In searching quickly for a picture of the Pen here in St. John's, I got this hit back from google(tm).
It is a paper by eminent historian Peter Neary on venereal disease and the administration of public health under the Commission of Government [1930s and 1940s].
Fair warning: There are some grim descriptions of disease in this paper, including one of a child admitted to St. Clare's Hospital but subsequently treated successfully with then-new penicillin.
Other than that it is a fascinating glimpse into the relatively recent past.
18 October 2005
Where are the results?
Further to the weekend Progressive Conservative Party convention, can anyone explain why the official party website contains only a thank you to everyone who turned out?
The site, which is little more than a reposting of government news releases, has absolutely no information on the convention.
There's no agenda, no list of resolutions, not even a note telling you what to show up to worship Stephen Harper.
Nada.
Zip.
Bupkis.
How odd.
Then again, if all everyone is expected to do is merely fall in line behind The Leader, then there isn't much need for us to bother our pretty little heads with nasty old details and such.
Over at Responsible Government League, aka Really Groovy Lundrigan, Liam is rotted at not being able to get a floor resolution debated and for finding out that Trevor Taylor doesn't really support joint management of the fisheries as does Mr. O'Brien.
Liam also waxes nostalgic for John Lundrigan. That's a bit like a Grit getting all misty-eyed about Dave Rooney, the former Liberal member of parliament for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
Dave's lasting contribution to parliamentary lore was submitting stuff to National Lampoon [The Real One]. One that I recall was a Telegram piece on the local exotic dance industry with the actual headline "Stripper bares all". The other was a highway sign pointing to Heart's Content in one direction and Dildo in the other.
The site, which is little more than a reposting of government news releases, has absolutely no information on the convention.
There's no agenda, no list of resolutions, not even a note telling you what to show up to worship Stephen Harper.
Nada.
Zip.
Bupkis.
How odd.
Then again, if all everyone is expected to do is merely fall in line behind The Leader, then there isn't much need for us to bother our pretty little heads with nasty old details and such.
Over at Responsible Government League, aka Really Groovy Lundrigan, Liam is rotted at not being able to get a floor resolution debated and for finding out that Trevor Taylor doesn't really support joint management of the fisheries as does Mr. O'Brien.
Liam also waxes nostalgic for John Lundrigan. That's a bit like a Grit getting all misty-eyed about Dave Rooney, the former Liberal member of parliament for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
Dave's lasting contribution to parliamentary lore was submitting stuff to National Lampoon [The Real One]. One that I recall was a Telegram piece on the local exotic dance industry with the actual headline "Stripper bares all". The other was a highway sign pointing to Heart's Content in one direction and Dildo in the other.
17 October 2005
The I in t-e-a-m.
In both his speech to the provincial Tory convention this weekend and in his guest editorial in The Independent, Danny Williams gave us a succinct and eloquent description of his approach to politics.
His job is to provide leadership, tough but smart leadership in the the words of his Spindy editorial.
Everyone else's job is to stand shoulder to shoulder behind him.
It's a pretty simple leadership style.
There's is no room for debate or discussion, at least not on matters of substance.
That philosophy goes a long way to explaining why he labeled some of his critics in Stephenville as dissidents simply because they didn't readily accept either his explanation or his actions. The Premier didn't mean the term as a compliment or a simple statement of fact; he meant that they were out of position and would be well advised to get back in line behind him.
It also explains why he keeps going back to the offshore discussions. His own failure to achieve even one tenth of what he promised is irrelevant. The episode has been sold as a success and the value of the entire wrangle with Ottawa is, as he notes in the speech, what happens when everyone stands behind him.
More than anything else, the Danny Williams definition of team also explains his problems with a number of people who, in fact just are coincidentally women. The major problem for Elizabeth Marshall, Flo Delaney, Anne Marie Hann and Debbie Fry wasn't that they were strong women. Nope. The problem was they did not agree with him readily.
Ask Fabian Manning about that sort of thing. While a number of political observers expected last weekend's convention to be the place where Fabian would be accepted back into the Tory fold, they saw instead that Manning is still being punished for disagreeing with the Premier on fisheries issues. Ironically though, Fabe got more media coverage on himself - and the fact he has been Tory since before Danny was a twinkle in someone's eye - than the Premier got.
In some respects, Danny Williams is a common type in post-Confederation politics in Newfoundland and Labrador. Smallwood was a local caudillo or strongman. He ruled everything in the province for 23 years. Brian Peckford copied many of Smallwood's approaches to governing, as did Brian Tobin.
The next couple of years will be interesting to see which of those three politicians Williams resembles the most.
His job is to provide leadership, tough but smart leadership in the the words of his Spindy editorial.
Everyone else's job is to stand shoulder to shoulder behind him.
It's a pretty simple leadership style.
There's is no room for debate or discussion, at least not on matters of substance.
That philosophy goes a long way to explaining why he labeled some of his critics in Stephenville as dissidents simply because they didn't readily accept either his explanation or his actions. The Premier didn't mean the term as a compliment or a simple statement of fact; he meant that they were out of position and would be well advised to get back in line behind him.
It also explains why he keeps going back to the offshore discussions. His own failure to achieve even one tenth of what he promised is irrelevant. The episode has been sold as a success and the value of the entire wrangle with Ottawa is, as he notes in the speech, what happens when everyone stands behind him.
More than anything else, the Danny Williams definition of team also explains his problems with a number of people who, in fact just are coincidentally women. The major problem for Elizabeth Marshall, Flo Delaney, Anne Marie Hann and Debbie Fry wasn't that they were strong women. Nope. The problem was they did not agree with him readily.
Ask Fabian Manning about that sort of thing. While a number of political observers expected last weekend's convention to be the place where Fabian would be accepted back into the Tory fold, they saw instead that Manning is still being punished for disagreeing with the Premier on fisheries issues. Ironically though, Fabe got more media coverage on himself - and the fact he has been Tory since before Danny was a twinkle in someone's eye - than the Premier got.
In some respects, Danny Williams is a common type in post-Confederation politics in Newfoundland and Labrador. Smallwood was a local caudillo or strongman. He ruled everything in the province for 23 years. Brian Peckford copied many of Smallwood's approaches to governing, as did Brian Tobin.
The next couple of years will be interesting to see which of those three politicians Williams resembles the most.
Coming soon to NTV?
I noticed it.
One regular reader of these e-scribbles came to the same conclusion and flipped an e-mail over the weekend to point it out.
Head to the Viral Factory website.
Click on work and make sure the "Ravenstoke" clip loads. It's a piece of viral marketing in the style of a news report.
Notice the "reporter", whose name is given in the piece as "Chuck Peterson".
My guess is the guy playing Chuck is actually Glenn Carter, NTV's new reporter/anchor.
The son of former provincial cabinet minister Walter Carter recently returned to the province from Alberta.
The question is, did Carter spend anytime in Alaska or in a part of Alberta that was pretending to be Alaska.
Incidentally the fake news report is hysterically funny, especially right at the end where "Chuck" keeps a straight face while in the background two Grizzlies get a little amorous.
One regular reader of these e-scribbles came to the same conclusion and flipped an e-mail over the weekend to point it out.
Head to the Viral Factory website.
Click on work and make sure the "Ravenstoke" clip loads. It's a piece of viral marketing in the style of a news report.
Notice the "reporter", whose name is given in the piece as "Chuck Peterson".
My guess is the guy playing Chuck is actually Glenn Carter, NTV's new reporter/anchor.
