Click here to find a neat little comment on an editorial seen in one local newspaper.
Since I stopped blogging about the paper, it seems no one else is either.
Curious.
Except for the guy who adores the Big Land.
14 November 2005
12 November 2005
Chinooks, Hercs and some Italian bird
As the Globe and Mail reports, the federal cabinet will decide this Monday on a proposal from National Defence to spend $12 billion to purchase new helicopters and aircraft for the Canadian Forces.
Comparisons of the purchase to the sponsorship scandal, attributed to unnamed defence industry spokespersons amount to little more than an effort to derail a process that wouldn't include their particular aircraft.
As reported here earlier, the purchase includes Chinooks and new versions of the C-130 Hercules.
A new Italian turboprop is favoured to replace the Buffalo as a search and rescue aircraft.
An unnamed industry insider singled out chief of defence staff General Rick Hillier for criticism, alleging the hurried purchase is driven by Hillier's charismatic personality and forceful manner.
Add the Bond Papers to the defence commentators who consider this sort of comment little more than cheap shots.
Hillier has experience and is exercising sound judgment. The equipment recommended not just by Hillier but by the professional military and air staffs can do the job and can be acquired off-the-shelf at a decent price.
The same cannot be said of past purchases such as the LSVW, more commonly known as the p.o.s. or the Griffons. These politically-inspired purchases stand as examples of buying military equipment based on where the industrial (and vote) benefits go as opposed to getting and aircraft or vehicle that can do the job required. Anyone who wishes to question my assessment can instead head off to the Auditor General and find out what the AG said.
People in the defence industry shouldn't fling about sponsorship-like accusations given the defence procurement record in this country.
[This post also available from Politics Canada.]
Comparisons of the purchase to the sponsorship scandal, attributed to unnamed defence industry spokespersons amount to little more than an effort to derail a process that wouldn't include their particular aircraft.
As reported here earlier, the purchase includes Chinooks and new versions of the C-130 Hercules.
A new Italian turboprop is favoured to replace the Buffalo as a search and rescue aircraft.
An unnamed industry insider singled out chief of defence staff General Rick Hillier for criticism, alleging the hurried purchase is driven by Hillier's charismatic personality and forceful manner.
Add the Bond Papers to the defence commentators who consider this sort of comment little more than cheap shots.
Hillier has experience and is exercising sound judgment. The equipment recommended not just by Hillier but by the professional military and air staffs can do the job and can be acquired off-the-shelf at a decent price.
The same cannot be said of past purchases such as the LSVW, more commonly known as the p.o.s. or the Griffons. These politically-inspired purchases stand as examples of buying military equipment based on where the industrial (and vote) benefits go as opposed to getting and aircraft or vehicle that can do the job required. Anyone who wishes to question my assessment can instead head off to the Auditor General and find out what the AG said.
People in the defence industry shouldn't fling about sponsorship-like accusations given the defence procurement record in this country.
[This post also available from Politics Canada.]
11 November 2005
Debt of Honour
A flash animation honouring the 863 Commonwealth soldiers who died on the last day of the Great War.
Newfoundland gunners in England, 1942
Newfoundland soldiers formed two regiments of Royal Artillery during the Second World War.
57 Heavy Regiment was re-organised as 166 Field Regiment, Royal Artillery and served in Africa and Italy. It used the 25-pounder field gun.
59 Heavy Regiment remained in England, landing in Normandy in July 1944. The regiment fought through France, Holland and finished the war in north western Germany. Initially trained on 6 inch howitzers, as shown below, the regiment later converted to 7.2 inch howitzers for the liberation of Europe.
The following photographs are from the Imperial War Museum collection. Copies of these and other photographs may be ordered from the Museum.
"Gunner Robert Rideout, a lumberman from Hermitage Bay, loads a practice shell into the breech during a trial run-through of a Newfoundland heavy artillery battery, somewhere in England. The shell weighs 100lbs. 1942."
ARTILLERY TRAINING, 1942: Ramming the shell home in a six inch artillery gun are (left-to right) Gunners Bill Clancey (from St John's), Robert Rideout (Hermitage Bay), Arthur Bailey (Trinity Bay) and Sam Bayford (Buchans). They are taking part in a training exercise, somewhere in England.
57 Heavy Regiment was re-organised as 166 Field Regiment, Royal Artillery and served in Africa and Italy. It used the 25-pounder field gun.
59 Heavy Regiment remained in England, landing in Normandy in July 1944. The regiment fought through France, Holland and finished the war in north western Germany. Initially trained on 6 inch howitzers, as shown below, the regiment later converted to 7.2 inch howitzers for the liberation of Europe.
The following photographs are from the Imperial War Museum collection. Copies of these and other photographs may be ordered from the Museum.
"Gunner Robert Rideout, a lumberman from Hermitage Bay, loads a practice shell into the breech during a trial run-through of a Newfoundland heavy artillery battery, somewhere in England. The shell weighs 100lbs. 1942."
MIA and things to consider
Unveiling the National War Memorial, St. John's, Newfoundland, July 1, 1924(PANL A-11-171)
Missing from the National War Memorial in St. John's again this year - Danny Williams.
Brian Tobin managed to attend at least one by my count before he scarpered back to the mainland. Grimes had an abysmal record of attendance as well.
By my count, he is 0 for 3 at the provincial ceremony in St. John's. He might have done the first one in 2003, but I can tell you he hasn't been there the past two years.
While we are on the subject, maybe it's time the Royal Canadian Legion consider changing the format so that the ceremony at that National War Memorial is actually something other than the City of St. John's one.
Here's some suggestions that change the way the ceremony runs. Some of it would just save time. Some of it would properly add groups or organizations that don't lay wreaths that should.
1. Drop the City rep. or have a wreath instead from the Federation of Municipalities.
2. Group all the veteran's associations (unit and branch associations) in a single, mass wreath-laying spot right after the Royal Canadian Legion - Provincial Command only.
3. Drop Dominion Command, which can lay a wreath at the other national memorial in Ottawa.
4. Invite the diplomatic representatives, especially those of allied countries. They may only be honorary consuls in some cases, but they still count.
5. Assorted service and fraternal groups can all go together at one time.
6. Organize the wreath layers on the monument so that we get a better flow of people. For years the whole wreath throng has been a gaggle that has to step over each other. It looks terrible; it is hard to go through; and it looks hideously unprofessional.
7. Given the limited space, move the band and the Singing Legionaires to areas on the sidewalk behind the monument. They can still see. They'll still be heard and the space on the monument plateau will be better able to handle the crowds. The public that gather there can move down to the sides or the bottom where the view is better anyway.
Compared to the modern site layout, the original layout of the National War Memorial allowed for more space and better reflected the importance of the site cenotaph. Years of neglect and compromise have taken their toll.
Compared to the modern site layout, the original layout of the National War Memorial allowed for more space and better reflected the importance of the site cenotaph. Years of neglect and compromise have taken their toll.
8. If that isn't feasible, then dip into the Ottawa cash and expand the upper plateau. While we are at it, let's rebuild the sidewalks behind the monument on Duckworth so that it isn't a walking hazard. [Personally, I'd make a pitch to have the memorial site transferred to the National Capital Commission to maintain along with the other national memorial, but hey I am funny that way.]
9. Regroup the military together into one proper series. It seems bizarre that the reserve units of the Canadian Forces (many of whose members are veterans) come behind civilian groups in the order of laying wreaths.
10. As a last thought, while the Royal Newfoundland regiment is headed to Beaumont Hamel next year for the 90th anniversary of that battle, why not also send a contingent to Ottawa for the National Remembrance Day services and parade? That would be a fitting tribute to a great event in Newfoundland history and also serve as a way of making the rest of the country aware of the significance of July 1st.
Bruce Winsor's not-so-forgotten war
Despite his insistence that age is catching up with him, Bruce Winsor still carries himself with the bearing of the young man who served in Korea from 1951 to 1952. He is older, to be sure, as are all veterans of the Korean Conflict, but events of a half century ago return with force when Winsor recounts events of over a half century ago.
The son of Salvation Army officers, Bruce Winsor was born November 1926 in Garnish, Newfoundland. For Winsor, being in the army seemed to offer opportunities never dreamed of in Newfoundland. Tommy Ricketts, a boyhood hero, was a distant cousin and while living on Pilley'’s Island, Winsor got to know one of the few Newfoundland veterans of the Boer War. Their stories were fascinating. "“It always seemed important to think bigger,"” Winsor would say later, "about life in general and about the world outside Newfoundland."
In Burin, during the Second World War, the teenaged Winsor tried to volunteer for the army, lying about his age. When the Newfoundland Ranger who handled his enlistment dropped by his house the night before he was scheduled to leave, Winsor'’s parents told the sergeant their son was too young to enlist. There were no repercussions, but the young Winsor decided that at the next opportunity, he would volunteer to become a soldier.
Winsor worked at Argentia when North Korea invaded the south in June 1950. The Canadian government decided to call for volunteers to make up a special army brigade as part of the United Nations force. In August 1950, he made his way to the Canadian Army recruiting centre at Buckmaster'’s Circle in St. John'’s. After completing the medical, personality and other tests, Winsor was enrolled and sent to Camp Shilo, Manitoba for basic training as a driver/radio operator in the artillery.
"There was very little attention to the spit and polish," Winsor recalled. The focus was on getting people ready to go. His memories of basic training are positive, noting that he took whatever came his way from instructors with energy - "“When you want something bad enough, you can do anything."
His batch of volunteers flew from Argentia on an American aircraft to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, then on to Montreal before boarding a train for Manitoba. Winsor recalled with a chuckle that his first flight ever was in a converted bomber with passengers sitting along benches much like in a truck. "“The last thing they did before we got on the plane was give us parachutes,"” he said.
Many of the men he served with were veterans of the Second World War or soldiers from the regular force. Throughout his service, Winsor and the other volunteers from Newfoundland and Labrador were mixed in among other Canadians from across the country. (Left: Gunners of Dog Battery, 2 Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, in action in Korea, 1953)
Winsor and his comrades in Fox Troop, Fox Battery, 2 Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery supported the famous Royal 22nd Regiment throughout his time in Korea. "“None of us spoke French," he said, adding quickly that it didn'’t matter where anyone came from in the country. "“We were all there to do a job."”
