"Kiss the Backsides," Williams's own words -- not mine. Words uttered in the House of Assembly, where "yahoo" is strictly prohibited.
Each day in the House this week has had its own particular theme. Monday was Where's Waldo Day and Tuesday was Wiseman Evisceration Day. Yesterday saw an outbreak of the flu known as D1W1.
Here is a list of what Williams actually said and claimed yesterday in the House of Assembly. Anyone who isn't drunk on PC Kool Aid will see these statements for what they are:
1) Williams couldn't care less if the federal government doesn't fund projects in NL.
2) The federal government promised him $10 billion.
3) The federal government took at least $1 billion away from NL.
4) Williams is not going to kiss the federal government's backside.
5) Williams doesn't care if NL has bad relations with the federal government.
6) The federal government has slapped and abused him and the people of NL.
7) The successful ABC campaign prevented the clowns from attaining a majority government.
8) Despite numbers 1-7, provincial cabinet ministers are meeting with their counterparts in Ottawa.
9) Despite numbers 1-7, the provincial government is doing everything appropriate to ensure that everything is covered and proper federal representation is maintained.
10) Despite 8-9, Williams's sole strategy is to wait until Ignatieff or Layton win the next federal election.
There you have it: the latest top ten of I Can't Believe He Said That (Again). I can hear Danny's angry supporters already dismissing this as just Danny being Danny -- this is just passionate talk from a proud, determined leader.
What do you think Williams and his government would say if Harper used words like clowns to describe them? How do you think they would react if Harper started talking about backsides? What would they say if Harper claimed they had slapped and abused him?
If Jones or Parsons had used language like Williams's, how do you think the Tories would respond? If Jones referred to someone's arse in the House of Assembly, what would the Speaker of the House say?
Language either matters or it doesn't. It's as simple as that.
If Williams wants to be taken seriously, then what he says has to be taken seriously. And if you're the type of person who happily puts up with such crap from your Premier, then you truly deserve such crap.
As for the substantive claims Williams made yesterday, I leave it to you to determine what's true, what's false, and what's pure bullshit. Anyone who has been reading this blog knows, for instance, that Hedderson is on public record as saying that he cannot get a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries. Anyone who has been reading Labradore knows how often the provincial government appeals for federal funding. And anyone who has been reading Bond Papers knows the many inconsistencies and contradictions surrounding the entire ABC and equalization ponzi scheme.
Below is the transcript of Williams's exchange with Parsons, copied from yesterday's Hansard, with Williams's notable statements in bold: http://www.assembly.nl.ca/business/hansard/ga46session2/09-04-30.htm
As you read over what Williams actually said (this is Question Period, remember, not a late-nite call in show), think about how this is part of a much longer and larger pattern of state language that:
1) Focuses obsessively on conflict
2) Focuses obsessively on personal insults (both received and given)
3) Uses violent imagery
4) Uses vulgar epithets
5) Responds glibly to serious issues
6) Fails to be ironic or funny
7) Fails to evolve or adapt to changing circumstances
8) Insists on double-standards
9) Insists on self-righteousness
10) Fails to take consequences seriously
---------------------------------------------------
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, my next question – I will move on to another topic here - our federal regional minister, Minister MacKay, announced today $136 million in funding that will ensure that Halifax is the Atlantic Gateway. Unfortunately, our Province has lost out once again. Minister MacKay stated in a news release that this funding will allow Halifax to play their role as a major trade gateway to the world.
I ask the Premier: What recent discussions have you had with Minister MacKay and the federal government regarding our Province’s position as the Atlantic Gateway, and were you advised that this funding announcement would be coming today?
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to Minister MacKay probably three or four times in the last six weeks and raised all kinds of issues with him: cost-shared funding through transportation and works. We talked about the Gateway. We have talked about all kinds of other projects, kept a constant dialogue going. He did not phone me up today to tell me that this announcement was made, nor would I expect him to, but we have made all appropriate submissions to the federal government. We are maintaining a dialogue with them. If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn’t care less, quite frankly.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Minister MacKay, in his words, stated that it was thanks to the strong relationship between the federal and Nova Scotian governments that communities in that province will see the benefits of the Atlantic Gateway that will allow them to remain competitive and prosperous.
I ask the Premier: Is this another instance where the poor state of federal-provincial relations is costing the people of this Province new money and investment from the federal government?
PREMIER WILLIAMS: This is a situation, Mr. Speaker, whereby we were promised $10 billion from the federal government. They refused to provide that to us, so we took issue with it and we stood up on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador; because with that kind of money we could have paid off our entire debt. They subsequently turned around during the last Budget and basically took away $1 billion to $1.5 billion from us.
On that basis, we are not prepared to turn around and kiss the backsides of the federal government under any circumstances. If that means that we have bad federal-provincial relations, then so be it.
MR. KELVIN PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nobody is talking about kissing backsides. We are talking about doing your job, whether you are a Premier or a minister.
I say to the Premier: You alluded to the fact that you have had several conversations with Mr. McKay in the last six weeks. Has there been any discussions between you or any of your ministers with regard to the Atlantic Gateway that we could look forward to seeing some money coming here, or are the state of affairs, in fact, so bad that there is no conversation even ongoing in that regard?
PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can only tell you that I have had several discussions with the minister. I have had meetings with the minister. My ministers have had meetings with counterparts and that minister. We have done everything appropriate from our perspective to ensure that we have basically covered ourselves to make sure that we represented on behalf of the people of the Province.
Now I come back to the other principle. We can only go so far. If these people are going to abuse the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if they are going to slap us in the face, there is nothing we can do about that. What we did do is we conducted a very successful ABC campaign, which ensured that these clowns did not end up with a majority government across this country. As a result of that, they do not have a majority government. Hopefully, there will be an election and they will be kicked out of office. That is our goal. Then we will see where it goes there, and we will see what Mr. Ignatieff or Mr. Layton can do for us at the end of the day.
Showing posts with label Danlogic. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Danlogic. Show all posts
Friday, May 1, 2009
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Risky Business
As the questions surrounding Reynolds' conduct widen, it is important to place this burgeoning scandal in context. Coincidentally, this morning the Tely returned to ABC in its editorial: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=244819&sc=80
The Tely focuses on the question of revenge and the costs of ABC: "Now, you can say that governments shouldn't hold grudges, and shouldn't make decisions based on politics or differences in personalities. You'd be right. On the other hand, all of them - even our near and dear provincial government - do. So it probably should not be a surprise when it turns out that "Steve's government" actually has a long memory. Or that ABC may end up having ramifications throughout its tenure."
