Listen to this: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?main=multimedia&MMID=974
The interview speaks for itself.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Tide of Public Discourse
If there is a dominant trend at the Telegram these days (aside from the proliferation of emotive, human-interest stories on the front page), it's the reaction against criticism of the Williams regime.
Like Russell Wangersky, Peter Jackson wants to play "devil's advocate" and chide those who blow problems "out of proportion."
Jackson starts with an overstatement: "Here's a thought. Is it possible Ross Wiseman is not the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history? The idea goes against the overwhelming tide of public discourse lately."
Exaggerating the opposite position (i.e., setting up the proverbial straw man) draws on one of the most common logical fallacies.
In Jackson's case, he caricatures the debate over Wiseman's tenure by opening with two extreme assertions that misrepresent the public debate, giving the false impression that,
A) People critical of Wiseman believe that he is "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history."
B) Belief in A is part of an "overwhelming tide of public disourse lately."
With his straw man neatly set up, Jackson chides the reader to "give the man his due," since Wiseman is not causing the problems at Health, which is not really in a state of crisis anyways but rather "still chugging along, wheels intact." "Cancer tests notwithstanding," Jackson claims, "most of the problems in health care boil down to a perpetual lack of funds."
It's hard to know where to start. First, if the extensive reporting by the CBC has demonstrated anything, it's that the problems are not all due to a lack of funds. Ineffective management -- including poor communication and inept leadership -- has led to poor morale among physicians. If anything, the media's focus on the Cameron Inquiry has obscured the larger problems beyond oncology. The recent exodus of specialists in a number of critical areas is, pace Jackson, evidence of systemic crisis in the system. Ask the NLMA, and they will tell you that it's not all about money.
Second, the only person I know who is publicly stating that Wiseman is the "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history" is Jackson. In an earlier post, I called Wiseman the "most incompetent member of cabinet," and other blogs have made similar claims. I suspect that Wiseman is trying his best, and chances are that he's a nice enough fellow who is out of his depth; but that's not good enough for the Health portfolio. I'm not sure what hospital Jackson has been visiting lately, but anyone who has a loved one needing heart surgery can tell you just how bad things are.
Third, just where is this "overwhelming tide of public discourse"? Where is the avalanche of public criticism of the Williams government? Where are the marchers and the protesters? Where are the devastating debates in the House of Assembly? Where is the large Official Opposition waiting to take power? Where are the newspaper columnists rallying public opinion against the provincial government? Where are even the low poll numbers?
Most of the sustained criticism of Williams has been restricted to a handful of blogs and the online comments sections of the CBC. Hardly an overwhelming tide. The latest CRAPoll showed that Williams still enjoys strong popular support. The House of Assembly, which sits as infrequently as possible, is now closed.
If Jackson wants to be an apologist for Danny Williams and Ross Wiseman, so be it. But he should be honest about his agenda and not hide behind some phamtom tide of public discourse.
When journalists believe that Danny Williams, of all people, needs protection from public criticism, you know that we're living through strange days indeed. Joey Smallwood faced Ray Guy. Brian Peckford faced the Sunday Express. Danny Williams faces...well, I leave that for you to determine. For those of you who like to blame everything on the internet, check this out in today's Slate.
And for those of you who, like Jackson, believe that the problems at Eastern Health are, "the price we pay for universal health care," keep in mind that the U.S. pays far more per capita on health care than we do, yet tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and the U.S. has a lower life expectancy rate than Canada. If money were the only probem, then the US would have the world's best health care system.
Definitely Not Ray Guy Update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=261187&sc=86
Like Russell Wangersky, Peter Jackson wants to play "devil's advocate" and chide those who blow problems "out of proportion."
Jackson starts with an overstatement: "Here's a thought. Is it possible Ross Wiseman is not the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history? The idea goes against the overwhelming tide of public discourse lately."
Exaggerating the opposite position (i.e., setting up the proverbial straw man) draws on one of the most common logical fallacies.
In Jackson's case, he caricatures the debate over Wiseman's tenure by opening with two extreme assertions that misrepresent the public debate, giving the false impression that,
A) People critical of Wiseman believe that he is "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history."
B) Belief in A is part of an "overwhelming tide of public disourse lately."
With his straw man neatly set up, Jackson chides the reader to "give the man his due," since Wiseman is not causing the problems at Health, which is not really in a state of crisis anyways but rather "still chugging along, wheels intact." "Cancer tests notwithstanding," Jackson claims, "most of the problems in health care boil down to a perpetual lack of funds."
It's hard to know where to start. First, if the extensive reporting by the CBC has demonstrated anything, it's that the problems are not all due to a lack of funds. Ineffective management -- including poor communication and inept leadership -- has led to poor morale among physicians. If anything, the media's focus on the Cameron Inquiry has obscured the larger problems beyond oncology. The recent exodus of specialists in a number of critical areas is, pace Jackson, evidence of systemic crisis in the system. Ask the NLMA, and they will tell you that it's not all about money.
Second, the only person I know who is publicly stating that Wiseman is the "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history" is Jackson. In an earlier post, I called Wiseman the "most incompetent member of cabinet," and other blogs have made similar claims. I suspect that Wiseman is trying his best, and chances are that he's a nice enough fellow who is out of his depth; but that's not good enough for the Health portfolio. I'm not sure what hospital Jackson has been visiting lately, but anyone who has a loved one needing heart surgery can tell you just how bad things are.
Third, just where is this "overwhelming tide of public discourse"? Where is the avalanche of public criticism of the Williams government? Where are the marchers and the protesters? Where are the devastating debates in the House of Assembly? Where is the large Official Opposition waiting to take power? Where are the newspaper columnists rallying public opinion against the provincial government? Where are even the low poll numbers?
Most of the sustained criticism of Williams has been restricted to a handful of blogs and the online comments sections of the CBC. Hardly an overwhelming tide. The latest CRAPoll showed that Williams still enjoys strong popular support. The House of Assembly, which sits as infrequently as possible, is now closed.
If Jackson wants to be an apologist for Danny Williams and Ross Wiseman, so be it. But he should be honest about his agenda and not hide behind some phamtom tide of public discourse.
When journalists believe that Danny Williams, of all people, needs protection from public criticism, you know that we're living through strange days indeed. Joey Smallwood faced Ray Guy. Brian Peckford faced the Sunday Express. Danny Williams faces...well, I leave that for you to determine. For those of you who like to blame everything on the internet, check this out in today's Slate.
And for those of you who, like Jackson, believe that the problems at Eastern Health are, "the price we pay for universal health care," keep in mind that the U.S. pays far more per capita on health care than we do, yet tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and the U.S. has a lower life expectancy rate than Canada. If money were the only probem, then the US would have the world's best health care system.
Definitely Not Ray Guy Update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=261187&sc=86
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Trouble with "Balanced" Journalism, II
Russell Wangersky is at it again this morning, offering another excuse for Danny Williams.
After discussing his own penchant for jokes and then moving to the Raitt scandal, Wangersky raises the "public vs. private" binary and says this about Williams:
"Premier Danny Williams recently said in public that people at Eastern Health "should be shot" for putting out a press release on cancer testing errors late on a Friday afternoon, and without making anyone available to comment on the information in the news release.
Williams used a pretty common colloquial expression - but it wasn't so much the language he used, as it was where he decided to use it.
And he's worn it ever since - even though it's something plenty of other people have said, and that plenty of other people will say again."
Don't forget, it's hard to have a perfect public face." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=260535&sc=86
As I said at the time, the problems with Williams' hyperbolic language is not just its offensiveness but rather the fact that he let himself off the hook: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/politics-of-hyperbole.html
Far from having "worn it ever since," Williams received fairly light criticism, with the bulk of negative commentary restricted to bloggers.
