9:30 PM (rebroadcast immediately following).
Here's the the e-mail from producer/host Greg Locke, with some minor editorial changes:
Aaahhhh, the game of politics.
The election drums are starting to beat in Ottawa. If Martin's Liberal government falls at the hands of the opposition parties before passing Bill C-43, Newfoundland and Labrador will be without its new accord deal and the two billion dollars it thought it had for last month's budget.
The Liberals and the Conservatives are playing a game of chicken and its Newfoundland and Labrador that is the deer caught in the headlights.
Who does your MP represent?
Where do we fit into the Canadian Confederation?
Tactics, strategy and flanking maneuvers, we'll talk about our great game and how Newfoundland and Labrador will fare when the dust settles.
Joining us for this discussion will be:
James McGrath, a former Progressive Conservative member of parliament, Federal fisheries minister in Joe Clark's government and a former lieutenant governor of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Nancy Riche, long time NDPer and labour organizer. She was the secretary-treasurer and executive vice president of the Canadian Labour Congress representing 2.3 million members across Canada.
Ed Hollett, principal of Gryphon Public Affairs, a public policy consulting firm in St. John's. Ed was also special assistant to Premier Clyde Wells from 1989-1996.
It's a call-in show and who the hell wants the three of us blathering for an hour all by ourselves?
Here's the the e-mail from producer/host Greg Locke, with some minor editorial changes:
Aaahhhh, the game of politics.
The election drums are starting to beat in Ottawa. If Martin's Liberal government falls at the hands of the opposition parties before passing Bill C-43, Newfoundland and Labrador will be without its new accord deal and the two billion dollars it thought it had for last month's budget.
The Liberals and the Conservatives are playing a game of chicken and its Newfoundland and Labrador that is the deer caught in the headlights.
Who does your MP represent?
Where do we fit into the Canadian Confederation?
Tactics, strategy and flanking maneuvers, we'll talk about our great game and how Newfoundland and Labrador will fare when the dust settles.
Joining us for this discussion will be:
James McGrath, a former Progressive Conservative member of parliament, Federal fisheries minister in Joe Clark's government and a former lieutenant governor of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Nancy Riche, long time NDPer and labour organizer. She was the secretary-treasurer and executive vice president of the Canadian Labour Congress representing 2.3 million members across Canada.
Ed Hollett, principal of Gryphon Public Affairs, a public policy consulting firm in St. John's. Ed was also special assistant to Premier Clyde Wells from 1989-1996.
-30-
Break out the popcorn and get on the telephone.It's a call-in show and who the hell wants the three of us blathering for an hour all by ourselves?
16 April 2005
Does there have to be an election?
In the simplest answer, no there doesn't have to be an election just because a minority government loses a vote of confidence..
At least, not in the British parliamentary tradition which Canada follows there doesn't.
If Stephen Harper's personal ambition gets the better of him very soon, he may think he is forcing an election to win a majority government, but he might not be. I say personal ambition by the way because Canadians do say two things in every single poll taken recently: one - they think Paul Martin is a better PM than Harper and two - they don't want an election by a huge margin.
In a minority parliament, indeed in any parliament, the Governor General may ask the leader of any party in the House to see if he or she can find its confidence. By custom, next in line after Martin would Harper.
So If the government is defeated soon on a budget bill or confidence motion, young Mr. Harper may find himself on the way to Rideau Hall with the offer he wants: form a government.
What to do?
Well according CTV this morning, Harper things that idea is a bit unlikely. "Asked about this prospect Friday, Harper sounded dubious. "That would be feasible only under extraordinary circumstances," he told reporters.
That scenario, says [CTV Ottawa bureau chief Robert] Fife, is "not very likely given the poll numbers -- I think the answer would be a resounding no."
The poll numbers have nothing to do with it, Bob. And if they did, they would support a Harper minority as easily as anything else. The public may wish for a changed of administration without going through the expense of an election. In the current setting they can have that. Have it, that is, if Mr. Harper and his Conservatives are actually democratic enough to follow the will of the people.
See that's the underlying thing about Stephen Harper, the academic/intellectual cum political leader. He isn't really a democrat. He's an elitist. When he says that he has to prop up this government until the people want something else, what he means is this: I'll stay here until you people get the point that I want to be PM with a majority government. He means he'll hang around until the rest of us agree with his opinion. In the meantime, he and the media will bombard everyone with speculation about the imminent fall of the government and the election that must follow.
Problem is, both the media and Harper have it dead wrong.
Martin and the Liberals may get defeated in the House.
But that doesn't mean an automatic election.
Nope.
Maybe the experience of being a minority PM would help Harper's perspective. Canadians have already given him his marching orders and they keep doing it in opinion polls: stop shagging around Steve and learn to play well with others.
We don't really care that you want a majority government. You're supposed to be in Ottawa passing legislation rather than in Cambridge learning how to press shirts in some dorky campaign photo-op.
Democracy isn't real about what you want, Steve.
It's about what the voters want.
and, as Preston Manning reminded you once, that's because it's our money.
Democracy, like payback, can be a mother, Steve.
Suck it up and get down to work.
Oh yeah:
Easy on the starch.
At least, not in the British parliamentary tradition which Canada follows there doesn't.
If Stephen Harper's personal ambition gets the better of him very soon, he may think he is forcing an election to win a majority government, but he might not be. I say personal ambition by the way because Canadians do say two things in every single poll taken recently: one - they think Paul Martin is a better PM than Harper and two - they don't want an election by a huge margin.
In a minority parliament, indeed in any parliament, the Governor General may ask the leader of any party in the House to see if he or she can find its confidence. By custom, next in line after Martin would Harper.
So If the government is defeated soon on a budget bill or confidence motion, young Mr. Harper may find himself on the way to Rideau Hall with the offer he wants: form a government.
What to do?
Well according CTV this morning, Harper things that idea is a bit unlikely. "Asked about this prospect Friday, Harper sounded dubious. "That would be feasible only under extraordinary circumstances," he told reporters.
That scenario, says [CTV Ottawa bureau chief Robert] Fife, is "not very likely given the poll numbers -- I think the answer would be a resounding no."
The poll numbers have nothing to do with it, Bob. And if they did, they would support a Harper minority as easily as anything else. The public may wish for a changed of administration without going through the expense of an election. In the current setting they can have that. Have it, that is, if Mr. Harper and his Conservatives are actually democratic enough to follow the will of the people.
See that's the underlying thing about Stephen Harper, the academic/intellectual cum political leader. He isn't really a democrat. He's an elitist. When he says that he has to prop up this government until the people want something else, what he means is this: I'll stay here until you people get the point that I want to be PM with a majority government. He means he'll hang around until the rest of us agree with his opinion. In the meantime, he and the media will bombard everyone with speculation about the imminent fall of the government and the election that must follow.
Problem is, both the media and Harper have it dead wrong.
Martin and the Liberals may get defeated in the House.
But that doesn't mean an automatic election.
Nope.
Maybe the experience of being a minority PM would help Harper's perspective. Canadians have already given him his marching orders and they keep doing it in opinion polls: stop shagging around Steve and learn to play well with others.