Fair enough, but there are 3 issues that demand further attention:
1) These ramifications were well known from the beginning of the ABC folly. Anyone even remotely aware of federal politics knew when the last federal election was called that it was highly unlikely that Harper would lose. The polls wavered from majority to minority status, but the prospect of defeating Harper was very remote from the beginning.
2) As for the difference between a minority and majority government, by DW's own admission Harper had shown that he was more than capable of doing what he wanted with a minority government. If Harper had already shafted NL when he had a minority government prior to 2008, then why would anyone expect that keeping him from a majority government would somehow alter his position towards NL?
3) As DW himself said repeatedly, Harper is a vindictive, nasty politician. So if the chances of defeating him in a federal election were known to be so slim, why would DW be proposing to launch a rhetorical nuclear weapon? Unless there was a realistic chance that Harper could be defeated, it made no political sense to torch the last plank in the bridge between St. John's and Ottawa, leaving NL with no representation at the federal cabinet. (And it needs to be noted that having no MP from NL serves Harper's interests more than anyone else's).
The Tely editorial also serves as a useful reminder of DW's infamous speech which, as they point out, "many in this province might remember, if for no other reason than the slightly bizarre appearance of a sign-waving Buddy the Puffin."
So let's return to the actual speech. Below is the passage where DW attacks Harper: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/speeches/2008/Premier_Board_of_Trade_September_10.htm
"Stephen Harper’s own campaign literature proclaimed, "There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept." He used these words as he successfully attempted to woo voters from this province to not vote for the opposing party. Naively we trusted him. He rewarded that trust with a broken promise. According to his own brochure – he is a fraud. I think you all know my views on this issue and I firmly believe that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at home and abroad still feel the same cold, sharp sting of betrayal at the hands of our country’s leader. Other commitments were also made by Stephen Harper that were not kept. 5-Wing Goose Bay; custodial management; a Lower Churchill guarantee and numerous others. We all know that these promises are sadly not worth the paper they were written on and the bond of his word is meaningless. The raising of rates at Marine Atlantic in times of high gas prices, poor service and inaction on badly needed vessels is another example of their attitude to isolate the island and which creates more economic hardship on small rural businesses. American actress, Katherine Hepburn, once said, "To keep your character intact you cannot stoop to filthy acts. It makes it easier to stoop the next time". I believe these words hold a dire warning for all Canadians. If Harper is prepared to slash program spending with large surpluses and break his written word as the leader of a minority government, the future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and indeed all Canadians, will be very bleak under a Conservative majority. Do not let Stephen Harper turn your focus onto a green shift in his attempt to turn your focus away from the Conservative’s blue shaft. His list of broken and unfulfilled promises portrays a lack of integrity in his character and shows us he cannot be trusted. This is a federal government willing to not only break their own promises, but they go so far as to break their own laws and call an election even though they mandated fixed election dates. There is nothing Harper will not do to win a majority government. This is a party who purportedly offered a terminally ill MP a life insurance policy to get his vote. How low can you go? This is a man who wants an election before losing by-elections that were to have taken place this month. A man who wants an election before the economy declines any further due to fiscal mismanagement. He wants an election before findings are released on various ethical breaches against his government. It is so critically important that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador let Stephen Harper know that his treatment, his attitude, his indifference to this province is NOT acceptable. When I met with him to offer a compromise he told me face-to-face that he does not need the people of this province to win an election. So, let’s let him know that we don’t need him either."
-------------------------------------
Stop for a minute and reflect on what DW actually said. Consider the seriousness of the accusations and the nastiness of the insults.
I'm not suggesting for a second that you have sympathy for Harper, but just stop and reflect on what he's calling the prime minister. DW's speech was singularly visceral, vitriolic, and vindictive.
Think about the stakes. This was no ordinary speech. It was made on the eve of a federal election which everyone knew that the target of that vitriol was going to win.
Whatever your political views, one thing cannot be doubted: this was an incredibly risky move. DW was taking a huge political gamble. He was rolling the dice in a high stakes game of chicken.
But there were two problems with this game: 1) he was gambling with the public's money, not his own; 2) the odds were stacked so high against him that it's hard to believe that this speech was really about whether Harper won a minority or a majority government.
The two lines in italics get the closest to what was really going on here. Harper allegedly said that he didn't need NL to win a federal election. That's an incredibly nasty and dismissive thing for a prime minister to say, but in terms of pure, Machiavellian politics, it was true: he won the election without any MPs from NL, and he's governing the country today without any MPs from NL.
DW's response was, essentially, screw you! If you dismiss us, we'll dismiss you. That may work well on the playground, but federal-provincial relations is an entirely different matter. Last month, Orwellian News reflected on the options DW had before him: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/paradoxes-and-polemics.html
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/abc-redux.html
Imagine that you're in charge of a regional office in a much larger corporation. Your boss is a jerk and you hate him, but you have to work with him nonetheless. You may despise the little creep, but you have to work with him to ensure that your regional office gets its fair share of funding and support. So what's the best way to achieve your goals?
You could throw a fit during a meeting, froth at the mouth, call him every name in the book, and launch a scorched-earth war against him. You could do this right away, before you have lined up sufficient support from the other regional offices, and while your boss is in a relatively strong position.
Alternately, you could smile when he jerks you around, bide your time, keep him in the dark, and maximize your short-term position while you pursue your long-term goal of removing him. You could wait for the right moment to act decisely when conditions are ripe for success. I leave it to you to decide which tactic is the dumb one.
But, in retrospect, I think dumbness explains only part of the puzzle. Another important part is recklessness: Dangovt seems addicted to risky behaviour and unnecessary brinksmanship.
Whether it's meddling with the MUN presidential search, antagonizing the nurses, or allowing Wiseman to remain in cabinet, Dangovt has shown a consistent pattern of recklessness.
This recklessness gets sold to the public in various guises -- passion, pride, patiotism, optimism, determination -- but let's not lose sight that it is, in the end, risky business.
And that's how we got to the latest scandal.
If the past is any guide, it's only a matter of time before Dangovt takes another big political risk that will distract the public's attention from Reynolds' inaction and the fallout from Byrne's conviction.