I wish Wangersky would stop trying to justify Williams' bullying, but he seems determined to impose a balanced interpretation on imbalanced actions. There are, of course, always two sides to a story -- the proverbial "he said, she said" -- but that does not mean that both sides are equally correct or equally justifiable. Trying to find a balanced explanation for why Williams said health care officials should be shot only serves to justify his verbal bullying and public scapegoating of civil servants.
The problem is not, as Wangersky would have us believe, a question of where Williams made his remarks. This incident cannot be written off as an accident of geography.
It was the deadly serious way he uttered the threat: this was not meant to be funny and no one laughed.
It was the deadly serious subject -- cancer testing -- and the highly emotional environment in which he spoke publicly before the cameras.
It was the important issue of responsibility, and the effort to deny that the provincial government should shoulder any blame. As I noted at the time, Williams insisted on calling Eastern Health "them," while he freely uses "us" for other analagous agencies: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/political-teflon.html
It cannot be written off as a common local colloquialism, either. The phrase "someone should be shot" is not as common as Williams' defenders like to pretend. It cannot be excused as a facet of some unique local dialect, used frequently in the East End. I spent most of my life in St. John's, and I cannot think of a single time (other than out hunting with my father), when I heard someone say that something should be shot. The phrase is no more common -- and is no more acceptable -- than on the Mainland.
It cannot be excused as a simple slip-up, something that we should overlook because no one can be expected to be perfect in public. If this was simple mix-up -- if Williams' misspoke, as it were -- then all he needed to do was say that he misspoke. A simple explanation that he misspoke in the heat of the moment would mitigate the seriousness of the incident. Politicians slip up verbally all the time and apologize all the time when they do. We don't expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to own up to their mistakes.
When weighing the type of neat public/private formula that Wangersky lays out, we need to keep a couple of things in mind.
First, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the target and think about how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of such a verbal threat.
Second, we should think about the effects: what did the verbal shooting incident accomplish? It focused attention towards Williams and his anger and away from the actual chain of responsibility.
It was only after tenacious investigative reporting by CBC that the truth began to come out, months after Williams insisted that Eastern Health alone was entirely to blame: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/02/eastern-health-memos-602.html
In the meantime, the problems with cancer testing continue: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/11/missed-cancer-tests-611.html
Finally, we need to address the question of identity. Wangersky makes it seem that it's just a question of public versus private, not one of who is doing the talking. This may hold water when we're talking about private citizens, but it does not apply when we're dealing with elected officials, particularly the premier when he is speaking as leader of the provincial government.
No one expects perfection. We expect and deserve accountability.
After discussing his own penchant for jokes and then moving to the Raitt scandal, Wangersky raises the "public vs. private" binary and says this about Williams:
"Premier Danny Williams recently said in public that people at Eastern Health "should be shot" for putting out a press release on cancer testing errors late on a Friday afternoon, and without making anyone available to comment on the information in the news release.
Williams used a pretty common colloquial expression - but it wasn't so much the language he used, as it was where he decided to use it.
And he's worn it ever since - even though it's something plenty of other people have said, and that plenty of other people will say again."
Don't forget, it's hard to have a perfect public face." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=260535&sc=86
As I said at the time, the problems with Williams' hyperbolic language is not just its offensiveness but rather the fact that he let himself off the hook: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/politics-of-hyperbole.html
Far from having "worn it ever since," Williams received fairly light criticism, with the bulk of negative commentary restricted to bloggers.
I wish Wangersky would stop trying to justify Williams' bullying, but he seems determined to impose a balanced interpretation on imbalanced actions. There are, of course, always two sides to a story -- the proverbial "he said, she said" -- but that does not mean that both sides are equally correct or equally justifiable. Trying to find a balanced explanation for why Williams said health care officials should be shot only serves to justify his verbal bullying and public scapegoating of civil servants.
The problem is not, as Wangersky would have us believe, a question of where Williams made his remarks. This incident cannot be written off as an accident of geography.
It was the deadly serious way he uttered the threat: this was not meant to be funny and no one laughed.
It was the deadly serious subject -- cancer testing -- and the highly emotional environment in which he spoke publicly before the cameras.
It was the important issue of responsibility, and the effort to deny that the provincial government should shoulder any blame. As I noted at the time, Williams insisted on calling Eastern Health "them," while he freely uses "us" for other analagous agencies: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/political-teflon.html
It cannot be written off as a common local colloquialism, either. The phrase "someone should be shot" is not as common as Williams' defenders like to pretend. It cannot be excused as a facet of some unique local dialect, used frequently in the East End. I spent most of my life in St. John's, and I cannot think of a single time (other than out hunting with my father), when I heard someone say that something should be shot. The phrase is no more common -- and is no more acceptable -- than on the Mainland.
It cannot be excused as a simple slip-up, something that we should overlook because no one can be expected to be perfect in public. If this was simple mix-up -- if Williams' misspoke, as it were -- then all he needed to do was say that he misspoke. A simple explanation that he misspoke in the heat of the moment would mitigate the seriousness of the incident. Politicians slip up verbally all the time and apologize all the time when they do. We don't expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to own up to their mistakes.
When weighing the type of neat public/private formula that Wangersky lays out, we need to keep a couple of things in mind.
First, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the target and think about how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of such a verbal threat.
Second, we should think about the effects: what did the verbal shooting incident accomplish? It focused attention towards Williams and his anger and away from the actual chain of responsibility.
It was only after tenacious investigative reporting by CBC that the truth began to come out, months after Williams insisted that Eastern Health alone was entirely to blame: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/02/eastern-health-memos-602.html
In the meantime, the problems with cancer testing continue: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/11/missed-cancer-tests-611.html
Finally, we need to address the question of identity. Wangersky makes it seem that it's just a question of public versus private, not one of who is doing the talking. This may hold water when we're talking about private citizens, but it does not apply when we're dealing with elected officials, particularly the premier when he is speaking as leader of the provincial government.
No one expects perfection. We expect and deserve accountability.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Will the Real Premier Stand Up?
If you have a few minutes today during your coffee break or lunch, it's worth your time to watch the video feed from VOCM linked to the latest fishery story: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36762
At the 45 second mark, after declaring that he will provide "backstop" funding for "income support" (whatever that means), Mr. Williams says that all this is "bearing in mind that we obviously will want to work with the federal government on such a program."
Fascinating stuff, coming from someone whose recent comments on the federal government included not only a reference to kissing backsides, but also this unqualified declaration: "If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn’t care less, quite frankly." http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/05/kiss-backsides.html
There are two possible explanations for the cognitive dissonnance between the public statements made in the House of Assembly on 30 April and in the media scrum recorded by VOCM on 11 June:
1) Two different people made the statements.
2) The statements were indeed made by the same person, but he changed his mind at some point between 30 April and 11 June.
If it's number 2, then it will be interesting to see how the federal government responds to Mr. Williams' new policy direction. Did Mr. Williams consult with the Prime Minister or the federal Minister of Fisheries before announcing this new income support plan?
If, as seems likely, Mr. Williams has not chatted with Mr. Harper about this, did the Premier's Office at least send an email heads-up to DFO, letting them know that they are now being expected to support a vague and open-ended commitment to provide income support for certain groups of fishermen?
Does this mean that Mr. Hedderson will be able to get a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries? http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/foreign-policy-report.html
It's still possible that explanation number 1 is correct, but the fisheries edict fits a larger pattern whereby the provincial government procrastinates and then, after the media attention has reached a critical level, the premier jumps in suddenly and announces that cash will be thrown at the problem.
This was the government's pattern in dealing with the medical crisis, when it singled out oncologists for a special raise, and we all know how well that has worked. It will be interesting to see whether the fishery income support initiative works any better, but I suspect that by the time the provincial government gets around to actually implementing this policy, it will try to pin the mess on the federal government.
Given the shifts in provincial policy since April, I may have to update Triva Pursuit:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/trivia-pursuit.html
At the 45 second mark, after declaring that he will provide "backstop" funding for "income support" (whatever that means), Mr. Williams says that all this is "bearing in mind that we obviously will want to work with the federal government on such a program."