"“I had a camera with me the whole time, and took a lot of pictures," Winsor recalled. His comrades jokingly called him Bill Boss, after a well-known photographer of the time. He has no no pictures, though, of the train wreck at Canoe River, British Columbia on 21 November 1950 that killed 17 of his mates, including five from Newfoundland and Labrador. Another 42 were injured. The memories, though, are still vivid. "“Everything in the Army was done alphabetically, so the train cars were loaded from front to back beginning with Dog battery. We were in the back so we felt an awful jolt. The company clerk and his typewriter were tossed around the car."”
The troop train had collided with a civilian passenger train, sending the lead cars of the troop train down a cliff. Four of the killed were never recovered. Winsor could only rely on his Boy Scout First Aid training to help treat the injured. "“Some were horrible"”, he recalled. In the collision, steam from the troop train engine had showered the lead cars, leaving some of the soldiers with severe burns.
25 Canadian Infantry Brigade and Gunner Bruce Winsor arrived in Korea in May 1951.
"“The first thing I remember is the smell,"” Winsor said of arriving off the South Korean port of Pusan. The city was full of refugees that had fled there after the North Korean attack and with a lack of proper sanitation, the stench carried well out to sea. People lived in cardboard shacks, metal culverts and whatever other shelter they could find. Food was scarce and the soldiers considered themselves very lucky to have rations. Winsor'’s second memory though brought a wry smile back to his face: "“The U.S. Army band on the dock played '‘If I knew you were coming, I'’d have baked a cake'’ as we came ashore."”
On the move to the front, burned out tanks along the roadside were a hint of the bitter fighting that had taken place and what lay ahead. Winsor'’s job as a driver/radio operator put him at the front with the infantry, as part of the artillery observation post. "“We had to be right with the infantry so we could support them. “The guns were set a bit farther back but for us, we had to see where the shot was falling on the enemy and make any corrections."”
On his very first action, a night patrol forward of the Canadian lines, Winsor got a taste of the risks he faced. Coming to the top of a ridge with the rest of the patrol, he heard the whiz of a bullet go past his head. The patrol took cover almost instinctively. "“There was a little depression in the ground and I got right down there. When you are under fire, even a tank or jeep track looks like a good place to keep from getting hit."
Looking around, the patrol spotted a lone Korean soldier, who foolishly had given himself away by firing. The infantry soldiers on the patrol captured him and brought him back to Canadian lines.
Later on, another incident proved a reminder of danger that still lingers. Not used to being at the front, a new observation team had driven almost all the way forward to where Winsor'’s group was located. The new arrivals had been spotted by North Koreans who shelled them heavily.
The padre'’s batman - his personal aide - was a metre away from Winsor when he was struck by a large fragment that tore a gapping wound in the man'’s head. With the barrage over, the padre cradled the man in his arms, but there was no helping him. A half century has not erased the incident from Winsor'’s memory. "“You realize that could have been me,"” he said, his voice trailing off and his gaze passing to the window for several moments of silence.
Their service done, the first special force contingents returned to Canada in 1952. Winsor left the Army and operated a photography shop at Argentia, before eventually coming to St. John'’s to work for the Department of Education. He married and raised a family. Each year, he paraded on July 1st and November 11 with his comrades, but for the past two years, poor health has kept him from marching. "“I still go. I drive down to the monument."” He'’d like to go back to Korea, too, something too few of his comrades from Newfoundland and Labrador have been able to do either.
In all, more than 26, 000 Canadians served in Korea between 1950 and 1953. More than 1, 500 were casualties with 516 killed.
Bruce Winsor would do it all again if he had the chance. His time in Korea showed him a rich experience of life, something he says he has taken with him ever since. These days, though he can look back on those days with a simple lesson learned:
"“I appreciate life more."”
____________________
Note: This is a revised version of a piece that originally appeared in the Remembrance Day 2003 edition of The Independent. What originally was supposed to be an hour-long interview turned into an afternoon of reminiscences of both good times and some incidents best forgotten.
Bruce Winsor returned to Korea this past summer, but fell and broke his hip during the trip. He currently lives at the Caribou Pavillion, St. John's and continues to recover from the injury and subsequent surgery.
The son of Salvation Army officers, Bruce Winsor was born November 1926 in Garnish, Newfoundland. For Winsor, being in the army seemed to offer opportunities never dreamed of in Newfoundland. Tommy Ricketts, a boyhood hero, was a distant cousin and while living on Pilley'’s Island, Winsor got to know one of the few Newfoundland veterans of the Boer War. Their stories were fascinating. "“It always seemed important to think bigger,"” Winsor would say later, "about life in general and about the world outside Newfoundland."
In Burin, during the Second World War, the teenaged Winsor tried to volunteer for the army, lying about his age. When the Newfoundland Ranger who handled his enlistment dropped by his house the night before he was scheduled to leave, Winsor'’s parents told the sergeant their son was too young to enlist. There were no repercussions, but the young Winsor decided that at the next opportunity, he would volunteer to become a soldier.
Winsor worked at Argentia when North Korea invaded the south in June 1950. The Canadian government decided to call for volunteers to make up a special army brigade as part of the United Nations force. In August 1950, he made his way to the Canadian Army recruiting centre at Buckmaster'’s Circle in St. John'’s. After completing the medical, personality and other tests, Winsor was enrolled and sent to Camp Shilo, Manitoba for basic training as a driver/radio operator in the artillery.
"There was very little attention to the spit and polish," Winsor recalled. The focus was on getting people ready to go. His memories of basic training are positive, noting that he took whatever came his way from instructors with energy - "“When you want something bad enough, you can do anything."
His batch of volunteers flew from Argentia on an American aircraft to Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, then on to Montreal before boarding a train for Manitoba. Winsor recalled with a chuckle that his first flight ever was in a converted bomber with passengers sitting along benches much like in a truck. "“The last thing they did before we got on the plane was give us parachutes,"” he said.
Many of the men he served with were veterans of the Second World War or soldiers from the regular force. Throughout his service, Winsor and the other volunteers from Newfoundland and Labrador were mixed in among other Canadians from across the country. (Left: Gunners of Dog Battery, 2 Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, in action in Korea, 1953)Winsor and his comrades in Fox Troop, Fox Battery, 2 Field Regiment, Royal Canadian Horse Artillery supported the famous Royal 22nd Regiment throughout his time in Korea. "“None of us spoke French," he said, adding quickly that it didn'’t matter where anyone came from in the country. "“We were all there to do a job."”
"“I had a camera with me the whole time, and took a lot of pictures," Winsor recalled. His comrades jokingly called him Bill Boss, after a well-known photographer of the time. He has no no pictures, though, of the train wreck at Canoe River, British Columbia on 21 November 1950 that killed 17 of his mates, including five from Newfoundland and Labrador. Another 42 were injured. The memories, though, are still vivid. "“Everything in the Army was done alphabetically, so the train cars were loaded from front to back beginning with Dog battery. We were in the back so we felt an awful jolt. The company clerk and his typewriter were tossed around the car."”
The troop train had collided with a civilian passenger train, sending the lead cars of the troop train down a cliff. Four of the killed were never recovered. Winsor could only rely on his Boy Scout First Aid training to help treat the injured. "“Some were horrible"”, he recalled. In the collision, steam from the troop train engine had showered the lead cars, leaving some of the soldiers with severe burns.
25 Canadian Infantry Brigade and Gunner Bruce Winsor arrived in Korea in May 1951.
"“The first thing I remember is the smell,"” Winsor said of arriving off the South Korean port of Pusan. The city was full of refugees that had fled there after the North Korean attack and with a lack of proper sanitation, the stench carried well out to sea. People lived in cardboard shacks, metal culverts and whatever other shelter they could find. Food was scarce and the soldiers considered themselves very lucky to have rations. Winsor'’s second memory though brought a wry smile back to his face: "“The U.S. Army band on the dock played '‘If I knew you were coming, I'’d have baked a cake'’ as we came ashore."”
On the move to the front, burned out tanks along the roadside were a hint of the bitter fighting that had taken place and what lay ahead. Winsor'’s job as a driver/radio operator put him at the front with the infantry, as part of the artillery observation post. "“We had to be right with the infantry so we could support them. “The guns were set a bit farther back but for us, we had to see where the shot was falling on the enemy and make any corrections."”
On his very first action, a night patrol forward of the Canadian lines, Winsor got a taste of the risks he faced. Coming to the top of a ridge with the rest of the patrol, he heard the whiz of a bullet go past his head. The patrol took cover almost instinctively. "“There was a little depression in the ground and I got right down there. When you are under fire, even a tank or jeep track looks like a good place to keep from getting hit."
Looking around, the patrol spotted a lone Korean soldier, who foolishly had given himself away by firing. The infantry soldiers on the patrol captured him and brought him back to Canadian lines.
Later on, another incident proved a reminder of danger that still lingers. Not used to being at the front, a new observation team had driven almost all the way forward to where Winsor'’s group was located. The new arrivals had been spotted by North Koreans who shelled them heavily.
The padre'’s batman - his personal aide - was a metre away from Winsor when he was struck by a large fragment that tore a gapping wound in the man'’s head. With the barrage over, the padre cradled the man in his arms, but there was no helping him. A half century has not erased the incident from Winsor'’s memory. "“You realize that could have been me,"” he said, his voice trailing off and his gaze passing to the window for several moments of silence.
Their service done, the first special force contingents returned to Canada in 1952. Winsor left the Army and operated a photography shop at Argentia, before eventually coming to St. John'’s to work for the Department of Education. He married and raised a family. Each year, he paraded on July 1st and November 11 with his comrades, but for the past two years, poor health has kept him from marching. "“I still go. I drive down to the monument."” He'’d like to go back to Korea, too, something too few of his comrades from Newfoundland and Labrador have been able to do either.
