The Spindy recycled a story this week about the St. John's airport authority looking to attract more "military tourist" traffic to the local airport.
What they mean is that the airport wants to see if it can attract more refueling business to the capital city's newly renovated airport.
On the face of it, this has got to be the most ludicrous idea imaginable. The military traffic through the airport is based on international conditions. The only way we can boost traffic is by having another war break out somewhere.
The airport's logic sounds nice. But the more you think about it the more you realize these guys are just off base. Some consultant is making a fortune figuring out the "decision factors" that go into bringing American aircraft here versus somewhere else.
Some clues:
1. There must be an overseas deployment, either an operation or an exercise. They need a reason to fly across the Atlantic.
2. The aircraft must be a type that cannot fly across the Atlantic without refueling. Big visitors were C-130 Hercules variants and DC-9 variants.
Beyond that, the presence of a vibrant nightlife and decent hotels meet just about all the requirements.
The Americans will be concerned somewhat about the relative cost of the Canadian dollar and high fuel prices, but basically fuel is a given - they need it. The Americans might try and find ways to double-up their travel, but as long as there are troops in Iraq, the Americans will fly through St. John's to get there.
Which brings us to the comments of St. John's North Connie member of parliament Norman Doyle.
Seems Doyle is thrilled with all the business coming to his riding, but he has some qualms about the source of the lucre.
As Normie told The Spindy: "I would certainly not support helping aircraft to service the war in Iraq because that would be the same as involving Canada in the war in Iraq."
Norm, Norm, Norm.
Canada has already supported the American campaign in Iraq directly and indirectly, including sending our own troops there as part of American and British units.
This military traffic has been going on for years.
The only way we could satisfy Norm's moral qualms would be to ban American military equipment and people from Canada.
Just think about Norm's comments logically; that's the implication.
Has Norm been having late night dinners with the New Democrats of Carolyn Parrish?
10 October 2005
Whither Harper?
Predictably, the relatively small rise of the federal Conservative Party in some recent polls has been enough for Connie bloggers to trumpet the results as proof of something.
The guy responsible for the supposed Connie rise in popularity is usually held out to be none other than former Chretien cabinet minister and notorious porker David Dingwall. Here's one such post from someone who finds it strange that I have called his blog Reflexive Grit-Loather Productions. Go figure.
RGL points to a Pollara poll, as reported in the NationalPost Lampoon, which shows a six point gap between the federal Liberals and the Conservatives led by Stephen Harper. The Pollara research report isn't on their website - something that always makes me suspicious - but here is a link to the Canadian Press story on the poll which gives more detail than the Lampoon story.
As well, for the sake of comparison, here are the results of a poll taken by Decima, one of their competitors.
Some observations:
1. It's pretty sad when you have to point to a dead politician from another party as the reason why your own popularity is going up. As I have noted here before about other politicians - notably the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador - the worst position to be in is the one where your fortunes are linked to the cock-ups of The Other Guy.
The people who say they are supporting you today will not be supporting you tomorrow, if the other guy doesn't screw up.
2. Don't get mislead by headlines: the polls don't show any substantive change in voter attitudes. Say what you will, the Liberals are still running about 10 to 12 points ahead of the Connies, the Pollara poll notwithstanding. If you look at the CP story, you'll see that Pollara stills has the Libs running ahead of the Connies by about the same margin as the last Pollara poll. That's no change, boys and girls.
This CP story is a non-story.
and...
3. All polls show the Liberals way ahead of the Connies in Ontario. The majority of seats come from Ontario. Ya gotta win big here to win big everywhere.
So far the Connies just aren't doing it.
Just as they haven't been doing it there for months.
4. The ads had no apparent impact. Remember those glossy ads everyone was talking about two months ago? No? Gee, I wonder why. Maybe they just missed the mark.
All of this leads us inevitably back to wondering about the future of Connie leader Steve Harper.
My guess is that the Connies will just struggle through until after the Liberals get re-elected in the spring.
Then they'll boot Harper back to Alberta and poke somebody else in Stornoway and start planning a serious political campaign.
The guy responsible for the supposed Connie rise in popularity is usually held out to be none other than former Chretien cabinet minister and notorious porker David Dingwall. Here's one such post from someone who finds it strange that I have called his blog Reflexive Grit-Loather Productions. Go figure.
RGL points to a Pollara poll, as reported in the National
As well, for the sake of comparison, here are the results of a poll taken by Decima, one of their competitors.
Some observations:
1. It's pretty sad when you have to point to a dead politician from another party as the reason why your own popularity is going up. As I have noted here before about other politicians - notably the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador - the worst position to be in is the one where your fortunes are linked to the cock-ups of The Other Guy.
The people who say they are supporting you today will not be supporting you tomorrow, if the other guy doesn't screw up.
2. Don't get mislead by headlines: the polls don't show any substantive change in voter attitudes. Say what you will, the Liberals are still running about 10 to 12 points ahead of the Connies, the Pollara poll notwithstanding. If you look at the CP story, you'll see that Pollara stills has the Libs running ahead of the Connies by about the same margin as the last Pollara poll. That's no change, boys and girls.
This CP story is a non-story.
and...
3. All polls show the Liberals way ahead of the Connies in Ontario. The majority of seats come from Ontario. Ya gotta win big here to win big everywhere.
So far the Connies just aren't doing it.
Just as they haven't been doing it there for months.
4. The ads had no apparent impact. Remember those glossy ads everyone was talking about two months ago? No? Gee, I wonder why. Maybe they just missed the mark.
All of this leads us inevitably back to wondering about the future of Connie leader Steve Harper.
My guess is that the Connies will just struggle through until after the Liberals get re-elected in the spring.
Then they'll boot Harper back to Alberta and poke somebody else in Stornoway and start planning a serious political campaign.
08 October 2005
Sun reporters might make good frag vests
The Ottawa Sun is to Ottawa what The Independent would like to be to St. John's.
