sex
stephen harper
nude
norm doyle
welfare
danny williams
neophyte
michael jackson
whore
loyola hearn
petard
fair deal for newfoundland
kevin mccann
paul martin
gomery inquiry
liberal scandal
blogging tories
john efford
rob antle
titan IVB
international fund for animal welfare
atlantic accord
iceland
bjork
britney spears
While this may appear to be a shameless attempt to see what this does to my google search results, I challenge anyone to fit those words into a paragraph that makes any sense at all.
Most of these are actual terms people have used to somehow find a google hit for this blog.
16 May 2005
15 May 2005
A little perspective would be nice
On Day Two of the revamped Fair Deal campaign, over 7, 000 e-mails have been sent to Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn pressing them to vote for the offshore money on Thursday - put province above party.
I just caught Loyola Hearn desperately trying to avoid dealing with that core issue.
It is everyone else's fault, says Loyola, not mine that I must put party above province.
Let's take a little time out for perspective.
A few short months ago, a motion cam before the House - from Loyola I believe - condemning the Prime Minister in strong language and pressing the government to sign a deal on the offshore.
Some Liberal MPs voted for the motion, something I don't mind telling you I thought was despicable given that the Pm was obviously trying to conclude some sort of deal. I even went so far as to e-mail one of them saying that he should resign.
Well, in hindsight, I will say that I was wrong. Those Liberal members of parliament actually took a stronger stand since they voted on a mere motion which, even though it criticized the prime minister, had little weight. It still took guts to do that.
By contrast, now when the cash is on the line, when it is meaningful and serious, it is clear that both Doyle and Hearn are putting party before province.
A few months ago those Liberal MPs could have sided with the prime minister and voted against the motion knowing full well a deal would be done and the vote would come before the House. The difference between the two positions could not be any more stark.
As a closing point, here is what Stephen Harper said in the Commons last week when he failed to get unanimous consent to split the offshore deals from the rest of the budget bill:
"The government House leader and the Chair will of course know that by what he has done he has ensured no vote on the Atlantic accord for at least a year."
Now what exactly did Mr. Harper mean by that, in light of Mr. Hearn's assurances that a Conservative government would bring the bill before the House shortly after the next federal election?
Credibility gap?
Rampant pinocchiosis?
Take your pick.
I just caught Loyola Hearn desperately trying to avoid dealing with that core issue.
It is everyone else's fault, says Loyola, not mine that I must put party above province.
Let's take a little time out for perspective.
A few short months ago, a motion cam before the House - from Loyola I believe - condemning the Prime Minister in strong language and pressing the government to sign a deal on the offshore.
Some Liberal MPs voted for the motion, something I don't mind telling you I thought was despicable given that the Pm was obviously trying to conclude some sort of deal. I even went so far as to e-mail one of them saying that he should resign.
Well, in hindsight, I will say that I was wrong. Those Liberal members of parliament actually took a stronger stand since they voted on a mere motion which, even though it criticized the prime minister, had little weight. It still took guts to do that.
By contrast, now when the cash is on the line, when it is meaningful and serious, it is clear that both Doyle and Hearn are putting party before province.
A few months ago those Liberal MPs could have sided with the prime minister and voted against the motion knowing full well a deal would be done and the vote would come before the House. The difference between the two positions could not be any more stark.
As a closing point, here is what Stephen Harper said in the Commons last week when he failed to get unanimous consent to split the offshore deals from the rest of the budget bill:
"The government House leader and the Chair will of course know that by what he has done he has ensured no vote on the Atlantic accord for at least a year."
Now what exactly did Mr. Harper mean by that, in light of Mr. Hearn's assurances that a Conservative government would bring the bill before the House shortly after the next federal election?
Credibility gap?
Rampant pinocchiosis?
Take your pick.
Indy backs Harper, Hearn and Doyle over province's cash
Not surprisingly, I suppose, managing editor Ryan Cleary's editorial in this week's Indy supports bringing down the federal government by defeating the budget bill - and the offshore money - because, as Ryan believes, the cash is safe.
Funny thing is, Stephen Harper said just this week that it will take more than a year to get an offshore revenue bill back before the House in some form. Am I the only person who heard that clip?
Ryan tries to link the Premier's pressure on Loyola Hearn to the fact Loyola backed Fabian Manning.
I'll just repeat a simple comment:
If the money was so safe or if Harper was potentially offering a better deal, then why exactly would Danny Williams risk ticking off a future PM by siding with the current one? That just doesn't make sense on any level.
I have a simple way of settling the whole matter, especially since Ryan Cleary puts great stock in the Harper letter:
Let's see the letter.
What does Harper actually say?
I am betting - and there is a whole $10 bill riding on this - that the letter isn't quite as unequivocal a commitment as Ryan and others would have us believe.
In the meantime, it is obvious Ryan Cleary hasn't read bill C-43, the one he criticizes. Otherwise he would notice that it is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation that gives money to seniors, children, cities and provinces.
Apparently Ryan believes that parliamentarians can only handle one topic and one bill at a time. An omnibus bill seems to overtax their brains, if you follow the Cleary logic.
Here's another simple suggestion, this time for Ryan Cleary - actually read bill C-43 and see just exactly how uncomplicated it is.
After reading it, Ryan you should be able to see how sweet it would be for people in this province to get their money and then defeat the government - if that's their wish - rather than put Harper in the PM's office and wait for the cash.
Why exactly can't we do the Fair Deal option, Ryan?
Funny thing is, Stephen Harper said just this week that it will take more than a year to get an offshore revenue bill back before the House in some form. Am I the only person who heard that clip?
Ryan tries to link the Premier's pressure on Loyola Hearn to the fact Loyola backed Fabian Manning.
I'll just repeat a simple comment:
If the money was so safe or if Harper was potentially offering a better deal, then why exactly would Danny Williams risk ticking off a future PM by siding with the current one? That just doesn't make sense on any level.
I have a simple way of settling the whole matter, especially since Ryan Cleary puts great stock in the Harper letter:
Let's see the letter.
What does Harper actually say?
I am betting - and there is a whole $10 bill riding on this - that the letter isn't quite as unequivocal a commitment as Ryan and others would have us believe.
In the meantime, it is obvious Ryan Cleary hasn't read bill C-43, the one he criticizes. Otherwise he would notice that it is a pretty straightforward piece of legislation that gives money to seniors, children, cities and provinces.
Apparently Ryan believes that parliamentarians can only handle one topic and one bill at a time. An omnibus bill seems to overtax their brains, if you follow the Cleary logic.
Here's another simple suggestion, this time for Ryan Cleary - actually read bill C-43 and see just exactly how uncomplicated it is.
After reading it, Ryan you should be able to see how sweet it would be for people in this province to get their money and then defeat the government - if that's their wish - rather than put Harper in the PM's office and wait for the cash.
Why exactly can't we do the Fair Deal option, Ryan?
CPC attacks populist offshore website - update
Anyone who has been following the Fair Deal campaign on Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle will see that the Connies have pulled out all the stops in an effort to blast him with their own messages.
The whole thing has caught Paul Wells' attention.
As of about 8:00 AM this morning, more than 5, 000 e-mails have gone to Hearn and Doyle encouraging them to vote for the budget and then bring down the government later. It's a sensible idea, especially since the Connies like to tell us that a separate bill could pass quickly. Well, N & L, try voting with NL.
Much more interesting though are the comments posted to Kevin McCann's blog itself. While there are a few Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, there are way more mainlanders criticising the campaign, pointing out - mostly backed up with complete nonsense - that the offshore money isn't in jeopardy, Harper is the only way to get the money, Harper proposed the deal first etc. etc.
One post from a woman named merely "Julie" advises that we should vote Conservative down here because of all the money stolen from us by "Liberal governments" over the past 50 years. Talk about someone spouting prepared talking points, Julie: the original offshore accord was a Tory deal, clawbacks and all. She pressed the lever and earned her little pellet, though. The end of her post is a link to the CPC national website.
Then there's the mainland Connie nomination-seeker who claims he supported this deal the last time. Here's a link to his own website.
As if that wasn't rich enough some guy with the pseudonym "springer" is also wading into the discussion and lambasting us all for being weak. So some guy who feels inspired by - presumably - the daily trailer-trash parade on the TV show of the same name is presuming to lecture others. Oy vey!
My personal favourite is the e-mail from Paul Brown - Loyola Hearn's aide or former aide - although Brown doesn't identify himself.
