1. NTV's Toni Marie Wiseman, via youtube.com and one of her many fans.
2. NTV's Glen Carter in another incarnation. This one is a perpetual Bond Papers favourite.
3. Three Labour Party spots from the 2005 United Kingdom general election. The first is a party election broadcast demonstrating superb messaging and editing. The bloody thing is out of focus but try and ignore that - if you can - to get the feel for what was done in this longer piece.
The second is a devastating spot from Wales, attacking the Conservative Party using, among other things, the juxtaposition of images to support the text on the screen. Lesson One: Learn the bloody national anthem.
The last is a rather odd spot that runs over two minutes and likens politics to a relationship. There are plenty of inside jokes here, particularly the caricatures of British Conservative party supporters.
Flip this around and you get the way Ontarians felt the morning after electing Bob Rae.
20 March 2007
Surreal life: Canadian politics edition
1. Newfoundland and Labrador Progressive Conservative Premier Danny Williams argues that he is entitled to his entitlements.
2. Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest takes an Equalization windfall from a Conservative government in Ottawa and uses it to cut income taxes in his province. As Paul Wells notes, so much for the argument about fiscal imbalance.
3. Meanwhile, the federal Conservative government expands the nanny state.
2. Quebec Liberal Premier Jean Charest takes an Equalization windfall from a Conservative government in Ottawa and uses it to cut income taxes in his province. As Paul Wells notes, so much for the argument about fiscal imbalance.
3. Meanwhile, the federal Conservative government expands the nanny state.
Betraying our own potential
Danny Williams is angry with Stephen Harper. Williams sees Harper not living up to a commitment, of "betraying" Newfoundland and Labrador.
Fair enough.
While his latest news release doesn't put a dollar value on the loss to this province, in the past he's said the province will receive $200 million less under the proposed Equalization changes each year compared with what it would be receiving. The cap on transfer payments included in the new Equalization formula is the key to Williams' ire since it supposedly limits how much money the provincial government can get.
The larger problem here is not a prime minister who says one thing before an election and then does something else later on once he's in office. That happens, sometimes for perfidy, sometimes because political and economic circumstances demand it.
The larger problem is that our provincial government - since at least 2001 - has become obsessed with maximizing federal hand-outs to our poor province, as the common description would put it.
Look at it another way.
Danny Williams is upset at the supposed loss of about $400 per capita per year. $200 million works out to be $400 for every person in our province of roughly 500,000 people.
Yes, there are numbers and math involved, but it is actually very simple to follow the logic.
The Hebron development was pegged by economist Wade Locke as offering $10 billion of revenue for the provincial government over the 20 year lifespan of the project. He gave a range of $8 billion to $10 billion, but for our purposes let's take the larger number. Let's allow for developing the whole thing as opposed to just one of the fields.
That works out to $1000 per capita over two decades.
Consider the Hibernia South development and its 300 million barrels of oil, virtually all of which would be extracted when provincial royalties are at 30%, as opposed to the 7% the provincial government currently makes.
If we allow for oil at an average of $45 per barrel over 15 years, that field development works out to bring $540 per capita into provincial coffers.
Put it together and we have almost $1600 per capita in provincial revenues, all of which flows untouched into the provincial bank account to be spent as the provincial government sees fit.
That's four times - that's right, four times - the amount Danny Williams is in a snit over.
That amount doesn't include other developments in the economy, like new mines in Labrador. It doesn't include any other economic development at all. It also doesn't include the spin-off benefits that would come, inevitably, from the new investment coming from a healthy, growing economy. Like renewed interest in exploring for oil offshore Newfoundland and developing gas resources off Labrador.
Success breeds success and moving two large industrial projects forward last year would have branded this province as a place to invest in.
That $1600 per capita would give Newfoundland and Labrador a fiscal capacity on par with Ontario. We might wind up losing Equalization hand-outs by 2012 when the fields would have been fully running, but in the meantime, extra cash - in addition to the $1600 per capita - would have flowed through the Equalization program and through the Atlantic Accord (1985) and the later deal.
Some will object that what is involved in this scenario is converting a non-renewable asset into cash. Once it's gone, it's gone.
Absolutely true.
But that is exactly what Norway and Alberta have done with great success.
Those governments have made a conscious decision to take some of their oil and gas revenues and put the cash in the bank. If that didn't happen, they paid down public debt or built long-term infrastructure. As their economies grew, they were able to do all three, in addition to spending money to provide day-to-day services.
There's no reason Newfoundland and Labrador couldn't do the same thing.
Given the amount of money flowing from those developments, the provincial government could easily devote $400 per capita - 25% of the total - to debt reduction, for example.
After 20 years, the provincial direct debt would be half of what it is right now. As debt reduces, the cost of servicing that debt would reduce, thereby freeing up more cash for infrastructure, savings or whatever else we need to spend the money on.
Success - and some responsible government policy - would breed success. Success and sound policy would turn an asset into other assets.
There's no reason not to follow this scenario, except that provincial politicians of all stripes just don't get the logic. They are trapped in political rhetoric from before Confederation that looks like it works. Actually, it doesn't do anything in the long haul except to ensure that the problems of today remain the problems of the future.
Some will reject this sort of proposition because no one else is saying it. Well, the truth is that many politicians and other opinion leaders are not saying anything even close to it. That doesn't make their version true; it just means they prefer the simplistic rhetoric over simple logic and basic economics.
Others will reject the idea because they don't trust the numbers. It can't be that simple and obvious, they claim. The numbers are real. One recently elected politician questioned Bond Papers' numbers for just that reason. And it that obvious.