Those radio spots the Spindy is running on VOCM (at $145 a pop, mind you) are sheer crap. If the newspaper was actually as informative and thought provoking as the spots claim, then I wouldn't be listening to a bunch of (likely) Dobbin employees badly reading a prepared script that tells me the paper is "informative" and that if I don't read it I must out of the loop.
If any of the claims were true, they'd be able to cite specific examples.
They can't.
People know they can't.
Therefore the spots are crap.
The Spindy is on the verge of folding.
But I digress.
Back to the Sun chain.
Take a look at this story [via Bourque]. Seems the feds have gotten a bunch of bigwigs together to take a trip to Afghanistan next week as a combination morale booster for the troops/familiarization trip for the bigwigs.
The Sun claims the trip is top secret.
How in the freep can it be secret, let alone TOP secret if some twit from The Sun is plastering everything short of the departure time on the friggin internet?
These guys should have just sent an e-mail to Al Queda so that the terrorists could blow up Canadians. This is an example of reporting at its worst. These sort of affairs are usually kept under wraps so the bad guys can't score a big propaganda coup by blowing everyone up. If The Sun wanted to expose some sort of political angle to the story - DO IT AFTER THE TRIP IS OVER AND PEOPLE ARE HOME SAFE AND SOUND.
Personally, I think, the organizers of the trip should issue every person traveling one Sun reporter as their own personal flak bait/frag vest. Let the Sun staff pay the price for the Sun's irresponsibility.
Those radio spots the Spindy is running on VOCM (at $145 a pop, mind you) are sheer crap. If the newspaper was actually as informative and thought provoking as the spots claim, then I wouldn't be listening to a bunch of (likely) Dobbin employees badly reading a prepared script that tells me the paper is "informative" and that if I don't read it I must out of the loop.
If any of the claims were true, they'd be able to cite specific examples.
They can't.
People know they can't.
Therefore the spots are crap.
The Spindy is on the verge of folding.
But I digress.
Back to the Sun chain.
Take a look at this story [via Bourque]. Seems the feds have gotten a bunch of bigwigs together to take a trip to Afghanistan next week as a combination morale booster for the troops/familiarization trip for the bigwigs.
The Sun claims the trip is top secret.
How in the freep can it be secret, let alone TOP secret if some twit from The Sun is plastering everything short of the departure time on the friggin internet?
These guys should have just sent an e-mail to Al Queda so that the terrorists could blow up Canadians. This is an example of reporting at its worst. These sort of affairs are usually kept under wraps so the bad guys can't score a big propaganda coup by blowing everyone up. If The Sun wanted to expose some sort of political angle to the story - DO IT AFTER THE TRIP IS OVER AND PEOPLE ARE HOME SAFE AND SOUND.
Personally, I think, the organizers of the trip should issue every person traveling one Sun reporter as their own personal flak bait/frag vest. Let the Sun staff pay the price for the Sun's irresponsibility.
07 October 2005
My buddy, the nitwit
Verrryyyy interestink....but it doesn't make any sense.This from our Glorious Boor, Andy Wells, mayor of the ancient and until recently, relatively pleasant city of St. John's:
"There was one little nitwit running around, showing up at water main breaks saying the city was going to hell in a handbasket.
Either he didn't know the difference, which is somewhat more forgivable than if he knew the difference and chose to ignore it. But the fact is we've spent substantial money on infrastructure."
For those who may have missed it, Wells was referring to Simon Lono. In case you missed it, flip over and check out Lono's campaign website, the video on city infrastructure and some of the other stuff the newbie candidate raised in his first run at municipal elected office.
There are a couple of observations to make about The Boor's attack on Lono.
1. Of all the outsider candidates, Lono obviously made a huge impression on Wells. He lost the election but Lono ranks up there with people like Shannie Duff, the former mayor, former member of the House of Assembly and current at large councillor for the ability to poke right at the Boor and get his attention.
2. As noted here previously, Wells is obviously at odds not only with Lono but also with the Board of Trade, to whom he was speaking. The Board also thinks that the municipal infrastructure deficit - lack of adequate spending on water, sewer, sidewalks and roads - is one of the major issues facing the city.
3. Wells misses the point, again. The issue isn't that the city hasn't spent money of infrastructure. Nope. Lono and the Board of Trade note that work has been done.
What they say is that there isn't enough being done.
Lono made the point that the city has been spending money propping up failed ventures like the Mile One crowd ($3.0 million annually), while at the same time sidewalks are cracking and people are being injured as a result. (Pick up The Telly today to see a front page story on two more people who suffered serious injuries due to crumbling sidewalks.)
In the Great Geyser, Lono just drew media attention to a problem that had toddled along for a week before finally erupting into a 15 foot high spout of gushing city water. The problem lay in the ancient pipes and valves in that part of the city, which were 50 years old and needing replacement when Wells first sat his Boor-ass in a council chair. They are now over 80 years old and in need of replacement and upgrading.
Yet, Wells persists in spreading the fable that everything with the water, streets and sidewalks is just ticketyboo in the City of Legends.
4. Wells intends on making the problem worse. In another part of the speech to the Board of Trade, Wells mused about tax cuts.
Ok. That sounds nice.
But if, as the Board contends, the city needs to spend more money on infrastructure, Wells' tax cuts would actually mean the city has less to spend on fixing the problems with the city streets, water and sidewalks.
Wells mentioned the federal money for infrastructure and here's where city residents should notice the shell game. Wells plans to take the federal money, which should be extra, and then use that to fund a tax cut for the city. He can do that because the city economy is booming - something Wells takes credit for but which he had nothing to do with generating. We can thank Chevron, ExxonMobil, PetroCanada, Husky, Brian Peckford for that...anybody but Wells.. 'cause they actually produced the economic boost.
Wells ought to be spending what he has committed now plus what the feds would add so we can get ahead of the game now that times are good.
Instead, Wells is actually speculating about spending no more than he is currently allowing to fix a problem everyone sees but him. Trust me: in the speech, Wells sucked and blew at the same time, deriding the idea of an infrastructure problem and then talking about putting cash into fixing it.