The son of former provincial cabinet minister Walter Carter recently returned to the province from Alberta.
The question is, did Carter spend anytime in Alaska or in a part of Alberta that was pretending to be Alaska.
Incidentally the fake news report is hysterically funny, especially right at the end where "Chuck" keeps a straight face while in the background two Grizzlies get a little amorous.
14 October 2005
Dress and heels, Rick? That would be the navy.
Gordon O'Connor, Connie defence critic is a former Army type.
Rick Mercer rips him a new one in this post about a planned trip to entertain our troops in Afghanistan. It was supposed to be a secret trip - Rick points out it was being kept quiet for security reasons.
It was secret until the Sun chain blew that away and then guys like Gordo piled on for their own partisan purposes.
Rick Mercer rips him a new one in this post about a planned trip to entertain our troops in Afghanistan. It was supposed to be a secret trip - Rick points out it was being kept quiet for security reasons.
It was secret until the Sun chain blew that away and then guys like Gordo piled on for their own partisan purposes.
Viral marketing
One of the latest marketing phenomena is so-called viral marketing. It's based on the simple idea of having your message carried for free via e-mail and similar methods by the target audience members themselves.
There's even a company that calls itself the Viral Factory, specializing in exactly this type of selling approach.
Ads for the Ford Sportka, a compact marketed in Britain were among the first virals I ever came across. They wound up in my e-mail inbox as an attachment from a friend of mine. There were two. One is the bird version found on the Viral Factory website. The other was my favourite.
It was startling and hysterically funny, in a sick, twisted kind of way. It fits the viral bill perfectly because while the bird ad - the car bonnet swats a bird that flies too close (birds crap on cars; this car gets its vengeance) - might theoretically make it to commercial television, on the Internet you get three advantages:
1. You do NOT have to pay for placement. People circulate your stuff for free.
2. You do NOT have to navigate the sometimes painfully bureaucratic world of getting your ad cleared by the lawyers to air on television.
3. Your single ad is almost universal - there is no need to produce a version in different languages or suited to particular cultural sensitivities.
Yes, you say, but cable has become so risky that anything goes. True, but there are still boundaries.
In a genuinely successful ad, the news media will pick it up, thereby adding to your reach. The client can then disown the ads and the agency - at least publicly - thereby generating even more attention for the brand.
The agency will get paid. It will likely pick up new clients and the clients will get all the advertising they need, with the right audiences and at a relatively low cost.
You and I often get a laugh.
Everyone wins.
For a Friday bit of fun, here's the cat-eating car. WARNING: This is NOT for cat-lovers or children. It is safe for work.
There's even a company that calls itself the Viral Factory, specializing in exactly this type of selling approach.
Ads for the Ford Sportka, a compact marketed in Britain were among the first virals I ever came across. They wound up in my e-mail inbox as an attachment from a friend of mine. There were two. One is the bird version found on the Viral Factory website. The other was my favourite.
It was startling and hysterically funny, in a sick, twisted kind of way. It fits the viral bill perfectly because while the bird ad - the car bonnet swats a bird that flies too close (birds crap on cars; this car gets its vengeance) - might theoretically make it to commercial television, on the Internet you get three advantages:
1. You do NOT have to pay for placement. People circulate your stuff for free.
2. You do NOT have to navigate the sometimes painfully bureaucratic world of getting your ad cleared by the lawyers to air on television.
3. Your single ad is almost universal - there is no need to produce a version in different languages or suited to particular cultural sensitivities.
Yes, you say, but cable has become so risky that anything goes. True, but there are still boundaries.
In a genuinely successful ad, the news media will pick it up, thereby adding to your reach. The client can then disown the ads and the agency - at least publicly - thereby generating even more attention for the brand.
The agency will get paid. It will likely pick up new clients and the clients will get all the advertising they need, with the right audiences and at a relatively low cost.
You and I often get a laugh.
Everyone wins.
For a Friday bit of fun, here's the cat-eating car. WARNING: This is NOT for cat-lovers or children. It is safe for work.
Air Canada sucks
Air Canuck will be charging for the use of pillows and blankets, according to this Reuters story.
Gone are the warm blankets and fluffy pillows, to be replaced by inflatable cushions and thin rags, supposedly as a cost-saving measure.
What's next, you ask?
- Passengers will be provided with pedals under the seats. It will be billed as an effort to provide in-flight exercise. In reality the pedals will power the fan blades in the engines so the plane can fly. There will be no charge for the service. Air fares will increase.
- Short-haul flights will stop pressurizing the passenger compartment in an effort to save money. Passengers will be told it is a modern way of traveling so that you arrive well-rested and seemingly younger thanks to the cryogenic properties of airline's passenger environment. The reality is passengers will black-out from oxygen deprivation once the aircraft climbs past 12, 000 feet above sea level and come close to freezing as the air temperature plummets.
People who need to stay awake and work on the flight will be able to purchase a blanket for CDN$2 and lease an oxygen tank at CDN$2 per minute. They can also purchase a stylish oxygen mask which they can take with them as a souvenir.
- In a further effort to cut costs, Air Canada will introduce self-serve cabins. Taking a cue from northern service airlines using flying culverts, Air Canuck will now ask passengers to pass around a garbage bag filled with Coke and Pepsi by the can.
- On selected routes, passengers will be fired from a large cannon designed originally by Gerald Bull. In the photo at right, a lucky passenger departs Charlottetown airport en route to Toronto.
His luggage was fired immediately after...to Winnipeg. Airline officials blamed the problem on a mistake in loading the right amount of powder.
Gone are the warm blankets and fluffy pillows, to be replaced by inflatable cushions and thin rags, supposedly as a cost-saving measure.
What's next, you ask?
- Passengers will be provided with pedals under the seats. It will be billed as an effort to provide in-flight exercise. In reality the pedals will power the fan blades in the engines so the plane can fly. There will be no charge for the service. Air fares will increase.
- Short-haul flights will stop pressurizing the passenger compartment in an effort to save money. Passengers will be told it is a modern way of traveling so that you arrive well-rested and seemingly younger thanks to the cryogenic properties of airline's passenger environment. The reality is passengers will black-out from oxygen deprivation once the aircraft climbs past 12, 000 feet above sea level and come close to freezing as the air temperature plummets.
People who need to stay awake and work on the flight will be able to purchase a blanket for CDN$2 and lease an oxygen tank at CDN$2 per minute. They can also purchase a stylish oxygen mask which they can take with them as a souvenir.
- In a further effort to cut costs, Air Canada will introduce self-serve cabins. Taking a cue from northern service airlines using flying culverts, Air Canuck will now ask passengers to pass around a garbage bag filled with Coke and Pepsi by the can.
- On selected routes, passengers will be fired from a large cannon designed originally by Gerald Bull. In the photo at right, a lucky passenger departs Charlottetown airport en route to Toronto.
His luggage was fired immediately after...to Winnipeg. Airline officials blamed the problem on a mistake in loading the right amount of powder.
Put me in coach
CNN covered a minor flap on Thursday with allegations that American soldiers involved in a brief question and answer session with George W. Bush had been coached. Scroll to the bottom of this link for a reference to the incident. Here's the Associated Press version of the story.
Ok.
This was a situation in which a handful of obviously hand-picked American soldiers in Iraq were involved in a televised satellite situation in which - get this - Bush asked questions of the soldiers.
