Through others' eyes #nlpoli

For Newfoundland's pseudo-intellectuals,  the Toronto Globe and Mail is a kind of one-handed reading material.  They use one hand to scroll down the Internet site looking at stuff.  They use the other to stroke the keys of their computer until it spurts indignation all over the screen about something someone in the Globe said or didn't say about Newfoundland.

They are an easy bunch to click-bait, as the Globe editors showed this past weekend. The province's gaggle of celebrities took to the Internet to slag columnist Margaret Wente or Confederation.  Hans Rollman exploded in a ball of perpetual, fabricated victimhood. Ed Riche pretended he was above it all and, always one to spot a hot, if insubstantial, trend,  CBC produced an online piece about the negativity.

On Monday, the corp even got Wente to suffer through an interview about her recent trip to Fogo Island. "Do you understand how wrong you were?"  Grand Inquisitor Debbie asked the penitent mainlander. "Do you repent your sins?"

Yes, said Wente looking like she was going to tear-up any second. "I got Newfoundland wrong,"

Never, in the history of journalism, has so much been made by so many about so little.

Good one there, Wente

Margaret Wente argues that bloggers are mostly male and demonstrates in the process that her argument [as to why that is so] is wrong.

[Sarah and I believe the urge to blog is closely related to the sex-linked compulsion known as male answer syndrome. MAS is the reason why guys shoot up their hands first in math class. MAS also explains why men are so quick to have opinions on subjects they know little or nothing about.]

Clearly, basing your column on an inherently fragile, sexist stereotype demonstrates that blogs aren’t the only place for instant, ill-founded opinions.  Moreover,  the time it takes to produce a column versus a blog post doesn’t -  in and of itself  - improve the quality of the thought behind the column.

Not many women are interested enough in spitting out an opinion on current events every 20 minutes.

Maybe not, Peg, but apparently at least one is interested in taking longer to get to the same place.

But don’t worry, plenty of bloggers wind up generating exactly this kind of writing:  an argument that defeats itself.

At least Peg doesn’t have to write her own sock puppet comments.

-srbp-

[] denotes additions to clarify the point for people who don’t go off and read Wente’s column.

Wente Sorted Updated:  Apparently the considerable number of women who write blogs decided Peg was full of shit, too and decided to tell her in so many far more elegant words [original links from the Globe version are live]:

"When influential women are ignorant to the numerous women's voices on the Internet, when the voices of many women are dismissed as endearing, cute and girly, and when the voices of those women who are most oppressed are ignored altogether, that gender gap is perpetuated. Thank you, Margaret, for proving your own point about how hard it is to change the conversation."

Changing the conversation is very hard to do.

So the Globe has decided to have an online chat between Peg and women bloggers.  Get the popcorn.  This should be funny.

-srbp-

 

 

.

Margaret Wente again

Alright.

Did anybody actually read either one of Margaret Wente's columns? I mean actually read and comprehend, inwardly digest and otherwise get what she was saying. It reminds me of an e-mail I got today from a friend who passed on the comments of a Conservative friend of his. This Conservative guy couldn't understand that I found a positive aspect to Margaret Wente's first Danny Williams column.

Well, b'y, I read it. And compared to Charlie Lynch, Margaret Wente should be given a guest spot on Hatching, matching and despatching or be feted by the local "Newfoundland" Club, if there is one anywhere near The Beaches.

All this comes after seeing the Fair Deal posting today and hearing Dave Salter on Out of the Fog. I am not even sure I'll turn on Nite Line for fear of hearing the same thing.

Let me make it easy: to understand Margaret's lastest musings on Newfoundland and the country, read the Globe and Mail editorial (If the provinces shout, Mr. Martin's all ears) on the other page.

And just so that there is no mistake and everybody gets it, here is the message:

The Globe and Mail does NOT support this offshore deal.

Let me go a step beyond that. The Toronto Star doesn't support the deal either.

What bothers them is the idea that Danny Williams got what he was looking for: oil revenues plus Equalization, even if we are richer than Ontario and wouldn't qualify for Equalization. So here we are with everyone in the country thinking danny won, when he didn't. Everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador is over the moon and more and more people across the country are definitely not that happy.

The problem with that is, as far as I am concerned, everyone is in a knot for the wrong reason.

So with that said, CSI is on and I have some Tim's coffee to enjoy.

Another take on Margaret Wente

While everyone has been getting pretty hot about Margaret Wente's column, I always suspected there were a few people out there like me, who found within her column some substance.

And cough cough, I guess she managed to find my blog for the bits on Crosbie.

Well, here's a link to Damien Penny, a blogger from Corner Brook. http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/003726.html This is the Wente column plus his comments and those of his readers.

I have never met the guy but his blog is an eclectic collection of comment on topics from the Middle East to local politics. Add it to your bookmarks and go back and check it out. I know I'll be doing that.

The Andrew Potter Affair #nlpoli #cdnpoli

For those interested in the controversy caused by an opinion piece in Macleans,  here are some useful links.

1.  "How a snowstorm exposed Quebec’s real problem: social malaise"  Sub-head:  "The issues that led to the shutdown of a Montreal highway that left drivers stranded go beyond mere political dysfunction"  Andrew Potter's original piece,  with some alterations and editorial notes that have been added since it first appeared.

2.  "This is not how a liberal society responds to criticism"  -  Andrew Coyne's typically cogent and eloquent criticism of the response to Potter's column article.  From the Montreal Gazette.

3.  "It was shoddy journalism that cost Andrew Potter his job"   - Chantal Hebert's typically cogent and eloquent examination of the response to Potter's column.  From the Toronto Star.

4.  From Joseph Heath, an academic's perspective on what he calls "l'affaire Potter".

5.  Many people have incorrectly stated that the vitriolic reaction to Potter's opinion piece is unique to Quebec.  Those people either are not aware of or have forgotten about the string of attacks perpetrated in Newfoundland and Labrador between 2003 and 2014 against individuals who were accused of pretty much everything folks have said Andrew Potter did or failed to do.

Here are a few stories and relevant SRBP posts:

2005:  "A vast and scenic welfare ghetto"  - Margaret Wente's original column in the Globe and Mail sparked some loud and widespread condemnation.  To find some of the reaction, you have to search the Internet Archive.  Other reaction will cost you a subscription to the NewfNat's newspaper of record, the Toronto Globe and Mail.