The result? The infrastructure will continue to fall apart and some future council led by some future mayor will have to jack up taxes and suck cash out of my pocket - maybe when the economy isn't doing so well - to pay for Andy's folly.
That ain't ticketyboo.
5. Wells' personal attacks prove another Lono point. Calling people names is old hat for The Boor. The guy seems to have some pathological need to hurl personal abuse at people he disagrees with or who disagree with him. Councillors, city staff, candidates, ordinary citizens. All are treated with contempt.
That's why Lono introduced a Code of Conduct for council when he launched his election campaign.
It would have committed council to being open, transparent, and in this type of thing, being grown-up about how city business gets done.
Wells's abusive style may amuse some. Truth is it belittles the people on the receiving end of his abuse. It belittles Wells himself. But worse, it belittles the residents of the city.
On both counts, the people of St. John's deserve better.
But, in closing, just go back and read Wells' own comments and then apply them to the mayor himself:
"Either he didn't know the difference, which is somewhat more forgivable than if he knew the difference and chose to ignore it."
It is pretty clear that Wells knows the difference about the infrastructure problem. Heck he's been on council since the Moores administration.
Yet, he chooses to ignore it.
You be the judge.
Personally, I'll be standing firmly behind my good buddy, the nitwit.
He ain't going away Andy.
Zis is not good, here. I am not killing you. Don't you understand? You must die. Will you cooperate?!!
Lawyers and blogs: a good start
Try this article from the New York Times on the unusual number of lawyers and judges who either maintain blog sites or who read them.
A few lawyers and judges read this little collection of e-scribbles. Why, I have no idea.
Blogging is one use of the Internet that I think performs a useful function. It contributes, with any luck and a lot of hope, to the wider discussion of ideas and trends affecting our society.
Lawyers, who once dominated politics in Western countries, have slipped from their prominence in that field: sadly, in some cases; thankfully in others. Generally, lawyers have add to a debate both in the style and the substance of their arguments.
There are exceptions to every rule, of course.
A few lawyers and judges read this little collection of e-scribbles. Why, I have no idea.
Blogging is one use of the Internet that I think performs a useful function. It contributes, with any luck and a lot of hope, to the wider discussion of ideas and trends affecting our society.
Lawyers, who once dominated politics in Western countries, have slipped from their prominence in that field: sadly, in some cases; thankfully in others. Generally, lawyers have add to a debate both in the style and the substance of their arguments.
There are exceptions to every rule, of course.
Who really twisted arms, Steve?
As predicted here, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary came up empty in their investigation of alleged witness tampering in the trial of the poor guy charged with beating the crap out of Danny Boy Junior.
Williams' lawyer, Steve Marshall claims that someone's arm was twisted to get stories changed. Steve, maybe we should wonder who did the arm twisting to get the original "eyewitness" testimony into play in the first place. Marshall's entire claim of tampering was, of course, without any foundation. He was just blowin' smoke, maybe, just maybe in an effort to get people off the scent of his former law partner. Seems the Prem did some early morning phone calls to the Constab which Marshall subsequently explained with a bullshit excuse.
Maybe, just maybe, the RNC should release the tapes of the Prem's calls to the office so we can finally put the whole arm-twisting thing to bed.
Oh yeah.
and Steve owes the accused in this case an apology.
So does Danny, who claims the accused assailant had a political motive in the beating.
No evidence of that either, at all, ever.
Yet another horsecrap conspiracy theory from our own low-rent Fox Mulder.
Williams' lawyer, Steve Marshall claims that someone's arm was twisted to get stories changed. Steve, maybe we should wonder who did the arm twisting to get the original "eyewitness" testimony into play in the first place. Marshall's entire claim of tampering was, of course, without any foundation. He was just blowin' smoke, maybe, just maybe in an effort to get people off the scent of his former law partner. Seems the Prem did some early morning phone calls to the Constab which Marshall subsequently explained with a bullshit excuse.
Maybe, just maybe, the RNC should release the tapes of the Prem's calls to the office so we can finally put the whole arm-twisting thing to bed.
Oh yeah.
and Steve owes the accused in this case an apology.
So does Danny, who claims the accused assailant had a political motive in the beating.
No evidence of that either, at all, ever.
Yet another horsecrap conspiracy theory from our own low-rent Fox Mulder.
NOIA recycles the offshore
How many times will NOIA focus on Hebron and gas development as part of "new" possibilities for the offshore?
I lost count of how many times NOIA ran a seminar like this one under Leslie Galway. Now that she has been replaced by someone the NOIA board figured is tight with Dean MacDonald and hence Danny Boy, NOIA is back at the same old crap again.
Three things:
1. NOIA is oriented in the wrong direction and is yet again strategically snookered if it thinks hiring someone who knows someone who knows Danny will get them on the Premier's radar screen. Hint: He doesn't give a flying derrick about NOIA.
2. Hebron - being held up by the guy NOIA is trying to suck up to. Problem - NOIA can't suck up to Danny on the one side and then try to blow him slightly off his position on the other. All sucking got the last time was a job for Leslie Galway. NOIA needs to start being professional about their government relations and dispose of the amateur crap.
3. Note the speaker for the event is Ed Martin, the guy who has been slowly transforming Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro into PetroNewf without so much as a public discussion of what the frig he is up to. When exactly will Danny and his Boys decide the public deserves to know what they are doing with our money? When will we find out why two vice presidents and some senior managers were tossed over the Falls recently and who is replacing them?
Second point from this: Ed's on the agenda 'cause of Dean (the chairman of Ed's board), who of course is connected to the new NOIA president, who was hired for being able to make just those kinds of daisy chains, with Danny at the front end of it. (That's just in case you missed the high-end strategic thinking I noted earlier.)
When exactly will a NOIA session on "new" things actually include something new?
I lost count of how many times NOIA ran a seminar like this one under Leslie Galway. Now that she has been replaced by someone the NOIA board figured is tight with Dean MacDonald and hence Danny Boy, NOIA is back at the same old crap again.