Fascinating stuff, coming from someone whose recent comments on the federal government included not only a reference to kissing backsides, but also this unqualified declaration: "If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn’t care less, quite frankly." http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/05/kiss-backsides.html
There are two possible explanations for the cognitive dissonnance between the public statements made in the House of Assembly on 30 April and in the media scrum recorded by VOCM on 11 June:
1) Two different people made the statements.
2) The statements were indeed made by the same person, but he changed his mind at some point between 30 April and 11 June.
If it's number 2, then it will be interesting to see how the federal government responds to Mr. Williams' new policy direction. Did Mr. Williams consult with the Prime Minister or the federal Minister of Fisheries before announcing this new income support plan?
If, as seems likely, Mr. Williams has not chatted with Mr. Harper about this, did the Premier's Office at least send an email heads-up to DFO, letting them know that they are now being expected to support a vague and open-ended commitment to provide income support for certain groups of fishermen?
Does this mean that Mr. Hedderson will be able to get a meeting with the federal Minister of Fisheries? http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/foreign-policy-report.html
It's still possible that explanation number 1 is correct, but the fisheries edict fits a larger pattern whereby the provincial government procrastinates and then, after the media attention has reached a critical level, the premier jumps in suddenly and announces that cash will be thrown at the problem.
This was the government's pattern in dealing with the medical crisis, when it singled out oncologists for a special raise, and we all know how well that has worked. It will be interesting to see whether the fishery income support initiative works any better, but I suspect that by the time the provincial government gets around to actually implementing this policy, it will try to pin the mess on the federal government.
Given the shifts in provincial policy since April, I may have to update Triva Pursuit:
http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/trivia-pursuit.html
Thursday, June 11, 2009
ABC's of the Fishery
Further evidence on how the ABC folly continues to affect NL, via VOCM of all places:
"McCurdy says Newfoundland and Labrador is a low priority for the feds because of the successful ABC campaign. He says the province has a responsibility in federally regulated industries to play a role in helping those affected. Provincial Fisheries Minister Tom Hedderson says the market issues are not unique to the lobster fishery- all fishing sectors are seeing the crunch. He says at first blush, the monies announced don't seem to go far enough. The Minister applauded the efforts of the protestors in bringing attention to the plight of those in outport communities across the province." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36709
Three questions for Mr. Hedderson:
1) Why did the fishermen have to resort to a protest in order to get the government's attention?
2) Does he agree with McCurdy's view on the fallout from the ABC campaign?
3) How will Hedderson work with DFO, given that he's working for someone whose attitude toward federal-provincial relations was summed up in this remark in the House of Assembly: "If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn’t care less, quite frankly." http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/05/kiss-backsides.html
If you agree with Wangersky's claim on Tuesday about the effectiveness of Williams' combative personal approach, watch the video feed linked to the VOCM story.
At the 1:00 minute mark, one of the fishermen brings up the issue of the ABC campaign. Listen as he clearly and concisely describes how Williams has to take responsibility for the fallout from ABC and its impact on fishermen.
"McCurdy says Newfoundland and Labrador is a low priority for the feds because of the successful ABC campaign. He says the province has a responsibility in federally regulated industries to play a role in helping those affected. Provincial Fisheries Minister Tom Hedderson says the market issues are not unique to the lobster fishery- all fishing sectors are seeing the crunch. He says at first blush, the monies announced don't seem to go far enough. The Minister applauded the efforts of the protestors in bringing attention to the plight of those in outport communities across the province." http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36709
Three questions for Mr. Hedderson:
1) Why did the fishermen have to resort to a protest in order to get the government's attention?
2) Does he agree with McCurdy's view on the fallout from the ABC campaign?
3) How will Hedderson work with DFO, given that he's working for someone whose attitude toward federal-provincial relations was summed up in this remark in the House of Assembly: "If they choose not to fund us at this particular point in time we couldn’t care less, quite frankly." http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/05/kiss-backsides.html
If you agree with Wangersky's claim on Tuesday about the effectiveness of Williams' combative personal approach, watch the video feed linked to the VOCM story.
At the 1:00 minute mark, one of the fishermen brings up the issue of the ABC campaign. Listen as he clearly and concisely describes how Williams has to take responsibility for the fallout from ABC and its impact on fishermen.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The Issue of Anonymity
Here is the link to a guest commentary I wrote for Geoff Meeker's blog:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=259473&sc=88
I have never met Geoff in person, but I respect the way he has tried to foster public debate. One issue that I forgot to raise in my commentary is my response to journalists' complaints about name-calling and personal slurs. When we're weighing this problem, it's important to keep in mind that many other professionals also have to cope with unfair criticism and nasty personal attacks from anonymous sources on the internet. As any doctor, teacher, or professor can attest, the proliferation of popular web sites such as ratemyteacher, ratemymd, and ratemyprofessor has affected their personal and professional lives. Some of these forums even encourage the public to comment on the sexual attractiveness of the targetted professionals. So journalists should remember that they are not unique and at least they have the opportunity to hit back in print.
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=259473&sc=88
I have never met Geoff in person, but I respect the way he has tried to foster public debate. One issue that I forgot to raise in my commentary is my response to journalists' complaints about name-calling and personal slurs. When we're weighing this problem, it's important to keep in mind that many other professionals also have to cope with unfair criticism and nasty personal attacks from anonymous sources on the internet. As any doctor, teacher, or professor can attest, the proliferation of popular web sites such as ratemyteacher, ratemymd, and ratemyprofessor has affected their personal and professional lives. Some of these forums even encourage the public to comment on the sexual attractiveness of the targetted professionals. So journalists should remember that they are not unique and at least they have the opportunity to hit back in print.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Trouble with "Balanced" Journalism
Russell Wangersky's column in today's Telegram offers an excellent example of the problem I discussed yesterday. Wangersky offers a thoughtful analysis of Williams' condescending attitude towards Lorraine Michael, but near the end of the column he pulls back to offer this balance: "It's a nasty trait, and one that is not an attractive side of a type-A provincial politician who has otherwise managed to use his combative personal approach to serve this province quite well." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=259007&sc=86
Wangersky didn't follow up on this assertion, so we're left with no evidentiary basis on which to judge his claim that Williams' combative personal approach has served NL well. But Williams' ability to bully Paul Martin in 2005 is the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps there is a rich body of evidence out there to demonstrate that Williams' combination of hyperbole, rage, bullying, name-calling, threatening, and recklessness has worked where a less combative approach would have failed. But journalists, like historians, labour under the burden of positive proof. If Wangersky wants to assert that Williams' "combative personal approach" (a sanitized term for bullying) is largely effective, then he should provide evidence for this claim. If there is a way to justify a style of leadership that invokes death threats and charges of treason, I'd like to see it. If there is a way to provide a balanced justification of why Williams can say "someone should be shot over there," it speaks volumes about the sorry state of NL's political culture.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Williams' politics of rage and revenge has not served the province well. From the so-called fiscal "shaft" to the failed foreign policy initiative, Williams' combativeness has hurt NL. With health care and the fishery stumbling from one crisis to the next, it's hard to imagine how personal combativeness has helped to do anything except distract the public from policy failures. Not only that, but in a number of cases, Williams' combative approach has actually created new problems, such as the ongoing leadership crisis at MUN, the unresolved issues with the NLMA, the refusal to investigate electoral irregularities, the failure to pass whistleblower legislation, et cetera.
In trying to provide a balanced approach to Williams' bullying, Wangersky undermines the very point that he is trying to make: Williams' condescending attitude toward Michael is unnacceptable. By claiming that this combative personal approach has otherwise served the province well, Wangersky seems to be suggesting that the problem here is not with Williams' behaviour but with his target. He seems to be saying that while it's unacceptable to bully Lorraine Michael, it's acceptable (indeed, it serves the province well) for Williams to wage personal war against others.