The "coaching" was done by Allison Barber, a deputy assistant secretary of defence. She wasn't caught in the act, as some made it appear. Rather what Ms. Barber did was walk through the entire situation with the soldiers involved, making sure that someone was lined up to answer each of the questions to be asked, and giving the soldiers advice on what to do should the President decide to ask them a question that hadn't been anticipated.
At no point did she give them the specific answers to be provided.
As described by AP, the entire situation is simply a walk-through of the process of the exchange.
This smacks of a couple of things, not the least of which is an exceedingly slow news day.
More importantly, it suggests that the Washington Press corps thinks the Bush administration is increasingly vulnerable about the war in Iraq. The press corps seems to feel comfortable in taking a poke at not only the White House but also senior Bush administration public relations staff about events like the Bush-soldier exchange.
While it would be somewhat unusual to have media witness this sort of preparation, they all know it goes on and is an accepted part of the event. In a normal situation, this stuff wouldn't get reported because it has no news value in and of itself.
Largely for that reason and because reporters and public relations staff need to stay on productive working terms, reporters wouldn't normally blade someone like Barber. That's blade as in military slang for slipping a knife blade into the ribs of a buddy, usually metaphorically, by telling a tale to superiors to get him or her in trouble.
There's another story underneath the one reported by CNN and AP, but you won't see that one...yet.
In a related story, though, notice the reference in the AP story to Operation Truth, an anti-war website.
Leave aside for a moment the fact that this supposedly knowledgeable group's spokesperson couldn't tell the fact there was only one officer (a captain) in the Bush videoconference. The rest were non-commissioned. Beyond that also forget that given the size of the American military, these are hardly some sort of elite bunch of characters - basically the spokespersons whole carefully prepared sound bite was crap.
Notice instead the link to this blog by an American soldier serving in Iraq since at least February. Now the guy is pretty literate - no surprise there at all. Read the posts, especially the ones at the beginning and you'll see a pretty interesting perspective on the Iraq situation.
Check the archives and you can also find a link to the guy's girlfriend, complete with a couple of good pictures of her.
Then notice his post about censorship rules.
ok. What organization allows anyone in the organization to crap on it at will whenever they want? Answer: None do. Therefore it shouldn't be surprising that the American Department of Defence wants to discourage wholesale crap storms from anybody and everybody.
Beyond that, there are actually some pretty sensible reasons for restricting access to the Internet or more particularly to revealing personal details of serving personnel on a site anyone can access. Since the American military deployed to Iraq, blogs and Internet chatrooms have been clogged with soldiers of all ranks and occupations who freely reveal their names, units locations and missions to anyone who asks.
It's an intelligence goldmine - for the guys working to blow them up with car bombs.
Consider for example, that without too much checking I can tell you Daniel The Blogger's girlfriend's name, hometown and occupation. It wouldn't take much searching to find something a lot more specific. It wouldn't take too much to find some potentially useful information on Daniel that could be used to advantage - against Daniel and against his buddies.
While Daniel and Holly might be a bit more difficult to locate, get a load of this guy. It isn't clear if all this stuff is actually approved or if it is just going on largely unchecked by military authorities. Follow some of his links and you'll even more military bloggers plus a bit of a controversy over whether milboggers as really bloggers or just agents of Department of Defence propaganda. [roll eyes in head]
There's a story in this stuff AP could be telling.
I never met Daniel or Holly but I just hope he gets home to her in one peace. [a Freudian slip, but I decided to leave it in after editing]
Stay low and keep moving, Daniel.
Ok.
This was a situation in which a handful of obviously hand-picked American soldiers in Iraq were involved in a televised satellite situation in which - get this - Bush asked questions of the soldiers.
The "coaching" was done by Allison Barber, a deputy assistant secretary of defence. She wasn't caught in the act, as some made it appear. Rather what Ms. Barber did was walk through the entire situation with the soldiers involved, making sure that someone was lined up to answer each of the questions to be asked, and giving the soldiers advice on what to do should the President decide to ask them a question that hadn't been anticipated.
At no point did she give them the specific answers to be provided.
As described by AP, the entire situation is simply a walk-through of the process of the exchange.
This smacks of a couple of things, not the least of which is an exceedingly slow news day.
More importantly, it suggests that the Washington Press corps thinks the Bush administration is increasingly vulnerable about the war in Iraq. The press corps seems to feel comfortable in taking a poke at not only the White House but also senior Bush administration public relations staff about events like the Bush-soldier exchange.
While it would be somewhat unusual to have media witness this sort of preparation, they all know it goes on and is an accepted part of the event. In a normal situation, this stuff wouldn't get reported because it has no news value in and of itself.
Largely for that reason and because reporters and public relations staff need to stay on productive working terms, reporters wouldn't normally blade someone like Barber. That's blade as in military slang for slipping a knife blade into the ribs of a buddy, usually metaphorically, by telling a tale to superiors to get him or her in trouble.
There's another story underneath the one reported by CNN and AP, but you won't see that one...yet.
In a related story, though, notice the reference in the AP story to Operation Truth, an anti-war website.
Leave aside for a moment the fact that this supposedly knowledgeable group's spokesperson couldn't tell the fact there was only one officer (a captain) in the Bush videoconference. The rest were non-commissioned. Beyond that also forget that given the size of the American military, these are hardly some sort of elite bunch of characters - basically the spokespersons whole carefully prepared sound bite was crap.
Notice instead the link to this blog by an American soldier serving in Iraq since at least February. Now the guy is pretty literate - no surprise there at all. Read the posts, especially the ones at the beginning and you'll see a pretty interesting perspective on the Iraq situation.
Check the archives and you can also find a link to the guy's girlfriend, complete with a couple of good pictures of her.
Then notice his post about censorship rules.
ok. What organization allows anyone in the organization to crap on it at will whenever they want? Answer: None do. Therefore it shouldn't be surprising that the American Department of Defence wants to discourage wholesale crap storms from anybody and everybody.
Beyond that, there are actually some pretty sensible reasons for restricting access to the Internet or more particularly to revealing personal details of serving personnel on a site anyone can access. Since the American military deployed to Iraq, blogs and Internet chatrooms have been clogged with soldiers of all ranks and occupations who freely reveal their names, units locations and missions to anyone who asks.
It's an intelligence goldmine - for the guys working to blow them up with car bombs.
Consider for example, that without too much checking I can tell you Daniel The Blogger's girlfriend's name, hometown and occupation. It wouldn't take much searching to find something a lot more specific. It wouldn't take too much to find some potentially useful information on Daniel that could be used to advantage - against Daniel and against his buddies.
While Daniel and Holly might be a bit more difficult to locate, get a load of this guy. It isn't clear if all this stuff is actually approved or if it is just going on largely unchecked by military authorities. Follow some of his links and you'll even more military bloggers plus a bit of a controversy over whether milboggers as really bloggers or just agents of Department of Defence propaganda. [roll eyes in head]
There's a story in this stuff AP could be telling.
I never met Daniel or Holly but I just hope he gets home to her in one peace. [a Freudian slip, but I decided to leave it in after editing]
Stay low and keep moving, Daniel.
As bizarre goes
Yet another bizarre e-mail resulting from the posts on the Colonial Building.
This one contained nothing more than a quote from Nicolo Machiavelli's The Prince, in Latin no less, from the chapter "An exhortation to liberate Italy from the Barbarians".
I'll give you the English, as found here:
"With us there is great justice, because that war is just which is necessary, and arms are hallowed when there is no other hope but in them."
That was followed by a comment that seemed to indicate it would be just to take arms if the arms, in this instance serve to sow confusion among "the followers of Luther".
