NOIA recycles the offshore

How many times will NOIA focus on Hebron and gas development as part of "new" possibilities for the offshore?

I lost count of how many times NOIA ran a seminar like this one under Leslie Galway. Now that she has been replaced by someone the NOIA board figured is tight with Dean MacDonald and hence Danny Boy, NOIA is back at the same old crap again.

Three things:

1. NOIA is oriented in the wrong direction and is yet again strategically snookered if it thinks hiring someone who knows someone who knows Danny will get them on the Premier's radar screen. Hint: He doesn't give a flying derrick about NOIA.

2. Hebron - being held up by the guy NOIA is trying to suck up to. Problem - NOIA can't suck up to Danny on the one side and then try to blow him slightly off his position on the other. All sucking got the last time was a job for Leslie Galway. NOIA needs to start being professional about their government relations and dispose of the amateur crap.

3. Note the speaker for the event is Ed Martin, the guy who has been slowly transforming Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro into PetroNewf without so much as a public discussion of what the frig he is up to. When exactly will Danny and his Boys decide the public deserves to know what they are doing with our money? When will we find out why two vice presidents and some senior managers were tossed over the Falls recently and who is replacing them?

Second point from this: Ed's on the agenda 'cause of Dean (the chairman of Ed's board), who of course is connected to the new NOIA president, who was hired for being able to make just those kinds of daisy chains, with Danny at the front end of it. (That's just in case you missed the high-end strategic thinking I noted earlier.)

When exactly will a NOIA session on "new" things actually include something new?

Tough aircraft. Tougher pilot.

Flip over to Strange Military and you'll find the full size version of these pictures.

They show the starboard rear section of an American A-10A ground attack aircraft shot up by small arms fire. The hits and the chunk taken out of the horizontal stabilizer apparently knocked out the aircraft hydraulics. That means the pilot landed without brakes and with limited controls.

The A-10 is designed to take hits by bigger things than the rifles that appear to have shot up this particular aircraft. It's almost 30 years old and isn't loved by a lot of American pilots who like the faster and supposedly sexier stuff.

Tough, dependable, does the job and gets the pilot back in one piece.

Works for me.

S*P*I*E*S Like Us

Six immigrants trying to enter the country illegally?

Or people trying to enter the country under assumed identities to act as spies?

You decide.

Six people from mainland China were arrested for trying to enter Canada at St. John's with Korean identity documents.

It seems a little expensive and convoluted for an immigration scheme.

It sounds more like an old, tested way of getting spies into a foreign country. The Soviets were famous for the approach and planted several hundred such spies in Canada during the Cold War. In the case of Chinese, they could easily pass as Koreans.

As for Connie member of parliament Loyola Hearn's claim this is proof of the lax security at our harbours, one can only scratch one's head in bewilderment. Surely Loyola understands that the people involved were caught. They were identified and arrested based on intelligence analysis and co-operation among different security agencies.

No one in the country is well served by Mr. Hearn and his colleagues making claims about the supposedly unsecured ports of entry at our harbours when this simply isn't the case. Security may not be perfect, but then again even in the United States today illegal immigrants and foreign spies and terrorists are able to enter.

All Loyola Hearn is doing with his comments is feeding uninformed comment and raising more questions among our American allies about Canadian security that simply aren't well-founded. While Hillary Clinton is busily trying to stop a proposal that all travelers to the United States will need to carry passports, Hearn is fueling the sort of diatribes we hear from Faux News and other right-wing outfits. Clinton has correctly pointed to the disastrous effects the new policy will have on trade.

Hearn is just giving Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly more ammunition.

Way to go, Loyola.

Is City Hall for sale?

The Montreal Gazette just finished a three-part story on problems in Montreal's municipal campaign financing.

Here's the editorial that concludes the series.

Here's the bit that started it all.

Anyone care to try looking at St. John's municipal campaign expenses and contributions by donors?

Good luck.

Under the provincial law, only winning candidates have to report any donations of cash over $100. Anything given "in-kind" is never reported - it doesn't have to be.

So... anyone with a private company or two can hide an unlimited amount of campaign work as an "in-kind" contribution. Need a few thousand signs? No problem, says the supporter. My company can supply them and my volunteers will put them up for you.

That's a possibility not that it actually happened. It may have happened and certainly you'll hear plenty of anecdotal information - some of it pure spec and rumour - about who did what for whom.

The problem is that residents of St. John's have no way of knowing what is being given and spent by whom and for whom in city politics.

If nothing else - at the very least - the whole lack of accountability creates a cloud of suspicion that doesn't improve the image of politics in local eyes.