It's a lovely long-winded post as to why Hearn and Doyle shouldn't be getting e-mails. He uses the word disingenuous, yet proceeds to be the most disingenuous poster of all. (Most of the CPC posts are long; one cut and pasted Hansard!!!) After all, if Paul has to answer those e-mails his opposition to getting them is more about self interest and typers' cramp than anything else.
UPDATE: Paul finally posted back to the Fair Deal site to say he actually works now in the private sector. So let's update that lil tidbit.
My all time favourite mainlander post is from some woman named Michelle. She was succinct in her dismissal of us all. She just called us "whores".
Scan the postings, especially the mainlander ones. Lots of talk about corruption. Lots of use of the word "whore". Lots of anger.
There are some very angry people out there and they sure don't like it when you oppose them.
After Michael Harris' column on Friday, and then this, I wonder what the Open Line crowd will do as they return to the airwaves tonight?
The whole thing has caught Paul Wells' attention.
As of about 8:00 AM this morning, more than 5, 000 e-mails have gone to Hearn and Doyle encouraging them to vote for the budget and then bring down the government later. It's a sensible idea, especially since the Connies like to tell us that a separate bill could pass quickly. Well, N & L, try voting with NL.
Much more interesting though are the comments posted to Kevin McCann's blog itself. While there are a few Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, there are way more mainlanders criticising the campaign, pointing out - mostly backed up with complete nonsense - that the offshore money isn't in jeopardy, Harper is the only way to get the money, Harper proposed the deal first etc. etc.
One post from a woman named merely "Julie" advises that we should vote Conservative down here because of all the money stolen from us by "Liberal governments" over the past 50 years. Talk about someone spouting prepared talking points, Julie: the original offshore accord was a Tory deal, clawbacks and all. She pressed the lever and earned her little pellet, though. The end of her post is a link to the CPC national website.
Then there's the mainland Connie nomination-seeker who claims he supported this deal the last time. Here's a link to his own website.
As if that wasn't rich enough some guy with the pseudonym "springer" is also wading into the discussion and lambasting us all for being weak. So some guy who feels inspired by - presumably - the daily trailer-trash parade on the TV show of the same name is presuming to lecture others. Oy vey!
My personal favourite is the e-mail from Paul Brown - Loyola Hearn's aide or former aide - although Brown doesn't identify himself.
It's a lovely long-winded post as to why Hearn and Doyle shouldn't be getting e-mails. He uses the word disingenuous, yet proceeds to be the most disingenuous poster of all. (Most of the CPC posts are long; one cut and pasted Hansard!!!) After all, if Paul has to answer those e-mails his opposition to getting them is more about self interest and typers' cramp than anything else.
UPDATE: Paul finally posted back to the Fair Deal site to say he actually works now in the private sector. So let's update that lil tidbit.
My all time favourite mainlander post is from some woman named Michelle. She was succinct in her dismissal of us all. She just called us "whores".
Scan the postings, especially the mainlander ones. Lots of talk about corruption. Lots of use of the word "whore". Lots of anger.
There are some very angry people out there and they sure don't like it when you oppose them.
After Michael Harris' column on Friday, and then this, I wonder what the Open Line crowd will do as they return to the airwaves tonight?
Smell the rot of desperation
Aside from Andrew Coyne pointing out the obvious as the Connie's try desperately to inch their way into power, the surest sign that the Conservatives are willing to do anything for a vote is this release issued today from the Connie command bunker.
Here's the release with my comments and notations, as appropriate. Try to keep a straight face as you go through it. I had a hard time doing it and I like retired zipperheads. Really I do.
LABRADOR WILL HAVE RESOURCES NEEDED TO CREATE NEW JOBS AND FOSTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UNDER A STEPHEN HARPER GOVERNMENT, SAYS O'CONNOR
For immediate release: Saturday, May 14, 2005
HAPPY-VALLEY GOOSE BAY -- Today, Gordon O'Connor, MP for Carleton Mississippi Mills and Official Opposition Critic for National Defence visited the Graham Letto campaign in Happy-Valley Goose Bay and made an important announcement regarding how a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper would treat several issues critical to the future economic growth and prosperity of Labrador and its communities.
O'Connor said, "The people of Labrador have told us they are tired of lip service and tokenism and the Conservative Party of Canada is listening. There is a yearning in the land for integrity, leadership and a new direction. A Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will put decision making power back in your hands so that the people of Labrador can create new jobs, and foster economic development."
Comment: The CPC may be listening but they ain't hearing much based on the lip service Labrador voter's backsides pick up in this release.
O'Connor announced that a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper would:
- Renegotiate the revenues sharing from Voisey's Bay.
Comment: Gordo has been banging his brain housing group inside a tank without proper headgear obviously. The federal government has no revenue sharing arrangement to renegotiate. Everyone in Labrador knows this.
Either Gordo is telling a giant fib or the CPC research bureau is full of stupid people or most likely scenario: Gordo is telling us that the CPC government would be resurrecting its plan to remove nonrenewable resources from Equalization.
Kiss the offshore deal goodbye, ladies and gentlemen.
- Share in the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway.
Comment: It's been years coming and the federal government has already committed to this. See Andrew Coyne for a further discussion of how the CPC will be all the things the Liberals are when it comes to spending without being Liberals. Why buy a fake Liberal when the real one is already there?
- Help develop the Lower Churchill Falls as a power source.
Comment: The PM already made that commitment this time last year and repeated it several times. The only hang up has been that the Williams government was temporarily sidetracked with other issues.
- Ratify the Inuit land claims agreement.
Comment: Thanks for nothing Gordo. The deal is already signed. All someone needs to do is put it through the House. Oh. But wait. The Labrador Inuit would have to wait at least a year - just like Harper said about the offshore - in order to see their land claim finally settled. The reason? Stephen Harper needs to be Prime Minister before anything else happens.
- Ensure the employment at CFB Goose Bay does not decline. Comment: How? No answer. This sounds like both Conservative lips are servicing fully.
- Encourage increased flying training operations at CFB Goose Bay. Comment: We can "encourage" 'til the cows come home. The allies don't need to train at Goose, so the Connie promise is meaningless.
- Establish a Regular Force rapid reaction army battalion at CFB Goose Bay. Comment: Gordo the retired tank driver didn't promise to base a tank regiment in Goose Bay. (He still wants to get invited to armoured corps functions, after all.)
So instead he promises an infantry battalion, and a rapid-reaction one at that.
Small problem for Gordo. Where is the battalion going to come from? Valcartier? Gagetown? Petawawa? Winnipeg? Edmonton?
If they don't come up with some cockamamie idea of doubling the size of the army and making a whole new battalion (Hint for Gordo - DND has recruiting problems), I'll venture the battalion will be relocated from the one place where the Connies don't have to worry about losing votes by shifting millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs from a base. I am talking Valcartier.
The Vandoos hit Goose Bay.
Newfoundland and Labrador nationalists start sweating.
Film at 11.
Oh. There's another small problem. The army doesn't have plans for a rapid-reaction battalion, whatever that is supposed to be. The new formation being created as an adjunct to Joint Task Force 2 needs to be close to the main guys, so I am guessing they will be in Petawawa.
- Establish an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron at CFB Goose Bay. Comment: Five big bucks says this already on the drawing board. UAVs were already trialed at Goose. A small presence is needed to give support to the UAVs doing coastal patrols. A squadron sounds about right.
Here's the release with my comments and notations, as appropriate. Try to keep a straight face as you go through it. I had a hard time doing it and I like retired zipperheads. Really I do.
LABRADOR WILL HAVE RESOURCES NEEDED TO CREATE NEW JOBS AND FOSTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UNDER A STEPHEN HARPER GOVERNMENT, SAYS O'CONNOR
For immediate release: Saturday, May 14, 2005
HAPPY-VALLEY GOOSE BAY -- Today, Gordon O'Connor, MP for Carleton Mississippi Mills and Official Opposition Critic for National Defence visited the Graham Letto campaign in Happy-Valley Goose Bay and made an important announcement regarding how a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper would treat several issues critical to the future economic growth and prosperity of Labrador and its communities.
O'Connor said, "The people of Labrador have told us they are tired of lip service and tokenism and the Conservative Party of Canada is listening. There is a yearning in the land for integrity, leadership and a new direction. A Conservative Government led by Stephen Harper will put decision making power back in your hands so that the people of Labrador can create new jobs, and foster economic development."