Part of the larger problem with the rhetoric coming from this administration and previous administrations of other political stripes is that is focuses on the negative. People start to accept that the people of the province are always hard done by. They see betrayal in everything done by others. They accept that "we cannot sign good deals."
The evidence to the contrary is all around us both in past economic deals like the offshore and Voisey's Bay. It's also found in the private sector in a raft of small and medium sized manufacturing companies. It can be seen easily in a company like Fortis.
The real betrayal here is the betrayal of our own potential that comes from the corrosive messages our own leaders tell us about the state of our province and its future.
We focus on the 25% and ignore the 75%.
We focus on the limitations of the cap if we stay on federal hand-outs and ignore the unlimited potential if we take another path.
All it takes to change is to change our thinking.
We just need to look at the problem another way.
Fair enough.
While his latest news release doesn't put a dollar value on the loss to this province, in the past he's said the province will receive $200 million less under the proposed Equalization changes each year compared with what it would be receiving. The cap on transfer payments included in the new Equalization formula is the key to Williams' ire since it supposedly limits how much money the provincial government can get.
The larger problem here is not a prime minister who says one thing before an election and then does something else later on once he's in office. That happens, sometimes for perfidy, sometimes because political and economic circumstances demand it.
The larger problem is that our provincial government - since at least 2001 - has become obsessed with maximizing federal hand-outs to our poor province, as the common description would put it.
Look at it another way.
Danny Williams is upset at the supposed loss of about $400 per capita per year. $200 million works out to be $400 for every person in our province of roughly 500,000 people.
Yes, there are numbers and math involved, but it is actually very simple to follow the logic.
The Hebron development was pegged by economist Wade Locke as offering $10 billion of revenue for the provincial government over the 20 year lifespan of the project. He gave a range of $8 billion to $10 billion, but for our purposes let's take the larger number. Let's allow for developing the whole thing as opposed to just one of the fields.
That works out to $1000 per capita over two decades.
Consider the Hibernia South development and its 300 million barrels of oil, virtually all of which would be extracted when provincial royalties are at 30%, as opposed to the 7% the provincial government currently makes.
If we allow for oil at an average of $45 per barrel over 15 years, that field development works out to bring $540 per capita into provincial coffers.
Put it together and we have almost $1600 per capita in provincial revenues, all of which flows untouched into the provincial bank account to be spent as the provincial government sees fit.
That's four times - that's right, four times - the amount Danny Williams is in a snit over.
That amount doesn't include other developments in the economy, like new mines in Labrador. It doesn't include any other economic development at all. It also doesn't include the spin-off benefits that would come, inevitably, from the new investment coming from a healthy, growing economy. Like renewed interest in exploring for oil offshore Newfoundland and developing gas resources off Labrador.
Success breeds success and moving two large industrial projects forward last year would have branded this province as a place to invest in.
That $1600 per capita would give Newfoundland and Labrador a fiscal capacity on par with Ontario. We might wind up losing Equalization hand-outs by 2012 when the fields would have been fully running, but in the meantime, extra cash - in addition to the $1600 per capita - would have flowed through the Equalization program and through the Atlantic Accord (1985) and the later deal.
Some will object that what is involved in this scenario is converting a non-renewable asset into cash. Once it's gone, it's gone.
Absolutely true.
But that is exactly what Norway and Alberta have done with great success.
Those governments have made a conscious decision to take some of their oil and gas revenues and put the cash in the bank. If that didn't happen, they paid down public debt or built long-term infrastructure. As their economies grew, they were able to do all three, in addition to spending money to provide day-to-day services.
There's no reason Newfoundland and Labrador couldn't do the same thing.
Given the amount of money flowing from those developments, the provincial government could easily devote $400 per capita - 25% of the total - to debt reduction, for example.
After 20 years, the provincial direct debt would be half of what it is right now. As debt reduces, the cost of servicing that debt would reduce, thereby freeing up more cash for infrastructure, savings or whatever else we need to spend the money on.
Success - and some responsible government policy - would breed success. Success and sound policy would turn an asset into other assets.
There's no reason not to follow this scenario, except that provincial politicians of all stripes just don't get the logic. They are trapped in political rhetoric from before Confederation that looks like it works. Actually, it doesn't do anything in the long haul except to ensure that the problems of today remain the problems of the future.
Some will reject this sort of proposition because no one else is saying it. Well, the truth is that many politicians and other opinion leaders are not saying anything even close to it. That doesn't make their version true; it just means they prefer the simplistic rhetoric over simple logic and basic economics.
Others will reject the idea because they don't trust the numbers. It can't be that simple and obvious, they claim. The numbers are real. One recently elected politician questioned Bond Papers' numbers for just that reason. And it that obvious.
Part of the larger problem with the rhetoric coming from this administration and previous administrations of other political stripes is that is focuses on the negative. People start to accept that the people of the province are always hard done by. They see betrayal in everything done by others. They accept that "we cannot sign good deals."
The evidence to the contrary is all around us both in past economic deals like the offshore and Voisey's Bay. It's also found in the private sector in a raft of small and medium sized manufacturing companies. It can be seen easily in a company like Fortis.
The real betrayal here is the betrayal of our own potential that comes from the corrosive messages our own leaders tell us about the state of our province and its future.
We focus on the 25% and ignore the 75%.
We focus on the limitations of the cap if we stay on federal hand-outs and ignore the unlimited potential if we take another path.
All it takes to change is to change our thinking.
We just need to look at the problem another way.
Lono hits it on the head
Offal News does another fine job of dissecting the Equalization issue, with a post titled "Williams spits nickels".
Amen.