We don't really care that you want a majority government. You're supposed to be in Ottawa passing legislation rather than in Cambridge learning how to press shirts in some dorky campaign photo-op.
Democracy isn't real about what you want, Steve.
It's about what the voters want.
and, as Preston Manning reminded you once, that's because it's our money.
Democracy, like payback, can be a mother, Steve.
Suck it up and get down to work.
Oh yeah:
Easy on the starch.
15 April 2005
Is Loyola Hearn changing seats?
It's always entertaining when Loyola Hearn, the absentee member of parliament for St. John's South-Mount Pearl speaks up for his constituents.
VOCM has him this evening complaining about plans to close 86 rural post offices in Newfoundland and Labrador.
1. What are the odds that none of the post offices on the list are in his riding?
2. What are the odds some of the offices on the list are close to his home in Renews, about two hours drive south of his riding?
3. What are the odds that most of the post offices on the list are ones where the population it serves has dropped dramatically such that there is less of a demand for service or that there might be other ways to deliver mail and keep up the level of service without an actual Canada Post postal office?
4. What are the odds says Loyola is pumping this one because there is a rumour of an election?
But here's one that is a 100% guarantee:
Loyola Hearn isn't jumping up and down to get his own party to vote for millions of dollars in cash for the cities and the people that actually are in his current riding.
So therefore, I ask:
5. What are the odds Loyola won't be standing for election in St. John's South-Mount Pearl in the next federal election?
VOCM has him this evening complaining about plans to close 86 rural post offices in Newfoundland and Labrador.
1. What are the odds that none of the post offices on the list are in his riding?
2. What are the odds some of the offices on the list are close to his home in Renews, about two hours drive south of his riding?
3. What are the odds that most of the post offices on the list are ones where the population it serves has dropped dramatically such that there is less of a demand for service or that there might be other ways to deliver mail and keep up the level of service without an actual Canada Post postal office?
4. What are the odds says Loyola is pumping this one because there is a rumour of an election?
But here's one that is a 100% guarantee:
Loyola Hearn isn't jumping up and down to get his own party to vote for millions of dollars in cash for the cities and the people that actually are in his current riding.
So therefore, I ask:
5. What are the odds Loyola won't be standing for election in St. John's South-Mount Pearl in the next federal election?
Rocket Man - The Movie and other loose ends
Ironic given the recent flap, Newfoundland and Labrador has played a key role in Titan missile launches from Florida through a communications relay point in Argentia. The site was built in 1993 and continues operation as part of the Florida missile launch complex's range instrumentation system.
That system allows continuous communications with the launch vehicle. In the event of any problems with the launch, data from Argentia would allow the launch controllers to make a decision about destroying the rocket and payload.
and now for the trivia...
Ok, so maybe some of you are growing tired of the whole Titan 4B launch story, but as a guy who grew up when men on rockets were going to the moon, there is something about the whole thing that still captures my imagination.
The movie: Here is a link to NASA and some footage (no audio) in mpg format from the night launch of the Cassini probe. This launch used a Titan 4B and it is damned impressive. For those who may have missed it, the B-30 mission that caused such a fuss here this past week will be a night launch.
Note especially that towards the end of this clip, there is a bit of a flash. That is the solid fuel boosters separating a mere two minutes into the flight, on schedule. They drop back to the ocean. The payload is then taken to orbit by the sustainer, a liquid fueled vehicle based on the old Titan intercontinental ballistic missile.
The impact: I still haven't been able to confirm whether or not that sustainer breaks up on re-entry or lands intact. One source I'd trust has it that the thing comes down in one piece. That's actually better than bits and pieces, since there is an even higher level of confidence in where one big piece will go, as opposed to a bunch of little ones.
Personally, in that scenario, I'd still think there is almost no chance of any kind of explosion form whatever fuel remains on board, if any.
Tracking ships and launch monitoring: Having invested a lot of money into the rockets and the payloads, and as part of an overall monitoring system, the United States operates a number of missile tracking ships in the Atlantic and Pacific that spend their time down range during a launch gathering data. They feed back to the launch control centre so that there is never a time when the launch authorities don't know what is going on. It's part of the overall safety program to ensure launches are safe and that in the event of a problem, accurate information is flowing back to Florida in case the rocket must be destroyed in flight.
Here's one link. Scroll down to see all the vessel types. If memory serves, Observation Island was one of the ships I visited in the early 80s when it and another vessel, the Range Sentinel, were open to public tours during a port call.
Here's a link that discusses revitalization of launch facilities in Florida. "The USNS Redstone was deactivated on 6 August 1993, but a new range site was completed in Argentia, Newfoundland in June 1993 to support northbound flights of the TITAN IV from Cape Canaveral." [Emphasis added]
I'll have to check to see if this site is still active. Have a read through this history though; it gives tons of useful information on operations at Canaveral including range monitoring.
I also found a Powerpoint presentation from the late 1990s on command and control issues related to re-invigoration of the Canaveral launch complexes. It includes a prominent mention of Argentia and the so-called high-inclination launches. US NAVFAC Argentia closed in the early 1990s so odds are high as I write this that the Titan related site remained active for some time afterward and may still be there working busily away.
Update:
Further searching turned up the name of a company that provides communications support to Canaveral under contract. It's current corporate information package includes work at a site in Argentina, Newfoundland.
Just for the heck of it, here's a link to photos of the Island and a tiny bit of Labrador taken from STS-96. Kinda hard not to get a little awestruck at the beauty of the Earth from space. I feel a Tom Hanks moment coming on our voyage from the Earth to the moon.
If anyone out there is old enough to remember, there used to be a tracking and communications station at Shoe Cove used for the Apollo and Apollo-Soyuz programs in the 1970s. There's not much left but here is a link to some pictures of the Shoe Cove site as it stood recently.
That system allows continuous communications with the launch vehicle. In the event of any problems with the launch, data from Argentia would allow the launch controllers to make a decision about destroying the rocket and payload.
and now for the trivia...
Ok, so maybe some of you are growing tired of the whole Titan 4B launch story, but as a guy who grew up when men on rockets were going to the moon, there is something about the whole thing that still captures my imagination.
The movie: Here is a link to NASA and some footage (no audio) in mpg format from the night launch of the Cassini probe. This launch used a Titan 4B and it is damned impressive. For those who may have missed it, the B-30 mission that caused such a fuss here this past week will be a night launch.
Note especially that towards the end of this clip, there is a bit of a flash. That is the solid fuel boosters separating a mere two minutes into the flight, on schedule. They drop back to the ocean. The payload is then taken to orbit by the sustainer, a liquid fueled vehicle based on the old Titan intercontinental ballistic missile.
The impact: I still haven't been able to confirm whether or not that sustainer breaks up on re-entry or lands intact. One source I'd trust has it that the thing comes down in one piece. That's actually better than bits and pieces, since there is an even higher level of confidence in where one big piece will go, as opposed to a bunch of little ones.
Personally, in that scenario, I'd still think there is almost no chance of any kind of explosion form whatever fuel remains on board, if any.