In all, more than 26, 000 Canadians served in Korea between 1950 and 1953. More than 1, 500 were casualties with 516 killed.
Bruce Winsor would do it all again if he had the chance. His time in Korea showed him a rich experience of life, something he says he has taken with him ever since. These days, though he can look back on those days with a simple lesson learned:
"“I appreciate life more."”
____________________
Note: This is a revised version of a piece that originally appeared in the Remembrance Day 2003 edition of The Independent. What originally was supposed to be an hour-long interview turned into an afternoon of reminiscences of both good times and some incidents best forgotten.
Bruce Winsor returned to Korea this past summer, but fell and broke his hip during the trip. He currently lives at the Caribou Pavillion, St. John's and continues to recover from the injury and subsequent surgery.
Why government "consultations" are self-serving nonsense
Province's energy "plan" discussion document.
Basically, a summary of oil and gas issues that gives the ones convenient to the provincial government. More on that to come.
Doesn't give any real indication of suggested policy directions.
Two years to write a precis.
That's one reason why government "consultation" is a waste of time.
But here's a more pointed one:
PetroNewf, the province's hydro corporation cum eightth sister.
It's already underway.
The Premier is committed to it. Three people got fired to make room for the new staff. The rest of us couldn't stop this little juggernaut short of shooting people and that ain't gonna happen.
so what does the consultation document say?
"Expanding Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
Another potential way to increase benefits from the provinceÂ’s offshore oil and natural gas sector is a direct or indirect investment in one or more of the industry sectors by Government, alone or with partners. Expanding Newfoundland and Labrador HydroÂ’s (NLH) role in energy development is a priority of this Government with the strategic objective to increase the benefits we receive from all our energy resources. This Government will work with NLH as it expands its business operations to become a broader-based energy corporation in electricity, wind-power, other renewable energy sources, and in oil and gas. This might include partnering with other oil and gas operators.
The challenge for any petroleum-producing jurisdiction, especially one in the early stages like Newfoundland and Labrador, is to decide on policies that balance fiscal and economic benefits while limiting risks to the province and its citizens. These can involve difficult choices, between policies that foster more employment and local business activities, or those that provide direct revenue to support public programs like health care and education." Newfoundland and Labrador Energy Plan Discussion Paper Page 28.
That reads like the Blue Book section: "This Government will work with..." as if it already isn't doing it. That's misleading in the extreme.
"That might include partnering with other oil and gas operators". Another vague pos statement. Don't tell me what it might mean. Tell me what you have decided already, since the decisions are already made.
The second paragraph merely repeats bland observations - typical government pap - about the theoretical and difficult policy choices.
What was needed here was two things:
1. The business case on which Dan the Man built his Plan that's already out of the can. Let's see the actual details of what is underway at PetroNewf.
which will therefore lead us to ...
2. A detailed examination of the "difficult policy choices" that are left to be made. Let's see the options before we chose. In this case it seems we ought to "discuss" the deficiencies of the discussion document rather than the "difficult policy choices".
The first one - to follow the course of a state-owned enterprise entering the private sector in an area in which it has no expertise - that one has already been made. And we can't suck that one back.
The best we can hope for at this point is damage control.
If by some miracle we could get our hands on the internal government documents, I'd lay money the bureaucrats noted somewhere that this isn't a consultation process at all.
It is a "confirmation process".
People are expected to show up and give their blessing to whatever vague things they are asked to approve.
We needn't worry our pretty heads about things.
Dissent - to use the Premier's curious term for people who don't agreement with him completely and unreservedly - is not required, and heck, may not even be permissible soon.
And from some far-off farm we can still hear the lowly animals singing...
"Say what you think
But the best thing to think
Is nothing -
That's excellent thinking."
Followed by a rousing chorus of Beasts of England.
Basically, a summary of oil and gas issues that gives the ones convenient to the provincial government. More on that to come.
Doesn't give any real indication of suggested policy directions.
Two years to write a precis.
That's one reason why government "consultation" is a waste of time.
But here's a more pointed one:
PetroNewf, the province's hydro corporation cum eightth sister.
It's already underway.
The Premier is committed to it. Three people got fired to make room for the new staff. The rest of us couldn't stop this little juggernaut short of shooting people and that ain't gonna happen.
so what does the consultation document say?
"Expanding Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro
Another potential way to increase benefits from the provinceÂ’s offshore oil and natural gas sector is a direct or indirect investment in one or more of the industry sectors by Government, alone or with partners. Expanding Newfoundland and Labrador HydroÂ’s (NLH) role in energy development is a priority of this Government with the strategic objective to increase the benefits we receive from all our energy resources. This Government will work with NLH as it expands its business operations to become a broader-based energy corporation in electricity, wind-power, other renewable energy sources, and in oil and gas. This might include partnering with other oil and gas operators.
The challenge for any petroleum-producing jurisdiction, especially one in the early stages like Newfoundland and Labrador, is to decide on policies that balance fiscal and economic benefits while limiting risks to the province and its citizens. These can involve difficult choices, between policies that foster more employment and local business activities, or those that provide direct revenue to support public programs like health care and education." Newfoundland and Labrador Energy Plan Discussion Paper Page 28.
That reads like the Blue Book section: "This Government will work with..." as if it already isn't doing it. That's misleading in the extreme.
"That might include partnering with other oil and gas operators". Another vague pos statement. Don't tell me what it might mean. Tell me what you have decided already, since the decisions are already made.
The second paragraph merely repeats bland observations - typical government pap - about the theoretical and difficult policy choices.
What was needed here was two things:
1. The business case on which Dan the Man built his Plan that's already out of the can. Let's see the actual details of what is underway at PetroNewf.
which will therefore lead us to ...
2. A detailed examination of the "difficult policy choices" that are left to be made. Let's see the options before we chose. In this case it seems we ought to "discuss" the deficiencies of the discussion document rather than the "difficult policy choices".
The first one - to follow the course of a state-owned enterprise entering the private sector in an area in which it has no expertise - that one has already been made. And we can't suck that one back.
The best we can hope for at this point is damage control.
If by some miracle we could get our hands on the internal government documents, I'd lay money the bureaucrats noted somewhere that this isn't a consultation process at all.
It is a "confirmation process".
People are expected to show up and give their blessing to whatever vague things they are asked to approve.
We needn't worry our pretty heads about things.
Dissent - to use the Premier's curious term for people who don't agreement with him completely and unreservedly - is not required, and heck, may not even be permissible soon.
And from some far-off farm we can still hear the lowly animals singing...
"Say what you think
But the best thing to think
Is nothing -
That's excellent thinking."
Followed by a rousing chorus of Beasts of England.
When you want people to notice something...
release it late on the day before a long holiday weekend.
That was sarcasm.
This is the release from the provincial government announcing its long-overdue energy plan consultation process.
That was sarcasm.
This is the release from the provincial government announcing its long-overdue energy plan consultation process.
10 November 2005
and the strangest things seem suddenly normal...[updated]
Today was one of those days where everything in the world seemed to burst straight out of Really Goofy Land.
One of those things was a CBC radio interview with John Efford about his health problems and recent calls for his resignation.
The bizarre part was that Efford's approach to the whole business was the same as some of those of the Conservative persuasion who blame the news media for the party's political problems.
John Efford and Liam O'Brien sharing the same headspace.
I shudder at the thought.
Anyway, Efford criticized news media for carrying stories about his health woes.
From a communications perspective, this makes just the latest of a serious of blunders by Efford when dealing with the personal attacks on him.
And here's what's wrong with his approach.
First of all, it is factually incorrect. The news media are not attacking John Boy. They are reporting other people's attacks, as they are likely to do given that controversy in politics is a big source of news copy. His credibility is not helped.
Second, John's attacks will win him no sympathizers among reporters who - despite Liam O'Brien's jaundiced view of his old trade are not universally or even generally so devoid of ethical beliefs that will knife anyone they "don't like".
Reporters are a conduit to supporters and potential supporters. They are also human so if you slag them off needlessly or pointlessly, all you do is ensure that the next coverage will show you warts and all. Reporters don't need to fabricate things or spin stories, although as Mulroney's old communications director claimed in a book, it is commonplace.
Nope. All they really have to do is report factually and accurately on your next cock-up, regardless of who you are.
Ask Brian Tobin about pissing off reporters needlessly and where it gets you.
John needed reporters to help counteract some of the partisan attacks being made on him. Instead, he just added to his woes.
Third, if you are defending yourself at least shoot in the right direction. General Custer may have been surrounded and may have died in the battle at the Little Big Horn.
Odds are good, though, that he and his troopers were shooting at the Indians around them, rather than say, at the ground or up in the sky.
This sort of stupidity - and that's really all it is - just makes you even less credible among a whole range of people that you are actually trying to win to your side.
Problem the Fourth is that Efford did the interview from Florida where he has retreated on doctor's orders in order to deal with his medical problems.
Now don't be surprised if the people taking shots at John knew full-well that he was in Florida and took full advantage of this fact to push their story when it would look the worst for Efford.
But it really just plays into their hands to respond from the sunny south, especially when the timing is so freakin' obvious.
The alternative? Take some preventive action by making it clear he was taking advantage of the little break while the Commons isn't in session to grab a bit of down time. That works better if, in the weeks before hand, local media get sick of hearing from Efford on anything and everything he can talk about to make sure people know he is on the job and doing just fine, thanks.
There are ways to handle things and not ways to handle things.
But personally, today seemed like a day in which the strange idea of O'Brien being a Connie seemed not only plausible but real.
___________
[Update: Here's a link to a Liberal blog calling for Efford's resignation. Teensy weensy print. Big message]
One of those things was a CBC radio interview with John Efford about his health problems and recent calls for his resignation.
The bizarre part was that Efford's approach to the whole business was the same as some of those of the Conservative persuasion who blame the news media for the party's political problems.
John Efford and Liam O'Brien sharing the same headspace.
I shudder at the thought.
Anyway, Efford criticized news media for carrying stories about his health woes.