Most of the time, I admire Wangersky's journalism. While I find his meandering metaphorical style sometimes irritating, I respect his judgement. And I know it's easy for bloggers to criticize journalists who have to be careful not to burn political bridges. But there is something wrong when professional journalists feel compelled to balance criticism of Williams by justifying his pattern of bullying. Williams' treatment of Michael was not an isolated incident but rather part of a long, well-documented pattern of abuse that includes public death threats.
We need to recognize that we're facing a public choice. Either Williams' histrionics matters or it doesn't. Either it's a serious public issue or it can be dismissed as mere political theatre. I believe that it's a serious issue, and I think many journalists do, too. But I also believe that we cannot cherry-pick incidents and overlook everything else. There are times in political history -- and we're living through such a time right now -- when trying to balance criticism with defence actually perpetuates and enables the very problems that journalists seek to remedy. By claiming that Williams' histrionics has otherwise served the province well, Wangersky is feeding the pernicious myth that bullying is acceptable because it delivers results.
In assessing Williams' leadership, yesterday's editorial in the Telegram asked, "Wasn't it Lady MacBeth who doth protest too much?" http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=258567&sc=80
A more apt Shakespeare reference would have been to "Hamlet," when Marcellus says "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
Wangersky didn't follow up on this assertion, so we're left with no evidentiary basis on which to judge his claim that Williams' combative personal approach has served NL well. But Williams' ability to bully Paul Martin in 2005 is the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps there is a rich body of evidence out there to demonstrate that Williams' combination of hyperbole, rage, bullying, name-calling, threatening, and recklessness has worked where a less combative approach would have failed. But journalists, like historians, labour under the burden of positive proof. If Wangersky wants to assert that Williams' "combative personal approach" (a sanitized term for bullying) is largely effective, then he should provide evidence for this claim. If there is a way to justify a style of leadership that invokes death threats and charges of treason, I'd like to see it. If there is a way to provide a balanced justification of why Williams can say "someone should be shot over there," it speaks volumes about the sorry state of NL's political culture.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Williams' politics of rage and revenge has not served the province well. From the so-called fiscal "shaft" to the failed foreign policy initiative, Williams' combativeness has hurt NL. With health care and the fishery stumbling from one crisis to the next, it's hard to imagine how personal combativeness has helped to do anything except distract the public from policy failures. Not only that, but in a number of cases, Williams' combative approach has actually created new problems, such as the ongoing leadership crisis at MUN, the unresolved issues with the NLMA, the refusal to investigate electoral irregularities, the failure to pass whistleblower legislation, et cetera.
In trying to provide a balanced approach to Williams' bullying, Wangersky undermines the very point that he is trying to make: Williams' condescending attitude toward Michael is unnacceptable. By claiming that this combative personal approach has otherwise served the province well, Wangersky seems to be suggesting that the problem here is not with Williams' behaviour but with his target. He seems to be saying that while it's unacceptable to bully Lorraine Michael, it's acceptable (indeed, it serves the province well) for Williams to wage personal war against others.
Most of the time, I admire Wangersky's journalism. While I find his meandering metaphorical style sometimes irritating, I respect his judgement. And I know it's easy for bloggers to criticize journalists who have to be careful not to burn political bridges. But there is something wrong when professional journalists feel compelled to balance criticism of Williams by justifying his pattern of bullying. Williams' treatment of Michael was not an isolated incident but rather part of a long, well-documented pattern of abuse that includes public death threats.
We need to recognize that we're facing a public choice. Either Williams' histrionics matters or it doesn't. Either it's a serious public issue or it can be dismissed as mere political theatre. I believe that it's a serious issue, and I think many journalists do, too. But I also believe that we cannot cherry-pick incidents and overlook everything else. There are times in political history -- and we're living through such a time right now -- when trying to balance criticism with defence actually perpetuates and enables the very problems that journalists seek to remedy. By claiming that Williams' histrionics has otherwise served the province well, Wangersky is feeding the pernicious myth that bullying is acceptable because it delivers results.
In assessing Williams' leadership, yesterday's editorial in the Telegram asked, "Wasn't it Lady MacBeth who doth protest too much?" http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=258567&sc=80
A more apt Shakespeare reference would have been to "Hamlet," when Marcellus says "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
Monday, June 8, 2009
Collective Bipolar Disorder
I got back late last night from a trip to the US, which is always interesting. It helped to put the don't-leave-home love campaign into context. As the late Erich Honecker knew all too well, it's never a good idea to allow too much exposure to other polities.
Reading and talking about politics outside NL forces any sentient being to confront two basic, undeniable facts: Danny Williams is odd; and the fact that he continues to be popular is even odder.
I am the last person to put much faith in the CRAPolls, but it would be silly to deny the fact that most people at least passively support the Williams regime: http://www.cra.ca/en/home/Newsroom/SupportforConservativesinNLisUnchangedandRemainsHi.aspx
On the eve of the NS election, it's worth reflecting on some fundamental differences between NS and NL politics. There is plenty of venality and pettiness in NS politics, but there is also a marked absence of grandiosity. The parties are doing what most parties do in most western democracies: they are using a variety of rhetorical tools to convince voters that they are best equipped to lead the province. To do this, they are doing everything from slinging mud, to pandering to voters' fears, and to offering some constructive policies: in other words, it's a mixture of high- and low-brow politics. Whatever it may be, it's about choices and options in the real world of political calculus: no one is seriously promising (and no one is seriously expecting) that the election of one party will somehow magically cure NS of its problems and transport Nova Scotians to a promised land. No one is saying that NS is the centre of the universe, that Nova Scotians are the most optimistic people in the western world, or that health bureaucrats should be shot. The rhetoric may be petty, silly, or naive; but it is most clearly not megalomaniacal.
Which brings me back to grandiosity. As I commented in an earlier post, there are some interesting similarities between Williams and Nicolas Sarkozy, who shares Williams' mania and vanity: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/french-connection.html
But there is an important difference between the political experiences of Williams and Sarkozy. Unlike Williams, Sarkozy has faced severe, sustained public criticism from not only rival parties, but also the press, the universities, and the cultural elites. This criticism has focused as much on Sarkozy's style of government as his actual policies, and one critic has described France under Mr Sarkozy as an “egocracy." http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13745814
Not surprisingly, the Economist defends Sarkozy's policies, but it also points out that the strong reaction against Sarkozy is undermined by the fact that voters lack a clear alternative. In other words, it's not so much a question of Sarkozy's strength as the opposition parties' weaknesses -- a point of obvious comparison with NL.
Despite the similaries, there is a clear difference between anti-Sarkozysm and anti-Dannyism. In NL, the only steady source of relentless criticism of Williams has come from political blogs. Columnists, reporters, editorialists, and even some call-in hosts have offered sharp criticism on specific topics; but they have not provided a sustained rejection of Dannyism. NL has no equivalent to Ray Guy's critique of late Smallwoodism.
Equally important, whereas anti-Dannyism has failed to sway the public, anti-Sarkozysm has made itself felt where it counts: poll numbers. According to the Economist, "Two years into Mr Sarkozy’s term in office, intense and obsessive dislike of the president—anti-sarkozysme—is fast becoming the defining feature of French opposition politics. This goes beyond the president’s poor popularity rating, which fell another four points to 32% in May, according to TNS Sofres. In the election for the European Parliament, due on June 7th, the subject is not so much the future of Europe as Mr Sarkozy himself." It is important to keep in mind that Sarkozy's low poll numbers come at a time when the opposition parties are in disarray, so the excuse in NL that it's all the Liberals' fault doesn't wash.