Comment: The CPC may be listening but they ain't hearing much based on the lip service Labrador voter's backsides pick up in this release.
O'Connor announced that a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper would:
- Renegotiate the revenues sharing from Voisey's Bay.
Comment: Gordo has been banging his brain housing group inside a tank without proper headgear obviously. The federal government has no revenue sharing arrangement to renegotiate. Everyone in Labrador knows this.
Either Gordo is telling a giant fib or the CPC research bureau is full of stupid people or most likely scenario: Gordo is telling us that the CPC government would be resurrecting its plan to remove nonrenewable resources from Equalization.
Kiss the offshore deal goodbye, ladies and gentlemen.
- Share in the completion of the Trans-Labrador Highway.
Comment: It's been years coming and the federal government has already committed to this. See Andrew Coyne for a further discussion of how the CPC will be all the things the Liberals are when it comes to spending without being Liberals. Why buy a fake Liberal when the real one is already there?
- Help develop the Lower Churchill Falls as a power source.
Comment: The PM already made that commitment this time last year and repeated it several times. The only hang up has been that the Williams government was temporarily sidetracked with other issues.
- Ratify the Inuit land claims agreement.
Comment: Thanks for nothing Gordo. The deal is already signed. All someone needs to do is put it through the House. Oh. But wait. The Labrador Inuit would have to wait at least a year - just like Harper said about the offshore - in order to see their land claim finally settled. The reason? Stephen Harper needs to be Prime Minister before anything else happens.
- Ensure the employment at CFB Goose Bay does not decline. Comment: How? No answer. This sounds like both Conservative lips are servicing fully.
- Encourage increased flying training operations at CFB Goose Bay. Comment: We can "encourage" 'til the cows come home. The allies don't need to train at Goose, so the Connie promise is meaningless.
- Establish a Regular Force rapid reaction army battalion at CFB Goose Bay. Comment: Gordo the retired tank driver didn't promise to base a tank regiment in Goose Bay. (He still wants to get invited to armoured corps functions, after all.)
So instead he promises an infantry battalion, and a rapid-reaction one at that.
Small problem for Gordo. Where is the battalion going to come from? Valcartier? Gagetown? Petawawa? Winnipeg? Edmonton?
If they don't come up with some cockamamie idea of doubling the size of the army and making a whole new battalion (Hint for Gordo - DND has recruiting problems), I'll venture the battalion will be relocated from the one place where the Connies don't have to worry about losing votes by shifting millions of dollars and hundreds of jobs from a base. I am talking Valcartier.
The Vandoos hit Goose Bay.
Newfoundland and Labrador nationalists start sweating.
Film at 11.
Oh. There's another small problem. The army doesn't have plans for a rapid-reaction battalion, whatever that is supposed to be. The new formation being created as an adjunct to Joint Task Force 2 needs to be close to the main guys, so I am guessing they will be in Petawawa.
- Establish an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron at CFB Goose Bay. Comment: Five big bucks says this already on the drawing board. UAVs were already trialed at Goose. A small presence is needed to give support to the UAVs doing coastal patrols. A squadron sounds about right.
-30-
As a public relations professional, I just love news releases that tell people they are tired of bulls**** and then spew cow manure instead.
Gord O'Connor.
Loaded the charge.
Forgot the sabot round.
Ask a tank guy what happens when the commander yells "Fire!" in that case.
Big noise.
Bright flash.
F*** all else.
Gord O'Connor.
Loaded the charge.
Forgot the sabot round.
Ask a tank guy what happens when the commander yells "Fire!" in that case.
Big noise.
Bright flash.
F*** all else.
14 May 2005
Fair Deal website targets Hearn and Doyle
The Fair Deal for Newfoundland website has targeted Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn in its reinvigorated efforts to secure the offshore revenue deal for Newfoundland and Labrador.
"Members of Parliament Loyola Hearn and Norman Doyle have a clear choice: put their party first — or put their province first. By voting against the federal budget, they put all of our efforts at risk by bringing down the government and breaking the Atlantic Accord. By voting for the federal budget they make the deal a reality, but can still move to take power at a later time. This choice is clear: Doyle and Hearn need to put their province above party politics."
Maybe they just need to follow the example set by Sir Robert Bond, one of the greatest prime minister in our history.
He routinely put people and principle before party.
"Members of Parliament Loyola Hearn and Norman Doyle have a clear choice: put their party first — or put their province first. By voting against the federal budget, they put all of our efforts at risk by bringing down the government and breaking the Atlantic Accord. By voting for the federal budget they make the deal a reality, but can still move to take power at a later time. This choice is clear: Doyle and Hearn need to put their province above party politics."
Maybe they just need to follow the example set by Sir Robert Bond, one of the greatest prime minister in our history.
He routinely put people and principle before party.
Top Secret Argentia site - the facts
Friday's Telegram had an editorial which screamed for some clarification.
It spoke of a top secret building at the base, hinting that this might be the place a former Marine Corps soldier said was used to store nuclear weapons. The editorial made it sound like people didn't know what was going on there.
Piffle. That building was known as the "T" Building and is located at the south side of the base. It housed the data processing centre for a section of the Sound Underwater Surveillance System or SOSUS. This was a collection of hydrophones strung across the seabed that listened for Soviet submarines. To the best of my knowledge the T Building is not the building the former Marine is talking about.
In 1963, data from the Argentia SOSUS station was used to help pinpoint the location of a United States Navy submarine that had disappeared after leaving Spain on its way home.
The T Building was a highly sensitive facility since SOSUS was part of the front line defence against Soviet ballistic missile submarines. Not much of a surprise therefore that it was highly guarded and the Americans looked suspiciously on anyone who inquired about it. Does anyone remember Stephen Ratkai? Maybe that's a name for the "Newfoundland and Espionage" posting.
The top secret research facility everyone has been talking about was the SOSUS station - top secret underwater acoustic research.
Were nuclear weapons present at Argentia?
Yes.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, complete nuclear weapons were deployed to Argentia. This is one of the major facts that led the federal government to negotiate an agreement with the United States specifically governing American nuclear weapons deployments to Argentia.
At other times, nuclear weapons components were there. That is, the base housed everything except the cores of fissionable material that would produce the atomic explosion of the thing worked properly.
There has been no report of any unusual radiation levels at Argentia. This undermines the story that the site housed large numbers of weapons, that these weapons were improperly stored and that there is a major environmental catastrophe at Argentia being covered up by the US government.
Of all the buildings at Argentia, the T Building was retained in American control after Argentia was closed out. It was refurbished and two large white radar domes were mounted on top as part of the US Air Forces range instrumentation system for the Cape Canaveral launch facility. The T Building continues to be used today, including during the recent Titan 4B launch.
Now you know the facts.
Make up your own mind.
It spoke of a top secret building at the base, hinting that this might be the place a former Marine Corps soldier said was used to store nuclear weapons. The editorial made it sound like people didn't know what was going on there.
Piffle. That building was known as the "T" Building and is located at the south side of the base. It housed the data processing centre for a section of the Sound Underwater Surveillance System or SOSUS. This was a collection of hydrophones strung across the seabed that listened for Soviet submarines. To the best of my knowledge the T Building is not the building the former Marine is talking about.
In 1963, data from the Argentia SOSUS station was used to help pinpoint the location of a United States Navy submarine that had disappeared after leaving Spain on its way home.
The T Building was a highly sensitive facility since SOSUS was part of the front line defence against Soviet ballistic missile submarines. Not much of a surprise therefore that it was highly guarded and the Americans looked suspiciously on anyone who inquired about it. Does anyone remember Stephen Ratkai? Maybe that's a name for the "Newfoundland and Espionage" posting.
The top secret research facility everyone has been talking about was the SOSUS station - top secret underwater acoustic research.
Were nuclear weapons present at Argentia?
Yes.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, complete nuclear weapons were deployed to Argentia. This is one of the major facts that led the federal government to negotiate an agreement with the United States specifically governing American nuclear weapons deployments to Argentia.
At other times, nuclear weapons components were there. That is, the base housed everything except the cores of fissionable material that would produce the atomic explosion of the thing worked properly.
There has been no report of any unusual radiation levels at Argentia. This undermines the story that the site housed large numbers of weapons, that these weapons were improperly stored and that there is a major environmental catastrophe at Argentia being covered up by the US government.