Yet this Williams administration would rather fight for more equalisation than make the moves necessary to generate income from the resources we have. Hebron, just as one very small example, has been estimated to provide government revenues of $400-500million per year and thousands of jobs across this province. Out of pique, this government continues to refuse to go back to the negotiating table and to make a deal.Amen, brother.
And now Premier Williams expects the rest of this country to subsidize his colossal error in judgment and his failure to close this, or any other, economic development deal. Out of pride, he says.
That's a definition of pride to which I have difficulty subscribing.
Amen.
Harper jams Williams
Forget what you heard Jim Flaherty say yesterday about a revised Equalization system that was formula-based and fair and really forget the criticisms the federal Conservatives made of Equalization side deals and caps.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper did all that yesterday.
Overnight, it's been confirmed that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will be getting an Equalization side deal. Both provinces will have the choice of contuing under the old Equalization program - five provinces, 100% resource revenues plus the offshore deals on oil and gas royalties - or opt into a system they have rejected.
Either way, there is a functional limit on how much cash they get through Equalization.
Under the side deal, the cap consists of the limited number of provinces used to calculate the average plus the offshore offsets deals only cover royalties, not all revenues from the source.
Under the new version of Equalization, the cap is explicitly in place.
This approach is mentioned in the background document issued yesterday but until the PM's letter, it wasn't something that leaped out.
Turns out Danny is screwed and blued. The only thing left is to get out the ink and needles.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper did all that yesterday.
Overnight, it's been confirmed that Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia will be getting an Equalization side deal. Both provinces will have the choice of contuing under the old Equalization program - five provinces, 100% resource revenues plus the offshore deals on oil and gas royalties - or opt into a system they have rejected.
Either way, there is a functional limit on how much cash they get through Equalization.
Under the side deal, the cap consists of the limited number of provinces used to calculate the average plus the offshore offsets deals only cover royalties, not all revenues from the source.
Under the new version of Equalization, the cap is explicitly in place.
This approach is mentioned in the background document issued yesterday but until the PM's letter, it wasn't something that leaped out.
To respect the Offshore Accords, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador may continue to operate under the previous Equalization system until their existing offshore agreements expire.
Turns out Danny is screwed and blued. The only thing left is to get out the ink and needles.
Harper signals side deal with Williams?
The Prime Minister issued a news release this evening that describes a letter to Premier Danny Williams about the federal budget.
In the release, there is an odd statement:
But...
There is no way for Newfoundland and Labrador to keep the Equalization scheme that existed in 2005 without the current federal administration signing a side deal with Newfoundland and Labrador to make it happen or for the federal government to create an Equalization system that works one way for nine provinces and another way for Newfoundland and Labrador.
In other words, Harper's release would have Newfoundland and Labrador's Equalization entitlement calculated under a five province standard with 100% of resource revenues included. The offsets deals then cut in to figure out Equalization without oil revenues but based on a five province standard, not the 10 province one to be used under the Flaherty 2007 budget.
The 2005 agreement specifically states that the provincial Equalization offset will be calculated using the formula in existence at the time, i.e. the year of the Equalization payment, not the year the deal was signed.
Simply put: Harper can't reform Equalization as proposed in today's budget, i.e. create a formula driven system that is fair and equitable to all, and at the same time create what amounts to a side deal with one province.
Most likely answer: someone in the PMO comms office needs a quick lesson in the English language not to mention Equalization.
Outside possibility: Harper is really trying to jam Danny into a corner.
In the release, there is an odd statement:
Newfoundland and Labrador will continue to receive the full benefits provided under its offshore Accord, without a cap, while keeping the Equalization regime it had when it signed those Accords.The first part of that sentence is fine, since the federal budget does not alter the wording of the bilateral agreement signed in either 1985 or in 2005.
But...
There is no way for Newfoundland and Labrador to keep the Equalization scheme that existed in 2005 without the current federal administration signing a side deal with Newfoundland and Labrador to make it happen or for the federal government to create an Equalization system that works one way for nine provinces and another way for Newfoundland and Labrador.
In other words, Harper's release would have Newfoundland and Labrador's Equalization entitlement calculated under a five province standard with 100% of resource revenues included. The offsets deals then cut in to figure out Equalization without oil revenues but based on a five province standard, not the 10 province one to be used under the Flaherty 2007 budget.
The 2005 agreement specifically states that the provincial Equalization offset will be calculated using the formula in existence at the time, i.e. the year of the Equalization payment, not the year the deal was signed.
Simply put: Harper can't reform Equalization as proposed in today's budget, i.e. create a formula driven system that is fair and equitable to all, and at the same time create what amounts to a side deal with one province.
Most likely answer: someone in the PMO comms office needs a quick lesson in the English language not to mention Equalization.
Outside possibility: Harper is really trying to jam Danny into a corner.
19 March 2007
Equalization changes in summary
The federal budget contains few, if any, surprises when it comes to dealing with the so-called fiscal imbalance.
The Flaherty budget will make the following changes to Equalization:
- Reintroduce a formula based on all 10 provinces. That will have the effect of raising the amount of money in the system overall. The current system, in place since 1982 uses five provinces to determine the standard.
- Reduce the formula from 33 bases to a mere five. That will make the system much easier to figure out.
- Exclude 50% of resource revenues from the calculations. That's not what Harper promised for two elections in a row but it is exactly what an expert panel recommended. Right now 100% of all resource revenues are included in calculating Equalization entitlements. That's the system Danny Williams wanted to continue when he wrote his letter to the federal party leaders during the last election.
- Provinces can opt to take whichever is greater of the 50% exclusion or the 100% exclusion of non-renewable revenues only. Again, that isn't what they promised but that option is specifically designed to deal with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Note the last sentence in the paragraph below. It is clearly designed to have the provinces opt into Equalization and abandon the offshore deals.