From a communications perspective, this makes just the latest of a serious of blunders by Efford when dealing with the personal attacks on him.
And here's what's wrong with his approach.
First of all, it is factually incorrect. The news media are not attacking John Boy. They are reporting other people's attacks, as they are likely to do given that controversy in politics is a big source of news copy. His credibility is not helped.
Second, John's attacks will win him no sympathizers among reporters who - despite Liam O'Brien's jaundiced view of his old trade are not universally or even generally so devoid of ethical beliefs that will knife anyone they "don't like".
Reporters are a conduit to supporters and potential supporters. They are also human so if you slag them off needlessly or pointlessly, all you do is ensure that the next coverage will show you warts and all. Reporters don't need to fabricate things or spin stories, although as Mulroney's old communications director claimed in a book, it is commonplace.
Nope. All they really have to do is report factually and accurately on your next cock-up, regardless of who you are.
Ask Brian Tobin about pissing off reporters needlessly and where it gets you.
John needed reporters to help counteract some of the partisan attacks being made on him. Instead, he just added to his woes.
Third, if you are defending yourself at least shoot in the right direction. General Custer may have been surrounded and may have died in the battle at the Little Big Horn.
Odds are good, though, that he and his troopers were shooting at the Indians around them, rather than say, at the ground or up in the sky.
This sort of stupidity - and that's really all it is - just makes you even less credible among a whole range of people that you are actually trying to win to your side.
Problem the Fourth is that Efford did the interview from Florida where he has retreated on doctor's orders in order to deal with his medical problems.
Now don't be surprised if the people taking shots at John knew full-well that he was in Florida and took full advantage of this fact to push their story when it would look the worst for Efford.
But it really just plays into their hands to respond from the sunny south, especially when the timing is so freakin' obvious.
The alternative? Take some preventive action by making it clear he was taking advantage of the little break while the Commons isn't in session to grab a bit of down time. That works better if, in the weeks before hand, local media get sick of hearing from Efford on anything and everything he can talk about to make sure people know he is on the job and doing just fine, thanks.
There are ways to handle things and not ways to handle things.
But personally, today seemed like a day in which the strange idea of O'Brien being a Connie seemed not only plausible but real.
___________
[Update: Here's a link to a Liberal blog calling for Efford's resignation. Teensy weensy print. Big message]
Rightie wrongie ruminations
Regular readings of these e-scribbles will be all too familiar with the exchanges of opinion between this pile of posts and the ones at Responsible Government League.
Not surprisingly, the post about RGL's support for Jack Layton - bizarre as the concept was in the first place - garnered a response from Liam O'Brien which, again not surprisingly, seems to be arguing about something other than the point.
It is an old debating tactic to argue against a straw man: set up a completely erroneous, irrelevant or even preposterous set of ideas and then knock them down. It is also an old tactic to brand an opponent of some position as being something they aren't - like being a child molester. Or paranoid. Or accuse them of some other failing, again without any evidence to back it up.
The title of the post - "Remind me again of why we're supposed to support this government...": is a sign of what follows: a post that uses all of the same old tactics, either directly or indirectly.
Oh well.
So much for the short-lived spate of postings at RGL that were well-thought out and provocative. Now it seems to be back to warmed over Conservative Party talking points. He must be on their automated e-mail list.
I wish there was a smiley for shrugging and shaking ones head.
Not surprisingly, the post about RGL's support for Jack Layton - bizarre as the concept was in the first place - garnered a response from Liam O'Brien which, again not surprisingly, seems to be arguing about something other than the point.
It is an old debating tactic to argue against a straw man: set up a completely erroneous, irrelevant or even preposterous set of ideas and then knock them down. It is also an old tactic to brand an opponent of some position as being something they aren't - like being a child molester. Or paranoid. Or accuse them of some other failing, again without any evidence to back it up.
The title of the post - "Remind me again of why we're supposed to support this government...": is a sign of what follows: a post that uses all of the same old tactics, either directly or indirectly.
Oh well.
So much for the short-lived spate of postings at RGL that were well-thought out and provocative. Now it seems to be back to warmed over Conservative Party talking points. He must be on their automated e-mail list.
I wish there was a smiley for shrugging and shaking ones head.
Late-night Layton lamentations and "leftie" lacrymals
Over at RGL, Liam thinks it is a good idea NDP Jack wants to take the country to the polls in February.
Let's put this in context:
1. The PM has already committed to an election 30 days after Gomery's final report. That puts us into a March/April time for the writ to drop.
2. The Opposition parties screamed bloody murder for 24 hours in the wake of the Gomery report release this month only to pull their horns in within 48 hours or so after that, once their polling started showing that the government support was quickly rebounding back up to where it was. Check the publicly available polls for confirmation.
They also saw how many people don't want an election.
3. Jack Layton makes the absolutely bizarre pronouncement that he plans to bring down the government (maybe he found left-over Harper speaking notes in his jacket from the last trip to the cleaners)
4. In a most unseemly haste, both the chief of the Blocheads and Steve Harper denounced Layton and said they had no plans to bring down the government.
5. Layton cooks up some procedural thingy so that the Opposition can force an election around the time we are going to have one anyways and try to make it look like they have:
a. some teensy bit of control over anything;
b. some way to charge into the next election looking like they actually brought down the government.
6. What they are all showing is their complete inability to read a poll and create sensible policy simultaneously - keep the gum away from them if there is any footwork involved.
7. What they are also showing is their complete lack of a grip on the agenda. It's pretty bad when they have to make up a procedural scam to claim credit for the election that everyone knows is coming anyways.
On an unrelated subject, Liam then takes a potshot at the leftie media based on a 1982 survey done at Western Ontario's J school.
Ok.
The media basically mirrors society as a whole, just like most institutions or organizations. I can make them all look like Commies or all look like Nazis, depending on how I structure the survey.
Besides, self-identification isn't really much of a clue as to what someone actually is in terms of their political affiliation or whether they are biased against conservatives in their reporting. Those sorts of assessments are best done by some objective measures like content analysis or long-term tracking.
So, Liam, as much as you might like to think that there is some sort of leftie bias in the media and therefore that's why Connies have trouble getting a fair shake, it really isn't the issue. That's a glorious excuse copied from the American right, which has, of course, been dominant in politics south of the border since 1979. Now at the same time, if the alternative is a sudden flowering of the likes of Rush "OxyBoy" Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to fan the flames of Connie persecution complexes, then lemme say that I'll just take my news from the people reporting it now thanks. I can find enough different perspectives to make up my own mind - just like everyone else.
and that's really the point: reporters don't control what I think.
The real Connie political problem is comms cock-ups like the one with Dingwall. And before you see red yet again, Liam, read this carefully: HOW the Connie machine tackled Dingwall made him look like a saint and the Connies look like dorks. That was the mistake.
Making Dingwall look good is a task no Liberal comms genius could manage during the guy's entire political life. But Brian Pallister managed to do that in spades.
Media relations is like a Field of Dreams - if you build it they will come. If you bitch about them, criticize them and attack them, on the other hand, they will report that too.
And you look like an asshole.
But all the media had to do was take a picture of the orifice you presented to the camera.
Forrest Gump's mom had it right when she mused about stupid.
For the record, media analysis like the stuff Liam points to is one of the reasons why comms people shouldn't be former journalists. Funny, but many of them can't seem to make the switch to my side of the street successfully. Many do, but the failures seem to outweigh the successes on a number of fronts.
As for Stevie Cameron and Linda McQuaig, I'd give Liam two pieces of free advice:
1. Look at the Gomery report itself in detail - without the blue shades on. It isn't what you think it is. It never was
2. Stop wasting time reading people whose work is, well, boring. Stevie had a couple of good years at Brian's expense - 15 friggin years ago. Get over it. Move on. Cycle through the stages of grief over Brian's political demise, now that denial is untenable as a concept any more.
Get over the anger - it's a nasty emotion and maybe, just maybe, it could be one of the reasons why so few people are warming up to the Connies generally - too much anger.
As for Linda, no one buys her stuff outside of NDP yard sales. And there's a clue - NDP yard sales. Those aren't the votes Stevie Harper needs anyway, even if he could get them.
As for rest of the post over at RGL, I'll offer these few notes.
The link from small dead animals, - as the author of a non-partisan blog, you are aware that sda is a BIG BLUE, hardwired to 101 Connie Drive. Readin' that blog you feel like Randy Quaid riding the beam up into the alien invader ship in Independence Day. You are heading for the core and payback is a bitch.
Just wanted to make sure you knew that.
He's a [whisper]... conservative.
Not that there's anything wrong with that of course.
The new anti-media blog you linked to, Liam. Did you notice? It has no comments section.
[dramatic organ music]
Does that mean the blogger is afraid of something? Does that mean the blogger is lacking in integrity? Isn't he worthy of being slagged for this greivous sin against the 10 commandments of bloggerdom?
Hmmm?
Quel horreur.
You should actually read the media comments this guy drags out, by the way - they don't point to media bias.
They point to some of the issues as they have been framed...
by the ineptness of the Connie comms organization.
Look at it this way, Liam: John Turner's favourite game was to blame the media for his loss in 1984.
Do you want to keep repeating his mantra?
Let's put this in context:
1. The PM has already committed to an election 30 days after Gomery's final report. That puts us into a March/April time for the writ to drop.
2. The Opposition parties screamed bloody murder for 24 hours in the wake of the Gomery report release this month only to pull their horns in within 48 hours or so after that, once their polling started showing that the government support was quickly rebounding back up to where it was. Check the publicly available polls for confirmation.
They also saw how many people don't want an election.
3. Jack Layton makes the absolutely bizarre pronouncement that he plans to bring down the government (maybe he found left-over Harper speaking notes in his jacket from the last trip to the cleaners)
4. In a most unseemly haste, both the chief of the Blocheads and Steve Harper denounced Layton and said they had no plans to bring down the government.
5. Layton cooks up some procedural thingy so that the Opposition can force an election around the time we are going to have one anyways and try to make it look like they have:
a. some teensy bit of control over anything;
b. some way to charge into the next election looking like they actually brought down the government.