Tracking ships and launch monitoring: Having invested a lot of money into the rockets and the payloads, and as part of an overall monitoring system, the United States operates a number of missile tracking ships in the Atlantic and Pacific that spend their time down range during a launch gathering data. They feed back to the launch control centre so that there is never a time when the launch authorities don't know what is going on. It's part of the overall safety program to ensure launches are safe and that in the event of a problem, accurate information is flowing back to Florida in case the rocket must be destroyed in flight.
Here's one link. Scroll down to see all the vessel types. If memory serves, Observation Island was one of the ships I visited in the early 80s when it and another vessel, the Range Sentinel, were open to public tours during a port call.
Here's a link that discusses revitalization of launch facilities in Florida. "The USNS Redstone was deactivated on 6 August 1993, but a new range site was completed in Argentia, Newfoundland in June 1993 to support northbound flights of the TITAN IV from Cape Canaveral." [Emphasis added]
I'll have to check to see if this site is still active. Have a read through this history though; it gives tons of useful information on operations at Canaveral including range monitoring.
I also found a Powerpoint presentation from the late 1990s on command and control issues related to re-invigoration of the Canaveral launch complexes. It includes a prominent mention of Argentia and the so-called high-inclination launches. US NAVFAC Argentia closed in the early 1990s so odds are high as I write this that the Titan related site remained active for some time afterward and may still be there working busily away.
Update:
Further searching turned up the name of a company that provides communications support to Canaveral under contract. It's current corporate information package includes work at a site in Argentina, Newfoundland.
Just for the heck of it, here's a link to photos of the Island and a tiny bit of Labrador taken from STS-96. Kinda hard not to get a little awestruck at the beauty of the Earth from space. I feel a Tom Hanks moment coming on our voyage from the Earth to the moon.
If anyone out there is old enough to remember, there used to be a tracking and communications station at Shoe Cove used for the Apollo and Apollo-Soyuz programs in the 1970s. There's not much left but here is a link to some pictures of the Shoe Cove site as it stood recently.
-30-
Revsied from 22:00 hrs, 14 Apr 05 with new lede and additional information.
Stephen Harper - closet Liberal
Lust for power does strange things to people.
Some become even more firm in their convictions.
Others, like Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives, are prepared to abandon just about anything they once stood against just to get the keys to 24 Sussex.
Canadian Press is reporting and the local Telly has it on the front page. Harper and the Cons (sounds like a punk group - in Utah) have decided the Kyoto Accord is something they can get jiggy with. For those of you not interacting with 20 somethings and the younger set on a daily basis, that means they think Kyoto is peachy keen.
Only a few short weeks ago, Stephen, Blarney the Dinosaur (his Newfoundland lieutenant) and every other Con supporter were screaming that the Kyoto bits of Boll C-43 had to be separated from that big bill. That would let the Cons vote for the rest, including the new Equalization money from the offshore.
Now they love Kyoto.
And the Cons have decided that the offshore stuff now has to be split off from C-43 so they can vote for that. Without Kyoto stuff, all that's left is money for seniors, toddlers and of course Nova Scotia and this province.
Premier Danny Williams wants the offshore money bill passed quickly. Quickest way to pass it is the present form. What's the problem Stephen?
Well, it's really hard to know what the Cons really want - or really stand for - any more. They keep abandoning positions. At the Big Weekend, they just sat around and bored people to death. No one with an opinion was allowed to speak on anything of substance.
We can sort of figure out what they are against - individual human rights, for example.
And up until yesterday and the latest polls, they were opposed to environmental measures like Kyoto.
Hmmmmm.
I am starting to wonder if deep in his heart, Stephen Harper is really a Liberal. I bet he used to have PET pajamas with feet in 'em, kept the Collected Works of Louis St. Laurent by his teenage bedside and then later, when he was outwardly espousing radical economic philosophies he would go home every night and read 1970s budget speeches.
Conservatives used to attack Liberals for the maleability, for the willingness to stand for whatever was expedient, for whatever would win votes.
Well, those Conservatives are likely gobsmacked with the party they support these days.
Meanwhile, in southern Ontario today, Stephen Harper will be talking about how Ontario gets shafted by Ottawa and doesn't get a fair shake on Equalization or other federal transfers.
As I thumb through my copy of The Sayings and Wisdom of Brian Mulroney, I come across some reference to elderly practitioners of the oldest profession.
I concur, Brian. I concur wholeheartedly.
Some become even more firm in their convictions.
Others, like Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives, are prepared to abandon just about anything they once stood against just to get the keys to 24 Sussex.
Canadian Press is reporting and the local Telly has it on the front page. Harper and the Cons (sounds like a punk group - in Utah) have decided the Kyoto Accord is something they can get jiggy with. For those of you not interacting with 20 somethings and the younger set on a daily basis, that means they think Kyoto is peachy keen.
Only a few short weeks ago, Stephen, Blarney the Dinosaur (his Newfoundland lieutenant) and every other Con supporter were screaming that the Kyoto bits of Boll C-43 had to be separated from that big bill. That would let the Cons vote for the rest, including the new Equalization money from the offshore.
Now they love Kyoto.
And the Cons have decided that the offshore stuff now has to be split off from C-43 so they can vote for that. Without Kyoto stuff, all that's left is money for seniors, toddlers and of course Nova Scotia and this province.
Premier Danny Williams wants the offshore money bill passed quickly. Quickest way to pass it is the present form. What's the problem Stephen?
Well, it's really hard to know what the Cons really want - or really stand for - any more. They keep abandoning positions. At the Big Weekend, they just sat around and bored people to death. No one with an opinion was allowed to speak on anything of substance.
We can sort of figure out what they are against - individual human rights, for example.
And up until yesterday and the latest polls, they were opposed to environmental measures like Kyoto.
Hmmmmm.
I am starting to wonder if deep in his heart, Stephen Harper is really a Liberal. I bet he used to have PET pajamas with feet in 'em, kept the Collected Works of Louis St. Laurent by his teenage bedside and then later, when he was outwardly espousing radical economic philosophies he would go home every night and read 1970s budget speeches.
Conservatives used to attack Liberals for the maleability, for the willingness to stand for whatever was expedient, for whatever would win votes.
Well, those Conservatives are likely gobsmacked with the party they support these days.
Meanwhile, in southern Ontario today, Stephen Harper will be talking about how Ontario gets shafted by Ottawa and doesn't get a fair shake on Equalization or other federal transfers.
As I thumb through my copy of The Sayings and Wisdom of Brian Mulroney, I come across some reference to elderly practitioners of the oldest profession.
I concur, Brian. I concur wholeheartedly.
14 April 2005
Explosive Poll results
Do please provide me with relief.
In other words, give me a frickin break.
The Mother Corp has joined the screaming poll brigade. Having exhausted the use of the word explosive when mentioning Gomery testimony, they now have a poll of their own courtesy of Environics, a respectable crowd of number-mashers.
The headline would have you believe that the responses to the poll "suggest" the sponsorship scandal is being the most important issue in the country. The lede says something along the lines.
Thankfully the webgoddess gave the question and actual response levels.
Look at the column in the margin.
