In light of CBC's candidate's debate last night, I thought it timely to reprint a post from last month.
The original title was "Of porkers and practicals: assuming another can-opener" and, for at least two of the candidates in last night's debate, this election is about political pork - getting more high paying federal jobs just because we have some sort of entitlement.
No one bothered to explain to voters in St. John's South-Mount Pearl how having 10% of Canadian defence spending - if that could even be got - would improve health care, home care, and child care. No one bothered to explain how we'd stand a hope of getting that amount of pork based solely on some bullshit idea that 10% of the men and women in uniform entitles us to 10% of defence spending. It seems the only answer to that was that one had to be a strong voice.
Better to ask for five bucks from everyone for a new bullhorn for Danny than ask for votes in a federal election. It's cheaper and the voice would be "stronger".
Anyway, it seems we have a campaign of pork and entitlement. It's just a bit surprising to see who is leading the charge.
Of pork and entitlement: assuming another can-opener
[originally posted November 2005]
Memorial University's Leslie Harris Centre of Regional Policy and Development released a brief report the other day on the number of federal government jobs in Newfoundland and Labrador. The full document is available here in pdf format.
Some details of the report have been reported elsewhere so there is no need to recount them in detail. Suffice it to say that this report is merely a set of statistics on what has been generally known for some time and is generally understood: over the past two decades and more, the number of federal public servants working in this province has declined.
Unfortunately, the Harris Centre released this set of tables and that's about it. The second part of the study, due in February, will "provide a detailed breakdown of federal employment in the Province, by department and location; identify the level, types and distribution of executive positions; undertake an overview of existing research on access to, and use of, Federal Government programs and services; examine the Federal procurement process; and provide additional qualitative information on changes in the Federal presence in the Province."
There are more than a few problems with this. First of all, the detail to be contained in the second stage of the report will go a long way to helping understand the changes in federal employment levels in Newfoundland and Labrador; simply put, the first Harris Centre report gives us nothing of the "why".
Second, the report actually doesn't give very much in the way of comparative figures. It's all good to say that federal employment declined here by such and such a number, and that it was this much above or below the national average. There is a simple, wider context that, once again, may inform what is becoming a sizeable public discussion and shift that discussion onto some foundation in fact.
The value of context and more, basic information is readily apparent. For example, while federal employment has declined here since 1993, there is absolutely no explanation of why employment levels rose in the years immediately prior to 1993 as dramatically as they fell in the years immediately after.
One possible explanation is a sudden increase in federal spending by a dying political administration which was then corrected by the subsequent one. We don't know for sure and truthfully, it doesn't look like the next Harris study will answer this sort of basic question.
If we look more closely at the Harris report itself a specific example appears - in the form of military employment - that shows the value of accurate information in interpreting the preliminary comments from this first Harris Centre report.
The declines after 1993 actually resulted from changes within National Defence that began while the Tories were still in power. The closure of Argentia in 1994 took with it a bunch of Canadians that simply no longer had a job here as liaison with the Americans. No Yanks. No liaison.
At Gander, organizational and technical changes allowed for moving the communications research unit out of Gander, just as changes led to the closure of the old warning and control squadron in the early 1970s.
In the middle of the Big Land, National Defence moved to a new operating concept at Goose Bay which shifted what used to be federal public service jobs to the private sector. There were fewer people working at Goose Bay after the changes, but the ones that were working just wouldn't show up in a study that deliberately counted only people directly on the payroll of one or another federal department. The situation, therefore, looks worse than it actually is.
The upshot? More information would lead anyone to a better understanding of what caused the changes in the number of federal jobs in the province. Hence, we'd be better able to decide if there was a problem. Hence we'd be better able to figure out what to do.
The Harris numbers, in and of themselves, can't lead anyone to a conclusion as to what happened, why it happened and what, if any action might be needed or possible to fix the "problem".
Another example in the same category - significant subcategories, to quote the Harris paper - is the number of senior executive positions in the province. "Two significant subcategories of employment are the number of executive positions and the service in the military. The former are important since people in executive positions have important influences on policy decisions..."
The paper then notes that the number of senior executives in the province is lower than the share of the national population and was, the lowest across the country.
Ponder that for a second. Then take a look at the report (linked above).
For one thing, the number of senior executives in the province actually grew in the study period, from 55 to 76 positions ranked EX-01 and above. If we take the period from 1998 to 2004, the number of such positions actually grew by 50%! Yet, for some reason, despite the claim quoted above, the Harris paper didn't actually provide the calculations to demonstrate its contention that the senior executive situation was as bad as claimed.
For another thing, we don't actually know what these decision-maker positions are actually supposed to do or why we should be bothered about it. This is a crucial piece of information for anyone wanting to make the claim that nothing happens here because no one has authority to do anything.
On the one hand there is claim we don't have very many, when in fact the numbers went up 50% - that's a bit of an odd thing in and of itself.
On the other, we don't know why EX-01 and above actually means anything. If this is merely rank-creep, in which positions are reclassified upward without any real power changes, then no one in the country is in a better position than we are, despite how many high paying jobs there are. If, in fact, decision-making authority that we might need to influence sits in Ottawa, getting agitated about this might be misplaced. We wouldn't change the overall situation short of moving Ottawa to Gander, let alone relocating the 16 jobs at the weather office.
Predictably, we have seen plenty of people screaming about the injustice of it all. They claim this is all proof that "Ottawa" is shafting us. There are cries for "our fair share", based, apparently on nothing other than some vague entitlement to federal paycheques.
This group, which includes people like Andy Wells, I call porkers. Their interest is not about anything other than getting a share of federal spending for the sake of getting it. It comes not because of anything else than a sense of entitlement. We are owed. We are entitled to our cut of the pork pie. Owed, that is, except when one talks of moving provincial public service jobs from St. John's to Deer Lake. Then Wells finds no merit in moving public service jobs around.
And there is no small irony that many of these same people will lambaste others of a different political stripe for supposedly bellying up to the Ottawa trough to dip their own entitled snouts. No small irony too that the ones clamouring loudest for increased federal spending (like the January transfer payment deal) are likely the first ones to run up the pink, white and green and cry out for "independence" and "self-determination" for our supposedly downtrodden people.
Just for the heck of it, look at the Harris report, and you'll notice something they won't point out too strenuously. Newfoundland and Labrador's share of federal public service jobs is actually higher than its share of the national population. Quebec, by contrast has the lowest ratio, followed by British Columbia and Alberta. Quebec, the erstwhile independent state makes no noise about federal public service jobs; the nationalists of this place howl loudest of anyone about it.
Sadly, there have been very few of the people I call the practicals. These people look at the who question from two related perspectives. They want to ensure that government isn't merely pouring cash down a hole merely to prop up one community or another whose industry has died a natural death. More importantly, though, practicals ask the genuine question about what federal presence and authority is actually needed here.
Having identified that shortfall, if any, they'd work to correct it. For example, if local industry is wasting cash commuting to Halifax, then it makes sense to open a regional office in this province that could:
a. lower operating costs for local businesses; and,
b. improve access of our very successful businesses to markets around the globe with Government of Canada support.
In some respects, this latest Harris report heralds the repeat of the same line of argument advanced by the old Young Royal Commission and the entire increased transfer payments fight from last year.
It is built on much mythology and lots of "numbers" but precious little meaningful information or analysis.
It is as though we are left to assume yet another can-opener.
04 January 2006
15 minutes that defined a political campaign
For those who want to see a political campaign that promises to be very interesting, go to cbc.ca/nl and check out the evening news' political debate involving Loyola Hearn (CPC), Siobhan Coady (LPC) and Peg Norman (NDP).
It's under the link on the right to the latest television news broadcast. Get it quickly though because it is likely to disappear fast.
The only thing I will say is that the incumbent looked tired and decidedly weak. His answer as to why people should vote for him started out with a plea for pity because this is his fourth campaign in five years. When asked about the issues in the riding he started out by talking about the lack of local media coverage of the campaign.
Everyone was right.
This will be a race to watch.
It's under the link on the right to the latest television news broadcast. Get it quickly though because it is likely to disappear fast.