Psychological Update
If you're curious about the psychology behind such recklessness, then you may be interested in John Lanchester's take:
"One of the peculiar things about the world of finance is that it freely offers the sensation of being proved right to its participants. Every transaction in the markets has a buyer and a seller, and, in most cases, one of them is right and the other wrong, because the price goes either up or down. The cumulative weight of this right-or-wrongness is one of the things that make financial types psychologically distinctive. Artists, sportsmen, surgeons, plumbers, and the rest of us have secret voices of doubt, inner reservations about ourselves, but if you go to work with money, and make money, you can be proved right in the most inhumanly pure way. This is why people who have succeeded in the world of money tend to have such a high opinion of themselves. And this is why they seem to regard themselves as paragons of rationality, while others often regard them as slightly nuts. The chairman and C.E.O. of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, in his no-apologies testimony to a congressional committee after his company’s collapse, gave us a glimpse of this state of mind in its full pomp.
This is also why the financial masters of the universe tend not to write books. If you have been proved—proved—right, why bother? If you need to tell it, you can’t truly know it. The story of David Einhorn and Allied Capital is an example of a moneyman who believed, with absolute certainty, that he was in the right, who said so, and who then watched the world fail to react to his irrefutable demonstration of his own rightness. This drove him so crazy that he did what was, for a hedge-fund manager, a bizarre thing: he wrote a book about it."
For the rest of the article, see http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2008/11/10/081110crat_atlarge_lanchester?currentPage=1
The Tely focuses on the question of revenge and the costs of ABC: "Now, you can say that governments shouldn't hold grudges, and shouldn't make decisions based on politics or differences in personalities. You'd be right. On the other hand, all of them - even our near and dear provincial government - do. So it probably should not be a surprise when it turns out that "Steve's government" actually has a long memory. Or that ABC may end up having ramifications throughout its tenure."
Fair enough, but there are 3 issues that demand further attention:
1) These ramifications were well known from the beginning of the ABC folly. Anyone even remotely aware of federal politics knew when the last federal election was called that it was highly unlikely that Harper would lose. The polls wavered from majority to minority status, but the prospect of defeating Harper was very remote from the beginning.
2) As for the difference between a minority and majority government, by DW's own admission Harper had shown that he was more than capable of doing what he wanted with a minority government. If Harper had already shafted NL when he had a minority government prior to 2008, then why would anyone expect that keeping him from a majority government would somehow alter his position towards NL?
3) As DW himself said repeatedly, Harper is a vindictive, nasty politician. So if the chances of defeating him in a federal election were known to be so slim, why would DW be proposing to launch a rhetorical nuclear weapon? Unless there was a realistic chance that Harper could be defeated, it made no political sense to torch the last plank in the bridge between St. John's and Ottawa, leaving NL with no representation at the federal cabinet. (And it needs to be noted that having no MP from NL serves Harper's interests more than anyone else's).
The Tely editorial also serves as a useful reminder of DW's infamous speech which, as they point out, "many in this province might remember, if for no other reason than the slightly bizarre appearance of a sign-waving Buddy the Puffin."
So let's return to the actual speech. Below is the passage where DW attacks Harper: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/speeches/2008/Premier_Board_of_Trade_September_10.htm
"Stephen Harper’s own campaign literature proclaimed, "There is no greater fraud than a promise not kept." He used these words as he successfully attempted to woo voters from this province to not vote for the opposing party. Naively we trusted him. He rewarded that trust with a broken promise. According to his own brochure – he is a fraud. I think you all know my views on this issue and I firmly believe that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians at home and abroad still feel the same cold, sharp sting of betrayal at the hands of our country’s leader. Other commitments were also made by Stephen Harper that were not kept. 5-Wing Goose Bay; custodial management; a Lower Churchill guarantee and numerous others. We all know that these promises are sadly not worth the paper they were written on and the bond of his word is meaningless. The raising of rates at Marine Atlantic in times of high gas prices, poor service and inaction on badly needed vessels is another example of their attitude to isolate the island and which creates more economic hardship on small rural businesses. American actress, Katherine Hepburn, once said, "To keep your character intact you cannot stoop to filthy acts. It makes it easier to stoop the next time". I believe these words hold a dire warning for all Canadians. If Harper is prepared to slash program spending with large surpluses and break his written word as the leader of a minority government, the future for Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and indeed all Canadians, will be very bleak under a Conservative majority. Do not let Stephen Harper turn your focus onto a green shift in his attempt to turn your focus away from the Conservative’s blue shaft. His list of broken and unfulfilled promises portrays a lack of integrity in his character and shows us he cannot be trusted. This is a federal government willing to not only break their own promises, but they go so far as to break their own laws and call an election even though they mandated fixed election dates. There is nothing Harper will not do to win a majority government. This is a party who purportedly offered a terminally ill MP a life insurance policy to get his vote. How low can you go? This is a man who wants an election before losing by-elections that were to have taken place this month. A man who wants an election before the economy declines any further due to fiscal mismanagement. He wants an election before findings are released on various ethical breaches against his government. It is so critically important that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador let Stephen Harper know that his treatment, his attitude, his indifference to this province is NOT acceptable. When I met with him to offer a compromise he told me face-to-face that he does not need the people of this province to win an election. So, let’s let him know that we don’t need him either."
-------------------------------------
Stop for a minute and reflect on what DW actually said. Consider the seriousness of the accusations and the nastiness of the insults.
I'm not suggesting for a second that you have sympathy for Harper, but just stop and reflect on what he's calling the prime minister. DW's speech was singularly visceral, vitriolic, and vindictive.
Think about the stakes. This was no ordinary speech. It was made on the eve of a federal election which everyone knew that the target of that vitriol was going to win.
Whatever your political views, one thing cannot be doubted: this was an incredibly risky move. DW was taking a huge political gamble. He was rolling the dice in a high stakes game of chicken.
But there were two problems with this game: 1) he was gambling with the public's money, not his own; 2) the odds were stacked so high against him that it's hard to believe that this speech was really about whether Harper won a minority or a majority government.
The two lines in italics get the closest to what was really going on here. Harper allegedly said that he didn't need NL to win a federal election. That's an incredibly nasty and dismissive thing for a prime minister to say, but in terms of pure, Machiavellian politics, it was true: he won the election without any MPs from NL, and he's governing the country today without any MPs from NL.