6. What they are all showing is their complete inability to read a poll and create sensible policy simultaneously - keep the gum away from them if there is any footwork involved.
7. What they are also showing is their complete lack of a grip on the agenda. It's pretty bad when they have to make up a procedural scam to claim credit for the election that everyone knows is coming anyways.
On an unrelated subject, Liam then takes a potshot at the leftie media based on a 1982 survey done at Western Ontario's J school.
Ok.
The media basically mirrors society as a whole, just like most institutions or organizations. I can make them all look like Commies or all look like Nazis, depending on how I structure the survey.
Besides, self-identification isn't really much of a clue as to what someone actually is in terms of their political affiliation or whether they are biased against conservatives in their reporting. Those sorts of assessments are best done by some objective measures like content analysis or long-term tracking.
So, Liam, as much as you might like to think that there is some sort of leftie bias in the media and therefore that's why Connies have trouble getting a fair shake, it really isn't the issue. That's a glorious excuse copied from the American right, which has, of course, been dominant in politics south of the border since 1979. Now at the same time, if the alternative is a sudden flowering of the likes of Rush "OxyBoy" Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly to fan the flames of Connie persecution complexes, then lemme say that I'll just take my news from the people reporting it now thanks. I can find enough different perspectives to make up my own mind - just like everyone else.
and that's really the point: reporters don't control what I think.
The real Connie political problem is comms cock-ups like the one with Dingwall. And before you see red yet again, Liam, read this carefully: HOW the Connie machine tackled Dingwall made him look like a saint and the Connies look like dorks. That was the mistake.
Making Dingwall look good is a task no Liberal comms genius could manage during the guy's entire political life. But Brian Pallister managed to do that in spades.
Media relations is like a Field of Dreams - if you build it they will come. If you bitch about them, criticize them and attack them, on the other hand, they will report that too.
And you look like an asshole.
But all the media had to do was take a picture of the orifice you presented to the camera.
Forrest Gump's mom had it right when she mused about stupid.
For the record, media analysis like the stuff Liam points to is one of the reasons why comms people shouldn't be former journalists. Funny, but many of them can't seem to make the switch to my side of the street successfully. Many do, but the failures seem to outweigh the successes on a number of fronts.
As for Stevie Cameron and Linda McQuaig, I'd give Liam two pieces of free advice:
1. Look at the Gomery report itself in detail - without the blue shades on. It isn't what you think it is. It never was
2. Stop wasting time reading people whose work is, well, boring. Stevie had a couple of good years at Brian's expense - 15 friggin years ago. Get over it. Move on. Cycle through the stages of grief over Brian's political demise, now that denial is untenable as a concept any more.
Get over the anger - it's a nasty emotion and maybe, just maybe, it could be one of the reasons why so few people are warming up to the Connies generally - too much anger.
As for Linda, no one buys her stuff outside of NDP yard sales. And there's a clue - NDP yard sales. Those aren't the votes Stevie Harper needs anyway, even if he could get them.
As for rest of the post over at RGL, I'll offer these few notes.
The link from small dead animals, - as the author of a non-partisan blog, you are aware that sda is a BIG BLUE, hardwired to 101 Connie Drive. Readin' that blog you feel like Randy Quaid riding the beam up into the alien invader ship in Independence Day. You are heading for the core and payback is a bitch.
Just wanted to make sure you knew that.
He's a [whisper]... conservative.
Not that there's anything wrong with that of course.
The new anti-media blog you linked to, Liam. Did you notice? It has no comments section.
[dramatic organ music]
Does that mean the blogger is afraid of something? Does that mean the blogger is lacking in integrity? Isn't he worthy of being slagged for this greivous sin against the 10 commandments of bloggerdom?
Hmmm?
Quel horreur.
You should actually read the media comments this guy drags out, by the way - they don't point to media bias.
They point to some of the issues as they have been framed...
by the ineptness of the Connie comms organization.
Look at it this way, Liam: John Turner's favourite game was to blame the media for his loss in 1984.
Do you want to keep repeating his mantra?
09 November 2005
Getting sun to rise in morning biggest accomplishment
Ok. That's obviously a joke.
But if this story is correct, Premier Danny Williams' biggest accomplishment - by his own estimation - is something he really had nothing to do with. Apparently, the Premier told a party fundraising dinner in St. John's last night that the province's improved fiscal is his greatest accomplishment to date.
It's times like this that one wishes the Progressive Conservative Party website was more than just a collection of links to the government news release site.
Here's what actually happened:
Biggest thing - The price of oil went through the roof and as a result the provincial government is doing quite nicely, thank you very much, from oil royalties.
Danny Williams did not cause any increase in world oil prices.
The royalties collected by the provincial government are a direct result of two things:
1. The Real Atlantic Accord, signed in 1985 by Brian Mulroney and Brian Peckford; and,
2. A series of royalty agreements signed by previous governments.
Put it together and you get a $300 million cash surplus this year and we haven't even seen the end of it. Next year's surplus will be bigger. Much bigger.
All this government did was not spend like a drunken sailor after a year and a half at sea. While in local politics that might be worthy of a medal, in most sensible places it gets a polite round of applause.
Beyond that, the Voisey's Bay deal will cut in this year and add some more cash to the pile.
Beyond that, someone will surely point to the January offshore deal with Ottawa. But, as we have not grown too weary of saying, that deal is just a transfer payment from Ottawa worth exactly $2.0 billion dollars.
Period.
It is waaaaaaaaay less than the Premier was looking for and it is waaaaaay less than some people have tried to pretend.
I am optimistic, though. I still think Danny Williams is capable of and will do some impressive things; the kind of things that would warrant the judgment of some people that he is the greatest Premier in the province's history. That was actually said to me on Water Street the other day by someone who isn't a member of the Williams family or even a Tory supporter for that matter.
Personally, though, I'll wait until there is some record of accomplishment by which to measure this Prem against all the others going back to 1855.
But if this story is correct, Premier Danny Williams' biggest accomplishment - by his own estimation - is something he really had nothing to do with. Apparently, the Premier told a party fundraising dinner in St. John's last night that the province's improved fiscal is his greatest accomplishment to date.
It's times like this that one wishes the Progressive Conservative Party website was more than just a collection of links to the government news release site.
Here's what actually happened:
Biggest thing - The price of oil went through the roof and as a result the provincial government is doing quite nicely, thank you very much, from oil royalties.
Danny Williams did not cause any increase in world oil prices.
The royalties collected by the provincial government are a direct result of two things:
1. The Real Atlantic Accord, signed in 1985 by Brian Mulroney and Brian Peckford; and,
2. A series of royalty agreements signed by previous governments.
Put it together and you get a $300 million cash surplus this year and we haven't even seen the end of it. Next year's surplus will be bigger. Much bigger.
All this government did was not spend like a drunken sailor after a year and a half at sea. While in local politics that might be worthy of a medal, in most sensible places it gets a polite round of applause.
Beyond that, the Voisey's Bay deal will cut in this year and add some more cash to the pile.
Beyond that, someone will surely point to the January offshore deal with Ottawa. But, as we have not grown too weary of saying, that deal is just a transfer payment from Ottawa worth exactly $2.0 billion dollars.
Period.
It is waaaaaaaaay less than the Premier was looking for and it is waaaaaay less than some people have tried to pretend.
I am optimistic, though. I still think Danny Williams is capable of and will do some impressive things; the kind of things that would warrant the judgment of some people that he is the greatest Premier in the province's history. That was actually said to me on Water Street the other day by someone who isn't a member of the Williams family or even a Tory supporter for that matter.
Personally, though, I'll wait until there is some record of accomplishment by which to measure this Prem against all the others going back to 1855.
08 November 2005
Italian bullshit bombs
An Italian video on Fallujah is making the rounds on the Internet alleging that American forces used napalm and white phosphorus bombs in fighting there. There is a suggestion of mysterious weapons, possibly chemical weapons being used.
In a nutshell, the piece is crap.
Most of the front end is fabricated or has no evidence to support it. There is plenty of accusation, but precious little evidence.
One example: - the claim that gun-camera footage from Vietnam was suppressed so as to prevent an anti-war backlash. It is absolute nonsense. Tons of footage of napalming from Vietnam has been broadcast for 40 years. This piece of nonsense from the boot just adds California Dreamin' as a soundtrack and then claims that American pilots listened to such music. Maybe they did; maybe they didn't. But the footage is old news dolled up with some not-so-clever theatrics to make it appear new.
Then there's the interview with someone claiming to be a former American soldier. Maybe he is; maybe he isn't. The problem comes in that the questions are not the ones originally asked - they are rehashed for effect in a way reminiscent of The Daily Show. Unfortunately, this piece purports to be hard news, not parody.
And oh yeah, for the record: a 10 year-old boy carrying an AK-47 counts as a combatant if he points the weapon at me and pulls the trigger. The clever fake question doesn't mask the truth: American soldiers were not engaged in some campaign of wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, as this piece of Italian garbage suggests.
The dead bodies presented in the video as evidence of some atrocity have a variety of characteristics, none either mysterious or apparently related to chemical weapons: some have evidently been dead for some time and are blackened and bloated consistent with leaving a corpse in the heat for long periods. Given the use of high explosives, it would also be expected to see some bodies "without a mark on them" or in which the "clothes are mysteriously intact". Overpressures from the explosives would cause internal injuries seen only on autopsy.
Other bodies, photos of which were presented by an anti-American Iraqi group to left-wing European parliament deputies also appear to have been re-dressed in immaculate clothing to create the illusion of mystery. Some of the pictures appear to be the burned corpses of American service personnel, and would be consistent with bodies burned inside armoured vehicles following a hit by anti-armour weapons. These apparent military casualties are presented as being Iraqis.
Much of the story is told by innuendo and rumour - like the stories about mosques being vandalized. The witness knew of nothing personally but heard lots of "stories".
