From Oh!, What a lovely war, a poignant commentary that combines a popular soldier's ditty from the Great War with one of the best known lines of poetry from the same war.
11 November 2007
Remembrance
1. Attack, Siegfried Sassoon
2. Escape, Robert Graves
(August 6, 1916.—Officer previously reported died of
wounds, now reported wounded: Graves, Captain R.,
Royal Welch Fusiliers.)
-
... But I was dead, an hour or more.
I woke when I'd already passed the door
That Cerberus guards, and half-way down the road
To Lethe, as an old Greek signpost showed.
Above me, on my stretcher swinging by,
I saw new stars in the subterrene sky:
A Cross, a Rose in bloom, a Cage with bars,
And a barbed Arrow feathered in fine stars.
I felt the vapours of forgetfulness
Float in my nostrils. Oh, may Heaven bless
Dear Lady Proserpine, who saw me wake,
And, stooping over me, for Henna's sake
Cleared my poor buzzing head and sent me back
Breathless, with leaping heart along the track.
After me roared and clattered angry hosts
Of demons, heroes, and policeman-ghosts.
"Life! life! I can't be dead! I won't be dead!
Damned if I'll die for any one!" I said....
Cerberus stands and grins above me now,
Wearing three heads—lion, and lynx, and sow.
"Quick, a revolver! But my Webley's gone,
Stolen!... No bombs ... no knife....
The crowd swarms on,
Bellows, hurls stones.... Not even a honeyed sop ...
Nothing.... Good Cerberus!... Good dog!... but stop!
Stay!... A great luminous thought ... I do believe
There's still some morphia that I bought on leave."
Then swiftly Cerberus' wide mouths I cram
With army biscuit smeared with ration jam;And sleep lurks in the luscious plum and apple.
He crunches, swallows, stiffens, seems to grapple
With the all-powerful poppy ... then a snore,
A crash; the beast blocks up the corridor
With monstrous hairy carcase, red and dun—
Too late! for I've sped through.
O Life! O Sun!
3. Infantry, near Nijmegan, Holland, Alex Colville (Canadian War Museum collection)
10 November 2007
Suddenly uncocky
Prime Minister Stephen Harper doesn't seem quite as smug this Saturday as say he has on any day over the past two weeks.
There's a new affidavit in the old Mulroney-Airbus scandal and this time it mentions Harper. There's a letter to harper from Karlheinz Schrieber, the man at the centre of the allegations.
All this has the prime Minister appointing an independent review of the allegations, essentially something far short of the public inquiry needed but still far from Harper's insistence that it would be dangerous to investigate allegations involving a former administration or prime minister.
Volte-face, the Globe calls it pretentiously.
Most of us would say about-face, or if you are from Newfoundland and Labrador, you'd know the political flip-flops all too well from watching Harper's provincialist doppelganger.
Such is its magnitude that even the National Post couldn't ignore the change-in-direction story, although the coverage has a noticeably different tone to the Globe work.
Catch video of the Prime Minister's news conference at ctv.ca.
Note one really interesting thing toward the end of harper's remarks in English: Harper says that Mulroney never spoke to him "on behalf of" Schreiber nor presented documents from Schreiber. he didn't deny in his own statement that former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney had never discussed the Schreiber allegations and the entire affair with the current prime minister.
In a carefully crafted statement that said the same thing in French as in English, those particularly carefully chosen words might turn out to the the pivot on which the whole affair turns.
Expect the federal Conservatives to back off their election provocation pretty quickly.
-srbp-
09 November 2007
A national gallery belongs in the national capital
Canada's toddler government wants to ship the National Portrait Gallery to a permanent home in one of nine cities across Canada.
These cities have a relatively large population, which will provide an important local visitor base; are easily accessible with effective transportation networks; and have the potential to attract both domestic and international visitorship.
Ottawa meets all those requirements and it has one other significant advantage: it's the freakin' capital of Canada, where most human beings around the world and certainly most Canadians would expect to find a national asset like the portrait gallery located.
As it is Canadians have in front of them a fine start to one of the usual rows that occur when the national government is reduced to yet another source of pork to be argued over by parochial/provincialist interests.
Quebec nationalists will make a pitch and will likely get it since two of the sites chosen are in Quebec. It won't hurt that the anal retentive first minister's office needs seats in Quebec and is currently hurting politically in that province.
