Inadvertent humour from politicians?
Oh heavens, say it isn't so.
Danny Williams in a CBC news story on yesterday's crab protest:
"We're not going to allow the union to force us or blackmail us into acting in another manner," Williams says.
and then the Great Quote -
"I don't respond to threats very well at all. I never have and never will."
This is the same guy who threatened to hound Prime Minister Martin if he didn't deliver.
And then, of course, there was the flag thing.
Apparently, the flags weren't going to go back up until Ottawa delivered on the deal.
Then they went back up before that.
The Premier is right. Threats shouldn't be part of politics. He can set the standard. Otherwise, he should expect threats and then more threats, 'cause what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
12 April 2005
Political risk management
How odd that when you flip from the Rocket Man to federal politics, you find another game of risk management.
The big difference is that I will bet the farm the Titan launch will go flawlessly and nothing will ever even see the Hibernia platform.
In Ottawa, things aren't quite as clear.
As I tell my public relation students, one of the things that makes news is newness or novelty.
Sarcastic bastard that I can be, I am tempted to say that the CTV Ipsos Reid poll benchmarking reaction to Gomery should have received NIL coverage based on that definition of news.
It is hardly news to tell us that federal Liberal support has taken a tumbled after the relentless media hype surrounding Brault's testimony. There has been little substantive reporting of his comments or their potential veracity. Nope. The reporting has been like our own little Michael-Jackson-feeding-liquor-to-little-boys kinda story.
The funky thing about the reporting, like say the National Lampoon's online edition today, is that it tells us a falsehood through the layout. It's an old scandal-sheet trick. Just not the sort of thing you'd expect from a national paper, even Canada's National Joke. There is the big picture of the current prime minister, whose name is Paul Martin in case you missed it. Underneath are words that the "adscam" goes all the way to the PMO. Read it quickly, you'd maybe miss the fact this happened under:
Jean Chretien.
Not a word of testimony has implicated the current Prime Minister.
And yet newspapers from the Lampoon to the Globe and just about every other media outlet can proudly point out that people are ready to punish "Liberals" for this mess.
How could they think anything else? It's all they have heard for months. "Liberals" are doing evil things. "Liberals" are corrupt.
But here's the kicker.
Look closely at the Ipsos poll or the Ekos poll just released. Ekos is available free, so here's the link to the background data.
Fully 83% of people had heard about the Gomery inquiry, yet 62% want to wait until Gomery has reported before an election. If I recall correctly, Ipsos had 83% wanting to wait.
That puts the Opposition in a risk-management mode. They have to juggle the temptation of toppling a government that is vulnerable with the risk that a majority of Canadians might just pounce on anyone seen to be guilty of forcing an election before Canadians want it.
The Cons are especially weak on this point since they expressly put the election call in the hands of Canadians. Nice democratic touch, but sometimes democracy is inconvenient.
The Ekos poll questioning is a bit funky - as in smelly. The way they phrased the question on the current PM being accountable is skewed to produce the result that the PM is accountable for alleged foul deeds there is no evidence he even knew about, let alone was party to. Ekos led their sample to water and the sample drank from the well.
In another question, they asked people if this was the worst scandal they'd ever heard of or just as bad. Not only is this skewed in and of itself, Ekos apparently left out a crucial question: what the hell do people remember of political scandals?
If their memories are junk, then their opinions are not solidly founded. Bullshit question. Bullshit response.
If however, they consider these accusations to be as serious as, say, the old Tory kickback schemes in Quebec, I'd have some info on which to base my judgment. Otherwise, people's shite-memory is vulnerable to new information and their willingness to either toss this government or have an election might be changeable.
The other problem for me, if I was a Con strategist, is the variable performance of my party across the country. Huge in Alberta. Beaten by NDP in the Prairies and BC. Ahead in Ontario but modestly so. Ahead in Quebec but that is meaningless since the Bloc dominates.
And here in Atlantic Canada? The Cons are modestly ahead of the Liberals. Modest is hardly enough to warrant going to the polls.
Ekos attributes the Atlantic Canadian reluctance to a single variable: the fate of the offshore revenue deals. Problem is Ekos doesn't have any research to support their reductionist conclusion.
But it does explain why Stephen Harper is busily scribbling letters to Danny Williams pledging that a Harper Titan election booster won't hit the offshore revenues platform. Reportedly, Harper won't give odds, but Danny is willing to risk billions on the basis of a less-than-perfect set of guarantees.
And Blarney the dinosaur is giving speeches to the St. John's board of trade, spreading nothing except his usual political tripe - there wasn't a single nugget of any Conservative policy in it nor was there anything even vaguely considered to be an insightful comment on current events:
It was a vintage Blarney coprolite.
Of course, both Harper and Blarney aren't telling you that the Cons are changing their position on the offshore in order to get your vote.
But hey.
Politics is the ultimate risk management sport. The variables change quickly, especially if the variable is what you stand for.
and a campaign is the ultimate risk.
The next couple of days will tell how the political parties in Ottawa are judging the risks.
The big difference is that I will bet the farm the Titan launch will go flawlessly and nothing will ever even see the Hibernia platform.
In Ottawa, things aren't quite as clear.
As I tell my public relation students, one of the things that makes news is newness or novelty.
Sarcastic bastard that I can be, I am tempted to say that the CTV Ipsos Reid poll benchmarking reaction to Gomery should have received NIL coverage based on that definition of news.
It is hardly news to tell us that federal Liberal support has taken a tumbled after the relentless media hype surrounding Brault's testimony. There has been little substantive reporting of his comments or their potential veracity. Nope. The reporting has been like our own little Michael-Jackson-feeding-liquor-to-little-boys kinda story.
The funky thing about the reporting, like say the National Lampoon's online edition today, is that it tells us a falsehood through the layout. It's an old scandal-sheet trick. Just not the sort of thing you'd expect from a national paper, even Canada's National Joke. There is the big picture of the current prime minister, whose name is Paul Martin in case you missed it. Underneath are words that the "adscam" goes all the way to the PMO. Read it quickly, you'd maybe miss the fact this happened under:
Jean Chretien.
Not a word of testimony has implicated the current Prime Minister.
And yet newspapers from the Lampoon to the Globe and just about every other media outlet can proudly point out that people are ready to punish "Liberals" for this mess.
How could they think anything else? It's all they have heard for months. "Liberals" are doing evil things. "Liberals" are corrupt.
But here's the kicker.
Look closely at the Ipsos poll or the Ekos poll just released. Ekos is available free, so here's the link to the background data.
Fully 83% of people had heard about the Gomery inquiry, yet 62% want to wait until Gomery has reported before an election. If I recall correctly, Ipsos had 83% wanting to wait.
That puts the Opposition in a risk-management mode. They have to juggle the temptation of toppling a government that is vulnerable with the risk that a majority of Canadians might just pounce on anyone seen to be guilty of forcing an election before Canadians want it.
The Cons are especially weak on this point since they expressly put the election call in the hands of Canadians. Nice democratic touch, but sometimes democracy is inconvenient.
The Ekos poll questioning is a bit funky - as in smelly. The way they phrased the question on the current PM being accountable is skewed to produce the result that the PM is accountable for alleged foul deeds there is no evidence he even knew about, let alone was party to. Ekos led their sample to water and the sample drank from the well.
In another question, they asked people if this was the worst scandal they'd ever heard of or just as bad. Not only is this skewed in and of itself, Ekos apparently left out a crucial question: what the hell do people remember of political scandals?
If their memories are junk, then their opinions are not solidly founded. Bullshit question. Bullshit response.
If however, they consider these accusations to be as serious as, say, the old Tory kickback schemes in Quebec, I'd have some info on which to base my judgment. Otherwise, people's shite-memory is vulnerable to new information and their willingness to either toss this government or have an election might be changeable.
The other problem for me, if I was a Con strategist, is the variable performance of my party across the country. Huge in Alberta. Beaten by NDP in the Prairies and BC. Ahead in Ontario but modestly so. Ahead in Quebec but that is meaningless since the Bloc dominates.
And here in Atlantic Canada? The Cons are modestly ahead of the Liberals. Modest is hardly enough to warrant going to the polls.
Ekos attributes the Atlantic Canadian reluctance to a single variable: the fate of the offshore revenue deals. Problem is Ekos doesn't have any research to support their reductionist conclusion.
But it does explain why Stephen Harper is busily scribbling letters to Danny Williams pledging that a Harper Titan election booster won't hit the offshore revenues platform. Reportedly, Harper won't give odds, but Danny is willing to risk billions on the basis of a less-than-perfect set of guarantees.
And Blarney the dinosaur is giving speeches to the St. John's board of trade, spreading nothing except his usual political tripe - there wasn't a single nugget of any Conservative policy in it nor was there anything even vaguely considered to be an insightful comment on current events:
It was a vintage Blarney coprolite.
Of course, both Harper and Blarney aren't telling you that the Cons are changing their position on the offshore in order to get your vote.
But hey.
Politics is the ultimate risk management sport. The variables change quickly, especially if the variable is what you stand for.
and a campaign is the ultimate risk.
The next couple of days will tell how the political parties in Ottawa are judging the risks.
11 April 2005
Risk management
"The [oil] industry is risk averse," [Premier Danny] Williams said.
That's from a scrum the Premier gave on Sunday about the oil companies and the pending launch of an American satellite launch that will see debris from the rocket used landing - at the closest - 25 kilometres away from the Hibernia and Terra Nova oil production platforms. He's been quoted in a number of news stories saying exactly those words.
Oil companies aren'’t actually risk averse. They are risk managers. Oil companies follow a “"discipline for living with the possibility that future events may cause adverse effects."”
That's from a scrum the Premier gave on Sunday about the oil companies and the pending launch of an American satellite launch that will see debris from the rocket used landing - at the closest - 25 kilometres away from the Hibernia and Terra Nova oil production platforms. He's been quoted in a number of news stories saying exactly those words.
Oil companies aren'’t actually risk averse. They are risk managers. Oil companies follow a “"discipline for living with the possibility that future events may cause adverse effects."”
The truth is out there - if you want to accept it
A rock-steady source of good information sent me some data on launches by the Space Transportation System (STS), otherwise known as the space shuttle. He got it from NASA so I guess they know what they are talking about.
Seems that STS has been known to use an inclination greater than 51 degrees before and they plan to use it again since this takes them to places like the International Space Station.
On that inclination, they transit the Grand Banks and, as my solid source reminded me, that is why St. John's and especially Goose Bay are identified as possible landing sites should the STS encounter some problems.