DW's response was, essentially, screw you! If you dismiss us, we'll dismiss you. That may work well on the playground, but federal-provincial relations is an entirely different matter. Last month, Orwellian News reflected on the options DW had before him: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/paradoxes-and-polemics.html
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/abc-redux.html
Imagine that you're in charge of a regional office in a much larger corporation. Your boss is a jerk and you hate him, but you have to work with him nonetheless. You may despise the little creep, but you have to work with him to ensure that your regional office gets its fair share of funding and support. So what's the best way to achieve your goals?
You could throw a fit during a meeting, froth at the mouth, call him every name in the book, and launch a scorched-earth war against him. You could do this right away, before you have lined up sufficient support from the other regional offices, and while your boss is in a relatively strong position.
Alternately, you could smile when he jerks you around, bide your time, keep him in the dark, and maximize your short-term position while you pursue your long-term goal of removing him. You could wait for the right moment to act decisely when conditions are ripe for success. I leave it to you to decide which tactic is the dumb one.
But, in retrospect, I think dumbness explains only part of the puzzle. Another important part is recklessness: Dangovt seems addicted to risky behaviour and unnecessary brinksmanship.
Whether it's meddling with the MUN presidential search, antagonizing the nurses, or allowing Wiseman to remain in cabinet, Dangovt has shown a consistent pattern of recklessness.
This recklessness gets sold to the public in various guises -- passion, pride, patiotism, optimism, determination -- but let's not lose sight that it is, in the end, risky business.
And that's how we got to the latest scandal.
If the past is any guide, it's only a matter of time before Dangovt takes another big political risk that will distract the public's attention from Reynolds' inaction and the fallout from Byrne's conviction.
Psychological Update
If you're curious about the psychology behind such recklessness, then you may be interested in John Lanchester's take:
"One of the peculiar things about the world of finance is that it freely offers the sensation of being proved right to its participants. Every transaction in the markets has a buyer and a seller, and, in most cases, one of them is right and the other wrong, because the price goes either up or down. The cumulative weight of this right-or-wrongness is one of the things that make financial types psychologically distinctive. Artists, sportsmen, surgeons, plumbers, and the rest of us have secret voices of doubt, inner reservations about ourselves, but if you go to work with money, and make money, you can be proved right in the most inhumanly pure way. This is why people who have succeeded in the world of money tend to have such a high opinion of themselves. And this is why they seem to regard themselves as paragons of rationality, while others often regard them as slightly nuts. The chairman and C.E.O. of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, in his no-apologies testimony to a congressional committee after his company’s collapse, gave us a glimpse of this state of mind in its full pomp.
This is also why the financial masters of the universe tend not to write books. If you have been proved—proved—right, why bother? If you need to tell it, you can’t truly know it. The story of David Einhorn and Allied Capital is an example of a moneyman who believed, with absolute certainty, that he was in the right, who said so, and who then watched the world fail to react to his irrefutable demonstration of his own rightness. This drove him so crazy that he did what was, for a hedge-fund manager, a bizarre thing: he wrote a book about it."
For the rest of the article, see http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2008/11/10/081110crat_atlarge_lanchester?currentPage=1
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Tory Logic
This morning the Tely has an editorial on the Reynolds scandal: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=244410&sc=80
They pursue one of the strangest parts of this story: "But asked again Monday, Reynolds still said no - and went even further, saying that, since a Tory has been elected in the seat twice since then, the original byelection result must have been a legitimate one. That argument is so bizarre it hardly requires detailed examination. In case Reynolds is not aware, it's the Elections Act, not the Ends-Justify-the-Means Act.And if someone as supposedly versed in elections law as the chief electoral officer can't understand the difference, maybe it's time to hire someone who can."
Yes, the argument is bizarre but, if that's the position of the Chief Electoral Officer, then it warrants some analysis.
Reynolds' assertion is little more than wishful thinking that relies on the fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html
His argument is based on two false premises:
1) Success = Legitimacy, i.e., if someone won an election more than once, it must be legitimate. This is similar to the popular fallacy in NL politics that Wealth = Honesty. Or that other popular doctrine: CRAPoll Numbers = Democracy.
2) What happened after an event explains what happened before. This is also known as presentism, or the fallacy of nunc pro tunc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism
Let's take a real historical example. There was an American politician who won an election in 1968 and then proceeded to win a huge landslide victory in 1972. According to Tory logic, the election campaigns must have been legitimate, because the candidate won twice.
The politician was Richard Nixon, and the funny thing is that the Watergate break-in happened less than six months before he crushed George McGovern in the November 1972 election.
Nixon hardly needed the antics of the "plumbers" unit and second-rate burglars to win the presidential election: http://watergate.info/chronology/1972.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/
But corruption is often illogical and what happens after an event cannot be taken as an explantion for what happened before. Correlation is not the same as causation.
If nothing else, the Reynolds scandal should help dispel some of the popular myths that continue to surround Dangovt.
Campaign Ad Update:
Our Research Department has uncovered one of Nixon's election ads from 1972:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq4hz_nixon-1972-election-ad_ads
With lines like making dreams a reality, and he'll show us how repeated with an oddly revivalist tune, it sure sounds like Dangovt. This would be a correlation, of course, not causation -- unless you subscribe to Tory logic. For other correlations between DW and Nixon, see http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/conspiracy-theories.html
They pursue one of the strangest parts of this story: "But asked again Monday, Reynolds still said no - and went even further, saying that, since a Tory has been elected in the seat twice since then, the original byelection result must have been a legitimate one. That argument is so bizarre it hardly requires detailed examination. In case Reynolds is not aware, it's the Elections Act, not the Ends-Justify-the-Means Act.And if someone as supposedly versed in elections law as the chief electoral officer can't understand the difference, maybe it's time to hire someone who can."
Yes, the argument is bizarre but, if that's the position of the Chief Electoral Officer, then it warrants some analysis.
Reynolds' assertion is little more than wishful thinking that relies on the fallacy of argumentum ad consequentiam: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html
His argument is based on two false premises:
1) Success = Legitimacy, i.e., if someone won an election more than once, it must be legitimate. This is similar to the popular fallacy in NL politics that Wealth = Honesty. Or that other popular doctrine: CRAPoll Numbers = Democracy.