Who needs a comments section on the ole blog when the e-mails yield this sort of humour from someone who seems sectarian enough to still be fighting the Reformation and sees in relatively ordinary things great plots and conspiracies?
This one contained nothing more than a quote from Nicolo Machiavelli's The Prince, in Latin no less, from the chapter "An exhortation to liberate Italy from the Barbarians".I'll give you the English, as found here:
"With us there is great justice, because that war is just which is necessary, and arms are hallowed when there is no other hope but in them."
That was followed by a comment that seemed to indicate it would be just to take arms if the arms, in this instance serve to sow confusion among "the followers of Luther".
Who needs a comments section on the ole blog when the e-mails yield this sort of humour from someone who seems sectarian enough to still be fighting the Reformation and sees in relatively ordinary things great plots and conspiracies?
Your United Nations money at work
When the Smurfs were just a sickening kiddie fad, some of us used to joke about a campaign to eradicate the pesky aquamarine creatures accompanied by the slogan "What is that blue goo on your shoe?"
Well, that was a sophomoric joke.
Then there's this thing from UNICEF, the United Nations children's fund. You can find some clips from the video here with reporting in Flemish or French. That doesn't matter since the images themselves are shocking.
If you look closely at the animated version as opposed to the stills, you'll notice that no Smurfs get killed. They get bounced around a lot, but for some inexplicable reason they don't actually die.
So, some of us are left scratching our heads at the purpose of this little piece of animation. One of the complaints about slapstick animated comedy like Wile E Coyote and even the old A-Team was that there were no logical and hideous consequences to shooting people, blowing them up or dropping them off a cliff.
Pray tell what is the difference is here.
Well, that was a sophomoric joke.
Then there's this thing from UNICEF, the United Nations children's fund. You can find some clips from the video here with reporting in Flemish or French. That doesn't matter since the images themselves are shocking.
If you look closely at the animated version as opposed to the stills, you'll notice that no Smurfs get killed. They get bounced around a lot, but for some inexplicable reason they don't actually die.
So, some of us are left scratching our heads at the purpose of this little piece of animation. One of the complaints about slapstick animated comedy like Wile E Coyote and even the old A-Team was that there were no logical and hideous consequences to shooting people, blowing them up or dropping them off a cliff.
Pray tell what is the difference is here.
Bad release; great video
Anyone familiar with Black Hawk Down will recall the scene where one soldier removes some plates from his frag vest because they are too heavy in the hot Mogadishu sun and, after all, he thought he'd never get shot in the back.
He got shot in the back.
This soldier, on the other hand, is clearly well disciplined.
His discipline saved his life in a sniper attack.
The video, taken by the sniper team, was captured along with the sniper. It is truly amazing There's an excerpt here. You'll need Windows Media Player to see it.
The army public affairs news release, on the other hand, is something my students would never have produced. It is appallingly bad, as these things go and the dorky picture makes a competent soldier look like...a dork.
Incidentally, note that the guy is a medic.
He got shot in the back.
This soldier, on the other hand, is clearly well disciplined.
His discipline saved his life in a sniper attack.
The video, taken by the sniper team, was captured along with the sniper. It is truly amazing There's an excerpt here. You'll need Windows Media Player to see it.
The army public affairs news release, on the other hand, is something my students would never have produced. It is appallingly bad, as these things go and the dorky picture makes a competent soldier look like...a dork.
Incidentally, note that the guy is a medic.
No Pink, White and Green for VO listeners
VOCM ran one of their on-line questions of the day o Thursday asking people if they felt the province's flag should be changed to the Pink, White and Green.
Now a poll like this sure isn't scientific, but as they go, supporters of a cause like the PWG will normally try to stack the results in their favour. Certainly with the amount of comment on VO's talk radio programs, one would think that if any crowd would support the old native flag, this would be it.
Not so.
64% voted against changing the provincial flag. 27% supported a change, while 9% were not sure.
Now a poll like this sure isn't scientific, but as they go, supporters of a cause like the PWG will normally try to stack the results in their favour. Certainly with the amount of comment on VO's talk radio programs, one would think that if any crowd would support the old native flag, this would be it.
Not so.
64% voted against changing the provincial flag. 27% supported a change, while 9% were not sure.
13 October 2005
Expert consultant tackles St. John's sewer problems
St. John's city council calls in expert to tackle its water and sewer woes.[We wish!]
"A sewer worker is like a brain surgeon. We're both specialists."
- Ed Norton
Colonial Building - further thoughts
A series of unusual e-mails yesterday prompted some further digging into the management plan for the Colonial Building, as discussed in Our plastic history. That digging prompted some further consideration of the issues and the plan.
There should be no question as to the Colonial Buildings historic importance as the former seat of government for Newfoundland and Labrador and, as a result, being the setting for some of the most important events in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Canada.
Nor should there be any question of the need to restore and preserve the Colonial Building as a public building.
The only issue is the purpose to which the building should be put.
Some may suggest it be an historic site maintained much like Commissariat House either by the provincial government or the federal government or both.
The provincial government's management plan will see it turned into offices for one small section of a provincial government department plus its associated non-government groups.
Given its historic significance, the Colonial Building should become once again the meeting place of the House of Assembly.
Here are some additional thoughts:
1. A surplus legislature.There is something bordering on the bizarre about the idea of having a legislature building in a functioning democracy that is somehow surplus to requirements and in need of a management plan.
That's one of the ideas in Our plastic history and it remains probably the most powerful reaction I have to the management plan.
Try as I might, I haven't been able to identify another example from the Commonwealth where this situation exists. There have been several examples of legislature buildings in the United States being replaced by new structures. There is one in Oregon, for example. There's also one in Illinois and in Boston. There are also old legislature buildings in Rhode Island and Connecticut.
It seems these legislature buildings were replaced by new ones owing to the need for larger space which the existing buildings and their surrounding land couldn't provide. That's a pretty simple and practical reason. In Boston, the Old State House became Boston City Hall for a period and until it was purchased and restored the building was the site of shops and restaurants.
In Oregon, the Old Capitol is still a government office building. In Illinois and Massachusetts, the old legislature buildings have been restored and maintained solely as historic sites.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Colonial Building served as home to both the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council until suspension of responsible government in 1933/34. During the Commission Government period, it served as government offices. The National Convention met in the House of Assembly chamber from 1946 to 1948 to consider the future constitution of the country and from Confederation in 1949 to 1959, the provincial legislature sat there.
Moving the House of Assembly from the Colonial Building to the newly built Confederation Building seems to have had more to do with the preferences of Premier Joe Smallwood than on any space problems or any technical shortcomings with the old building. [I am open to correction on this point if someone has better information.]
2. Was there a committee? After some checking with some people involved and after listening to John Fitzgerald's interview on CBC Radio this morning, I have come to the conclusion that there was and there wasn't a committee.
There was no committee in the sense that a group of people were given a defined mandate by the Williams administration or its predecessor.
What did exist was the group of people listed on page 30 of the management plan, chaired by former minister of education Dr. Phil Warren. They examined options, looked at cost estimates, reviewed the issues involved in the different options and worked to find some consensus among the group on what ought to be done with the Colonial Building.
With the change of administration in October 2003, it appears that group (which I'd still call a committee) fell apart with the bulk of the subsequent work being handled by an out-of-province consultant, Dr. John Weiler.
