If you aren't a regular reader of Paul Wells, check out his blog today.
He points out the fiscal impact of the corporate tax cuts that Jack Layton is making the price for his support of the Liberal government and its budget.
As Paul says at the end of his blog post, "Draw your own conclusions about what that means. My minimal point is that we have these national debates with incredibly high political stakes and you so rarely see anyone pause to explain the relative scale of things."
Perspective matters.
Another word for it is "context".
25 April 2005
Crosbie saw corruption up close, I guess
John Crosbie's column in the new Independent is one part laughable and one part pathetic, but definitely readable just to see what the guy who used to talk like Ottawa's gauleiter in Newfoundland is thinking these days.
Crosbie is ever sanctimonious, saying that the way to get rid of "corruption" in Ottawa is by electing a "non-Liberal", i.e. Conservative government. JC is practicing a bit of dog-whistle messaging here, but it is a ham-fisted attempt since it is pretty easy to see that Crosbie is less analyst and commentator than relentless party hack.
I commend to anyone's reading any book by Stevie Cameron. While there are flaws in the books, Cameron documents, among other things, the corruption within the federal Conservative Party in Quebec during the 1980s. Oh heavens, Mr. Crosbie. Could it be true? [audible gasp of mock-horror]
In at least one book, there are even mentions of Crosbie and Craig Dobbin, who Cameron describes as one of Crosbie's big fund-raisers. The mentions are definitely not in the context of crime.
Nope. Crosbie and Dobbin get mentioned because of sweetheart deals and financial support related to Dobbin's business operations wherein government rules were bent just a tad to benefit Dobbin. Seems there's a family tradition of being a self-proclaimed free-enterpriser who sucks heavily on the public tit.
There are other sections of On the take describing funky advertising deals that sound reminiscent of...wait for it... Adscam.
So Crosbie's column is a joke, even if Crosbie didn't intend it to be laughable. By Crosbie's standard, the Mulroney government should have gone to the polls at the first sign of corruption within their ranks. That would have been shortly after 1984 when Mulroney was first elected prime minister.
Of course, a little sober thinking shows Crosbie's comments for what they are: partisan drivel. That's just about all Crosbie has been good for since he left politics in 1993. Then again, when wasn't Crosbie good primarily for partisan drivel?
So here it is: Adscam was wrong. The cops and Gomery will root it out, identify those responsible and lead to the punishment of the guilty.
Corruption inside federal political parties in Quebec or any one province is no cause for a general election when the public overwhelming rejects the idea of an election.
The next federal election, whenever it comes should be about which party is the best to run the country. It's a choice to be made by ordinary voters, not Crosbie-like elites.
What ordinary people want has seldom been a concept John Crosbie understood during his career in politics.
My, oh my how things haven't changed.
As for Cameron, she has been so harried for comment she is starting a new blog dealing with Canadian politics.
I look forward to it, if for no other reason than it will be a counterpoint to the stuff pumped out by outlets like the National Lampoon.
Crosbie is ever sanctimonious, saying that the way to get rid of "corruption" in Ottawa is by electing a "non-Liberal", i.e. Conservative government. JC is practicing a bit of dog-whistle messaging here, but it is a ham-fisted attempt since it is pretty easy to see that Crosbie is less analyst and commentator than relentless party hack.
I commend to anyone's reading any book by Stevie Cameron. While there are flaws in the books, Cameron documents, among other things, the corruption within the federal Conservative Party in Quebec during the 1980s. Oh heavens, Mr. Crosbie. Could it be true? [audible gasp of mock-horror]
In at least one book, there are even mentions of Crosbie and Craig Dobbin, who Cameron describes as one of Crosbie's big fund-raisers. The mentions are definitely not in the context of crime.
Nope. Crosbie and Dobbin get mentioned because of sweetheart deals and financial support related to Dobbin's business operations wherein government rules were bent just a tad to benefit Dobbin. Seems there's a family tradition of being a self-proclaimed free-enterpriser who sucks heavily on the public tit.