The only thing I will say is that the incumbent looked tired and decidedly weak. His answer as to why people should vote for him started out with a plea for pity because this is his fourth campaign in five years. When asked about the issues in the riding he started out by talking about the lack of local media coverage of the campaign.
Everyone was right.
This will be a race to watch.
03 January 2006
Loyola Hearn stands...for Party before province
People don't have such short memories, Loyola.
Remember this CBC story from May 2005?
It was at the start of the campaign to get Hearn to put his province ahead of his loyalty to his Leader.
Just as Hearn had pressured Liberals to do repeatedly.
My favourite quote is from Danny Williams: "If Mr. Hearn wants to trade off his province for his country, then that's his decision."
The Fair Deal website generated over 14, 000 e-mails to Hearn and Norm Doyle, all of which he wiggled and wriggled to avoid as only Hearn could.
For the record here's a vid cap from the House as Norm Doyle votes to bring down the government and with it, the province's offshore bill. Norm looks so happy, doesn't he?
Thank heavens there were members of parliament who stood up for Newfoundland and Labrador when it counted.
Like Chuck Cadman.
Remember this CBC story from May 2005?
It was at the start of the campaign to get Hearn to put his province ahead of his loyalty to his Leader.
Just as Hearn had pressured Liberals to do repeatedly.
My favourite quote is from Danny Williams: "If Mr. Hearn wants to trade off his province for his country, then that's his decision."
The Fair Deal website generated over 14, 000 e-mails to Hearn and Norm Doyle, all of which he wiggled and wriggled to avoid as only Hearn could.
For the record here's a vid cap from the House as Norm Doyle votes to bring down the government and with it, the province's offshore bill. Norm looks so happy, doesn't he?
Thank heavens there were members of parliament who stood up for Newfoundland and Labrador when it counted.
Like Chuck Cadman.
Lame-assed Loyola
Sitting here working, I just caught one of Connie candidate Loyola Hearn's radio spots on Open Line.
Now first of all the putz just spent $145 to air a 30 second spot on a radio call-in show.
That's like paying a hundred and fifty bucks to go to Bowring Park, where it's free to get in.
But I digress.
What's really lame about these radio spots is the content.
Loyola claims he's more effective than anyone else in Ottawa from this province.
How does he prove this?
By pointing to the 200-odd times he got to his feet in the House of Commons.
That's it. He got to his feet 200 times or more and that makes him effective.
Hmmmm.
I am gonna give that some thought, check my records and see what I can come up with.
Off the top of my head, I recall one of the things Loyola stood up for was the offshore deal. Then Steve Harper told him to sit down in order to bring down the government and kill off cash for the province.
So Loyola sat down.
Of course, there is an offshore vote Loyola doesn't like to talk about. That's one in 1987 when he stood up to vote in favour of offshore clawbacks.
Then there was the time Loyola stood up about supposed plans to close postal outlets in his riding. Turns out there were no such plans for Loyola's riding. There was one in Avalon I know of but that isn't in the riding Loyola is trying to represent. It's in the riding he would have represented if he wasn't afraid of losing in his own home town.
One of the latest things Loyola stood up to do was table a report on the fishery that placed the blame for cod collapse and the lack of recovery on all the people involved in the fishery in one way or another. Loyola then issued a news release that said something completely different. So even when Loyola stands, he doesn't necessarily stand for accuracy and honesty.
Loyola also stood up to collect his travel claim. Over $100, 000 last year and over $160, 000 the year before. I can't tell you what he spent so much money on since, unlike cabinet ministers, members of parliament get to keep their political spending a secret.
Looks like Loyola's radio spots are a sign of a lame-assed campaign from a member of parliament so desperate to demonstrate he did anything (other than follow Harper's orders) that he is willing to air utter tripe and claim it's gold.
Once I've checked into this a bit more, I'll give you some more examples.
But in the meantime, it sure looks like Loyola is back at proving just exactly how lame he has been as a member of parliament.
After all, who else who run on a record of standing up for the province on the offshore when the record shows Loyola sat down on command from his party leader.
When asked to put province before party, Loyola picked Stephen Harper over Hamilton Avenue and Hibbs Cove.
Now first of all the putz just spent $145 to air a 30 second spot on a radio call-in show.
That's like paying a hundred and fifty bucks to go to Bowring Park, where it's free to get in.
But I digress.
What's really lame about these radio spots is the content.
Loyola claims he's more effective than anyone else in Ottawa from this province.
How does he prove this?
By pointing to the 200-odd times he got to his feet in the House of Commons.
That's it. He got to his feet 200 times or more and that makes him effective.
Hmmmm.
I am gonna give that some thought, check my records and see what I can come up with.
Off the top of my head, I recall one of the things Loyola stood up for was the offshore deal. Then Steve Harper told him to sit down in order to bring down the government and kill off cash for the province.
So Loyola sat down.
Of course, there is an offshore vote Loyola doesn't like to talk about. That's one in 1987 when he stood up to vote in favour of offshore clawbacks.
Then there was the time Loyola stood up about supposed plans to close postal outlets in his riding. Turns out there were no such plans for Loyola's riding. There was one in Avalon I know of but that isn't in the riding Loyola is trying to represent. It's in the riding he would have represented if he wasn't afraid of losing in his own home town.
One of the latest things Loyola stood up to do was table a report on the fishery that placed the blame for cod collapse and the lack of recovery on all the people involved in the fishery in one way or another. Loyola then issued a news release that said something completely different. So even when Loyola stands, he doesn't necessarily stand for accuracy and honesty.
Loyola also stood up to collect his travel claim. Over $100, 000 last year and over $160, 000 the year before. I can't tell you what he spent so much money on since, unlike cabinet ministers, members of parliament get to keep their political spending a secret.
Looks like Loyola's radio spots are a sign of a lame-assed campaign from a member of parliament so desperate to demonstrate he did anything (other than follow Harper's orders) that he is willing to air utter tripe and claim it's gold.
Once I've checked into this a bit more, I'll give you some more examples.
But in the meantime, it sure looks like Loyola is back at proving just exactly how lame he has been as a member of parliament.
After all, who else who run on a record of standing up for the province on the offshore when the record shows Loyola sat down on command from his party leader.
When asked to put province before party, Loyola picked Stephen Harper over Hamilton Avenue and Hibbs Cove.
30 down - 19, 970 to go
The quest continues to see if I can down 20, 000 cups of coffee in a year in order to accumulate the 400 bucks Steve Harper, the economist, says I should get from his big rebate.Remember that one? Steve's gonna lower the GST 1% the first year and then wait four more years to cut the second one percent.
Of course, Steve can't do it in three provinces, which have harmonised sales tax. Can't do it unless those three provinces agree.
Well, on this the first full day back after the holidays, I can report that I have now downed a total of 30 double double's from Tim's since the GST announcement.
My Harper calculator tells me I have saved the princely sum of 60 cents.
Yes, I have not made enough in GST savings to buy another cup of coffee yet.
But hey, I am up for the challenge.
Just 19, 970 cups to go.
02 January 2006
Connies go negative - big time
Bravo nottawa.
He found the second, really negative Connie attack ad that has been running on a couple of specialty channels.
It's one the Connies wouldn't put on their website.
Aside from announcing Liberal policy - an agreement on wait times, puhleese, it's been done - all the Connies seem to have is negative, negative, negative.
Oh yeah.
And today, Stephen Harper kept another one of his campaign promises.
He said he wouldn't use gun violence and murder in Toronto as a political football.
Promise made...
*cough*
*cough*
Just like Steve said he wouldn't campaign over Christmas and the New Year's holidays.
He found the second, really negative Connie attack ad that has been running on a couple of specialty channels.
It's one the Connies wouldn't put on their website.
Aside from announcing Liberal policy - an agreement on wait times, puhleese, it's been done - all the Connies seem to have is negative, negative, negative.
Oh yeah.
And today, Stephen Harper kept another one of his campaign promises.
He said he wouldn't use gun violence and murder in Toronto as a political football.
Promise made...
*cough*
*cough*
Just like Steve said he wouldn't campaign over Christmas and the New Year's holidays.
A year of Bond-ing
Today marks the first anniversary of the Bond Papers.