3. Is the plan the same as what this group discussed? Being neither privy to the options discussed nor to the deliberations of the group, I can only judge based on John Fitzgerald's comments to CBC Radio.
Essentially, he argues that the final plan reflects the direction in which the committee was moving. That's my paraphrase of his remarks but I am satisfied they are accurate.
4. What will the Colonial Building be? Essentially, under the management plan, the Colonial Building will become offices for the Provincial Historic Sites program and for upwards of eight not-for-profit groups.
That will be the major function of the building the goes on day-in and day-out.
Some other events will take place there from time to time, such as youth parliament, investiture ceremonies, receptions and potentially wedding photographs.
There will also be a fairly pricey "interpretation" program for the Building so that people can become somewhat familiar with the history of it.
That said, the day-to-day function of the building will be office space, primarily for not-for-profits. The presence of the one government section (Historic Sites) would justify the costs of restoring and rehabilitating the site as well as the ongoing maintenance and security work that would need to be done.
5. What will it cost? Craig Welsh, over at Townie Bastard questioned the cost of relocating the House of Assembly to the Colonial Building.
Fair enough. I took the government estimates at face value since they represented, supposedly, the cost of bring the Building up to current occupancy standards and addressing the accessibility issues in an old building. Based on what I had in mind, I couldn't see the total cost heading for much more than the proposed $3.0 million or so. It might hit $5.0 million, but there is more than enough cash in the province's budget now or over the next couple of years to fund that amount. Bear in mind that The Rooms as a new facility with significant archaeological issues cost about $40 million. Refurbishing the Colonial Building should not come even close to 25% of that figure; it would be far less than $10 million.
As for the management plan, I can't comment on the cost estimates for the structural section. The "interpretation" bit, which came to $850,000 seemed a bit rich, as in over-priced. It should be possible to produce a much more effective set of interpretive materials without spending the kind of cash involved here, at least on some items.
Someone suggested to me that the cost estimates might be lowballed. I don't know but that is one suggestion I am working to track down.
6. Not-for-profits: are they treated equally? The provincial government does provide support for some not-for-profit groups. However, while there is some internally consistent logic in the management plan of locating the historic sites section with associated not-for-profit non-government groups, there is a question as to whether government should be assisting some groups and not assisting others of equal importance to the delivery of government services to a comparable degree.
There is likely a much better way to support not-for-profits than allowing them to use the Colonial Building.
7. Putting the House of Assembly in the Colonial Building would be too inconvenient. Two advantages of turning the Colonial Building back into the local parliament would be that maintenance, security and upkeep as wells interpretation and all the other bits would come out of the House of Assembly budget allocation. If we moved the Speaker's Office, the Clerk, house committees, the sergeant-at-arms, ushers, television and audio service and the Library to the Building, we would have a functioning legislature. A small adjunct building would not drive the costs up dramatically, but it is something to consider.
Undoubtedly, there are people who would talk about the inconvenience of moving from the Hill to the Building.
It happens in other places. The offices for elected members as well as the government administration offices are frequently in buildings different from the legislature.
Parking can be accommodated by revamping the existing grounds and looking across the street to the Government House grounds.
Undoubtedly, some people will talk about the things to be lost - like the size of the public gallery.
Ok. That's a good point, but in fact, the existing galleries are massive in relation to the usual public traffic during a session. The most frequent visitors to the galleries are political staff and comms directors. They can give up their seats to voters and other visitors and still carry out their function somewhere else like an adjoining room with a television feed.
Quite a bit of functionality for staff was lost in the move to the current location for the House, for example. The loss was largely one of habit and convenience and staff rapidly found new ways to do what they needed to do. Expect the same at the Colonial Building.
Size of the assembly shouldn't be an issue. There are currently 48 elected members of the House of Assembly. That is only slightly larger than the size of the National Convention and the early post-Confederation legislatures. In the current location, the amount of space taken up by the elected members has grown to meet the huge space in which they meet. There is a great deal of unused space both on the floor of the legislature and in the public galleries.
If anyone still wants to quibble, just bear in mind that at Westminster [see picture at left] only about a third to a half of the elected members of the House of Common can actually sit on benches - they have never had desks of the type seen in Canadian legislatures. During crucial votes, members crowd about with some sitting and most standing.
With the legislature returned to the Colonial Building, the Legislative Council chamber could easily function as both a House committee meeting room as well as the site for investitures and other provincial or national ceremonies. It is a large, well-laid-out room with public galleries for observers.
8. Restoring the House of Assembly to the old chamber would destroy the historic character of the Colonial Building. The Colonial Building as it stands today is not the original structure erected in the middle of the 19th century, nor is it the building that was converted to an archives space in the 1960s. Interior and exterior changes occurred on several occasions as documented in the management plan.
Any decision on restoration will fix the building at a particular point in time and may not adequately represent the entire history of the building when it was in daily use as a legislative complex.
Restoration of the House of Assembly to the Colonial Building would allow the structure to be altered only to meet current occupancy code requirements, while at the same time preserving as many of the essential elements of the interior structure as is practicable and consistent with the Building's designation as an historic site.
Returning the provincial legislature to the Colonial Building would also mitigate against some time when a future government strapped for cash or a department no longer interested in sustaining the Colonial Building looks to close it or skimps on maintenance.
A site of such evident importance should not be left to suffer potentially the same fate as the Old Military Hospital.
9. The Colonial Building should be a National Historic Site. With the exception of Province House in Prince Edward Island, the Colonial Building is the only national legislative building which is intimately connected to Confederation. Newfoundland and Labrador is the only country to have voted to become part of Canada. While other legislatures debated Confederation, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only existing province in which a national convention was used as the means to determine the country's constitutional fate.
The Colonial Building is a site of historical importance to Canada as a whole.
As such, an integral part of the management plan for the Colonial Building should include designation of the building as a National Historic Site. This designation would provide both the financial and technical support of the Government of Canada to assist in the proper restoration of the Colonial Building. While this could be done no matter what the building is ultimately used for, it could be extremely important in funding its use as the House of Assembly.
There should be no question as to the Colonial Buildings historic importance as the former seat of government for Newfoundland and Labrador and, as a result, being the setting for some of the most important events in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador and of Canada.
Nor should there be any question of the need to restore and preserve the Colonial Building as a public building.
The only issue is the purpose to which the building should be put.
Some may suggest it be an historic site maintained much like Commissariat House either by the provincial government or the federal government or both.
The provincial government's management plan will see it turned into offices for one small section of a provincial government department plus its associated non-government groups.
Given its historic significance, the Colonial Building should become once again the meeting place of the House of Assembly.
Here are some additional thoughts:
1. A surplus legislature.There is something bordering on the bizarre about the idea of having a legislature building in a functioning democracy that is somehow surplus to requirements and in need of a management plan.
That's one of the ideas in Our plastic history and it remains probably the most powerful reaction I have to the management plan.
Try as I might, I haven't been able to identify another example from the Commonwealth where this situation exists. There have been several examples of legislature buildings in the United States being replaced by new structures. There is one in Oregon, for example. There's also one in Illinois and in Boston. There are also old legislature buildings in Rhode Island and Connecticut.
It seems these legislature buildings were replaced by new ones owing to the need for larger space which the existing buildings and their surrounding land couldn't provide. That's a pretty simple and practical reason. In Boston, the Old State House became Boston City Hall for a period and until it was purchased and restored the building was the site of shops and restaurants.