Newfoundland nationalists, led by Danny Williams and his own afternoon VOCM radio version of Lord Ha Ha, will see the exclusion of Newfoundland from the list of potential cities as yet further evidence of the failures of Confederation.
Don't be surprised if there's a pitch made to have the gallery located in Corner Brook or a sudden provincial government initiative - introduced as having been under consideration for many months - to create a national portrait gallery "of our own" on a "got-it-alone basis. "
That will definitely be located in Corner Brook, unless AbitibiBowater decides to shut the Grand Falls mill.
-srbp-
08 November 2007
Excited about excrement
The penchant for pushing "good news" in this the last polling period for government's official pollster has reached new highs.
or is it lows?
Approval of a new sewerage lift system for the community of Heart's Delight-Islington warranted a news release from the municipal affairs department in among the veritable core dump of "news" from the government's division of poll goosing.
While this is no doubt of great interest to the people of the lovely Trinity Bay community, it hardly seems necessary to make such a large issue of this that it involves not only flatulent comments by the minister responsible for scheisse-shifting set-ups but flowery verbiage from his cabinet colleague and the member for the area.
Said "news" included comments by municipal affairs minister Dave Denine linking "strong, sustainable rural and regional economies" with things like the installation of a new merde-motivation machine. One can imagine the endless promotional possibilities the business department can make of this development.
Local member Charlene Johnson praised her colleague for approving the project and added that the new excreta elevator will ensure "maximize safe and reliable service for the residents of Heart’s Delight-Islington...".
Reliable turd trucking is certainly something we would all wish for the lovely people of Heart's Delight-Islington.
And, in most circumstances, few would argue against ensuring that drek-disposal was maximized.
But safe?
It makes one wonder what lurks in the 'loos in Johnson's neck of the woods and whence comes the toilet-borne terrors.
It seems especially ill-chosen a word considering that the provincial government's communications division's evacuations - like this one - lay about stinking up the joint, in seemingly increasing numbers.
-srbp-
Skinner's words: update
Offal News posted an audio recording of human resources minister Shawn Skinner's profuse apology and backtracking exercise discussed earlier at both Offal News and Bond Papers.
Give it a listen.
You can really hear the magnitude of the reaction not from Skinner on his own, but likely from Skinner's boss or The Boss' staff.
"There are some people who've indicated to me," says Skinner, " that they felt that was the spin that was put it." The "spin" to use Skinner's words would be the suggestion that he wasn't really supportive of Danny Williams' ABC, anti-Harper campaign.
Skinner indicates that he apologized to the Premier, although an apology seems odd if there really wasn't anything that he said in the beginning that he ought to apologise for. On the same day Danny's only outside ally in the War on Harper went down to defeat at the hands of a Harper ally, there just wasn't any way Danny Williams wanted to spend any time suggesting that - despite the obvious comments - he had at least one minister prepared to say publicly that he was interested in getting on with the job and leaving the loafer-pissing to someone else. Skinner's not alone in the caucus or the cabinet. He's just the one with the cajones to say so publicly, even if inadvertently.
After all, Skinner's reason for calling Open Line this morning - supposedly on his own initiative - was to explain that what some people might attribute to him was not what he meant.
Why apologize for something you didn't say?
Supposedly didn't say.
You can follow the click to Offal or just watch the video below.
-srbp-
In his own words: Shawn Skinner on federal-provincial relations
Jonathan Crowe: But I mean, your boss is saying "Anybody But Conservative" in the next election. That's gotta be difficult when you meet Minister Hearn out in the lobby and shake hands.
Hon. Shawn Skinner: Not for me, it isn't. My boss can vote for who he wishes. He can mark his 'X' where he wishes to mark it. From my perspective, I have a job to do. I'm elected by the people of St. John's Centre. I'm in cabinet representing the people of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and I have a job to do. And I'm going to do that to the best of my ability.
If and when there is a federal election, we all as individual citizens can make up our own minds what we want to do. I'm here today as a provincial minister and I'm carrying out my duties as a provincial minister.
These words are causing Skinner such problems that he apparently felt the need - or more likely was ordered - to call Randy Simms just now and explain that he was completely behind his Leader in the anti-Harper campaign.
And Randy bought Skinner's explanation.
Problem solved.
Not at all.