Two factors help to explain why Sarkozy has much lower poll numbers than Williams. First, the public critique of Williams remains episodic and often fragmentary. The province's cultural establishment (which in NL usually means the self-appointed Arts Community, along with MUN) has failed to offer a congent public critique of Dannyism. While writers never hesitate to lay the boots to dead politicians, they are remarkably reluctant to criticize living ones. And while professors howled over the failed presidential search (can we please get over the martyrdom of Saint Eddy?), their political engagement has been remarkably limited. Fueled by a smug mixture of radical chic and cynicism, the intellectual elite cannot be bothered to get its hands dirty, leaving the blogosphere to semi-professional consultants, current and former Liberals, and anonymous outsiders like me. For every editorial that the Telegram gets right (and there are plenty of them) and for every columnist and reporter who nails a story (and, if anything, political reporting has been getting better over the past year), there are also many silences when Williams gets a pass. The problem with balanced reporting is that it assumes a balanced polity. When a government descends into a form of political mania, a balanced approach no longer works.
Second, we have to face the fact that Dannyism is relatively popular. However much I would like the public to recoil from the spectacle, the thuggery, the vulgarity, and the manipulation, it doesn't. It would be comforting to believe a conspiracy theory that explains how Williams has managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. It would be comforting to believe that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders reject the propaganda and the bombast. It would be comforting to believe that Newfoundlanders see through the miasma of unrealistic expectations, witch-hunts, and political recklessness.
But such comfort would be a lie. The truth is at once much more disturbing and more banal. As I noted in an earlier post, it is important to keep in mind Occam's Razor, which is the principle that the simplest, most straightforward explanation of a particular phenomenon is usually the right explanation: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/paradoxes-and-polemics.html
If Williams has consistently high polls numbers, then the simplest explanation is that he is relatively popular. Most Newfoundlanders are, at the very least, comfortable with the style and content of his leadership. While much of this support constitutes little more than tacit consent, it is still, as John Locke argued, a form of consent.
How do we explain this fact? I think we need to return again to grandiosity, which is more than political style. Grandiosity is a symptom of mania in bipolar disorder. The fact that it has become such an accepted part of NL's political culture is evidence of a collective bipolar disorder in which the lines between fantasy and reality, between what's inappropriate and what's appropriate, have become severely blurred.
Reading and talking about politics outside NL forces any sentient being to confront two basic, undeniable facts: Danny Williams is odd; and the fact that he continues to be popular is even odder.
I am the last person to put much faith in the CRAPolls, but it would be silly to deny the fact that most people at least passively support the Williams regime: http://www.cra.ca/en/home/Newsroom/SupportforConservativesinNLisUnchangedandRemainsHi.aspx
On the eve of the NS election, it's worth reflecting on some fundamental differences between NS and NL politics. There is plenty of venality and pettiness in NS politics, but there is also a marked absence of grandiosity. The parties are doing what most parties do in most western democracies: they are using a variety of rhetorical tools to convince voters that they are best equipped to lead the province. To do this, they are doing everything from slinging mud, to pandering to voters' fears, and to offering some constructive policies: in other words, it's a mixture of high- and low-brow politics. Whatever it may be, it's about choices and options in the real world of political calculus: no one is seriously promising (and no one is seriously expecting) that the election of one party will somehow magically cure NS of its problems and transport Nova Scotians to a promised land. No one is saying that NS is the centre of the universe, that Nova Scotians are the most optimistic people in the western world, or that health bureaucrats should be shot. The rhetoric may be petty, silly, or naive; but it is most clearly not megalomaniacal.
Which brings me back to grandiosity. As I commented in an earlier post, there are some interesting similarities between Williams and Nicolas Sarkozy, who shares Williams' mania and vanity: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/french-connection.html
But there is an important difference between the political experiences of Williams and Sarkozy. Unlike Williams, Sarkozy has faced severe, sustained public criticism from not only rival parties, but also the press, the universities, and the cultural elites. This criticism has focused as much on Sarkozy's style of government as his actual policies, and one critic has described France under Mr Sarkozy as an “egocracy." http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13745814
Not surprisingly, the Economist defends Sarkozy's policies, but it also points out that the strong reaction against Sarkozy is undermined by the fact that voters lack a clear alternative. In other words, it's not so much a question of Sarkozy's strength as the opposition parties' weaknesses -- a point of obvious comparison with NL.
Despite the similaries, there is a clear difference between anti-Sarkozysm and anti-Dannyism. In NL, the only steady source of relentless criticism of Williams has come from political blogs. Columnists, reporters, editorialists, and even some call-in hosts have offered sharp criticism on specific topics; but they have not provided a sustained rejection of Dannyism. NL has no equivalent to Ray Guy's critique of late Smallwoodism.
Equally important, whereas anti-Dannyism has failed to sway the public, anti-Sarkozysm has made itself felt where it counts: poll numbers. According to the Economist, "Two years into Mr Sarkozy’s term in office, intense and obsessive dislike of the president—anti-sarkozysme—is fast becoming the defining feature of French opposition politics. This goes beyond the president’s poor popularity rating, which fell another four points to 32% in May, according to TNS Sofres. In the election for the European Parliament, due on June 7th, the subject is not so much the future of Europe as Mr Sarkozy himself." It is important to keep in mind that Sarkozy's low poll numbers come at a time when the opposition parties are in disarray, so the excuse in NL that it's all the Liberals' fault doesn't wash.
Two factors help to explain why Sarkozy has much lower poll numbers than Williams. First, the public critique of Williams remains episodic and often fragmentary. The province's cultural establishment (which in NL usually means the self-appointed Arts Community, along with MUN) has failed to offer a congent public critique of Dannyism. While writers never hesitate to lay the boots to dead politicians, they are remarkably reluctant to criticize living ones. And while professors howled over the failed presidential search (can we please get over the martyrdom of Saint Eddy?), their political engagement has been remarkably limited. Fueled by a smug mixture of radical chic and cynicism, the intellectual elite cannot be bothered to get its hands dirty, leaving the blogosphere to semi-professional consultants, current and former Liberals, and anonymous outsiders like me. For every editorial that the Telegram gets right (and there are plenty of them) and for every columnist and reporter who nails a story (and, if anything, political reporting has been getting better over the past year), there are also many silences when Williams gets a pass. The problem with balanced reporting is that it assumes a balanced polity. When a government descends into a form of political mania, a balanced approach no longer works.
Second, we have to face the fact that Dannyism is relatively popular. However much I would like the public to recoil from the spectacle, the thuggery, the vulgarity, and the manipulation, it doesn't. It would be comforting to believe a conspiracy theory that explains how Williams has managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. It would be comforting to believe that the vast majority of Newfoundlanders reject the propaganda and the bombast. It would be comforting to believe that Newfoundlanders see through the miasma of unrealistic expectations, witch-hunts, and political recklessness.
But such comfort would be a lie. The truth is at once much more disturbing and more banal. As I noted in an earlier post, it is important to keep in mind Occam's Razor, which is the principle that the simplest, most straightforward explanation of a particular phenomenon is usually the right explanation: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/paradoxes-and-polemics.html
If Williams has consistently high polls numbers, then the simplest explanation is that he is relatively popular. Most Newfoundlanders are, at the very least, comfortable with the style and content of his leadership. While much of this support constitutes little more than tacit consent, it is still, as John Locke argued, a form of consent.
How do we explain this fact? I think we need to return again to grandiosity, which is more than political style. Grandiosity is a symptom of mania in bipolar disorder. The fact that it has become such an accepted part of NL's political culture is evidence of a collective bipolar disorder in which the lines between fantasy and reality, between what's inappropriate and what's appropriate, have become severely blurred.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Emotional Correctness
First, we had Patriotic Correctness: http://meekermedia.blogspot.com/2007/02/david-cochranes-speech-on-patriotic.html
Then, we had Optimistic Correctness: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/optimistic-correctness.html
Now, we have Emotional Correctness: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36548
In this strategic partnership, the Ministry of Love wants you to show how much you love your fatherland by refusing to spend your money anywhere else:
"This is Tourism Awareness Week. Tourism Minister Clyde Jackman and representatives of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador were on hand for the official launch last night at the Atlantica Restaurant in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. Jackman says the theme is "For the Love of Newfoundland and Labrador". Jackman says the theme encourages residents to stay inside the province if they plan to go on vacation this summer. Jackman says they want people to enjoy whatever it is that makes them love Newfoundland and Labrador."