Three things:
1. NOIA is oriented in the wrong direction and is yet again strategically snookered if it thinks hiring someone who knows someone who knows Danny will get them on the Premier's radar screen. Hint: He doesn't give a flying derrick about NOIA.
2. Hebron - being held up by the guy NOIA is trying to suck up to. Problem - NOIA can't suck up to Danny on the one side and then try to blow him slightly off his position on the other. All sucking got the last time was a job for Leslie Galway. NOIA needs to start being professional about their government relations and dispose of the amateur crap.
3. Note the speaker for the event is Ed Martin, the guy who has been slowly transforming Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro into PetroNewf without so much as a public discussion of what the frig he is up to. When exactly will Danny and his Boys decide the public deserves to know what they are doing with our money? When will we find out why two vice presidents and some senior managers were tossed over the Falls recently and who is replacing them?
Second point from this: Ed's on the agenda 'cause of Dean (the chairman of Ed's board), who of course is connected to the new NOIA president, who was hired for being able to make just those kinds of daisy chains, with Danny at the front end of it. (That's just in case you missed the high-end strategic thinking I noted earlier.)
When exactly will a NOIA session on "new" things actually include something new?
06 October 2005
Tough aircraft. Tougher pilot.
Flip over to Strange Military and you'll find the full size version of these pictures.
They show the starboard rear section of an American A-10A ground attack aircraft shot up by small arms fire. The hits and the chunk taken out of the horizontal stabilizer apparently knocked out the aircraft hydraulics. That means the pilot landed without brakes and with limited controls.
The A-10 is designed to take hits by bigger things than the rifles that appear to have shot up this particular aircraft. It's almost 30 years old and isn't loved by a lot of American pilots who like the faster and supposedly sexier stuff.
Tough, dependable, does the job and gets the pilot back in one piece.
Works for me.
S*P*I*E*S Like Us
Six immigrants trying to enter the country illegally?
Or people trying to enter the country under assumed identities to act as spies?
You decide.
Six people from mainland China were arrested for trying to enter Canada at St. John's with Korean identity documents.
It seems a little expensive and convoluted for an immigration scheme.
It sounds more like an old, tested way of getting spies into a foreign country. The Soviets were famous for the approach and planted several hundred such spies in Canada during the Cold War. In the case of Chinese, they could easily pass as Koreans.
As for Connie member of parliament Loyola Hearn's claim this is proof of the lax security at our harbours, one can only scratch one's head in bewilderment. Surely Loyola understands that the people involved were caught. They were identified and arrested based on intelligence analysis and co-operation among different security agencies.
No one in the country is well served by Mr. Hearn and his colleagues making claims about the supposedly unsecured ports of entry at our harbours when this simply isn't the case. Security may not be perfect, but then again even in the United States today illegal immigrants and foreign spies and terrorists are able to enter.
All Loyola Hearn is doing with his comments is feeding uninformed comment and raising more questions among our American allies about Canadian security that simply aren't well-founded. While Hillary Clinton is busily trying to stop a proposal that all travelers to the United States will need to carry passports, Hearn is fueling the sort of diatribes we hear from Faux News and other right-wing outfits. Clinton has correctly pointed to the disastrous effects the new policy will have on trade.
Hearn is just giving Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly more ammunition.
Way to go, Loyola.
Or people trying to enter the country under assumed identities to act as spies?
You decide.
Six people from mainland China were arrested for trying to enter Canada at St. John's with Korean identity documents.
It seems a little expensive and convoluted for an immigration scheme.
It sounds more like an old, tested way of getting spies into a foreign country. The Soviets were famous for the approach and planted several hundred such spies in Canada during the Cold War. In the case of Chinese, they could easily pass as Koreans.
As for Connie member of parliament Loyola Hearn's claim this is proof of the lax security at our harbours, one can only scratch one's head in bewilderment. Surely Loyola understands that the people involved were caught. They were identified and arrested based on intelligence analysis and co-operation among different security agencies.
No one in the country is well served by Mr. Hearn and his colleagues making claims about the supposedly unsecured ports of entry at our harbours when this simply isn't the case. Security may not be perfect, but then again even in the United States today illegal immigrants and foreign spies and terrorists are able to enter.
All Loyola Hearn is doing with his comments is feeding uninformed comment and raising more questions among our American allies about Canadian security that simply aren't well-founded. While Hillary Clinton is busily trying to stop a proposal that all travelers to the United States will need to carry passports, Hearn is fueling the sort of diatribes we hear from Faux News and other right-wing outfits. Clinton has correctly pointed to the disastrous effects the new policy will have on trade.
Hearn is just giving Rush Limbaugh and Bill O'Reilly more ammunition.
Way to go, Loyola.
05 October 2005
Is City Hall for sale?
The Montreal Gazette just finished a three-part story on problems in Montreal's municipal campaign financing.
Here's the editorial that concludes the series.
Here's the bit that started it all.
Anyone care to try looking at St. John's municipal campaign expenses and contributions by donors?
Good luck.
Under the provincial law, only winning candidates have to report any donations of cash over $100. Anything given "in-kind" is never reported - it doesn't have to be.
So... anyone with a private company or two can hide an unlimited amount of campaign work as an "in-kind" contribution. Need a few thousand signs? No problem, says the supporter. My company can supply them and my volunteers will put them up for you.
That's a possibility not that it actually happened. It may have happened and certainly you'll hear plenty of anecdotal information - some of it pure spec and rumour - about who did what for whom.
The problem is that residents of St. John's have no way of knowing what is being given and spent by whom and for whom in city politics.
If nothing else - at the very least - the whole lack of accountability creates a cloud of suspicion that doesn't improve the image of politics in local eyes.
In the worst case, city residents can be concerned that the millions of dollars in municipal contracts and the millions of dollars of development in the city might be had for a few bucks at election time.
Better that we fix the election expense laws and bring more information into the public domain rather than endure suspicion that ultimately erodes public confidence in the electoral system.
Here's the editorial that concludes the series.
Here's the bit that started it all.