One year ago, in the midst of the offshore talks, I started this blog as a means of contributing to the discussion of public policy issues affecting Newfoundland and Labrador in particular and Canada in general.
While much has changed in the past year, the core goal for the Bond Papers is still the same: to contribute to an informed discussion of public policy issues. It started with the offshore and in the first few weeks that proved to be the issue that dominated.
Since then, there have been posts on everything from the fishery to alleged spy planes flying through Newfoundland and Labrador, Titan missiles and economic development. Some posts are lighthearted and humourous. Others have been deeper and wordier. Whether they succeeded in being funny or serious, as the case may be, is best left to its readers.
Readership incidentally, has grown fairly steadily in the past year. On any given week upwards of 150 people a day drop in a read these e-scribbles. At times, such as the election, the daily readership has doubled that number. There is no defined pattern to the reader levels. On Friday past, for example, the readership hit the weekly peak of 245 unique visitors. On New Year's Day, it hit almost 150, on a Sunday, when normally readership would drop to the low double digits.
Fundamentally, the Bond Papers remains a form of samizdat, or self-publication. It is an opinion column written at least daily. The opinions here are based on my experience and my research into issues. Fortunately, I have built up a fairly good filing system and a bank of genuine experts off whom I can bounce any of my thoughts and ideas. Ultimately, the opinions presented here are my own.
Blogging, by its very nature, does not follow a single pattern. The one followed here encourages e-mails as the way for readers to give any feedback beyond reading it faithfully and turning up in the hit counter. Most correspondence comes from people who read regularly, beit daily or weekly. Some disagree completely with everything. Some agree with every word.
The majority fall somewhere in between and that is as it should be. The fundamental purpose of the Bond Papers is to provoke, and with any good fortune, to provoke thought.
My favourite response remains the angry telephone call from a politician, soon retired, who felt that in fact I was the one who couldn't do math. I will pit my calculator against his any day in confidence that mine is correct.
My second favourite is the threatening letter from part of the fourth estate that felt it best some of these columns perish rather than be published. Hypocrisy has a new name, but I was quite happy to stop handing out free advertising.One of the most common questions asked is a simple one: how much time do you spend on the blog?
I don't keep track. I fit it into the day. Most days, I find an hour in the evening or early in the morning to throw some things together. Since it is a topical online column, there is plenty of fodder. On other days, I'll be able to take some time during lunch or in the break between other projects to fire off a few thoughts. Anything substantial sometimes takes a half day or more, parceled out over several days. There are occasions when I have worked into the wee hours. Thankfully those times have been rare.
How much longer will this continue? Who knows?With so much fodder for the typing cannon, though and being an opinionated s.o.b., it will be hard to stop.
After all, NSDQ.
31 December 2005
Blowing the whistle on Kathy Tomlinson
The CTV Whistleblower should be turning her reporting on her own news organization.
Heck, given her posting to the CTV election website, she should blow the whistle on herself for crap reporting.
The sum total of her talking to people on Bay Street amounts to this:
A bunch of people got e-mails, some as late as 5 PM saying there would be an announcement by Goodale that day.
She fails to mention three relevant facts:
1. She has NO evidence that anyone knew any - not just some, but any - details of the announcement. Insider trading requires advance knowledge of the content of an announcement. Having access to information which is generally available (see below) doesn't count. It isn't a crime to be well informed.
In fact the only way anyone could have done anything wrong here is if there was a leak of the details of the announcement. That's because...
2. A story from the Globe and Mail the morning of the Goodale announcement covered the fact there would be an announcement by Goodale that day. No one had any details. They just knew something was coming. Smart people figured it out. I bet there were others who bet the farm the other way. Don't counting on Kathy reporting the dorks who lost their shirt that day.
3. The media would have been alerted to a newser at around the same time as many of these e-mails she mentions. Taken to its logical conclusion, in future, public relations people will have to stop handing advance notice of newsers in order to prevent accusations of handing out inside information, or the days of the newser are over. Everything will be pumped out by release and reporters will have to hope they can get something to cover in time for their deadlines.
Everything else include in Kathy's whistleblowing amounts to blowing smoke instead.
If she wanted to make her mark on Canadian journalism, Kathy Tomlinson would report facts.
Heck, given her posting to the CTV election website, she should blow the whistle on herself for crap reporting.
The sum total of her talking to people on Bay Street amounts to this:
A bunch of people got e-mails, some as late as 5 PM saying there would be an announcement by Goodale that day.
She fails to mention three relevant facts:
1. She has NO evidence that anyone knew any - not just some, but any - details of the announcement. Insider trading requires advance knowledge of the content of an announcement. Having access to information which is generally available (see below) doesn't count. It isn't a crime to be well informed.
In fact the only way anyone could have done anything wrong here is if there was a leak of the details of the announcement. That's because...
2. A story from the Globe and Mail the morning of the Goodale announcement covered the fact there would be an announcement by Goodale that day. No one had any details. They just knew something was coming. Smart people figured it out. I bet there were others who bet the farm the other way. Don't counting on Kathy reporting the dorks who lost their shirt that day.
3. The media would have been alerted to a newser at around the same time as many of these e-mails she mentions. Taken to its logical conclusion, in future, public relations people will have to stop handing advance notice of newsers in order to prevent accusations of handing out inside information, or the days of the newser are over. Everything will be pumped out by release and reporters will have to hope they can get something to cover in time for their deadlines.
Everything else include in Kathy's whistleblowing amounts to blowing smoke instead.
If she wanted to make her mark on Canadian journalism, Kathy Tomlinson would report facts.
Peter Goldring: send kids to military jail and Newfoundland "an economy in disarray"
Bouquets of Gray has been waging a campaign outing Conservative candidate Peter Goldring's campaign manager as an Alberta separatist.
Don't expect to see Pierre Bourque or real news media trumpeting this one, but Paul Wells at least has taken up covering the story.
And Bouquets of Gray can claim credit for getting Goldring's campaign manager, Gordon Stamp, turfed. As CTV reports: *Gordon Stamp, who posts under the pseudonym "Psycho," wrote on Free Dominion: "I honestly see no benefit for Alberta to remain part of Canada. Seriously, there is absolutely nothing that Canada as a nation offers me."
He goes on to compare Alberta to "a battered wife who has not yet realized that being divorced is better than staying married." While he allows that the statement could be politically incorrect, he writes "that's how I feel."*
Well done, Gray.
In the meantime, flip over and check out Stamp's own postings to the freedominion.ca website. Stamp had all sorts of interesting things to say.
For example, he agrees with his wife 99% of the time because he sleeps with her, but if he found a candidate like Goldring, whom he agrees with 90% of the time, he's doing pretty good.
Stamp complains about being outed by a fellow who asked a question without disclosing he's a Liberal supporter. Stamp writes: "Honesty and integrity are NOT Liberal traits." Apparently, the psycho-guy never heard of Grewal, Anders or any of the misogynistic "Belinda the whore" brigade.
Incidentally, Goldring is a tireless campaigner against equal marriage. Check petergoldring.ca for that stuff. He also wants to send young gun offenders to the military detention barracks at Edmonton. Knowing something about that military prison, the idea caused my eyebrows to raise just a tad.
On the upside, Goldring wants to have the Turks and Caicos islands join Canada, apparently because they offer a secure retirement spot in the sun for snowbirds.
On the downside, Goldring displayed his ignorance of Newfoundland and Labrador in a 2004 interview with the Sun chain. Comparing the Turks and Caicos to this province, Goldring said:"No, no, no...There isn't the same question of an economy in disarray (like 1949 Newfoundland). The Turks and Caicos would quickly become a 'have' province."
Maybe Liam O'Brien could sort this guy out.
Don't expect to see Pierre Bourque or real news media trumpeting this one, but Paul Wells at least has taken up covering the story.
And Bouquets of Gray can claim credit for getting Goldring's campaign manager, Gordon Stamp, turfed. As CTV reports: *Gordon Stamp, who posts under the pseudonym "Psycho," wrote on Free Dominion: "I honestly see no benefit for Alberta to remain part of Canada. Seriously, there is absolutely nothing that Canada as a nation offers me."