For the truly committed Optimistic Patriots, the Ministry has partnered with local businesses to direct, for those who "just want to expound on your great love for Newfoundland & Labrador, phone us at 709-570-5291 and tell us about it for the chance to win some really great prizes." http://www.ozfm.com/contests/fortheloveofNL/fortheloveofNL.html
The penalties for vacationing on the Mainland, or for failing to publicly demonstrate your love, are unspecified.
As Eric Blair himself recognized, of all the state agencies, "the Ministry of Love was the really frightening one." As Blair explained, state-sponsored demonstrations of love and hate are flip sides of the same propaganda coin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Kznmrc3o4
Dangovt expects not just your loyalty, your optimism, and your hatred of Ottawa, but also a demonstration of your love. While the leaders of the regime sport deep Florida suntans, the public is expected to show their love by contenting themselves with the Newfoundland summer. If you love Newfoundland, you will spend all your vacation money in Newfoundland. If you don't...well, maybe you just don't love the fatherland enough.
As the web site directs, "This summer, vacation at home. And do it for love."
Then, we had Optimistic Correctness: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/optimistic-correctness.html
Now, we have Emotional Correctness: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36548
In this strategic partnership, the Ministry of Love wants you to show how much you love your fatherland by refusing to spend your money anywhere else:
"This is Tourism Awareness Week. Tourism Minister Clyde Jackman and representatives of Hospitality Newfoundland and Labrador were on hand for the official launch last night at the Atlantica Restaurant in Portugal Cove-St. Philip's. Jackman says the theme is "For the Love of Newfoundland and Labrador". Jackman says the theme encourages residents to stay inside the province if they plan to go on vacation this summer. Jackman says they want people to enjoy whatever it is that makes them love Newfoundland and Labrador."
For the truly committed Optimistic Patriots, the Ministry has partnered with local businesses to direct, for those who "just want to expound on your great love for Newfoundland & Labrador, phone us at 709-570-5291 and tell us about it for the chance to win some really great prizes." http://www.ozfm.com/contests/fortheloveofNL/fortheloveofNL.html
The penalties for vacationing on the Mainland, or for failing to publicly demonstrate your love, are unspecified.
As Eric Blair himself recognized, of all the state agencies, "the Ministry of Love was the really frightening one." As Blair explained, state-sponsored demonstrations of love and hate are flip sides of the same propaganda coin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7Kznmrc3o4
Dangovt expects not just your loyalty, your optimism, and your hatred of Ottawa, but also a demonstration of your love. While the leaders of the regime sport deep Florida suntans, the public is expected to show their love by contenting themselves with the Newfoundland summer. If you love Newfoundland, you will spend all your vacation money in Newfoundland. If you don't...well, maybe you just don't love the fatherland enough.
As the web site directs, "This summer, vacation at home. And do it for love."
Saturday, May 23, 2009
To everything there is a season
A time for every purpose under the sun;
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to weed;
a time to call and a time to poll.
You could feel it in the air last week. The garbage gulls feasted on the curb offerings heated by the happy sun. The potholes breathed a sigh of relief as the last studded snowtire was finally put away for the year. And the dandelion began its annual takeover of lawns. As St. John's witnessed the ritual start of the seasonal struggle between homeowner and dandelion, everyone knew who was going to win. Yet habit and custom pushed voters outside, where they could be seen throughout the East End, on bended knee, fixated on the yellow apparition.
For those of you who missed the news because you were out in the yard, here are the highlights:
1) DW made a heroic phone call.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/20/williams-nurses-520.html
2) In the midst of a global recession, the capital bubble is unperturbed.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36293
3) Bob Simmonds is optimistic.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36262
4) The House of Assembly passed a motion calling for the federal government to do something it is already doing.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36268
5) The federal and provincial governments have partnered.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36313
Quite a week. Whether it was the power of polls, or something in the water, the nurses' strike was averted and I, for one, was happy to be proved wrong. Now I'm going outside to pull up some more dandelions. I know that they will return as soon as I pull them up, but I just can't help myself.
Judging from the news, things look good in Sunny Patch: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/political-biology.html
A time to be born and a time to die;
a time to plant and a time to weed;
a time to call and a time to poll.
You could feel it in the air last week. The garbage gulls feasted on the curb offerings heated by the happy sun. The potholes breathed a sigh of relief as the last studded snowtire was finally put away for the year. And the dandelion began its annual takeover of lawns. As St. John's witnessed the ritual start of the seasonal struggle between homeowner and dandelion, everyone knew who was going to win. Yet habit and custom pushed voters outside, where they could be seen throughout the East End, on bended knee, fixated on the yellow apparition.
For those of you who missed the news because you were out in the yard, here are the highlights:
1) DW made a heroic phone call.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/20/williams-nurses-520.html
2) In the midst of a global recession, the capital bubble is unperturbed.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36293
3) Bob Simmonds is optimistic.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36262
4) The House of Assembly passed a motion calling for the federal government to do something it is already doing.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36268
5) The federal and provincial governments have partnered.
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36313
Quite a week. Whether it was the power of polls, or something in the water, the nurses' strike was averted and I, for one, was happy to be proved wrong. Now I'm going outside to pull up some more dandelions. I know that they will return as soon as I pull them up, but I just can't help myself.
Judging from the news, things look good in Sunny Patch: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/political-biology.html
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Seal Hunt Fallout
Doug Saunders has a thoughtful piece in yesterday's Globe about how the Tories' attempt to make a big splash in Europe was derailed by the seal hunt controversy. Saunders explains how the Tory leader's strident defence of the seal hunt alienated the Europeans. He argues that the inability to compromise seriously undermined relations with European states.
According to Saunders, the unrelenting defence of the seal hunt was part of a pattern of Tory leadership that is at once idealistic and bullying. "Nor would he consider sacrificing the seal hunt," according to Saunders, "despite its negligible role in the economy, in order to gain a larger victory."
Saunders says that the Tory leader's approach is "to project and impose his strongly held" ideals. He quotes a senior EU official as complaining that the mistake “was that they didn't play the diplomatic game – they didn't do the Henry Kissinger stuff and make a big, visible sacrifice so they could get something in exchange. They just wanted to win everything.”
Who do you think Saunders was writing about?
Who do you think took a political hit because he refused to sell out the seal hunt?
The answer may surprise you: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.doug16/BNStory/International
According to Saunders, the unrelenting defence of the seal hunt was part of a pattern of Tory leadership that is at once idealistic and bullying. "Nor would he consider sacrificing the seal hunt," according to Saunders, "despite its negligible role in the economy, in order to gain a larger victory."
Saunders says that the Tory leader's approach is "to project and impose his strongly held" ideals. He quotes a senior EU official as complaining that the mistake “was that they didn't play the diplomatic game – they didn't do the Henry Kissinger stuff and make a big, visible sacrifice so they could get something in exchange. They just wanted to win everything.”
Who do you think Saunders was writing about?
Who do you think took a political hit because he refused to sell out the seal hunt?
The answer may surprise you: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090515.doug16/BNStory/International
Friday, May 15, 2009
Déjà vu
There was apparently another glitch in the Matrix this morning. For a few minutes around 7:00, VODW had two versions of the same story posted online.