At the risk of causing the Premier to have apoplexy, I thought it best to share this information with my faithful audience. It certainly helps to put the Titan 4B launch into perspective.
In the list that follows, I have edited so that only the launch inclinations greater than 50 degrees are included. Note that inclination is taken using the Equator as zero degrees. A 90 degree inclination is a polar orbit heading over the North Pole first. A 180 inclination would put something into orbit along the Equator opposite to the Earth's rotation. For a better discussion of STS mission inclinations, try this page.
Here's the editted list. Note the frequency the STS uses those high inclinations.
STS//Inclination// Notes
STS-9 57.0 HIGH
41g 51.7 HIGH
STS-51-B 57.0 HIGH
STS-61-A 57.0 HIGH
STS-27 57.0 HIGH
STS-28 57.0 HIGH
STS-36 62.0 HIGH
STS-39 57.0 HIGH
STS-48 57.0 HIGH
STS-42 57.0 HIGH
STS-45 57.0 HIGH
STS-47 57.0 HIGH
STS-53 57.0 HIGH
STS-56 57.0 HIGH
STS-59 56.9 HIGH
STS-60 56.4 HIGH
STS-64 56.9 HIGH
STS-68 57.0 HIGH
STS-66 57.0 HIGH
STS-63 51.6 HIGH
STS-71 51.6 HIGH
STS-74 51.6 HIGH
STS-76 51.6 HIGH
STS-79 51.7 HIGH
STS-81 51.6 HIGH
STS-84 51.7 HIGH
STS-85 57.0 HIGH
STS-86 51.6 HIGH
STS-89 51.6 HIGH
STS-88 51.6 HIGH
STS-91 51.7 HIGH
STS-92 51.6 HIGH
STS-96 51.6 HIGH
STS-97 51.6 HIGH
STS-98 51.5 HIGH
STS-99 57.0 HIGH
STS-101 51.6 HIGH
STS-102 51.5 HIGH
STS-106 51.6 HIGH
STS-100 51.6 HIGH
STS-104 51.6 HIGH
STS-105 51.6 HIGH
STS-108 51.6 HIGH
STS-110 51.6 HIGH
STS-111 51.6 HIGH
STS-112 51.6 HIGH
STS-113 51.6 HIGH
Planned future launches
STS-114 51.6 HIGH
STS-121 51.6 HIGH
STS-115 51.6 HIGH
STS-116 51.6 HIGH
STS-117 51.6 HIGH
Seems that STS has been known to use an inclination greater than 51 degrees before and they plan to use it again since this takes them to places like the International Space Station.
On that inclination, they transit the Grand Banks and, as my solid source reminded me, that is why St. John's and especially Goose Bay are identified as possible landing sites should the STS encounter some problems.
At the risk of causing the Premier to have apoplexy, I thought it best to share this information with my faithful audience. It certainly helps to put the Titan 4B launch into perspective.
In the list that follows, I have edited so that only the launch inclinations greater than 50 degrees are included. Note that inclination is taken using the Equator as zero degrees. A 90 degree inclination is a polar orbit heading over the North Pole first. A 180 inclination would put something into orbit along the Equator opposite to the Earth's rotation. For a better discussion of STS mission inclinations, try this page.
Here's the editted list. Note the frequency the STS uses those high inclinations.
STS//Inclination// Notes
STS-9 57.0 HIGH
41g 51.7 HIGH
STS-51-B 57.0 HIGH
STS-61-A 57.0 HIGH
STS-27 57.0 HIGH
STS-28 57.0 HIGH
STS-36 62.0 HIGH
STS-39 57.0 HIGH
STS-48 57.0 HIGH
STS-42 57.0 HIGH
STS-45 57.0 HIGH
STS-47 57.0 HIGH
STS-53 57.0 HIGH
STS-56 57.0 HIGH
STS-59 56.9 HIGH
STS-60 56.4 HIGH
STS-64 56.9 HIGH
STS-68 57.0 HIGH
STS-66 57.0 HIGH
STS-63 51.6 HIGH
STS-71 51.6 HIGH
STS-74 51.6 HIGH
STS-76 51.6 HIGH
STS-79 51.7 HIGH
STS-81 51.6 HIGH
STS-84 51.7 HIGH
STS-85 57.0 HIGH
STS-86 51.6 HIGH
STS-89 51.6 HIGH
STS-88 51.6 HIGH
STS-91 51.7 HIGH
STS-92 51.6 HIGH
STS-96 51.6 HIGH
STS-97 51.6 HIGH
STS-98 51.5 HIGH
STS-99 57.0 HIGH
STS-101 51.6 HIGH
STS-102 51.5 HIGH
STS-106 51.6 HIGH
STS-100 51.6 HIGH
STS-104 51.6 HIGH
STS-105 51.6 HIGH
STS-108 51.6 HIGH
STS-110 51.6 HIGH
STS-111 51.6 HIGH
STS-112 51.6 HIGH
STS-113 51.6 HIGH
Planned future launches
STS-114 51.6 HIGH
STS-121 51.6 HIGH
STS-115 51.6 HIGH
STS-116 51.6 HIGH
STS-117 51.6 HIGH
10 April 2005
Danger Danny Williams! Danger Danny Williams!
Is anyone really surprised that Danny Williams has even more questions after getting a full briefing than he had when he first heard about a booster landing in the Atlantic Ocean?
Now he's talking about problems with "something that big" hitting the seabed or changing wave patterns. I saw the scrum clips for myself on CTV NewsNet so I know exactly what the man said. Here's the script version of their story, just for good measure.
For those who want another script version, here's the Canadian Press account. Note that some Canadian officials were excluded from a portion of the briefing. Pretty simple stuff actually - that bit of the briefing likely contained highly classified information that some of the Canadians weren't cleared to receive. Here's another reason why the provincial government here needs to have someone working on public security full-time who is also cleared to at least Level III, commonly called Top Secret. It's also why it is useless to send a university professor from MUN's engineering school to participate in a meeting where classified information may be discussed. But that's actually one of the substantive issues here that is being ignored in what seems to evolving into our own version of Space Cowboys.
Butt look it is actually pretty simple. And I have to say: "Danny, my son, look, how many times do we have to explain it to you?"
1. Nothing "that big" is hitting anything. The booster rocket will disintegrate and shower down bits and pieces over a huge piece of ocean. Even if for some reason an entire section of missile comes down intact, the odds of it hitting the platforms or doing any substantive damage are astronomically small. If you want a 100% guarantee, I guess you won't be flying anywhere any time soon on a commercial airliner, or for that matter walking outside the door of your house to go to work.
2. By the time any of this rocket lands on the seabed, it will be slowed down and distributed around by ocean currents. Go sue White Star Line for the frickin Titanic, bye. It had a bigger impact than this thing will ever have.
3. As for the ocean currents stuff, I think it is time for Jon Lien and Dave Suzuki to do an intervention here. Holy crap, Batman, this is just foolish.
4. The Hibernia platform is being moved and the Terra Nova and White Rose FPSOs are being towed 30-50 miles off positions because that's what the oil company lawyers and insurance companies want to do. But it is the oil companies who are making that decision, not Danny Williams. That's why the Monday meeting is so interesting - the companies have already taken their decisions; what's left to discuss except maybe legal action.
5. As for cost, expect that the companies will file suit in US courts to recover their costs and damages from the US Air Force. Maybe Danny will do the same, join their suit or hop up and down until Ottawa files some sort of protest.
At the end of it all, though, the Premier doesn't have to jump up and down to get answers. All the information he needs is readily available and has been since the start of this whole affair. The Premier just has to accept what he is being told by various experts. If he doesn't want to accept that information or if he wants to set arbitrary and totally impossible objectives, then that's his call.
My question about all this is resolving down to this: why is Danny Williams talking about this? Who is he representing? What exactly does he want to get out of it?
Now he's talking about problems with "something that big" hitting the seabed or changing wave patterns. I saw the scrum clips for myself on CTV NewsNet so I know exactly what the man said. Here's the script version of their story, just for good measure.
For those who want another script version, here's the Canadian Press account. Note that some Canadian officials were excluded from a portion of the briefing. Pretty simple stuff actually - that bit of the briefing likely contained highly classified information that some of the Canadians weren't cleared to receive. Here's another reason why the provincial government here needs to have someone working on public security full-time who is also cleared to at least Level III, commonly called Top Secret. It's also why it is useless to send a university professor from MUN's engineering school to participate in a meeting where classified information may be discussed. But that's actually one of the substantive issues here that is being ignored in what seems to evolving into our own version of Space Cowboys.
Butt look it is actually pretty simple. And I have to say: "Danny, my son, look, how many times do we have to explain it to you?"
1. Nothing "that big" is hitting anything. The booster rocket will disintegrate and shower down bits and pieces over a huge piece of ocean. Even if for some reason an entire section of missile comes down intact, the odds of it hitting the platforms or doing any substantive damage are astronomically small. If you want a 100% guarantee, I guess you won't be flying anywhere any time soon on a commercial airliner, or for that matter walking outside the door of your house to go to work.
2. By the time any of this rocket lands on the seabed, it will be slowed down and distributed around by ocean currents. Go sue White Star Line for the frickin Titanic, bye. It had a bigger impact than this thing will ever have.
3. As for the ocean currents stuff, I think it is time for Jon Lien and Dave Suzuki to do an intervention here. Holy crap, Batman, this is just foolish.
4. The Hibernia platform is being moved and the Terra Nova and White Rose FPSOs are being towed 30-50 miles off positions because that's what the oil company lawyers and insurance companies want to do. But it is the oil companies who are making that decision, not Danny Williams. That's why the Monday meeting is so interesting - the companies have already taken their decisions; what's left to discuss except maybe legal action.
5. As for cost, expect that the companies will file suit in US courts to recover their costs and damages from the US Air Force. Maybe Danny will do the same, join their suit or hop up and down until Ottawa files some sort of protest.
At the end of it all, though, the Premier doesn't have to jump up and down to get answers. All the information he needs is readily available and has been since the start of this whole affair. The Premier just has to accept what he is being told by various experts. If he doesn't want to accept that information or if he wants to set arbitrary and totally impossible objectives, then that's his call.
My question about all this is resolving down to this: why is Danny Williams talking about this? Who is he representing? What exactly does he want to get out of it?
Double-plus good
There is saying things in few words and then there is adding a bit of interpretation to the few words that the end result doesn't quite match a little thing called reality.
VOCM is at it again this morning, reporting on the postponement of the NROL-16 launch at Canaveral.