In the worst case, city residents can be concerned that the millions of dollars in municipal contracts and the millions of dollars of development in the city might be had for a few bucks at election time.

Better that we fix the election expense laws and bring more information into the public domain rather than endure suspicion that ultimately erodes public confidence in the electoral system.

Today in Newfoundland and Labrador History

Trenches at Suvla Bay, 1915 (Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador) PANL VA-37-3. Likely from the collection of Major R. Tait.


The Blue Puttees set sail for England aboard the S.S. Florizel on October 4, 1914.

This first contingent of Newfoundland volunteers in the Great War formed the nucleus of what became the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.

By June 1915 they were considered sufficiently trained and were at full strength, with a depot battalion in Scotland.

Selected for service at Gallipoli, the active service battalion joined the 88th Brigade of the 29th Division, the last regular army division to be formed by the British Army out of units that had been garrisoning the empire. They landed at Gallipoli in September 1915 and were the covering force for the Allied withdrawals in January 1916.

Trenching at Gallipoli is the only contemporary account of the Newfoundlanders overseas. John Gallishaw was teaching at Harvard University when he volunteered in 1915. Wounded at Gallipoli he was honourably released and returned to the United States. He wrote Trenching at Gallipoli while convalescing. Gallishaw authored a small pamphlet in 1917 aimed at American volunteers joining the American Expeditionary Force bound for Europe. He also authored other works on writing. Gallishaw may be considered to have influenced the filmmaker George Lucas.

The naked truth

Ummm.

Ok.

I get the concept.

But something tells me some of the heads of these federal lil Liberals in Quebec have been photoshopped onto other people's bodies. And by the looks of it, they have been dropped onto a stock street shot.

Now I could be wrong on this one.

But I am confident in saying that if some of us stripped for this cause, there isn't a rights charter anywhere in the world big enough to cover the assault on public decency represented by seeing our middle-aged spread on a billboard anywhere.

That said, there isn't anything really edgy about this piece of work. The boff bods are all covered by undergarments.

The work is being distributed by a company called Newad. This all seems pretty much old-ad stuff to me.

CBC lock-out over?

While other blogs have been filled with the CBC lock-out, I have held fire for no particularly good reason.

News today is that there is a tentative agreement and those of us news junkies who thrive on the Mother Corp's radio programs will soon be getting our daily fix. The link is to John Gushue's superlative blog in which said radio broadcaster has kept up an estimable compendium of all things related to the lock-out and much more besides.

Here's the Canadian Press version of the story.

One post samba

Since this blog from Sue Kelland seems dead, I guess we can just note it in passing.

If it turns out to be a more active place, I'll link it in the right margin.

Bonus points for anyone who can decipher the rather lengthy post, apparently all on September 5 that rambles from topic to topic without any seeming connection.

Baiting made easy

And yet more from RGL Inc.

Shorter post.

Still misses the point(s):

1. I haven't endeavoured to rebut any of RGL's previous posts since there really isn't anything to rebut.

2. A comment, as the one posted here early this morning, isn't a rebuttal, therefore it makes no sense to criticize a comment because it isn't a rebuttal. This is a PIFO - a penetrating insight into the flippin' obvious. A comment is a comment. It is not a rebuttal.

3. Aside from his cut and pasting the list of points in favour of the PWG, Liam hasn't offered anything new to support the PWG.

4. The entire bit about self-loathing is nonsense since at no time have I criticized all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, nor have I advocated one flag for the province of any kind over another flag of any description. I simply said there are better things to talk about.

5. This entire series of posts has actually morphed off into a pointless exchange in which Liam makes some form of comment. I then offer observations on the nature of his comments. Then he replies to the observations.

6. Raising irrelevant points - e.g. self-loathing, the lack of a comments section on this blog - doesn't constitute an argument for or against anything. Ditto for the bit about "profiling Liam as a townie. It never happened. The guy is from Buchans. Not sure if he missed this or imagined it.

Since there is no html code for a shrug, I'll move on to other things.

Everything old is new again.

Try this little observation from Campaign Central, about the renaissance of radio - specifically podcasting - as a means of political communication.

Our commentator is not entirely accurate. The Connies have introduced podcasting. The other parties may try it; we'll have to wait and see what happens.

Being from Western Canada, he uses Western examples. The best local example of the use of radio for political campaigning remains Joe Smallwood during the National Convention.

Joe Smallwood delivering an after-dinner speech
Note the microphones.

RGL goes ballistic

Yet another lengthy post over at Responsible Government League commenting on yesterday's award.

And true to form, Liam trots out yet another one of his stock criticism's for use when nothing else comes to mind - "self-loathing" - even though it has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all anywhere.