Other parts of the piece are deliberately misrepresented for political purposes, such as the claim by an individual claiming to be a former soldier that chemical weapons were used and that white phosphorous is a chemical weapon. This is simply untrue - white phosphorous explosives are fundamentally different from chemical weapons which are weapons such as nerve gas. WP is a hideous weapon but it is fundamentally different from the terror weapons of the First World War.
In a portion of the film in which a letter from the Ministry of Defence (UK) is presented, the camera jumps around so much one cannot read the letter at all to confirm that what is translated is actually what is said. Since the letter corrected information from a previous letter, it is presented as an admission of guilt, but the context of the letter is deliberately omitted by the reporters.
This sort of stuff has been circulating for some time on the Internet. Like this piece from the UK.
Here is the official statement from the United States Department of State, including references to some sites where the chem weapons stories have been carried.
Here is some background information on the Mark 77 incendiary weapon. Here is some information on one type of white phosphorous weapons.
In a nutshell, the piece is crap.
Most of the front end is fabricated or has no evidence to support it. There is plenty of accusation, but precious little evidence.
One example: - the claim that gun-camera footage from Vietnam was suppressed so as to prevent an anti-war backlash. It is absolute nonsense. Tons of footage of napalming from Vietnam has been broadcast for 40 years. This piece of nonsense from the boot just adds California Dreamin' as a soundtrack and then claims that American pilots listened to such music. Maybe they did; maybe they didn't. But the footage is old news dolled up with some not-so-clever theatrics to make it appear new.
Then there's the interview with someone claiming to be a former American soldier. Maybe he is; maybe he isn't. The problem comes in that the questions are not the ones originally asked - they are rehashed for effect in a way reminiscent of The Daily Show. Unfortunately, this piece purports to be hard news, not parody.
And oh yeah, for the record: a 10 year-old boy carrying an AK-47 counts as a combatant if he points the weapon at me and pulls the trigger. The clever fake question doesn't mask the truth: American soldiers were not engaged in some campaign of wholesale slaughter of innocent civilians, as this piece of Italian garbage suggests.
The dead bodies presented in the video as evidence of some atrocity have a variety of characteristics, none either mysterious or apparently related to chemical weapons: some have evidently been dead for some time and are blackened and bloated consistent with leaving a corpse in the heat for long periods. Given the use of high explosives, it would also be expected to see some bodies "without a mark on them" or in which the "clothes are mysteriously intact". Overpressures from the explosives would cause internal injuries seen only on autopsy.
Other bodies, photos of which were presented by an anti-American Iraqi group to left-wing European parliament deputies also appear to have been re-dressed in immaculate clothing to create the illusion of mystery. Some of the pictures appear to be the burned corpses of American service personnel, and would be consistent with bodies burned inside armoured vehicles following a hit by anti-armour weapons. These apparent military casualties are presented as being Iraqis.
Much of the story is told by innuendo and rumour - like the stories about mosques being vandalized. The witness knew of nothing personally but heard lots of "stories".
Other parts of the piece are deliberately misrepresented for political purposes, such as the claim by an individual claiming to be a former soldier that chemical weapons were used and that white phosphorous is a chemical weapon. This is simply untrue - white phosphorous explosives are fundamentally different from chemical weapons which are weapons such as nerve gas. WP is a hideous weapon but it is fundamentally different from the terror weapons of the First World War.
In a portion of the film in which a letter from the Ministry of Defence (UK) is presented, the camera jumps around so much one cannot read the letter at all to confirm that what is translated is actually what is said. Since the letter corrected information from a previous letter, it is presented as an admission of guilt, but the context of the letter is deliberately omitted by the reporters.
This sort of stuff has been circulating for some time on the Internet. Like this piece from the UK.
Here is the official statement from the United States Department of State, including references to some sites where the chem weapons stories have been carried.
Here is some background information on the Mark 77 incendiary weapon. Here is some information on one type of white phosphorous weapons.
Tom Rideout - metaphor mangler extra-ordinary
The return of Tom Rideout to a position of considerable authority prompts an old political junkie to reminisce about some of Tom's glorious past.
Elected as a Liberal, Rideout crossed the floor in the early 1980s to sit with Brian Peckford around the cabinet table. There's an old Bill Rowe column in which he criticizes the local penchant for floor-walking among elected legislators. It used to make the rounds of local politicos every once in a while and I haven't seen it in years.
When Peckford packed it in in 1988, Rideout took a run at the leaders job and, after a hard campaign, eventually beat out the likes of Len Simms to sit in the Premier's Office. He created one of the largest cabinets in recent memory swelling the thing to 23 members, with assorted other members of caucus serving in various House positions or as parliamentary secretaries. The only legislators not receiving extra stipends had the misfortune of being in Opposition.
Rideout moved in, moved all Peckford's people out the door, and then dropped the writ in the hopes of winning a majority government against the Wells' Liberals.
Rideout lasted a total of 43 days as Premier, the shortest tenure of any Newfoundland first minister since the 1920s.
Three events or incidents stand out from 1989 that helped to define Tom Rideout in the minds of voters. I am not thinking about his incredibly awkward speaking style and his unease, nor am I talking about episodes like helicoptering into Placentia two days in a row toward the end of the campaign with nothing new to say on the second trip.
Nor am I talking about his leadership campaign chant "Ride In! Right On ! Rideout!"
Nope.
First was Tom's comment that "a skunk can't change its spots". I have long forgotten the context but the mangled metaphor has stuck with me ever since. I thought about using that in the other post but the "skunk" reference seemed an unwarranted and entirely unintended comment on character.
Second was another one of his magic moments with the English language, this time from the televised debate. At one point, with ever ounce of self-confidence he could muster, Rideout challenged Wells on some point. He finished his remarks with the immortal words: "And that's backupable."
Third was actually a preplanned bit of campaigning. Rideout and the other leaders spoke to Memorial University students, where, predictably, Rideout trumpeted his government's commitment to post-secondary students. In the queue for the microphone was a MUN student and Liberal supporter. When she got her chance, she held aloft a cucumber and asked: "Does this look like a post-secondary education student to you, Mr. Rideout?" Great laugh from the crowd. An immortal political clip and yet another smack between the eyes for a Tory campaign that seemed prone to every manner of political cock-up imaginable.
There are plenty of little ones, most of which I have long since forgotten. There is one where Tom was speaking off-the-cuff but obviously thinking of the written word "divers" or the alternate spelling "diverse". He said the same word twice as if there were two different pronunciations and meanings. It was an obscure gaff only a few of us got, but for those that did, it was hysterically funny.
Rideout may not commit any of those embarrassing gaffes anymore, but there is always the possibility he will revert to his old ways when things get heated. One thing we can all count on: Rideout is viciously partisan and like all converts - like say John Crosbie - he will never miss a chance to blame anything he can on the guys who were there before him.
Unfortunately for Tom, as funny as it was to hear a cabinet minister from the days of the Roads for Rails deal crap on the deal he approved in cabinet, it is going to get even funnier if Tom starts blaming others for the problems he is currently facing: he's created his own problems, as usual.
Careful Tom, that might be loaded.
Elected as a Liberal, Rideout crossed the floor in the early 1980s to sit with Brian Peckford around the cabinet table. There's an old Bill Rowe column in which he criticizes the local penchant for floor-walking among elected legislators. It used to make the rounds of local politicos every once in a while and I haven't seen it in years.
When Peckford packed it in in 1988, Rideout took a run at the leaders job and, after a hard campaign, eventually beat out the likes of Len Simms to sit in the Premier's Office. He created one of the largest cabinets in recent memory swelling the thing to 23 members, with assorted other members of caucus serving in various House positions or as parliamentary secretaries. The only legislators not receiving extra stipends had the misfortune of being in Opposition.
Rideout moved in, moved all Peckford's people out the door, and then dropped the writ in the hopes of winning a majority government against the Wells' Liberals.
Rideout lasted a total of 43 days as Premier, the shortest tenure of any Newfoundland first minister since the 1920s.
Three events or incidents stand out from 1989 that helped to define Tom Rideout in the minds of voters. I am not thinking about his incredibly awkward speaking style and his unease, nor am I talking about episodes like helicoptering into Placentia two days in a row toward the end of the campaign with nothing new to say on the second trip.
Nor am I talking about his leadership campaign chant "Ride In! Right On ! Rideout!"
Nope.
First was Tom's comment that "a skunk can't change its spots". I have long forgotten the context but the mangled metaphor has stuck with me ever since. I thought about using that in the other post but the "skunk" reference seemed an unwarranted and entirely unintended comment on character.
Second was another one of his magic moments with the English language, this time from the televised debate. At one point, with ever ounce of self-confidence he could muster, Rideout challenged Wells on some point. He finished his remarks with the immortal words: "And that's backupable."
Third was actually a preplanned bit of campaigning. Rideout and the other leaders spoke to Memorial University students, where, predictably, Rideout trumpeted his government's commitment to post-secondary students. In the queue for the microphone was a MUN student and Liberal supporter. When she got her chance, she held aloft a cucumber and asked: "Does this look like a post-secondary education student to you, Mr. Rideout?" Great laugh from the crowd. An immortal political clip and yet another smack between the eyes for a Tory campaign that seemed prone to every manner of political cock-up imaginable.
There are plenty of little ones, most of which I have long since forgotten. There is one where Tom was speaking off-the-cuff but obviously thinking of the written word "divers" or the alternate spelling "diverse". He said the same word twice as if there were two different pronunciations and meanings. It was an obscure gaff only a few of us got, but for those that did, it was hysterically funny.
Rideout may not commit any of those embarrassing gaffes anymore, but there is always the possibility he will revert to his old ways when things get heated. One thing we can all count on: Rideout is viciously partisan and like all converts - like say John Crosbie - he will never miss a chance to blame anything he can on the guys who were there before him.
Unfortunately for Tom, as funny as it was to hear a cabinet minister from the days of the Roads for Rails deal crap on the deal he approved in cabinet, it is going to get even funnier if Tom starts blaming others for the problems he is currently facing: he's created his own problems, as usual.
Careful Tom, that might be loaded.