2) What happened after an event explains what happened before. This is also known as presentism, or the fallacy of nunc pro tunc: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism
Let's take a real historical example. There was an American politician who won an election in 1968 and then proceeded to win a huge landslide victory in 1972. According to Tory logic, the election campaigns must have been legitimate, because the candidate won twice.
The politician was Richard Nixon, and the funny thing is that the Watergate break-in happened less than six months before he crushed George McGovern in the November 1972 election.
Nixon hardly needed the antics of the "plumbers" unit and second-rate burglars to win the presidential election: http://watergate.info/chronology/1972.shtml
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/watergate/
But corruption is often illogical and what happens after an event cannot be taken as an explantion for what happened before. Correlation is not the same as causation.
If nothing else, the Reynolds scandal should help dispel some of the popular myths that continue to surround Dangovt.
Campaign Ad Update:
Our Research Department has uncovered one of Nixon's election ads from 1972:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xq4hz_nixon-1972-election-ad_ads
With lines like making dreams a reality, and he'll show us how repeated with an oddly revivalist tune, it sure sounds like Dangovt. This would be a correlation, of course, not causation -- unless you subscribe to Tory logic. For other correlations between DW and Nixon, see http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/conspiracy-theories.html
Friday, April 10, 2009
Clairvoyance & War
Two things stand out in the latest developments in Dangovt's negotiation with the nurses' union.
First, in the initial media coverage, the Tely stood out as the most DW-focused. Not even VOCM framed the story as all about Danny. Here are three headlines:
"Williams disappointed by nurses’ union decision." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=241051&sc=79
"Strike Still Looming for Nurses Despite Latest Offer." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35404
"No thanks: union urges N.L. nurses to reject government offer." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/09/nurses-vote-049.html
The three headlines convey radically different impressions. As is often the case with the Tely, the headline is biased towards DW, though usually their actual stories are balanced. In this case, the story is as sympathetic to DW as the headline. Even though it's just a short update story (with full-length reporting presumably coming on Saturday), the Tely stands in stark contrast to the CBC, which opens with the reaction of the nurses' union, not DW's feelings.
The second thing that stands out is DW's claim to clairvoyance. All three stories referred to Kennedy's/DW's claims that they knew from the outset that the nurses wanted a strike, but only the CBC offers a direct quotation from DW: "We've said all along, right from the start, that we felt that the leadership of the nurses union wanted a strike, and it looks like they're going to get one."
This is not the first time that DW has asserted, after failed negotiations, that he knew all along how someone would act. In his letter to the National Post in February, DW gave two contradictory explanations of the fallout from ABC and the Shaft. His first account was that after he won the ABC battle, "we began what we hoped was a new era of relations for the benefit of all." Later in the letter he offered a second explanation, "If I have a single disappointment from this recent punitive action, it is not with Stephen Harper, because this is the sort of behaviour I expect from him." As I noted in an earlier post, it's difficult to reconcile the evident contradictions: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/pick-your-principle.html
Which brings us back to the nurses' union. If DW is now trotting out the "We've said all along" rhetoric, it's not a good omen. Dangovt's propaganda unit is already cranking out ads, and yesterday's remarks signal that the PR dogs of war are going to be released again. As I've said many times, conflict is the lifeblood of this regime.
With DW's foreign policy initiative going nowhere fast, health care stumbling from one crisis to the next, and problems such as the MUN mess still unresolved, the looming war with the nurses will provide a convenient scapegoat.
First, in the initial media coverage, the Tely stood out as the most DW-focused. Not even VOCM framed the story as all about Danny. Here are three headlines:
"Williams disappointed by nurses’ union decision." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=241051&sc=79
"Strike Still Looming for Nurses Despite Latest Offer." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35404
"No thanks: union urges N.L. nurses to reject government offer." http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/04/09/nurses-vote-049.html
The three headlines convey radically different impressions. As is often the case with the Tely, the headline is biased towards DW, though usually their actual stories are balanced. In this case, the story is as sympathetic to DW as the headline. Even though it's just a short update story (with full-length reporting presumably coming on Saturday), the Tely stands in stark contrast to the CBC, which opens with the reaction of the nurses' union, not DW's feelings.
The second thing that stands out is DW's claim to clairvoyance. All three stories referred to Kennedy's/DW's claims that they knew from the outset that the nurses wanted a strike, but only the CBC offers a direct quotation from DW: "We've said all along, right from the start, that we felt that the leadership of the nurses union wanted a strike, and it looks like they're going to get one."
This is not the first time that DW has asserted, after failed negotiations, that he knew all along how someone would act. In his letter to the National Post in February, DW gave two contradictory explanations of the fallout from ABC and the Shaft. His first account was that after he won the ABC battle, "we began what we hoped was a new era of relations for the benefit of all." Later in the letter he offered a second explanation, "If I have a single disappointment from this recent punitive action, it is not with Stephen Harper, because this is the sort of behaviour I expect from him." As I noted in an earlier post, it's difficult to reconcile the evident contradictions: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/pick-your-principle.html
Which brings us back to the nurses' union. If DW is now trotting out the "We've said all along" rhetoric, it's not a good omen. Dangovt's propaganda unit is already cranking out ads, and yesterday's remarks signal that the PR dogs of war are going to be released again. As I've said many times, conflict is the lifeblood of this regime.
With DW's foreign policy initiative going nowhere fast, health care stumbling from one crisis to the next, and problems such as the MUN mess still unresolved, the looming war with the nurses will provide a convenient scapegoat.
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Conspiracy Theories
From CBC:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/04/williams-reax.html
"The blame game doesn't work. There's no smoking gun on this — there's no conspiracy," Williams said at news conference Wednesday.
What a bizarre couple of sentences. Just who suggested that there had to be a conspiracy and a smoking gun (typical Danflation; the two are not the same thing) for there to be sufficient reason to sack Wiseman?
Hhhmmm...another Danpuzzle to piece together. Think, think...what other super smart, super popular (must be a fellow landslide winner), leader of the Free World made a similarly bizarre preemptive denial that raised more questions than answers?
Got it:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1859513_1859526,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/111873-1.htm
Update:
I got an email suggesting this alternate candidate:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1859513_1859526_1859515,00.html
This would certainly fit with the PG-13 rating of Curious George's cabaret last night.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/04/williams-reax.html
"The blame game doesn't work. There's no smoking gun on this — there's no conspiracy," Williams said at news conference Wednesday.