He's used it on everyone from Richard Cashin to well, me. I am in fine company.

Actually, Liam should know these last two posts are not about the flag issue, as he claims: the focus has shifted from the issue to the lengthy posts he uses to ranble on about anything other than the topic.

Those posts that miss the point.

All the time.

And the award goes to...

1. Reflexive Grit-Loather [RGL] Postings Inc. for the lengthy pseudo-rebuttal to The Dead End Kids.

The post:

- is long, in keeping with the format at RGL. Heck, the guy even beats me out for lengthy posts.
- misses any point made by anyone, all the time, any time.
- manages to dredge up some obscure comic book from Marvel that appeared briefly in the mid 1980s. Thank Heavens for google. When will Howard the Duck turn up over that RGL?
- accuses everyone else all the time of the same faults and foibles of the RGL, usually without any evidence that such is the case.

2. To the Spindy editor Ryan Cleary who claims, in his editorial this week, that Confederation robbed "us" of all our heros, the award for sheer volume of equine excrement compacted into one tiny phrase.

Ryan, maybe you need to start thinking about your readership when they elect a 19th century Roman Catholic priest as the greatest Newfoundlander or Labradorian ever, and then your carefully-selected editorial panel [all your columnists and writers], tosses the notion in favour of someone plausible - i.e. William Coaker.

Sir Robert came in second.

Something tells me Ryan couldn't stomach handing out an award to Sir Robert, whom he labels a career politician - that's just crap since at the time people held down elected office and maintained other careers. We didn't see career politicians in this place until after Confederation. Ryan has been known to fume about at least one thing bearing Sir Robert's name. Maybe the name just sticks in his craw a bit.

But hey, Coaker deserves a lot of praise - perhaps for being the guy who built the Icelandic fishery.

Meanwhile, rumours the the Spindy's imminent demise are surfacing again in the wake of people quitting and being fired from Dobbin's little laugh factory by the Bubble. Now that he has his plum appointment, maybe Sir Brian won't be as interested in flushing so much cash down the drain each week.

Having served its purpose and gotten Dobbin onto the public travel tit, the Spindy maybe long for the harbour.

The Dead End Kids

As one might have expected, The Gangs of St. John's caused a stir over at Responsible Government League [RGL], or as I sometimes call it, the place where one finds posts of Really Great Length.

At the outset, let's restate the point made in the original post which, admittedly, might have gotten lost either in the wake of the opening photo of a well-known Bowery Boy or in the end photo of Cameron Diaz.

The Gangs of St. John's argued that:

a. There are many more pressing issues deserving of widespread public debate or discussion at this point than what piece of coloured nylon flaps from the flagpoles of the province; and,

b. if we must discuss it, there is little merit in holding up the pink, white and green flag that derived from a particular, short-lived political faction in early 19th century St. John's as being somehow the de facto emblem of our fair land and its people.

The pink, white and green is a version of the flag of the so-called Newfoundland Natives' Society.

That is it. Pure and simple. After the Society collapsed in 1847, the flag appears periodically, almost exclusively in St. John's and continues today having become associated with the idea of Newfoundland and Labrador as an independent country.

The origins of the colour combination are somewhat difficult to trace. Prominent local historian John Fitzgerald brands as a fable the idea that the flag was designed to include the colours of England and Ireland with a white band of peace between the two. He then ignores any discussion of the origins of the flag, preferring instead, as does RGL to focus on the appearance of the flag after 1860 or thereabouts to make the case for the tricolour as the flag of this place. Oddly enough, the tricolour petition website actually cites the seal myth as part of the flag's history despite the fact that Fitzgerald dismisses it as unsubstantiated.

The Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador contends that the flag derived from the banners of two rival Irish organizations, one made up of people born in Newfoundland, the other being new-comers. This is the version I have accepted thus far, until someone can suggest an alternative.

There is no doubt that the tricolour appears periodically and has been held up as the local flag. However, the examples offered by O'Brien and others are almost exclusively from St. John's. O'Brien notes the formation of the police force and fire brigade, which, it should be noted means the St. John's police force and the St. John's fire brigade.

O'Brien notes the pledge of Sir Robert Bond in the 1908 election to make the tricolour the official flag of the country. He takes issue with my contention that Bond made the pledge for electoral benefit, likely by appealing to a particular group in St. John's (I am suggesting predominantly those of Irish heritage) to try and win a hotly contested election.

As I noted in comments on RGL, it seems passing strange that Bond would use the tricolour as a major part of his campaign. Bond was seeking re-election and it was during his administration that the legislature adopted a typical British ensign as the official flag of Newfoundland. Aside from what may have occurred in certain instances noted by tricolour supporters, this flag flew on all government buildings before 1949 and a blue ensign of the same design flew on government-owned vessels. It is also the flag that hangs in the Amiens memorial chapel to the fallen of the Great War representing Newfoundland, as one of the countries that fought to defend France.