The combination of all federal transfers - Equalization, health, post-secondary, social transfer and infrastructure - will give Newfoundland and Labrador about $1.5 billion in federal transfers over four years. Specifically, the amounts are as follows:
2005: $1.554 billion
2006: $1.453 billion
2007: $1.529 billion
2008: $1.554 billion
The Flaherty budget will make the following changes to Equalization:
- Reintroduce a formula based on all 10 provinces. That will have the effect of raising the amount of money in the system overall. The current system, in place since 1982 uses five provinces to determine the standard.- Reduce the formula from 33 bases to a mere five. That will make the system much easier to figure out.
- Exclude 50% of resource revenues from the calculations. That's not what Harper promised for two elections in a row but it is exactly what an expert panel recommended. Right now 100% of all resource revenues are included in calculating Equalization entitlements. That's the system Danny Williams wanted to continue when he wrote his letter to the federal party leaders during the last election.
- Provinces can opt to take whichever is greater of the 50% exclusion or the 100% exclusion of non-renewable revenues only. Again, that isn't what they promised but that option is specifically designed to deal with Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador. Note the last sentence in the paragraph below. It is clearly designed to have the provinces opt into Equalization and abandon the offshore deals.
Fulfilling the Commitment to Respect the Offshore Accords- Cap transfers such that no province can have a fiscal capacity in excess of Ontario. Equalization is intended to give all provinces in the country comparable fiscal capacity and thereby ensure that all Canadians have access to similar levels of service no matter where they live. One of the complaints from non-recipient provinces has been that the combination of federal transfers can actually produce a situation where recipient provinces - like Newfoundland and Labrador - have a greater capacity than most non-recipient provinces.
To respect the Offshore Accords, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador may continue to operate under the previous Equalization system until their existing offshore agreements expire. This fulfills and builds upon the Government’s commitment to respect the Offshore Accords and ensures that these provinces will continue to receive the full benefit that they are entitled to under the previous system. These provinces can permanently opt into the new Equalization system at any point in the future. [Emphasis added]
The combination of all federal transfers - Equalization, health, post-secondary, social transfer and infrastructure - will give Newfoundland and Labrador about $1.5 billion in federal transfers over four years. Specifically, the amounts are as follows:
2005: $1.554 billion
2006: $1.453 billion
2007: $1.529 billion
2008: $1.554 billion
Links for Liam
Just for the resident anti-Castro crusader, some links to live by.
Or live for, since apparently anything vaguely positive about Cuba induces a form of apoplexy seen only in Cuban immigrants in Dade county.
1. Granma, official organ of the Cuban communist party. Keep up to date on the latest news from Cuba. Perfect gift for the rant-inclined.
2. Che lives! A website devoted to all things Ernesto.
3. Some facts on Canada-Cuba cooperation. From the Government of Canada. The one currently run by Liam's favourite national party. Your humble e-scribbler never knew the name of the cow praised by Granma and The Muse in 1982. Until now, that is.
4. A 1998 news release from the provincial government heralding economic ties between Newfoundland and Cuba. Undoubtedly, proof of the Liberal plot.
5. Waiting for Fidel. The landmark 1974 laugh riot starring Joe Smallwood, Fidel Castro and Erich Honecker, right, and introducing starlet Geoff Sterling in his first big screen role.
Cuba-Ireland connections? Let's leave those for another time. There are so many they need a post of their own.
Or live for, since apparently anything vaguely positive about Cuba induces a form of apoplexy seen only in Cuban immigrants in Dade county.
1. Granma, official organ of the Cuban communist party. Keep up to date on the latest news from Cuba. Perfect gift for the rant-inclined.
2. Che lives! A website devoted to all things Ernesto.
3. Some facts on Canada-Cuba cooperation. From the Government of Canada. The one currently run by Liam's favourite national party. Your humble e-scribbler never knew the name of the cow praised by Granma and The Muse in 1982. Until now, that is.
4. A 1998 news release from the provincial government heralding economic ties between Newfoundland and Cuba. Undoubtedly, proof of the Liberal plot.
5. Waiting for Fidel. The landmark 1974 laugh riot starring Joe Smallwood, Fidel Castro and Erich Honecker, right, and introducing starlet Geoff Sterling in his first big screen role.Cuba-Ireland connections? Let's leave those for another time. There are so many they need a post of their own.
18 March 2007
Mercer, Golfman and Afghanistan: good for circ if nothing else
Since January, the pretentious weekly The Independent has been embroiled in a debate between columnist Noreen Golfman and nationally known comedian Rick Mercer.
It started with a January column by Golfman, a professor in the English department at memorial University. Golfman took great issue with the media coverage of Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan. The tone of the entire piece is smarmy and condescending and whatever substantive discussion she may have hoped to spark was lost behind vacuous lines like this one:
In any event, Golfman's comments on the war itself are confined to a simple statement of what she perceives as fact but which is entirely arguable on every point:
Get that point under your belt quickly, though. In subsequent utterances, usually by Golfman's editor Ryan Cleary, we are told that the piece was about the next subject Golfman turned her sights on, namely celebrities who head off to Afghanistan to entertain the troops.
Golfman dismissed them as follows:
Golfman did not go out on a limb to criticise Mercer. She did so deliberately to take a swipe at a very successful local comedian who has gotten to where he is, like so many others, without remaining in this province and staring at Confederation Building until it hands out cash.