First of all, Simms seems rather quick to accept one side of a story these days even if the other side is equally plausible and neither side has been proven correct by an independent review. Think fundraising, accountants and a shoe that has yet to drop on that set of ledger books.
Second, Skinner's comments are pretty obviously out of step with Danny Williams' plan to fight against the federal Conservatives. One would have to be willfully blind to miss the sentence "my boss can vote for who he wishes," followed right away by the clear statement that meanwhile I, Shawn Skinner, am elected by the people of my district to represent them.
Skinner's been known to make some ill-advised remarks, but it's pretty hard to imagine in this instance that he didn't mean what he said or that he was taken "out of context". bankrupting the province was obviously out of context and Simms and other news media jumped all over that one.
Here, though, we have another matter. It's highly likely - as in, bet the farm on it - that there is some disagreement within the current administration with the ongoing war with Ottawa.
That disagreement on Williams' policy is reflected in Skinner's remarks. It's blatantly obvious.
Cabinet ministers represent the people of the province and need to have a working relationship with whichever administration is in power in the federal government. Most don't have that right now and the only way to fix it is to get Danny to settle the blood feud.
The problem for local Tories is all the worse given that most of them are good friends with their Conservative counterparts and have been working the same campaigns and same backrooms for years. They certainly wouldn't want to campaign against Tom Osborne, for example, or Jack Byrne should those fellows actually take a run for federal politics. Given the internal Tory fractures, it would very hard for Danny Williams to deploy a cohesive political force behind any Liberal or New Democrat candidate. Williams might be able to force Shawn Skinner to tug the forelock and apologise to Williams publicly because Shawn likes the cabinet job he holds.
But would Shawn be prepared to pull a Scott Simms and go knocking doors for the New Democrat in St. John's South?
This schism within the local Tories is apparent enough that the federal Conservatives are working to exploit it. Loyola Hearn and his federal friends are nowhere near as politically stunned as Lorraine, Yvonne and the other Danny. Case on point: the letters on disaster compensation. Don't think they came from the provincial side of the racket. There are other, less obvious signs, but the signs are there that the Connies are trying to wedge open those cracks in the Danny Williams team just a wee bit wider than they are.
And Shawn?
Well, he just said what other local Tories are saying behind closed doors and in small groups, just like some have started to explore leadership options for the time only a few short months from now when we will be in a post-Danny Dannyland.
The next few months are going to be very interesting.
-srbp-
Negotiating tactic
Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro chairman Dean MacDonald tells an Ontario energy association meeting that when it comes to the Lower Churchill development "[w]hen you look at what the impediments are in front of us [to transmit power across Quebec to Ontario], we really have no alternative" than to build a power line through the Maritimes and ship power into the United States.
Meanwhile, Premier Danny Williams tells local reporters that, contrary to the implication of MacDonald's comments, Hydro hasn't abandoned the East-West sale potential.
On the face of it, this speech looks like a negotiating ploy by Dean. Tell the Ontarians we have power but can't get it across Quebec to you. Therefore, pressure Ottawa to intervene. In fact, the Globe story makes that pretty clear:
He urged Ontario energy executives and government officials to pressure Ottawa to intervene in the dispute between Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador, which are "rolling around in the mud" over the issues of access to markets and transmission systems.
Newfoundland has filed a submission with Quebec regulatory officials to require Hydro-Québec to deliver Lower Churchill power to markets through its transmission system, but it's a long process, Mr. MacDonald said. "With the lack of a connection between the provinces east-west ... we'll follow the path of least resistance, which is south," he said.
Then again, Dean's remarks also fit with comments he's made in the past and echoed by the Premier. Cost isn't an issue with the route through the Maritimes, according to both Williams and MacDonald; "if it costs us an extra billion to go north-south, we'll be the masters of our own destiny."
There's no conflict between Williams and MacDonald. They are both consistently singing the same song and it would perfectly in character for both men to use a speech like this to try and elicit some political intervention in the case.
There is a problem with their approach, however.
MacDonald was speaking to a sophisticated audience that can crunch the real numbers on the Maritimes route. These people know the idea of the alternate route costing "an extra billion" lowballs the real number, lowballs the overall cost and therefore doesn't even come close to explaining how the power can get to an American market at a competitive price. it's an historic problem and one that might only be solved - as has been suggested - by selling the power at or even below cost in the initial stages.