"The U-S has postponed this week's planned launch of a Titan rocket. A spokesman for Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan says the Americans have delayed Wednesday's launch until April 17th. In the meantime talks will continue to allay Canadian concerns that East Coast oil rigs could be damaged by falling pieces of space junk, but McLellan is showing little concern. In the meantime talks will continue to allay Canadian concerns."
Ok.
Look at those last two sentences and break them out.
Talks will still go on, according to VOCM in order to "allay Canadian concerns" although if you read a little bit further, the federal cabinet minister responsible for being concerned about these sorts of things (i.e. the Government of Canada) "is showing little concern".
Two things, aside from the excessive use of the word "concern" and the phrase "talks will continue" in such a short space:
1. The meeting in Halifax was designed to address specific issues among the people with assets supposedly at risk (namely the operators of the platforms) and to deal with Danny William's issues primarily for their noisy political impact. That is noise as in devoid of signal. This hardly constitutes "Canadian" concerns as if the whole country was headed for the border to invade if the rocket tries to leave Florida. That phrase actually looks close to some official American approaches - namely that they are addressing "Canadian" concerns, because They don't distinguish among Canadians like Canadians do.
2. McLellan showing little concern would be a misleading intepretation. She has said - and rightly so - that the chances of this rocket hitting the platforms is almost non-existant. As in "will never happen".
VOCM's version implicitly criticizes McLellan for not being as enraged as Danny Williams; that's where I get a problem. Now while we can quibble about other issues like the Accord, in this instance, Williams is increasingly floating into orbit himself without any justification.
That's because in a short space of time Williams went from being what we in the politicial business call "responsible" for raising concerns based on limited information to being what we in most of society call "hysterical" - as in give someone a Valium - for ignoring solid information in favour of rants.
The truth is out there. Danny just needs to accept it.
As for VOCM, that's two Dubious Interpretation Prizes they've garnered on just this one story.
I, for one, am getting concerned.
VOCM is at it again this morning, reporting on the postponement of the NROL-16 launch at Canaveral.
"The U-S has postponed this week's planned launch of a Titan rocket. A spokesman for Deputy Prime Minister Anne McLellan says the Americans have delayed Wednesday's launch until April 17th. In the meantime talks will continue to allay Canadian concerns that East Coast oil rigs could be damaged by falling pieces of space junk, but McLellan is showing little concern. In the meantime talks will continue to allay Canadian concerns."
Ok.
Look at those last two sentences and break them out.
Talks will still go on, according to VOCM in order to "allay Canadian concerns" although if you read a little bit further, the federal cabinet minister responsible for being concerned about these sorts of things (i.e. the Government of Canada) "is showing little concern".
Two things, aside from the excessive use of the word "concern" and the phrase "talks will continue" in such a short space:
1. The meeting in Halifax was designed to address specific issues among the people with assets supposedly at risk (namely the operators of the platforms) and to deal with Danny William's issues primarily for their noisy political impact. That is noise as in devoid of signal. This hardly constitutes "Canadian" concerns as if the whole country was headed for the border to invade if the rocket tries to leave Florida. That phrase actually looks close to some official American approaches - namely that they are addressing "Canadian" concerns, because They don't distinguish among Canadians like Canadians do.
2. McLellan showing little concern would be a misleading intepretation. She has said - and rightly so - that the chances of this rocket hitting the platforms is almost non-existant. As in "will never happen".
VOCM's version implicitly criticizes McLellan for not being as enraged as Danny Williams; that's where I get a problem. Now while we can quibble about other issues like the Accord, in this instance, Williams is increasingly floating into orbit himself without any justification.
That's because in a short space of time Williams went from being what we in the politicial business call "responsible" for raising concerns based on limited information to being what we in most of society call "hysterical" - as in give someone a Valium - for ignoring solid information in favour of rants.
The truth is out there. Danny just needs to accept it.
As for VOCM, that's two Dubious Interpretation Prizes they've garnered on just this one story.
I, for one, am getting concerned.
And then another day brings the appearance of changes
The launch of a US Air Force Titan 4B is being delayed owing to unspecified problems with ground equipment involved in loading the oxider, according to a news release from 45 Space Wing, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on Saturday.
Mission B-30 has been postponed several times in the past month for the same reason. As of Friday, 08 Apr 05, the launch is delayed indefinitely, as is another mission using a Delta 4 rocket.
CBC news is linking the delay to a meeting in Dartmouth Saturday of officials from Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada and the United States government to discuss the launch and implications for the Hibernia and Terra Nova platforms. The link is to an older story, but late Saturday night, CBC Radio news tied the delay to the meeting.
Canadian Press, meanwhile, reports that US officials provided Canadian federal and provincial officials with the American risk assessment on the launch. Earlier comments by Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador suggested the Americans had made their plans without taking account of the Hibernia and Terra Nova platforms. Public affairs officers from USAF Space Command contradict this assessment by the Premier, emphasizing that the platforms are outside the debris zone.
Federal public security minister and deputy prime minister Anne McLellan today reporters on Saturday that "[t]he risk is absolutely minuscule. If one is looking at a risk of one in 10 trillion, then you realize that the risk is absolutely minimal." [Emphasis added]
To get an accurate version of comments by US State department briefer Richard Boucher go to the State Department website. Media reports and comments by Premier Williams that there was confusion as to the date of the launch appear to be a misinterpretation of Boucher's comments. The date April 13 is suggested as the date Boucher believes is the correct one - he says "I think" - and then refers reporters to the US Department of Defence for further comment. The US DOD public affairs website contains no mention of the issue and the story does not appear to have picked up any attention from US news outlets.
For those curious about details, here is a link to the hazard area related to the launch originally planned for 10 Apr 05 and now postponed indefinitely. This is not the debris zone, but the area of maximum hazard to air and marine interests at the time of launch and immediately after. Note that this hazard warning lists the launch complex CX-40. This should not be confused with other numerical identifiers like NROL-16 and B-30.
Taken, altogether in one spot, there are three postions here that one can see quite easily. They can be summarised as follows:
1. The US government and its agencies are launching a military satellite into a specific orbit and intend to carry on with the launch, barring any technical delays.
The Canadian federal government appears to be accepting American assurances on the safety of the launch. This is a reasonable position given the issues involved.
2. The platform operators are taking prudent actions like planning to shut down operations and are likely assessing the risks from this launch to their direct financial interests in offshore oil production. They are entitled to take these precautions. Any compensation would be a legal matter; I suspect the operators are getting advice from their lawyers and insurers to be extremely cautious.
3. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is taking an extreme position, without having apparently taken responsibility for shutting down production. Premier Williams comments have been extreme, are often at odds with established facts, history and the advice and information already in the public domain that suggest the risk to the offshore platforms is minimal, negligible or virtually non-existant.
The Premier has insisted on changes to USAF plans which are highly unlikely to ever take place. Simply put, he doesn't have the juice to make them happen, nor does Canada.
Further, the Premier's personal involvement in this matter remains unexplained. The Premier is neither the minister repsonsible for the offshore (Ed Byrne), nor the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs (Tom Marshall), nor the minister responsible for emergency response (Jack Byrne) unless each of these three ministers is on leave. Of course, as first minister the premier can do just about anything he wants. It just seems strange that he has taken control of this issue and made statements which are at odds with established facts.
His rhetoric has heightened anxiety in the public about this matter apparently needlessly.
Will the Premier being seeking monetary compensation from the United States government for losses incurred by the provincial government in the event of a launch even if there is no affect to the rig (excepting as a result of decisions taken by the operators) . Will this become the basis for an Atlantic Missile Accord? His approach thus far is consistent with what one might expect from the lawyer representing the future plaintiff in a law suit.
Mission B-30 has been postponed several times in the past month for the same reason. As of Friday, 08 Apr 05, the launch is delayed indefinitely, as is another mission using a Delta 4 rocket.
CBC news is linking the delay to a meeting in Dartmouth Saturday of officials from Newfoundland and Labrador, the Government of Canada and the United States government to discuss the launch and implications for the Hibernia and Terra Nova platforms. The link is to an older story, but late Saturday night, CBC Radio news tied the delay to the meeting.
Canadian Press, meanwhile, reports that US officials provided Canadian federal and provincial officials with the American risk assessment on the launch. Earlier comments by Premier Danny Williams of Newfoundland and Labrador suggested the Americans had made their plans without taking account of the Hibernia and Terra Nova platforms. Public affairs officers from USAF Space Command contradict this assessment by the Premier, emphasizing that the platforms are outside the debris zone.
Federal public security minister and deputy prime minister Anne McLellan today reporters on Saturday that "[t]he risk is absolutely minuscule. If one is looking at a risk of one in 10 trillion, then you realize that the risk is absolutely minimal." [Emphasis added]
To get an accurate version of comments by US State department briefer Richard Boucher go to the State Department website. Media reports and comments by Premier Williams that there was confusion as to the date of the launch appear to be a misinterpretation of Boucher's comments. The date April 13 is suggested as the date Boucher believes is the correct one - he says "I think" - and then refers reporters to the US Department of Defence for further comment. The US DOD public affairs website contains no mention of the issue and the story does not appear to have picked up any attention from US news outlets.
For those curious about details, here is a link to the hazard area related to the launch originally planned for 10 Apr 05 and now postponed indefinitely. This is not the debris zone, but the area of maximum hazard to air and marine interests at the time of launch and immediately after. Note that this hazard warning lists the launch complex CX-40. This should not be confused with other numerical identifiers like NROL-16 and B-30.
Taken, altogether in one spot, there are three postions here that one can see quite easily. They can be summarised as follows:
1. The US government and its agencies are launching a military satellite into a specific orbit and intend to carry on with the launch, barring any technical delays.
The Canadian federal government appears to be accepting American assurances on the safety of the launch. This is a reasonable position given the issues involved.
2. The platform operators are taking prudent actions like planning to shut down operations and are likely assessing the risks from this launch to their direct financial interests in offshore oil production. They are entitled to take these precautions. Any compensation would be a legal matter; I suspect the operators are getting advice from their lawyers and insurers to be extremely cautious.
3. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is taking an extreme position, without having apparently taken responsibility for shutting down production. Premier Williams comments have been extreme, are often at odds with established facts, history and the advice and information already in the public domain that suggest the risk to the offshore platforms is minimal, negligible or virtually non-existant.
The Premier has insisted on changes to USAF plans which are highly unlikely to ever take place. Simply put, he doesn't have the juice to make them happen, nor does Canada.
