The Power of Repetition

The strange non-event event of the 60th anniversary is demonstrating the power of repetition.

Repeat something enough times, and it will soon become accepted as fact. With the multiplier effect of the internet, this process takes a fraction of the time it took just a generation ago.

Once a factoid gets into the news food chain, it gets digested and spewed out in a range of news outlets increasingly removed from the original source.

This digestive process produces remarkably curious results. The latest instalment in the celebration that wasn't is this UPI story, which popped up on a Wall Street Journal site:

Newfoundland's 60th anniversary quiet
Last update: 9:21 a.m. EDT March 31, 2009
ST. JOHN'S, Newfoundland, Mar 31, 2009 (UPI via COMTEX) -- The province of Newfoundland and Labrador observed the 60th anniversary of joining Canada's confederation Tuesday with little ceremony.
Last fall province Premier Danny Williams said there would be celebrations but Monday he said such things as the troubled economy and the March 12 offshore helicopter crash that killed 17 oil platform workers put a damper on festive events.
"It's not a time for celebration and it's not appropriate," Williams said.
Plans to have celebrations of the province's recent designation as a "have" province that doesn't need federal subsidies were also scaled back, the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. reported.
Prior to March 31, 1949, Newfoundland and Labrador was a British dominion with its own currency and postage stamps. The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, dating to 1729, is the oldest police force in North America. It polices parts of the province alongside the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and municipal forces.
Some residents of the capital, St. John's, told UPI many of the island's natives consider the anniversary of being when Canada joined Newfoundland.
Here's the link: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/newfoundlands-60th-anniversary-quiet/story.aspx?guid=%7B93EB2344-DBA1-4303-8B73-43FD64D81718%7D&dist=msr_2

What a bizarre little story. Long gone is the original statement in the Globe about canceling the celebrations because Canada "just struck us over the head." Long gone is any hint that the refusal to acknowledge the anniversary may be political in any way whatsoever.

Now the anniversary non-celebration and the "have party" are again uncoupled. The former is now marked with "little ceremony," while the latter is going to be "scaled back."

Now the reasons for DW's decision are reduced to the economy and the helicopter crash. Now it has nothing to do with federalism. Now Harper isn't within 200 miles of the story. And now DW has merely put a damper on the anniversary celebrations, not cancelled them.

Instead, the story offers an error-filled potted history that manages to cite 1729 of all things, the year that Captain Henry Osborne was made Governor of Newfoundland and given the power to appoint justices of the peace and constables. What 1729 has to do with 1949, let alone 2009, is beyond my powers to compute. Someone should ask Greg Malone, who is CP's resident expert on Confederation: http://bondpapers.blogspot.com/2009/03/confederation-irksome-cp-coverage.html

I wonder who fed UPI the erroneous and irrelevant history lesson. This could be Door Number 6, I guess, but it's more a portal to another dimension than an explanation for what's going on in 2009: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/monty-hall-part-ii.html

Here's a question to ponder: Whose interests are served by this sort of obfuscation?

Monty Hall, Part II (updated again)

Door Number 1:
DW in the Globe, 7 February 2009:
With Flaherty's budget "kindling" the fires of separation, Williams's cabinet is soon to meet over whether to proceed with a March 31 celebration to mark the 60 years since Newfoundland joined Confederation. "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. 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."** http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090206.wwilliams0207/BNStory/politics/home


Door Number 2:
DW in VOCM, 30 March 2009:
No Celebrations For the Province's 60th
He's not blaming it on the current state of relations between the province and the federal government, but Premier Danny Williams says there will be no government planned celebrations to mark the 60th anniversary of confederation. Williams had discussed holding a combined celebration to mark the province's new have status and the anniversary of union with Canada. The Premier says while it's an important date in our history, now is not the time, given the economic turmoil, the Cougar incident earlier this month and the loss of soldiers in Afghanistan. Williams says the current state of affairs between the province and the Harper Conservatives wouldn't deter him from celebrating, if they had felt it was appropriate." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35160