The return of Backupable Tom - update
In a surprise move, Premier Danny Williams today shuffled five of his cabinet ministers around, including appointing Tom Rideout as the new minister of fisheries and deputy premier.
Rideout's predecessor, Trevor Taylor, has been talking forthrightly for the past few weeks, including some genuinely straight talk in the wake of Derrick Rowe's departure as chief executive office of Fishery Products International (FPI).
Taylor talked himself out of a job. That's clear. But the problem is not that Taylor was wrong. Rather, it was painfully obvious that Taylor was at odds with the cabinet - especially the Premier himself - about how government ought to respond to the problems.
As the Bond Papers noted last Friday:
"Taylor has spoken openly of the overcapacity in the fishery. At the same time, Premier Williams has committed to assisting the community of Harbour Breton cope with the closure by FPI of the community's fishplant. While it is far from conclusive, these contradictory opinions suggest that there are some significant policy differences within government on fisheries issues."
Rideout's appointment is a clear signal as to how the Williams administration will respond to problems in the fishery. If the shuffle itself wasn't enough, the creation of a new portfolio in this administration, that of deputy premier, makes it clear that Rideout holds power and influence in the Williams cabinet second to none except Danny Williams himself.
Rideout was fisheries minister under Brian Peckford between 1985 and 1989 and served in the Peckford cabinet from the time he crossed the floor a few years earlier. Rideout is intimately familiar with the plans to prop up the fishery using tax dollars, rather than reform it.
More importantly, Rideout was fish minister when Fishery Products International was created out out of the collapse of smaller processing companies in the province.
All that points to a return to government intervention and government subsidies in the fishery. It reinforces the idea that the disastrous raw materials sharing program was something foisted on Taylor by his cabinet colleagues. The plan, which attempted to spread a limited resource to as many people as possible, was fundamentally at odds with the implications of Taylor's other public comments about the fishery.
The difference between now and the 1980s is that government has the cash - hundreds of millions of dollars in oil money - to pay for whatever it decides to do. But in truth, the province doesn't really have the cash - the Peckford era policies - every one of them - contributed greatly to the hideous financial mess facing the incoming Wells administration in 1989 and continues to burden the treasury in the form of the growing debt. When Tom points to previous administrations to blame, he is truthfully pointing to his own and ones of which he was a part.
All of this might turn out to be completely wrong; it's just a matter of opinion.
But given the history of this place and the people making decisions, I'd be willing to place a small wager on it:
Tom Rideout will take the province's fisheries policy back to the dismal past.
And that, to quote the former premier, is backupable.
[Update - CBC Radio's David Cochrane made a couple of observations about the big switcheroo today, which I will attempt to paraphrase below. The remarks here are mine, though. Nothing should be attributed to Cochrane in case I misquote him.
1. This is the biggest shuffle in the two years of the administration. Yep. Absolutely. The last shuffle was made because of the unbearable tension between the Premier and his former minister of health. If Trevor hadn't been shuffled he would have been Fabed, or something close to it.
2. Normally, the Premier might have waited a few months for a big shuffle. Again, spot on. No one has really screwed up here. Hedderson may have some issues about watches but unless there is something I am not seeing, the three other shuffles (Joan Burke - Tom Hedderson and Paul Shelly) are just a screen for the major one to make it look less obvious that Trevor got a kick in the crotch.
3. In this case though, as I recall David saying, this was intended to send a message to FPI communities that the fishery is important and, as proof, the second biggest guy in cabinet is in charge of the fishery. Again, right on the money. But where I'd go a step beyond is to point to the likely direction of government policy. If Williams thought the fishery was important enough to reform, he'd have left Taylor place.
What the Premier has done here - understandable politically - is to send a powerful signal that the fishery is so important, nothing is going to change. The Harbour Breton model is going to be the one at play here: pump cash in so people will not leave. Make no mistake: I think Peter Fenwick got this whole thing dead wrong when he wrote that the government policy on Harbour Breton marked a break with the past.
The fix is short-term, to be sure, but then again, that's what I meant when I based my prediction on the history of the province and how decisions get made.
There's also an element here that the Premier - this Premier - is not going to be the guy who brings bad news to anyone at all, ever, unless he absolutely has to.
Take a gander back to that Fenwick piece. Fenwick reflected a great deal of optimism six months ago and he may well hold a different view today, but there is no doubt that this government appeared headed in a much different direction on fisheries issues than it appears to be on right now. The High Liner example Fenwick notes is an example of what Taylor can do when he is allowed to work.
However, in the other cases, including Harbour Breton, the Premier took a direct interest and that's when the policies shifted from New Approach to Same Old, Same Old.
Rideout's predecessor, Trevor Taylor, has been talking forthrightly for the past few weeks, including some genuinely straight talk in the wake of Derrick Rowe's departure as chief executive office of Fishery Products International (FPI).
Taylor talked himself out of a job. That's clear. But the problem is not that Taylor was wrong. Rather, it was painfully obvious that Taylor was at odds with the cabinet - especially the Premier himself - about how government ought to respond to the problems.
As the Bond Papers noted last Friday:
"Taylor has spoken openly of the overcapacity in the fishery. At the same time, Premier Williams has committed to assisting the community of Harbour Breton cope with the closure by FPI of the community's fishplant. While it is far from conclusive, these contradictory opinions suggest that there are some significant policy differences within government on fisheries issues."
Rideout's appointment is a clear signal as to how the Williams administration will respond to problems in the fishery. If the shuffle itself wasn't enough, the creation of a new portfolio in this administration, that of deputy premier, makes it clear that Rideout holds power and influence in the Williams cabinet second to none except Danny Williams himself.
Rideout was fisheries minister under Brian Peckford between 1985 and 1989 and served in the Peckford cabinet from the time he crossed the floor a few years earlier. Rideout is intimately familiar with the plans to prop up the fishery using tax dollars, rather than reform it.
More importantly, Rideout was fish minister when Fishery Products International was created out out of the collapse of smaller processing companies in the province.
All that points to a return to government intervention and government subsidies in the fishery. It reinforces the idea that the disastrous raw materials sharing program was something foisted on Taylor by his cabinet colleagues. The plan, which attempted to spread a limited resource to as many people as possible, was fundamentally at odds with the implications of Taylor's other public comments about the fishery.
The difference between now and the 1980s is that government has the cash - hundreds of millions of dollars in oil money - to pay for whatever it decides to do. But in truth, the province doesn't really have the cash - the Peckford era policies - every one of them - contributed greatly to the hideous financial mess facing the incoming Wells administration in 1989 and continues to burden the treasury in the form of the growing debt. When Tom points to previous administrations to blame, he is truthfully pointing to his own and ones of which he was a part.
All of this might turn out to be completely wrong; it's just a matter of opinion.
But given the history of this place and the people making decisions, I'd be willing to place a small wager on it:
Tom Rideout will take the province's fisheries policy back to the dismal past.
And that, to quote the former premier, is backupable.
[Update - CBC Radio's David Cochrane made a couple of observations about the big switcheroo today, which I will attempt to paraphrase below. The remarks here are mine, though. Nothing should be attributed to Cochrane in case I misquote him.
1. This is the biggest shuffle in the two years of the administration. Yep. Absolutely. The last shuffle was made because of the unbearable tension between the Premier and his former minister of health. If Trevor hadn't been shuffled he would have been Fabed, or something close to it.
2. Normally, the Premier might have waited a few months for a big shuffle. Again, spot on. No one has really screwed up here. Hedderson may have some issues about watches but unless there is something I am not seeing, the three other shuffles (Joan Burke - Tom Hedderson and Paul Shelly) are just a screen for the major one to make it look less obvious that Trevor got a kick in the crotch.
3. In this case though, as I recall David saying, this was intended to send a message to FPI communities that the fishery is important and, as proof, the second biggest guy in cabinet is in charge of the fishery. Again, right on the money. But where I'd go a step beyond is to point to the likely direction of government policy. If Williams thought the fishery was important enough to reform, he'd have left Taylor place.
What the Premier has done here - understandable politically - is to send a powerful signal that the fishery is so important, nothing is going to change. The Harbour Breton model is going to be the one at play here: pump cash in so people will not leave. Make no mistake: I think Peter Fenwick got this whole thing dead wrong when he wrote that the government policy on Harbour Breton marked a break with the past.
The fix is short-term, to be sure, but then again, that's what I meant when I based my prediction on the history of the province and how decisions get made.
There's also an element here that the Premier - this Premier - is not going to be the guy who brings bad news to anyone at all, ever, unless he absolutely has to.
Take a gander back to that Fenwick piece. Fenwick reflected a great deal of optimism six months ago and he may well hold a different view today, but there is no doubt that this government appeared headed in a much different direction on fisheries issues than it appears to be on right now. The High Liner example Fenwick notes is an example of what Taylor can do when he is allowed to work.
However, in the other cases, including Harbour Breton, the Premier took a direct interest and that's when the policies shifted from New Approach to Same Old, Same Old.
07 November 2005
The FPI-competitor myth and one of the real problems
Among the many things said about Fishery products International over the past few days has been the replay of the old myth from 2001 that the company was now run by its competitors who were, according to some versions of the myth, bent on destroying it.
A simple review of the company's annual reports since 2001 will show just exactly how untrue that little story is.
Since 2001, Eric Barratt of Sanford Limited has had a seat on the FPI board. FPI and Sanford don't fish the same waters.
John Risley of Clearwater and someone from Icelandic Freezer Group got a seat on the board after 2001. Both companies own shares and would be expected to sit on the board. They represent FPI competitors in some senses, but in the highly competitive world - or anywhere else except crowd that are Number One on the Grassy Knoll in VOCM Valley, it could be a good sign that FPI was attracting interest from other companies looking to compete collectively in a highly competitive world.
But lookit - three is the tops. Three directors connected to other fishing companies. That's it.
The rest of the board, i.e the other nine too a dozen all come from other backgrounds having little to do with fish other than to buy it and fry it up in a pan, barbeque it or feed it to the cat.
The problems at FPI have a lot more to do with three other issues.