The 1904 Newfoundland Ensign

Perhaps the most curious portion of O'Brien's post is the argument that I have somehow confused the tricolour flag with separatism. He cites a poll conducted for the Vic Young Royal Commission as proof of his contention that the flag and the "nationalist" sentiment actually pervade the province.

Let's us be clear. The Ryan Research poll does indicate that an overwhelming majority of respondents consider themselves to be Newfoundlanders or Labradorians before they consider themselves Canadians. At the same time, the poll also found that an overwhelming majority of respondents were opposed to Newfoundland and Labrador becoming an independent country. That sentiment was strong across all regions, including St. John's.

But at no point does Ryan ask about the flag. Therefore, O'Brien's use of this poll to prove or disprove any point about the validity of the tricolour as the provincial flag is erroneous.

Nationalism, on the other hand is something altogether different from independence and separatism. Nationalism as pride in one's place of birth is an obvious notion.

The "nationalism" to which I referred in The Gangs of St. John's is that version of nationalism that is rooted in St. John's. Part of it derives from the nativist sentiment of almost two centuries ago. Some of it - albeit a very small portion, according to Ryan - is unabashedly in favour of a return to so-called responsible government: independence.

To be fair, I should have clarified my use of the term. In local usage, the word "nationalist" almost invariable does not mean independence. Even the newspaper which uses the tricolour in its masthead and which calls itself The Independent cannot seem to call outright for the independence of Newfoundland and Labrador from Canada.

Rather the "nationalists", who have always been found mostly on the streets of St. John's are actually closer in philosophy to Quebec's sovereignists: they romanticize about local "nationalism", of being maitres chez nous, and speak in strong terms about the supposedly harsh treatment this place has received from "evil" Canadians.

Yet, these same champions of Newfoundland and Labrador seem to be unable to remove themselves from the tit on the Rideau. They studiously avoid working out the financial implications of separation. They argue for something akin to sovereignty-association, with progressively more and more political power accruing to St. John's while Ottawa has little to do beyond keeping the cash flowing to provincial coffers.

In that context, the January offshore deal is a classic example of the "nationalist" approach - so that the provincial government may receive all revenues from its offshore resources, it must receive not only all the revenues (as it currently does, and as acknowledged by the provincial government in the deal itself) but it must also receive federal transfer payments as if those revenues did not exist. We attain local self-determination (does this not mean independence?) - we become masters of our destiny in the Premier's words - by receiving ever more hand-outs from Uncle Ottawa.

That said, the pink, white and green is the banner around which these "nationalists" rally and no one should pretend that this tricolour flag is being proposed and is supported largely by anyone other than "nationalists".

Through it all, however, one cannot escape the overwhelming rejection of independence by those polled merely two years ago. The numbers today may well be different, but somehow I would doubt they would be radically different such that I might think it possible - were I a "nationalist" - to use an old St. John's flag as my rallying banner and expect to get very far.

This brings me inevitably back to the point at which The Gangs of St. John's started. With all the challenges faced by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, surely the last thing on our agenda should be the flag. The last thing we ought bother to argue about should be the flag that is linked inextricably with such a small percentage of the population - by any measure.

If the flag - if the pink, white and green - is all we have to talk about or write petitions about, then surely we have reached a political dead end in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Maybe Satch really is the father of our "nationalists", if not our nation.

The Gangs of St. John's - amended

Horace Debussey Jones [Huntz Hall]
Is Satch the real father of our nation?

Renewed interest in having the townie banner made the official flag of Newfoundland and Labrador is probably one of the surest signs that public discourse in the province as a whole has descended to the same level as the sign wars of the recent St. John's municipal election.

Despite there being so many substantial issues of policy we could be discussing, a small group has decided to launch a website, dedicated to having the tricolour (pink, white and green) turned into the symbol of our supposed secret nation.

There's an interesting essay by John Fitzgerald, noted nationalist historian. It's interesting because it makes it appear as though the flag was somehow the defacto flag of the Dominion of Newfoundland, merely because it cropped up at townie events. Yes, Sir Robert Bond made a promise to have the flag legally adopted, but remember: he made the pledge in the heat of a very close election in 1908. Bond's actions may have had more to do with courting a certain ethnic group of voters than any deep-seated belief in the rightness of the Pink, White and Green.

[Amendment: Alright, a faithful reader has pointed out that I shagged up the front end of John's essay. No excuses. I made a huge mistake and I apologise to John Fitzgerald for my error.