Update -- Door Number 3:
It turns out that there is a third option. Say nothing, stick your head in the sand, and wish the anniversary away. Here is DW not talking to the CP, 29 March 2009:
"But for him [DW] or his political foe, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the 60th anniversary of Confederation does not appear to be an event worthy of comment, much less rejoicing. It did not rate a mention in Williams's throne speech last week and his office deferred questions about the anniversary to the deputy premier. Messages to the Prime Minister's Office were not returned....The silence is a marked contrast from the pomp that surrounded the province's 50th anniversary in Canada. There was a nationally televised gala concert that included then-prime minister Jean Chretien as a guest. And while there was less cause for celebration in 1999 - the province was reeling from the cod collapse and still financially reliant on Ottawa - the party went ahead. Observers noted the warmer relations between Chretien and Brian Tobin, the premier whose federal ambitions were well-known."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h3yw8Q40fo6geY9YKAzYKkCtGwWA
http://www.metronews.ca/halifax/canada/article/204722


Update -- Door Number 4:
DW on CBC, 31 March 2009
N.L. marks 60th Confederation anniversary with whispers
"No tributes, no ceremonies and no parties are planned to mark the 60th anniversary on Tuesday of Newfoundland and Labrador joining Canada. Premier Danny Williams had planned last fall to hold a celebration to mark both the anniversary and the province's recent designation as a so-called "have" province, as Newfoundland and Labrador no longer qualifies for equalization. But Williams said with the national economy in disarray and many people in Newfoundland and Labrador still mourning the 17 people killed in the March 12 Cougar helicopter crash, it would be wrong to host a party. "It's not a time for celebration, and it's not appropriate," said Williams, noting the government had already scaled back its have-status plans well before the Cougar crash. Williams said the quiet marking of the anniversary has nothing to do with his endless political wars with the federal government. "We are very proud as a province to be part of Canada," Williams said Monday in St. John's. "Canada is a great country and despite the fact that we may have differences of opinion from time to time with various governments, that certainly wouldn't impede an overall celebration," said Williams. "But, at this particular point in time, we just really sincerely feel that it's not appropriate." Williams said some members of the legislature may rise on Tuesday to pay tribute to the Confederation anniversary. Marking the diamond anniversary so quietly stands in contrast to previous anniversaries. In 1974, a full year of celebrations — including concerts and even a tribute record album consisting of songs composed just for the event — was organized. In 1999, then premier Brian Tobin presided over Soiree '99, which marked the golden anniversary as a tourism marketing event.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/31/confederation-anniversary.html

And just for good measure, VOCM chimes in again: it has nothing to do with politics.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35170

So let's review DW's explanations for not recognizing the 60th anniversary:
1) Harper's fault
2) Not Harper's fault
3) What anniversary?
4) It is being recognized, just quietly (Danspeak for not).

Strong, proud, confused. It was only a matter of time before the tragedy at sea got dragged into politics.

**Curiously, on 19 February, DW was quoted in CBC saying, ""We may find another format or we may reshape it in another manner. Again it's about doing something tastefully and we don't want to offend anybody under these circumstances." While Harper was front and centre in the Globe and Mail interview published 7 February, now the PM was nowhere to be seen in the discussion of the 60th anniversary. According to CBC, "Williams was planning an extravagant provincewide celebration to coincide with the 60th anniversary of Confederation with Canada this spring....But since he hatched that plan last fall, a paper mill has closed, mines have made cut backs and the provincial government has plunged into deficit. Williams said the province will still celebrate have status and Confederation on the same day."
Here's the link to the CBC story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/02/19/newfoundland-party.html

And here's the link to Nottawa's open challenge to the CBC:
http://nottawa.blogspot.com/2009/03/open-challenge-to-readers-and-to-cbc.html

I guess the 7 February story could constitute a Door Number 5, but DW's obfuscation is getting too hard to follow.