In Oregon, the Old Capitol is still a government office building. In Illinois and Massachusetts, the old legislature buildings have been restored and maintained solely as historic sites.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Colonial Building served as home to both the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council until suspension of responsible government in 1933/34. During the Commission Government period, it served as government offices. The National Convention met in the House of Assembly chamber from 1946 to 1948 to consider the future constitution of the country and from Confederation in 1949 to 1959, the provincial legislature sat there.
First session of the National Convention, 1946
Moving the House of Assembly from the Colonial Building to the newly built Confederation Building seems to have had more to do with the preferences of Premier Joe Smallwood than on any space problems or any technical shortcomings with the old building. [I am open to correction on this point if someone has better information.]
2. Was there a committee? After some checking with some people involved and after listening to John Fitzgerald's interview on CBC Radio this morning, I have come to the conclusion that there was and there wasn't a committee.
There was no committee in the sense that a group of people were given a defined mandate by the Williams administration or its predecessor.
What did exist was the group of people listed on page 30 of the management plan, chaired by former minister of education Dr. Phil Warren. They examined options, looked at cost estimates, reviewed the issues involved in the different options and worked to find some consensus among the group on what ought to be done with the Colonial Building.
With the change of administration in October 2003, it appears that group (which I'd still call a committee) fell apart with the bulk of the subsequent work being handled by an out-of-province consultant, Dr. John Weiler.
3. Is the plan the same as what this group discussed? Being neither privy to the options discussed nor to the deliberations of the group, I can only judge based on John Fitzgerald's comments to CBC Radio.
Essentially, he argues that the final plan reflects the direction in which the committee was moving. That's my paraphrase of his remarks but I am satisfied they are accurate.
4. What will the Colonial Building be? Essentially, under the management plan, the Colonial Building will become offices for the Provincial Historic Sites program and for upwards of eight not-for-profit groups.
That will be the major function of the building the goes on day-in and day-out.
Some other events will take place there from time to time, such as youth parliament, investiture ceremonies, receptions and potentially wedding photographs.
There will also be a fairly pricey "interpretation" program for the Building so that people can become somewhat familiar with the history of it.
That said, the day-to-day function of the building will be office space, primarily for not-for-profits. The presence of the one government section (Historic Sites) would justify the costs of restoring and rehabilitating the site as well as the ongoing maintenance and security work that would need to be done.
5. What will it cost? Craig Welsh, over at Townie Bastard questioned the cost of relocating the House of Assembly to the Colonial Building.
Fair enough. I took the government estimates at face value since they represented, supposedly, the cost of bring the Building up to current occupancy standards and addressing the accessibility issues in an old building. Based on what I had in mind, I couldn't see the total cost heading for much more than the proposed $3.0 million or so. It might hit $5.0 million, but there is more than enough cash in the province's budget now or over the next couple of years to fund that amount. Bear in mind that The Rooms as a new facility with significant archaeological issues cost about $40 million. Refurbishing the Colonial Building should not come even close to 25% of that figure; it would be far less than $10 million.
As for the management plan, I can't comment on the cost estimates for the structural section. The "interpretation" bit, which came to $850,000 seemed a bit rich, as in over-priced. It should be possible to produce a much more effective set of interpretive materials without spending the kind of cash involved here, at least on some items.
Someone suggested to me that the cost estimates might be lowballed. I don't know but that is one suggestion I am working to track down.
6. Not-for-profits: are they treated equally? The provincial government does provide support for some not-for-profit groups. However, while there is some internally consistent logic in the management plan of locating the historic sites section with associated not-for-profit non-government groups, there is a question as to whether government should be assisting some groups and not assisting others of equal importance to the delivery of government services to a comparable degree.
There is likely a much better way to support not-for-profits than allowing them to use the Colonial Building.
7. Putting the House of Assembly in the Colonial Building would be too inconvenient. Two advantages of turning the Colonial Building back into the local parliament would be that maintenance, security and upkeep as wells interpretation and all the other bits would come out of the House of Assembly budget allocation. If we moved the Speaker's Office, the Clerk, house committees, the sergeant-at-arms, ushers, television and audio service and the Library to the Building, we would have a functioning legislature. A small adjunct building would not drive the costs up dramatically, but it is something to consider.
Undoubtedly, there are people who would talk about the inconvenience of moving from the Hill to the Building.
It happens in other places. The offices for elected members as well as the government administration offices are frequently in buildings different from the legislature.
Parking can be accommodated by revamping the existing grounds and looking across the street to the Government House grounds.
Undoubtedly, some people will talk about the things to be lost - like the size of the public gallery.
Ok. That's a good point, but in fact, the existing galleries are massive in relation to the usual public traffic during a session. The most frequent visitors to the galleries are political staff and comms directors. They can give up their seats to voters and other visitors and still carry out their function somewhere else like an adjoining room with a television feed.
Quite a bit of functionality for staff was lost in the move to the current location for the House, for example. The loss was largely one of habit and convenience and staff rapidly found new ways to do what they needed to do. Expect the same at the Colonial Building.
Size of the assembly shouldn't be an issue. There are currently 48 elected members of the House of Assembly. That is only slightly larger than the size of the National Convention and the early post-Confederation legislatures. In the current location, the amount of space taken up by the elected members has grown to meet the huge space in which they meet. There is a great deal of unused space both on the floor of the legislature and in the public galleries.
If anyone still wants to quibble, just bear in mind that at Westminster [see picture at left] only about a third to a half of the elected members of the House of Common can actually sit on benches - they have never had desks of the type seen in Canadian legislatures. During crucial votes, members crowd about with some sitting and most standing.
With the legislature returned to the Colonial Building, the Legislative Council chamber could easily function as both a House committee meeting room as well as the site for investitures and other provincial or national ceremonies. It is a large, well-laid-out room with public galleries for observers.
8. Restoring the House of Assembly to the old chamber would destroy the historic character of the Colonial Building. The Colonial Building as it stands today is not the original structure erected in the middle of the 19th century, nor is it the building that was converted to an archives space in the 1960s. Interior and exterior changes occurred on several occasions as documented in the management plan.
Any decision on restoration will fix the building at a particular point in time and may not adequately represent the entire history of the building when it was in daily use as a legislative complex.
Restoration of the House of Assembly to the Colonial Building would allow the structure to be altered only to meet current occupancy code requirements, while at the same time preserving as many of the essential elements of the interior structure as is practicable and consistent with the Building's designation as an historic site.
Returning the provincial legislature to the Colonial Building would also mitigate against some time when a future government strapped for cash or a department no longer interested in sustaining the Colonial Building looks to close it or skimps on maintenance.
A site of such evident importance should not be left to suffer potentially the same fate as the Old Military Hospital.
9. The Colonial Building should be a National Historic Site. With the exception of Province House in Prince Edward Island, the Colonial Building is the only national legislative building which is intimately connected to Confederation. Newfoundland and Labrador is the only country to have voted to become part of Canada. While other legislatures debated Confederation, Newfoundland and Labrador is the only existing province in which a national convention was used as the means to determine the country's constitutional fate.
The Colonial Building is a site of historical importance to Canada as a whole.
As such, an integral part of the management plan for the Colonial Building should include designation of the building as a National Historic Site. This designation would provide both the financial and technical support of the Government of Canada to assist in the proper restoration of the Colonial Building. While this could be done no matter what the building is ultimately used for, it could be extremely important in funding its use as the House of Assembly.
Hire George Murphy
The feds are creating an office to monitor gas prices.
The province's office is a mess.