There are other sections of On the take describing funky advertising deals that sound reminiscent of...wait for it... Adscam.
So Crosbie's column is a joke, even if Crosbie didn't intend it to be laughable. By Crosbie's standard, the Mulroney government should have gone to the polls at the first sign of corruption within their ranks. That would have been shortly after 1984 when Mulroney was first elected prime minister.
Of course, a little sober thinking shows Crosbie's comments for what they are: partisan drivel. That's just about all Crosbie has been good for since he left politics in 1993. Then again, when wasn't Crosbie good primarily for partisan drivel?
So here it is: Adscam was wrong. The cops and Gomery will root it out, identify those responsible and lead to the punishment of the guilty.
Corruption inside federal political parties in Quebec or any one province is no cause for a general election when the public overwhelming rejects the idea of an election.
The next federal election, whenever it comes should be about which party is the best to run the country. It's a choice to be made by ordinary voters, not Crosbie-like elites.
What ordinary people want has seldom been a concept John Crosbie understood during his career in politics.
My, oh my how things haven't changed.
As for Cameron, she has been so harried for comment she is starting a new blog dealing with Canadian politics.
I look forward to it, if for no other reason than it will be a counterpoint to the stuff pumped out by outlets like the National Lampoon.
Living with a Hearn-ia
This story in the Globe makes comments by Loyola Hearn and his buddy Norm Doyle just a bit funny.
In trying to gain some backing for their stand against the government's budget bill, both Peckford-era cabinet ministers (remember the wild spending by their boss and the Sprung greenhouse they approved?) have been talking about the 22 or 23 measures lumped into Bill C-43 along with the offshore revenue money.
Well those "difficult", "controversial", "contentious" issues in C-43 that the old boys find so difficult include tax cuts liked by the business community, money for seniors, the cities' gas tax credit and money to promote early childhood education and nutrition.
Now the Globe story refers to the death of tax cuts due to a partnership between the New Democrats and the Liberal government, but here's the funny part. The Conservatives have been beating the drum against Bill C-43, not the New Democrats. The guys threatening to bring down the government before C-43 passes are guys like Loyola Hearn.
You remember Loyola? He's the guy from Renews who has been biding his time as the sham-member of parliament for St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
Anyway, if I was Thomas D'Aquino, I'd been putting the squeeze on the Conservatives. Their hunger for an election against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Canadians is the reason parliament is in a jam at the moment...
and money for everyone is being threatened.
In trying to gain some backing for their stand against the government's budget bill, both Peckford-era cabinet ministers (remember the wild spending by their boss and the Sprung greenhouse they approved?) have been talking about the 22 or 23 measures lumped into Bill C-43 along with the offshore revenue money.
Well those "difficult", "controversial", "contentious" issues in C-43 that the old boys find so difficult include tax cuts liked by the business community, money for seniors, the cities' gas tax credit and money to promote early childhood education and nutrition.
Now the Globe story refers to the death of tax cuts due to a partnership between the New Democrats and the Liberal government, but here's the funny part. The Conservatives have been beating the drum against Bill C-43, not the New Democrats. The guys threatening to bring down the government before C-43 passes are guys like Loyola Hearn.
You remember Loyola? He's the guy from Renews who has been biding his time as the sham-member of parliament for St. John's South-Mount Pearl.
Anyway, if I was Thomas D'Aquino, I'd been putting the squeeze on the Conservatives. Their hunger for an election against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of Canadians is the reason parliament is in a jam at the moment...
and money for everyone is being threatened.
24 April 2005
Defence spending in Newfoundland and Labrador
A study released by the St. John's airport authority this week shows that military traffic through the airport generates about $20 million in economic activity in the capital city.
Gander attracts slightly more flights, but most of their visitors don't overnight and that's where the spin-off cash is.