First, there is the highly competitive fishing industry globally and the decline of fish stocks around the world.
Second, there is the problem locally with way too many people chasing way too few fish.
Third is the provincial government. Gerry Reid and Danny Williams fit into the same box in my view, although neither is going to feel to comfortable as a result. Both Reid, when he was fish minister, and latterly Danny Williams, as Premier, have needlessly interfered with FPI's corporate business. Each, in their own way, prevented FPI from taking sound business decisions and as a consequence they cost the company millions of dollars.
Don't even get me started on the ludicrous idea that one from cabinet has offered up that we should nationalize FPI. Holy heck. That sort of thinking is how we got into the debt/deficit and economic underdevelopment mess in the first place.
But, look, if people want to find someone to blame for FPI's woes, they don't have to invent conspiracies of foreigners.
Locals have done a fine job of shagging up the fishery...yet again. Most fish ministers and premiers over the past 25 years have done more to screw up a decent industry than enough. The more recent ones, like say Gerry Reid or Danny Williams are just the latest in a long line of people who treated the fishery as a social program instead of a proper business. They stand in the way of sound decisions. Like Reid, this evening, they appear to gloat at having blocked FPI. And true to form, they typically have found a few hundred millions in scarce tax dollars to pave over their mistakes.
Let me point once more to the debt/deficit, in case you didn't catch my drift.
Like Rideout's Political Patronage Follies - otherwise known a road work contracts - the pavement is as exceeding thin on the fishery's potholes as it is on the province's high roads.
Truthfully, though, we don't need to waste time pointing fingers.
Now is the time to get on with solutions.
One of the first would be a repeal of the Fishery Products International Act. It's left over from the stoned age of Newfoundland public policy and, as such, long since overdue for repeal.
I called for it earlier this year in the midst of the crab fiasco.
With any luck it isn't too late to get the provincial government out of the fish company business now.
A simple review of the company's annual reports since 2001 will show just exactly how untrue that little story is.
Since 2001, Eric Barratt of Sanford Limited has had a seat on the FPI board. FPI and Sanford don't fish the same waters.
John Risley of Clearwater and someone from Icelandic Freezer Group got a seat on the board after 2001. Both companies own shares and would be expected to sit on the board. They represent FPI competitors in some senses, but in the highly competitive world - or anywhere else except crowd that are Number One on the Grassy Knoll in VOCM Valley, it could be a good sign that FPI was attracting interest from other companies looking to compete collectively in a highly competitive world.
But lookit - three is the tops. Three directors connected to other fishing companies. That's it.
The rest of the board, i.e the other nine too a dozen all come from other backgrounds having little to do with fish other than to buy it and fry it up in a pan, barbeque it or feed it to the cat.
The problems at FPI have a lot more to do with three other issues.
First, there is the highly competitive fishing industry globally and the decline of fish stocks around the world.
Second, there is the problem locally with way too many people chasing way too few fish.
Third is the provincial government. Gerry Reid and Danny Williams fit into the same box in my view, although neither is going to feel to comfortable as a result. Both Reid, when he was fish minister, and latterly Danny Williams, as Premier, have needlessly interfered with FPI's corporate business. Each, in their own way, prevented FPI from taking sound business decisions and as a consequence they cost the company millions of dollars.
Don't even get me started on the ludicrous idea that one from cabinet has offered up that we should nationalize FPI. Holy heck. That sort of thinking is how we got into the debt/deficit and economic underdevelopment mess in the first place.
But, look, if people want to find someone to blame for FPI's woes, they don't have to invent conspiracies of foreigners.
Locals have done a fine job of shagging up the fishery...yet again. Most fish ministers and premiers over the past 25 years have done more to screw up a decent industry than enough. The more recent ones, like say Gerry Reid or Danny Williams are just the latest in a long line of people who treated the fishery as a social program instead of a proper business. They stand in the way of sound decisions. Like Reid, this evening, they appear to gloat at having blocked FPI. And true to form, they typically have found a few hundred millions in scarce tax dollars to pave over their mistakes.
Let me point once more to the debt/deficit, in case you didn't catch my drift.
Like Rideout's Political Patronage Follies - otherwise known a road work contracts - the pavement is as exceeding thin on the fishery's potholes as it is on the province's high roads.
Truthfully, though, we don't need to waste time pointing fingers.
Now is the time to get on with solutions.
One of the first would be a repeal of the Fishery Products International Act. It's left over from the stoned age of Newfoundland public policy and, as such, long since overdue for repeal.
I called for it earlier this year in the midst of the crab fiasco.
With any luck it isn't too late to get the provincial government out of the fish company business now.
04 November 2005
FPI changes may signal massive problems in fishery
Derrick Rowe's departure from his job as chief executive officer of Fishery Products International may well signal wider problems in the local fishing industry.
There are already the problems in the crab sector and in shrimp, as reported widely during the summer. Add to that the chronic problem noted by provincial fisheries minister Trevor Taylor. Clear-eyed Taylor points to the fact there are simply too many people and too many plants in the province for the volume of fish out there. Add behind all that the growing competitiveness of the fishing industry and the province is set for some heavy changes to an industry that holds the status of being not so much as business as the religion of the place.
One of many things some people in the province refuse to acknowledge is that a company like FPI can actually ship fish to China, process it and bring it back to market in North America for less than it would if the fish were processed in Newfoundland and Labrador.
FPI's financial situation, including an additional $90 million in its debt load as reported by CBC Radio's David Cochrane, may have a spillover effect into the wider market. FPI is not only the major fish company in the province; it also supports smaller processors in a variety of ways.
The fall and winter may well be extremely difficult politically for the provincial government.
Taylor has spoken openly of the overcapacity in the fishery. At the same time, Premier Williams has committed to assisting the community of Harbour Breton cope with the closure by FPI of the community's fishplant. While it is far from conclusive, these contradictory opinions suggest that there are some significant policy differences within government on fisheries issues.
If real, they would only complicate a looming problem in the fishery that needs to be addressed decisively.
There are already the problems in the crab sector and in shrimp, as reported widely during the summer. Add to that the chronic problem noted by provincial fisheries minister Trevor Taylor. Clear-eyed Taylor points to the fact there are simply too many people and too many plants in the province for the volume of fish out there. Add behind all that the growing competitiveness of the fishing industry and the province is set for some heavy changes to an industry that holds the status of being not so much as business as the religion of the place.
One of many things some people in the province refuse to acknowledge is that a company like FPI can actually ship fish to China, process it and bring it back to market in North America for less than it would if the fish were processed in Newfoundland and Labrador.
FPI's financial situation, including an additional $90 million in its debt load as reported by CBC Radio's David Cochrane, may have a spillover effect into the wider market. FPI is not only the major fish company in the province; it also supports smaller processors in a variety of ways.
The fall and winter may well be extremely difficult politically for the provincial government.
Taylor has spoken openly of the overcapacity in the fishery. At the same time, Premier Williams has committed to assisting the community of Harbour Breton cope with the closure by FPI of the community's fishplant. While it is far from conclusive, these contradictory opinions suggest that there are some significant policy differences within government on fisheries issues.
If real, they would only complicate a looming problem in the fishery that needs to be addressed decisively.
FPI's Rowe departs
Derrick Rowe announced today that he will be stepping down as chief executive officer of Fishery Products International (FPI), effective 31 December 2005.
Rowe's departure coincides with announced a net loss in the third quarter 2005 of CDN$5.1 million. This compares with a net profit of CDN $4.9 million for the same period of 2004. Check the news release, linked above, for a detailed discussion of FPI's announcement.
The announcements of both the third quarter loss and Rowe's departure are accompanied by news that FPI will undertake a further review of its so-called primary group operations to reduce costs and increase productivity. The primary group includes FPI's fish harvesting, processing and marketing operations.
The Ocean Cuisine International division matches seafound demand from customers in the foodservice, retail and industrial sectors with suppliers globally. In September, FPI purchased The Seafood Company, a United Kingdom importer, harvester and processor of shellfish and rebranded the company Ocean Cuisine Europe.
In October, FPI deferred a plan to create an income trust using Ocean Cuisine International, attributing the deferral to a review being undertaken by the Government of Canada of income trusts. The plan originated in 2003, however, ongoing discussions with the Williams administration over the subsequent 18 months delayed implementation of the income trust proposal.
Rowe's departure coincides with announced a net loss in the third quarter 2005 of CDN$5.1 million. This compares with a net profit of CDN $4.9 million for the same period of 2004. Check the news release, linked above, for a detailed discussion of FPI's announcement.
The announcements of both the third quarter loss and Rowe's departure are accompanied by news that FPI will undertake a further review of its so-called primary group operations to reduce costs and increase productivity. The primary group includes FPI's fish harvesting, processing and marketing operations.
The Ocean Cuisine International division matches seafound demand from customers in the foodservice, retail and industrial sectors with suppliers globally. In September, FPI purchased The Seafood Company, a United Kingdom importer, harvester and processor of shellfish and rebranded the company Ocean Cuisine Europe.
In October, FPI deferred a plan to create an income trust using Ocean Cuisine International, attributing the deferral to a review being undertaken by the Government of Canada of income trusts. The plan originated in 2003, however, ongoing discussions with the Williams administration over the subsequent 18 months delayed implementation of the income trust proposal.
The future would be dramatically different...
Check this suggestion from Responsible Government League (RGL) that calls for, among other things, dismantling the provincial Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.
By the by, the department is commonly known as In Turd, which just proves once again that people need to think long and hard before they develop an acronym for an organization.
RGL's suggestion is radical and worth considering.
Don't hold your breath though. With no signs of radical changes in government policy in the wake of the last election, it is unlikely such a dramatic move will come now that everyone is settling in on The Hill.
By the by, the department is commonly known as In Turd, which just proves once again that people need to think long and hard before they develop an acronym for an organization.
RGL's suggestion is radical and worth considering.
Don't hold your breath though. With no signs of radical changes in government policy in the wake of the last election, it is unlikely such a dramatic move will come now that everyone is settling in on The Hill.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)