Of all the buildings at Argentia, the T Building was retained in American control after Argentia was closed out. It was refurbished and two large white radar domes were mounted on top as part of the US Air Forces range instrumentation system for the Cape Canaveral launch facility. The T Building continues to be used today, including during the recent Titan 4B launch.
Now you know the facts.
Make up your own mind.
13 May 2005
Anonymous posts and the challenge of integrity
As some of you will notice, I have removed the public comments section from this blog.
When I started the Bond Papers in January 2005, I set it up so that people could make comments in the hope that there could be an informed and frank exchange of views on some of the things posted here. The idea of this blog is to be provocative and to ground the comments as much as possible in fact.
The Papers didn't attract much comment in public although I do get regular e-mails from people seeking additional information or challenging some of my comments. Fair enough. The result has been very useful for me and hopefully led to a greater understand of the point I was trying to make. Certainly some of my correspondents clarified the other perspectives on issues and helped me to appreciate those points of view more than I may have.
The odd comment that did appear during the offshore fracas was invariable anonymous and at times merely focused on trivial side issues rather than substantive ones.
In the past couple of days yet another anonymous poster using the name "Biddy" has taken to filling up the comments page with little more than partisan talking points. Curiously, the posts appear at the times when a parliamentary IP address is accessing the blog. I am drawing a logical conclusion that "Biddy" is a CPC staffer since I happen to know the other member of parliament staffer who checks my blog from time to time. He doesn't post things here.
I have no problem with a well-constructed partisan argument. What I do find offensive is that the individual chooses to hide behind some pseudonym. This approach betrays a fundamental lack of respect for me and the other readers of this blog such that I refuse to tolerate it. Were that not enough, since the individual lacks any obvious sense of humour there really isn't much point is hosting the comments anyway.
For the time being, I will withdraw the comments section and save bandwidth as a result. If people using it can't display some integrity or display some common courtesy by properly identifying themselves, then I do not feel obliged to give them a platform.
Anyone who wants to berate me or engaged me in further discussion can feel free to send me an e-mail.
When I started the Bond Papers in January 2005, I set it up so that people could make comments in the hope that there could be an informed and frank exchange of views on some of the things posted here. The idea of this blog is to be provocative and to ground the comments as much as possible in fact.
The Papers didn't attract much comment in public although I do get regular e-mails from people seeking additional information or challenging some of my comments. Fair enough. The result has been very useful for me and hopefully led to a greater understand of the point I was trying to make. Certainly some of my correspondents clarified the other perspectives on issues and helped me to appreciate those points of view more than I may have.
The odd comment that did appear during the offshore fracas was invariable anonymous and at times merely focused on trivial side issues rather than substantive ones.
In the past couple of days yet another anonymous poster using the name "Biddy" has taken to filling up the comments page with little more than partisan talking points. Curiously, the posts appear at the times when a parliamentary IP address is accessing the blog. I am drawing a logical conclusion that "Biddy" is a CPC staffer since I happen to know the other member of parliament staffer who checks my blog from time to time. He doesn't post things here.
I have no problem with a well-constructed partisan argument. What I do find offensive is that the individual chooses to hide behind some pseudonym. This approach betrays a fundamental lack of respect for me and the other readers of this blog such that I refuse to tolerate it. Were that not enough, since the individual lacks any obvious sense of humour there really isn't much point is hosting the comments anyway.
For the time being, I will withdraw the comments section and save bandwidth as a result. If people using it can't display some integrity or display some common courtesy by properly identifying themselves, then I do not feel obliged to give them a platform.
Anyone who wants to berate me or engaged me in further discussion can feel free to send me an e-mail.
Nutty Norm and Michael Harris
Norm Doyle has snapped completely under the strain of people wanting him to put province first, while Norm himself is putting his party before all.
In an interview with VOCM, Norm insisted that had the government supported a motion to split the offshore money from the budget bill, the province would have had its money right away.
Norm is now confirmed as being willing to say anything at all in a desperate bid to prop up his position.
Even if the bill got through the House before Norm and his fellow Conservatives defeated the government, the province can't get a nickel until the bill passes the Senate and gets Royal Assent.
Ok. I just thought about it again.
Maybe Norm isn't nuts after all.
Maybe what Norm is saying is that if we can get the bill out of Harper's clutches and into the Liberal-dominated Senate it will pass irrespective of who wins the next federal election.
Maybe what Norm and the Premier are telling us is that if Norm Doyle's party brings down the government our offshore money is history. But if we could possibly get it past Harper then maybe it would be safe - but only because Liberals are steadfastly behind the deal.
Norm Doyle: pinocchiosis-induced insanity or disloyal to his leader? Geez. This is getting harder to read with every passing moment. What will Norm say next?
Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, Michael Harris has decided to kick the crap out of Danny Williams.
Here's a link to his column in the Sun chain.
It contains such comments as:
"First of all Danny, you are the premier of Newfoundland, not Napoleon. There are limits to a local potentate's powers, even one as rich as you are personally. Last time I looked, the province's MPs took their marching orders from Martin and Harper, not you."
or this one:
"He [Williams] even had the cheek to describe his ugly fiat to all provincial MPs as non-partisan. What could be more partisan than supporting a government and party that have made your corner of the world more prosperous while corrupting the highest public institutions in the land?" [Emphasis added.]
Mike, I got a question for you. Did you ever write screeds for John Crosbie? I do know you wrote a fawning book about the former federal governor of the former poorest province.
Maybe Mike has been inhaling Charlie Lynch columns by the snoutful.
But man, Mike's anti-Danny invective in this column will make people appreciate Margaret Wente for her frankness.
In an interview with VOCM, Norm insisted that had the government supported a motion to split the offshore money from the budget bill, the province would have had its money right away.
Norm is now confirmed as being willing to say anything at all in a desperate bid to prop up his position.
Even if the bill got through the House before Norm and his fellow Conservatives defeated the government, the province can't get a nickel until the bill passes the Senate and gets Royal Assent.
Ok. I just thought about it again.
Maybe Norm isn't nuts after all.
Maybe what Norm is saying is that if we can get the bill out of Harper's clutches and into the Liberal-dominated Senate it will pass irrespective of who wins the next federal election.
Maybe what Norm and the Premier are telling us is that if Norm Doyle's party brings down the government our offshore money is history. But if we could possibly get it past Harper then maybe it would be safe - but only because Liberals are steadfastly behind the deal.
Norm Doyle: pinocchiosis-induced insanity or disloyal to his leader? Geez. This is getting harder to read with every passing moment. What will Norm say next?
Stay tuned.
Meanwhile, Michael Harris has decided to kick the crap out of Danny Williams.
Here's a link to his column in the Sun chain.
It contains such comments as:
"First of all Danny, you are the premier of Newfoundland, not Napoleon. There are limits to a local potentate's powers, even one as rich as you are personally. Last time I looked, the province's MPs took their marching orders from Martin and Harper, not you."
or this one:
"He [Williams] even had the cheek to describe his ugly fiat to all provincial MPs as non-partisan. What could be more partisan than supporting a government and party that have made your corner of the world more prosperous while corrupting the highest public institutions in the land?" [Emphasis added.]
Mike, I got a question for you. Did you ever write screeds for John Crosbie? I do know you wrote a fawning book about the former federal governor of the former poorest province.
Maybe Mike has been inhaling Charlie Lynch columns by the snoutful.
But man, Mike's anti-Danny invective in this column will make people appreciate Margaret Wente for her frankness.
Friday catch up
Since it is Friday and nothing truly exciting is happening - watching Norm and Loyola melt doesn't count - I thought I'd give a quickie update on a couple of promised posts.
First, on the Telelink poll, I have received nil response from NTV save for an e-mail that the request had been passed up to the proper authorities.
For my own part, I need to call Telelink directly and see what I can find.
Second, I will post on game theory over the weekend. Part of that will involve my digging into a paper I wrote about 16 years ago. As well, I have had a couple of useful chats with a friend of mine who is into game theory - poor sod. He has raised some points that I really should consider before dismissing the whole thing as economics.
Other than that I can't recall any promised follow up posts. Perhaps faithful readers would be good enough to jog my memory on stuff that isn't stale and outdated by now.
First, on the Telelink poll, I have received nil response from NTV save for an e-mail that the request had been passed up to the proper authorities.
For my own part, I need to call Telelink directly and see what I can find.
Second, I will post on game theory over the weekend. Part of that will involve my digging into a paper I wrote about 16 years ago. As well, I have had a couple of useful chats with a friend of mine who is into game theory - poor sod. He has raised some points that I really should consider before dismissing the whole thing as economics.