John clearly identifies this myth as a myth and it isn't John's myth it is someone else's. Faithful readers of these e-scribbles should know I have learned the lesson of writing late at night.

That said, I have deleted the paragraph where I attributed the story to Fitz. The rest I'll leave intact with amendments, as noted.]

[Paragraph deleted]

The Pink, White and Green story I am familiar with is contained in the Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador, both in Volume 2 on the entry for flags and in Volume Four in the entry on the Natives' Society of Newfoundland.

Here's the relevant section from page 196 and 197 of Volume 2:

"The pink, white and green flag, known as the native flag, developed from the merging of two flags flown by two rival groups in the 1800s: the so-called "natives" a group which was composed of well-established [i.e. locally born - ed.] citizens of St. John's who were largely Roman Catholic; and a large group of newly arrived immigrants from Ireland. During the 1840s the "natives" formed the Native Society of Newfoundland, an organization, the purpose of which was to safeguard the interests of "natives" in the face of the large influx of immigrants to the Colony.

The society adopted as its emblem a pink flag with a green fir tree, of unknown origin, which had been flown for a number of years. Apparently, there was more than one version of this flag flown for the society. One version showed two clasped hands beneath the tree and the word "philanthropy"...

The newly arrived Roman Catholics... began flying a green flag with the harp of Brian Boru to represent their group."

As this version of the story goes, the two rival Roman Catholic factions were locked in competition which peaked in 1843. Bishop Fleming intervened and proposed the creation of a new flag representing both groups - pink and green, with a band of neutral white in the centre. This sounds more plausible than the one pushed by the flag guys (but I am open to persuasion) in largest part because given Fleming's political activism it is difficult to see how he might be accepted by Protestants at the time as some sort of uniting force. At the time, did Protestants even see a need to stop begrudging Romans anything, or vice versa?

What we have then, according to the version I am familiar with, is a flag that essential derived from our own local version of the Gangs of New York. Before anyone leaps to the ramparts, it is useful to look closely at the history of Irish immigration to New York and see if there are any similar patterns to be found.

It is certainly true that the tricolour turned up at many events in St. John's after 1947,[<--added] but Fitz might want to do some checking on his claims that the tricolour was flown at so many major national events in pre-Confederation Newfoundland. For example, while he states that the tricolour was accepted alongside the Union Flag between 1914 and 1918, it is perhaps instructive to note that in the Amiens cathedral memorial chapel, the flag representing Newfoundland is actually the blue ensign adopted in 1904. That flag consisted of a conventional ensign design with the Union Jack in the upper corner. In fly was the Badge of Newfoundland, the arms of the Dominion. This consisted of two figures, one on bended knee offering up a fish to Britannia. Beneath are the Latin words translating as "We bring you these gifts". [Sentence added] In other words, officially, the flag of Newfoundland after 1904 was a typical engisn design. Underneath the whole PWG movement is the fact that the flag is a townie creation, much like Newfoundland "nationalism". [Added:] It is difficult to separate the flag from its roots, even if one dismisses the version Fitz identifies as myth. Surely to heavens though, with two communities in the province about to suffer difficult economic times, we can find something a bit more urgent to talk about than accepting a flag that may well have its origins not in a quaint little fable of denominational reconciliation but in the local equivalent of the Dead Rabbits or the Bowery Boys.

That said, and on a purely personal note, Fitz and the boys might actually get my support if they could manage to work Cameron Diaz into the story.

Come to think of it, a lot of guys would be willing to adopt the flag is Cameron Diaz was involved. Da byes might have to get Leo DeCapprio into the story to make more women go along with the tricolour thing.

The power of public relations

Simon Lono, unsuccessful councillor at large candidate received 8, 434 votes on a total campaign budget of around $3, 000. That works out to a cost-per-vote of $2.81.

Ron Ellsworth, who conservative estimates hold spent about $45, 000 on his campaign, garnered a little over 3, 300 votes in his successful Ward 4 campaign. That's about $13.60 per vote.

Lono was all over the news media on substantive issues affecting the city.

Ellsworth's first media interview was on election night with the softball crew at Out of the Fog.

Don't get me wrong: Ellsworth ran a fine campaign and he deserves full credit. He won; Lono lost.

But speaking as a public relations guy, a campaigner who has been around for a while and - in the interests of full disclosure - a guy who helped Lono, Simon's campaign should demonstrate the decisive impact of solid messaging and effective media relations. He went from being invisible to winning more than 8, 000 votes in the at large field of 14 candidates. There's no way of knowing what a few more bucks would have turned up in the way of votes, but...