By the way, if you want an awesome news story on this air traffic, check out The Independent this week. They seem to have emerge from their doldrums to produce one of the best issues yet; there's lots of news not covered by other media outlets. In other words, they are living up to expectations. That's a good thing, as Martha, used to say.
Defence spending is something I have been harping on for years privately and now people are taking notice. I claim no credit for this study - they noticed on their own.
In the late 1990s, a study by the commander of Canadian Forces Station St. John's indicated his command generates about $30 million of economic activity annually including students at the Marine Institute, reserve units, and repair, resupply and refits in the port by navy ships.
So, there is about $50 million bucks. Toss in Gander and you are headed for $100 million. That doesn't include Goose Bay and the reserve units in Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook and Stephenville.
No one has yet produced figures for the defence manufacturing and supply industry here but in the past 15 years it has gone from next to nothing to about six companies I can think of off the top of my head doing sub-contract work for major US defence contractors, working on Canadian contracts or in one or two instances selling their own products.
Defence-related activity in this province likely comes close to about CDN$250 million each year. Put it in perspective by flipping over to the economic analysis section of the province government. Here's a starting link. Look at the economic performance for 2004 and you'll see that defence activity accounts for more than agriculture, fish products manufacturing, and forestry and logging. Even if you look at direct defence spending alone, it beats out agriculture and agriculture has a whole section of Ed Byrne's Natural Resources department to help it along.
All of that activity occurs without very much, if any, encouragement from the provincial government.
Big shame.
Some of that direct defence spending, like the air force traffic and the local reserve units is virtually all salaries and purchased services and goods: that makes the spending a direct transfer into the local economy with taxes flowing to the provincial treasury. To make it even sweeter, upwards of 92% of the defence-related air movements are by the US armed forces, meaning that the cash they spend starts out as US dollars. Ditto for the manufacturing for companies like Boeing and Raytheon. New cash coming into the economy from outside is a major economic stimulus.
There is room for growth here on a number of fronts.
The Canadian Forces have to find a home for CFS St. John's and the local reserve units soon; the buildings they use now are slated for disposal and date back to the Second World War.
National Defence has a plan in the works for new construction either at Pleasantville or maybe Mount Pearl with an estimated cost of $68 million. That has to start very soon - like this year - and will give another boost to the local economy through construction work.
In addition, the provincial government has long-neglected marketing the province for military exercises and other training. I have already suggested publicly a way to bring new defence-related activity to Goose Bay but the local committee has been fixated on a number of big projects over the years that may never come to anything. Raytheon is doing a skillful marketing job, including stirring up interest in the past few days, but it makes no sense to put all our Goose-eggs into a single nest. We might wind up again with...well.. a goose egg.
Encouraging defence spending doesn't need a whole department or even a whole part of a whole department. In the early 1990s, I submitted a simple proposal to government - without any stats to back it up, unfortunately - calling for the creation of one or two new positions within government to work with the defence industry and keep track of defence-related activity in the province.
The paper went nowhere fast.
The existing departments just don't handle defence issues very well and they never seem to recognize the importance of defence to the province.
Well, something tells me the Premier might be interested in changing that.
Where did I put that old proposal anyway?
While I am off digging through my files, pick up the Indy and have a good read.
Gander attracts slightly more flights, but most of their visitors don't overnight and that's where the spin-off cash is.
By the way, if you want an awesome news story on this air traffic, check out The Independent this week. They seem to have emerge from their doldrums to produce one of the best issues yet; there's lots of news not covered by other media outlets. In other words, they are living up to expectations. That's a good thing, as Martha, used to say.
Defence spending is something I have been harping on for years privately and now people are taking notice. I claim no credit for this study - they noticed on their own.
In the late 1990s, a study by the commander of Canadian Forces Station St. John's indicated his command generates about $30 million of economic activity annually including students at the Marine Institute, reserve units, and repair, resupply and refits in the port by navy ships.