If she wanted to go out on a limb - i.e take a genuinely principled and brave position - she'd take issue with many in the local arts community who, while they ought to be critical of any government in the province, instead get weepy and tug their forelocks in gratitude for crumbs from the Crown. She'd take a smack at the second-rate historical fantasy her neo-nationalist friends pass off as fact.
Of course, none of that that would get Noreen invited back to the fetes run by the circle she moves in, including the odd government-sponsored logo celebration.
Taking the odd nasty phone call or e-mail from a nutjob is par for the course for anybody with a public profile - media people included. Most don't swoon, even figuratively, about the supposed price they pay for their "bravery" in the face of calls from idiots.
Bravery would be nailing the genuine sacred cow in this piece. Mercer and his colleagues do it with every trip to Kandahar or with every socially responsible commentary Mercer makes each week. He's earned his progressive stripes, for those who feel that is important. Mercer's opinions are not determined by what is ruled to be cool by his crowd.
Would that the same could be said of Golfman, who at times seems to relish her ties to the League of Professional Baymen more than those of us with one foot scarcely out of the red-soles.
Golfman smacked at Rick. Little did she know that what she would get back was a sharply worded, eloquent rejoinder to her pretentious tripe. Mercer's 1500 word riposte hit Golfman squarely where it hurts - in the pomposity. Mercer took on each of her points, demonstrating exactly how shallow her original column had been.
Turns out Rick bested Golfman in every dimension, right down to the tone of the column itself. He knows how to skewer without pretension.
It didn't take a doctoral degree to do the job.
In the end, that must have been the thing that stung worst of all.
_______________________________
Portions of this post appeared, in edited form, as a comment on towniebastard. They are repeated here, slightly edited, since a good rant should not be wasted.
It started with a January column by Golfman, a professor in the English department at memorial University. Golfman took great issue with the media coverage of Canadian soldiers serving in Afghanistan. The tone of the entire piece is smarmy and condescending and whatever substantive discussion she may have hoped to spark was lost behind vacuous lines like this one:
Every time you opened a newspaper or listened to the news, especially on the CBC, you were compelled to reach for the box of tissues. If it wasn’t a story about some poor sod’s legs being blown off then it was an extended interview with some dead soldier’s parents. Indulging in another bite of dark chocolate was meant to be more painful this year. Here, have a plate of guilt with your second helping, my dear, and pass the self-reproach.Incidentally, don't bother looking for that column at the Indy website. For some reason, only Mercer's rejoinder made it to the Internet courtesy of the newspaper itself. Someone did type it and posted it at army.ca. That column, like most of Golfman's stuff is relegated to the second section of the paper and rarely is selected for posting in an electronic version.
In any event, Golfman's comments on the war itself are confined to a simple statement of what she perceives as fact but which is entirely arguable on every point:
It is another to report on their presence in that unfamiliar place without so much as a hint that they don’t belong there, that the campaign to restore order and keep the Taliban from returning to power might be doomed, that blood is obviously begetting blood and that Canadians, and especially the Newfoundlanders who comprise such a disproportionate percentage of the overseas troops (compare with the number of African-Americans fighting in the doomed project of Viet Nam), are destined to return in body bags.It is crucial to appreciate that this is the sum total of Golfman's attempts to discuss the substance of the issue, namely the mission in Afghanistan, its likelihood of success and its possible cost. It is crucial because Golfman's piece very clearly looks like it was supposed to discussing the inadequate coverage of the entire Afghan piece. Instead, it settled for sneering. Instead, Golfman opted for a ridiculous piece of Ship Inn sociology - catch the Vietnam thing? - that one would not even expect from a second year undergraduate, let alone the associate dean of graduate studies .
Get that point under your belt quickly, though. In subsequent utterances, usually by Golfman's editor Ryan Cleary, we are told that the piece was about the next subject Golfman turned her sights on, namely celebrities who head off to Afghanistan to entertain the troops.
Golfman dismissed them as follows:
Which leads me to kick at another sacred cow--that is, Rick Mercer and that whole lot of star Newfoundlanders who went over to entertain Our Boys (and Girls) over Christmas, reportedly flown to unmarked destinations and, presumably, forced to share some dehydrated food and wear really ugly clothing for a few days.Golfman does a fine job of predicting that she would be criticized for her comments. Perhaps she felt them brave. But predicting criticism does not elevate her column to the status of a watershed commentary that would spark sudden introspection.
Golfman did not go out on a limb to criticise Mercer. She did so deliberately to take a swipe at a very successful local comedian who has gotten to where he is, like so many others, without remaining in this province and staring at Confederation Building until it hands out cash.
If she wanted to go out on a limb - i.e take a genuinely principled and brave position - she'd take issue with many in the local arts community who, while they ought to be critical of any government in the province, instead get weepy and tug their forelocks in gratitude for crumbs from the Crown. She'd take a smack at the second-rate historical fantasy her neo-nationalist friends pass off as fact.
Of course, none of that that would get Noreen invited back to the fetes run by the circle she moves in, including the odd government-sponsored logo celebration.
Taking the odd nasty phone call or e-mail from a nutjob is par for the course for anybody with a public profile - media people included. Most don't swoon, even figuratively, about the supposed price they pay for their "bravery" in the face of calls from idiots.
Bravery would be nailing the genuine sacred cow in this piece. Mercer and his colleagues do it with every trip to Kandahar or with every socially responsible commentary Mercer makes each week. He's earned his progressive stripes, for those who feel that is important. Mercer's opinions are not determined by what is ruled to be cool by his crowd.
Would that the same could be said of Golfman, who at times seems to relish her ties to the League of Professional Baymen more than those of us with one foot scarcely out of the red-soles.