Here is story number 1: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36169
House Winding Down
May 15, 2009
There was another late-night sitting at the House of Assembly. Members debated legislation until the wee hours of the morning..... and that has the Opposition parties speculating on the possibility government could close the House soon in light of the situation unfolding with the province's nurses. Opposition House Leader Kelvin Parsons gets the feeling that government is winding things down, even though a host of legislation still sits on the order paper. Government House Leader Joan Burke says it's her intent to see all outstanding bills passed before the session closes. However she does say that it is their right to close the House.
Here is story number 2: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36168
House Winding Down
May 15, 2009
Another late night sitting at the House of Assembly. Members debated legislation until the wee hours of the morning..... and that has the Opposition parties speculating on the possibility government could close the House soon in light of the situation unfolding with the province's nurses. Opposition House Leader Kelvin Parsons says he gets the feeling government is winding things down, even though a host of legislation still sits on the order paper. Government House Leader Joan Burke says it's her intent to see all outstanding bills passed before the session closes. However she does say that the right to close the House is their's.
Aside from the amusing solecisms, it is interesting to see how VODW struggled with the wording in the final sentence.
It must be hard to find a delicate way to re-write the constitution.
One or both of the links may now be inoperable, since such glitches don't last very long; but they still worked the last time I checked. For more on the provincial Matrix, see http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/equalization-matrix.html
Remix Update:
It looks like VODW has settled on this version: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36168
The main page has an interesting audio link that captures Burke claiming absolute control over whether and when the House of Assembly is dissolved or prorogued.
For a different view of whether the Tories can unilaterally close the House of Assembly, see the Lieutenant Governor's homepage: http://www.govhouse.nl.ca/role.htm
"Role and Duties
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Canadian Head of State and The Queen of Canada with the Governor General being the Queen's representative for Canada. The Lieutenant-Governor is the representative of the Queen in the Province and exercises powers under Section 9 of the Constitution Act 1867 essential to the workings of the constitutional monarchy in Canada.
The Lieutenant-Governor must always ensure that the post of Premier is filled following resignation or death and that a Government is in place following defeat at an election or in the House of Assembly. Additional governance responsibilities include: administering oaths of office to Members of the House of Assembly and Ministers of the Crown so they may take up their duties; summoning, proroguing and dissolving the House of Assembly; assenting to legislative bills in order for them to become law; and signing into force Orders-in-Council, Proclamations and other official documents on the advice of Cabinet."
Here is story number 1: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36169
House Winding Down
May 15, 2009
There was another late-night sitting at the House of Assembly. Members debated legislation until the wee hours of the morning..... and that has the Opposition parties speculating on the possibility government could close the House soon in light of the situation unfolding with the province's nurses. Opposition House Leader Kelvin Parsons gets the feeling that government is winding things down, even though a host of legislation still sits on the order paper. Government House Leader Joan Burke says it's her intent to see all outstanding bills passed before the session closes. However she does say that it is their right to close the House.
Here is story number 2: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36168
House Winding Down
May 15, 2009
Another late night sitting at the House of Assembly. Members debated legislation until the wee hours of the morning..... and that has the Opposition parties speculating on the possibility government could close the House soon in light of the situation unfolding with the province's nurses. Opposition House Leader Kelvin Parsons says he gets the feeling government is winding things down, even though a host of legislation still sits on the order paper. Government House Leader Joan Burke says it's her intent to see all outstanding bills passed before the session closes. However she does say that the right to close the House is their's.
Aside from the amusing solecisms, it is interesting to see how VODW struggled with the wording in the final sentence.
It must be hard to find a delicate way to re-write the constitution.
One or both of the links may now be inoperable, since such glitches don't last very long; but they still worked the last time I checked. For more on the provincial Matrix, see http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/equalization-matrix.html
Remix Update:
It looks like VODW has settled on this version: http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=36168
The main page has an interesting audio link that captures Burke claiming absolute control over whether and when the House of Assembly is dissolved or prorogued.
For a different view of whether the Tories can unilaterally close the House of Assembly, see the Lieutenant Governor's homepage: http://www.govhouse.nl.ca/role.htm
"Role and Duties
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is Canadian Head of State and The Queen of Canada with the Governor General being the Queen's representative for Canada. The Lieutenant-Governor is the representative of the Queen in the Province and exercises powers under Section 9 of the Constitution Act 1867 essential to the workings of the constitutional monarchy in Canada.
The Lieutenant-Governor must always ensure that the post of Premier is filled following resignation or death and that a Government is in place following defeat at an election or in the House of Assembly. Additional governance responsibilities include: administering oaths of office to Members of the House of Assembly and Ministers of the Crown so they may take up their duties; summoning, proroguing and dissolving the House of Assembly; assenting to legislative bills in order for them to become law; and signing into force Orders-in-Council, Proclamations and other official documents on the advice of Cabinet."
Thursday, May 14, 2009
ABC's of Health Care
As the provincial government's drama with the nurses' union enters its final act, it is clear that very little has changed over the past year.
Beneath the macho posturing and shrill rhetoric, the conflict is being driven by the same basic issue that's been driving it from the beginning: a battle over respect. http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/r-e-s-p-e-c-t.html
As the lead actor on the government's side changed from Wiseman to Kennedy to Williams, this battle over respect merely intensified and grew ever more personal over time. What is interesting about DW's latest diatribe is not the rhetoric, the threats, or the illogic. We're beyond that now. We're beyond mere bullying. What we're seeing is a personal feud that has devolved into a scorched-earth, ABC-style jihad.
If you watch the video feed from CBC (and if you can overlook the weird shoulder twitches), you will notice a revealing pattern. DW seems incapable of saying Debbie Forward's name:
http://www.cbc.ca/nl/ondemand/?playlistId=b219a8383d7ee24319c52d170d2ac72f6d0a6375&videoId=5008317
Unless I missed something, he says her name only once during a lengthy rant. For the remainder of the 3:25 minute video, all he can utter is a steady stream of "she" and "her." She has done this, she has said that, she will suffer the state's mighty wrath. Judging from the Danspeak, Debbie Forward has become an official non-person. As a persona non grata, Ms. Forward can expect the same treatment meted out to all enemies of the people.
When the premier of the province cannot bring himself to address the head of a major union by her own name, you know how this is going to end. It's going to end the same way that all of DW's conflicts end. It's going to be utterly personal, utterly ugly, and utterly gratuitous. What it will do is feed Dangovt's insatiable desire for hyperbolic self-righteousness, personal revenge, and fighting for the sake of fighting.
Beneath the macho posturing and shrill rhetoric, the conflict is being driven by the same basic issue that's been driving it from the beginning: a battle over respect. http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/r-e-s-p-e-c-t.html
As the lead actor on the government's side changed from Wiseman to Kennedy to Williams, this battle over respect merely intensified and grew ever more personal over time. What is interesting about DW's latest diatribe is not the rhetoric, the threats, or the illogic. We're beyond that now. We're beyond mere bullying. What we're seeing is a personal feud that has devolved into a scorched-earth, ABC-style jihad.
If you watch the video feed from CBC (and if you can overlook the weird shoulder twitches), you will notice a revealing pattern. DW seems incapable of saying Debbie Forward's name:
http://www.cbc.ca/nl/ondemand/?playlistId=b219a8383d7ee24319c52d170d2ac72f6d0a6375&videoId=5008317
Unless I missed something, he says her name only once during a lengthy rant. For the remainder of the 3:25 minute video, all he can utter is a steady stream of "she" and "her." She has done this, she has said that, she will suffer the state's mighty wrath. Judging from the Danspeak, Debbie Forward has become an official non-person. As a persona non grata, Ms. Forward can expect the same treatment meted out to all enemies of the people.
When the premier of the province cannot bring himself to address the head of a major union by her own name, you know how this is going to end. It's going to end the same way that all of DW's conflicts end. It's going to be utterly personal, utterly ugly, and utterly gratuitous. What it will do is feed Dangovt's insatiable desire for hyperbolic self-righteousness, personal revenge, and fighting for the sake of fighting.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
ABC's of the Seal Hunt
Okay, I tried. I really tried. I tried to ignore the news, I tried not to read the papers, I tried to block out the ranting and roaring.