2005:  For others,  you need look no farther than Rex Murphy in the Globe whose entire argument is based on the premise that while others presume to be victims,  Newfoundlanders really are.   Rex becomes the Fifth Yorkshireman.

Various:  Quislings and traitors

2013:  "On bigotry and prejudice"

2016:  Margaret Wente, again,  only this time knowing how to provide the stimulus to get he neo-nationalist knees in Newfoundland jerking wildly. SRBP:  "Through others' eyes".

2016:  "Poor Russell's Almanack"

-srbp-

An appropriately dismissive response...from the mainlanders

As the Bond Papers told you last night and as The Telegram confirms (see below) on this snowy Friday, Danny Williams will be a guest on Larry King Live this evening for a short appearance, with the main guest for the full hour being Paul McCartney and King's sometime guest-host, none other than McCartney's wife, Heather.

Friday's show

Sir Paul McCartney and his wife speak out against something they call shocking, brutal and horrifying. What has them so upset? Tune in at 9 p.m. ET.

That's a pretty objective set-up and maybe set-up is the right word for this whole thing.

The Telegram also notes the scornful attitude editorial writers across the country have taken to the aging Beatle and his crusade. That's an appropriate response, given that Sir Paulie and his associates will quietly slip back to their homes after a few days of media frenzy and get on with the rest of their business.

Too bad the locals haven't learned the same measured approach.

But that's about the limit of what I'd say is an appropriate way of dealing with this whole show that is designed more than anything else to enrich the organizations protesting the seal hunt.

Here's the full Telly report, reprinted here since I can't link you directly to it and it will be gone from the Internet in about five days.

____________________

Live on tape
By Barb Sweet and Jamie Baker, The Telegram
and The Canadian Press


Paul McCartney and his wife Heather pose with a seal pup on the ice floes off Iles-de-la-Madeleine in the Gulf of St. Lawrence Thursday as part of a protest against Canada'’s annual seal hunt. (Photo: Canadian Press)

Premier Danny Williams will get to chat with rock legend and animal rights activist Sir Paul McCartney about the seal hunt after all -— only it won'’t be in a boardroom.

It will be on international television.

Williams and the ex-Beatle have been invited to participate in a discussion with Larry King on his popular CNN talk show, Larry King Live.

The premier'’s office confirmed Thursday evening that the plan is for the two to appear on the show via satellite; the piece is tentatively scheduled to air tonight between 10:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. Newfoundland time.

"“The premier is excited to have the opportunity to put the Newfoundland and Labrador perspective on this story,"” the premier'’s spokeswoman, Elizabeth Matthews, told The Telegram.

"“All the premier has ever asked for is an opportunity to educate people about our perspective -— this is the opportunity."”

Sir Paul, currently in Canada protesting the seal hunt, had originally been slated to appear on the show, according to CNN.com, but the producers called looking for a representative from the Canadian government to participate as well.

After finding out nobody from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans was available, they apparently contacted the premier'’s office Thursday.

"“They know Premier Williams has been very active in terms of comments he has made (on the hunt) this year and last year,"” Matthews said. "“He sent out a fair bit of information to international media last year in terms of the seal hunt, so they knew he was quite passionate about the issue."”

Meanwhile, the subject of the seal hunt -— and Newfoundland in general -— doesn'’t often enjoy good press on the mainland media'’s editorial pages, but McCartney'’s trip to the ice floes has ticked off at least a couple of Canadian scribes.

Who could forget, for example, 2005:— the year of the cheap shots, in which Globe and Mail Columnist Margaret Wente attacked the province for its efforts to get its financial due from the Atlantic Accord, a battle it won to the tune of $2 billion.

"“I like Newfoundlanders. I really do. But their sense of victimhood is unmatched,"” Wente wrote." “And their flag protest isn'’t winning them much sympathy on this side of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. In fact, the sensation on this side is of a deep and painful bite to the hand that feeds. (Premier Danny) Williams reminds me of a deadbeat brother-in-law who'’s hit you up for money a few times too often. He'’s been sleeping on your couch for years, and now he'’s got the nerve to complain that it'’s too lumpy."”

Then there was Toronto Sun Columnist Bill Lankhof, who took a few shots when writing about this province'’s golden boys of curling - — a team that went on to win Olympic gold.

"“It'’s the biggest thing to happen in The Land Cod Forgot since the invention of the pogey cheque - Newfoundland'’s native son Brad Gushue will represent Canada in curling at the 2006 Olympics in Turin," ” he wrote.

But McCartney'’s plan to champion the anti-seal-hunt crowd, and his desire to touch a real live seal pup, has stirred the passions of some mainland media in favour of the province'’s stance on the contentious hunt.

John Gleeson, editor of The Winnipeg Sun, was driven to write about the seal hunt by McCartney'’s excursion.

He'’s got no connection to Newfoundland, nor the Maritimes, other than having spent a year in Halifax. Gleeson is from Vancouver, where he has written about the fishery.

"“It looked pretty silly and childish to me, the whole thing,"” Gleeson said in a telephone interview from his Winnipeg office when asked about the McCartneys'’ trip to the ice floes.

He called the idea of the former Beatle wanting to touch a seal pup farcical.

His column made the point that there are far more serious issues in the Earth'’s oceans to be worried about.

"“There is plenty of butchery going on in the name of harvesting the seas -— the international fishing fleet is strip-mining the ocean floor in a short-sighted grasp for quick profit,"” Gleeson'’s column stated.

The draining of future resources should take precedence over a photo-op with a cute seal pup, Gleeson said Thursday.

He said McCartney is merely demonstrating the "“shallowness"” that'’s typified his career.

By early Thursday Winnipeg time, Gleeson had already received dozens of e-mails, about half in support of the seal hunt.

But some diehard fans took issue with his criticism of the Beatles.

One Torontonian suggested to Gleeson that McCartney should just go underwater in his yellow submarine.

Meanwhile, in a short editorial Thursday, the Globe and Mail editorial page slammed the former mop-top.

"“Spring is coming, and so is the tradition in which animal-rights protesters attempt to slaughter the livelihoods of Newfoundlanders and others who make part of their living from the seal hunt,"” the editorial stated.

It noted that the fact it'’s illegal to kill seal pups has been ignored by animal rights activists.