Even in losing, Lono can look at a pretty solid return on his investment.

Why Andy Wells is wrong

In typical fashion, Andy Wells was quick to comment on the municipal election results in St. John's claiming credit for his own success in suppressing the vote for councillor Shannie Duff and others by raising Memorial stadium as an issue. He also criticized two at large candidates, although not by name.

The results don't support Wells contention.

1. Overall, there were about 35, 000 ballot kits returned in this election, down slightly from the 39, 000 returned in the 2001 contest. This decline is easily attributed to the lack of a mayoral race which has traditionally boosted voter turn-out.

At the same time, there were 11, 000 more mail ballots distributed this time. That doesn't mean that there was a dramatic decline in voter turn-out. About the same number of people voted this time as voted last time.

2. In 2001, Shannie Duff garnered slightly more than 21, 000 votes last time out and this time was re-elected with over 19, 000 votes. That decline is hardly indicative of any dramatic decline in her support.

In fact, Duff's share of the votes cast is exactly the same as it was last time out.

3. While Wells may trumpet his own apparent decisive victory, it is hard to take him seriously. This election was a no-contest against a man whose behaviour suggested he may well be experiencing severe personal problems. Such was the contest that Wells stopped campaigning.

But here's the interesting thing.

In the mayoral race there were actually more than 6, 200 ballots that were spoiled or not cast. That's almost 18% of the total ballot kits returned. It is a horrendous number for any election - but if Andy was the darling of St. John's, why was he unable to actually increase voter turn-out such that he garnered the support of more than 33% of the total electorate? That's a pretty abysmal comment on Wells the mayor and the contest as a whole. Had he faced a credible candidate, who can say what the outcome might have been?

Regardless of that, in a head-to-head contest between Andy Wells and a guy who people wondered might be ill, they took Andy. Personally, I wouldn't be writing home about that.

4. Frank Galgay is actually the best proof of Wells' political impotence - that is, if Andy he is trying to suggest that he is the King politico of St. John's. Wells courted Bob Crocker to run against Galgay, may well have financially supported Crocker and certainly publicly attacked Galgay with newspaper ads and a letter mailed to every voter in Ward 2.

Galgay beat Crocker - and by easy extension Wells - by better than two to one.

If anything, Wells crude "campaign" actually cemented Galgay's support and drove them to the polls. Negative campaigning is supposed to suppress voters, especially the opponent's supporters.

That's what Wells is implicitly claiming - he, the master politician affected the results of other candidates. He may have, but certainly not in the way he thinks.

Take that, Bembridge scholars.

5. The Memorial Stadium issue had no traction with voters. It didn't appear to motivate them one way or another, except for a handful of disaffected people in the east end of town.

Wells was challenged publicly on his bizarre accounting by both Duff - who handily won re-election - and by one of the new faces in the campaign, Simon Lono. The media covered it; Wells ignored it, as only Andy can.

6. Wells introduced nothing of substance to the campaign. He did not indicate what he plans to do over the next four years. He did not run on any platform. He advanced no new ideas. Indeed Wells, who was once the candidate of change, revolution and attacking the system is now the ultimate Establishment candidate.

His only foray into the campaign was to attack other candidates and in the effort, every single one of Wells' targets - save one - gained re-election.

7. In the sole exception, Paul Sears defeat can easily be attributed to his own poor performance on council. Andy can hardly claim credit for Sears' self-inflicted wounds.

8. Wells most laughable comments on Out of the Fog came when he lambasted two at large candidates for their platform issues.

Although he didn't mention names, one was obviously John Fisher who talked about fighting crime. Ok, Andy, I'll grant that. Fisher was talking about crime and the police when the city can do exactly diddly squat about it.

But the second candidate was Simon Lono who Wells' thought foolish for "attacking city hall".

Here's some meat to chew on, as opposed to Wells' characteristic gristle.

Of all the at large candidates, indeed of all the candidates, Lono was the only one who put substantive policy issues on the table for discussion.

He gained media coverage that was second to none, except for Boss Andy himself.

In the singular, substantive moment of the campaign, Lono embarrassed Wells by drawing public attention to the week-long Duckworth Street water main fiasco. The city delivered its own coup de grace on that one by letting the thing fester for more than a week until a 15 foot high geyser erupted in the east end of town.

It was a public embarrassment not just for Wells and his supposed record of infrastructure management but for the whole city. Hundreds of cruise ship visitors, one of them a retired municipal water engineer, looked in amazement at the evident lack of proper maintenance and the profligate treatment of the city's precious water supply.