These Ontario energy players also know that MacDonald's team has so far only been able to turn up only one exploratory memorandum of understanding with one theoretical, potential customer and even that was for only 200 megawatts.
They likely think the whole posture MacDonald is taking is a big bluff.
How can you tell?
MacDonald said so: "I think a lot of people thought we were bluffing. We're not...".
When you have to state categorically that you aren't bluffing, that's a pretty big clue you are spinning a tale in which even you lack confidence.
Why not just promise to hold your breath until you turn blue?
It would be about as convincing and about as effective.
-srbp-
07 November 2007
Hey, Steve! Message for ya!
Photographers sometimes capture images that they didn't see, but which turn up in the process of sorting shots after a shoot.
Like this one, taken during the recent campaign. Nope, it hasn't been photoshopped.
This is the original image as the premier adjusted his glasses during a speech.
Did he mean to do it?
Well, he meant to adjust his spectacles, but many of us use the middle finger to move our eyeglasses upward on the bridge of our nose.
Beyond that, there's no way of knowing if Danny wanted to send Steve a message.
Doesn't really matter.
It's still funny.
Danny Williams.
Middle finger salute.
And low and behold, a rather glum and sour expression.
-srbp-
Whither the fishery?
In the Wednesday Globe, Derek Butler, executive director of the Association of Seafood Producers of Newfoundland and Labrador, offers some frank insights into the state of the province's fishery and on the way ahead.
The fishery remains of great value. Newfoundland & Labrador‘s industry represents 25 per cent of landed value of seafood in Canada. The country's seafood exports totaled $4.1-billion, of which Newfoundland & Labrador's share was $798.2-million. Heady figures indeed. So where's the problem?
After the collapse of the ground fish and pelagics fisheries, programs were implemented to reduce the number of participants in the industry, to make it more viable for those remaining. Yet we have not done that. For too many years now we have struggled to qualify workers (those in the know will heave a collective sigh) and dissipate the wealth in the industry. Our intentions were good. Keep people working and share the wealth, but to such a degree, that few people could truly make a go of it.
The reason we are having a crisis is because we are expecting the fishery to carry 30-plus crab plants, and a dozen or more shrimp plants, and tens of dozens of ground fish and pelagics plants. We must break the cycle of false hope by adopting a rationalization program and putting in place funding to help those affected. At some point, government and the people in affected communities must be protected from the delusion that 10 weeks' work is enough.
...
Industry – harvesters and processors – both know that we must adapt to face the new realities of a more competitive China, higher fuel prices and the stronger dollar. Instead, we have gone about things as of old, and expected a different result. That's, as the saying goes, the definition of insanity. That challenge includes requiring a fresh look at the price setting mechanisms in the industry, unique in the world (Joey Smallwood's last piece of legislation in 1972). We have a collective bargaining structure for what is essentially a business to business relationship. We negotiate minimum prices around a table, and then go out on wharves around the province to conduct a second set of ‘free-market' negotiations and auctioneering precisely because the prices negotiated formally are minimums, and the overcapacity leads to irrational economics. This renders the collective bargaining process obviously redundant.
Are there bright spots out there? Yes, if one takes hope from the government-led renewal initiative last year (though of merit, it was not all industry had hoped for). The resource remains strong, and the industry is tackling new challenges like eco-labeling with the pending Marine Stewardship Council certification for northern shrimp, showing our coldwater shrimp comes from a sustainable, well-managed fishery.
But the same can't be said for the economic viability of the industry itself, in either harvesting or processing. It may be that the challenges of industry renewal are truly intractable political problems. Fair enough, but if it's confession time, no one is on their knees - except in terms of the economics.
-srbp-
Another resounding victory...
1. In the cause for electoral reform or political reform or some kind of reform: another riding taken by a party already in dictatorship territory, with 38% of the vote.
2. For incompetence: Proof the current executive of the party - and especially the president - need a vacation.
Well, more like a retirement, actually, but a bit more permanent.
3. Blindness: New Democrats. A wake-up call that there is no "labour" vote. Re-think your approach to politics
-srbp-
06 November 2007
Emergency confuddles
Someone released a bunch of letters between the provincial and federal governments about emergency response funding.
From a media standpoint, yesterday belonged to the feds:
The province argues Ottawa has not made good on outstanding claims for flooding in Stephenville in 2005 and a storm surge in February 2006. The province asked in August for an advance on damages caused by Tropical Storm Chantal.