Anyone care to try looking at St. John's municipal campaign expenses and contributions by donors?
Good luck.
Under the provincial law, only winning candidates have to report any donations of cash over $100. Anything given "in-kind" is never reported - it doesn't have to be.
So... anyone with a private company or two can hide an unlimited amount of campaign work as an "in-kind" contribution. Need a few thousand signs? No problem, says the supporter. My company can supply them and my volunteers will put them up for you.
That's a possibility not that it actually happened. It may have happened and certainly you'll hear plenty of anecdotal information - some of it pure spec and rumour - about who did what for whom.
The problem is that residents of St. John's have no way of knowing what is being given and spent by whom and for whom in city politics.
If nothing else - at the very least - the whole lack of accountability creates a cloud of suspicion that doesn't improve the image of politics in local eyes.
In the worst case, city residents can be concerned that the millions of dollars in municipal contracts and the millions of dollars of development in the city might be had for a few bucks at election time.
Better that we fix the election expense laws and bring more information into the public domain rather than endure suspicion that ultimately erodes public confidence in the electoral system.
04 October 2005
Today in Newfoundland and Labrador History
Trenches at Suvla Bay, 1915 (Provincial Archives of Newfoundland and Labrador) PANL VA-37-3. Likely from the collection of Major R. Tait.The Blue Puttees set sail for England aboard the S.S. Florizel on October 4, 1914.
This first contingent of Newfoundland volunteers in the Great War formed the nucleus of what became the Royal Newfoundland Regiment.
By June 1915 they were considered sufficiently trained and were at full strength, with a depot battalion in Scotland.
Selected for service at Gallipoli, the active service battalion joined the 88th Brigade of the 29th Division, the last regular army division to be formed by the British Army out of units that had been garrisoning the empire. They landed at Gallipoli in September 1915 and were the covering force for the Allied withdrawals in January 1916.
Trenching at Gallipoli is the only contemporary account of the Newfoundlanders overseas. John Gallishaw was teaching at Harvard University when he volunteered in 1915. Wounded at Gallipoli he was honourably released and returned to the United States. He wrote Trenching at Gallipoli while convalescing. Gallishaw authored a small pamphlet in 1917 aimed at American volunteers joining the American Expeditionary Force bound for Europe. He also authored other works on writing. Gallishaw may be considered to have influenced the filmmaker George Lucas.
03 October 2005
The naked truth
Ummm.
Ok.
I get the concept.
But something tells me some of the heads of these federal lil Liberals in Quebec have been photoshopped onto other people's bodies. And by the looks of it, they have been dropped onto a stock street shot.
Now I could be wrong on this one.
But I am confident in saying that if some of us stripped for this cause, there isn't a rights charter anywhere in the world big enough to cover the assault on public decency represented by seeing our middle-aged spread on a billboard anywhere.
That said, there isn't anything really edgy about this piece of work. The boff bods are all covered by undergarments.
The work is being distributed by a company called Newad. This all seems pretty much old-ad stuff to me.
Ok.
I get the concept.
But something tells me some of the heads of these federal lil Liberals in Quebec have been photoshopped onto other people's bodies. And by the looks of it, they have been dropped onto a stock street shot.
Now I could be wrong on this one.
But I am confident in saying that if some of us stripped for this cause, there isn't a rights charter anywhere in the world big enough to cover the assault on public decency represented by seeing our middle-aged spread on a billboard anywhere.
That said, there isn't anything really edgy about this piece of work. The boff bods are all covered by undergarments.
The work is being distributed by a company called Newad. This all seems pretty much old-ad stuff to me.
CBC lock-out over?
While other blogs have been filled with the CBC lock-out, I have held fire for no particularly good reason.
News today is that there is a tentative agreement and those of us news junkies who thrive on the Mother Corp's radio programs will soon be getting our daily fix. The link is to John Gushue's superlative blog in which said radio broadcaster has kept up an estimable compendium of all things related to the lock-out and much more besides.
Here's the Canadian Press version of the story.
News today is that there is a tentative agreement and those of us news junkies who thrive on the Mother Corp's radio programs will soon be getting our daily fix. The link is to John Gushue's superlative blog in which said radio broadcaster has kept up an estimable compendium of all things related to the lock-out and much more besides.
Here's the Canadian Press version of the story.
One post samba
Since this blog from Sue Kelland seems dead, I guess we can just note it in passing.
If it turns out to be a more active place, I'll link it in the right margin.
Bonus points for anyone who can decipher the rather lengthy post, apparently all on September 5 that rambles from topic to topic without any seeming connection.
If it turns out to be a more active place, I'll link it in the right margin.
Bonus points for anyone who can decipher the rather lengthy post, apparently all on September 5 that rambles from topic to topic without any seeming connection.
Baiting made easy
And yet more from RGL Inc.
Shorter post.
Still misses the point(s):
1. I haven't endeavoured to rebut any of RGL's previous posts since there really isn't anything to rebut.
2. A comment, as the one posted here early this morning, isn't a rebuttal, therefore it makes no sense to criticize a comment because it isn't a rebuttal. This is a PIFO - a penetrating insight into the flippin' obvious. A comment is a comment. It is not a rebuttal.
3. Aside from his cut and pasting the list of points in favour of the PWG, Liam hasn't offered anything new to support the PWG.
4. The entire bit about self-loathing is nonsense since at no time have I criticized all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, nor have I advocated one flag for the province of any kind over another flag of any description. I simply said there are better things to talk about.
5. This entire series of posts has actually morphed off into a pointless exchange in which Liam makes some form of comment. I then offer observations on the nature of his comments. Then he replies to the observations.
6. Raising irrelevant points - e.g. self-loathing, the lack of a comments section on this blog - doesn't constitute an argument for or against anything. Ditto for the bit about "profiling Liam as a townie. It never happened. The guy is from Buchans. Not sure if he missed this or imagined it.
Since there is no html code for a shrug, I'll move on to other things.
Shorter post.