"“Until Canada and the rest of the world decide to stop butchering and eating other animals, it'’s a bit rich to focus on the seal hunt. … By all means, Sir Paul, enjoy the trip and then go home."”

McCartney and his wife, Heather, travelled by small plane to get a close-up look at newborn harp seals sprawled on an ice pan about 20 kilometres northwest of the Iles de la Madeleine in the Gulf of St. Lawrence Thursday as part of their high-profile protest against the hunt.

They were accompanied by scores of photographers and reporters taken to the ice by three helicopters.

The couple is calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to end the hunt, which they described as a heartbreaking slaughter.

The federal Fisheries Department has insisted Canadians support Ottawa'’s policies, citing a February 2005 Ipsos-Reid survey that concluded 60 per cent of those surveyed were in favour of a "“responsible hunt."”

Thursday'’s protest was organized by the Humane Society of the United States and the British-based group, Respect for Animals.

On Wednesday, the former Beatle spent about 90 minutes at St. John'’s International Airport en route to P.E.I.

bsweet@thetelegram.com
jbaker@thetelegram.com

Power corridor through Quebec?

Wait until Wednesday and you can get The Independent for free from its website.

When you do get it, or if you plunked down the buck already, check the front page story by Jeff Ducharme about the idea of forcing Quebec to let Newfoundland and Labrador build a power corridor through Quebec to let this province get its Labrador hydroelectric power to market.

Talk about living in the past, Jeff.

The idea of building power pylons through Quebec is old hat. As long as the existing grid has the physical capacity to carry the load, the Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro could wheel power across the existing lines. The link is to a United States Department of Energy website on the American electrical power system. It makes for fascinating reading; amazing thing the Internet.

This site makes for curious reading when you hear people - like Premier Williams - talking about building a single Canadian grid that runs from St. John's to Vancouver. Let's not kid ourselves: he talks about a Canadian grid as a way of getting federal money to put his Stunnel or something like it across the Strait of Belle Isle. It isn't about developing a great national project for Canada.

It is pretty clear from the DOE website that the existing North American power grid is divided into clearly defined zones that cross the border into Canada. Quebec is a separate system that includes Labrador. Newfoundland is, of course, an island and hence isn't part of the system. (Seems like an obvious point, but apparently not for some people.) The Maritimes is wired into the Eastern Interconnected Network through Maine in a system that stretches down to Florida. The so-called Anglo-Saxon route would wire us directly to that one, incidentally, albeit at a huge and likely non-viable cost. Non-viable, that is, without massive government subsidy.

The main thrust of Jeff's piece though is putting John Efford offside with local nationalists. The headline "No way" refers to John's refusal to force a power corridor through Quebec. Jeff makes a nice contribution to the "Whack John" sport that has grown up here lately, but it doesn't do much more than that...

except give us the following lessons:

1. The Indy is stuck hopelessly in the past. They might want to find a new researcher. I suspect though that they find it more useful to recycle nationalist mythology and maybe even invent some new mythology rather than deal in the here and now. If it sells papers, then they are succeeding. Why else would there be this power corridor nonsense on page one and inside a column by Ivan Morgan praising Danny Williams? Let me look again, there might be yet another column that mentions Margaret Wente and points out she was wrong. Nope. Not wrong, but there's Ryan Cleary's editorial taking Wente out of context so he can claim she too praises Danny.

Wow. Talk about getting predictable! Why isn't there a piece from Bill Rowe heaping mounds of praise of his employer? Sheesh, I should have just turned the page. Poof! There's Bill, large as life. Well, the paper is locally owned - another point made over and over - as if that affects the quality of the reporting.

2. John Efford is not up-to-speed on all his briefing books. The logical answer to a question about power corridors is not whether you would or you wouldn't force one but, "Why, Jeff, are you asking me an outdated question?" What John has done in this interview is give his political enemies yet more ammunition to use against him. Atta boy John.

With friends like Brian Peckford....

Danny Williams might well be sharing John Crosbie's palid view of Brian Peckford especially after the former premier's speech in Mount Pearl yesterday.

As The Telegram reported on Wednesday, Peckford's advice to Danny Williams was simple: leave the Atlantic Accord alone. The Accord already produces greater benefits for the province than Voisey's Bay or the Upper Churchill and, by implication, will continue to produce greater benefit as new fields are brought on stream or new discoveries made. In The Telegram and in other media interviews, Peckford has pointed to what is obvious to anyone familiar with the Accord: the Accord's Equalization offsets are already better than the situation available to any other province. Peckford pointed out, among other things, that the Accord has already provided the province with $500 million more than it would have received with Equalization alone.

Peckford should know since his government negotiated the Accord in the first place.

Peckford's position is the exact opposite of Danny Williams claim in June that, in the Accord, "Ottawa gave a bad deal to Newfoundland and Labrador."

Peckford's position is the exact opposite of the claim by Williams, Crosbie, Loyola Hearn and others that Ottawa takes money away from the province contrary to the Atlantic Accord.

Peckford's advice is to seek changes to the Equalization program itself. Ironically for Premier Williams, that is exactly what the Premier himself advocated in his election platform in October 2003. Peckford's idea of working for Equalization changes is exactly what Loyola Sullivan endorsed during the last federal election, despite Danny Williams insistence there was no way of judging the benefits of such an approach compared to the proposal for Accord changes originally made by Roger Grimes and the Vic Young Royal Commission.

"It's time now for substance, not style," The Telegram quotes Peckford as saying.

Peckford may be right; he may be wrong. Each of us will have to make that decision for himself or herself.

Certainly, Peckford does show that one can be an ardent supporter of Newfoundland and Labrador's cause, whatever that may actually be, and still disagree with the current provincial government.

Friends don't always tell you what you want to hear.

In that light, it might be wise for us all to go back and look more closely at Margaret Wente's column or the remarks by Professor Michael Bliss compared to Jeffrey Simpson. There may be substance beyond Ms. Wente's crude expression or Professor Bliss' modest proposal.

A new meaning to the term "bitch slap"

Wente on Mallick.

Nicely put on both the CBC and Mallick.