Other than that I can't recall any promised follow up posts. Perhaps faithful readers would be good enough to jog my memory on stuff that isn't stale and outdated by now.
12 May 2005
Norm Doyle is nuts
Norm Doyle just told Mary-Lou Findlay that the only way he'll vote for the budget bill (C-43) is if the Prime Minister renegs on his commitment to pass the offshore money bill.
Is there a psychiatrist in the House? Norm is obviously cracking under the strain.
Either Norm is absolutely crackers or he has no regard whatsoever for the intelligence of his electorate.
As I am listening to Norm he just spouted another falsehood claiming that Danny Williams wanted to see the offshore money in a separate bill from C-43.
Wow, Norm. The pinocchiosis virus is obviously now in full bloom. Danny said as recently as yesterday what he has said all along: pass the bill with offshore money in it. Get it done. A vote against the offshore money - i.e. the budget - is a not in the best interests of the province.
As for the theme of "unauthorized spending" that the Norm and Loyola show are spreading, every deal like the offshore one is technically unauthorized until the House of Commons gives legislative approval.
Does anyone smell an "out" here? A Harper government refuses to honour any of the provincial deals because they are "unauthorized" and set a bad precedent and the country can't afford them. Then on the offshore, Harper just goes back to his plan to change the Equalization formula.
If Norm gets elected, we are gonna be supporting some extra staff to help move his nose around. Pinocchiosis is a modern scourge among some politicians far more debilitating than any other condition.
Maybe Brian Mulroney could host a telethon.
Is there a psychiatrist in the House? Norm is obviously cracking under the strain.
Either Norm is absolutely crackers or he has no regard whatsoever for the intelligence of his electorate.
As I am listening to Norm he just spouted another falsehood claiming that Danny Williams wanted to see the offshore money in a separate bill from C-43.
Wow, Norm. The pinocchiosis virus is obviously now in full bloom. Danny said as recently as yesterday what he has said all along: pass the bill with offshore money in it. Get it done. A vote against the offshore money - i.e. the budget - is a not in the best interests of the province.
As for the theme of "unauthorized spending" that the Norm and Loyola show are spreading, every deal like the offshore one is technically unauthorized until the House of Commons gives legislative approval.
Does anyone smell an "out" here? A Harper government refuses to honour any of the provincial deals because they are "unauthorized" and set a bad precedent and the country can't afford them. Then on the offshore, Harper just goes back to his plan to change the Equalization formula.
If Norm gets elected, we are gonna be supporting some extra staff to help move his nose around. Pinocchiosis is a modern scourge among some politicians far more debilitating than any other condition.
Maybe Brian Mulroney could host a telethon.
Hearn and Doyle keep on squirming
Aside from the sudden appearance of anonymous postings to the comments section of my blog from someone spouting Conservative talking points, I was almost floored to see Norm Doyle on NTV this evening and read Loyola's comments in the Telly. Things must be getting hot for the Reformatories if they are sending what looks to me like their paid staff onto blogs in order to spread what is really nothing more than piffle.
On NTV, Norm kept repeating a call for Liberals to promise the offshore money is safe is the Liberals are re-elected. He seemed to lose focus at one point and just kept rambling on and on.
Let me put it this way: Liberals will be voting for the deal their prime minister signed whether the thing is in bill C-43, a stand alone bill or delivered baked in a pizza and written in mandarin Chinese.
The Liberal commitment on this point is clear. Except for desperate Connie partisans flailing around for excuses, the main issue is what the two Conservative members of parliament will do when the real vote comes on the offshore money.
Remember that the vote the Liberals sided with before was just a hollow partisan gesture by Doyle, Hearn and a few others. They picked province over party and PM and they never suffered a bit.
This time it matters, Norm and Loyola. That's why everyone expects you to stand up and state what you plan to do rather than weasel around as you have been doing.
So which way are you going to vote, Norm: Party or Province?
Meanwhile over in the Hearn bunker deep in the heart of Renews (not in the riding he nominally represents), the wannabe fish minister is spreading some nonsense of his own.
He is trying to pretend that the Connies were going to vote for the budget but can't do it now because of all the new spending. For further detail see the Telly story in today's edition on page A4.
Here are the facts - something Loyola has a historical problem with irrespective of the subject -
1. The Conservative Party has never indicated it would vote for the government's budget. Their initial objection was because of the bill's Kyoto provisions. They were removed and so then the Connies decided to object to the offshore money being included in what they called a "complex" piece of legislation.
Mr. Hearn's line of argument is nothing more than an effort to divert attention from the truth.
2. The reason Messrs Doyle and Hearn are nervous is because their party is soft on the offshore deal.
- Their leader rejected the Williams proposal in his written reply to the Premier almost a year ago. Harper also promised to sell the federal Hibernia shares on the open market " for the benefit of all Canadians".
- No one has seen this recent letter from Harper so we don't know what it says. Apparently, the Premier is concerned about it to the point where he is willing to start again from the beginning to negotiate with a Harper government. So much for a done deal.
- Danny Williams has also said he would welcome re-opening the deal to make it better.
- Flip over to Andrew Coyne's website and you'll see the Connie view of the offshore deals reflected in some of the comments on the site from Coyne readers.
3. Danny Williams now considers voting against the offshore money to be "not in the best interests of the province."
A few short months ago, Loyola was praising Danny. Today's Telly has the premier making a stark, negative comment on Hearn's intentions. All is not well in the Connie camp.
To switch back to my own interpretation, I'll toss this on the table. Hearn is going to have a hard time getting workers in the next federal election. It was bad enough that traditional Tory supporters abandoned him to work for Norm Doyle last time.
The Osborne machine deserted him because of some serious disagreements on policy - like the death penalty and Hearn's role in the shotgun wedding with the Reformers.
Added to all that will be Hearn's turning his back on Newfoundland and Labrador. How can any provincial Tory work for Doyle or Hearn in this instance when they plan to put Stephen Harper ahead of their province's interests?
Loyola remembers very well that he only won St. John's South Mount Pearl by a mere 4.5% last time over political newcomer Siobhan Coady. Slightly less than 40% of the electorate supported the Renews-based Hearn. Coady polled 35% and the New Democrats' Peg Norman polled 24%.
Loyola ducked every possible opportunity to debate his opponents and was decidedly miserable and ungracious in his victory. That didn't win him any new friends.
Peg may not run again and in a stark contest between the Connies candidate Hearn, backed by the likes of Stockwell "Culture of Life" Day and Peter MacKay, DDS, I would lay odds on NDP supporters holding their noses and voting Liberal just to keep the Reformatories from taking power.
Add to that the spectre of a country run by a majority federal party with no or almost no support in one of the country's most populous provinces.
Gomery and the $100 million pilfered by what most Canadians consider a bunch of bad apples will rapidly drift off the minds of most Canadians when they start to consider which party would make the best government for the country.
On NTV, Norm kept repeating a call for Liberals to promise the offshore money is safe is the Liberals are re-elected. He seemed to lose focus at one point and just kept rambling on and on.
Let me put it this way: Liberals will be voting for the deal their prime minister signed whether the thing is in bill C-43, a stand alone bill or delivered baked in a pizza and written in mandarin Chinese.
The Liberal commitment on this point is clear. Except for desperate Connie partisans flailing around for excuses, the main issue is what the two Conservative members of parliament will do when the real vote comes on the offshore money.
Remember that the vote the Liberals sided with before was just a hollow partisan gesture by Doyle, Hearn and a few others. They picked province over party and PM and they never suffered a bit.
This time it matters, Norm and Loyola. That's why everyone expects you to stand up and state what you plan to do rather than weasel around as you have been doing.
So which way are you going to vote, Norm: Party or Province?
Meanwhile over in the Hearn bunker deep in the heart of Renews (not in the riding he nominally represents), the wannabe fish minister is spreading some nonsense of his own.
He is trying to pretend that the Connies were going to vote for the budget but can't do it now because of all the new spending. For further detail see the Telly story in today's edition on page A4.
Here are the facts - something Loyola has a historical problem with irrespective of the subject -
1. The Conservative Party has never indicated it would vote for the government's budget. Their initial objection was because of the bill's Kyoto provisions. They were removed and so then the Connies decided to object to the offshore money being included in what they called a "complex" piece of legislation.
Mr. Hearn's line of argument is nothing more than an effort to divert attention from the truth.