Further, the Premier's personal involvement in this matter remains unexplained. The Premier is neither the minister repsonsible for the offshore (Ed Byrne), nor the minister responsible for intergovernmental affairs (Tom Marshall), nor the minister responsible for emergency response (Jack Byrne) unless each of these three ministers is on leave. Of course, as first minister the premier can do just about anything he wants. It just seems strange that he has taken control of this issue and made statements which are at odds with established facts.
His rhetoric has heightened anxiety in the public about this matter apparently needlessly.
Will the Premier being seeking monetary compensation from the United States government for losses incurred by the provincial government in the event of a launch even if there is no affect to the rig (excepting as a result of decisions taken by the operators) . Will this become the basis for an Atlantic Missile Accord? His approach thus far is consistent with what one might expect from the lawyer representing the future plaintiff in a law suit.
09 April 2005
What a difference a few hours make - updated
Hearing Premier Williams' scrum Friday on the Titan booster crisis made me want to take back the good things I posted about him earlier.
Friday we got the old hysterical Danny from the offshore revenues fracas. Here's the CBC Here and Now broadcast from Friday complete with Deanne Fleet's report at time incidence 6:39. This link needs RealPlayer. CBC uses a submarine launched ballistic missile to illustrate the story - missile guys. The Premier uses a 1998 Titan accident (see "The Missileer") to highlight why he is worried. The Premier sounds increasingly like a guy building a case for suing on behalf of a client with "stress". Remember the guy who sued Fear Factor because he was grossed out by one of the food stunts? You get the idea.
The Premier sounded hysterical in the sense of "uncontrollably emotional; convulsive, fitful...In a state of panic or behaving in a wild irrational manner, due to fear or emotional trauma."
We are living under a threat, according to the Premier.
He needs an assurance from the US government that this missile has absolutely "zero" chances of hitting the Hibernia rig or that if it comes close that the impact won't disrupt the rig. Someone should make the transcript public so people can see everything the Premier said and how he said it.
The Premier has caused unwarranted and unneeded public worry with his irresponsible comments.
To make matters worse, some national media are now talking about a missile flying "over Newfoundland" when the bloody thing will actually burn up on re-entry over 400 kilometres out to sea.
In the meantime, the Premier is apparently miffed, perplexed, annoyed and angered that people are giving conflicting information. Well, that's easy enough to solve: give me a call and I'll set you straight.
The CBC nationally has picked up this same crap, referring to conflicts between agencies in the US government that actually don't have anything directly to do with the launch. Some guy from State says the launch is on for Wednesday, which is likely what his subordinates briefed him. meantime some Captain from Space Command in Colorado says the date hasn't been reset.
Now I am not sure how reporters followed their daisy chain to get comments from these guys but let me put this out there as a wild-eyed, radical like a Russian-anarchist kind of idea:
The rocket is being fired by USAF Space Command, so the Space Command guy likely knows what he is talking about. The guy from State probably needed a briefing on where Canada was let alone why some place called New Finland was upset.
In any event, the launch was postponed for technical reasons and once those reasons are fixed, up she goes. That's what I have been saying all along. Won't someone please pay attention?
But what's the conflict furrowing the brow of Der Premier? Literally whether or not there is a one in 10 million or a one in a trillion chance of the rig being affected in any way possible. As I listened to the scrum played today by Ted Blades "On the Go" I heard a personal injury lawyer who can see the red lights on the ambulance.
We live under threat, alright: A threat that someone with a grip on reality might seize the microphone and tell everyone to go back to sleep.
We live now under a new threat. Engineers are reportedly meeting tomorrow (Saturday) to put some kind of firm numbers on the probability of impact. Add the lawyers to the equation and we will get even more confusion.
In the meantime, I will drag everyone back to what I said before: there is no problem. There is no threat. The odds are either one in 10 million or one in a trillion the platforms won't be hit by a piece of the Titan 403B booster.
I wish I could get those kind of odds that say Danny Williams might take a pill before his next scrum on this subject.
Gimme a frickin' break.
Friday we got the old hysterical Danny from the offshore revenues fracas. Here's the CBC Here and Now broadcast from Friday complete with Deanne Fleet's report at time incidence 6:39. This link needs RealPlayer. CBC uses a submarine launched ballistic missile to illustrate the story - missile guys. The Premier uses a 1998 Titan accident (see "The Missileer") to highlight why he is worried. The Premier sounds increasingly like a guy building a case for suing on behalf of a client with "stress". Remember the guy who sued Fear Factor because he was grossed out by one of the food stunts? You get the idea.
The Premier sounded hysterical in the sense of "uncontrollably emotional; convulsive, fitful...In a state of panic or behaving in a wild irrational manner, due to fear or emotional trauma."
We are living under a threat, according to the Premier.
He needs an assurance from the US government that this missile has absolutely "zero" chances of hitting the Hibernia rig or that if it comes close that the impact won't disrupt the rig. Someone should make the transcript public so people can see everything the Premier said and how he said it.
The Premier has caused unwarranted and unneeded public worry with his irresponsible comments.
To make matters worse, some national media are now talking about a missile flying "over Newfoundland" when the bloody thing will actually burn up on re-entry over 400 kilometres out to sea.
In the meantime, the Premier is apparently miffed, perplexed, annoyed and angered that people are giving conflicting information. Well, that's easy enough to solve: give me a call and I'll set you straight.
The CBC nationally has picked up this same crap, referring to conflicts between agencies in the US government that actually don't have anything directly to do with the launch. Some guy from State says the launch is on for Wednesday, which is likely what his subordinates briefed him. meantime some Captain from Space Command in Colorado says the date hasn't been reset.
Now I am not sure how reporters followed their daisy chain to get comments from these guys but let me put this out there as a wild-eyed, radical like a Russian-anarchist kind of idea:
The rocket is being fired by USAF Space Command, so the Space Command guy likely knows what he is talking about. The guy from State probably needed a briefing on where Canada was let alone why some place called New Finland was upset.
In any event, the launch was postponed for technical reasons and once those reasons are fixed, up she goes. That's what I have been saying all along. Won't someone please pay attention?
But what's the conflict furrowing the brow of Der Premier? Literally whether or not there is a one in 10 million or a one in a trillion chance of the rig being affected in any way possible. As I listened to the scrum played today by Ted Blades "On the Go" I heard a personal injury lawyer who can see the red lights on the ambulance.
We live under threat, alright: A threat that someone with a grip on reality might seize the microphone and tell everyone to go back to sleep.
We live now under a new threat. Engineers are reportedly meeting tomorrow (Saturday) to put some kind of firm numbers on the probability of impact. Add the lawyers to the equation and we will get even more confusion.
In the meantime, I will drag everyone back to what I said before: there is no problem. There is no threat. The odds are either one in 10 million or one in a trillion the platforms won't be hit by a piece of the Titan 403B booster.
I wish I could get those kind of odds that say Danny Williams might take a pill before his next scrum on this subject.
Gimme a frickin' break.
08 April 2005
The Missileer
If you haven't heard enough about rockets, then I am here to feed your curiosity and hopefully, allay some of the anxiety that has seized our beloved Premier.
Here are some basic points that I suspected but which are now confirmed as well as some links to yet more background information.
See, Premier Williams, there is no reason for you to be confused if your staff used the internet.
Or called me in. After all, I have spent about half my life on defence issues and I currently work as a defence policy consultant.
1. USAF Space Command knew the Hibernia and Terra Nova platforms were there all along. As their public affairs spokesman said, the odds of a missile hitting a tiny oil rig in the middle of the vast ocean are small, maybe one in a trillion, especially when the platforms are outside the debris zone.
2. The Titan is a combined solid and liquid fueled missile. The side boosters are solid fueled and burn out shortly after launch. The main propulsion unit is the liquid-fueled Titan which has been in USAF service since the 1950s.
3. They have way too much experience with operating this system to make dumb mistakes about debris zones and impact areas for debris. Lquid fueled systems are great because you can predict where they will land with much greater accuracy than solid fueled systems. You can also cut off their power when you want to and do all sorts of other things with them you can't do with their solid fueled cousins.
4. A similar Titan rocket was fired on a similar trajectory in 1994 without incident.
5. The more recent loss of a Titan 4A from Canaveral is worth paying attention to because:
a. the Premier used it to bolster his hysteria at a scrum today; and,
b. he is WRONG.
The incident occured in 1998 and involved an older version of this particular booster. That missile was destroyed by the on-board self-destruct mechanism shortly after launch when problems occured. These were later attributed to wiring problems. It never got close to Canadian waters - in fact it traveled exactly 4, 422 feet from the launchpad. Here's a link to the full report.
A subsequent launch of the 4B version went off flawlessly, as reported at this link.
For a description of a two-stage Titan launch try this link from 2003. The version here had an extra boost vehicle designed to manoeuvre the payload into orbit. I erroneously described this as a second stage earlier; that doesn't change my assessment that there is a near zero chance (one in a trillion) of any debris from the B-30 launch landing within sight of Hibernia and Terra Nova.
6. Here's a link to a story on the delay of the current mission, dated 07 April 2005.
7. Here's a link on the payload likely being carried. It describes radar imaging in layman's terms. Read this and you will understand, Premier, why this launch will not be scrubbed and why there is virtually a zero chance of it being fired off on a trajectory designed solely to calm your nerves.
At least this little episode has caused me to find a raft of new sources on the web for tracking space-related issues.
Here are some basic points that I suspected but which are now confirmed as well as some links to yet more background information.
See, Premier Williams, there is no reason for you to be confused if your staff used the internet.
Or called me in. After all, I have spent about half my life on defence issues and I currently work as a defence policy consultant.
1. USAF Space Command knew the Hibernia and Terra Nova platforms were there all along. As their public affairs spokesman said, the odds of a missile hitting a tiny oil rig in the middle of the vast ocean are small, maybe one in a trillion, especially when the platforms are outside the debris zone.
2. The Titan is a combined solid and liquid fueled missile. The side boosters are solid fueled and burn out shortly after launch. The main propulsion unit is the liquid-fueled Titan which has been in USAF service since the 1950s.
3. They have way too much experience with operating this system to make dumb mistakes about debris zones and impact areas for debris. Lquid fueled systems are great because you can predict where they will land with much greater accuracy than solid fueled systems. You can also cut off their power when you want to and do all sorts of other things with them you can't do with their solid fueled cousins.
4. A similar Titan rocket was fired on a similar trajectory in 1994 without incident.
5. The more recent loss of a Titan 4A from Canaveral is worth paying attention to because:
a. the Premier used it to bolster his hysteria at a scrum today; and,
b. he is WRONG.