He goes on to compare Alberta to "a battered wife who has not yet realized that being divorced is better than staying married." While he allows that the statement could be politically incorrect, he writes "that's how I feel."*
Well done, Gray.
In the meantime, flip over and check out Stamp's own postings to the freedominion.ca website. Stamp had all sorts of interesting things to say.
For example, he agrees with his wife 99% of the time because he sleeps with her, but if he found a candidate like Goldring, whom he agrees with 90% of the time, he's doing pretty good.
Stamp complains about being outed by a fellow who asked a question without disclosing he's a Liberal supporter. Stamp writes: "Honesty and integrity are NOT Liberal traits." Apparently, the psycho-guy never heard of Grewal, Anders or any of the misogynistic "Belinda the whore" brigade.
Incidentally, Goldring is a tireless campaigner against equal marriage. Check petergoldring.ca for that stuff. He also wants to send young gun offenders to the military detention barracks at Edmonton. Knowing something about that military prison, the idea caused my eyebrows to raise just a tad.
On the upside, Goldring wants to have the Turks and Caicos islands join Canada, apparently because they offer a secure retirement spot in the sun for snowbirds.
On the downside, Goldring displayed his ignorance of Newfoundland and Labrador in a 2004 interview with the Sun chain. Comparing the Turks and Caicos to this province, Goldring said:"No, no, no...There isn't the same question of an economy in disarray (like 1949 Newfoundland). The Turks and Caicos would quickly become a 'have' province."
Maybe Liam O'Brien could sort this guy out.
30 December 2005
Going negative - heading for the gutter
Despite all the predictions that the Liberal Party would be running negative campaign ads, it looks like the Conservatives are the first off the mark.
It's pretty slick by Connie standards, but it fits with their bitter, angry and personally negative campaign.
The gyst of the thing is this: "If you are a crook and a slimeball, how else can you campaign but by going negative?"
The noise you hear is the Connie strategy team coughing uncomfortably. Will their message boomerang?
There's an art to the negative and given that the Liberals haven't run a single negative telvision spot, this Connie one looks just a tad out of place.
Remember the word, boys: dezinformatsiya.
Not every "leak" is a real leak.
roflmao.
[via Calgary Grit]
It's pretty slick by Connie standards, but it fits with their bitter, angry and personally negative campaign.
The gyst of the thing is this: "If you are a crook and a slimeball, how else can you campaign but by going negative?"
The noise you hear is the Connie strategy team coughing uncomfortably. Will their message boomerang?
There's an art to the negative and given that the Liberals haven't run a single negative telvision spot, this Connie one looks just a tad out of place.
Remember the word, boys: dezinformatsiya.
Not every "leak" is a real leak.
roflmao.
[via Calgary Grit]
Signs of fundamental change
As someone who has been around the Liberal Party of Canada in one capacity or another for a while, I find it odd that something seems to have escaped most people.
Like the Conservatives, for example, who are actually campaigning against Jean Chretien.
The Liberal Party under Paul Martin is not the Liberal Party of even three or four years ago.
In fact, there are two perfect examples of just how much has changed.
Two of Mr. Chretien's staunchest supporters - Sheila Copps and Warren Kinsella - are working to defeat the Liberals in this election and, in the case of Ms. Copps, providing strategic advice to a Conservative candidate.
What better evidence can one find that the Liberal Party has changed at its most basic level than that these two have decided to back other political parties, either directly or indirectly?
I say to you: the facts speak for themselves.
Like the Conservatives, for example, who are actually campaigning against Jean Chretien.
The Liberal Party under Paul Martin is not the Liberal Party of even three or four years ago.
In fact, there are two perfect examples of just how much has changed.
Two of Mr. Chretien's staunchest supporters - Sheila Copps and Warren Kinsella - are working to defeat the Liberals in this election and, in the case of Ms. Copps, providing strategic advice to a Conservative candidate.
What better evidence can one find that the Liberal Party has changed at its most basic level than that these two have decided to back other political parties, either directly or indirectly?
I say to you: the facts speak for themselves.
Two wrongs...
A check of the hit meter today revealed a surprising number of links from Conservative bloggers.
They didn't like the cheapening of Canadian politics post from earlier. In one instance, there was a mention of Warren Kinsella (and his purple dinosaur, no doubt) and, of course, Jean Chretien.
It's flattering to get noticed by the BlueBloggers, even if it generates the sort of e-mails that have been coming my way today; you know the ones that start out by insulting my intelligence for supporting another political party than the obviously correct blue one. In fact, to date, I have yet to receive a single e-mail from a Conservative supporter that didn't simply slag me personally.
Ad hominem attacks are no substitute for thought, but if that is all that is brought to the table of ideas, then we shall have a truly poor feast
More to the point though, I should make it clear: the cheapening of politics in this country didn't happen overnight. Waving around purple dinosaurs and lampooning a man's spiritual beliefs is no basis for informed public discourse.
However, two wrongs don't make a right, to borrow a hoary but accurate cliche.
One of things we have seen in the first half of this election campaign is a discussion of policy issues, largely separate from the sort of political stunts that pass for thought. What made Scott Reid's comments or Mike Klander's idiocy stand out is that they are two blips on an otherwise blank screen. In another campaign, say the ones most Conservatives might point to, these remarks would have been seen as amateurish and mild.
While it is fair game to tackle an opponent's comments and arguments, the sort of personal smear embodied in the Barney episode is just plain wrong.
So too were the anti-Chretien television spots foisted in 1993 by a Conservative party that was bereft of just about everything, including some shred of propriety.
What have seen in the past few days, however, is a return to the sort of unsubstantiated and excessive rhetorical attacks that further debase our political process. It started with Jason Kenney, but after a few days, mercifully, he vanished from the radar screen.
What is worse in the past couple of days, however, is that the verbal grenades are being tossed by a party leader, who presumably, would do things differently. I know full well Stephen Harper never specifically promised to be better; he just said despise the other guys.
But, there is a reasonable implication from all that he has said that somehow a Conservative administration would be better.
It isn't just enough to say the words. The words must be backed by deeds.
Unfortunately, the deeds have been sadly lacking, not just in this campaign but for the past 18 months. It is sadly too easy to rattle off the list of slimey personal attacks that have been visited on Liberals of Italian origin, a former Conservative who crossed the floor, or indeed, me personally by at least one local Conservative supporter.
Hence, my comment that no matter which party wins the next election, the fruits of the past two years or more and indeed the fruits of the past two days will be a parliament that is characterized by political animosity of the kind we have not seen in Canada for decades.
Surely, as Canadians, we can all decry the likelihood of this situation.
Surely, as Canadians, we can appreciate that if we slavishly follow the Old Testament dictum and pluck out an eye for an eye, it will not be too long before we are all blind.
They didn't like the cheapening of Canadian politics post from earlier. In one instance, there was a mention of Warren Kinsella (and his purple dinosaur, no doubt) and, of course, Jean Chretien.
It's flattering to get noticed by the BlueBloggers, even if it generates the sort of e-mails that have been coming my way today; you know the ones that start out by insulting my intelligence for supporting another political party than the obviously correct blue one. In fact, to date, I have yet to receive a single e-mail from a Conservative supporter that didn't simply slag me personally.
Ad hominem attacks are no substitute for thought, but if that is all that is brought to the table of ideas, then we shall have a truly poor feast
More to the point though, I should make it clear: the cheapening of politics in this country didn't happen overnight. Waving around purple dinosaurs and lampooning a man's spiritual beliefs is no basis for informed public discourse.
However, two wrongs don't make a right, to borrow a hoary but accurate cliche.
One of things we have seen in the first half of this election campaign is a discussion of policy issues, largely separate from the sort of political stunts that pass for thought. What made Scott Reid's comments or Mike Klander's idiocy stand out is that they are two blips on an otherwise blank screen. In another campaign, say the ones most Conservatives might point to, these remarks would have been seen as amateurish and mild.
While it is fair game to tackle an opponent's comments and arguments, the sort of personal smear embodied in the Barney episode is just plain wrong.
So too were the anti-Chretien television spots foisted in 1993 by a Conservative party that was bereft of just about everything, including some shred of propriety.