So, there is about $50 million bucks. Toss in Gander and you are headed for $100 million. That doesn't include Goose Bay and the reserve units in Grand Falls-Windsor, Corner Brook and Stephenville.
No one has yet produced figures for the defence manufacturing and supply industry here but in the past 15 years it has gone from next to nothing to about six companies I can think of off the top of my head doing sub-contract work for major US defence contractors, working on Canadian contracts or in one or two instances selling their own products.
Defence-related activity in this province likely comes close to about CDN$250 million each year. Put it in perspective by flipping over to the economic analysis section of the province government. Here's a starting link. Look at the economic performance for 2004 and you'll see that defence activity accounts for more than agriculture, fish products manufacturing, and forestry and logging. Even if you look at direct defence spending alone, it beats out agriculture and agriculture has a whole section of Ed Byrne's Natural Resources department to help it along.
All of that activity occurs without very much, if any, encouragement from the provincial government.
Big shame.
Some of that direct defence spending, like the air force traffic and the local reserve units is virtually all salaries and purchased services and goods: that makes the spending a direct transfer into the local economy with taxes flowing to the provincial treasury. To make it even sweeter, upwards of 92% of the defence-related air movements are by the US armed forces, meaning that the cash they spend starts out as US dollars. Ditto for the manufacturing for companies like Boeing and Raytheon. New cash coming into the economy from outside is a major economic stimulus.
There is room for growth here on a number of fronts.
The Canadian Forces have to find a home for CFS St. John's and the local reserve units soon; the buildings they use now are slated for disposal and date back to the Second World War.
National Defence has a plan in the works for new construction either at Pleasantville or maybe Mount Pearl with an estimated cost of $68 million. That has to start very soon - like this year - and will give another boost to the local economy through construction work.
In addition, the provincial government has long-neglected marketing the province for military exercises and other training. I have already suggested publicly a way to bring new defence-related activity to Goose Bay but the local committee has been fixated on a number of big projects over the years that may never come to anything. Raytheon is doing a skillful marketing job, including stirring up interest in the past few days, but it makes no sense to put all our Goose-eggs into a single nest. We might wind up again with...well.. a goose egg.
Encouraging defence spending doesn't need a whole department or even a whole part of a whole department. In the early 1990s, I submitted a simple proposal to government - without any stats to back it up, unfortunately - calling for the creation of one or two new positions within government to work with the defence industry and keep track of defence-related activity in the province.
The paper went nowhere fast.
The existing departments just don't handle defence issues very well and they never seem to recognize the importance of defence to the province.
Well, something tells me the Premier might be interested in changing that.
Where did I put that old proposal anyway?
While I am off digging through my files, pick up the Indy and have a good read.
23 April 2005
Radar activity increases
Update: 1630 hrs 23 Apr 05
CBC has a much more detailed story on the radar thing. Disregard my post comments, as CBC already did the leg work and was less cryptic than VOCM.
CBC correctly spotted Raytheon as the contractor. They misindentify the company as a missile manufacturer. Raytheon manufactures a variety of defence products included radar systems as well as different types of missile systems such as the TOW (tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire-guided) anti-armour weapon.
One of Raytheon's products is the High Frequency Surface Wave Radar (HFSWR) system, developed by Northern radar of St. John's and currently installed at two sites in eastern Newfoundland. This is NOT the X band system, so don't get confused.
Most interesting aspect of this CBC story was the confirmation by NL Hydro of talks with Raytheon about power supply. (Big security hint for the Hydro dudes: never disclose conversations with a defence contractor. It's not your dog.)
No biggie on the power supply. If we can't recall power from the Upper Churchill, then the Lower Churchill project will have bags of electricity to sell.
This goes back to my point, though, about having a Chinese (PRC) state-owned enterprise involved in the deal from last year as part of the Sino-Energy consortium. Big security issues. No one on the provincial government side checked the background or considered the defence issues. Big mistake.