2. The reason Messrs Doyle and Hearn are nervous is because their party is soft on the offshore deal.
- Their leader rejected the Williams proposal in his written reply to the Premier almost a year ago. Harper also promised to sell the federal Hibernia shares on the open market " for the benefit of all Canadians".
- No one has seen this recent letter from Harper so we don't know what it says. Apparently, the Premier is concerned about it to the point where he is willing to start again from the beginning to negotiate with a Harper government. So much for a done deal.
- Danny Williams has also said he would welcome re-opening the deal to make it better.
- Flip over to Andrew Coyne's website and you'll see the Connie view of the offshore deals reflected in some of the comments on the site from Coyne readers.
3. Danny Williams now considers voting against the offshore money to be "not in the best interests of the province."
A few short months ago, Loyola was praising Danny. Today's Telly has the premier making a stark, negative comment on Hearn's intentions. All is not well in the Connie camp.
To switch back to my own interpretation, I'll toss this on the table. Hearn is going to have a hard time getting workers in the next federal election. It was bad enough that traditional Tory supporters abandoned him to work for Norm Doyle last time.
The Osborne machine deserted him because of some serious disagreements on policy - like the death penalty and Hearn's role in the shotgun wedding with the Reformers.
Added to all that will be Hearn's turning his back on Newfoundland and Labrador. How can any provincial Tory work for Doyle or Hearn in this instance when they plan to put Stephen Harper ahead of their province's interests?
Loyola remembers very well that he only won St. John's South Mount Pearl by a mere 4.5% last time over political newcomer Siobhan Coady. Slightly less than 40% of the electorate supported the Renews-based Hearn. Coady polled 35% and the New Democrats' Peg Norman polled 24%.
Loyola ducked every possible opportunity to debate his opponents and was decidedly miserable and ungracious in his victory. That didn't win him any new friends.
Peg may not run again and in a stark contest between the Connies candidate Hearn, backed by the likes of Stockwell "Culture of Life" Day and Peter MacKay, DDS, I would lay odds on NDP supporters holding their noses and voting Liberal just to keep the Reformatories from taking power.
Add to that the spectre of a country run by a majority federal party with no or almost no support in one of the country's most populous provinces.
Gomery and the $100 million pilfered by what most Canadians consider a bunch of bad apples will rapidly drift off the minds of most Canadians when they start to consider which party would make the best government for the country.
Coyne's readers comment on the Premier
Grab that mouse and click on over to Andrew Coyne's blog.
Note especially the comments posted thus far. I like the last one from some guy who wants to give the premier a "talking to" for daring suggest that all members of parliament from this province should support bill C-43.
Note especially the comments posted thus far. I like the last one from some guy who wants to give the premier a "talking to" for daring suggest that all members of parliament from this province should support bill C-43.
Norm and Loyola: you have your orders! (updated)
Norm Doyle and Loyola Hearn aren't on the greatest terms with Danny Williams anyway but it is interesting to see the premier's comments, at least as attributed to him by VOCM.
"It's a vote that may be the federal Conservatives' best hope of bringing down the Paul Martin Liberals, but Premier Danny Williams wants this province's MP's, be they Liberal or Tory, to vote with the government. MP's will vote on the federal budget next Thursday. Williams says a vote against it will be a conscious decision to vote against the Atlantic Accord and he'd prefer to see the Accord passed as soon as possible."
Expect the calls to Open Line from the two boys in Ottawa to become increasingly shrill in their denunciation of the Liberals for putting the offshore money in the budget bill in the first place.
Politics is about hard choices, Loyola.
Just think of it like you did in 1985 when you voted in favour of the clawbacks.
UPDATE: CBC Radio's version of this story has a slightly different take on it. The Premier is not worried about losing the offshore money, in part because of an unsolicited letter from Stephen Harper that pledges "to follow through on the accord", as CBC puts it.
Let's see the actual letter, please.
Wade Locke was quoted in a CBC TV piece last night saying that since the NDP and Conservatives supported the deal all along, there really wasn't a problem. Maybe he misspoke. The Conservatives initially did not support the Williams proposal.
As for the current guarantee, then, I find this quote a little curious:
{"I can say categorically, as premier of this province, that if the Conservatives or NDP form the next government, then I'm prepared to go through the exactly the same process that I went through the last time," Williams says.}
Why would the premier need to go back through the same negotiating process again if the current deal is already assured?
As for Norm Doyle, here's what CBC attributes to him:
{Norm Doyle, the MP for St. John's North, said he had considered voting for the budget because of the accord provisions.
However, he said a separate bill should be introduced.
"We could put it through immediately," Doyle said Thursday.}
Norm Doyle knows this just is not true; not even close to being factual and accurate.
A separate bill would have to be introduced from scratch thereby resetting the process to the beginning. It would take as long or longer to get a separate bill through as it would for people to vote for the current budget bill. Norm knows this. Loyola knows it too. They know their position just isn't true.
What they are presenting is a media line that avoids having to deal with the fundamental fact:
Their leader wants to bring down the government today - before any approval could be given to this province's new offshore revenue. It doesn't matter whether the offshore money was a separate bill or in C-43 as it is now. It will die one way or another if Doyle's Conservatives and the Bloc partner up to defeat the government.
Following the logical implication of the premier's comments, he will likely have to start from scratch re-negotiating a deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
"It's a vote that may be the federal Conservatives' best hope of bringing down the Paul Martin Liberals, but Premier Danny Williams wants this province's MP's, be they Liberal or Tory, to vote with the government. MP's will vote on the federal budget next Thursday. Williams says a vote against it will be a conscious decision to vote against the Atlantic Accord and he'd prefer to see the Accord passed as soon as possible."
Expect the calls to Open Line from the two boys in Ottawa to become increasingly shrill in their denunciation of the Liberals for putting the offshore money in the budget bill in the first place.
Politics is about hard choices, Loyola.
Just think of it like you did in 1985 when you voted in favour of the clawbacks.
UPDATE: CBC Radio's version of this story has a slightly different take on it. The Premier is not worried about losing the offshore money, in part because of an unsolicited letter from Stephen Harper that pledges "to follow through on the accord", as CBC puts it.
Let's see the actual letter, please.
Wade Locke was quoted in a CBC TV piece last night saying that since the NDP and Conservatives supported the deal all along, there really wasn't a problem. Maybe he misspoke. The Conservatives initially did not support the Williams proposal.
As for the current guarantee, then, I find this quote a little curious:
{"I can say categorically, as premier of this province, that if the Conservatives or NDP form the next government, then I'm prepared to go through the exactly the same process that I went through the last time," Williams says.}
Why would the premier need to go back through the same negotiating process again if the current deal is already assured?
As for Norm Doyle, here's what CBC attributes to him:
{Norm Doyle, the MP for St. John's North, said he had considered voting for the budget because of the accord provisions.
However, he said a separate bill should be introduced.
"We could put it through immediately," Doyle said Thursday.}
Norm Doyle knows this just is not true; not even close to being factual and accurate.
A separate bill would have to be introduced from scratch thereby resetting the process to the beginning. It would take as long or longer to get a separate bill through as it would for people to vote for the current budget bill. Norm knows this. Loyola knows it too. They know their position just isn't true.
What they are presenting is a media line that avoids having to deal with the fundamental fact:
Their leader wants to bring down the government today - before any approval could be given to this province's new offshore revenue. It doesn't matter whether the offshore money was a separate bill or in C-43 as it is now. It will die one way or another if Doyle's Conservatives and the Bloc partner up to defeat the government.
Following the logical implication of the premier's comments, he will likely have to start from scratch re-negotiating a deal with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
After a good night's sleep
It helps to let things die down a bit before making any big decisions.
Here are a few links to ponder as you sip your morning coffee.
Paul Wells has done the invaluable service to thinking Canadians of providing the text to the Conservative so-called non-confidence motion. It's pretty clear that it is just an instruction to a committee to reconsider something.
Put that in the context of the continued nonsense on Wednesday over "non-confidence" motions, as reported by the Globe.
Then have a gander at the poll results compiled by SES Research for the Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel. SES did the CPAC nightly polling during the last federal election and was deadly for its accuracy.
Note especially the high number of respondents who want to wait until after Gomery for an election.
Then, just for curiosity sake, flip over to this piece from last week about Stephen Harper's love of game theory and the fact that he now has two of the country's leading game theory proponents (more of the U Calgary Mafia) on his payroll. This single fact explains much of Harper's ongoing strategic problems, but I'll develop that in another post.