Simple solution: hire George Murphy. The St. John's cab driver was a mere tenth of a cent off in his latest forecast for gasoline prices. That's typical of his analytical prowess.
As a bonus he is personable and does a decent interview. You can actually understand what he is talking about.
The province's office is a mess.
Simple solution: hire George Murphy. The St. John's cab driver was a mere tenth of a cent off in his latest forecast for gasoline prices. That's typical of his analytical prowess.
As a bonus he is personable and does a decent interview. You can actually understand what he is talking about.
12 October 2005
Our plastic history
For those who have visited capital cities anywhere in the western world, one is struck by the lengths to which nations go to preserve the visible symbols of their democracies.
United States Capitol
Washington D.C.
As this site notes, the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. is one of the most important symbolic and architectural buildings in the United States. The building was destroyed by fire in 1814, but rebuilt on the same site. As the American government grew in size, the building was expanded to accommodate senators and representatives from the new states. The Capitol is an integral part of the architecture of the city of Washington, reflecting geographically the constitutional division of powers among the legislative (Capitol), executive (White House/Old Executive Office Building) and judiciary (Supreme Court).
The United States Capitol, like the House of Parliament at Westminster or the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa are much more than symbols. They are the home of elected legislatures. They are living elements of the political, social, economic and cultural life of their countries. One can stand in the very halls where some of the most important national and international decisions were debated and decided and where new issues of equal importance are considered.
Return now to Newfoundland and Labrador from this sojourn among the Great Nations and one is struck by the management plan for the Colonial Building, released last week by the provincial government's Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
The plan is striking for its ability to reduce the significance of our historic seat of government to yet another mouldering artifact of the past. The language of this discussion paper is sterile: "The Colonial Building is one of the most significant heritage properties in Newfoundland and Labrador." It is said to have heritage character-defining elements.
The plan is also striking since a committee of government-appointed experts from government and the local arts, cultural and heritage associations has determined the fate of the building, now vacant with the absorption of the Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador into the bland collective known simply as The Rooms.
The Colonial Building is to be restored in some fashion and turned into offices for arts, cultural and heritage organizations in the province. There will be the obligatory charade of "stakeholder consultations", but the Colonial Building will continue to be what it has been since 1959 - home to yet another group of technocrats.
Colonial Building circa 1949
St. John's Newfoundland and Labrador
The management plan contains many references to the political history of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the physical alterations to the building since it was built in the 1850s. The picture above shows the two German field howitzers (150 cm calibre) installed in the 1920s for example. They were part of an extensive collection of war booty that symbolized, in part, the sacrifices made by the Dominion of Newfoundland during the Great War.
In the 1950s, these howitzers were removed, a fountain installed in their place and the guns turned over to Branch 1 of the Royal Canadian Legion. They sat untended apart from the odd splash of paint behind a hedge until one of them was unceremoniously chopped to pieces and shipped of to Robin Hood Bay. Only by the quick action of a couple of local aficionados was the only such howitzer in Canada saved from a similar fate underneath a decomposing pile of scraps from Sobeys and Dominion.
Our history is often treated with the same sense that it is disposable or plastic.
Witness the legislature itself.
Once the home of elected government in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Colonial Building was abandoned in 1959 in favour of a new site for the House of Assembly on the upper stories of Joe Smallwood's Confederation edifice. That legislature space fell victim to concerns about safety and security. The Peckford administration started the move to its current site within the Confederation Building, replete with Turkish brothel interior design.
One may stand in the same place where Winston Churchill delivered some of the most stirring speeches during the fight against Nazi tyranny or where his predecessor Benjamin Disraeli helped built Britain into a global power. One may see the very spot where Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy delivered their inaugural addresses or annual state of the union speeches.
Find the spot where Joe Smallwood introduced the Come by Chance refinery bills. Seek out the spot where the Meech Lake Accord was debated. They are gone, turned into work cubicles from Dilbert or public washrooms.
The management plan for the Colonial Building comes at an estimated cost of over $3.0 million. Only $120, 000 is required for annual operations. Nearly a million dollars will go to developing an exhibit and iinterpretation program, including a hideously overpriced "audio" tour and an equally expensive "virtual tour" on the internet. A brochure will set government back about $25, 000 while the combined price for interpretation "planning" alone will exceed $70, 000. The physical restoration of the Building will be over $2.0 million.
And for what purpose? So that the very same committees that sat in judgment of the building can have luxurious places in which to remove their gaiters. So that youth parliament can continue to meet there or that investiture ceremonies can take place in the former Legislative Council chamber or that "small weddings" may lease the building for some purpose.
At the same time that some people are spending precious energy to promote their peculiar piece of fabric for a flag, one of the most important foci of our province's history is to be turned into a slightly more grand set of offices for appointed officials.
What a sad comment on the true state of our sense of national pride.
Scrap the management plan.
Restore life to the Colonial Building by making it, once again, the home of our elected legislature. The financial cost would be about the same as the management plan's estimate.
More importantly, we would avoid for one of the few times in our recent history the cost of making our collective history something to be reshaped based on nothing more than the interests of those appointed to make a decision.
United States CapitolWashington D.C.
As this site notes, the Capitol Building in Washington D.C. is one of the most important symbolic and architectural buildings in the United States. The building was destroyed by fire in 1814, but rebuilt on the same site. As the American government grew in size, the building was expanded to accommodate senators and representatives from the new states. The Capitol is an integral part of the architecture of the city of Washington, reflecting geographically the constitutional division of powers among the legislative (Capitol), executive (White House/Old Executive Office Building) and judiciary (Supreme Court).
The United States Capitol, like the House of Parliament at Westminster or the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa are much more than symbols. They are the home of elected legislatures. They are living elements of the political, social, economic and cultural life of their countries. One can stand in the very halls where some of the most important national and international decisions were debated and decided and where new issues of equal importance are considered.
Return now to Newfoundland and Labrador from this sojourn among the Great Nations and one is struck by the management plan for the Colonial Building, released last week by the provincial government's Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.
The plan is striking for its ability to reduce the significance of our historic seat of government to yet another mouldering artifact of the past. The language of this discussion paper is sterile: "The Colonial Building is one of the most significant heritage properties in Newfoundland and Labrador." It is said to have heritage character-defining elements.
The plan is also striking since a committee of government-appointed experts from government and the local arts, cultural and heritage associations has determined the fate of the building, now vacant with the absorption of the Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador into the bland collective known simply as The Rooms.
The Colonial Building is to be restored in some fashion and turned into offices for arts, cultural and heritage organizations in the province. There will be the obligatory charade of "stakeholder consultations", but the Colonial Building will continue to be what it has been since 1959 - home to yet another group of technocrats.
Colonial Building circa 1949St. John's Newfoundland and Labrador
The management plan contains many references to the political history of Newfoundland and Labrador as well as the physical alterations to the building since it was built in the 1850s. The picture above shows the two German field howitzers (150 cm calibre) installed in the 1920s for example. They were part of an extensive collection of war booty that symbolized, in part, the sacrifices made by the Dominion of Newfoundland during the Great War.
In the 1950s, these howitzers were removed, a fountain installed in their place and the guns turned over to Branch 1 of the Royal Canadian Legion. They sat untended apart from the odd splash of paint behind a hedge until one of them was unceremoniously chopped to pieces and shipped of to Robin Hood Bay. Only by the quick action of a couple of local aficionados was the only such howitzer in Canada saved from a similar fate underneath a decomposing pile of scraps from Sobeys and Dominion.
Our history is often treated with the same sense that it is disposable or plastic.