What have seen in the past few days, however, is a return to the sort of unsubstantiated and excessive rhetorical attacks that further debase our political process. It started with Jason Kenney, but after a few days, mercifully, he vanished from the radar screen.
What is worse in the past couple of days, however, is that the verbal grenades are being tossed by a party leader, who presumably, would do things differently. I know full well Stephen Harper never specifically promised to be better; he just said despise the other guys.
But, there is a reasonable implication from all that he has said that somehow a Conservative administration would be better.
It isn't just enough to say the words. The words must be backed by deeds.
Unfortunately, the deeds have been sadly lacking, not just in this campaign but for the past 18 months. It is sadly too easy to rattle off the list of slimey personal attacks that have been visited on Liberals of Italian origin, a former Conservative who crossed the floor, or indeed, me personally by at least one local Conservative supporter.
Hence, my comment that no matter which party wins the next election, the fruits of the past two years or more and indeed the fruits of the past two days will be a parliament that is characterized by political animosity of the kind we have not seen in Canada for decades.
Surely, as Canadians, we can all decry the likelihood of this situation.
Surely, as Canadians, we can appreciate that if we slavishly follow the Old Testament dictum and pluck out an eye for an eye, it will not be too long before we are all blind.
The educational value of crap reporting
CTV meanwhile is providing an example of the sort of reporting that my public relations students can expect to see from even a good news organization when something other than fact is driving a story: shoddy research, half-baked presentation and relevant details buried.
This story purports to have copies of e-mail providing there was insider trading.
It has nothing other than confirmation people knew an announcement was coming. There's no sign they had details: that's what counts as evidence.
Meanwhile, CTV did report this relevant bit of information, namely that there was actually a lot of speculation in the trading but no sign of anything criminal.
But don't expect to see Tim Cadwell, securities expert, quoted very much, expecially in the expert "commentaries" plastered all over NewsNet and the national news:
Cadwell's analysis simply contradicts where the herd thinks. it's more important to fit in than to be right.
All of this has been in the public domain before.
All of it.
The only thing that has restarted the story is confirmation the police are checking everything.
There is still no proof of anything.
Unlike the guy who bugged his telephone calls and then leaked information in bits and pieces along with bogus translations.
Backed by his boss and his boss' staff in the deliberate deception.
This story purports to have copies of e-mail providing there was insider trading.
It has nothing other than confirmation people knew an announcement was coming. There's no sign they had details: that's what counts as evidence.
Meanwhile, CTV did report this relevant bit of information, namely that there was actually a lot of speculation in the trading but no sign of anything criminal.
But don't expect to see Tim Cadwell, securities expert, quoted very much, expecially in the expert "commentaries" plastered all over NewsNet and the national news:
Cadwell's analysis simply contradicts where the herd thinks. it's more important to fit in than to be right.
All of this has been in the public domain before.
All of it.
The only thing that has restarted the story is confirmation the police are checking everything.
There is still no proof of anything.
Unlike the guy who bugged his telephone calls and then leaked information in bits and pieces along with bogus translations.
Backed by his boss and his boss' staff in the deliberate deception.
RCMP trust probe could go anywhere
The Globe's story this morning, that the RCMP trust probe could investigate the Prime Minister's office is the kind of misleading reporting worthy of Berk Bourque that give journalists a bad name.
Truth is that the RCMP probe could go anywhere it needs to go: the offices of the Globe; Jason Kenney's teddy bear; the forensic trading accountant dude everyone is quoting; my grandmother's basement.
There's no reason to single out the PMO. The story is a selective reporting of facts to make the story appear to be something it isn't.
Meanwhile, CBC television's political panel featured a few people not friendly to liberals ever, intoning somberly that everyone Liberal is doomed. Sorry Chantal Hebert and Andrew Coyne, most of your comments, including the bits about ministers stepping aside were based on something other than fact.
A fair assessment would have noted that the closest parallel here is with Michael Wilson. He didn't resign over a budget leak since he was not implicated in it in any way.
By the same token, while everyone including Berkue are pointing at Judy Sgro, remember this: she was pilloried, forced to resign and was later exonerated.
Where are the political and journalistic mea culpas over that one?
Oh yeah.
I forgot.
Admitting publicly to a mistake is a sign of character that is sadly missing from too many people these days.
It's another reason why politics is cheapened and the nation lessened.
Right up there with overzealous political attacks and crap reporting.
Truth is that the RCMP probe could go anywhere it needs to go: the offices of the Globe; Jason Kenney's teddy bear; the forensic trading accountant dude everyone is quoting; my grandmother's basement.
There's no reason to single out the PMO. The story is a selective reporting of facts to make the story appear to be something it isn't.
Meanwhile, CBC television's political panel featured a few people not friendly to liberals ever, intoning somberly that everyone Liberal is doomed. Sorry Chantal Hebert and Andrew Coyne, most of your comments, including the bits about ministers stepping aside were based on something other than fact.
A fair assessment would have noted that the closest parallel here is with Michael Wilson. He didn't resign over a budget leak since he was not implicated in it in any way.
By the same token, while everyone including Berkue are pointing at Judy Sgro, remember this: she was pilloried, forced to resign and was later exonerated.
Where are the political and journalistic mea culpas over that one?
Oh yeah.
I forgot.
Admitting publicly to a mistake is a sign of character that is sadly missing from too many people these days.
It's another reason why politics is cheapened and the nation lessened.
Right up there with overzealous political attacks and crap reporting.
29 December 2005
The cheapening of politics, the lessening of the nation
No matter which party wins the next election, we can expect the next sessions of the Commons to be characterized by vicious political battles of a kind rarely seen in Canada, let alone any place that can call itself civilized.
The reason is simple.
In politics as in life, what goes around, comes around.
The major difference is that in politics, the world is small so as it goes around, it picks speed.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have launched an investigation into the possibility that information on a government policy was leaked to certain individuals who profited by their inside information.
The police actions are prudent. They are doing exactly what we would expect police to do.
That said, the police caution in the matter is also prudent - there is no evidence of any criminal action by anyone.
There may never be.
Yet if you listen to the savage rhetoric of both major opposition parties, one of the most decent and honourable of men, namely Ralph Goodale, should be nailed to a cross and tortured for his supposed sins.
What crime has he committed? None.
Is he accused of any impropriety? Not even Jason Kenney in his wildest delusions has linked the federal finance minister to any wrongful actions.
Jack Layton calls for the minister to step aside while the investigation proceeds. He claims there are hundreds of precedents, yet when pressed by reporters could not name a single one.
There are none.
Having worked for one of the most scrupulously honest politicians in recent memory, I learned first hand what a genuinely fair approach to this sort of issue is. It would do others to ask a simple question, based on the few examples of alleged impropriety during the Wells administration: what would Clyde have done?
The answer in this instance is likely that he would have stood by his minister, against whom no allegations have been made. Wells did relieve ministers of their duties either temporarily or permanently, however in each instance there was a valid reason. In cases where ministers were relieved, either he or she was directly involved in the alleged infraction. In one instance, a minister remained in cabinet but was relieved of departmental responsibilities as justice minister and attorney general solely because there was the potential that some interference in the police investigation might be alleged. Such was his high standard of public integrity that even the potential of an allegation, no matter how baseless was cause for action.
In Goodale's case, none of these criteria can be applied. Hence, he should stay in place.
The answer is that Wells would ensure that the police are clearly charged to get to the bottom of the matter and report fully. There is no prospect of political interference in the current matter since the administration of criminal justice falls to the provincial solicitor general, not the federal one. Mr. Harper has already displayed his profound ignorance of Canadian criminal law during this election, but that is another subject for another time.
The answer is also that Wells would have given both Jack Layton and Stephen Harper a tongue lashing for cheapening politics with their excessive and abusive rhetoric.
No matter what the outcome of this matter, it is hard to excuse Layton and Harper for their crudities. The cynical Conservatives, angry and as bitter as they are, are likely relishing the chance to get to power by whatever means possible. Invention and gross distortion are legitimate means to an end in some minds; they are hardly appropriate in a political party seeking to govern a country.