The incident occured in 1998 and involved an older version of this particular booster. That missile was destroyed by the on-board self-destruct mechanism shortly after launch when problems occured. These were later attributed to wiring problems. It never got close to Canadian waters - in fact it traveled exactly 4, 422 feet from the launchpad. Here's a link to the full report.
A subsequent launch of the 4B version went off flawlessly, as reported at this link.
For a description of a two-stage Titan launch try this link from 2003. The version here had an extra boost vehicle designed to manoeuvre the payload into orbit. I erroneously described this as a second stage earlier; that doesn't change my assessment that there is a near zero chance (one in a trillion) of any debris from the B-30 launch landing within sight of Hibernia and Terra Nova.
6. Here's a link to a story on the delay of the current mission, dated 07 April 2005.
7. Here's a link on the payload likely being carried. It describes radar imaging in layman's terms. Read this and you will understand, Premier, why this launch will not be scrubbed and why there is virtually a zero chance of it being fired off on a trajectory designed solely to calm your nerves.
At least this little episode has caused me to find a raft of new sources on the web for tracking space-related issues.
Here's where the Nat Lamp went
Meanwhile over at the National Post, the editors took complete leave of their senses and turned what was once a decent news rag into the National Lampoon today. Such is their frenzy to pry the Liberals from power in Ottawa and install Stephen Harper.
The feature piece, as posted to the website at least, is Don Martin's news story (?)...column (?)...screenplay(?)... titled "Canada's Watergate".
Here's the lede:
"He glanced at reporters salivating to escape his news quarantine, looked at the bank of television cameras carrying his inquiry live for the first time in a week and issued the order: Unleash hell."
And then a few paragraphs later:
"The dam protecting federal Liberals from the disclosure of their party's ugly past had been breached -- and Canada's Watergate spilled out."
Alright, Don, let's start by reminding people that you are are the guy captured in the CBC doc on the last federal election who was close to tears because your pre-written story on the Glorious Conservative Victory was rendered as hamster-cage bedding by...wait for it...the ordinary voters of Canada.
In order to write such drivel, Don either never heard of Gomery before or he thinks his readers are mouth-breathing idiots.
News quarantine? Gomery had three choices when dealing with the motion for a publication ban to protect Jean Brault's right to a fair trial. He could have rejected it. He could have accepted it, as he did, knowing full well, based on ample experience across the country, that some schmuck will give a briefing to US bloggers who will print the material and thereby frustrate the ban.
"News quarantine"? Let's thank God Don's a keyboard pounder and not in charge of communicable disease control for Metro Toronto health authorities during the next SARS outbreak.
Gomery's third choice was in camera hearings, in which the media and general public would be barred. Poof: that's a real news quarantine. Unless there was some legal reason why he didn't have the power, Gomery's "news quarantine" was a Trojan with a few holes poked in it.
"Unleash hell"? This line is lifted straight from some 1930s dime-store novel, or given its hysterical nature, any recent scrum by Danny Williams.
And only in a display of sheer ignorance - as in stupidity, as in a lack of any ethical standards whatsoever - would Martin compare whatever Gomery is investigating to a conspiracy at the highest levels of the US government to commit criminal acts like break and enter in order to subvert democracy, smear political opponents and then systematically cover-up the whole business.
The only upside to Martin's piece is that, as I recall, he didn't use the word "explosive" once.
Don Martin obviously must be the guy who used to scribble cartoons for MAD magazine.
Canada's contender for the title of real national newspaper, today became a national joke.
And if I want laughs, I'll go read the real thing.
The feature piece, as posted to the website at least, is Don Martin's news story (?)...column (?)...screenplay(?)... titled "Canada's Watergate".
Here's the lede:
"He glanced at reporters salivating to escape his news quarantine, looked at the bank of television cameras carrying his inquiry live for the first time in a week and issued the order: Unleash hell."
And then a few paragraphs later:
"The dam protecting federal Liberals from the disclosure of their party's ugly past had been breached -- and Canada's Watergate spilled out."
Alright, Don, let's start by reminding people that you are are the guy captured in the CBC doc on the last federal election who was close to tears because your pre-written story on the Glorious Conservative Victory was rendered as hamster-cage bedding by...wait for it...the ordinary voters of Canada.
In order to write such drivel, Don either never heard of Gomery before or he thinks his readers are mouth-breathing idiots.
News quarantine? Gomery had three choices when dealing with the motion for a publication ban to protect Jean Brault's right to a fair trial. He could have rejected it. He could have accepted it, as he did, knowing full well, based on ample experience across the country, that some schmuck will give a briefing to US bloggers who will print the material and thereby frustrate the ban.
"News quarantine"? Let's thank God Don's a keyboard pounder and not in charge of communicable disease control for Metro Toronto health authorities during the next SARS outbreak.
Gomery's third choice was in camera hearings, in which the media and general public would be barred. Poof: that's a real news quarantine. Unless there was some legal reason why he didn't have the power, Gomery's "news quarantine" was a Trojan with a few holes poked in it.
"Unleash hell"? This line is lifted straight from some 1930s dime-store novel, or given its hysterical nature, any recent scrum by Danny Williams.
And only in a display of sheer ignorance - as in stupidity, as in a lack of any ethical standards whatsoever - would Martin compare whatever Gomery is investigating to a conspiracy at the highest levels of the US government to commit criminal acts like break and enter in order to subvert democracy, smear political opponents and then systematically cover-up the whole business.
The only upside to Martin's piece is that, as I recall, he didn't use the word "explosive" once.
Don Martin obviously must be the guy who used to scribble cartoons for MAD magazine.
Canada's contender for the title of real national newspaper, today became a national joke.
And if I want laughs, I'll go read the real thing.
Dear Premier Williams...
if you are finding this whole Titan rocket thing a bit confusing owing to mixed messages, as CBC is reporting, then I have a simple piece of advice:
Give me a call.
I will gladly provide you with accurate information and analysis of this and similar issues. My rates are reasonable.
Yes, this is a shameless act of self-promotion but that doesn't mean it isn't justified.
Give me a call.
I will gladly provide you with accurate information and analysis of this and similar issues. My rates are reasonable.
Yes, this is a shameless act of self-promotion but that doesn't mean it isn't justified.
Getting it right and other Titan-ic issues
Without making it a great saga, I posted comments this morning about the province's response to the Titan booster issue and specifically some comments attributed to the Premier that came from a VOCM story. The story is still posted, so you can go and have a look at it for yourself.
As I have said before, VOCM is a news outlet than can describe a situation accurately in as few words as possible. Sometimes, though, interpretations can go astray or the few words chosen can lead people like me to make the wrong conclusion.
Here's the bit in question: "Meantime, Premier Williams says the incident drives home the need for a missile defence system. He is a strong backer of the part that Happy Valley-Goose Bay can play in such a system."
When I read that, I had a hard time figuring how anyone could link these two things together. My post - since deleted because I was wrong - focused on the idea that the linkage apparently drawn by the Premier was based on faulty information from various briefings he may have received. It fits with my overall interpretation that, based on what's in the public domain, this whole thing looked like a massive over-reaction on someone's part.
That said, let me make at least this much clear: the Premier's reaction, while full of his customary hyperbole, was entirely what I would have expected given the information he seems to have received. If I thought that there was a remote chance some gigantic rocket might possibly crash into the Hibernia rig, I'd be making a huge issue about it publicly, in addition to phoning anyone who could do something about it and making sure that there was no threat to life in the event the launch went ahead.
Full marks go to Premier Williams.
As I noted in "Massive Correction" someone else who was at the Premier's scrum put the whole thing in context for me. I can see where the issue came from - it was a huge stretch to even ask the question in this context - and the Premier's reply, as I have it, didn't draw a direct link.
There are still some lingering questions in my mind on this matter, despite the fact most news media have moved on to other things.
The offshore production platforms would certainly make my list of national strategic assets for several reasons. They certainly are major assets for the operators and I take it as a matter of course that the operators monitor potential threats to their property.
Aside from the economic implications of a complete shutdown of offshore production for any length of time, some other agencies like Coast Guard, National Defence, Transport Canada, Environment Canada and some provincial government departments could be called on to respond to any disaster like an impact on the platforms or in assisting in the evacuation.
On a number of levels, this Titan booster issue highlights the importance of emergency preparedness and the need for effective communication and co-ordinated action by public and private sector organizations. I am not saying this did not occur appropriately - sometimes excrement occurs - but the wider lessons/implications of this incident should not be lost.
In that context, though, I am still wondering:
1. When did one of the key players (operators, federal government, CNOPB, provincial government) become aware of this launch as a potential threat to the production platforms?
2. When did the first one who noticed alert the others, all of whom have parts to play?
3. What, if any, mitigation action was taken before ordering the evacuation of the platforms and the relocation of the semi-submersible platform? For example, if ExxonMobil spotted it, I suspect a call from their head office to Washington would have generated more than enough of a response given:
a. the economic value of the assets to US-owned companies;
b. the strategic value of oil to the US economy in the current world economy; and,
c. the fact that both the President and Vice-President are generally familiar with the oil business.
4. Who ordered the evacuation, or depopulation as it has been euphemistically called?
5. On what basis was the evac ordered?
6. Did Ottawa take action before or after the call from Danny Williams or was it more or less simultaneous?
7. Where exactly were the offshore platforms in relation to the anticipated debris zone? To my mind, this is a crucial issue to determine the validity of the evacuation order. Since rocket launches from Florida are not new, this contingency may have already been considered. Maybe it is a completely unique event.
These are just questions. Honestly, I don't know the answers nor do I presume to know them. I am just tossing them out there for consideration.
Incidentally, this incident has been described by some national media as a "test" launch. Wherever they are getting this from, it is wrong.
This is a routine event in every respect, except for the apparent implications for Hibernia and Terra Nova.
As I have said before, VOCM is a news outlet than can describe a situation accurately in as few words as possible. Sometimes, though, interpretations can go astray or the few words chosen can lead people like me to make the wrong conclusion.
Here's the bit in question: "Meantime, Premier Williams says the incident drives home the need for a missile defence system. He is a strong backer of the part that Happy Valley-Goose Bay can play in such a system."
When I read that, I had a hard time figuring how anyone could link these two things together. My post - since deleted because I was wrong - focused on the idea that the linkage apparently drawn by the Premier was based on faulty information from various briefings he may have received. It fits with my overall interpretation that, based on what's in the public domain, this whole thing looked like a massive over-reaction on someone's part.