Health care is the number one concern of Canadians by a seven point margin ahead of "poor leadership" at 14. The only way you can get Gomery in there is to take the number three choice - i.e. Gomery at 10 percent - add that to the second choice and vie-oh-la as Archie Bunker used to say.
Minor problem: "poor government/leadership" and the Gomery thing are not necessarily one and the same.
This is called creative re-interpretation of numbers by the CBC news staff to produce an answer the data doesn't actually support. Undoubtedly, they will protests that their lumping is somehow valid, but does that make it accurate?
We can't tell because CBC didn't see fit to give us either the actual survey instrument (questionnaire) or a link to Environics where the background info might be kept.
When I look at the results they released, I see health care is still the biggest issue out there, substantially ahead of all others. I also notice that most people surveyed don't see the need for an election - 41% - while 34% feel Gomery would be the justification for calling it.
Now your humble scribbler is going to give you a link to Environics' own poll and their own release, issued just a week ago.
Look closely at this one since you have figures to compare them to from previous surveys administered in the same way using the same survey questions.
One thing to notice is that the "no reason for election response" has dropped a mere seven points in the CBC poll from the one Environics did about a week and a bit ago. That's hardly a catastrophic drop.
But if you really want to put their numbers in perspective look at the "sampling precision". By region it could be off by as much as nine percent in some provinces and is off by over six percent in Atlantic Canada.
Personally, I think this is the kind of polling that Diefenbaker had in mind when he made the crack about dogs.
Lemme go have a look at SES and see what they have to say.
More to follow.
In other words, give me a frickin break.
The Mother Corp has joined the screaming poll brigade. Having exhausted the use of the word explosive when mentioning Gomery testimony, they now have a poll of their own courtesy of Environics, a respectable crowd of number-mashers.
The headline would have you believe that the responses to the poll "suggest" the sponsorship scandal is being the most important issue in the country. The lede says something along the lines.
Thankfully the webgoddess gave the question and actual response levels.
Look at the column in the margin.
Health care is the number one concern of Canadians by a seven point margin ahead of "poor leadership" at 14. The only way you can get Gomery in there is to take the number three choice - i.e. Gomery at 10 percent - add that to the second choice and vie-oh-la as Archie Bunker used to say.
Minor problem: "poor government/leadership" and the Gomery thing are not necessarily one and the same.
This is called creative re-interpretation of numbers by the CBC news staff to produce an answer the data doesn't actually support. Undoubtedly, they will protests that their lumping is somehow valid, but does that make it accurate?
We can't tell because CBC didn't see fit to give us either the actual survey instrument (questionnaire) or a link to Environics where the background info might be kept.
When I look at the results they released, I see health care is still the biggest issue out there, substantially ahead of all others. I also notice that most people surveyed don't see the need for an election - 41% - while 34% feel Gomery would be the justification for calling it.
Now your humble scribbler is going to give you a link to Environics' own poll and their own release, issued just a week ago.
Look closely at this one since you have figures to compare them to from previous surveys administered in the same way using the same survey questions.
One thing to notice is that the "no reason for election response" has dropped a mere seven points in the CBC poll from the one Environics did about a week and a bit ago. That's hardly a catastrophic drop.
But if you really want to put their numbers in perspective look at the "sampling precision". By region it could be off by as much as nine percent in some provinces and is off by over six percent in Atlantic Canada.
Personally, I think this is the kind of polling that Diefenbaker had in mind when he made the crack about dogs.
Lemme go have a look at SES and see what they have to say.
More to follow.
Will we throw him a party?
As I keep hunting for places that carry Canadian Press releases for free, I found one here, courtesy of a link from Paul Wells' blog.
The story is about a former Joint Task Force 2 soldier who disappeared without a trace 21 months ago, only to turn up in Bangkok the other day at the Canadian Embassy there.
JTF 2 is an armed forces unit that specializes in counter-insurgency/anti-guerrilla warfare, anti-terror operations and the like. The Chretienites may have killed off the Canadian Airborne Regiment as a crisis management tactic, but we got back tons more capability in a unit of about the same size. Chretien can claim no credit for that silk purse from the sow's ear of the disbandment.
But I digress.
The point of this story that caught my eye was the fact the soldier was a demolitions expert who had years of training, operational experience and a laptop full of "how-to's_ when he went missing.
That and then the sort of low key way somebody from National Defence commented on it. To paraphrase: "While we still try to figure out what happened, we are just happy the guy is alive and safe in the arms of his family. We were kinda curious when he ran off, and we looked around for him for a while but hey, these things happen."
The Canadian Forces released the guy from the service in 2004, long before they knew what had become of him.
I am wondering why?
In other armies, deserters who are caught are treated like they should be: trial and jail. Desertion is a pretty serious offence and for one of Canada's best soldiers to do a runner like this is deeply troubling.
Why not just keep him in uniform and then throw the book at him when he comes back?
Maybe some JAG lawyer out there can fill me in a bit more on the techie issues. Being the good bureaucrats we are, Canadians probably got the guy off the books to keep him from building up pensionable time or something like that, hoping they could still throw him in jail if he showed up.
Then again, a guy who forced his way onto the bridge of an HMC ship with a loaded weapon wasn't charged with mutiny.
This is a story to keep track of.
The story is about a former Joint Task Force 2 soldier who disappeared without a trace 21 months ago, only to turn up in Bangkok the other day at the Canadian Embassy there.
JTF 2 is an armed forces unit that specializes in counter-insurgency/anti-guerrilla warfare, anti-terror operations and the like. The Chretienites may have killed off the Canadian Airborne Regiment as a crisis management tactic, but we got back tons more capability in a unit of about the same size. Chretien can claim no credit for that silk purse from the sow's ear of the disbandment.
But I digress.
The point of this story that caught my eye was the fact the soldier was a demolitions expert who had years of training, operational experience and a laptop full of "how-to's_ when he went missing.
That and then the sort of low key way somebody from National Defence commented on it. To paraphrase: "While we still try to figure out what happened, we are just happy the guy is alive and safe in the arms of his family. We were kinda curious when he ran off, and we looked around for him for a while but hey, these things happen."
The Canadian Forces released the guy from the service in 2004, long before they knew what had become of him.
I am wondering why?
In other armies, deserters who are caught are treated like they should be: trial and jail. Desertion is a pretty serious offence and for one of Canada's best soldiers to do a runner like this is deeply troubling.
Why not just keep him in uniform and then throw the book at him when he comes back?
Maybe some JAG lawyer out there can fill me in a bit more on the techie issues. Being the good bureaucrats we are, Canadians probably got the guy off the books to keep him from building up pensionable time or something like that, hoping they could still throw him in jail if he showed up.
Then again, a guy who forced his way onto the bridge of an HMC ship with a loaded weapon wasn't charged with mutiny.
This is a story to keep track of.
It only took a week - time for a public security advisor on the Hill
News this morning that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the offshore regulatory board and the oil companies have finally gathered enough information to go back to their regular jobs and stop panicking over the launch of an American rocket from Cape Canaveral.