-srbp-

Mimicry and Pantomime #nlpoli

A couple of thousand people turned out in St. John’s on Saturday for a rally organized by a new group calling itself Black Lives Matter NL.  They listened to speeches, raised their fists, and did all the things one would expect at a rally to draw attention to anti-black racism in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There is anti-black racism in Newfoundland and Labrador, as much as people want to turn a blind eye to it.  Many of the people on the receiving end of the racist behaviour came here when the economy was booming.  The racism  - petty, vicious, ugly - was there if you wanted to see it.  And now that the economy is not booming, racists are expressing themselves more aggressively.

There was nothing particularly remarkable about the weekend protest except that it took the murder of yet another black man by police in the United States followed by two weeks of growing protests across the United States to spark anyone locally to notice what is and has been a problem here for some time.

There have been some brief flurries of public comment about racism here recently, but what makes this weekend’s demo rather unusual is that it took such overwhelming events in a completely different culture and country over two full weeks to spark a bit of stirring locally.

Not an issue, say some most likely since it was all for the good.  Well yes, it is good to see issues of race and racism raised in Newfoundland and Labrador.  And were this the only example of a local action spurred by international events, then we might well just ignore.

Except that it isn’t one, odd example.

Bennett’s telephone call “gendered violence” according to PACSW prez #nlpoli

Most of you likely missed it, but a sharp exchange in Twitter on Monday showed the way politics in this province rolls these days.

Dara Squires writes a blog called ReadilyAParent, She’s also syndicated in the Western Star and some of the TransCon weeklies.  Dara’s post on Sunday took up some recent local political events.  “False Feminists in Politics” is about feminism and women in politics. 

Here’s a taste of the broader argument:

And yet, in general, we swallow it hook, line and sinker when a woman rises to a position of power and declares herself a feminist. It's taken as both proof of the validity of the feminist promise and a victory of sorts when they do. But herein lies one of the largest dangers of false feminism, especially with regards to politics. For if some white, upper middle class women make their way into politics, or the heads of boardrooms, or CEOs of major companies, than we find ourselves facing the argument that the fight for equality is over. Wente is one of the white, upper-middle class elites who would have us believe this

Squires drew the whole thing down closer to home with a pretty sharp critique of Kathy Dunderdale. She made some particularly strong comments about the way government House leader Jerome Kennedy tied Jim Bennett’s telephone call and threat with violence against women:

Yeah, you read that right. Not only does he minimise the true extent of such violence by using it in comparison to a single, slightly threatening phonecall [call], he also shows an utter lack of awareness behind the real reasons for delayed reporting or not reporting sexual and domestic violence.
…
I can't believe that Dunderdale, who has been a member of women's status groups and worked as a social worker, would've not seen the significance of Kennedy's statements. The moment I read the transcript it was like a punch in the gut. But Dunderdale, leader of the party, Premier of the province, and supposed women's rights supporter, did nothing to halt Kennedy's ongoing attack against victims of violence.

Squires got some attention on Monday from some of the most powerful people in the province.  It’s hard to tell exactly how the Twitter discussion started and who got whom involved but before too long it involved not only Lana Payne – head of the federation of labour – but Glenda Power, the Premier’s communications director. 

You should go read the exchange;  just scroll back a couple of days or so and you can find the three contributions to the discussion.  It’s civilised, although tightly constrained by the 140 character limit. And you can expect that the Power didn’t accept for a moment that her boss might be anything but right.

What’s most interesting is that after Squires invited more substantive comment on her blog, she got it but not from Payne or Power but from Linda Ross.  The head of the Provincial Advisory Council on the Status of Women left not one but two comments with a title “Criticism without Merit.”  They are right at the bottom of the post linked above.

Now some of you will recognize that this is not the first time that Ross – a cabinet appointee – has entered a provincial political fray on behalf of her patron Kathy Dunderdale.  Last April she launched a pretty savage attack on then-opposition leader Yvonne Jones over what was entirely a fabrication on Ross’ part.

This time Ross has some much more interesting things to say.

For starters, there is nothing half-hearted in Ross’ support for the Premier:

“The record of Premier Dunderdale and her government in Newfoundland and Labrador on advancing the status of women and preventing violence against women and other vulnerable populations has been outstanding.”

Ross then lists a series of what Ross suggests are Dunderdale’s personal accomplishments.  In the classic fashion, they involve how much money government spends. Ross attributes things to Dunderdale that she didn’t do.  Well, certainly not as Premier, anyways, if she did them personally at all:

In addition to the above noted investments, under Premier's Dunderdale's leadership, we now have a 10% participation of women in trades in this Province, up from 3%. Such achievements are critical in advancing women's economic and social equality. Likewise, since 2003 approximately 50 percent of all new recruits to the RNC are now women and more women are appointed to Provincial boards, agencies and commissions.

The construction Ross employs isn’t accidental.  What Ross is employing is the traditional patron-centred politics that has come to epitomize the Williams and now Dunderdale Conservatives in power.  The patron gets personal credit from his or her clients for government policies and programs, as if they would not have occurred without the patron.

The overall discussion about Squires - even on Twitter - and the emphasis in the exchange on common successes runs directly contrary to Squires’ argument without actually refuting it.  But it does express the norm of provincial politics these days:  partisan differences are, in truth, superficial ones.  For the elites themselves, the connections among them are more important than ideological or partisan differences or ones based on different values. 

What the elites have in common is also more important – to them – than anything else.  You can see this is the similarity among the elections platforms last October.  But you can also see this in the way Ross unequivocally endorses the partisan attack on Jim Bennett:

“in reality this event was indeed a very real act of gendered violence.”
…
All acts of violence and abuse can be equally as damaging regardless of the type of violence and abuse and can have very serious long-term impacts on a woman’s life. Violence is violence, regardless of what form it takes. Minimizing a woman’s experience of violence because it does not fit into the old-school traditional definition of violence could, by many, be identified as a form of violence in and of itself. We as women and as feminists must never minimize or judge another woman’s lived reality. 

Violence and abuse are best understood as a pattern of behaviour intended to establish power and maintain control over colleagues, intimate partners, or groups. The roots of all forms of violence and abuse are founded in the many types of inequality which continue to exist and grow in our society.

Yes, friends, in Ross' world, Jim Bennett’s lone asinine phone call exists as part of a continuum of violence that is directed by men against women solely on the basis of the chromosomal structure of the two people involved. Bennett is scarcely better than a serial killer or rapists. serial killers and rapists. 