That said, let me make at least this much clear: the Premier's reaction, while full of his customary hyperbole, was entirely what I would have expected given the information he seems to have received. If I thought that there was a remote chance some gigantic rocket might possibly crash into the Hibernia rig, I'd be making a huge issue about it publicly, in addition to phoning anyone who could do something about it and making sure that there was no threat to life in the event the launch went ahead.
Full marks go to Premier Williams.
As I noted in "Massive Correction" someone else who was at the Premier's scrum put the whole thing in context for me. I can see where the issue came from - it was a huge stretch to even ask the question in this context - and the Premier's reply, as I have it, didn't draw a direct link.
There are still some lingering questions in my mind on this matter, despite the fact most news media have moved on to other things.
The offshore production platforms would certainly make my list of national strategic assets for several reasons. They certainly are major assets for the operators and I take it as a matter of course that the operators monitor potential threats to their property.
Aside from the economic implications of a complete shutdown of offshore production for any length of time, some other agencies like Coast Guard, National Defence, Transport Canada, Environment Canada and some provincial government departments could be called on to respond to any disaster like an impact on the platforms or in assisting in the evacuation.
On a number of levels, this Titan booster issue highlights the importance of emergency preparedness and the need for effective communication and co-ordinated action by public and private sector organizations. I am not saying this did not occur appropriately - sometimes excrement occurs - but the wider lessons/implications of this incident should not be lost.
In that context, though, I am still wondering:
1. When did one of the key players (operators, federal government, CNOPB, provincial government) become aware of this launch as a potential threat to the production platforms?
2. When did the first one who noticed alert the others, all of whom have parts to play?
3. What, if any, mitigation action was taken before ordering the evacuation of the platforms and the relocation of the semi-submersible platform? For example, if ExxonMobil spotted it, I suspect a call from their head office to Washington would have generated more than enough of a response given:
a. the economic value of the assets to US-owned companies;
b. the strategic value of oil to the US economy in the current world economy; and,
c. the fact that both the President and Vice-President are generally familiar with the oil business.
4. Who ordered the evacuation, or depopulation as it has been euphemistically called?
5. On what basis was the evac ordered?
6. Did Ottawa take action before or after the call from Danny Williams or was it more or less simultaneous?
7. Where exactly were the offshore platforms in relation to the anticipated debris zone? To my mind, this is a crucial issue to determine the validity of the evacuation order. Since rocket launches from Florida are not new, this contingency may have already been considered. Maybe it is a completely unique event.
These are just questions. Honestly, I don't know the answers nor do I presume to know them. I am just tossing them out there for consideration.
Incidentally, this incident has been described by some national media as a "test" launch. Wherever they are getting this from, it is wrong.
This is a routine event in every respect, except for the apparent implications for Hibernia and Terra Nova.
Massive Correction
In the post "Speaking of badly briefed" I made some comments on the Premier and his scrum yesterday flowing from a VOCM story this morning.
Based on new information from someone who was there and whose information I regard as accurate and factual I know want to make a massive, unequivocal correction, retracting my comments or any implication that the Premier had in any way linked the Titan booster to ballistic missile defence.
I have it on an authority I trust that the Premier made no link whatsoever between the two.
In response to a reporter's question on how this issue might affect the prospect of a ballistic missile defence installation at Goose Bay, the Premier repeated his support for the X Band radar at Goose Bay, as he would be expected to do.
It is completely erroneous to link the issue of BMD and the Titan booster issue. I withdraw any remarks I made on that subject without reservation or qualification as they relate to the Premier. No inference should be drawn from my remarks in the previous post as they were wrong.
In fact, I am going back and deleting it.
Based on new information from someone who was there and whose information I regard as accurate and factual I know want to make a massive, unequivocal correction, retracting my comments or any implication that the Premier had in any way linked the Titan booster to ballistic missile defence.
I have it on an authority I trust that the Premier made no link whatsoever between the two.
In response to a reporter's question on how this issue might affect the prospect of a ballistic missile defence installation at Goose Bay, the Premier repeated his support for the X Band radar at Goose Bay, as he would be expected to do.
It is completely erroneous to link the issue of BMD and the Titan booster issue. I withdraw any remarks I made on that subject without reservation or qualification as they relate to the Premier. No inference should be drawn from my remarks in the previous post as they were wrong.
In fact, I am going back and deleting it.
You read it here, first - the Space version - revised
As I told you yesterday, "Given the history of Titan 4B boosters, the repeated rescheduling of this mission and that the system is due to be phased out, I'd suspect the Americans are dealing with some mechanical issues."
As VOCM is reporting: "Meantime, the U.S. Air Force Space Command at Cape Canaveral says the launch was postponed because of mechanical problems with ground support equipment."
Go the US Air Force Space Command webpage and you'll see the schedule for launches at Canaveral. NROL-16 is still listed but with the launch date being "no earlier than 11 April 05".
In other coverage, the Canadian Press story is running in various forms in all the major newspapers. The Post is checking to see if Jean Brault mentioned anything about it in his explosive testimony before committing to coverage. Explosive testimony. Explosive missile. Do the math.
CBC's national has a script story and a video story [<--requires Real Player] by our own Chris O'Neill-Yates. (Psst Chris: the launch video you used is a submarine launched missile not a Titan)
As VOCM is reporting: "Meantime, the U.S. Air Force Space Command at Cape Canaveral says the launch was postponed because of mechanical problems with ground support equipment."
Go the US Air Force Space Command webpage and you'll see the schedule for launches at Canaveral. NROL-16 is still listed but with the launch date being "no earlier than 11 April 05".
In other coverage, the Canadian Press story is running in various forms in all the major newspapers. The Post is checking to see if Jean Brault mentioned anything about it in his explosive testimony before committing to coverage. Explosive testimony. Explosive missile. Do the math.
CBC's national has a script story and a video story [<--requires Real Player] by our own Chris O'Neill-Yates. (Psst Chris: the launch video you used is a submarine launched missile not a Titan)
07 April 2005
Re-entry debris footprints
It seems that a number of government officials are holding to their concern about the prospect that the Titan 4B booster scheduled to carry a classified US NRO payload into orbit from Florida will hit the "massive" Hibernia platform.
To see if we can help allay their almost phallicly-based concerns, here's some added information on the footprint left by falling space debris.
The Titan 4B is a two stage system. That means the payload is placed in orbit after it separates from a second stage that has carried it into space. The first stage and side-mounted boosters will have burned out and fallen back to Earth shortly after the launch.
While the Titan 4B may be a 10, 000 pound system fully loaded, the second stage will be returning to Earth the farthest of all debris from the launch point, will have broken up on reentry to Earth's atmosphere and will therefore consist of smaller bits and pieces than when it was fully assembled.
In the case of the system on the pad at Canaveral for the B-30 launch, there is no second stage. It's a 403B version. Therefore, the bulk of the debris will be even closer to the launch point in Florida.
That said, I draw attention to a description of a "debris footprint" from the FAQ at this site, kept up by the Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies.
In particular pay attention to this paragraph:
"The footprint width is generally determined by the effects of wind on the falling debris objects, with heavy objects affected less, and lightest the most. The width of the footprint may also be affected by the breakup process itself. For example, if the object should explode during reentry, fragments will be spread out across the footprint. A footprint width of perhaps 20-40 km is typical, with the most pronounced effects near the heel of the footprint."
If you look at the nice little graphic on that site you will see a big red area on the map representing the surface area where debris may fall.
Until someone shows me the debris footprint for this particular launch, I am going to go out on a limb and say that the Hibernia and Terra Nova rigs were 15 miles outside the red zone representing the most like region of impact for all the bits and pieces of this Titan 4(03)B.
The odds of any bits striking these platforms was small.
And for the record, I give the Premier some slack when he said something about Americans being concerned about seals but not about missiles dropping on peoples' heads. He was a bit concerned, likely based on a poor briefing. Since he loves drama and hyperbole in equal measures, he could come up with a statement that is as accurate as the one uttered by a future Premier when he talked of turbot hanging on by their fingernails.
Fish don't have fingers.
To see if we can help allay their almost phallicly-based concerns, here's some added information on the footprint left by falling space debris.
The Titan 4B is a two stage system. That means the payload is placed in orbit after it separates from a second stage that has carried it into space. The first stage and side-mounted boosters will have burned out and fallen back to Earth shortly after the launch.
While the Titan 4B may be a 10, 000 pound system fully loaded, the second stage will be returning to Earth the farthest of all debris from the launch point, will have broken up on reentry to Earth's atmosphere and will therefore consist of smaller bits and pieces than when it was fully assembled.
In the case of the system on the pad at Canaveral for the B-30 launch, there is no second stage. It's a 403B version. Therefore, the bulk of the debris will be even closer to the launch point in Florida.
That said, I draw attention to a description of a "debris footprint" from the FAQ at this site, kept up by the Center for Orbital and Reentry Debris Studies.
In particular pay attention to this paragraph:
"The footprint width is generally determined by the effects of wind on the falling debris objects, with heavy objects affected less, and lightest the most. The width of the footprint may also be affected by the breakup process itself. For example, if the object should explode during reentry, fragments will be spread out across the footprint. A footprint width of perhaps 20-40 km is typical, with the most pronounced effects near the heel of the footprint."
If you look at the nice little graphic on that site you will see a big red area on the map representing the surface area where debris may fall.
Until someone shows me the debris footprint for this particular launch, I am going to go out on a limb and say that the Hibernia and Terra Nova rigs were 15 miles outside the red zone representing the most like region of impact for all the bits and pieces of this Titan 4(03)B.
The odds of any bits striking these platforms was small.
And for the record, I give the Premier some slack when he said something about Americans being concerned about seals but not about missiles dropping on peoples' heads. He was a bit concerned, likely based on a poor briefing. Since he loves drama and hyperbole in equal measures, he could come up with a statement that is as accurate as the one uttered by a future Premier when he talked of turbot hanging on by their fingernails.
Fish don't have fingers.
Look to the skys!
A bizarre afternoon in Newfoundland and Labrador, what with the Premier calling a hasty news conference to talk about American missiles falling from the sky and coming close to the "massive" Hibernia platform. Such was the panic that there was a plan to evacuate the Hibernia platform and the Terra Nova FPSO and tow another semi-submersible rig out of the potential impact area.
Well, here's what it was really all about.
- This launch has been scheduled for some time, according to both the Kennedy Centre website and other sites on the net that track missile launches globally. One site reports this payload was originally scheduled for a launch in 2001 at Vandenberg air force base in California. The mission was subsequently moved to Canaveral. It has been scheduled and rescheduled at least three times since late March owing to problems reportedly with the payload or with ground equipment.