Golfman smacked at Rick. Little did she know that what she would get back was a sharply worded, eloquent rejoinder to her pretentious tripe. Mercer's 1500 word riposte hit Golfman squarely where it hurts - in the pomposity. Mercer took on each of her points, demonstrating exactly how shallow her original column had been.
Turns out Rick bested Golfman in every dimension, right down to the tone of the column itself. He knows how to skewer without pretension.
It didn't take a doctoral degree to do the job.
In the end, that must have been the thing that stung worst of all.
_______________________________
Portions of this post appeared, in edited form, as a comment on towniebastard. They are repeated here, slightly edited, since a good rant should not be wasted.
Promoted to glory: Bruce Winsor, 1926-2007
Bruce Winsor passed away on Thursday, March 15, 2007. He was buried today from the St. John's Temple of the Salvation Army.
I knew Bruce for a great many years since he was the uncle of my best friends. It wasn't until much later that I got to know him better. In 2003, he agreed to an interview about his experience with the Canadian Army in Korea. What was supposed to be an hour or so turned into an afternoon of reminiscence and reflection.
That interview became a piece posted here for Remembrance Day, 2005. I found out afterwards that there were stories he shared with me that he had not mentioned to friends or family in the 51 years since he returned from Korea.
Some of those stories found their way into the piece; many others, especially ones that were more deeply personal will remain locked away in respect of the confidence in which they were shared.
Bruce Winsor was a Christian. His profound and abiding faith gave him the steadfastness to weather the trials which came to his own life. The security that came from his faith - of having anchored his soul in the haven of rest - allowed him to help others through their travails.
He was a rare man who, as his brother-in-law Edsel Bonnell said in his tribute at the funeral service, loved his family and his church and showed it in every action, every day of his long life. Edsel's tribute was eloquent, as anyone who knows him would expect, but his task in delivering the tribute was aided by the simple eloquence of Bruce's life.
I knew Bruce for a great many years since he was the uncle of my best friends. It wasn't until much later that I got to know him better. In 2003, he agreed to an interview about his experience with the Canadian Army in Korea. What was supposed to be an hour or so turned into an afternoon of reminiscence and reflection.
That interview became a piece posted here for Remembrance Day, 2005. I found out afterwards that there were stories he shared with me that he had not mentioned to friends or family in the 51 years since he returned from Korea.
Some of those stories found their way into the piece; many others, especially ones that were more deeply personal will remain locked away in respect of the confidence in which they were shared.
Bruce Winsor was a Christian. His profound and abiding faith gave him the steadfastness to weather the trials which came to his own life. The security that came from his faith - of having anchored his soul in the haven of rest - allowed him to help others through their travails.
He was a rare man who, as his brother-in-law Edsel Bonnell said in his tribute at the funeral service, loved his family and his church and showed it in every action, every day of his long life. Edsel's tribute was eloquent, as anyone who knows him would expect, but his task in delivering the tribute was aided by the simple eloquence of Bruce's life.
17 March 2007
Municipal campaign shenanigans costly
Take a gander at this story involving a former St. John's city councillor, charges of mischief, withholding information from the police and generally a tale that raises many more questions about the case than the trial will resolve.
But here's a bit of perspective for pure contrast: the total cost incurred by the former councillor to deal with the damage was $160.
About five years ago, your humble e-scribbler had his credit card lifted from his jacket as it hung in the closet at his office. There were a limited number of suspects and the credit card company confirmed that $300 worth of groceries were charged to the card at a supermarket within walking distance of my office at the time.
There were security cameras in the supermarket.
There were three likely suspects of which one could be eliminated almost right away. The police had good physical descriptions and complete current contact information since the suspects were being interviewed for a job when the theft occurred.
The police response was much less than enthusiastic and little - if anything - was done beyond filling out the mandatory forms.
In the municipal shenanigan's case - involving $160 - there was repeated attention from the police, regular contact with the candidate, fingerprint evidence taken and analysed at a lab on the mainland and now a trial involving a prosecutor being shipped in from central Newfoundland to handle what may well be a lost cause for the Crown.
There's more on the case at Meeker on media.
But here's a bit of perspective for pure contrast: the total cost incurred by the former councillor to deal with the damage was $160.
About five years ago, your humble e-scribbler had his credit card lifted from his jacket as it hung in the closet at his office. There were a limited number of suspects and the credit card company confirmed that $300 worth of groceries were charged to the card at a supermarket within walking distance of my office at the time.
There were security cameras in the supermarket.
There were three likely suspects of which one could be eliminated almost right away. The police had good physical descriptions and complete current contact information since the suspects were being interviewed for a job when the theft occurred.
The police response was much less than enthusiastic and little - if anything - was done beyond filling out the mandatory forms.
In the municipal shenanigan's case - involving $160 - there was repeated attention from the police, regular contact with the candidate, fingerprint evidence taken and analysed at a lab on the mainland and now a trial involving a prosecutor being shipped in from central Newfoundland to handle what may well be a lost cause for the Crown.
There's more on the case at Meeker on media.
16 March 2007
Scotia Economics confirms NL economic projections
Add Scotia Economics to the list of economic prognosticators showing the Newfoundland and Labrador economy going from leading the nation this year to trailing it next year.
While the latest provincial projections show 2007 to be leding the country in real GDP growth (4.0% estimated), SE shows the province as posting 1.5% real GDP growth next year.
While the latest provincial projections show 2007 to be leding the country in real GDP growth (4.0% estimated), SE shows the province as posting 1.5% real GDP growth next year.
Confusion reigns in Alberta
What exactly is the Government of Alberta's position on Equalization?
Does anyone know?
Does anyone care?
Does anyone know?
Does anyone care?