And for a regime that just loves gratuitous media releases, Dangovt is curiously silent about this non-event event: http://www.releases.gov.nl.ca/releases/thisweek.htm


For Monty Hall, Part I, see http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/pick-your-principle.html

When Smart People Do Stupid Things

As hard as it is to imagine, Harpoid (yes, I just can't help myself) offers as target-rich an environment as his well-coiffed antagonist. We must give thanks that as sure as day follows night, nemesis follows hubris.

DW may think he's that nemesis but, as is so often the case in Canadian politics, truth is stranger than fiction. The truth is that Harpoid is his own worst enemy. He has enjoyed, practically from day one, the most hospitable political environment that any PM has faced since Sir John A. barfed on the stump.

But instead of exploiting his tremendous luck, or even enjoying it for a nano-second, he has repeatedly, inexplicably, and almost maniacally kicked himself in the poll-sensitive parts. The true reasons why Harpoid is so politically deaf may never be known, but I suspect it may have something to do with his Pepsi consumption.

Whatever the cause, this morning's Glib offers a new instalment of Ottawa's favourite game show, When Smart People Do Stupid Things: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090306.wuniversities7/BNStory/politics/home

Hhhmmm...let's see...just how many ways can we slice this hash? We could start with the constitution and the division of federal-provincial powers clearly enshrined in the BNA Act. We could consider how such an initiative will go down in vote-rich Quebec, for example, or urban Ontario. We could ponder how it will be viewed by the many fence-sitting voters (let's call them Harper Liberals) who fear the cultural jihadists lurking in the Reform wings of the party. And we could reflect on how it confirms widespread fears about the ideological pathology behind Harpoid's infrastructure plan.

But at the end of the day, we're simply left to marvel at the sheer idiocy. I'm sure that some Poindexter in the PMO told Harpoid that this will go over well with the double-double crowd who loathe latte-drinking literature professors. What the PMO doesn't seem to realize is that they have already maxed out on cultural jihadists. They already have the votes of the culture haters and they're not about to lose them to Ig.

So in the spirit of equal treatment for equal stupidity, I encourage you to apply the insights of John Cleese, whose wit suits Harpoid every bit as much as DW and the Sunshine Band:
http://www.whysanity.net/monos/wanda.html

We should give thanks that Harpoid seems so utterly unable to learn from his mistakes. Now if only Curious George could find another Man with the Yellow Hat to play with.


Told You So Update:
"My research and development includes humanities," Mr. Clement told reporters. What he forgot to say is "My PM is a tactical idiot."

Ah, yes, the fun of watching a news cycle eat its latest offering:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090310.wclement10/BNStory/politics/home

ABC Redux

The news that DW's ABC jihad cost at least 80k has sparked an ABC Redux that raises the type of questions with which Orwell struggled. Does it matter if words get twisted beyond all logical meaning, if people get called traitors just for opposing a government, or if people make assertions for which there is not a shred of evidence?

I hope it matters, though some days I'm left baffled by the sheer unthinking spectacle of politics in Danland. I made the perhaps unwise decision to post a comment to challenge a polemically paradoxical commentator to explain why ABC was such a success. You can read the sad results for yourself: http://www.polemicandparadox.com/2009/03/81000-was-good-investment.html

So here's my 2 cents on ABC Redux:
Like many people across this country, I despise Harper -- so if ABC had actually succeeded in preventing him from forming a government, then things would be entirely different. But ABC failed to keep Harper from forming a government. Not only that, but it's highly doubtful whether it contributed significantly to preventing the federal Tories from winning a majority in the House of Commons.

I'm still trying to understand Whittle's statement, "thats not a bad thing considering what he attempted to do in December." I assume that he's referring to the Shaft, which Williams also called the Sledgehammer.

Two facts to consider. First, the shaft wasn't attempted, it succeeded. Despite symbolic votes by NL MP's, Iggy's Liberals supported the budget; the rest was smoke and bile. Second, Williams is on record as claiming that the Shaft was payback for ABC. Thus, if one follows Williams's logic, ABC was a necessary cause in the chain of events that eventually shafted NL.