Wells then supplied further proof of his lack of a grip when he attacked a deputy mayoral candidate during a television interview. According to Wells, the city's water problem were caused by people drowning their lawns; that interview aired the same day the water main broke and a week before the geyser shot up.

Talk about hubris.

The night Lono's media coverage appeared, city council was in heavy damage control mode. Council crews scrambled from sight when the cameras arrived and - surprise, surprise - a geyser that was apparently unfixable until a new part arrived and couldn't be tampered with for fear of cutting off water to businesses and residents suddenly vanished. The thing was gone the next day and fixed within two.

Lono also talked about crumbling sidewalks and borrowing from next year's capital works budget to patch problems that emerged this year, all of which are accurate.

But Andy needn't take Lono's word for the infrastructure deficit.

Last week, no less a public body than the Board of Trade included the municipal infrastructure deficit as one of the major challenges facing the new council.

Yeah, Andy. Lono doesn't know what he is talking about.

Neither does Marilyn Thompson, president of the Board of Trade and her members.

Andy Wells may be a lot of things, and he is right about things once in a while.

But as far as his comments on the municipal election results, he is actually the one who doesn't have a clue, let alone a sweet one.

If Dobbin wasn't a typical local businessman...

He might actually attract some experienced writers to work for his rag, the Spindy.

As John Gushue notes, our own low-rent Conrad Black - Brian Dobbin - is vacating his column on the editorial page of his own personal yellow sheet in favour of...guest columns.

He doesn't have to pay for guest columns.

Surprise. Surprise.

If Dobbin hadn't nickel and dimed locked out CBC reporter David Cochrane and then kicked him in the crotch for good measure with the lame "Die CBC, die" editorial a few weeks ago, Dobbin might have better stuff gracing his pages than the recycled or one-source wonders the Spindy usually prints. No one told CBC staffers they couldn't work for Dobbin's little sweat-rag.

They decided to avoid a guy who clearly has no regard for the news or for staff. Cleary and Dobbin's little tag-team routine the past couple of weeks defending Dobbin's crass and - typically - ill-informed opinion just confirm the extent these two share the same low standards of journalistic integrity. I am severely disappointed in Ryan.

But then Dobbin wouldn't be able to use the Spindy as his own homage to Joe Pulitzer. Cochrane is used to basing a story on pesky things called facts, not the sort of crap (figure out the ending and then collect up some quotes to fit the preconceived ending) that usually assault public eyeballs each Sunday.

Anyone remember the Chuck Furey fiasco about the Terra Nova project? One source. Fit with Dobbin's own ill-founded ideas. Got printed. Then the one source recanted.

That was good for a few yucks.

Incidentally, is it a coincidence that Dobbin is vacating the column (and its fawning praise for our beloved Premier) now that he has his reward - an appointment to a business advisory committee on Ireland?

Will Brian be able to bill his own business trips to the Emerald Isle to the taxpayers of Newfoundland and Labrador, all the while trumpeting the virtues of free enterprise and condemning publicly-funded anything?

Don Adams - rest well, Max

Don Adams, the actor who played television's best known parody of a parody - secret agent 86 of CONTROL- passed away in Los Angeles on Sunday, aged 82.

Cause of death is reportedly a lung infection.

In addition to his role on Get Smart!, Adams was the voice of cartoon characters Tennessee Tuxedo and Inspector Gadget.

Earth just got a little duller, but Heaven is sure gonna be a funnier place.

The case for a new municipal elections act

When Andy Wells said people would vote for Saddam Hussein rather than him, he likely wasn't only speaking of the deep-seated animosity some people have for the mayor of the capital city.

They likely would opting for Saddam's democratic election system.

The City of St. John's mail-in ballot system is the best case yet for a new municipal elections act that brings civic elections into line with the standards of a modern democracy.

A committee of councillors plus municipal officials (who owe their paycheques to the councillors) devised a system that violates the spirit and intent of the Municipal Elections Act. Here are some examples of the Act's provisions, designed to counteract corruption (like fraud), that the city officials have repeatedly and consistently ignored:

1. Given that the voters list is out of date, contains inaccuracies and the procedures for administering the election make it possible for the same person to receive two ballots for two separate wards, the election is potentially in violation of s. 23. This section prohibits the same person from voting in two separate wards while being resident in only one.

2. The city has issued ballots to individuals who fail to qualify under s. 24 (residency). Examples have been well documented beyond the 4, 000 officially noted thus far.

3. Candidates have been unable to exercise their right under s. 25 to challenge individual voters and require that they affirm or attest to their qualification as a voter and to have said objection registered under s. 41.

4. There is some question as to whether the city has applied s. 40 requiring a record of those who have cast votes, typically by crossing names from the voting list, to preclude double-voting.