Randomly Generating Laughs
Responsible Government League's Liam O'Brien tears into the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for a story on the CBC website about Cuban elections.
He titled the piece "Castro's Broadcasting Corporation" and then uses the piece to launch into a tirade about Castro (fair enough) and the CBC.
That's where things get hysterically funny, but only because Liam made the biggest knee-jerk reaction in a while:
For those who aren't familiar with that news organization, let's just say that it is one of the leading news services on the planet. But it is based in the United States and directed by a board made up of major and minor honchos of major and minor news outlets across the Socialist Republic of Ameristan.
Thanks for the laugh, Liam.
Maybe if he gets suitably riled about something real, he'll tackle the Noreen Golfman piece in the Indy back in January. That's unlikely since it would involve commenting negatively on what one suspects is his beloved local weekly.
He titled the piece "Castro's Broadcasting Corporation" and then uses the piece to launch into a tirade about Castro (fair enough) and the CBC.
That's where things get hysterically funny, but only because Liam made the biggest knee-jerk reaction in a while:
The CBC reporter is either the most dumb and biased this side of Susan Murray or honestly believes that the Communist Cuban government that still curbs free speech and any other freedoms in many severe ways, are telling the truth. No wait, those two options are pretty much the same.The problem for Liam is that if his knee hadn't been hyperflexing so wildly - just because he loathes the CBC for some reason - therefore smacking himself in the forehead and inducing some state of confusion, Liam might have noticed that the story CBC ran was actually from the Associated Press, right down to the last quotation mark.
Perhaps the folks over at the CBC need a reminder of what sort of free "elections" Fidel has in mind.
For those who aren't familiar with that news organization, let's just say that it is one of the leading news services on the planet. But it is based in the United States and directed by a board made up of major and minor honchos of major and minor news outlets across the Socialist Republic of Ameristan.
Thanks for the laugh, Liam.
Maybe if he gets suitably riled about something real, he'll tackle the Noreen Golfman piece in the Indy back in January. That's unlikely since it would involve commenting negatively on what one suspects is his beloved local weekly.
ADQ would expand Quebec's hydro potential
Le soleil reports that the ADQ would accelerate development of an additional 10000 megawatts of Quebec hydroelectric potential if the party forms the next Government of Quebec.
ADQ leader Mario Dumont also said he would negotiate with Newfoundland and Labrador to develop Labrador's power potential.
ADQ leader Mario Dumont also said he would negotiate with Newfoundland and Labrador to develop Labrador's power potential.
15 March 2007
The pension plan deal so nice...
They announced it twice.
New finance minister Tom Marshall announced on Thursday that the province will borrow almost $1.0 billion to cover a portion of the unfunded liability in public sector pension plans.
The project will involve an immediate injection of $400 million with a further $597 million to come no later than June 30.
Is this the same announcement as the one made by the old finance minister, Loyola Sullivan, last December?
Notice that Marshall said nothing about the $400 million Sullivan said would be borrowed in December with a further amount later in the fiscal year.
Something says the Sullivan plan got caught in the serial government's decision-making grinder and what was supposed to happen in December was delayed until March.
New finance minister Tom Marshall announced on Thursday that the province will borrow almost $1.0 billion to cover a portion of the unfunded liability in public sector pension plans.
The project will involve an immediate injection of $400 million with a further $597 million to come no later than June 30.
Is this the same announcement as the one made by the old finance minister, Loyola Sullivan, last December?
Notice that Marshall said nothing about the $400 million Sullivan said would be borrowed in December with a further amount later in the fiscal year.
Something says the Sullivan plan got caught in the serial government's decision-making grinder and what was supposed to happen in December was delayed until March.
Rideout strikes another blow against free enterprise
Fish minister Tom Rideout tries to explain government's decision on Fishery Products International.
He still can't define what the public interest is in the whole affair.
Rideout also can't explain how it is the public interest to have governing controlling the operations of private sector companies. If Tom wants to run a fish plant let him quit politics and borrow some cash.
One of the big questions in the whole FPI thing remains whether or not the federal government will agree to let Tom make money off the fish quotas and use them to keep every plant worker he can eligible for EI. That's about the only interest there could be in having the provincial government own fish quotas: keeping the fishing industry in the same mess it was the last time Rideout was fish minister.
He still can't define what the public interest is in the whole affair.
Rideout also can't explain how it is the public interest to have governing controlling the operations of private sector companies. If Tom wants to run a fish plant let him quit politics and borrow some cash.
One of the big questions in the whole FPI thing remains whether or not the federal government will agree to let Tom make money off the fish quotas and use them to keep every plant worker he can eligible for EI. That's about the only interest there could be in having the provincial government own fish quotas: keeping the fishing industry in the same mess it was the last time Rideout was fish minister.
Carry on minister
Last year, it was Danny Williams versus a third rate celebrity on CNN:
The Prem must be busy this year, so instead of the main act, the road company of the province's 2007 edition of March Madness will be headlined by fish minister Tom Rideout, right.
He's leading a crew to an anti- anti-seal hunt stunt on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
Hilarity is sure to ensue.
They are calling it Up the Anti! and in every respect, the whole affair is reminiscent of the international public relations disaster led by Frank Moores in the 1970s or Codpeace, another one of those silly ideas someone milked for a few minutes of fame around the same time.
The marketing genius who came up with the name of the latest effort should have tried a google search first. ironic given this administration's apparently difficulty with Internet search engines that Danny Williams will be talking to the province's high-tech industry on Friday about expanding business opportunities in cutting-edge technologies.
But I digress.
uptheanti.org leads you to a "resource for collecting interesting articles and items for anarchists and autonoms from across the web."