I don't want to burst any Conservative bubbles here but game theory has been around for a while. It was tremendously popular in the 1950s and 1960s among American academics many of whom wound up helping Robert Strange MacNamara run the war in Vietnam. You can see perhaps where I might wind up going in my discussion of game theory and crap strategy.
Mapping scenarios is one thing and running simulations is all fine and good. Here's a little reality check: game theory is not exactly the most precise of sciences. In fact, the political scientist/ historian in me wants to scream that game theory is to the practice of policy making as Intelligent Design is to science. Or maybe astrology to psychology.
Game Theory has a number of fundamental flaws one of which is the tendency to assume rationality, or more correctly, to assume that people behave according to the game parameters and the game-related definition of reality. Like economics, it is built around assumptions and that, as my faithful readers well know, is the second most abysmal science of all. I am still hunting for the first.
Remember the joke?
[Hold up one hand.]
"First, we assume a can opener."
If you can't go back to here, and scroll down to the post entitled "Morning smile - here's the real can opener joke".
Here's one link I came across from 2002 on the application of game theory to the current Iraq conflict and the broader revival of Thomas Schelling's The strategy of conflict. If you want to buy the book, try the local Chapters. Better still get it from a library. Here's the online info and it is relatively cheap.
While it is all neatly laid out, the whole approach seems to be a peculiarly American approach to strategy that rests in part on the exclusion of anything which cannot be quantified. It is also an approach with very limited successes, as I will discuss in that other post to come right next to the discussion of Trevor Dupuy.
If you want a well-presented critique of the application of "rational actor" models to life, try reading Voltaire's bastards by His Excellency John Ralston Saul.
Armed with all those threads, you can now go off and weave some kind of afghan to ward off the chill of the pending election.
Personally, I am heading to Tim's for another large double-double. This one game theory thing may now give me enough to figure out the peculiar world of Harper's Conservatives.
Here are a few links to ponder as you sip your morning coffee.
Paul Wells has done the invaluable service to thinking Canadians of providing the text to the Conservative so-called non-confidence motion. It's pretty clear that it is just an instruction to a committee to reconsider something.
Put that in the context of the continued nonsense on Wednesday over "non-confidence" motions, as reported by the Globe.
Then have a gander at the poll results compiled by SES Research for the Canadian Parliamentary Affairs Channel. SES did the CPAC nightly polling during the last federal election and was deadly for its accuracy.
Note especially the high number of respondents who want to wait until after Gomery for an election.
Then, just for curiosity sake, flip over to this piece from last week about Stephen Harper's love of game theory and the fact that he now has two of the country's leading game theory proponents (more of the U Calgary Mafia) on his payroll. This single fact explains much of Harper's ongoing strategic problems, but I'll develop that in another post.
I don't want to burst any Conservative bubbles here but game theory has been around for a while. It was tremendously popular in the 1950s and 1960s among American academics many of whom wound up helping Robert Strange MacNamara run the war in Vietnam. You can see perhaps where I might wind up going in my discussion of game theory and crap strategy.
Mapping scenarios is one thing and running simulations is all fine and good. Here's a little reality check: game theory is not exactly the most precise of sciences. In fact, the political scientist/ historian in me wants to scream that game theory is to the practice of policy making as Intelligent Design is to science. Or maybe astrology to psychology.
Game Theory has a number of fundamental flaws one of which is the tendency to assume rationality, or more correctly, to assume that people behave according to the game parameters and the game-related definition of reality. Like economics, it is built around assumptions and that, as my faithful readers well know, is the second most abysmal science of all. I am still hunting for the first.
Remember the joke?
[Hold up one hand.]
"First, we assume a can opener."
If you can't go back to here, and scroll down to the post entitled "Morning smile - here's the real can opener joke".
Here's one link I came across from 2002 on the application of game theory to the current Iraq conflict and the broader revival of Thomas Schelling's The strategy of conflict. If you want to buy the book, try the local Chapters. Better still get it from a library. Here's the online info and it is relatively cheap.
While it is all neatly laid out, the whole approach seems to be a peculiarly American approach to strategy that rests in part on the exclusion of anything which cannot be quantified. It is also an approach with very limited successes, as I will discuss in that other post to come right next to the discussion of Trevor Dupuy.
If you want a well-presented critique of the application of "rational actor" models to life, try reading Voltaire's bastards by His Excellency John Ralston Saul.
Armed with all those threads, you can now go off and weave some kind of afghan to ward off the chill of the pending election.
Personally, I am heading to Tim's for another large double-double. This one game theory thing may now give me enough to figure out the peculiar world of Harper's Conservatives.
Harper for PM!
Stephen Harper is proving or is intent on proving that the Official Opposition in concert with the Bloc Quebecois controls the House of Commons.
In keeping with parliamentary tradition, there is no reason to hold an election in a case where a minority government loses a vote of confidence.
Soooo, if the government loses the budget vote, Paul Martin should take a walk to Rideau Hall some day soon and before he tenders his resignation, offer the GG the advice that she should contact Mr. Harper to ask him to form a government.
How can he legitimately refuse having proven day in and day out that he controls the House?
I bet Harper's game theory dweebs never factored that one into their calculations.
Oh yeah, notice the savage rhetoric Harper is using. I just point it out since this is the guy who wants to be your leader.
Does Stephen Harper look and act like a prime minister?
In keeping with parliamentary tradition, there is no reason to hold an election in a case where a minority government loses a vote of confidence.
Soooo, if the government loses the budget vote, Paul Martin should take a walk to Rideau Hall some day soon and before he tenders his resignation, offer the GG the advice that she should contact Mr. Harper to ask him to form a government.
How can he legitimately refuse having proven day in and day out that he controls the House?
I bet Harper's game theory dweebs never factored that one into their calculations.
Oh yeah, notice the savage rhetoric Harper is using. I just point it out since this is the guy who wants to be your leader.
Does Stephen Harper look and act like a prime minister?
Who skipped the vote on crab? (Updated)
Did anyone else notice the Tories missing from the vote on the government's plan - the only vote that will come before the House on it?
Well, aside from the speaker and John Ottenheimer - absent due to illness - there were at least four missing from the government benches. NEW: After an e-mail from a reliable, non-partisan source who was in the House, I made some big errors in my quickie assessment. So I went back and double checked against Hansard. Here are the three names I came up with:
Missing :
Kathy Goudie
John Hickey
Dave Denine
I am curious to know where these three members were.
Even putting that aside, the funniest thing yesterday was Harvey the Imaginary Speaker declaring the motion "lost" as opposed to defeated.
It is customary to say something as simple as "The nays have it". Perhaps when you go to the CPA conference, Harv, you can take a course in "Mr. Speaker 101".
[reposted at 1900 hrs NDT with new information correcting previous comments]
Well, aside from the speaker and John Ottenheimer - absent due to illness - there were at least four missing from the government benches. NEW: After an e-mail from a reliable, non-partisan source who was in the House, I made some big errors in my quickie assessment. So I went back and double checked against Hansard. Here are the three names I came up with:
Missing :
Kathy Goudie
John Hickey
Dave Denine
I am curious to know where these three members were.
Even putting that aside, the funniest thing yesterday was Harvey the Imaginary Speaker declaring the motion "lost" as opposed to defeated.
It is customary to say something as simple as "The nays have it". Perhaps when you go to the CPA conference, Harv, you can take a course in "Mr. Speaker 101".
[reposted at 1900 hrs NDT with new information correcting previous comments]
11 May 2005
Conservatives are posturing? Say it ain't so
The National Lampoon is reporting today that the Opposition Conservatives are considering bringing in an adjournment motion to shut down the Commons before the budget can be brought to a vote.
There's an interesting idea. A group of people who claim to have no confidence in the government and who have been threatening an election would actually avoid the ultimate parliamentary non-confidence vote and, as the Lampoon notes, try to get the prime minister to call an election.
We should hope this is posturing.
Shutting down the Commons without a budget vote would leave the federal government in the financial slings.
Pushing through an adjournment motion would also show the Conservatives to be manoeuvering for political optics since voting down the budget would inevitably have them vote against money for seniors, health care, towns and cities, and of course, the offshore agreements with the eastern-most provinces.