Evidence from elsewhere shows that focusing so relentlessly on negative issues - pounding incessantly on allegations that politicians are criminals - only serves to diminish the view Canadians hold of politicians generally. Again, the cynical political operative would not care since the voters staying home in this case will mostly be Liberals and New Democrats. The hard-core, the committed Conservatives will flock to the polls.
Yet in the longer run, the Conservative (and New Democrat) approach to the matter of integrity in politics is ultimately a self-defeating one. On the one hand, they will engender ever deeper cynicism and distrust among the electorate already grown weary of shenanigans. Each misrepresentation, each distortion serves to undermine public confidence in the entire political system even more. It is a political system of which they, themselves, are an integral part.
When Mr. Harper accuses all Liberals of being criminals, he is perchance a few scant years away from a closet full of Guccis and rumours of a secret deal to buy foreign passenger planes.
On the other hand, the Conservatives have crafted for the Liberals a rod with which to beat every Conservative back all the time. Their actions have destroyed any prospect that the next parliament could be one in which integrity, civility and maturity will prevail. Expect that even the slightest misstep by a Conservative member of parliament will be an excuse to pile on. Decent and honourable men and women will be crushed without mercy, along with the truly guilty, just as the Conservatives are now slicing into Ralph Goodale. No allegation will be too outlandish. The Conservatives have set the bar and they have set it exceedingly low.
Nor will things be better in parliament if the liberals or New Democrats win. If the Conservatives lose this next election, we can only expect that their rhetoric, their verbal butchery will intensify.
No matter what the outcome of this election, the next parliament will make the Rat Pack and Tequila Sheila look like kindergarten antics.
Of course, were any of the Conservatives slurs about Gomery and Goodale even vaguely true, Liberals would be the first to agree with them.
Reid was publicly criticized for his silly remarks. Klander was denounced quickly, and as I have said elsewhere, one need only look at the number of Liberal bloggers who have criticized Liberal errors to see a functioning political party in which there is discussion and debate. There is a readiness to disown that which cannot be defended.
Flip to the Conservative blogger world and you will see bile and invective for Liberals, yet no sense of proportion or introspection for the Rob Anders of their party or the "Belinda the whore" brigade of misogynists who crawled over each other to see who could make the most hateful of comments.
There is no recollection of the Conservative Party operatives who engaged in extortion during the Mulroney regime and who were suitably condemned to prison for their crimes.
On the one side - the Liberal - we have seen corrective action and apology. On the Conservative side we find only silence, or worse still, churlish drools at the prospect of occupying government offices.
The allegations about Goodale and Gomery are not even remotely true, however.
And so Liberals across the country will bitterly resent the cheapening of politics we have seen from Conservative and, to only a slightly lesser extent, from New Democrats.
What has lessened the nation is not the actions of a handful in the case of the sponsorship mess or the possibility - not probability, but possibility - that someone committed a crime in the case of the income trust issue.
Rather what has lessened the nation, what has further debased political life in Canada, is the campaign of exaggeration and slander being mounted by the Conservatives and their associates.
Canadians should be saddened that our national political dialogue has been reduced to such vindictiveness.
We shall all pay a price for it in the very near future.
The reason is simple.
In politics as in life, what goes around, comes around.
The major difference is that in politics, the world is small so as it goes around, it picks speed.
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have launched an investigation into the possibility that information on a government policy was leaked to certain individuals who profited by their inside information.
The police actions are prudent. They are doing exactly what we would expect police to do.
That said, the police caution in the matter is also prudent - there is no evidence of any criminal action by anyone.
There may never be.
Yet if you listen to the savage rhetoric of both major opposition parties, one of the most decent and honourable of men, namely Ralph Goodale, should be nailed to a cross and tortured for his supposed sins.
What crime has he committed? None.
Is he accused of any impropriety? Not even Jason Kenney in his wildest delusions has linked the federal finance minister to any wrongful actions.
Jack Layton calls for the minister to step aside while the investigation proceeds. He claims there are hundreds of precedents, yet when pressed by reporters could not name a single one.
There are none.
Having worked for one of the most scrupulously honest politicians in recent memory, I learned first hand what a genuinely fair approach to this sort of issue is. It would do others to ask a simple question, based on the few examples of alleged impropriety during the Wells administration: what would Clyde have done?
The answer in this instance is likely that he would have stood by his minister, against whom no allegations have been made. Wells did relieve ministers of their duties either temporarily or permanently, however in each instance there was a valid reason. In cases where ministers were relieved, either he or she was directly involved in the alleged infraction. In one instance, a minister remained in cabinet but was relieved of departmental responsibilities as justice minister and attorney general solely because there was the potential that some interference in the police investigation might be alleged. Such was his high standard of public integrity that even the potential of an allegation, no matter how baseless was cause for action.
In Goodale's case, none of these criteria can be applied. Hence, he should stay in place.
The answer is that Wells would ensure that the police are clearly charged to get to the bottom of the matter and report fully. There is no prospect of political interference in the current matter since the administration of criminal justice falls to the provincial solicitor general, not the federal one. Mr. Harper has already displayed his profound ignorance of Canadian criminal law during this election, but that is another subject for another time.
The answer is also that Wells would have given both Jack Layton and Stephen Harper a tongue lashing for cheapening politics with their excessive and abusive rhetoric.
No matter what the outcome of this matter, it is hard to excuse Layton and Harper for their crudities. The cynical Conservatives, angry and as bitter as they are, are likely relishing the chance to get to power by whatever means possible. Invention and gross distortion are legitimate means to an end in some minds; they are hardly appropriate in a political party seeking to govern a country.
Evidence from elsewhere shows that focusing so relentlessly on negative issues - pounding incessantly on allegations that politicians are criminals - only serves to diminish the view Canadians hold of politicians generally. Again, the cynical political operative would not care since the voters staying home in this case will mostly be Liberals and New Democrats. The hard-core, the committed Conservatives will flock to the polls.
Yet in the longer run, the Conservative (and New Democrat) approach to the matter of integrity in politics is ultimately a self-defeating one. On the one hand, they will engender ever deeper cynicism and distrust among the electorate already grown weary of shenanigans. Each misrepresentation, each distortion serves to undermine public confidence in the entire political system even more. It is a political system of which they, themselves, are an integral part.
When Mr. Harper accuses all Liberals of being criminals, he is perchance a few scant years away from a closet full of Guccis and rumours of a secret deal to buy foreign passenger planes.
On the other hand, the Conservatives have crafted for the Liberals a rod with which to beat every Conservative back all the time. Their actions have destroyed any prospect that the next parliament could be one in which integrity, civility and maturity will prevail. Expect that even the slightest misstep by a Conservative member of parliament will be an excuse to pile on. Decent and honourable men and women will be crushed without mercy, along with the truly guilty, just as the Conservatives are now slicing into Ralph Goodale. No allegation will be too outlandish. The Conservatives have set the bar and they have set it exceedingly low.
Nor will things be better in parliament if the liberals or New Democrats win. If the Conservatives lose this next election, we can only expect that their rhetoric, their verbal butchery will intensify.
No matter what the outcome of this election, the next parliament will make the Rat Pack and Tequila Sheila look like kindergarten antics.
Of course, were any of the Conservatives slurs about Gomery and Goodale even vaguely true, Liberals would be the first to agree with them.
Reid was publicly criticized for his silly remarks. Klander was denounced quickly, and as I have said elsewhere, one need only look at the number of Liberal bloggers who have criticized Liberal errors to see a functioning political party in which there is discussion and debate. There is a readiness to disown that which cannot be defended.
Flip to the Conservative blogger world and you will see bile and invective for Liberals, yet no sense of proportion or introspection for the Rob Anders of their party or the "Belinda the whore" brigade of misogynists who crawled over each other to see who could make the most hateful of comments.
There is no recollection of the Conservative Party operatives who engaged in extortion during the Mulroney regime and who were suitably condemned to prison for their crimes.
On the one side - the Liberal - we have seen corrective action and apology. On the Conservative side we find only silence, or worse still, churlish drools at the prospect of occupying government offices.
The allegations about Goodale and Gomery are not even remotely true, however.
And so Liberals across the country will bitterly resent the cheapening of politics we have seen from Conservative and, to only a slightly lesser extent, from New Democrats.