Still misses the point(s):
1. I haven't endeavoured to rebut any of RGL's previous posts since there really isn't anything to rebut.
2. A comment, as the one posted here early this morning, isn't a rebuttal, therefore it makes no sense to criticize a comment because it isn't a rebuttal. This is a PIFO - a penetrating insight into the flippin' obvious. A comment is a comment. It is not a rebuttal.
3. Aside from his cut and pasting the list of points in favour of the PWG, Liam hasn't offered anything new to support the PWG.
4. The entire bit about self-loathing is nonsense since at no time have I criticized all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, nor have I advocated one flag for the province of any kind over another flag of any description. I simply said there are better things to talk about.
5. This entire series of posts has actually morphed off into a pointless exchange in which Liam makes some form of comment. I then offer observations on the nature of his comments. Then he replies to the observations.
6. Raising irrelevant points - e.g. self-loathing, the lack of a comments section on this blog - doesn't constitute an argument for or against anything. Ditto for the bit about "profiling Liam as a townie. It never happened. The guy is from Buchans. Not sure if he missed this or imagined it.
Since there is no html code for a shrug, I'll move on to other things.
Everything old is new again.
Try this little observation from Campaign Central, about the renaissance of radio - specifically podcasting - as a means of political communication.
Our commentator is not entirely accurate. The Connies have introduced podcasting. The other parties may try it; we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Being from Western Canada, he uses Western examples. The best local example of the use of radio for political campaigning remains Joe Smallwood during the National Convention.
Joe Smallwood delivering an after-dinner speech
Note the microphones.
Our commentator is not entirely accurate. The Connies have introduced podcasting. The other parties may try it; we'll have to wait and see what happens.
Being from Western Canada, he uses Western examples. The best local example of the use of radio for political campaigning remains Joe Smallwood during the National Convention.
Joe Smallwood delivering an after-dinner speech
Note the microphones.
RGL goes ballistic
Yet another lengthy post over at Responsible Government League commenting on yesterday's award.
And true to form, Liam trots out yet another one of his stock criticism's for use when nothing else comes to mind - "self-loathing" - even though it has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all anywhere.
He's used it on everyone from Richard Cashin to well, me. I am in fine company.
Actually, Liam should know these last two posts are not about the flag issue, as he claims: the focus has shifted from the issue to the lengthy posts he uses to ranble on about anything other than the topic.
Those posts that miss the point.
All the time.
And true to form, Liam trots out yet another one of his stock criticism's for use when nothing else comes to mind - "self-loathing" - even though it has absolutely nothing to do with anything at all anywhere.
He's used it on everyone from Richard Cashin to well, me. I am in fine company.
Actually, Liam should know these last two posts are not about the flag issue, as he claims: the focus has shifted from the issue to the lengthy posts he uses to ranble on about anything other than the topic.
Those posts that miss the point.
All the time.
02 October 2005
And the award goes to...
1. Reflexive Grit-Loather [RGL] Postings Inc. for the lengthy pseudo-rebuttal to The Dead End Kids.
The post:
- is long, in keeping with the format at RGL. Heck, the guy even beats me out for lengthy posts.
- misses any point made by anyone, all the time, any time.
- manages to dredge up some obscure comic book from Marvel that appeared briefly in the mid 1980s. Thank Heavens for google. When will Howard the Duck turn up over that RGL?
- accuses everyone else all the time of the same faults and foibles of the RGL, usually without any evidence that such is the case.
2. To the Spindy editor Ryan Cleary who claims, in his editorial this week, that Confederation robbed "us" of all our heros, the award for sheer volume of equine excrement compacted into one tiny phrase.
Ryan, maybe you need to start thinking about your readership when they elect a 19th century Roman Catholic priest as the greatest Newfoundlander or Labradorian ever, and then your carefully-selected editorial panel [all your columnists and writers], tosses the notion in favour of someone plausible - i.e. William Coaker.
Sir Robert came in second.
Something tells me Ryan couldn't stomach handing out an award to Sir Robert, whom he labels a career politician - that's just crap since at the time people held down elected office and maintained other careers. We didn't see career politicians in this place until after Confederation. Ryan has been known to fume about at least one thing bearing Sir Robert's name. Maybe the name just sticks in his craw a bit.
But hey, Coaker deserves a lot of praise - perhaps for being the guy who built the Icelandic fishery.
Meanwhile, rumours the the Spindy's imminent demise are surfacing again in the wake of people quitting and being fired from Dobbin's little laugh factory by the Bubble. Now that he has his plum appointment, maybe Sir Brian won't be as interested in flushing so much cash down the drain each week.
Having served its purpose and gotten Dobbin onto the public travel tit, the Spindy maybe long for the harbour.
The post:
- is long, in keeping with the format at RGL. Heck, the guy even beats me out for lengthy posts.
- misses any point made by anyone, all the time, any time.
- manages to dredge up some obscure comic book from Marvel that appeared briefly in the mid 1980s. Thank Heavens for google. When will Howard the Duck turn up over that RGL?
- accuses everyone else all the time of the same faults and foibles of the RGL, usually without any evidence that such is the case.
2. To the Spindy editor Ryan Cleary who claims, in his editorial this week, that Confederation robbed "us" of all our heros, the award for sheer volume of equine excrement compacted into one tiny phrase.
Ryan, maybe you need to start thinking about your readership when they elect a 19th century Roman Catholic priest as the greatest Newfoundlander or Labradorian ever, and then your carefully-selected editorial panel [all your columnists and writers], tosses the notion in favour of someone plausible - i.e. William Coaker.
Sir Robert came in second.
Something tells me Ryan couldn't stomach handing out an award to Sir Robert, whom he labels a career politician - that's just crap since at the time people held down elected office and maintained other careers. We didn't see career politicians in this place until after Confederation. Ryan has been known to fume about at least one thing bearing Sir Robert's name. Maybe the name just sticks in his craw a bit.
But hey, Coaker deserves a lot of praise - perhaps for being the guy who built the Icelandic fishery.