But federal Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day, in letters to the province obtained by CBC News, said that the ball is in the province's court, and that the federal government has not received the appropriate paperwork.
Newly minted municipal affairs minister Dave Denine responded today with a news release.
There's a brave attempt to blame the federal government, but the essence of the release is contained in the lede, namely the provincial government is having problems collecting because it is having problems, "most of which relate to difficulties associated with requirements under federal accounting and audit processes."
There's nothing surprising in that, nor in the subsequent paragraph in which Denine says that information is submitted, further information is requested by the feds and that - quite obviously - slows the process. Anyone who has dealt with the federal government, especially in the wake of Gomery, will know that federal financial controls are pretty stringent. That may come as a bit of a culture shock to people used to dealing with - ooooh, maybe the House of Assembly - but the federal system is the kind of accounting and audit system one would expect from a competent administration looking after other people's, i.e. public, money.
At that point, though, Denine's release goes a bit off the rails:
"Federal representatives have made misleading statements to the media in stating that they have made advancements of $21 million in recent years. In fact, these payments date back to events between 1973 and the present," said Minister Denine. "We are also concerned about statements made by federal officials that advance federal payments can be provided to the province when, in reality, the federal program does not provide for any payments, advance or otherwise, until work has been completed and documentation is submitted which, in some cases, can take years."
That comes right after he acknowledges this:
In relation to events since 2000, the province has received $7.1 million in interim payments from the Federal Government through the DFAA program, including $2.3 million for Storm Surge 2000, $2.6 million for Tropical Storm Gabrielle 2001, $1.0 million for Badger Flood 2003, and $1.2 million for West Coast Flood 2003. [Italics added]
That's basically what the feds claimed in their letters. "interim". "advance". Potato, potato.
After trying to accuse the federal officials of making misleading statements, Denine gets back to the core of the issue: the provincial government has been having some consistent problems in getting the paperwork filled out properly. And yes, to its credit, this administration has put in place a new emergency response organization within government that takes emergency services out of the basement and gives it the prominence it deserves.
And, unfortunately for those who really want to understand emergency response, Denine leaves the most important point to the end: emergency response is a provincial responsibility. The provincial government policies should provide compensation and it is the provincial government which is reimbursed for its costs.
The people should not be inconvenienced, if they are at all.
Has anyone bothered ask if the province hasn't been compensating people until it receives federal cash?
-srbp-
Lest we forget
An e-mail this morning drew my attention to the use of the poppy, which, until this morning, was prominently displayed at the top of the right hand navigation bar at Bond Papers for more than a week.
As it drew closer to November 11, I went looking for an appropriate image to use and found, largely by accident, a very attractive rendering of the poppy. Turns out it was actually the Royal Canadian Legion's official version.
Perfect, so it seemed. I also looked for a link to the Legion's Poppy Fund but couldn't find one; there was plenty of background on the poppy and remembrance but nothing that offered an opportunity to contribute to the fund and thereby support the legion's work on behalf of veterans.
The e-mail linked to a post which ultimately linked back to a controversy from 2005 about the use of the poppy by Pierre Bourque on his site. Copyright and trademark are serious issues so if the Royal Canadian Legion is actively defending its rights, Bond Papers will respect that. The poppy is gone.
But here's the thing.
I scoured the Legion website trying to find links, images that were available for use or even a specific e-mail address for the Legion's Dominion Command communications section.
Nada.
Zip.
Rien.
Compare that to the Royal British Legion site. There are numerous contacts for poppy images, corporate relations and the Poppy Appeal.
In place of the poppy, you'll find at the right an image for the Veteran's Affairs Remembrance Week. Veterans' Affairs Canada not only has a page with good links and useful information, VAC actually makes versions of its banner available in varying sizes for just such uses as the one here at Bond Papers. On top of that VAC supplies html code - that's right they actually make it easy for people to take the images and reproduce them, complete with embedded links back to the VAC website.
The week leading up to Remembrance Day is a time of respect and remembrance. That was the intention of using the poppy and that remains the intention. Out of respect to the Legion, its members and their rights, the poppy is gone. The VAC banner is a fitting alternative.