What has lessened the nation is not the actions of a handful in the case of the sponsorship mess or the possibility - not probability, but possibility - that someone committed a crime in the case of the income trust issue.
Rather what has lessened the nation, what has further debased political life in Canada, is the campaign of exaggeration and slander being mounted by the Conservatives and their associates.
Canadians should be saddened that our national political dialogue has been reduced to such vindictiveness.
We shall all pay a price for it in the very near future.
Layton meets his match
Despite efforts to turn yet another Liberal blog comment into some thing hideous, this time I suspect Jack Layton won't be able to play the ethnic slur card quite as easily as with the buffoonish Mike Klander.
Bourque the berk was playing this story up late yesterday and so is CTV.
But read the CTv story about industry minister Mike Emerson, referring to Jack Layton's insincere smile as being a boiled dog's head smile.
While Dippers are expressing outrage, turns out that Emerson's wife was born in Hong Kong and, as one might expect., tends to use Chinese idiomatic expressions in both her spoken Chinese and her English.
"Boiled dog's head smile" is apparently a translation of a Chinese remark about someone's insincerity.
Dippers said the remark is typical of Liberal arrogance. They didn't explain how. Seems that the word "arrogance" just comes up with the Dipper talking points and must get used a lot, irrespective of the context.
At some point today, some Dipper or Connie will claim this comment is related to the culture of entitlement. Again they won't explain how.
Meanwhile, Stephen Taylor is busily working on his next blog entry: how this statement is example of yet another Liberal conspiracy.
For the record, the last comment in the CTV story needs correction or clarification. Bourque claims to be the Canadian version of Matt Drudge. He isn't. On any given day, The Drudge Report highlights news stories from across the United States that while they are embarrassing are not skewed or slanted.
Bourque hammers Liberals. Every day. Repeatedly. And only Liberals. He sticks misleading headlines as links to stories from other places.
Drudge is an equal opportunity slagger.
Bourque just slags.
Bourque the berk was playing this story up late yesterday and so is CTV.
But read the CTv story about industry minister Mike Emerson, referring to Jack Layton's insincere smile as being a boiled dog's head smile.
While Dippers are expressing outrage, turns out that Emerson's wife was born in Hong Kong and, as one might expect., tends to use Chinese idiomatic expressions in both her spoken Chinese and her English.
"Boiled dog's head smile" is apparently a translation of a Chinese remark about someone's insincerity.
Dippers said the remark is typical of Liberal arrogance. They didn't explain how. Seems that the word "arrogance" just comes up with the Dipper talking points and must get used a lot, irrespective of the context.
At some point today, some Dipper or Connie will claim this comment is related to the culture of entitlement. Again they won't explain how.
Meanwhile, Stephen Taylor is busily working on his next blog entry: how this statement is example of yet another Liberal conspiracy.
For the record, the last comment in the CTV story needs correction or clarification. Bourque claims to be the Canadian version of Matt Drudge. He isn't. On any given day, The Drudge Report highlights news stories from across the United States that while they are embarrassing are not skewed or slanted.
Bourque hammers Liberals. Every day. Repeatedly. And only Liberals. He sticks misleading headlines as links to stories from other places.
Drudge is an equal opportunity slagger.
Bourque just slags.
28 December 2005
Harper Christmas campaign: "Battalions for Everyone" continues
Campaigning during the Christmas season in British Columbia, Stephen Harper added to the number of infantry battalions he is promising to create once elected.
Yesterday, the number was three. Until Steve got to BC. Then the people of Comox discovered they'd be home to a new battalion of 650 soldiers. That makes at least four new battalions being promised across the country despite the fact the army can't support any manpower beyond the existing battalions plus one new one already being set up in Petawawa.
Harper is also promising to create new reserve units consisting of 100 regular soldiers and upwards of 400 reservists. These are to be set up in major centres like Vancouver, Edmonton and Toronto to tackle natural disasters. Harper used the Toronto shootings for political purposes but stopped short of saying his Toronto composite unit will tackle urban gun violence.
Wait for it, though.
Harper also revealed his fundamental ignorance of military deployments and Canadian geography, saying:
"Canada's military capacity in this region has been allowed to age and deteriorate... British Columbia, which is in an earthquake zone, is now the only region of the country without a regular army presence."
No points there, Steve, at least if you think B.C. is a region but Newfoundland and Labrador is merely part of Atlantic Canada.
Taken altogether, Harper's defence announcement is yet further proof of two things:
- the most cynical vote buying attempt from a political party in decades; and,
- the complete inability of news media to subject Harper's announcements to any form of critical scrutiny. Perhaps they have been intimidated by the relentless Connie criticisms of the supposed bias in mainstream media.
Yesterday, the number was three. Until Steve got to BC. Then the people of Comox discovered they'd be home to a new battalion of 650 soldiers. That makes at least four new battalions being promised across the country despite the fact the army can't support any manpower beyond the existing battalions plus one new one already being set up in Petawawa.
Harper is also promising to create new reserve units consisting of 100 regular soldiers and upwards of 400 reservists. These are to be set up in major centres like Vancouver, Edmonton and Toronto to tackle natural disasters. Harper used the Toronto shootings for political purposes but stopped short of saying his Toronto composite unit will tackle urban gun violence.
Wait for it, though.
Harper also revealed his fundamental ignorance of military deployments and Canadian geography, saying:
"Canada's military capacity in this region has been allowed to age and deteriorate... British Columbia, which is in an earthquake zone, is now the only region of the country without a regular army presence."
No points there, Steve, at least if you think B.C. is a region but Newfoundland and Labrador is merely part of Atlantic Canada.
Taken altogether, Harper's defence announcement is yet further proof of two things:
- the most cynical vote buying attempt from a political party in decades; and,
- the complete inability of news media to subject Harper's announcements to any form of critical scrutiny. Perhaps they have been intimidated by the relentless Connie criticisms of the supposed bias in mainstream media.
27 December 2005
What is so important here?
There's a great scene in A bridge too far where a German general at Arhem wonders what is so important that thousands of British paratroops are dropping from the sky to capture?
Completely ignoring the bridge that would open the drive into Germany, Walter Model immediately concludes the paratroops are coming to capture him.
Stephen Harper better be careful.
Talk of deploying all sorts of new rapid-reaction, airborne battalions to Trenton and Goose Bay in addition to the one in Ottawa may start people wondering what he is really up to.
After all, the Arctic just isn't under threat and the entire crowd of people living up there are hardly likely to mount a separatist campaign. The Danes aren't about to come streaming across from Greenland.
So what gives?
It could just be crass electioneering. That's my bet.
But a conspiratorial mind, like say the kind of mindset that comes from the Conservative Party's blogging community, might lead one to dig out a book from the 1980s by retired General Dan Loomis. While there wouldn't be more glory now than there was before, the three rapid reaction battalions, in addition to the one already stationed in New Brunswick seem poised to look inward rather than outward.
That is, if the Charest government falls at the next provincial election.
Conspiracies are wonderful things to muse about but at least when they are offered here, my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek.
Of course, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile pondering Mr. Harper's real intentions.
Completely ignoring the bridge that would open the drive into Germany, Walter Model immediately concludes the paratroops are coming to capture him.
Stephen Harper better be careful.
Talk of deploying all sorts of new rapid-reaction, airborne battalions to Trenton and Goose Bay in addition to the one in Ottawa may start people wondering what he is really up to.
After all, the Arctic just isn't under threat and the entire crowd of people living up there are hardly likely to mount a separatist campaign. The Danes aren't about to come streaming across from Greenland.
So what gives?
It could just be crass electioneering. That's my bet.
But a conspiratorial mind, like say the kind of mindset that comes from the Conservative Party's blogging community, might lead one to dig out a book from the 1980s by retired General Dan Loomis. While there wouldn't be more glory now than there was before, the three rapid reaction battalions, in addition to the one already stationed in New Brunswick seem poised to look inward rather than outward.
That is, if the Charest government falls at the next provincial election.
Conspiracies are wonderful things to muse about but at least when they are offered here, my tongue is planted firmly in my cheek.
Of course, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be worthwhile pondering Mr. Harper's real intentions.
Battalions for everyone!