Meanwhile, rumours the the Spindy's imminent demise are surfacing again in the wake of people quitting and being fired from Dobbin's little laugh factory by the Bubble. Now that he has his plum appointment, maybe Sir Brian won't be as interested in flushing so much cash down the drain each week.
Having served its purpose and gotten Dobbin onto the public travel tit, the Spindy maybe long for the harbour.
30 September 2005
The Dead End Kids
As one might have expected, The Gangs of St. John's caused a stir over at Responsible Government League [RGL], or as I sometimes call it, the place where one finds posts of Really Great Length.
At the outset, let's restate the point made in the original post which, admittedly, might have gotten lost either in the wake of the opening photo of a well-known Bowery Boy or in the end photo of Cameron Diaz.
The Gangs of St. John's argued that:
a. There are many more pressing issues deserving of widespread public debate or discussion at this point than what piece of coloured nylon flaps from the flagpoles of the province; and,
b. if we must discuss it, there is little merit in holding up the pink, white and green flag that derived from a particular, short-lived political faction in early 19th century St. John's as being somehow the de facto emblem of our fair land and its people.
The pink, white and green is a version of the flag of the so-called Newfoundland Natives' Society.
That is it. Pure and simple. After the Society collapsed in 1847, the flag appears periodically, almost exclusively in St. John's and continues today having become associated with the idea of Newfoundland and Labrador as an independent country.
The origins of the colour combination are somewhat difficult to trace. Prominent local historian John Fitzgerald brands as a fable the idea that the flag was designed to include the colours of England and Ireland with a white band of peace between the two. He then ignores any discussion of the origins of the flag, preferring instead, as does RGL to focus on the appearance of the flag after 1860 or thereabouts to make the case for the tricolour as the flag of this place. Oddly enough, the tricolour petition website actually cites the seal myth as part of the flag's history despite the fact that Fitzgerald dismisses it as unsubstantiated.
The Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador contends that the flag derived from the banners of two rival Irish organizations, one made up of people born in Newfoundland, the other being new-comers. This is the version I have accepted thus far, until someone can suggest an alternative.
There is no doubt that the tricolour appears periodically and has been held up as the local flag. However, the examples offered by O'Brien and others are almost exclusively from St. John's. O'Brien notes the formation of the police force and fire brigade, which, it should be noted means the St. John's police force and the St. John's fire brigade.
O'Brien notes the pledge of Sir Robert Bond in the 1908 election to make the tricolour the official flag of the country. He takes issue with my contention that Bond made the pledge for electoral benefit, likely by appealing to a particular group in St. John's (I am suggesting predominantly those of Irish heritage) to try and win a hotly contested election.
As I noted in comments on RGL, it seems passing strange that Bond would use the tricolour as a major part of his campaign. Bond was seeking re-election and it was during his administration that the legislature adopted a typical British ensign as the official flag of Newfoundland. Aside from what may have occurred in certain instances noted by tricolour supporters, this flag flew on all government buildings before 1949 and a blue ensign of the same design flew on government-owned vessels. It is also the flag that hangs in the Amiens memorial chapel to the fallen of the Great War representing Newfoundland, as one of the countries that fought to defend France.
The 1904 Newfoundland Ensign
At the outset, let's restate the point made in the original post which, admittedly, might have gotten lost either in the wake of the opening photo of a well-known Bowery Boy or in the end photo of Cameron Diaz.
The Gangs of St. John's argued that:
a. There are many more pressing issues deserving of widespread public debate or discussion at this point than what piece of coloured nylon flaps from the flagpoles of the province; and,
b. if we must discuss it, there is little merit in holding up the pink, white and green flag that derived from a particular, short-lived political faction in early 19th century St. John's as being somehow the de facto emblem of our fair land and its people.
The pink, white and green is a version of the flag of the so-called Newfoundland Natives' Society.
That is it. Pure and simple. After the Society collapsed in 1847, the flag appears periodically, almost exclusively in St. John's and continues today having become associated with the idea of Newfoundland and Labrador as an independent country.
The origins of the colour combination are somewhat difficult to trace. Prominent local historian John Fitzgerald brands as a fable the idea that the flag was designed to include the colours of England and Ireland with a white band of peace between the two. He then ignores any discussion of the origins of the flag, preferring instead, as does RGL to focus on the appearance of the flag after 1860 or thereabouts to make the case for the tricolour as the flag of this place. Oddly enough, the tricolour petition website actually cites the seal myth as part of the flag's history despite the fact that Fitzgerald dismisses it as unsubstantiated.
The Encyclopedia of Newfoundland and Labrador contends that the flag derived from the banners of two rival Irish organizations, one made up of people born in Newfoundland, the other being new-comers. This is the version I have accepted thus far, until someone can suggest an alternative.
There is no doubt that the tricolour appears periodically and has been held up as the local flag. However, the examples offered by O'Brien and others are almost exclusively from St. John's. O'Brien notes the formation of the police force and fire brigade, which, it should be noted means the St. John's police force and the St. John's fire brigade.
O'Brien notes the pledge of Sir Robert Bond in the 1908 election to make the tricolour the official flag of the country. He takes issue with my contention that Bond made the pledge for electoral benefit, likely by appealing to a particular group in St. John's (I am suggesting predominantly those of Irish heritage) to try and win a hotly contested election.
As I noted in comments on RGL, it seems passing strange that Bond would use the tricolour as a major part of his campaign. Bond was seeking re-election and it was during his administration that the legislature adopted a typical British ensign as the official flag of Newfoundland. Aside from what may have occurred in certain instances noted by tricolour supporters, this flag flew on all government buildings before 1949 and a blue ensign of the same design flew on government-owned vessels. It is also the flag that hangs in the Amiens memorial chapel to the fallen of the Great War representing Newfoundland, as one of the countries that fought to defend France.
The 1904 Newfoundland Ensign
Perhaps the most curious portion of O'Brien's post is the argument that I have somehow confused the tricolour flag with separatism. He cites a poll conducted for the Vic Young Royal Commission as proof of his contention that the flag and the "nationalist" sentiment actually pervade the province.