Of course, Ross’ argument is as patently absurd as it seems, on the face of it.  Ross has made equally absurd arguments before when both parties were female.  What is important to notice here is that Ross seldom makes public statements on anything.  When she does make them – as in Jones or Bennett - she is as prepared as any Tory backbencher to make a ridiculous argument in support of her patron.

Kennedy’s remarks are – according to Ross -  “totally within the Provincial Policy on this matter.”
But just so that you appreciate the extent to which Ross’ arguments  are not motivated by a general concern about violence in our society consistent with “Provincial Policy”  take note of her comments that criticise any of her patron’s associates that were as bad or worse than Bennett’s or Jones’ at any time since 2003.

Don’t waste your time.  You won’t find any.

Take a minute and let all that soak in.  There’s some pretty heavy ideas in there.

As for what this incident says about issues like equality and political power in the province, we’ll have to save that discussion for another day.

- srbp -

Identity Crisis #nlpoli

Newfoundland is changing, Michael Crummey writes in the Newfoundland nationalists’ newspaper, the Globe and Mail.  House prices are climbing in St. John’s.  There are plenty of expensive restaurants around and people to eat the food and drink the wine sold there.

“But,”  says Crummey,  “while oil execs tuck into their gourmet fish, much of rural Newfoundland is falling deeper into a crisis that began with the cod moratorium in 1992.”

The whole province – Newfoundland and Labrador – is changing.  There is a difference between the changes around the provincial capital and the rest of the province.  Crummey says that a “generation from now,  what it means to be a Newfoundlander will be something altogether different” from what he calls the traditional Newfoundland of “isolated, tightly knit communities that relied on the fishery and each other for survival.”

All true stuff.  The place and its people are changing.  The problem with Crummey’s commentary is that he gets his timescales wrong and misidentifies the root of the change and its implications.

Strong. Proud. Determined. (II)

 

Some video of  The Great Cultural Tradition.

Part 1:

Part 2:

Compare those glorious holiday memories this same person or group had of other places on the planet.

Yep, nothing says newfie like licking a puffin's arse.

Everything Margaret Wente knows about Newfoundlanders she likely learned from Newfoundlanders.

-srbp-

All trout live in trees

Blogging in the province seems to have evolved to the point where we can have raging disputes on our respective blogs.

Liam O'Brien, chief schpeeler at Responsible Government League has taken exception to my comments on Iceland and an independent Newfoundland and Labrador. Liam takes issue with what he assumes are my points on the matter, suggesting that I am defending the status quo and supporting what I guess he would characterize as the evil Canadians. Here's the link to the post itself.

While his post is lengthy and well written, it suffers from a fundamental flaw: it misses the point entirely.

As noted in previous posts on this subject, the syllogism Iceland = Independent = Successful Fishery//Newfoundland=Not Independent=Fisheries Disaster doesn't stand up to closer scrutiny.

The idea of an independent Newfoundland managing the fishery as Iceland rests on a series of unfounded assumptions. Specifically these are:

- that Newfoundland is the same as Iceland in political, economic and social terms;
- that when dealing with fisheries management issues, local elites in an independent Newfoundland would have done something radically different than what occurred within Confederation; and,
- the current situation is entirely the result of Confederation and particularly the "fact" that Ottawa controls the backbone of "our " economy.

Let us dispose of these as quickly as possible and thereby set the stage for dealing with the substantive issue, namely what policy ought to be in place for the fishery offshore Newfoundland and Labrador.

Newfoundland and Iceland are the same. On the face of it, this is a difficult proposition to sustain. Iceland is a relatively homogeneous society in which language and religion, for example, are the same. There is no history of internal factional fighting on any denominational or other lines. The country is also outward-looking and was particularly so from the 1940s onward.

While Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are predominantly local-born (the ratios now are the same as in 1911) and speak English primarily, the place has a long history of fractious internal disputes along ethnic and religious lines. These were managed primarily by a division of political administration and public services among adherents of particular denominations. In hiring decisions, for example, Newfoundland's prevailing social structure at the time of Confederation did not place emphasis on qualifications; it emphasized one's religious beliefs. Ability was less important than what church one attended.

An Independent Newfoundland government would have acted differently from the post-Confederation governments. While this is a subject that has undoubtedly entertained many a discussion among undergraduate historians at the Breezeway or Ben's, it is difficult to predict with any degree of accuracy what might have occurred in an independent Newfoundland.

However, we can look at what existed in 1949 and at some specific examples to see if there is any evidence at all that Confederation constrained Newfoundlanders in any meaningful way in matters of fisheries policy.

Newfoundland in 1949 was and remains to a large extent a society which is focused inward. As much as there is a tradition of international sea-trading, most Newfoundlanders up to the time of Confederation had little experience of the world outside their own community. There remains a powerful insular, if not tribal, sentiment and one which is distinctly collectivist. Ask Margaret Wente about that.

One of the major factors affecting Iceland's economic success has been its emphasis on education. In Newfoundland, our education system remained wasteful and in many respects deficient up until the 1990s. Confederation did not produce any significant in this area; in fact, Term 17 (Denominational Education) was specifically included in the Terms of Union as a way of mollifying clerical sentiment in the erstwhile province. The established interests were primarily concerned with maintaining the status quo.

The same can be said of the economy. Both the anti-Confederate forces and to a certain extent individuals such as Ches Crosbie on the Confederation delegation were concerned with perpetuating the economic status quo in Newfoundland. They sought a continuation of the quasi-feudal fisheries economy as well as the continuation of the prohibitive tariffs on imported goods to the extent they could be sustained. I have already noted elsewhere the extent to which pre-Confederation economic policies in Newfoundland favoured the business class in St. John's at the expense of the majority of the population.

As for the fishery, as Raymond Blake has noted in his worthwhile but largely ignored book Canadians at last: Canada integrates Newfoundland as a province,(Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1994) the fishery was ignored by the 1948 Newfoundland delegation to Canada. The only sections of the Terms dealing with fisheries issues continue the saltfish marketing board established by the Commission Government to flog a product that by the late 1940s was facing declining demand. [pp. 146-176]

Thus, at the time of Confederation, the economic and social elites were generally aimed at preserving the existing order in every respect. On the face of it, this is the antithesis of the situation proposed by the Newfoundland nationalists when using Iceland as "proof" of their argument against Confederation.