Having spent now a total of 25 years dealing with defence and security issues both as part of my undergraduate and graduate studies and my work life, I'd draw everyone away from the cheap and easy conclusions here.
The simple fact remains that defence- and security- issues are on the provincial government's agenda on a daily basis. Historically, the provincial government has difficulty making accurate assessments of defence and security matters on its own - even though they can collect accurate information from a variety of sources. Instead, the government relies almost exclusively on getting things from Ottawa. That was one of the big problems in this instance.
In this instance, no threats were averted. There was no threat. It was a totally artificial crisis. But it does point to a fundamental problem in the province's ability to identify a crisis accurately, deploy resources and then address a crisis. This has nothing to do with this premier and this government: it is a chronic problem going back 25 years and more. I saw it during my time in the Tower.
For a case after my time, does anyone remember 9/11? While people have been busily patting themselves on the back, it was largely characterized by fumbles and some monumental gaffes. Some were minor; some, like actual physical security of the airport were serious. Some, like the silly spat with Ottawa over cots were based on exactly the sort of misinformation that led the Premier to go public in this instance, with predictable and avoidable responses.
Personally, I think it is time for government to undertake a public security review. There are at least three senior retired army generals from this province I can think of who would be available to take on the task. Other provinces did that sort of thing after 9/11.
Aside from anything they'd recommend, government needs to appoint a senior official as a direct advisor to the Premier on public safety and security, much like the new national security advisor to the Prime Minister. It's a specialist area; let's find someone who knows what they are talking about.
When there is another Titan booster scare, the security advisor can calm frayed nerves. By the same token, when something real happens, cabinet can be assured that they will be getting the most reliable information from the best sources, including their own. They can act with confidence in their information.
And it won't take a week to figure out something this simple. At the risk of prompting yet another couple of e-mails poking me, I will remind you that most of the basic questions the Premier asked were answered here either when he asked them or beforehand. When it came down to the self-destruct mechanism question yesterday, I actually threw up my hands in astonishment.
But hey. The fact is that readers of this blog had reliable, factual information on this booster from the get-go. Had I heard this story on Wednesday night - like government did - you would have rolled out of bed Thursday morning to a full briefing with your coffee. And you would have gone about your regular work-week unaffected by fear of things falling from the sky.
Note: This is actually a new posting, but I am including the text of one from yesterday in which I made some observations about this Titan episode. It is attached here since the two things are linked.
"Information levels up; anxiety levels down"
It was encouraging to see the Premier scrummed today expressing increasing comfort with the information he is getting about the upcoming Titan 4B launch on Sunday.
Over the past 24 hours or so, I have been getting a bit of clarity of my own on what the basic problem was. If there is any doubt or confusion from any earlier posts, let me try to put my conclusions as succinctly as possible.
1. It appears that neither the provincial government nor the oil companies noticed the number of rockets flying over the Grand Banks before.
2. Therefore, when information on this launch was handed to them, there was a legitimate and understandable "holy shit" reaction. Everybody here reacted as one would want them to react.
3. The Premier and others went searching for information, primarily from the federal government. Again, this is exactly what anyone would expect.
4. There is a limited or non-existent capability within the provincial government to make any independent assessments of defence- or security-related information that affect the province. I base this on my observations of this case and my knowledge of other cases from previous administrations going back 20 years. There is a systemic dependence on the feds. Yes, I know this is a federal area of responsibility but broader security issues like this are at least a joint responsibility.
5. The feds never really paid any attention to this launch for a variety of reasons. The simplest one is that officials at DND or Public Safety likely looked at the mission, calculated the risk and then decided there was no big deal here. They may have passed on the information to provincial Emergency Measures but it may have been flagged as "information purposes only", as opposed to "get ready to panic". Essentially, the federal interpretation of this event was the right one if they watched but didn't rush to action.
6. The Premier's ongoing frustration with this matter and his public comments stem for the basic lack of information he was getting. He either wasn't getting good briefings, what he was getting was crap, or he just didn't trust what he was hearing. Either way, he has a significant issue to deal with because...
7. The provincial government should be able to make some security-related assessments on its own using a variety of information sources. If the oil companies lacked information and were hopping up and down, the provincial government should have been able to calm them down somewhat. Then they could proceed to ask some focused, informed questions outside the glare of public scrutiny
8. If the Premier had received reliable information as early as Thursday, he may not have gone public as quickly as he did. As a consequence, he would have avoided putting everyone else on edge. Don't be surprised if the Americans were scared of law-suits. I noted that prospect days ago. As such they would become even more reluctant to share information, especially if they had any fear at all that a confidential briefing would be on CNN that night or the next day. Get lawyers involved: everyone's backside tightens.
9. On that basis it may well have been possible to defuse this matter as early as Saturday last week, i.e. 10 Apr 05, a mere three days after the initial scare.
10. As it is, the thing is finally settling down. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a decision taken to continue drilling as if nothing happened.
11. If anyone wants briefings on the launch licensing process for US rockets, the safety precautions and the international and domestic US legal issues, please let me know. I can easily deliver them to a group for an appropriate fee. After all that is one of the things I do for a living.
And yes, as you can expect me to say, just remember you read it here first.
Having spent now a total of 25 years dealing with defence and security issues both as part of my undergraduate and graduate studies and my work life, I'd draw everyone away from the cheap and easy conclusions here.
The simple fact remains that defence- and security- issues are on the provincial government's agenda on a daily basis. Historically, the provincial government has difficulty making accurate assessments of defence and security matters on its own - even though they can collect accurate information from a variety of sources. Instead, the government relies almost exclusively on getting things from Ottawa. That was one of the big problems in this instance.
In this instance, no threats were averted. There was no threat. It was a totally artificial crisis. But it does point to a fundamental problem in the province's ability to identify a crisis accurately, deploy resources and then address a crisis. This has nothing to do with this premier and this government: it is a chronic problem going back 25 years and more. I saw it during my time in the Tower.
For a case after my time, does anyone remember 9/11? While people have been busily patting themselves on the back, it was largely characterized by fumbles and some monumental gaffes. Some were minor; some, like actual physical security of the airport were serious. Some, like the silly spat with Ottawa over cots were based on exactly the sort of misinformation that led the Premier to go public in this instance, with predictable and avoidable responses.
Personally, I think it is time for government to undertake a public security review. There are at least three senior retired army generals from this province I can think of who would be available to take on the task. Other provinces did that sort of thing after 9/11.
Aside from anything they'd recommend, government needs to appoint a senior official as a direct advisor to the Premier on public safety and security, much like the new national security advisor to the Prime Minister. It's a specialist area; let's find someone who knows what they are talking about.
When there is another Titan booster scare, the security advisor can calm frayed nerves. By the same token, when something real happens, cabinet can be assured that they will be getting the most reliable information from the best sources, including their own. They can act with confidence in their information.
And it won't take a week to figure out something this simple. At the risk of prompting yet another couple of e-mails poking me, I will remind you that most of the basic questions the Premier asked were answered here either when he asked them or beforehand. When it came down to the self-destruct mechanism question yesterday, I actually threw up my hands in astonishment.