Shutting the House before the budget vote also puts Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle in yet another political jam. They have a hard-enough choice deciding whether to vote for the budget and their province and alienate their leader's aspirations or vote for their political buddies in the Conservatives and the Bloc and against their province's financial interests. Having argued for so long about the offshore money, these guys will have to flip back after flopping over on this matter repeatedly.
Sure, they'll blame Liberals for everything but hey, their politically convenient spin doesn't erase their actions. Where will they stand? With their party or with their province? I can see the political ads now pointing out the hypocrisy of two guys who said others should vote with their province but who then turned around and voted against their province when they had the choice.
It sure won't erase concerns that a Harper government will wipe out the whole set of financial agreements on all those matters currently in Bill C-43. (By the way, Loyola, it is not a complex bill as you well know. It is only complex for you because your leader and party want to do something that isn't in your best political interests. Like I said before, I'd never wish that dilemma on anyone...except maybe Hearn.)
There's an interesting idea. A group of people who claim to have no confidence in the government and who have been threatening an election would actually avoid the ultimate parliamentary non-confidence vote and, as the Lampoon notes, try to get the prime minister to call an election.
We should hope this is posturing.
Shutting down the Commons without a budget vote would leave the federal government in the financial slings.
Pushing through an adjournment motion would also show the Conservatives to be manoeuvering for political optics since voting down the budget would inevitably have them vote against money for seniors, health care, towns and cities, and of course, the offshore agreements with the eastern-most provinces.
Shutting the House before the budget vote also puts Loyola Hearn and Norm Doyle in yet another political jam. They have a hard-enough choice deciding whether to vote for the budget and their province and alienate their leader's aspirations or vote for their political buddies in the Conservatives and the Bloc and against their province's financial interests. Having argued for so long about the offshore money, these guys will have to flip back after flopping over on this matter repeatedly.
Sure, they'll blame Liberals for everything but hey, their politically convenient spin doesn't erase their actions. Where will they stand? With their party or with their province? I can see the political ads now pointing out the hypocrisy of two guys who said others should vote with their province but who then turned around and voted against their province when they had the choice.
It sure won't erase concerns that a Harper government will wipe out the whole set of financial agreements on all those matters currently in Bill C-43. (By the way, Loyola, it is not a complex bill as you well know. It is only complex for you because your leader and party want to do something that isn't in your best political interests. Like I said before, I'd never wish that dilemma on anyone...except maybe Hearn.)
Harvey Hodder: Best before date expired (updated)
CBC Radio woke me up this morning to word that Opposition Leader Roger Grimes is writing the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to complain about Harvey Hodder. Here's a link to the web story.
If nothing else, this will embarrass the hell out of Harvey, who plans to attend the next CPA conference this summer. After all, Newfoundland was one of the charter members of what used to be the Empire Parliamentary Association when it was formed in 1911.
It is important to note, however, that the CPA has absolutely no authority to discipline or censure parliamentarians. This move by Grimes is designed solely to embarrass Hodder.
I long ago lost any vestiges of sympathy for Hodder who has demonstrated bias and incompetence in equal measures over the past six weeks. He is rapidly becoming a joke and to make things worse his behaviour is bringing the legislature itself into a state of dysfunction and disrepute.
Ed Byrne was quoted in the CBC Radio story complaining about the endless points of order from the Opposition. Surprise, surprise, Ed. The Opposition is using whatever tactics it can in order to frustrate Hodder and raw attention to his evident shortcomings. Hodder, for his part, takes forever to make a ruling on even a straightforward point. Overload him with work and the poor guy may just crack from the strain.
But more to the point, the increase in points of order on the Speaker's rulings might be a clue that Hodder is causing problems. Parliamentarians seldom complain about the Speaker. They are even less likely to question a Speaker like Hodder, who was popularly appointed. However, if Hodder isn't working out, then it is only reasonable to expect more and more complaints. The points of order cannot be simply dismissed as a case of whining or being a nuisance.
Personally, I'd go a step farther than Grimes has done. If I was in the Opposition, I'd use my next Opposition Day to debate a motion of non-confidence in the speaker. Even though the government will ultimately defend Hodder and defeat the motion, a three hour litany of his incompetence may well be enough to push him out the door. At the very least it will emphatically make the point that Hodder needs to take some corrective action on his own performance.
Does this happen very often in legislatures? Not really, but then again it is rare for a Speaker to demonstrate persistent disregard for the rules of the House or for bias. Here's a link to one speech from the Saskatchewan legislature from 1992.
Maybe the Opposition here needs to bring the matter into the House in a more direct manner.
If nothing else, this will embarrass the hell out of Harvey, who plans to attend the next CPA conference this summer. After all, Newfoundland was one of the charter members of what used to be the Empire Parliamentary Association when it was formed in 1911.
It is important to note, however, that the CPA has absolutely no authority to discipline or censure parliamentarians. This move by Grimes is designed solely to embarrass Hodder.
I long ago lost any vestiges of sympathy for Hodder who has demonstrated bias and incompetence in equal measures over the past six weeks. He is rapidly becoming a joke and to make things worse his behaviour is bringing the legislature itself into a state of dysfunction and disrepute.
Ed Byrne was quoted in the CBC Radio story complaining about the endless points of order from the Opposition. Surprise, surprise, Ed. The Opposition is using whatever tactics it can in order to frustrate Hodder and raw attention to his evident shortcomings. Hodder, for his part, takes forever to make a ruling on even a straightforward point. Overload him with work and the poor guy may just crack from the strain.
But more to the point, the increase in points of order on the Speaker's rulings might be a clue that Hodder is causing problems. Parliamentarians seldom complain about the Speaker. They are even less likely to question a Speaker like Hodder, who was popularly appointed. However, if Hodder isn't working out, then it is only reasonable to expect more and more complaints. The points of order cannot be simply dismissed as a case of whining or being a nuisance.
Personally, I'd go a step farther than Grimes has done. If I was in the Opposition, I'd use my next Opposition Day to debate a motion of non-confidence in the speaker. Even though the government will ultimately defend Hodder and defeat the motion, a three hour litany of his incompetence may well be enough to push him out the door. At the very least it will emphatically make the point that Hodder needs to take some corrective action on his own performance.
Does this happen very often in legislatures? Not really, but then again it is rare for a Speaker to demonstrate persistent disregard for the rules of the House or for bias. Here's a link to one speech from the Saskatchewan legislature from 1992.
Maybe the Opposition here needs to bring the matter into the House in a more direct manner.
Loyola Hearn: Pinocchiosis case zero
Alright, I take the words I use very seriously.
But when I hear Loyola Hearn on CBC Radio spouting nonsense about how a stand-alone offshore revenue bill would pass the House in a second while the current bill will take forever because it is "complicated", then I know we have found case zero in the spread of pinochiosis.
He is telling fibs, untruths, spreading falsehoods deliberately to bolster his political cause. He spews them faster and in greater numbers than any politician I have ever known.
Loyola knows full well that what he is saying is simply not true according to the processes of the House. A stand alone bill will take just as long if not longer than Bill C-43.
Then there's another one he just spit out about supposed problems finding Liberal candidates.
His Connies just closed calls for nominations with not even a single person coming forward.
Hearn's problem with Bill C-43 is that his leader and Peter Kent, their newest candidate oppose the offshore deals.
Hearn knows the money is doomed if Harper becomes prime minister, yet in the meantime, Loyola will say anything to advance his personal interests.
It is long past time for someone to rid us all of this corrupt member. His desire for power outstrips his commitment to integrity in relationships with his constituents.
But when I hear Loyola Hearn on CBC Radio spouting nonsense about how a stand-alone offshore revenue bill would pass the House in a second while the current bill will take forever because it is "complicated", then I know we have found case zero in the spread of pinochiosis.
He is telling fibs, untruths, spreading falsehoods deliberately to bolster his political cause. He spews them faster and in greater numbers than any politician I have ever known.
Loyola knows full well that what he is saying is simply not true according to the processes of the House. A stand alone bill will take just as long if not longer than Bill C-43.
Then there's another one he just spit out about supposed problems finding Liberal candidates.
His Connies just closed calls for nominations with not even a single person coming forward.
Hearn's problem with Bill C-43 is that his leader and Peter Kent, their newest candidate oppose the offshore deals.
Hearn knows the money is doomed if Harper becomes prime minister, yet in the meantime, Loyola will say anything to advance his personal interests.
It is long past time for someone to rid us all of this corrupt member. His desire for power outstrips his commitment to integrity in relationships with his constituents.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)