Again, as Blake notes (p. 147), "[i]f the governments [in Ottawa and St. John's] had pursued the policies recommended by [several inquiries and commissions into the fishery immediately after Confederation], they would have created a small corps of fishermen concentrated in a small number of communities engaged in both the salt and fresh-frozen fisheries from modern boats and trawlers with greatly increased capacity". However, by 1954 it was clear in Ottawa that there was no other work for the fishermen and their families who would have been displaced by such approaches.

For political reasons rooted in this province and in the Maritimes, Ottawa settled on some modest efforts at centralization of fishing efforts with improvements in living standards coming largely from income support programs. For those who argue that Ottawa ignored the Newfoundland fishery, be aware that the first post-Confederation fisheries development program was introduced by the Government of Canada on 05 May 1949, little more than a month after Union.

For his part, Smallwood initially hoped that his industrialization policies would give work to displaced fishermen. When his projects failed, as Blake puts it, "he turned his fury on the federal government, blaming it for the destruction of the fishery". How odd that O'Brien and others repeat the words of Joe Smallwood, their ancient nemesis. More importantly, though, the provincial government did not propose any significant alternatives to Ottawa's approach and, to add my own assessment to Blake, throughout the 1960s and into more recent decades, Newfoundland's own policies have largely been aimed at perpetuating the system of income supports from Ottawa first developed in the years immediately after Confederation.

Part of the nationalist "Iceland" argument contends that economic circumstances would have transformed, as if by magic, the insular, conservative - almost reactionary - social and political order in an independent Newfoundland into a bastion of self-confident entrepreneurship. In other words, those pesky federal social programs sapped local drive.

Sadly, there is little evidence to suggest a nationalist government in power behaved any differently than its predecessors. By the 1980s, the fishery was in crisis yet again and the Newfoundland government was nearly broke. It was also captained by an ardent Newfoundland nationalist, Brian Peckford whose chief lieutenant was to coin the phrase "the rack of Confederation" when describing the oil and gas ownership dispute. Despite the evidence from Iceland that was readily available at the time and a growing world move toward free trade and free markets, the political solution to the fishery offered by Newfoundland was strikingly familiar.

First, some fish processors were rescued from bankruptcy and reformed into Fishery Products International. The new company would be controlled by provincial legislation and, as it turned out, headed by a bureaucrat imbued with anything but an entrepreneurial trading objective. Fish prices were still set by collusion and the fish processing company focused its attention on supporting provincial social policy until the collapse of the cod stocks forced it to do otherwise.

Second, the government generally favoured a system which stuffed as many people into the fishery as the industry could manage. The situation described by the Atlantic Institute for Market Studies is the result of exactly a policy aimed at using the fishery to take any and all comers irrespective of the impact such approaches had on the economics of the fishery. As Peckford himself said, he would rather see 20, 000 fishermen making a pittance than see half that number earn a living wage from the fishery. The most nationalist of Newfoundland governments, like most before and after, viewed the fishery as a social program, not as a business.

What more need be said to appreciate that there is little substantive evidence to support the nationalist use of Iceland as a model for an independent Newfoundland with a thriving fishery.

Ottawa controls "our resource". In 1949, Newfoundland had control over fish within its three mile limit. At Confederation, Canada's jurisdiction applied as so Newfoundland obtained a 12 mile buffer in which it could fish exclusively. Until the 1970s, when international law recognized a 200 mile exclusive economic zone, everything beyond first three and then 12 miles was the high seas. The fish were there for whomever could catch them. They were never "our" fish from the outset. Legally and in every other meaningful sense, the fish resources of the Grand Banks and elsewhere offshore Newfoundland and Labrador remain a world resource as they were in 1949. Our economic success or failure derives from our own attitudes, not our ownership of anything.

Under the Constitution, Ottawa controls access to the offshore fisheries resources. However, the Newfoundland government controls the processing sector entirely. In any discussion of fish policy these two things need to be taken together or, to extrapolate as Blake's argument, it is important to recognize that federal fisheries policy is rooted in local political forces in Newfoundland as much as anything else.

Newfoundland-based fish harvesting interests have never had problem gaining access to fish; indeed, until nature forced John Crosbie to close the ground fish fishery, Ottawa bent relentlessly to pressure from the province (initially, government, industry and the wider public and then later from the latter two) to maintain cod quotas at the highest possible levels. Domestic fish harvesters highgraded and engaged in other illegal practices all of which contributed to the decimation of the codstocks. Only in the late 1980s did the provincial government begin to call for reduced cod quotas but they were ignored by the contrary advice of Newfoundland's federal cabinet minister whose riding depended heavily on the fishery.

Conclusion: The title of this post comes from a Monty Python sketch in which a logician is lamenting wife's inability to understand simple formulations. Given the major premise that all fish live in water and the minor premise that all trout are fish, the logician's wife will conclude either that trout live in trees or that "I do not love her any more." (Hint: the sketch is really about the logician's lack of sense.)

In the same fashion, Newfoundland nationalists point to Iceland for nothing other than their completely illogical conclusion that responsibility for every problem with the province's fisheries can be laid squarely in the lap of the Government of Canada.

Yet, pre-Confederation history - particularly, the broader social and political forces at work - as well as post-Confederation evidence suggests that Newfoundland's fisheries problems are more deeply rooted. Hence, they are more difficult to address.

At no point in its history, has the government at St. John's been incapable of taking an approach to fisheries management within its jurisdiction and advocating changes outside its power that mirrored the Icelandic model. There were no legal impediments; none.

The reason why the government has consistently failed to advocate Icelandic solutions must come from some other explanations, of the types I have suggested here.

Fundamentally, fisheries policy is not a problem to be solved by determining which bureaucrats - those in Ottawa or those in St. John's - have the most control. Rather, the long-term solution to the problem of making the local fishery economically and environmentally sustainable lies in giving genuine power to those who actually engage in the industry.

That will be the subject of the next major post: "Better fewer, but better".

Lampoon hits new low

Odds are high you'll enjoy this editorial cartoon from the National Lampoon.

Funny how the editors of the unofficial organ of the Conservative Party of Canada didn't hide it behind their subscriber wall so that only the people who shell out cash for this rag could see it.

Maybe it's a marketing ploy, a la Peg Wente.

Maybe it just reflects their ignorance of the country.

Maybe it reflects both.