But hey. The fact is that readers of this blog had reliable, factual information on this booster from the get-go. Had I heard this story on Wednesday night - like government did - you would have rolled out of bed Thursday morning to a full briefing with your coffee. And you would have gone about your regular work-week unaffected by fear of things falling from the sky.
-30-
Note: This is actually a new posting, but I am including the text of one from yesterday in which I made some observations about this Titan episode. It is attached here since the two things are linked.
"Information levels up; anxiety levels down"
It was encouraging to see the Premier scrummed today expressing increasing comfort with the information he is getting about the upcoming Titan 4B launch on Sunday.
Over the past 24 hours or so, I have been getting a bit of clarity of my own on what the basic problem was. If there is any doubt or confusion from any earlier posts, let me try to put my conclusions as succinctly as possible.
1. It appears that neither the provincial government nor the oil companies noticed the number of rockets flying over the Grand Banks before.
2. Therefore, when information on this launch was handed to them, there was a legitimate and understandable "holy shit" reaction. Everybody here reacted as one would want them to react.
3. The Premier and others went searching for information, primarily from the federal government. Again, this is exactly what anyone would expect.
4. There is a limited or non-existent capability within the provincial government to make any independent assessments of defence- or security-related information that affect the province. I base this on my observations of this case and my knowledge of other cases from previous administrations going back 20 years. There is a systemic dependence on the feds. Yes, I know this is a federal area of responsibility but broader security issues like this are at least a joint responsibility.
5. The feds never really paid any attention to this launch for a variety of reasons. The simplest one is that officials at DND or Public Safety likely looked at the mission, calculated the risk and then decided there was no big deal here. They may have passed on the information to provincial Emergency Measures but it may have been flagged as "information purposes only", as opposed to "get ready to panic". Essentially, the federal interpretation of this event was the right one if they watched but didn't rush to action.
6. The Premier's ongoing frustration with this matter and his public comments stem for the basic lack of information he was getting. He either wasn't getting good briefings, what he was getting was crap, or he just didn't trust what he was hearing. Either way, he has a significant issue to deal with because...
7. The provincial government should be able to make some security-related assessments on its own using a variety of information sources. If the oil companies lacked information and were hopping up and down, the provincial government should have been able to calm them down somewhat. Then they could proceed to ask some focused, informed questions outside the glare of public scrutiny
8. If the Premier had received reliable information as early as Thursday, he may not have gone public as quickly as he did. As a consequence, he would have avoided putting everyone else on edge. Don't be surprised if the Americans were scared of law-suits. I noted that prospect days ago. As such they would become even more reluctant to share information, especially if they had any fear at all that a confidential briefing would be on CNN that night or the next day. Get lawyers involved: everyone's backside tightens.
9. On that basis it may well have been possible to defuse this matter as early as Saturday last week, i.e. 10 Apr 05, a mere three days after the initial scare.
10. As it is, the thing is finally settling down. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a decision taken to continue drilling as if nothing happened.
11. If anyone wants briefings on the launch licensing process for US rockets, the safety precautions and the international and domestic US legal issues, please let me know. I can easily deliver them to a group for an appropriate fee. After all that is one of the things I do for a living.
And yes, as you can expect me to say, just remember you read it here first.
13 April 2005
The bombs or bubbles bursting...
Two, count 'em two, comments this evening on my "you read it here first".
The first from a friend who reads these scribbles regularly at work - it's ok, it's apparently part of her job. She cautioned I shouldn't get too carried away with that idea.
A nod of the head in gratitude for that humbling reminder of my mortality.
And then there was the second one, the kick in the pants that finished the job.
Greg Locke, lately of Out of the Fog and Voice Activated at Rogers, and a guy who I have known for way too long, sent me an e-mail this evening. He advises that the Anna Nicole story was on OOTF last Wednesday night fully 24 hours before my posting.
Ok. Fine.
Point taken.
The first from a friend who reads these scribbles regularly at work - it's ok, it's apparently part of her job. She cautioned I shouldn't get too carried away with that idea.
A nod of the head in gratitude for that humbling reminder of my mortality.
And then there was the second one, the kick in the pants that finished the job.
Greg Locke, lately of Out of the Fog and Voice Activated at Rogers, and a guy who I have known for way too long, sent me an e-mail this evening. He advises that the Anna Nicole story was on OOTF last Wednesday night fully 24 hours before my posting.
Ok. Fine.
Point taken.
STS over the Grand Banks - belated math
For those who have been following this issue of rockets over the Grand Banks, here's a quick calculation of the space shuttle launches that have overflown the Grand Banks on the way to orbit.
That is, here are the numbers for the launches on an inclination between 51 degrees and 57 degrees.
It's 54. That includes every single one of the launches from 1981 until the Texas crash as well as the first one due in a couple of months, out to the ones on the planning books that haven't been finalized yet.
1. That's 54 out of 118 (by my count) or a total of 45.7%. Almost half the shuttle launches fly over the Grand Banks on launch. I am not including Titan, Atlas and Delta launches nor am I including any strictly military/naval ICBM or SLBM flights although I believe the latter ones tend to come from Vandenberg these days.
2. Number of incidents on launch in which the vehicle suffered a catastrophic failure: 1. The debris and the remains of the unfortunate crew landed in waters of Florida.
3. Number of catastrophic failures on re-entry: 1. Debris landed from California to eastern Texas.
4. Number of human casualties on the ground resulting from shuttle losses, excluding crew: ZERO.
Again, I am amazed that this information is in the public domain and yet people have been hopping up and down like this launch was the first one ever.
That is, here are the numbers for the launches on an inclination between 51 degrees and 57 degrees.
It's 54. That includes every single one of the launches from 1981 until the Texas crash as well as the first one due in a couple of months, out to the ones on the planning books that haven't been finalized yet.
1. That's 54 out of 118 (by my count) or a total of 45.7%. Almost half the shuttle launches fly over the Grand Banks on launch. I am not including Titan, Atlas and Delta launches nor am I including any strictly military/naval ICBM or SLBM flights although I believe the latter ones tend to come from Vandenberg these days.
2. Number of incidents on launch in which the vehicle suffered a catastrophic failure: 1. The debris and the remains of the unfortunate crew landed in waters of Florida.
3. Number of catastrophic failures on re-entry: 1. Debris landed from California to eastern Texas.
4. Number of human casualties on the ground resulting from shuttle losses, excluding crew: ZERO.
Again, I am amazed that this information is in the public domain and yet people have been hopping up and down like this launch was the first one ever.
First in space, too!
Ok, is it just me or is there a pattern developing in the you read it here first department?
I haven't been keeping a close score on my "firsts" but this Anna Nicole thing made me start to wonder if I just see things before others do. I'll refrain from another silicone and size joke in the interests of good taste.
No, I am not psychic or delusional - they're the same thing.
Nope.
I just got up this morning and read this story from Canadian Press, filed by Dene Moore.
Ms. Moore has found some obscure guy in some other part of the universe to tell her what - wait for it - you read here from a guy who works across the street from her office.
"But such a move seems odd because it's not the first time rockets have been fired over the East Coast oilfields, says Marco Caceres, a senior space analyst for The Teal Group, a U.S. aerospace and defence consulting firm."