In terms of actual policy, the one thing ABC accomplished was precisely what it was supposed to prevent: worse treatment for NL. However, I recognize that policy often matters little in politics. In term of provincial politics, ABC did accomplish much. It gave the public a sense of payback and provided a way to vent populist anger towards Harper.

Most significantly, ABC gave Williams the opportunity to accomplish three things important to him: personal revenge; a platform for national media attention; and a diversion from local problems, such as the ongoing health care crisis, the ongoing MUN crisis, and the ongoing decline in oil prices, et cetera. My objection to calling ABC a success and to touting its accomplishments is based on the fact that it served the interests of Danny Williams rather than the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The CBC web site -- which now has a rather unfortunate Coliseum-style thumbs up/down feature -- is bursting into flames again, as wingnuts and wingees poke each other's eyes out:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/03/03/abc-costs.html

The sad fact, as I tried to point out on Geoff Meeker's interesting forum, is that not only are such debates largely devoid of facts, but the ad hominem fixation has veered dangerously into democratic authoritarianism. Even sadder is the fact that Whittle still sees nothing wrong with calling Manning a traitor. When one of the commentators on Meeker's forum threatened a lawsuit, it was hard to know whether to laugh or wretch:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=226680&sc=88

In judging whether Williams's latest outburst is acceptable, it is important to distinguish between quotidian trash-talk, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, defamatory accusations that violate the constitutional conventions of a liberal democracy. The problem with Williams's outburst is not only that it's politically intemperate and morally repellent, but also that it's constitutionally dangerous and legally reckless.

As Geoff Meeker pointed out last fall, Williams is on public record as equating betrayal with treason. Here's what he said in The Telegram in June 2007: “I can't control traitors. People who betray their province, I have no control over that."

Unless I'm mistaken, treason is still a criminal offence under section 46 of the Criminal Code of Canada. Here's a thought experiment: imagine what would happen to such traitors if Williams were president of an independent republic rather than a provincial premier constrained by federal law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When wingnut, of all words, gets people threatening lawsuits, you know that we're in an ugly and unfortunate place. Not that such a lawsuit would have a snowball's chance in hades.

However, in the spirit of semantics, let's look at the word itself:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from Wing nut) Jump to: navigation, search Wingnut may refer to:

1) A wingnut or wing nut, a nut (hardware), with a pair of wings to enable it to be turned without tools.

2) Wingnut (plant) (Pterocarya), a genus of trees bearing winged nuts.

3) Wingnut (politics), a derogatory American slang term for a person who holds strongly right-wing political beliefs, shortened from right wing nut.

4) Wingnut (slang) an term originating in East London in the early 1980s amongst 'alternatives' students, artists and bohemians to refer to uneducated violent working class young men - esp skinheads.

I leave it to readers to decide which definition fits (my vote is for the plant). But for those who want to read the Wiki-entry themselves, it's interesting to note that some conspiracy theorists in the US have proudly embraced their wingnut status.

The descent into ad hominem trash-talk on Meeker's online forum is regrettable but not unexpected in the current political climate. For those of you who still have an open mind, ask yourself what role the Williams administration has played in this coarsening of public discourse.

And, though it's hardly worth responding to, I'd like to point out that it matters not a whit whether some of the commentators to this forum may have voted Liberal. So what? Some of them may have voted Green. Some of them may be left-handed, too.

It's the power and persuasiveness of an argument that matters in a liberal polity, not the identity of its proponent. In On Liberty, J. S. Mill's central concern -- the driving force behind his passionate advocacy of free speech -- was the protection of minority rights. He warned gravely against what he saw as the tyranny of the majority. The last time I checked, we're still free, if we so choose, to disagree with Danny Williams, to engage in free speech, and to take spirited exception when a sitting premier publicly accuses his critics of treason.

A word for all you wingnuts out there: just because you say it does not make it so: http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html

And for those interested in re-reading Mill:
http://www.bartleby.com/130/

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?