Let's us be clear. The Ryan Research poll does indicate that an overwhelming majority of respondents consider themselves to be Newfoundlanders or Labradorians before they consider themselves Canadians. At the same time, the poll also found that an overwhelming majority of respondents were opposed to Newfoundland and Labrador becoming an independent country. That sentiment was strong across all regions, including St. John's.
But at no point does Ryan ask about the flag. Therefore, O'Brien's use of this poll to prove or disprove any point about the validity of the tricolour as the provincial flag is erroneous.
Nationalism, on the other hand is something altogether different from independence and separatism. Nationalism as pride in one's place of birth is an obvious notion.
The "nationalism" to which I referred in The Gangs of St. John's is that version of nationalism that is rooted in St. John's. Part of it derives from the nativist sentiment of almost two centuries ago. Some of it - albeit a very small portion, according to Ryan - is unabashedly in favour of a return to so-called responsible government: independence.
To be fair, I should have clarified my use of the term. In local usage, the word "nationalist" almost invariable does not mean independence. Even the newspaper which uses the tricolour in its masthead and which calls itself The Independent cannot seem to call outright for the independence of Newfoundland and Labrador from Canada.
Rather the "nationalists", who have always been found mostly on the streets of St. John's are actually closer in philosophy to Quebec's sovereignists: they romanticize about local "nationalism", of being maitres chez nous, and speak in strong terms about the supposedly harsh treatment this place has received from "evil" Canadians.
Yet, these same champions of Newfoundland and Labrador seem to be unable to remove themselves from the tit on the Rideau. They studiously avoid working out the financial implications of separation. They argue for something akin to sovereignty-association, with progressively more and more political power accruing to St. John's while Ottawa has little to do beyond keeping the cash flowing to provincial coffers.
In that context, the January offshore deal is a classic example of the "nationalist" approach - so that the provincial government may receive all revenues from its offshore resources, it must receive not only all the revenues (as it currently does, and as acknowledged by the provincial government in the deal itself) but it must also receive federal transfer payments as if those revenues did not exist. We attain local self-determination (does this not mean independence?) - we become masters of our destiny in the Premier's words - by receiving ever more hand-outs from Uncle Ottawa.
That said, the pink, white and green is the banner around which these "nationalists" rally and no one should pretend that this tricolour flag is being proposed and is supported largely by anyone other than "nationalists".
Through it all, however, one cannot escape the overwhelming rejection of independence by those polled merely two years ago. The numbers today may well be different, but somehow I would doubt they would be radically different such that I might think it possible - were I a "nationalist" - to use an old St. John's flag as my rallying banner and expect to get very far.
This brings me inevitably back to the point at which The Gangs of St. John's started. With all the challenges faced by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, surely the last thing on our agenda should be the flag. The last thing we ought bother to argue about should be the flag that is linked inextricably with such a small percentage of the population - by any measure.
If the flag - if the pink, white and green - is all we have to talk about or write petitions about, then surely we have reached a political dead end in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Maybe Satch really is the father of our "nationalists", if not our nation.
Let's us be clear. The Ryan Research poll does indicate that an overwhelming majority of respondents consider themselves to be Newfoundlanders or Labradorians before they consider themselves Canadians. At the same time, the poll also found that an overwhelming majority of respondents were opposed to Newfoundland and Labrador becoming an independent country. That sentiment was strong across all regions, including St. John's.
But at no point does Ryan ask about the flag. Therefore, O'Brien's use of this poll to prove or disprove any point about the validity of the tricolour as the provincial flag is erroneous.
Nationalism, on the other hand is something altogether different from independence and separatism. Nationalism as pride in one's place of birth is an obvious notion.
The "nationalism" to which I referred in The Gangs of St. John's is that version of nationalism that is rooted in St. John's. Part of it derives from the nativist sentiment of almost two centuries ago. Some of it - albeit a very small portion, according to Ryan - is unabashedly in favour of a return to so-called responsible government: independence.
To be fair, I should have clarified my use of the term. In local usage, the word "nationalist" almost invariable does not mean independence. Even the newspaper which uses the tricolour in its masthead and which calls itself The Independent cannot seem to call outright for the independence of Newfoundland and Labrador from Canada.
Rather the "nationalists", who have always been found mostly on the streets of St. John's are actually closer in philosophy to Quebec's sovereignists: they romanticize about local "nationalism", of being maitres chez nous, and speak in strong terms about the supposedly harsh treatment this place has received from "evil" Canadians.
Yet, these same champions of Newfoundland and Labrador seem to be unable to remove themselves from the tit on the Rideau. They studiously avoid working out the financial implications of separation. They argue for something akin to sovereignty-association, with progressively more and more political power accruing to St. John's while Ottawa has little to do beyond keeping the cash flowing to provincial coffers.
In that context, the January offshore deal is a classic example of the "nationalist" approach - so that the provincial government may receive all revenues from its offshore resources, it must receive not only all the revenues (as it currently does, and as acknowledged by the provincial government in the deal itself) but it must also receive federal transfer payments as if those revenues did not exist. We attain local self-determination (does this not mean independence?) - we become masters of our destiny in the Premier's words - by receiving ever more hand-outs from Uncle Ottawa.
That said, the pink, white and green is the banner around which these "nationalists" rally and no one should pretend that this tricolour flag is being proposed and is supported largely by anyone other than "nationalists".
Through it all, however, one cannot escape the overwhelming rejection of independence by those polled merely two years ago. The numbers today may well be different, but somehow I would doubt they would be radically different such that I might think it possible - were I a "nationalist" - to use an old St. John's flag as my rallying banner and expect to get very far.
This brings me inevitably back to the point at which The Gangs of St. John's started. With all the challenges faced by Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, surely the last thing on our agenda should be the flag. The last thing we ought bother to argue about should be the flag that is linked inextricably with such a small percentage of the population - by any measure.
If the flag - if the pink, white and green - is all we have to talk about or write petitions about, then surely we have reached a political dead end in Newfoundland and Labrador.
Maybe Satch really is the father of our "nationalists", if not our nation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)