Teal Group is a market intelligence firm - meaning they provide analysis to clients of a variety of issues in several aspects, like political, military, financial and social.
For the record, "market" intelligence is like any other form of intelligence. It requires gathering and then analyzing. In a simple sense what you have been getting in these pages is local intelligence analysis although not as detailed as my clients get.
See, cause that's the funny thing - one of the areas in which I practice is intelligence (information) and analysis. And, given my academic and military background, I do defence work.
So I'll be wandering across the street today to make sure that Dene is reading my blog.
She might actually get more information closer to home.
But you know, you read it here first.
I haven't been keeping a close score on my "firsts" but this Anna Nicole thing made me start to wonder if I just see things before others do. I'll refrain from another silicone and size joke in the interests of good taste.
No, I am not psychic or delusional - they're the same thing.
Nope.
I just got up this morning and read this story from Canadian Press, filed by Dene Moore.
Ms. Moore has found some obscure guy in some other part of the universe to tell her what - wait for it - you read here from a guy who works across the street from her office.
"But such a move seems odd because it's not the first time rockets have been fired over the East Coast oilfields, says Marco Caceres, a senior space analyst for The Teal Group, a U.S. aerospace and defence consulting firm."
Teal Group is a market intelligence firm - meaning they provide analysis to clients of a variety of issues in several aspects, like political, military, financial and social.
For the record, "market" intelligence is like any other form of intelligence. It requires gathering and then analyzing. In a simple sense what you have been getting in these pages is local intelligence analysis although not as detailed as my clients get.
See, cause that's the funny thing - one of the areas in which I practice is intelligence (information) and analysis. And, given my academic and military background, I do defence work.
So I'll be wandering across the street today to make sure that Dene is reading my blog.
She might actually get more information closer to home.
But you know, you read it here first.
12 April 2005
You saw the silicone here first
For those faithful readers of these scribbles, rest assured that you continue to read stuff here first.
Like the story that Anna Nicole was avoiding us because of her fear she might get shot while protesting the seal hunt.
News outlets in this province found the story over the past 24 hours.
Damien Penny, whose blog is otherwise timely, likewise only found it on Saturday past.
My version of the story ran here on April 7.
Robert Bond Papers - just a bit ahead of the curve.
Like the story that Anna Nicole was avoiding us because of her fear she might get shot while protesting the seal hunt.
News outlets in this province found the story over the past 24 hours.
Damien Penny, whose blog is otherwise timely, likewise only found it on Saturday past.
My version of the story ran here on April 7.
Robert Bond Papers - just a bit ahead of the curve.
It's fun until someone loses an eye
After saying he didn't like threats yesterday, in a completely different context, turns out that someone did threaten Danny Williams on Monday evening.
The Premier claims a group of four men an approached him as he tried to get into his car. One of them said words to the effect of "we'll get you".
Police are investigating and there may be charges.
Ok. Yesterday's threat was of disrupting the House of Assembly and threats against the Premier's political future, either implicit or explicit.
But like I said, threats have no place in politics.
Period.
Many years ago, there were threats uttered against another Premier. Some were the kind that gave you a cold sweat. Others were the kind of bluster we see all too often in politics.
One gizmo called into Nite Line back then and talked about how someone needed to push the then-Premier into a van and break his legs out somewhere in the woods. As I recall, the host - sometimes still on the air, unfortunately, - was egging callers on and said absolutely nothing - not a word - to denounce that kind of talk.
Like I said, threats have no place in civilized society.
Same goes for the morons who encourage them one way or another.
The Premier claims a group of four men an approached him as he tried to get into his car. One of them said words to the effect of "we'll get you".
Police are investigating and there may be charges.
Ok. Yesterday's threat was of disrupting the House of Assembly and threats against the Premier's political future, either implicit or explicit.
But like I said, threats have no place in politics.
Period.
Many years ago, there were threats uttered against another Premier. Some were the kind that gave you a cold sweat. Others were the kind of bluster we see all too often in politics.
One gizmo called into Nite Line back then and talked about how someone needed to push the then-Premier into a van and break his legs out somewhere in the woods. As I recall, the host - sometimes still on the air, unfortunately, - was egging callers on and said absolutely nothing - not a word - to denounce that kind of talk.
Like I said, threats have no place in civilized society.
Same goes for the morons who encourage them one way or another.
Goosing the sauce
Inadvertent humour from politicians?
Oh heavens, say it isn't so.
Danny Williams in a CBC news story on yesterday's crab protest:
"We're not going to allow the union to force us or blackmail us into acting in another manner," Williams says.
and then the Great Quote -
"I don't respond to threats very well at all. I never have and never will."
This is the same guy who threatened to hound Prime Minister Martin if he didn't deliver.
And then, of course, there was the flag thing.
Apparently, the flags weren't going to go back up until Ottawa delivered on the deal.
Then they went back up before that.
The Premier is right. Threats shouldn't be part of politics. He can set the standard. Otherwise, he should expect threats and then more threats, 'cause what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Oh heavens, say it isn't so.
Danny Williams in a CBC news story on yesterday's crab protest:
"We're not going to allow the union to force us or blackmail us into acting in another manner," Williams says.
and then the Great Quote -
"I don't respond to threats very well at all. I never have and never will."
This is the same guy who threatened to hound Prime Minister Martin if he didn't deliver.
And then, of course, there was the flag thing.
Apparently, the flags weren't going to go back up until Ottawa delivered on the deal.
Then they went back up before that.
The Premier is right. Threats shouldn't be part of politics. He can set the standard. Otherwise, he should expect threats and then more threats, 'cause what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Political risk management
How odd that when you flip from the Rocket Man to federal politics, you find another game of risk management.
The big difference is that I will bet the farm the Titan launch will go flawlessly and nothing will ever even see the Hibernia platform.
In Ottawa, things aren't quite as clear.
As I tell my public relation students, one of the things that makes news is newness or novelty.
Sarcastic bastard that I can be, I am tempted to say that the CTV Ipsos Reid poll benchmarking reaction to Gomery should have received NIL coverage based on that definition of news.
It is hardly news to tell us that federal Liberal support has taken a tumbled after the relentless media hype surrounding Brault's testimony. There has been little substantive reporting of his comments or their potential veracity. Nope. The reporting has been like our own little Michael-Jackson-feeding-liquor-to-little-boys kinda story.
The funky thing about the reporting, like say the National Lampoon's online edition today, is that it tells us a falsehood through the layout. It's an old scandal-sheet trick. Just not the sort of thing you'd expect from a national paper, even Canada's National Joke. There is the big picture of the current prime minister, whose name is Paul Martin in case you missed it. Underneath are words that the "adscam" goes all the way to the PMO. Read it quickly, you'd maybe miss the fact this happened under:
Jean Chretien.
Not a word of testimony has implicated the current Prime Minister.
And yet newspapers from the Lampoon to the Globe and just about every other media outlet can proudly point out that people are ready to punish "Liberals" for this mess.