Paul Wells heard from an anonymous Conservative source that the Conservatives still plan to stick to their commitment to Goose Bay from last May.
Apparently, the "Promise 'em Anything" tour still plans to announce a rapid reaction battalion for Goose Bay. And yes it is suspiciously similar to the rapid reaction "airborne" battalion promised to Trenton Ontario before Christmas.
The Connie war room has been keeping some local reporters here at bay with the same promises of a battalion in every town needing some infusion of federal cash.
Take it at face value and it seems that the Conservatives expect Northern Canada to be a hotbed of insurrection and invasion, what with the two battalions it will need for "rapid reaction." That's two on top of the one General Rick Hillier is creating to fight instability in parts of the world that are actually unstable.
Ok.
Enterprising and cynical people (especially reporters) should ask:
Why was this Goose Bay battalion previously omitted from Conservative Party announcements, even though common sense dictated it should have been included?
How will Gord O'Connor find the people to fill the positions for what appears to be now three new battalions (a total of 1300 new positions), when DND is falling short of its recruiting targets by about 1, 000 people annually?
Just so that everybody can see the similarities in the announcements, here are the relevant excerpts from the Connie media missives:
May 2005:
"Gordon O'Connor, a former army officer and the Conservatives' defence critic, said his party 'would establish a new rapid reaction army battalion in CFB Goose Bay' with about 750 soldiers – if it formed a government after the next general election." - CBC News 15 May 2005. The inner quotes are straight from Gordo. The actual Conservative news release said:
"Establish a regular force rapid reaction army battalion at CFB Goose Bay". [Emphasis added]
December 13 2005
"Creation of a new airborne battalion (650 regular force personnel), to be stationed at CFB Trenton and to be available for rapid deployment;" - Conservative Party news release. [Emphasis added]
December 22 2005
"Providing an army emergency response capability through the new airborne battalion and airlift capacity stationed at CFB Trenton to provide a rapid emergency response capability throughout the entire Arctic region." - CPC news release [Emphasis added.]
Apparently, the "Promise 'em Anything" tour still plans to announce a rapid reaction battalion for Goose Bay. And yes it is suspiciously similar to the rapid reaction "airborne" battalion promised to Trenton Ontario before Christmas.
The Connie war room has been keeping some local reporters here at bay with the same promises of a battalion in every town needing some infusion of federal cash.
Take it at face value and it seems that the Conservatives expect Northern Canada to be a hotbed of insurrection and invasion, what with the two battalions it will need for "rapid reaction." That's two on top of the one General Rick Hillier is creating to fight instability in parts of the world that are actually unstable.
Ok.
Enterprising and cynical people (especially reporters) should ask:
Why was this Goose Bay battalion previously omitted from Conservative Party announcements, even though common sense dictated it should have been included?
How will Gord O'Connor find the people to fill the positions for what appears to be now three new battalions (a total of 1300 new positions), when DND is falling short of its recruiting targets by about 1, 000 people annually?
Just so that everybody can see the similarities in the announcements, here are the relevant excerpts from the Connie media missives:
May 2005:
"Gordon O'Connor, a former army officer and the Conservatives' defence critic, said his party 'would establish a new rapid reaction army battalion in CFB Goose Bay' with about 750 soldiers – if it formed a government after the next general election." - CBC News 15 May 2005. The inner quotes are straight from Gordo. The actual Conservative news release said:
"Establish a regular force rapid reaction army battalion at CFB Goose Bay". [Emphasis added]
December 13 2005
"Creation of a new airborne battalion (650 regular force personnel), to be stationed at CFB Trenton and to be available for rapid deployment;" - Conservative Party news release. [Emphasis added]
December 22 2005
"Providing an army emergency response capability through the new airborne battalion and airlift capacity stationed at CFB Trenton to provide a rapid emergency response capability throughout the entire Arctic region." - CPC news release [Emphasis added.]
What Connies won't blog about...
Scandal fatigue.
Conspiracy weariness.
As Les Perreaux of Canadian Press writes, Canadians are getting just a wee bit tired of scandals and likely scandal mongers.
Now there's a big difference between scandals- genuine, deep -seated corruption or horrific corrupt acts - the kind of policies that annoy some people alot.
But if Mikey Harris - the Sun chain scribbler, not the golfer cum Premier - wants to understand how voters react to "Teflon Grits", then he just needs to think for a second. It seems Harris is a bit perturbed that Canadians are not turning on the "evil" Liberals who are evidently completely corrupt - everyone of them debased and immoral - simply based on the fact that Mikey just says the Liberals are bad people.
In that respect , Harris is hitting on not the problem with the public but the problem in the Connie campaign and in his own commentary.
Since last spring, the Connies have built an entire strategy around the Ken Starr-like philosophy that if you simply repeat over and over again that all Liberals are corrupt, criminal people, then people should accept it.
It clearly doesn't work since the evidence doesn't support it. An extreme claim must be backed some measure of evidence to be even partially credible.
The Connie corruption claim lacks even a teensy bit of evidence. Their conspiracy ones are sheer invention.
The Connies will make the same mistake about Mike Klander, as well. Apart from the few Coppsers who will relish Mike's self-imolation, most people will understand that Mike Klander is not a metaphor for all Liberals, no matter what volunteer post he held with the provincial wing of the Liberal Party.
Mike Klander will quickly be understood to be the kind of relative we all have in our families. The sort of obnoxious one we invite to gatherings because we have to.
Now compare Klander to say a Rob Anders, or even a Stephen Harper, and you can see the fundamental difference between Liberals and the Conservatives - the Reform-a-Tories - the Connies.
Klander resigns, likely before he was fired.
Anders? Well, the guy who still thinks that Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, the guy who was too chickenshit to take Mandela's phone, the guy who is spreading anti-gay propaganda in other ridings besides his own?
Anders is a star Conservative candidate.
And Stephen Taylor's blog is remarkably silent on the entire affair of Mr. Anders and his current campaign activities.
Compare that to the number of Liberal blogs that have denounced Klander.
Therein lies yet another example of something Connie blogs won't write about.
Conspiracy weariness.
As Les Perreaux of Canadian Press writes, Canadians are getting just a wee bit tired of scandals and likely scandal mongers.
Now there's a big difference between scandals- genuine, deep -seated corruption or horrific corrupt acts - the kind of policies that annoy some people alot.
But if Mikey Harris - the Sun chain scribbler, not the golfer cum Premier - wants to understand how voters react to "Teflon Grits", then he just needs to think for a second. It seems Harris is a bit perturbed that Canadians are not turning on the "evil" Liberals who are evidently completely corrupt - everyone of them debased and immoral - simply based on the fact that Mikey just says the Liberals are bad people.
In that respect , Harris is hitting on not the problem with the public but the problem in the Connie campaign and in his own commentary.
Since last spring, the Connies have built an entire strategy around the Ken Starr-like philosophy that if you simply repeat over and over again that all Liberals are corrupt, criminal people, then people should accept it.
It clearly doesn't work since the evidence doesn't support it. An extreme claim must be backed some measure of evidence to be even partially credible.
The Connie corruption claim lacks even a teensy bit of evidence. Their conspiracy ones are sheer invention.
The Connies will make the same mistake about Mike Klander, as well. Apart from the few Coppsers who will relish Mike's self-imolation, most people will understand that Mike Klander is not a metaphor for all Liberals, no matter what volunteer post he held with the provincial wing of the Liberal Party.
Mike Klander will quickly be understood to be the kind of relative we all have in our families. The sort of obnoxious one we invite to gatherings because we have to.
Now compare Klander to say a Rob Anders, or even a Stephen Harper, and you can see the fundamental difference between Liberals and the Conservatives - the Reform-a-Tories - the Connies.
Klander resigns, likely before he was fired.
Anders? Well, the guy who still thinks that Nelson Mandela is a terrorist, the guy who was too chickenshit to take Mandela's phone, the guy who is spreading anti-gay propaganda in other ridings besides his own?
Anders is a star Conservative candidate.
And Stephen Taylor's blog is remarkably silent on the entire affair of Mr. Anders and his current campaign activities.
Compare that to the number of Liberal blogs that have denounced Klander.
Therein lies yet another example of something Connie blogs won't write about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)