- The mission, labeled B-30, is a launch by the United States Air Force of a classified payload labeled NROL-16 for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) , using a Titan 4B booster from Cape Canaveral, Florida. In plain English, it's a "spy" satellite, although I dislike that term for a variety of reasons. Here's a link with some speculation on the payload and other details. Here's another link with even more detail on the possible payload, a radar imaging satellite similar to several launched in the late 1990s and 2000.
- This is one of the last launches for the Titan 4B. It is getting old and costly. In fact some of the delays in this mission have been due to equipment problems related to the booster. Here's a piece from the roll-out last fall.
- These satellites are usually placed in very specific orbits and together with others provide complete global coverage. There is some room to adjust launch trajectories but I'd guess not a heck of a lot.
- This is nothing new. Boosters and other missile bits have been falling into the sea off Newfoundland for as long as there have been missiles launched from Florida. In the 1980s two US Navy range telemetry ships stopped in port. I still have pictures of the visit of USNS Range Sentinel.
- I'd venture there have been other launches in the general direction of the Hibernia platform before on a similar trajectory.
- Each of these launches involves the booster burning up on re-entry although pieces of the booster will return to Earth. To estimate the chances of having something hit Hibernia, do the following: Stand on top of the Fortis Building. Using a penny, hit the postage stamp I have laid in the middle of Water Street. Keep your eyes closed throughout.
- As part of the normal planning for an event like this, the launching agency would prepare a footprint giving an anticipated zone in which debris will fall. This is shown as an ellipse on a map and several larger ellipses around it representing areas where it is less likely but possible that debris may strike.
Each of these zones would be tens of kilometres wide.
The big issue here is where within that footprint map the Hibernia rig fell.
- In Ottawa, this launch would have been part of the normal intelligence briefings at DND for senior officers and officials and senior ministers would have been briefed as well. PCO has a section that would have noticed it and it appears cabinet was actually briefed today.
- It would be normal for senior ministers (DND and Public Security) as well as senior officials to contact their US counterparts to express concern at the proximity to the oilfields. Their ability to influence things would be minor in dealing with a sensitive payload like this unless there was plenty of room to pick a different trajectory.
- While it is possible the US planners missed the Hibernia rig in their planning, I'd doubt it very much for a whole bunch of reasons. Danny Williams suggestion that they goofed is a typical bit of Williams fantasy.
- The simple fact is that the rig is massive only if you are one person standing right next to it. From 180 miles in space across a vast sea it is a fixed spot. The chances of hitting the rig or any other man-made object are slim. The launch was scheduled for about 2230 EDT (0000 NDT) for a reason: less air traffic. The Americans also issue routine warnings to mariners to avoid specific areas as a normal precaution.
- The problem in assessing Danny Williams' comments about 15 miles is that we have no idea who briefed him and what they told him. Reporters should take his comments with a bag of salt. It appears from some of his comments that the Premier was briefed by officials and did not get information from senior federal officials directly.
Is the rig 15 miles outside the high probability impact zone? Well, that zone would be miles wide. My guess is that some official didn't get complete information and if they did, they didn't interpret it correctly. That led to a legitimate level of anxiety on the Premier's part and the subsequent news conference.
Basically, the Newfoundland government has no internal capability to assess anything defence related. They are at the mercy of a bunch of factors, including a complete lack of experience in dealing with this sort of issue. Given that everyone, officials and politicians are well removed from the major analysis sites in Ottawa, the chance for misunderstanding and miscommunication are magnified.
I could recount stories of Davis Inlet and the first Gulf War but that is for another time. This is not about which party is in power; it is about a lack of expertise within the provincial government.
- The American delay, described as being either for 48 hours or indefinitely depending on who is reporting it, likely has nothing to do with Canadian concerns. Given the history of Titan 4B boosters, the repeated rescheduling of this mission and that the system is due to be phased out, I'd suspect the Americans are dealing with some mechanical issues.
Well, here's what it was really all about.
- This launch has been scheduled for some time, according to both the Kennedy Centre website and other sites on the net that track missile launches globally. One site reports this payload was originally scheduled for a launch in 2001 at Vandenberg air force base in California. The mission was subsequently moved to Canaveral. It has been scheduled and rescheduled at least three times since late March owing to problems reportedly with the payload or with ground equipment.
- The mission, labeled B-30, is a launch by the United States Air Force of a classified payload labeled NROL-16 for the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) , using a Titan 4B booster from Cape Canaveral, Florida. In plain English, it's a "spy" satellite, although I dislike that term for a variety of reasons. Here's a link with some speculation on the payload and other details. Here's another link with even more detail on the possible payload, a radar imaging satellite similar to several launched in the late 1990s and 2000.
- This is one of the last launches for the Titan 4B. It is getting old and costly. In fact some of the delays in this mission have been due to equipment problems related to the booster. Here's a piece from the roll-out last fall.
- These satellites are usually placed in very specific orbits and together with others provide complete global coverage. There is some room to adjust launch trajectories but I'd guess not a heck of a lot.
- This is nothing new. Boosters and other missile bits have been falling into the sea off Newfoundland for as long as there have been missiles launched from Florida. In the 1980s two US Navy range telemetry ships stopped in port. I still have pictures of the visit of USNS Range Sentinel.
- I'd venture there have been other launches in the general direction of the Hibernia platform before on a similar trajectory.
- Each of these launches involves the booster burning up on re-entry although pieces of the booster will return to Earth. To estimate the chances of having something hit Hibernia, do the following: Stand on top of the Fortis Building. Using a penny, hit the postage stamp I have laid in the middle of Water Street. Keep your eyes closed throughout.
- As part of the normal planning for an event like this, the launching agency would prepare a footprint giving an anticipated zone in which debris will fall. This is shown as an ellipse on a map and several larger ellipses around it representing areas where it is less likely but possible that debris may strike.
Each of these zones would be tens of kilometres wide.
The big issue here is where within that footprint map the Hibernia rig fell.
- In Ottawa, this launch would have been part of the normal intelligence briefings at DND for senior officers and officials and senior ministers would have been briefed as well. PCO has a section that would have noticed it and it appears cabinet was actually briefed today.
- It would be normal for senior ministers (DND and Public Security) as well as senior officials to contact their US counterparts to express concern at the proximity to the oilfields. Their ability to influence things would be minor in dealing with a sensitive payload like this unless there was plenty of room to pick a different trajectory.
- While it is possible the US planners missed the Hibernia rig in their planning, I'd doubt it very much for a whole bunch of reasons. Danny Williams suggestion that they goofed is a typical bit of Williams fantasy.
- The simple fact is that the rig is massive only if you are one person standing right next to it. From 180 miles in space across a vast sea it is a fixed spot. The chances of hitting the rig or any other man-made object are slim. The launch was scheduled for about 2230 EDT (0000 NDT) for a reason: less air traffic. The Americans also issue routine warnings to mariners to avoid specific areas as a normal precaution.
- The problem in assessing Danny Williams' comments about 15 miles is that we have no idea who briefed him and what they told him. Reporters should take his comments with a bag of salt. It appears from some of his comments that the Premier was briefed by officials and did not get information from senior federal officials directly.
Is the rig 15 miles outside the high probability impact zone? Well, that zone would be miles wide. My guess is that some official didn't get complete information and if they did, they didn't interpret it correctly. That led to a legitimate level of anxiety on the Premier's part and the subsequent news conference.
Basically, the Newfoundland government has no internal capability to assess anything defence related. They are at the mercy of a bunch of factors, including a complete lack of experience in dealing with this sort of issue. Given that everyone, officials and politicians are well removed from the major analysis sites in Ottawa, the chance for misunderstanding and miscommunication are magnified.
I could recount stories of Davis Inlet and the first Gulf War but that is for another time. This is not about which party is in power; it is about a lack of expertise within the provincial government.
- The American delay, described as being either for 48 hours or indefinitely depending on who is reporting it, likely has nothing to do with Canadian concerns. Given the history of Titan 4B boosters, the repeated rescheduling of this mission and that the system is due to be phased out, I'd suspect the Americans are dealing with some mechanical issues.
Explosive Ordnance Disposal
EOD.
Paul Wells has been waging a valiant, if seemingly futile campaign to diffuse the Gomery testimony story, criticize the media use of the word "explosive" when discussing it, and drag the whole discussion onto something less prurient. I use the term advisedly, given that some people seem to derive a strange fetishistic state of arousal these days when the word Gomery is used. Use your imaginations.
So today he just links to all the media outlets still describing testimony last week before Justice Gomery as being explosive.
Paul makes a valid point, and one apparently not lost on one Stephen Harper. His sound bite for today (left over from yesterday) has been about the need to find a new message for Quebeckers besides corruption or separation. He tosses this one on the table in discussing the prospect the Cons will vote to defeat the government on a Bloc non-confidence motion due next week.
Anyway, those with long memories will chuckle at the idea of Conservatives, progressive or otherwise, presuming to lecture on the need for a new message for Quebec.
Anyway, while Paul is tackling the intellectual road, let's wander over to the one I sometimes travel, namely the low road of sarcasm and ridicule.
What kind of explosive is this Gomery testimony, one might inquire of the scribblers busily recycling their Gomery phrases for outlets like the Sun chain, the Globe and even Reuters.
There a nuclear explosions that kill everything and leave the landscape uninhabitable for centuries. Personally, I'd suggest Paul's upcoming essay is going to lean to the idea that the whole Gomery tesitmony discussion is of the nookyoolur explosion kind. Self-frickin immolation. And without the black humour of Dr. Strangelove.
There are plain old high explosives which kill everything within a certain radius from the blast and injure dozens more. Possibility. I could buy that interpretation potentially.
There is a fuel-air explosion, in which gas fumes seep into every crack and then get ignited. Big bang. Lots of flame and much scorching.
This should not be confused with napalm, which is one of the genuinely nastiest kinds of explosions there is. Opposition types might like Gomery to be napalm dropped on the bastions of the Liberal Party. Tends to produce something called crispy critters.
But being a father of two children both of whom were breast-fed, the only word I viscerally associate with "explosive" is a bowel movement.
I still remember the look on my father's face as he held his first grandchild just as Number One Son of Number One Son did what nature intended. Big noise. Distressing motion inside the diaper and the house. Foul odor. Severe look of concern on Grandpa, who had little experience with these things and thought something truly hideous was about to occur. But it was quickly wiped up and life went on. The grown-ups went back to talking about something they needed to worry about while other processes worked as they should.