How could they think anything else? It's all they have heard for months. "Liberals" are doing evil things. "Liberals" are corrupt.
But here's the kicker.
Look closely at the Ipsos poll or the Ekos poll just released. Ekos is available free, so here's the link to the background data.
Fully 83% of people had heard about the Gomery inquiry, yet 62% want to wait until Gomery has reported before an election. If I recall correctly, Ipsos had 83% wanting to wait.
That puts the Opposition in a risk-management mode. They have to juggle the temptation of toppling a government that is vulnerable with the risk that a majority of Canadians might just pounce on anyone seen to be guilty of forcing an election before Canadians want it.
The Cons are especially weak on this point since they expressly put the election call in the hands of Canadians. Nice democratic touch, but sometimes democracy is inconvenient.
The Ekos poll questioning is a bit funky - as in smelly. The way they phrased the question on the current PM being accountable is skewed to produce the result that the PM is accountable for alleged foul deeds there is no evidence he even knew about, let alone was party to. Ekos led their sample to water and the sample drank from the well.
In another question, they asked people if this was the worst scandal they'd ever heard of or just as bad. Not only is this skewed in and of itself, Ekos apparently left out a crucial question: what the hell do people remember of political scandals?
If their memories are junk, then their opinions are not solidly founded. Bullshit question. Bullshit response.
If however, they consider these accusations to be as serious as, say, the old Tory kickback schemes in Quebec, I'd have some info on which to base my judgment. Otherwise, people's shite-memory is vulnerable to new information and their willingness to either toss this government or have an election might be changeable.
The other problem for me, if I was a Con strategist, is the variable performance of my party across the country. Huge in Alberta. Beaten by NDP in the Prairies and BC. Ahead in Ontario but modestly so. Ahead in Quebec but that is meaningless since the Bloc dominates.
And here in Atlantic Canada? The Cons are modestly ahead of the Liberals. Modest is hardly enough to warrant going to the polls.
Ekos attributes the Atlantic Canadian reluctance to a single variable: the fate of the offshore revenue deals. Problem is Ekos doesn't have any research to support their reductionist conclusion.
But it does explain why Stephen Harper is busily scribbling letters to Danny Williams pledging that a Harper Titan election booster won't hit the offshore revenues platform. Reportedly, Harper won't give odds, but Danny is willing to risk billions on the basis of a less-than-perfect set of guarantees.
And Blarney the dinosaur is giving speeches to the St. John's board of trade, spreading nothing except his usual political tripe - there wasn't a single nugget of any Conservative policy in it nor was there anything even vaguely considered to be an insightful comment on current events:
It was a vintage Blarney coprolite.
Of course, both Harper and Blarney aren't telling you that the Cons are changing their position on the offshore in order to get your vote.
But hey.
Politics is the ultimate risk management sport. The variables change quickly, especially if the variable is what you stand for.
and a campaign is the ultimate risk.
The next couple of days will tell how the political parties in Ottawa are judging the risks.
The big difference is that I will bet the farm the Titan launch will go flawlessly and nothing will ever even see the Hibernia platform.
In Ottawa, things aren't quite as clear.
As I tell my public relation students, one of the things that makes news is newness or novelty.
Sarcastic bastard that I can be, I am tempted to say that the CTV Ipsos Reid poll benchmarking reaction to Gomery should have received NIL coverage based on that definition of news.
It is hardly news to tell us that federal Liberal support has taken a tumbled after the relentless media hype surrounding Brault's testimony. There has been little substantive reporting of his comments or their potential veracity. Nope. The reporting has been like our own little Michael-Jackson-feeding-liquor-to-little-boys kinda story.
The funky thing about the reporting, like say the National Lampoon's online edition today, is that it tells us a falsehood through the layout. It's an old scandal-sheet trick. Just not the sort of thing you'd expect from a national paper, even Canada's National Joke. There is the big picture of the current prime minister, whose name is Paul Martin in case you missed it. Underneath are words that the "adscam" goes all the way to the PMO. Read it quickly, you'd maybe miss the fact this happened under:
Jean Chretien.
Not a word of testimony has implicated the current Prime Minister.
And yet newspapers from the Lampoon to the Globe and just about every other media outlet can proudly point out that people are ready to punish "Liberals" for this mess.
How could they think anything else? It's all they have heard for months. "Liberals" are doing evil things. "Liberals" are corrupt.
But here's the kicker.
Look closely at the Ipsos poll or the Ekos poll just released. Ekos is available free, so here's the link to the background data.
Fully 83% of people had heard about the Gomery inquiry, yet 62% want to wait until Gomery has reported before an election. If I recall correctly, Ipsos had 83% wanting to wait.
That puts the Opposition in a risk-management mode. They have to juggle the temptation of toppling a government that is vulnerable with the risk that a majority of Canadians might just pounce on anyone seen to be guilty of forcing an election before Canadians want it.
The Cons are especially weak on this point since they expressly put the election call in the hands of Canadians. Nice democratic touch, but sometimes democracy is inconvenient.
The Ekos poll questioning is a bit funky - as in smelly. The way they phrased the question on the current PM being accountable is skewed to produce the result that the PM is accountable for alleged foul deeds there is no evidence he even knew about, let alone was party to. Ekos led their sample to water and the sample drank from the well.
In another question, they asked people if this was the worst scandal they'd ever heard of or just as bad. Not only is this skewed in and of itself, Ekos apparently left out a crucial question: what the hell do people remember of political scandals?
If their memories are junk, then their opinions are not solidly founded. Bullshit question. Bullshit response.
If however, they consider these accusations to be as serious as, say, the old Tory kickback schemes in Quebec, I'd have some info on which to base my judgment. Otherwise, people's shite-memory is vulnerable to new information and their willingness to either toss this government or have an election might be changeable.
The other problem for me, if I was a Con strategist, is the variable performance of my party across the country. Huge in Alberta. Beaten by NDP in the Prairies and BC. Ahead in Ontario but modestly so. Ahead in Quebec but that is meaningless since the Bloc dominates.
And here in Atlantic Canada? The Cons are modestly ahead of the Liberals. Modest is hardly enough to warrant going to the polls.
Ekos attributes the Atlantic Canadian reluctance to a single variable: the fate of the offshore revenue deals. Problem is Ekos doesn't have any research to support their reductionist conclusion.
But it does explain why Stephen Harper is busily scribbling letters to Danny Williams pledging that a Harper Titan election booster won't hit the offshore revenues platform. Reportedly, Harper won't give odds, but Danny is willing to risk billions on the basis of a less-than-perfect set of guarantees.
And Blarney the dinosaur is giving speeches to the St. John's board of trade, spreading nothing except his usual political tripe - there wasn't a single nugget of any Conservative policy in it nor was there anything even vaguely considered to be an insightful comment on current events:
It was a vintage Blarney coprolite.
Of course, both Harper and Blarney aren't telling you that the Cons are changing their position on the offshore in order to get your vote.
But hey.
Politics is the ultimate risk management sport. The variables change quickly, especially if the variable is what you stand for.
and a campaign is the ultimate risk.
The next couple of days will tell how the political parties in Ottawa are judging the risks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)