What a bizarre couple of sentences. Just who suggested that there had to be a conspiracy and a smoking gun (typical Danflation; the two are not the same thing) for there to be sufficient reason to sack Wiseman?
Hhhmmm...another Danpuzzle to piece together. Think, think...what other super smart, super popular (must be a fellow landslide winner), leader of the Free World made a similarly bizarre preemptive denial that raised more questions than answers?
Got it:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1859513_1859526,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/articles/111873-1.htm
Update:
I got an email suggesting this alternate candidate:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1859513_1859526_1859515,00.html
This would certainly fit with the PG-13 rating of Curious George's cabaret last night.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Next Battle
As the Glib is reporting, there appears to be a new front opening up in Danwar:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090211.wrivers11/BNStory/National/home
The local media have been slow to pick up the story. I suspect that Bond Papers and especially Labradore will weigh in soon with the facts. But for Dangovt -- which, in a strange inversion of Clausewitz, sees politics as war by other means -- the facts won't matter as much as the politics.
So let's consider the politics. According to the Glib:
1) "Simply by participating in the joint Quebec-Ottawa environmental assessment panel, the federal government appears to have given tacit approval to Quebec's claim."
2) ..."a constitutional battle may be in the making if Ottawa doesn't act soon to support Newfoundland and Labrador's claim to the land."
3) "A spokesperson for Mr. Williams said yesterday the Premier refuses to say whether he will act to stop Premier Jean Charest from proceeding with the Romaine River hydroelectric project."
Though the first two assertions have to be substantiated, we can take the third as a fact, at least for now. While DW has been on a national media binge, he is refusing to say anything publicly. It's not like Dangovt to keep its powder dry, but DW may have little choice in the short-term.
Let's look at Dangovt's political options:
1) Appeal directly to Harpoid
2) Use cabinet representation [Mackay] within Tory caucus
3) Use MP's to lobby Feds
4) Appeal to Charest
5) Appeal to Ig
6) Wild card
The first three are so dead on arrival that the bodies are blue.
The fourth is at least possibe, but it's hard to see how it would work, since there is little incentive for Charest to negotiate at this stage. DW's letter to the NP implicitly called Charest a coward for failing to join DW's anti-Harpoid campaign. Hard to see what Charest, who has to cover his own nationalist flank, would gain for risking a Duffy-style rendezvous.
The fifth is also possible, but I doubt whether Ig would waste political capital on something that's a vote-loser in Quebec. And as the lastest Danfit illustrated, DW has Ig's Liberal MP's on the speed-dial.
This leaves only the Wild Cards, which could run from some sort of legal challenge to a mass mobilization of Wingnut Nation. The upside of rallying the wingnuts is that it would provide a useful distraction from Dangovts failings, from Prezgate to Harpoid's cash grab, and it would provide yet another rallying cry for the upcoming April Fools Party.
The trouble is not only that the wingnut option might not work; it could also spin out of DW's control. For two generations, the road to Newfoundland nationalism has run through Labrador's hydroelectric resources, and stirring up the boundary dispute would stoke populist sentiments that could spin out of control. It's one thing to pit the province against the feds, something all premiers do from time to time (though it's usually more extreme in NL than the rest of English Canada); it's quite another thing to pit Newfoundland nationalists against Quebec nationalists.
But if past patterns are any indication, DW will pick the wild card and squeeze it for all its worth. The amount of national media coverage DW has attacted over the past month has been remarkable (including a NP editorial yesterday), but it's not sustainable, especially given an economy in free-fall. And whipping Wingnut Nation into another frenzy will backfire if DW cannot deliver. If he mounts another Danwar on this front and it doesn't work, the end-game won't be pretty for anyone. It's no accident, I suspect, that DW has started musing so publicly about separatism.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090211.wrivers11/BNStory/National/home
The local media have been slow to pick up the story. I suspect that Bond Papers and especially Labradore will weigh in soon with the facts. But for Dangovt -- which, in a strange inversion of Clausewitz, sees politics as war by other means -- the facts won't matter as much as the politics.
So let's consider the politics. According to the Glib:
1) "Simply by participating in the joint Quebec-Ottawa environmental assessment panel, the federal government appears to have given tacit approval to Quebec's claim."
2) ..."a constitutional battle may be in the making if Ottawa doesn't act soon to support Newfoundland and Labrador's claim to the land."
3) "A spokesperson for Mr. Williams said yesterday the Premier refuses to say whether he will act to stop Premier Jean Charest from proceeding with the Romaine River hydroelectric project."
Though the first two assertions have to be substantiated, we can take the third as a fact, at least for now. While DW has been on a national media binge, he is refusing to say anything publicly. It's not like Dangovt to keep its powder dry, but DW may have little choice in the short-term.
Let's look at Dangovt's political options:
1) Appeal directly to Harpoid
2) Use cabinet representation [Mackay] within Tory caucus
3) Use MP's to lobby Feds
4) Appeal to Charest
5) Appeal to Ig
6) Wild card
The first three are so dead on arrival that the bodies are blue.
The fourth is at least possibe, but it's hard to see how it would work, since there is little incentive for Charest to negotiate at this stage. DW's letter to the NP implicitly called Charest a coward for failing to join DW's anti-Harpoid campaign. Hard to see what Charest, who has to cover his own nationalist flank, would gain for risking a Duffy-style rendezvous.
The fifth is also possible, but I doubt whether Ig would waste political capital on something that's a vote-loser in Quebec. And as the lastest Danfit illustrated, DW has Ig's Liberal MP's on the speed-dial.
This leaves only the Wild Cards, which could run from some sort of legal challenge to a mass mobilization of Wingnut Nation. The upside of rallying the wingnuts is that it would provide a useful distraction from Dangovts failings, from Prezgate to Harpoid's cash grab, and it would provide yet another rallying cry for the upcoming April Fools Party.
The trouble is not only that the wingnut option might not work; it could also spin out of DW's control. For two generations, the road to Newfoundland nationalism has run through Labrador's hydroelectric resources, and stirring up the boundary dispute would stoke populist sentiments that could spin out of control. It's one thing to pit the province against the feds, something all premiers do from time to time (though it's usually more extreme in NL than the rest of English Canada); it's quite another thing to pit Newfoundland nationalists against Quebec nationalists.