If the Legion had provided any useful contact information beyond the standard "info@" junkmail address, I might have sought permission. Frankly, since a better address isn't available and since the Legion hasn't gone through the effort of offering any simple code or an appropriate portion of their website to link to, I took it that they really weren't interested in the contact in the first place. That's my assumption and mine alone, but when people don't make it easy for anyone to contact them, that usually signals disinterest.
The Legion might want to rethink their approach.
-srbp-
05 November 2007
Power, politics and change
People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
'Tis that time of the year once more, dear friends, when the political origins of an ancient commemoration once more slips a wee bit more from the popular view. This is a shame since in the events marked by bonfires in many parts of the Commonwealth we may find a timely inspiration.
The Gunpowder Plot was an attempt at violent political change and the book and movie from which the opening quote is taken contained its share of violence. Yet, violence is not as sure a means of effecting political change as knowledge and words.
Discovery of the Plot set back the cause of Roman Catholic emancipation in Britain for some two centuries, yet experts will equally argue that had the plot succeeded in killing the King and the Protestant members of parliament, it may well have led to a period of even greater repression of Roman Catholicism throughout the United Kingdom.
Compare that experience with events in India before 1947 or in the United States when the power of non-violence coupled with information produced far more dramatic and positive social and political changes.
The truth is that governments in the past century of human civilization do fear their people. They fear not so much the potential for violent revolution, although that has occurred. Rather if we look to Pakistan of just the past few days, we see the actions of a government declaring martial law because it feared the prospect of a change in government administration through legal, i.e. peaceful means. The pretext for martial law is a particular decision of the country's Supreme Court, but the struggle between the courts and General Pervez Musharraf go back many months. The rule of law has been frustrating the General's plans and, in some respects, it may only have been a matter of time before Musharraf or another member of the armed forces that has ruled the country for too many years seized power.
Closer to home we may also see evidence of a government that fears its people. The Prime Minister recently ruled out the prospect of an inquiry into allegations against one of his predecessors, not because the allegations have already been reviewed, but because such an inquiry would be "dangerous".
Yet neither the Prime Minister nor his predecessor found the prospect of public inquiries into other matters to be "politically driven", or in the case of Paul Martin sufficiently dangerous to his own political fortunes to serve as an excuse for not appointing an investigation.
The Prime Minister, we would contend might be afraid of the implications such an inquiry might have for his own administration. He is almost certainly afraid of undermining his own politically driven use of past misdeeds.
Closer to home, we find another government and another first minister seemingly afraid of the people. The struggle in this instance is waged with words that are effectively stripped of any real meaning. The legislature is kept closed while the evidence makes plain that the excuses offered by the cabinet are nonsense.
People are warned against demanding increased public spending on one or another cause they consider good because of "the debt." Never mind that the debt has increased and that public spending under the current administration has kept pace with the flow of petro-dollars; the spending of course, is on things which the government considers important. People should scarcely need reminding that this same administration has refused to tell the people what they will actually be charging developers for the right to develop public natural resources and fought for the longest time to prevent an inquiry into spending on fibreoptic cables. These are actions, we are reminded of an open, accountable and transparent government.
Therein lies the clearest example of how governments show their fear of the people who they would rule. Culture and history are malleable and the very meaning of common words may be altered to the point where even reasonable people cannot grasp the inherent contradictions in what they claim.
I like the fact that our current premier seems intent on appealing to the strengths and skills of the people of this place. I like the fact that his government beefed up the rules for MHAs in the wake of the constituency-allowance spending scandal, based on Chief Justice Derek Green’s recommendations.
or from the earlier column:
He preaches that the solution lies not with him, but with us.
How "he" alone accomplishes this we do not know, especially when the political program is designed to increase government control over resources rather than creating an environment in which enterprising individuals may flourish. How "he" should be credited with introducing those rules when, as anyone may well see, "he" allowed the inappropriate spending - the allowances not the alleged criminal activity - to flourish until discovery of the latter revealed the former; let us not forget either that implementing those rules was delayed, as the columnist's own paper reported, while people were led to believe something else. The "solution" - no problem is defined - cannot rest with "us" when the entire premise of the administration is founded on "him" being in charge; "us" should dutifully follow and offer only positive suggestions in support of whatever is decided by "him" and "his" ministers.
Words can have no meaning in a world where they are changed at whim, where information is withheld from the public and where, as it turns out, even editors have let slip the mooring lines of fact.