Conservative supporters in Newfoundland play name that tune

Interesting to see a couple of Newfoundland Connies who keep blogs - namely Damian Penny and Barry Stagg - agree that voting for the federal budget and the offshore money is a case of being bought off. Or being welfare bums.

At least, they seldom use the word "explosive" or "whore" as most Connies seem to do. Maybe one day there will be a dog-whistle breakdown and these guys will run around calling everyone an explosive whore. I shudder to think what that would involve.

Back to the point, this is a complete turn-around for two individuals who last year were hammering away at the federal government to fork over cash to the province.

Here's a link to Penny's blog and here's a link to some comments by the transplanted Tory, Stagg. Read'em for yourself.

Barry Stagg is particularly adept at tossing around the anger words that seem to motivate Conservatives.

Stagg even seems to find Margaret Wente's views to be appealing:

"The Fair Deal For Newfoundland web site reveals a sorry tendency to traffic in welfarism by backing the Liberal nastiness."

That's from his own blog, "The Boswarlos Daily".

Nutty Norm and Michael Harris

Norm Doyle has snapped completely under the strain of people wanting him to put province first, while Norm himself is putting his party before all.

In an interview with VOCM, Norm insisted that had the government supported a motion to split the offshore money from the budget bill, the province would have had its money right away.

Norm is now confirmed as being willing to say anything at all in a desperate bid to prop up his position.

Even if the bill got through the House before Norm and his fellow Conservatives defeated the government, the province can't get a nickel until the bill passes the Senate and gets Royal Assent.

Ok. I just thought about it again.

Maybe Norm isn't nuts after all.

Maybe what Norm is saying is that if we can get the bill out of Harper's clutches and into the Liberal-dominated Senate it will pass irrespective of who wins the next federal election.

Maybe what Norm and the Premier are telling us is that if Norm Doyle's party brings down the government our offshore money is history. But if we could possibly get it past Harper then maybe it would be safe - but only because Liberals are steadfastly behind the deal.

Norm Doyle: pinocchiosis-induced insanity or disloyal to his leader? Geez. This is getting harder to read with every passing moment. What will Norm say next?

Stay tuned.

Meanwhile, Michael Harris has decided to kick the crap out of Danny Williams.

Here's a link to his column in the Sun chain.

It contains such comments as:

"First of all Danny, you are the premier of Newfoundland, not Napoleon. There are limits to a local potentate's powers, even one as rich as you are personally. Last time I looked, the province's MPs took their marching orders from Martin and Harper, not you."

or this one:

"He [Williams] even had the cheek to describe his ugly fiat to all provincial MPs as non-partisan. What could be more partisan than supporting a government and party that have made your corner of the world more prosperous while corrupting the highest public institutions in the land?" [Emphasis added.]

Mike, I got a question for you. Did you ever write screeds for John Crosbie? I do know you wrote a fawning book about the former federal governor of the former poorest province.

Maybe Mike has been inhaling Charlie Lynch columns by the snoutful.

But man, Mike's anti-Danny invective in this column will make people appreciate Margaret Wente for her frankness.

Caution: Plain Spoken Newfoundlander at work

The Sun chain, among others, is reporting today that Chief of Defence Staff General Rick Hillier has scrapped the defence policy set to be announced by the Martin administration. Officials are said to be busily re-writing the document described as "boring" in its original form.

Bill Graham, the Minister of National Defence is reported to have pushed both for Hillier's appointment and for the complete re-write.

Surprise, surprise!

General Hillier is widely known and respected for his leadership ability, sharp mind and commitment to laying the facts on the table, good, bad or indifferent. National Defence Headquarters, sometimes known as Disneyland on the Rideau among Ottawa insiders, is likely adapting quickly to Hillier's new style.

Hillier first gained wider public prominence during the Ice Storm in 1998 when his 2 Canadian Mechanized Brigade Group oversaw the military support to civil authorities in Eastern Ontario. Some may recall that 129 soldiers from the local garrison in St. John's spent a couple of weeks just outside Ottawa working for General Hillier. They were in the air before many local reserve units mobilized and they did such a fine job that the company-sized organization wound up taking some 70 military engineers from Ontario under command. The Newfoundland reserve soldiers came from 1 Royal Newfoundland Regiment, 36 Service Battalion and 56 Field Engineer Squadron, with vehicle transportation being supplied by soldiers from 31 Service Battalion in Saint John New Brunswick.

True to form, Hillier came out personally to thank the soldiers as they waited at Ottawa airport for airlift home. He insisted on having his picture taken with them as a souvenir. That's the same approach he has taken in all his jobs.

Basically, it hasn't taken very long for the guy one Ottawa-based defence analyst called a "plain spoken Newfoundlander" to make his presence felt. That line apparently got knickers in a knot at one television program here in St. John's, where the crowd that put the show together took offense at the remark. Seems they were desperately looking for yet another slight to rant against in the wake of Margaret Wente.

Chaulk one up for Rick.

Chaulk one up for Bill Graham.

Now we just have to watch for the plan when it finally emerges.

The Current and the EU

If you have never seen it, I strongly suggest you check out The Current, a monthly tabloid format newspaper printed in St. John's.

It's kinda edgy, sometimes funny and perhaps is the only newspaper in the province gutsy enough (by local standards) to print Josey Vogels' column, My messy bedroom.

This month's issue has a couple of interesting features. There's a bit on Icelandic independence. Odd no one ever asks if Icelandic fisheries is a business or a social program to keep people in "traditional" ways of life. There's also a bit on Margaret Wente, but to be honest, she is getting way more ink than she deserves. To make matters worse, The Current piece is lame and way beneath their usual satirical standards.

What I thought was hysterically funny was yet another mock government call for proposals. This time it is for a process whereby this place can leave Canada and join the European Union. The last fake call at least made some sense. This one is about as realistic as Newfoundland and Labrador applying to hook up with Djibouti. It's also kind of disappointing given that one of The Current's writers is Greg Locke, staunch nationalist. Does this means he now advocates trading in Confederation for cuddling up with Malta and Latvia?

When you're finished with The Current, you might just want to visit the European Union website. We'd have some difficulty qualifying as "European" in any meaningful sense of the term so the whole scheme would be moot anyways. But more to the point, since everyone - especially the nationalists - likes to rant about foreign overfishing and blames Canada for what the Spanish are doing (Go figure that one), proponents of the EU option might just want to have a look at the EU fisheries page. Maybe it won't be foreign overfishing if the overfishing is done by our EU partners. We can then say we ended foreign over-fishing by making them not foreign.