But if past patterns are any indication, DW will pick the wild card and squeeze it for all its worth. The amount of national media coverage DW has attacted over the past month has been remarkable (including a NP editorial yesterday), but it's not sustainable, especially given an economy in free-fall. And whipping Wingnut Nation into another frenzy will backfire if DW cannot deliver. If he mounts another Danwar on this front and it doesn't work, the end-game won't be pretty for anyone. It's no accident, I suspect, that DW has started musing so publicly about separatism.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Pick your Principle
From DW's letter to the National Post:
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/07/danny-williams-it-s-not-just-about-newfoundland-mr-harper.aspx
Door Number 1:
"Let’s not forget that this all began because Stephen Harper made a promise to this province in 2006 in order to get elected: that he would remove non-renewable resource revenues from equalization calculations. He broke that promise. We fought him, and after that fight, we began what we hoped was a new era of relations for the benefit of all. But apparently those who claim Mr. Harper has a long memory and vindictive nature are correct."
Door Number 2:
"If I have a single disappointment from this recent punitive action, it is not with Stephen Harper, because this is the sort of behaviour I expect from him. It is with those fellow provinces that failed to acknowledge the gross injustice that has been done — not just to Newfoundland and Labrador, but to the very fabric of this federation and the fundamental tenets of federal-provincial co-operation. If the Prime Minister can do this to us, he will do it to you. But rest assured, you will have our support when he does so."
So which is it?
Either (1), DW actually believed that a new era of relations was about to begin after the federal election, but then his hopes were tragically dashed; Or (2), DW expected this all along.
It's difficult, even for someone with DW's superhero abilities, to be surprised by something one expects.
The spurious logic for Case 1 is based on the bizarre belief that someone you waged open war against would magically alter his behaviour after your campaign to prevent his reelection failed. Once Harpoid survived the goose egg that was thrown at him, what, exactly, was going to entice or force Harpoid to kiss and make up?
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/02/07/danny-williams-it-s-not-just-about-newfoundland-mr-harper.aspx
Door Number 1:
"Let’s not forget that this all began because Stephen Harper made a promise to this province in 2006 in order to get elected: that he would remove non-renewable resource revenues from equalization calculations. He broke that promise. We fought him, and after that fight, we began what we hoped was a new era of relations for the benefit of all. But apparently those who claim Mr. Harper has a long memory and vindictive nature are correct."
Door Number 2:
"If I have a single disappointment from this recent punitive action, it is not with Stephen Harper, because this is the sort of behaviour I expect from him. It is with those fellow provinces that failed to acknowledge the gross injustice that has been done — not just to Newfoundland and Labrador, but to the very fabric of this federation and the fundamental tenets of federal-provincial co-operation. If the Prime Minister can do this to us, he will do it to you. But rest assured, you will have our support when he does so."
So which is it?
Either (1), DW actually believed that a new era of relations was about to begin after the federal election, but then his hopes were tragically dashed; Or (2), DW expected this all along.
It's difficult, even for someone with DW's superhero abilities, to be surprised by something one expects.
The spurious logic for Case 1 is based on the bizarre belief that someone you waged open war against would magically alter his behaviour after your campaign to prevent his reelection failed. Once Harpoid survived the goose egg that was thrown at him, what, exactly, was going to entice or force Harpoid to kiss and make up?
Sunday, February 8, 2009
13 Degrees of Separation, II
Sayeth DW: "It should have been a legitimate celebration of coming out of the 'have not' status and being a net contributor to Canada. We're looking at that to be a very positive thing — and then Canada just struck us over the head."
But if NL is part of Canada and DW is a proud Canadian, DW seems to be saying that he whacked himself over the head.
If it's not going to be a legitimate celebration of coming out of the have-not closet, DW seems to be saying that it's going to be an illegitimate celebration of coming out of the separatist closet.
In just a couple of days of media-scumming and interview-giving (amazing media availability for such a busy hero), DW has managed the following serial conflations:
1) DW with NL
2) NL with Atlantic Canada
3) DW's interests with those of everyone else in the country
4) ABC games with election of minority federal government
5) Harpoid with the Feds
6) The Feds with Canada
7) Canada with Have/Have Not status
8) Have status with anniversary of Confederation
9) Patriotism with separatism
10) Hockey with politics
11) Politics with war
12) War with governing
13) Governing with ruling.
So let's enter Danworld, for just a minute. Let's assume that he's right: his glorious ABC campaign, which he has referred to publicly as a "war," did indeed result in Harpoid being denied a majority. A big if.If, keep with me here, if this were indeed true, then how could he be so easily ambushed by Harpoid? Surely the smartest leader and best elbow-giver would know (as He himself admitted) that he would be getting an elbow back in retaliation. Surely the Man in the Blue Line cab would have spread around enough war-chest money to build an effective intelligence network. Surely Dangovt would have had it all figured out in the master Danplan.
The only excuse DW has for being out-maneouvered is that Harpoid is not playing by the (DW-designed) rules because Harpoid delivered a sledgehammer rather than an elbow. So a mid-range fiscal hit of, say, $500 million would have been within the boundaries of the hockey-game world that DW operates. If we're going to take Dantalk seriously, then, in Danworld, Canada boils down to a game of fiscal hockey: DW gets to use every weapon imaginable, from hauling down the country's flag to calling successive PM's every name in the dictionary, including coward and liar, in order to elbow his way to the best deal. That's the way His game is played, as he's said publicly many, many times.
Fiscal "status" is, in this worldview, the sum total of Canada. That's it. Get sledgehammered fiscally (lose the political game, in other words) and it's all over, baby. Somehow, though, I suspect DW won't have the guts to haul down the Canadian flag this time, while Newfoundlanders are serving and dying under that flag in Afghanistan. Better this time to cook up an April Fools bonfire. Better this time to ramp up the Canadian patriotism as a pretext for whipping up the wingnuts.
And He'll need every last one of those wingnuts because, despite their predominance on the web and VOCM, they are, at best, a tenth of the provincial electorate. As Dangovt knows very well, if given the chance to vote in a referendum, the vast majority of people in NL would vote to remain in Canada.
But if NL is part of Canada and DW is a proud Canadian, DW seems to be saying that he whacked himself over the head.
If it's not going to be a legitimate celebration of coming out of the have-not closet, DW seems to be saying that it's going to be an illegitimate celebration of coming out of the separatist closet.