Estimated cost of the ground-based system is between CDN$500 million and CDN$900 million.
Original post starts:
When my web counter starts to show certain hits, I get a little curious.
Since I posted some information on X band radars earlier this year, I have received hits from various US government and civilian contractor sites. I am gathering they were primarily interested in any comments or information on the sea-based system being built by Boeing in Corpus Christi, Texas. Those are the pages they visited.
Then there are the hits that look at the posts where I have discussed whether or not there will be an X band radar built at Goose Bay.
There's been a bit more activity on that lately including hits today.
Curiously enough, there's also a cryptic story on VOCM today about an unnamed defence contractor visiting Goose Bay looking at potential sites for a radar system. Here's the full text from the website:
"A major American defence contractor recently explored locations for a radar station in Labrador.
That word from federal Defence Minister Bill Graham. However, Graham says there was never a formal request and no real discussions about it. He said if [it is] built, the installation would be part of Norad's information systems."
Most likely this is related to an old story, the one I commented on earlier this year.
The contractor is Raytheon.
The radar they are proposing is one used for the American ballistic missile defence system, except in this instance, the site would be owned and operated by Canada feeding information to the North American Aerospace Defence Command or NORAD for short. [which incidentally is linked into the BMD system.]
It would be nice to know where the story came from because as far as I can tell, the issue is just floating out there.
CBC has a much more detailed story on the radar thing. Disregard my post comments, as CBC already did the leg work and was less cryptic than VOCM.
CBC correctly spotted Raytheon as the contractor. They misindentify the company as a missile manufacturer. Raytheon manufactures a variety of defence products included radar systems as well as different types of missile systems such as the TOW (tube-launched, optically-tracked, wire-guided) anti-armour weapon.
One of Raytheon's products is the High Frequency Surface Wave Radar (HFSWR) system, developed by Northern radar of St. John's and currently installed at two sites in eastern Newfoundland. This is NOT the X band system, so don't get confused.
Most interesting aspect of this CBC story was the confirmation by NL Hydro of talks with Raytheon about power supply. (Big security hint for the Hydro dudes: never disclose conversations with a defence contractor. It's not your dog.)
No biggie on the power supply. If we can't recall power from the Upper Churchill, then the Lower Churchill project will have bags of electricity to sell.
This goes back to my point, though, about having a Chinese (PRC) state-owned enterprise involved in the deal from last year as part of the Sino-Energy consortium. Big security issues. No one on the provincial government side checked the background or considered the defence issues. Big mistake.
Estimated cost of the ground-based system is between CDN$500 million and CDN$900 million.
Original post starts:
When my web counter starts to show certain hits, I get a little curious.
Since I posted some information on X band radars earlier this year, I have received hits from various US government and civilian contractor sites. I am gathering they were primarily interested in any comments or information on the sea-based system being built by Boeing in Corpus Christi, Texas. Those are the pages they visited.
Then there are the hits that look at the posts where I have discussed whether or not there will be an X band radar built at Goose Bay.
There's been a bit more activity on that lately including hits today.
Curiously enough, there's also a cryptic story on VOCM today about an unnamed defence contractor visiting Goose Bay looking at potential sites for a radar system. Here's the full text from the website:
"A major American defence contractor recently explored locations for a radar station in Labrador.
That word from federal Defence Minister Bill Graham. However, Graham says there was never a formal request and no real discussions about it. He said if [it is] built, the installation would be part of Norad's information systems."
Most likely this is related to an old story, the one I commented on earlier this year.
The contractor is Raytheon.
The radar they are proposing is one used for the American ballistic missile defence system, except in this instance, the site would be owned and operated by Canada feeding information to the North American Aerospace Defence Command or NORAD for short. [which incidentally is linked into the BMD system.]
It would be nice to know where the story came from because as far as I can tell, the issue is just floating out there.
"Staggering" Insights from Bill Rowe
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)