In 2005, Up the Anti! was the title of a performance by comedian Eddy Brimson at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. The blurb went like this:
But look, if we are going to resurrect ancient comedies, why not try and imitate something genuinely funny?
Like the Carry on... series of films that ran to tremendous success from the 1950s until the 1970s.
Rideout can take the roles normally played by Charles Hawtrey, (left), for example. He's got the toque thing down already.
Danny can probably be enticed to fill in the Sid James roles as the ringleader of the gang. Top billing. One show a night. An interview on Canada AM with Seamus. That sort of thing. bound to get his attention.
There are enough characters in cabinet to fill out the rest of the cast. if they come up short, then there the other members of the House. Some of them could use a trip out of the province.
A revival of Carry on... wouldn't be any less productive than what Rideout has embarked on already.
It would fit in with the cultural strategy that apparently will offset demographic change in the province on top of everything else it is supposed to do. "It's a cultural strategy. It's an economic strategy. No, it's a tourism promotion. No, it fights ageing and promotes immigration."
And it will make your dishes sparkly, like new.
One strategy.
Five uses.
Coming soon to The Shopping Channel, with Tom Hedderson sandwiched between Tony Little and Joan Rivers.
Heck, a travelling comedy show - billed as such, for a change - might actually be able to charge admission, thereby recovering the hundreds of thousands of public dollars being spent on the pro-seal hunt publicity stunts. And the associated travel that must go with these ventures, of course.
It might even generate enough cash to offset the cost of last year's laugh-fest, right.
That might be too much to expect of anything produced by any government.
The choice: Energy powerhouse promoter or seal hunt defender?
DW: I'll take seal hunt defender for 30 minutes, Larry.
The Prem must be busy this year, so instead of the main act, the road company of the province's 2007 edition of March Madness will be headlined by fish minister Tom Rideout, right.He's leading a crew to an anti- anti-seal hunt stunt on Parliament Hill in Ottawa.
Hilarity is sure to ensue.
They are calling it Up the Anti! and in every respect, the whole affair is reminiscent of the international public relations disaster led by Frank Moores in the 1970s or Codpeace, another one of those silly ideas someone milked for a few minutes of fame around the same time.
The marketing genius who came up with the name of the latest effort should have tried a google search first. ironic given this administration's apparently difficulty with Internet search engines that Danny Williams will be talking to the province's high-tech industry on Friday about expanding business opportunities in cutting-edge technologies.
But I digress.
uptheanti.org leads you to a "resource for collecting interesting articles and items for anarchists and autonoms from across the web."
In 2005, Up the Anti! was the title of a performance by comedian Eddy Brimson at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. The blurb went like this:
After having his house raided by MI5, Brimson has a few 'issues': Anti-Hunt, Anti-Royal, Anti-Police and ultimately Anti-Establishment. Mixing stand-up with reconstruction... A true comedy terrorist... You've been warned.The reviews weren't all that good.
But look, if we are going to resurrect ancient comedies, why not try and imitate something genuinely funny?
Like the Carry on... series of films that ran to tremendous success from the 1950s until the 1970s.
Rideout can take the roles normally played by Charles Hawtrey, (left), for example. He's got the toque thing down already.Danny can probably be enticed to fill in the Sid James roles as the ringleader of the gang. Top billing. One show a night. An interview on Canada AM with Seamus. That sort of thing. bound to get his attention.
There are enough characters in cabinet to fill out the rest of the cast. if they come up short, then there the other members of the House. Some of them could use a trip out of the province.
A revival of Carry on... wouldn't be any less productive than what Rideout has embarked on already.
It would fit in with the cultural strategy that apparently will offset demographic change in the province on top of everything else it is supposed to do. "It's a cultural strategy. It's an economic strategy. No, it's a tourism promotion. No, it fights ageing and promotes immigration."
And it will make your dishes sparkly, like new.
One strategy.
Five uses.
Coming soon to The Shopping Channel, with Tom Hedderson sandwiched between Tony Little and Joan Rivers.
Heck, a travelling comedy show - billed as such, for a change - might actually be able to charge admission, thereby recovering the hundreds of thousands of public dollars being spent on the pro-seal hunt publicity stunts. And the associated travel that must go with these ventures, of course.
It might even generate enough cash to offset the cost of last year's laugh-fest, right.That might be too much to expect of anything produced by any government.
14 March 2007
FPI tortures continue
When it comes to Fishery Products International, the provincial government's definition of "public interest" remains inscrutable to the point of making one wonder if the provincial government knows what the objectives are.
It seems to mean screwing with a company purely for the sake of screwing with it.
Then again, the fish minister, right, seems intent on imposing every hideously bad idea from the past when he was last fish minister.
They didn't work then - in fact they contributed to the mess today - and they certainly aren't working now.
Only in Newfoundland and Labrador do people seem to think that if we do the same things again that didn't work before, they might just work this time.
If that isn't enough to persuade you, consider that the same administration that trumpets its efforts to reduce needless regulation for business has a fish minister who has never seen a pointless regulatory burden on industry he couldn't increase.
It seems to mean screwing with a company purely for the sake of screwing with it.
Then again, the fish minister, right, seems intent on imposing every hideously bad idea from the past when he was last fish minister.They didn't work then - in fact they contributed to the mess today - and they certainly aren't working now.
Only in Newfoundland and Labrador do people seem to think that if we do the same things again that didn't work before, they might just work this time.
If that isn't enough to persuade you, consider that the same administration that trumpets its efforts to reduce needless regulation for business has a fish minister who has never seen a pointless regulatory burden on industry he couldn't increase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)