That would sound like Gwynne Dyer's claim a few years ago that war as we know it was gone after the collapse of the old Soviet Union, even though there were still civil conflicts going on within states like Yugoslavia. Talk about semantics. Interstate warfare was over, therefore everything was peachy. Unless you were a Tutsi or a Chechin. But be happy knowing you were not slaughtered in a war. Nope, it was a civil disorder.

But back to the point, just to get a genuine taste of the EU fisheries policy, here's the main quote on the introduction page:

"The EU fishing industry is a major source of employment and food. It is therefore important to prevent over-fishing by some to the detriment of all. The European Union has a common fisheries policy (CFP) in order to manage the industry for the benefit of both fishing communities and consumers."

Hold on to your turbot-on-a- stick.

While you are surfing through the EU sites, just take a look at the other member states, not the new ones, but the ones with real clout. Like Spain.

And Portugal.

And France.

Now imagine President Danny Williams in Brussels trying to convince them to stop devastating a fishery that is - oooh easily half a freaking world away from them and a place they used to plunder when it was their colony.

You think we have troubles being heard in "colonial" Ottawa. Bring on the Mannequin Pisse!

Now, let me just check and see if the United Federation of Planets has an opening for new members.

Don't step in the spin

Alright, let's get this much said right up front so there is no mistake:

There is a deal. It is a good deal. There is more than enough deserved credit to go around.

It's a good deal because it secures extra cash for the provincial treasury. It is a good deal because Danny Williams, unlike some recent politicians hereabouts - Peckford and Tobin to name two - knew when to take the money and run. He could have easily decided to overplay the political hand and, like Tobin and Peckford, cost the province dearly in delayed development.

For Tobin, it was his "teaspoon" crap that was designed solely to keep his personal polling numbers up. Voisey's Bay sat in the ground costing us millions in needed cash although a good deal was attainable before Grimes signed his agreement. For Peckford it was the "ownership" argument that he continued with long after he was advised, soundly advised, that it was a loser of a position. The oil sat in the ground and we lost money in the process, even though a new deal could have been struck to improve whatever could have been signed before 1984 once Mulroney or some other Prime Minister came to office.

Williams could have fallen into the same trap but he didn't. Good for him. He has elected to spend some political capital to sell this deal, even though you can bet your bottom dollar that the Open Line pundits and other negative Nellies will be lining up to point out the obvious - Danny did say yes to less than he sought after June 10. Spending political capital is the make of a serious politican.

Bear in mind, we heard the same sort of people wanting to leave Hibernia oil in the ground in 1990, as The Telegram did, simply because a "perfect" deal wasn't on the table. Politics is the art of the possible, and, as Don Jamieson's memoirs said, it is no place for fools. Fools, in this instance, are the people who struggle for the obviously unattainable and then whine and gripe when they don't get perfection. Danny Williams is no fool, thank God.

That said, there has been a supertanker load of spin spewing from the provincial government and its supporters over the past year about this whole issue. Spin, to put it bluntly, is nothing less than refined bullshit. Be careful you don't step in it.

The Sunday Telegram is brimming with spin today, both in its editorial and in the two front page stories. Undoubtedly there will be yet more this evening and tomorrow as the call-in shows crank back up. People will ignore the federal government's role - specifically Paul Martin's delivery on a commitment to help the province. They'll forget he has waited around for a year for the province to take him up on his offer to help with a project like the Lower Churchill. They'll also have to listen to the people lining up to take credit - unwarranted credit - for this agreement. I already have at least one e-mail of that latter sort.

Let's just take a sample of the spin from George Baker and Danny Williams and shovel it out the door right now.

George Baker, lately of what an old prof of mine used to call the Antechamber to the Kingdom of Heaven - claims Danny Williams is a non-politician. Spin! Williams is a typical local politician. He milked the sense of frustration in the province for all it was worth. He put on a great show for the past three months to earn accolades about being the "only fighting Newfoundlander". He created an artifical crisis - over the Accord and the province's fiscal position - so he could claim credit for fixing it. Alright, so let him enjoy the role of conquering hero led through the gates of the city.

Thereafter follows the second big pat of spin that ultimately makes this exercise a sham. Premier Williams is quoted in The Telegram today talking about restoring confidence in the people of the province, of turning a corner to "have" status. Spin!

What is producing the economic benefit is the very Atlantic Accord Premier Williams so energetically and needlessly trashed these past few months. We will attain "have" province status as a result of oil revenues already flowing as a direct result of the Atlantic Accord. What Danny brought back from Ottawa was some gravy and good on him for doing it.

What will restore confidence, though, is the understanding that this province is NOT poor, that our provincial finances are not in utter disarray. Confidence comes from realising that all the cuts and belt tightening in the early 1990s proved that we, collectively, can sort out our own financial mess and then reap the reward, just as the people of Saskatchewan have done. Confidence comes from realising that even though an old-fashioned spin shoveller can still take power, he didn't last very long once we caught on.

Confidence will be bolstered by looking around and seeing local entrepreneurs taking advantage of the oil industry, building new businesses and competing successfully around the globe for work. Confidence is easy to find in the other entrepreneurs in other industries who are responsible for growth in the economy and job creation apart from the oil business. Confidence comes from realising that while cod are gone - and they are gone, by the way - other fishing is producing new wealth in the province. Local companies are catching and processing local sea products and selling them around the world. FPI is the biggest but there are others.

No one man or woman can restore confidence in this province. As good a guy as Danny is, he is no saviour. We don't need one. Our economic salvation rests in the hands of each person in the province. Would that local news media focused on that for a change; maybe then Margaret Wente and Michale Bliss would have something better to write about. Maybe then, people in other provinces would see what is actually going on down here without having to send guys like Roy MacGregor on high-altitude survey missions in hopes of finding the Lost City of Atlantis.

Danny shouldn't be clamouring for saviour status and he should refuse the label if someone tries to stick a crown on his head. Just as surely as the Atlantic Accord was turned into someone's political give-away myth 20 years after the fact, Danny Williams should recognize that the same people weaving his raiment today for this great deal, have nails and hammer and tree out in the back yard for the next, inevitable phase of the "saviour" story.

It's a good deal Danny and congratulations. Just watch out for the spin.