5. There is no indication that s. 38 was applied under which candidates or their agents inspect the ballot box and ensure that it is empty at the time it is sealed.

6. The provisions for declaring ballots spoiled under s. 50 have been misapplied in the case of the 700 disallowed votes. These ballots may well be otherwise valid (i.e. not overvoted etc) but they are precluded merely because city officials refuse to adopt simple methods for removing the voter declaration form from the envelope containing ballots and still preventing anyone (except election officials) from knowing how any one person voted.

Incidentally, this scrupulous adherence to the notion of secrecy is an example of the zealous way officials apply some rules but ignore others. For example, under federal and provincial election rules a voting official may assist a voter (thereby learning how the vote was cast). But they are sworn to secrecy anyway!

7. The city is in clear violation of s. 51, which provides that the ballot boxes may not be opened and counting commence until after the close of polls. There is no legitimate reason for violating this provision. The city clerk's attitude at the candidates briefing (i.e. that the election was effectively over by now anyway) is certainly an indication of the antidemocratic attitude officials have brought to the process of elections.

8. Based on all the foregoing, this mail-vote system violates s. 54(5) insofar as the procedures established by the municipal bylaw are not consistent with the principles established under the MEA.

Beyond these points, there are ample grounds to question the legitimacy of this election. The unwillingness of city officials to accept reasonable alternatives to their rules further demonstrates the substantive problems with this election.

Their goal is to deliver a result as cheaply as possible. Legitimacy and fairness are not an issue.

After this fiasco is completed, the provincial government should introduce a new elections act to bring municipal voting rules in line with provincial ones. Let the province's chief electoral officer run the entire voting process. It would be cheaper than the current system and infinitely more fair to all concerned.

It is certainly far more important and issue than discussing whether or not to change the province's flag.

What good is a flag if the basics of democracy are trampled?

Mail-in voting: more details; more evidence of major problems

Candidates and their representatives received a briefing today on how the mail-in ballots will be counted on Tuesday.

Here are some details:

1. Candidates are unable to scrutinize ballots as they would in any other election. Since ballots began arriving at City Hall on 12 September, city officials have already made their decisions about validity of specific ballots and included them or excluded them based on their own policy.

2. To date, about 700 ballot kits have been ruled invalid. These ballot kits either had no voter declaration, had one that wasn't signed, had multiple signatures on the declaration (presumably including a notary's signature attesting to the identity of the voter [!!!]) or some other technical failing.

3. "Spoiled" ballot kits are running at a rate 10 times higher than the provincial election despite a turn-out thus far that is one tenth of the total provincial votes cast. One tenth the votes; 10 times as many "spoils".

Of the approximately 25, 000 mail-in ballots cast thus far, almost 3% have been ruled "spoiled". In the last provincial general election, out of more than 278, 000 ballots cast only 790 were ruled "spoiled". That's .28%, compared to the 2.8% for the city election.

4. The actual number of rejected ballots (each kit actually contains four separate ballots for different races) is actually around 2, 800. The total number of possible ballots (four per voter) is 75,000 times four, or 300,000. Even if we allow this figure as being the number of "ballots" then the spoilage rate thus far is double the last federal election and three times the number of "spoils" in the last provincial election.

5. In the last federal general election, the number of rejected ballots for Newfoundland was 0.5%.

6. The St. John's municipal vote will set a new national record for spoiled ballots, once the actual number of spoiled ballots will be determined on 27 September. All that has been determined right now is the number of kits that have been rejected as invalid. Within each ballot kit that will be counted on 27 September (accepted as valid by officials), individual ballot sections such as the one for mayor may be blank, double-voted, written on or otherwise spoiled using conventional definitions.

7. Ballot counting will begin shortly after 0800 hrs on the 27th, or 12 hours before the polls close. In every other election, ballot boxes are not opened until after the polls have closed. In this election, the election results will be known (except for the handful of ballot kits received on the official counting day) by around noon. Results will not be released until after 2000 hrs (8:00 PM) but city officials appeared to have no firm policy on this point.

8. Candidates have had no opportunity to challenge the credentials of voters, as provided in the Municipal Elections Act. If any candidate detects a problem on polling day, there is no way to determine which fraudulent ballot has been cast or how many such ballots may have been cast. City officials did not consider this to be an issue.

9. City officials have not been crossing names off their voting list, another way of detecting fraudulent voting in cases where ballots have been sent to the same person under two slightly different names.

10. Dominion Voting System Corporation [DVS Corp] has been contracted to count the ballots using their computerized counting system.
Likely problems don't stem from their system; problems come from the completely inadequate procedures established by city officials and approved by city council.