I remember how the meaning of words began to change. How unfamiliar words like "collateral" and "rendition" became frightening, while things like Norsefire and the Articles of Allegiance became powerful. I remember how "different" became dangerous.
Another writer called it Newspeak, but in other works, George Orwell demonstrated his clear appreciation of how language may be perverted to obscure meaning and thereby frustrate public understanding. In some countries, governments show their fear of people with violence. In others, they show fear by doing violence to language and history.
Both fears are rooted in the understanding that power rests ultimately the individuals within a society. Yet in any democracy worthy of the name, there is no legitimate reason for fear nor for the response it seems to engender from the governors toward the governed.
In Pakistan, the country has taken a step backward from democracy and only time will tell how the Pakistani people will respond.
In Canada, we may continue to work for change and to exercise our power as citizens in a democracy in the country as a whole or within the province. We must reject the debasement of language and history.
True power, after all, does not come from the barrel of a gun. It comes from the exercise of basic freedoms, despite what some governors may ponder.
As individuals in a free society, we should remember that true power comes from the mind.
-srbp-
Why the ABC thing might just turn out to be a farce or a ruse.
The Star, via nottawa.
The Conservative victory in 2006 was a function of a strong New Democratic performance.
Someone could reasonably conclude that an intervention that pushes votes to the New Democrats in this province, or which splits the non-Conservative vote would actually help the federal Conservatives secure the seats they have and maybe pick up a few more.
maybe that's what ABC is all about anyway. A political phoney war? maybe.
But definitely the kind of intervention that might help Stephen Harper rather than hurt the federal Conservatives.
-srbp-
Don't show us your tits: the media coverage
Cheryl Cruz's sorry experience at Universal Studios Florida has turned into a bit of a media storm for the entertainment giant.
Local Orlando news has picked it up, including wftv.com which is running a poll on the question of public breastfeeding.
There's even been some chatter on an Internet discussion group.
One employee makes a mistake.
A media controversy ensures; let's see how big the controversy gets.
-srbp-
04 November 2007
Unfashionably frank, closer to home
Craig Westcott, publisher editor and just about everything at the Business Post is now blogging.
-srbp-
Unfashionably frank
Until his death last week at age 92, Paul Tibbetts never expressed any regret, remorse or indeed any emotional reaction at all to what became the defining event in his life as far as most human beings were concerned.
Paul Tibbets was the pilot of Enola Gay, the B-29 that dropped the first atomic bomb used in warfare.
National Public Radio's website contains some of the most straightforward accounts of Tibbet's life and it includes some links to related stories. There are plenty of other commentaries out there, including a simple one by Bob Schieffer of CBS News.
Tibbetts was unfashionable in his views on the atomic bombs, but the man who died in relative obscurity was consistently frank in his views. They remained the same at his death as they were when he was handed the job of getting ready for the mission in 1944:
"I thought to myself, 'Gee, if we can be successful, we're going to prove to the Japanese the futility in continuing to fight because we can use those weapons on them. They're not going to stand up to this thing. After I saw what I saw I was more convinced that they're gonna quit. That's the only way I could do it,'" he told Morning Edition.
-srbp-
03 November 2007
Woodrow packs it in
John Woodrow has quit as the Liberal candidate in the deferred central Newfoundland election.
He didn't do it for the right reasons; he did so claiming as vocm.com put it that "he did not feel he had the support of the party executive or caucus."
The Advertiser has a more detailed version of the story:
Mr. Woodrow’s decision to withdraw from the race was also made following comments by provincial Liberal Party president Danny Dumaresque in the most recent edition of the weekly provincial newspaper, The Independent.
In the news story in question, Mr. Dumaresque stated, “Basically the people of the province have already cast their opinion and undoubtedly we would love to win it (the seat), but I don’t see it as a must-win at all as far as importance to the party is concerned.”
Dumaresque should be the next to go.
The result of the last election - which Dumaresque uses as an excuse in the central fight - rests in some measure on the head of the president. That to one side, even, Dumaresque should give up as party president since he signed endorsed Woodrow's candidacy without checking on the guy's history.
Instead of packing it in, Dumaresque seems to be quietly soliciting support for a run at the party leader's job. In light of the Woodrow mess, Dumaresque should have a very hard time convincing anyone he's the right guy to lead the party into the 2011 general election, that is, unless he plans to promise four more years on the opposition benches.
-srbp-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)