Far be it from me to drag this little metaphor all the way into the depths to which one could go. Heck it may be a totally unworkable metaphor. Suffice to say that political dialogue nationally has sunk to what amounts to little more than the results of my son's feasting. Big noise. Distressing motions in the House. Really bad smell. Look of concern.
But ultimately, this matter will wind up in a bin somewhere.
And while we are paying attention to the noise, some major issues we should be worried about - like the ones Paul will likely raise - are going unattended.
If the guys in Ottawa are dumb enough to blunder into an election over this load, I'd wager that the electorate will reward them appropriately.
For the love of heaven and the country, will some politician in Ottawa please start talking about major national issues?
Let the courts and police and the Gomery Inquisition do their jobs.
Maybe it's the fear of the diaper pail that has Mr. Harper changing his tune today.
Or maybe Paul's pleadings are finally penetrating someone's skull.
Paul Wells has been waging a valiant, if seemingly futile campaign to diffuse the Gomery testimony story, criticize the media use of the word "explosive" when discussing it, and drag the whole discussion onto something less prurient. I use the term advisedly, given that some people seem to derive a strange fetishistic state of arousal these days when the word Gomery is used. Use your imaginations.
So today he just links to all the media outlets still describing testimony last week before Justice Gomery as being explosive.
Paul makes a valid point, and one apparently not lost on one Stephen Harper. His sound bite for today (left over from yesterday) has been about the need to find a new message for Quebeckers besides corruption or separation. He tosses this one on the table in discussing the prospect the Cons will vote to defeat the government on a Bloc non-confidence motion due next week.
Anyway, those with long memories will chuckle at the idea of Conservatives, progressive or otherwise, presuming to lecture on the need for a new message for Quebec.
Anyway, while Paul is tackling the intellectual road, let's wander over to the one I sometimes travel, namely the low road of sarcasm and ridicule.
What kind of explosive is this Gomery testimony, one might inquire of the scribblers busily recycling their Gomery phrases for outlets like the Sun chain, the Globe and even Reuters.
There a nuclear explosions that kill everything and leave the landscape uninhabitable for centuries. Personally, I'd suggest Paul's upcoming essay is going to lean to the idea that the whole Gomery tesitmony discussion is of the nookyoolur explosion kind. Self-frickin immolation. And without the black humour of Dr. Strangelove.
There are plain old high explosives which kill everything within a certain radius from the blast and injure dozens more. Possibility. I could buy that interpretation potentially.
There is a fuel-air explosion, in which gas fumes seep into every crack and then get ignited. Big bang. Lots of flame and much scorching.
This should not be confused with napalm, which is one of the genuinely nastiest kinds of explosions there is. Opposition types might like Gomery to be napalm dropped on the bastions of the Liberal Party. Tends to produce something called crispy critters.
But being a father of two children both of whom were breast-fed, the only word I viscerally associate with "explosive" is a bowel movement.
I still remember the look on my father's face as he held his first grandchild just as Number One Son of Number One Son did what nature intended. Big noise. Distressing motion inside the diaper and the house. Foul odor. Severe look of concern on Grandpa, who had little experience with these things and thought something truly hideous was about to occur. But it was quickly wiped up and life went on. The grown-ups went back to talking about something they needed to worry about while other processes worked as they should.
Far be it from me to drag this little metaphor all the way into the depths to which one could go. Heck it may be a totally unworkable metaphor. Suffice to say that political dialogue nationally has sunk to what amounts to little more than the results of my son's feasting. Big noise. Distressing motions in the House. Really bad smell. Look of concern.
But ultimately, this matter will wind up in a bin somewhere.
And while we are paying attention to the noise, some major issues we should be worried about - like the ones Paul will likely raise - are going unattended.
If the guys in Ottawa are dumb enough to blunder into an election over this load, I'd wager that the electorate will reward them appropriately.
For the love of heaven and the country, will some politician in Ottawa please start talking about major national issues?
Let the courts and police and the Gomery Inquisition do their jobs.
Maybe it's the fear of the diaper pail that has Mr. Harper changing his tune today.
Or maybe Paul's pleadings are finally penetrating someone's skull.
Who'd waste the ammo?
Bullets are expensive these days.
That's why this little news story looks more like headline grabbing sensationalism than a serious decision taken based on a thorough threat assessment.
With the exception of Martin Sheen, who did a little ad for Paul Watson's crowd, pretty well every "celebrity" I have seen working the PETA/IFAW circuit lately has been a has-been more likely to turn up on some abysmal cable-tv reality show than in a movie anyone has paid money to see.
Like Elizabeth Berkley. Without exception, the movies listed on her IMDB entry are ones I have never seen and will never see because, to put it bluntly, they suck. Liz may be busier than the guy who played Screech, but I bet he has a steady paycheque that doesn't involve boring audiences to death.
As for Anna Nicole Smith from the link above, I would have pitched the story as an environmental one. Out of fear that a stray bullet at the ice flows would release industrial quantities of silicone, Anna is staying away so she doesn't harm the cuddly baby seals.
More plausible, for one thing.
I am starting to think that the people who book acts for Mile One use the same agency that finds celebs for Paul Watson.
Look guys, Frank Gorshin is still available.
As is Charles Napier.
ditto Expendible Crewman Number 3 from "Space Seed".
And Tiffani Thiessen.
Oh wait.
Maybe not: check out the picture gallery. Is that a real fur barely covering her ample and perchance artificially enhanced assets?
At least Tiff is a "Saved by the bell" alumna with her own website.
That's why this little news story looks more like headline grabbing sensationalism than a serious decision taken based on a thorough threat assessment.
With the exception of Martin Sheen, who did a little ad for Paul Watson's crowd, pretty well every "celebrity" I have seen working the PETA/IFAW circuit lately has been a has-been more likely to turn up on some abysmal cable-tv reality show than in a movie anyone has paid money to see.
Like Elizabeth Berkley. Without exception, the movies listed on her IMDB entry are ones I have never seen and will never see because, to put it bluntly, they suck. Liz may be busier than the guy who played Screech, but I bet he has a steady paycheque that doesn't involve boring audiences to death.
As for Anna Nicole Smith from the link above, I would have pitched the story as an environmental one. Out of fear that a stray bullet at the ice flows would release industrial quantities of silicone, Anna is staying away so she doesn't harm the cuddly baby seals.
More plausible, for one thing.
I am starting to think that the people who book acts for Mile One use the same agency that finds celebs for Paul Watson.
Look guys, Frank Gorshin is still available.
As is Charles Napier.
ditto Expendible Crewman Number 3 from "Space Seed".
And Tiffani Thiessen.
Oh wait.
Maybe not: check out the picture gallery. Is that a real fur barely covering her ample and perchance artificially enhanced assets?
At least Tiff is a "Saved by the bell" alumna with her own website.
Blarney and buds threaten province's future
Blarney the Dinosaur from Up the Shore is at it again, according to a VOCM story posted this morning. This little news outlet deserves an award for saying the most with the least number of words:
"St. John's South-Mount Pearl MP Loyola Hearn [known to many as Blarney] says the Liberal government is using the longest possible route to approve the Atlantic Accord. [Blarney] Hearn suggested it would take only minutes to rework the accord."
Ok.
Not to really Harp-er on this but the Atlantic Accord was signed and approved in the 1980s, Blarney. I know it was back in the Cretaceous period of your political career, Blarney, but surely you remembered bobbing up and down in your seat to vote for that piece of paper Brian Peckford (your boss at the time) was waving around?
What is currently in front of the Commons is a budget-related bill authorizing the federal government to hand over cash to this province under certain conditions. It is closely related to most of the other provisions of Bill C-43. Except for the ones upsetting Blarney and his friends.
And that's where Blarney's comments start to look like what they are: coprolites.
The federal government has already agreed to drop the Kyoto provisions of Bill C-43 that have Blarney and his carbon dioxide exhaling pals emitting higher than usual levels of both CO2 and fossilized fecal matter.
So what happened when the "crisis" looked like it was about to be solved?
Blarney and his buds decided that basking in the warmth of the media sun was worth more to Opposition than actually doing the job they get paid to do. Count the number of mentions of Conservative politicians this weekend versus say when they had their big policy convention.
Except for Peter Mackay's hysterically funny comments on betrayal, the whole weekend was like a policy Ice Age - no idea worth talking about could survive the "No Controversy" chill from Harper and his cohorts.
So people fell asleep.
Only to be re-awakened by one of the most contrived "crises" since the last "conspiracy" spotted by our Premier.
And every day Blarney and his buds shag around with this issue, they are threatening the province's financial future.
If they actually had anything of merit to talk about, they would be saying it.
That they spend all their time pointing fingers at other people should be a big clue as to what Blarney and his gang are really saying not about the Libs but about themselves.
"St. John's South-Mount Pearl MP Loyola Hearn [known to many as Blarney] says the Liberal government is using the longest possible route to approve the Atlantic Accord. [Blarney] Hearn suggested it would take only minutes to rework the accord."
Ok.
Not to really Harp-er on this but the Atlantic Accord was signed and approved in the 1980s, Blarney. I know it was back in the Cretaceous period of your political career, Blarney, but surely you remembered bobbing up and down in your seat to vote for that piece of paper Brian Peckford (your boss at the time) was waving around?
What is currently in front of the Commons is a budget-related bill authorizing the federal government to hand over cash to this province under certain conditions. It is closely related to most of the other provisions of Bill C-43. Except for the ones upsetting Blarney and his friends.
And that's where Blarney's comments start to look like what they are: coprolites.
The federal government has already agreed to drop the Kyoto provisions of Bill C-43 that have Blarney and his carbon dioxide exhaling pals emitting higher than usual levels of both CO2 and fossilized fecal matter.
So what happened when the "crisis" looked like it was about to be solved?
Blarney and his buds decided that basking in the warmth of the media sun was worth more to Opposition than actually doing the job they get paid to do. Count the number of mentions of Conservative politicians this weekend versus say when they had their big policy convention.
Except for Peter Mackay's hysterically funny comments on betrayal, the whole weekend was like a policy Ice Age - no idea worth talking about could survive the "No Controversy" chill from Harper and his cohorts.
So people fell asleep.
Only to be re-awakened by one of the most contrived "crises" since the last "conspiracy" spotted by our Premier.
And every day Blarney and his buds shag around with this issue, they are threatening the province's financial future.
If they actually had anything of merit to talk about, they would be saying it.
That they spend all their time pointing fingers at other people should be a big clue as to what Blarney and his gang are really saying not about the Libs but about themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)