In just a couple of days of media-scumming and interview-giving (amazing media availability for such a busy hero), DW has managed the following serial conflations:
1) DW with NL
2) NL with Atlantic Canada
3) DW's interests with those of everyone else in the country
4) ABC games with election of minority federal government
5) Harpoid with the Feds
6) The Feds with Canada
7) Canada with Have/Have Not status
8) Have status with anniversary of Confederation
9) Patriotism with separatism
10) Hockey with politics
11) Politics with war
12) War with governing
13) Governing with ruling.
So let's enter Danworld, for just a minute. Let's assume that he's right: his glorious ABC campaign, which he has referred to publicly as a "war," did indeed result in Harpoid being denied a majority. A big if.If, keep with me here, if this were indeed true, then how could he be so easily ambushed by Harpoid? Surely the smartest leader and best elbow-giver would know (as He himself admitted) that he would be getting an elbow back in retaliation. Surely the Man in the Blue Line cab would have spread around enough war-chest money to build an effective intelligence network. Surely Dangovt would have had it all figured out in the master Danplan.
The only excuse DW has for being out-maneouvered is that Harpoid is not playing by the (DW-designed) rules because Harpoid delivered a sledgehammer rather than an elbow. So a mid-range fiscal hit of, say, $500 million would have been within the boundaries of the hockey-game world that DW operates. If we're going to take Dantalk seriously, then, in Danworld, Canada boils down to a game of fiscal hockey: DW gets to use every weapon imaginable, from hauling down the country's flag to calling successive PM's every name in the dictionary, including coward and liar, in order to elbow his way to the best deal. That's the way His game is played, as he's said publicly many, many times.
Fiscal "status" is, in this worldview, the sum total of Canada. That's it. Get sledgehammered fiscally (lose the political game, in other words) and it's all over, baby. Somehow, though, I suspect DW won't have the guts to haul down the Canadian flag this time, while Newfoundlanders are serving and dying under that flag in Afghanistan. Better this time to cook up an April Fools bonfire. Better this time to ramp up the Canadian patriotism as a pretext for whipping up the wingnuts.
And He'll need every last one of those wingnuts because, despite their predominance on the web and VOCM, they are, at best, a tenth of the provincial electorate. As Dangovt knows very well, if given the chance to vote in a referendum, the vast majority of people in NL would vote to remain in Canada.
13 Degrees of Separation
Here are the links in the chain of Danlogic, as reported in MacGregor's story in the Glib:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wwilliams0207/BNStory/politics/home
1. Absolutely every other premier is a coward. He alone (with sidekick Ghiz) has the guts and the virtue to challenge Harpoid.
2. Because of the premiers' cowardly inability to act like Him, the country is fracturing.
3. To save the country, He mounted the noble ABC campaign.
4. ABC was a significant factor in denying Harpoid his majority. This was, in Danspeak, an "elbow."
5. Because of His bravery in confronting Harpoid, He alone was singled out for punishment.
6. Punishment came in the form of changes to the Atlantic Accord that deliberately singled out Him. This was, in Danspeak, a "sledgehammer."
7. Up until this dastardly deed, Everything was going perfectly in Danland. "We've done all the right things fiscally," He says, "and then in one fell swoop 'bang' we're pretty well back where we started."
8. Thus Harpoid alone is responsible for preventing NL from entering the promised land.
9. Thus Harpoid alone is responsible for "kindling" separatism in NL.
10. Because DW doesn't want to separate, he must talk about it, publicly, repeatedly, ominously. He alone among the party leaders (even the Bloc is usually careful to use the term sovereignty) muses openly about separatism. "But that's not where I'm coming from. Separation is not something that is on my agenda under any circumstances."
11. The next elbow in the crusade against Harpoid will be a protest to mark the upcoming 60th anniversary of Confederation. Dangovt will announce changes to the officially-sanction celebrations.
12. The rationale for such a move: "Here we are coming up to that anniversary," Williams says, "and here's what Ottawa has done to us. We have to really, really be careful with that. I don't want that to become a focal point for separation, because that's not what it was intended to be."
13. Therefore, because He does not want this anniversary to turn into a nationalist protest, he is announcing publicly, in Canada`s national newspaper, that it could become a focal point for separation.
Thus the Wingnuts have their marching orders. The countdown is on to April Fools. If separatist wingnuts spoil the celebration, it will not be His fault. Nothing could be further from the truth.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wwilliams0207/BNStory/politics/home
1. Absolutely every other premier is a coward. He alone (with sidekick Ghiz) has the guts and the virtue to challenge Harpoid.
2. Because of the premiers' cowardly inability to act like Him, the country is fracturing.
3. To save the country, He mounted the noble ABC campaign.
4. ABC was a significant factor in denying Harpoid his majority. This was, in Danspeak, an "elbow."
5. Because of His bravery in confronting Harpoid, He alone was singled out for punishment.
6. Punishment came in the form of changes to the Atlantic Accord that deliberately singled out Him. This was, in Danspeak, a "sledgehammer."
7. Up until this dastardly deed, Everything was going perfectly in Danland. "We've done all the right things fiscally," He says, "and then in one fell swoop 'bang' we're pretty well back where we started."
8. Thus Harpoid alone is responsible for preventing NL from entering the promised land.
9. Thus Harpoid alone is responsible for "kindling" separatism in NL.
10. Because DW doesn't want to separate, he must talk about it, publicly, repeatedly, ominously. He alone among the party leaders (even the Bloc is usually careful to use the term sovereignty) muses openly about separatism. "But that's not where I'm coming from. Separation is not something that is on my agenda under any circumstances."
11. The next elbow in the crusade against Harpoid will be a protest to mark the upcoming 60th anniversary of Confederation. Dangovt will announce changes to the officially-sanction celebrations.
12. The rationale for such a move: "Here we are coming up to that anniversary," Williams says, "and here's what Ottawa has done to us. We have to really, really be careful with that. I don't want that to become a focal point for separation, because that's not what it was intended to be."
13. Therefore, because He does not want this anniversary to turn into a nationalist protest, he is announcing publicly, in Canada`s national newspaper, that it could become a focal point for separation.
Thus the Wingnuts have their marching orders. The countdown is on to April Fools. If separatist wingnuts spoil the celebration, it will not be His fault. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