But this morning's latest, predictable outburst of populist cant about the seal hunt is just too much to bear silently.
So I posted a comment on the CBC's web site in response to their story on Williams's kangaroo comments: "So Europeans should have a good, hard look at themselves," says Premier Williams.
Europeans do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Williams completely burned the political bridge between St. John's and Ottawa and then launched his own foreign policy initiative to deal directly with the Europeans; now that his reckless gamble has failed, he will place responsibility on everyone but himself.
The failure of Williams's seal hunt foreign policy is part of a larger continuum whereby the ABC virus has infected every aspect of NL's public life. Anyone following Hedderson's foreign policy folly in Ottawa could see that the initiative was doomed from the outset.
Blame Ottawa, blame Liberals, blame Europeans...Williams will blame everyone but himself. I'm sure he'll even try to pin this on Manning somehow.
Williams and Hedderson fooled themselves (and tried to fool the public, too) that they could somehow change European opinion without coordinating their actions with the Government of Canada.
As bad as the EU ban is, it will be important not to burn every bridge with the Europeans. As usual, Williams is putting populist rhetoric before reasoned policy.
Williams seems to forget that there is an international jurisdictional battle over undersea resources looming with France, and Canada will need all the allies it can muster. Ranting and raving may be good for the polls, but it's not a sound basis for foreign policy. In other words, it's better to speak softly and carry a big stick than shout loudly and carry a twig.
Before the nationalist mob starts burning European books in the streets, they should stop and think about what would be the best way to fight the next foreign policy battle, not the last one. Here's the link to the CBC story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/06/williams-seal-hunt-506.html
I'm sure the thumbs down votes on my little comment will be in triple digits before the day is over.
It's not as if there aren't voices of reason out there. The Tely had a sensible editorial on the economic realities (as opposed to political rhetoric) of the seal hunt: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=248363&sc=80
But trying to make a reasoned argument when it comes to this issue is like spitting in the wind. It was bad enough when DW had the usual arsenal of populist anger to tap into; now he has the seal hunt to whip the public into an unthinking frenzy of rage and revenge.
Lost in all the rage is reasoned policy. Lost in all the frenzy is a sensible strategy for getting the most out of a difficult situation.
Let me be clear: Yes, the Europeans are hypocrites. In fact, as any diplomat can tell you, geopolitics is full of hypocrisy and Machiavellian manipulation. As Orwellian News tried to point out, for example, Putin did not favour a seal hunt ban because he's a soft-hearted guy: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/bears-seals-and-bad-omens.html
The latest debacle has links to DW's Excellent European Adventure that started in February: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/dws-excellent-european-adventure.html
Now we've come full circle: the foreign policy chickens hatched by the ABC folly have now come home to roost.
Which brings us back to hypocrisy. Dangovt expects the unreserved support of Harper's government at the same time as it continues to condemn them.
Dangovt wants it both ways: they want to blame Ottawa and they want Ottawa's help.
So what do they do? Hedderson's quote in the Globe sums it up:
"Obviously the seal hunt and perhaps us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not important,” said Fisheries Minister Tom Hedderson. “We joined this country in '49 and we became full Canadians. And we expect our Prime Minister to stand up for us.”
Blame Ottawa for ignoring NL; dredge up Confederation and '49; and demand that Ottawa fix something that wasn't their fault. That's foreign policy in Dangovt.
Before long, the whole thing will be sold as another Shaft, another reason to give DW more blind support in time for the next CRA polling season.
Before Long Is Here Update:
Well, that didn't take very long did it? Note the machismo language of violent revenge (with "muscle" being the Danword of the day), and the lack of thoughtfulness or reflection on the larger contexts or consequences:
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35988
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/06/williams-seals-506.html
Here are the links to the original Globe and VOCM stories:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090505.wottseal0505/BNStory/politics/home http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35967
Now, back to trying to be on hiatus.
But this morning's latest, predictable outburst of populist cant about the seal hunt is just too much to bear silently.
So I posted a comment on the CBC's web site in response to their story on Williams's kangaroo comments: "So Europeans should have a good, hard look at themselves," says Premier Williams.
Europeans do not have a monopoly on hypocrisy. Williams completely burned the political bridge between St. John's and Ottawa and then launched his own foreign policy initiative to deal directly with the Europeans; now that his reckless gamble has failed, he will place responsibility on everyone but himself.
The failure of Williams's seal hunt foreign policy is part of a larger continuum whereby the ABC virus has infected every aspect of NL's public life. Anyone following Hedderson's foreign policy folly in Ottawa could see that the initiative was doomed from the outset.
Blame Ottawa, blame Liberals, blame Europeans...Williams will blame everyone but himself. I'm sure he'll even try to pin this on Manning somehow.
Williams and Hedderson fooled themselves (and tried to fool the public, too) that they could somehow change European opinion without coordinating their actions with the Government of Canada.
As bad as the EU ban is, it will be important not to burn every bridge with the Europeans. As usual, Williams is putting populist rhetoric before reasoned policy.
Williams seems to forget that there is an international jurisdictional battle over undersea resources looming with France, and Canada will need all the allies it can muster. Ranting and raving may be good for the polls, but it's not a sound basis for foreign policy. In other words, it's better to speak softly and carry a big stick than shout loudly and carry a twig.
Before the nationalist mob starts burning European books in the streets, they should stop and think about what would be the best way to fight the next foreign policy battle, not the last one. Here's the link to the CBC story: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/06/williams-seal-hunt-506.html
I'm sure the thumbs down votes on my little comment will be in triple digits before the day is over.
It's not as if there aren't voices of reason out there. The Tely had a sensible editorial on the economic realities (as opposed to political rhetoric) of the seal hunt: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=248363&sc=80
But trying to make a reasoned argument when it comes to this issue is like spitting in the wind. It was bad enough when DW had the usual arsenal of populist anger to tap into; now he has the seal hunt to whip the public into an unthinking frenzy of rage and revenge.
Lost in all the rage is reasoned policy. Lost in all the frenzy is a sensible strategy for getting the most out of a difficult situation.
Let me be clear: Yes, the Europeans are hypocrites. In fact, as any diplomat can tell you, geopolitics is full of hypocrisy and Machiavellian manipulation. As Orwellian News tried to point out, for example, Putin did not favour a seal hunt ban because he's a soft-hearted guy: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/03/bears-seals-and-bad-omens.html
The latest debacle has links to DW's Excellent European Adventure that started in February: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/02/dws-excellent-european-adventure.html
Now we've come full circle: the foreign policy chickens hatched by the ABC folly have now come home to roost.
Which brings us back to hypocrisy. Dangovt expects the unreserved support of Harper's government at the same time as it continues to condemn them.
Dangovt wants it both ways: they want to blame Ottawa and they want Ottawa's help.
So what do they do? Hedderson's quote in the Globe sums it up:
"Obviously the seal hunt and perhaps us as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are not important,” said Fisheries Minister Tom Hedderson. “We joined this country in '49 and we became full Canadians. And we expect our Prime Minister to stand up for us.”
Blame Ottawa for ignoring NL; dredge up Confederation and '49; and demand that Ottawa fix something that wasn't their fault. That's foreign policy in Dangovt.
Before long, the whole thing will be sold as another Shaft, another reason to give DW more blind support in time for the next CRA polling season.
Before Long Is Here Update:
Well, that didn't take very long did it? Note the machismo language of violent revenge (with "muscle" being the Danword of the day), and the lack of thoughtfulness or reflection on the larger contexts or consequences:
http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35988
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/05/06/williams-seals-506.html
Here are the links to the original Globe and VOCM stories:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090505.wottseal0505/BNStory/politics/home http://www.vocm.com/news-info.asp?id=35967
Now, back to trying to be on hiatus.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Kiss the Backsides
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