Witness the legislature itself.
Once the home of elected government in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Colonial Building was abandoned in 1959 in favour of a new site for the House of Assembly on the upper stories of Joe Smallwood's Confederation edifice. That legislature space fell victim to concerns about safety and security. The Peckford administration started the move to its current site within the Confederation Building, replete with Turkish brothel interior design.
One may stand in the same place where Winston Churchill delivered some of the most stirring speeches during the fight against Nazi tyranny or where his predecessor Benjamin Disraeli helped built Britain into a global power. One may see the very spot where Roosevelt, Lincoln or Kennedy delivered their inaugural addresses or annual state of the union speeches.
Find the spot where Joe Smallwood introduced the Come by Chance refinery bills. Seek out the spot where the Meech Lake Accord was debated. They are gone, turned into work cubicles from Dilbert or public washrooms.
The management plan for the Colonial Building comes at an estimated cost of over $3.0 million. Only $120, 000 is required for annual operations. Nearly a million dollars will go to developing an exhibit and iinterpretation program, including a hideously overpriced "audio" tour and an equally expensive "virtual tour" on the internet. A brochure will set government back about $25, 000 while the combined price for interpretation "planning" alone will exceed $70, 000. The physical restoration of the Building will be over $2.0 million.
And for what purpose? So that the very same committees that sat in judgment of the building can have luxurious places in which to remove their gaiters. So that youth parliament can continue to meet there or that investiture ceremonies can take place in the former Legislative Council chamber or that "small weddings" may lease the building for some purpose.
At the same time that some people are spending precious energy to promote their peculiar piece of fabric for a flag, one of the most important foci of our province's history is to be turned into a slightly more grand set of offices for appointed officials.
What a sad comment on the true state of our sense of national pride.
Scrap the management plan.
Restore life to the Colonial Building by making it, once again, the home of our elected legislature. The financial cost would be about the same as the management plan's estimate.
More importantly, we would avoid for one of the few times in our recent history the cost of making our collective history something to be reshaped based on nothing more than the interests of those appointed to make a decision.
Colonial Building Riot
In the photo at left, thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rush to the Colonial Building to see the historic seat of government turned into offices for arts, cultural and heritage organizations.They were heard chanting "Long Live Cubicles" and "More filing cabinets".
Police stood by as the rioters peacefully increased their awareness of the heritage defining characteristics of the achitecturally significant structure.
During the demonstration, one man in the crowd noted the absence of the lantern from the top of the building, missing since shortly after it was opened in the 1850s.
"Let us spend $125, 000 to build and install a new replica lantern," shouted the man to a smattering of applause. "Some poor architectural student needs a new grant."
11 October 2005
Local shipyards may win navy contract - amended
Joint Support Ship
[Provisional drawing, copyright Department of National Defence]
According to Canadian Press, two of four bidders for a contract to build supply and support ships for the Canadian navy plan to use Marystown Shipyard and other small facilities to build subcomponents of the ships. Final assembly would take place at Bull Arm.
The ships are officially known as Joint Support Ships. Anticipated delivery of the first of the three vessels is 2012, with initial operating capability (IOC) achieved in 2013.
A third bidder, SNC Lavalin would build the ships in Victoria, British Columbia. A consortium headed by General Dynamics would use the Davie yards at Lauzon Quebec.
The last time the Canadian navy under took a major ship construction, the contract was split between yards in English Canada and two yards in Quebec. The resulting mess cost the Mulroney government hundreds of millions of dollars in cost over-runs for the Halifax-class frigates.
Expect a repeat of the split process or the award of the contract to General Dynamics. The Davie yards have extensive experience in building Canadian warships.
Construction of the vessels on these timelines may impact on planned local construction of a small gravity-based structure for the Hebron-Ben Nevis project. There has been no public disclosure of how the companies involved would handle both major contracts simultaneously.
10 October 2005
Norm Doyle - some curious thoughts
The Spindy recycled a story this week about the St. John's airport authority looking to attract more "military tourist" traffic to the local airport.
What they mean is that the airport wants to see if it can attract more refueling business to the capital city's newly renovated airport.
On the face of it, this has got to be the most ludicrous idea imaginable. The military traffic through the airport is based on international conditions. The only way we can boost traffic is by having another war break out somewhere.
The airport's logic sounds nice. But the more you think about it the more you realize these guys are just off base. Some consultant is making a fortune figuring out the "decision factors" that go into bringing American aircraft here versus somewhere else.
Some clues:
1. There must be an overseas deployment, either an operation or an exercise. They need a reason to fly across the Atlantic.
2. The aircraft must be a type that cannot fly across the Atlantic without refueling. Big visitors were C-130 Hercules variants and DC-9 variants.
Beyond that, the presence of a vibrant nightlife and decent hotels meet just about all the requirements.
The Americans will be concerned somewhat about the relative cost of the Canadian dollar and high fuel prices, but basically fuel is a given - they need it. The Americans might try and find ways to double-up their travel, but as long as there are troops in Iraq, the Americans will fly through St. John's to get there.
Which brings us to the comments of St. John's North Connie member of parliament Norman Doyle.
Seems Doyle is thrilled with all the business coming to his riding, but he has some qualms about the source of the lucre.
As Normie told The Spindy: "I would certainly not support helping aircraft to service the war in Iraq because that would be the same as involving Canada in the war in Iraq."
Norm, Norm, Norm.
Canada has already supported the American campaign in Iraq directly and indirectly, including sending our own troops there as part of American and British units.
This military traffic has been going on for years.
The only way we could satisfy Norm's moral qualms would be to ban American military equipment and people from Canada.
Just think about Norm's comments logically; that's the implication.
Has Norm been having late night dinners with the New Democrats of Carolyn Parrish?
What they mean is that the airport wants to see if it can attract more refueling business to the capital city's newly renovated airport.
On the face of it, this has got to be the most ludicrous idea imaginable. The military traffic through the airport is based on international conditions. The only way we can boost traffic is by having another war break out somewhere.
The airport's logic sounds nice. But the more you think about it the more you realize these guys are just off base. Some consultant is making a fortune figuring out the "decision factors" that go into bringing American aircraft here versus somewhere else.
Some clues:
1. There must be an overseas deployment, either an operation or an exercise. They need a reason to fly across the Atlantic.
2. The aircraft must be a type that cannot fly across the Atlantic without refueling. Big visitors were C-130 Hercules variants and DC-9 variants.
Beyond that, the presence of a vibrant nightlife and decent hotels meet just about all the requirements.
The Americans will be concerned somewhat about the relative cost of the Canadian dollar and high fuel prices, but basically fuel is a given - they need it. The Americans might try and find ways to double-up their travel, but as long as there are troops in Iraq, the Americans will fly through St. John's to get there.
Which brings us to the comments of St. John's North Connie member of parliament Norman Doyle.
Seems Doyle is thrilled with all the business coming to his riding, but he has some qualms about the source of the lucre.
As Normie told The Spindy: "I would certainly not support helping aircraft to service the war in Iraq because that would be the same as involving Canada in the war in Iraq."
Norm, Norm, Norm.
Canada has already supported the American campaign in Iraq directly and indirectly, including sending our own troops there as part of American and British units.
This military traffic has been going on for years.
The only way we could satisfy Norm's moral qualms would be to ban American military equipment and people from Canada.
Just think about Norm's comments logically; that's the implication.
Has Norm been having late night dinners with the New Democrats of Carolyn Parrish?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)