Apathy and disorganization - a politician's dream

So much is known now about the Muskrat Falls fiasco - that even with the information we do not have - we know we've been had.

The perplexing question is how do we stop it?

Dwight Ball, Danny Williams, and those making fortunes on our bankrupt backs are counting on 2 things.

The first is apathy and the second is disorganization.

Let's talk about apathy. In the last CRA Poll of "decided" voters the Liberals held 40%, the PC's held 33%, the NDP held 24%, the Labrador Party 2% and the Greens (not a provincial party) held 1%.

Now the reality is that the undecided/refused was 43%,  therefore the Liberals have support of 22.8% the PC's have support of 18.8%, the NDP have support of 13.6%, the Labrador Party have support of 1.1% and the Greens have support of .57%.

Part of this can be attributed to apathy and that suits the politicians just fine. Despite their protestations that voter participation should be higher - they are doing nothing really to entice those who either are sick of politicians or those who could care less.

Next we get to disorganization - a large chunk of that 43% undecided/refused are people who want to participate - but are so fed up with the big three choices that they can't commit to anything. They are also discouraged by the improbability that any new or marginal party would stand a chance.

There are twitter and blog trolls whose job it is to discourage active democratic movement - by simply saying things like "that won't work" "can't be done" "extremists and naysayers" etc.

Politicians are currently comfortable that this is all it will take to keep a real democratic movement from going forward. Why are they comfortable? Because the opposition to them is disorganized.

We have talented bloggers, intelligent tweeters, backroom experts, and call show gurus. They come from varied backgrounds and have personalities that are as diverse as you can get. They certainly have enough wherewithal to begin a new political movement. They could form a Cabinet that would make the current crew and the PC's before them look like rank amateurs.

For the most part - these people - many of whom have had political affiliations in the past - do not put Party in front of Province. They will take aim at the real issues and let rip.

The government (regardless of which one) will attempt to take some of them out with political appointments or engage them in another way to diminish the pool of articulate opposition.

In Quebec and other provinces - political movements are seen as advantageous and are encouraged. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have oodles of political minions who will take great pleasure in knocking them down. They don't have the capability to take them down on wits - so they get involved in name calling like "naysayer", "partisan", and/or "conspiracy theorists".

The other favourite pastime in Newfoundland and Labrador is to turn one of these people who oppose government against another who opposes government. This is done subtly - someone who knows someone says this about someone. You know - I'm sure you've all heard it. Then there is the politicians go-to,  try and negatively impact the life of one of their antagonists. Yes - they do this - all the time.

The not-so-subtle approach is to just have a number of minions go beyond the normal types of insults and question a person's sanity - publicly. They also bring out "experts" to try and downplay the findings of a blogger - regardless of the validity.  This public approach is also designed to deter others from becoming involved.

This is what we are dealing with. This is real.

Until the bloggers, the Tweeters, the backroom experts, and the call-show gurus (unofficial opposition) get together and plan some real action under real leadership - Muskrat and every other fiasco will continue.

We won't have a province left - but thanks to social media we'll have an historical account of the opposition.

Public correction of error by Minister King necessary

It's bad enough that Darin King believes the need for a public inquiry rests on his feelings on the investigation when it's over. The Minister, however, outdid himself by proclaiming for all radio-land that he and he alone is the one who decides if an inquiry is called.

I really think it's time we upped the level of what we expect from our elected officials and demand that Minister's understand laws they are referencing in public.

What a disgrace - Darin King on VOCM Back-Talk with Pete Soucy - told all the listening audience that it is he that will make a decision on a public inquiry. It is up to him he states.

Here is part of Section 3 of the Public Inquiries Act

Commissions of Inquiry

     3.(1) The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may by order establish a commission of inquiry and report on a matter that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council considers to be a public concern. 

        (2) Where a commission is established under subsection (1), the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall, in the order, 

        (a) appoint the members of the commission in accordance with section 21;

        (b) establish the jurisdiction of the commission by setting terms of reference for the inquiry;

        (c) designate the Minister responsible for the inquiry; and

        (d) fix a date for the termination of the inquiry and for the delivery of the commission's report.

emphasis added 

It is not only responsible but one would think in keeping with the Minister's Oath of Office that Darin King clear up any errors he may make when explaining anything to the public. 

Not only is it - not his decision to call an inquiry - he may not even be chosen by the Cabinet to be the Minister responsible for the inquiry after it has been called. 

As Newfoundlanders and Labradorians we are going to have to hold our politicians more accountable. It is very difficult to have faith in our government when a Minister of the Crown speaks with authority about a law that he/she clearly does not understand. 

This is what Minister King said:

"Well I guess I decide that if I'm the one that calls the inquiry - ultimately - to be blunt about it. I think the Public Inquiries Act provides that the Minister is the one that makes the call so ultimately I would be the person who had to make the decision."

Please try to reconcile the Act and the Minister words. How long has he been a Minister of the Crown? 

Further to insure the Minister's red herring does not continue - we are not asking that an inquiry actually take place before the current investigation is over. We want a commitment that one will be called.

       

An email or manifesto?

Mr. Dunphy's funeral service is over. The family is left to mourn his tragic death and find a way forward.

The leaked "email" from the yet unidentified officer involved in the shooting death of Don Dunphy - was reportedly sent to the officer's colleagues at the RNC.

Let's reflect first on what RNC Chief Janes said about the officer when answering  questions from the media. Listen and watch HERE

Question from Fred Hutton VOCM news:

Have you spoken with the officer who fired the shot? 

Answer from Chief Janes: Yes I have

Question from Fred Hutton: and How's he doing?

Answer from Chief Janes:

umm I think ah how he feels will change over time and em part of our response is the....

I now ask Chief Janes if the "email" reflects how the officer felt when he first spoke to him? Or does the "email" by the officer represent a change in how the officer felt when he first spoke to him?

In my opinion the alleged "email" from an unnamed individual to an unconfirmed list of people - leaked or given to the CBC is hardly a communication that would lessen the concerns of a troubled society.

If this "email" was written by the officer and sent to his colleagues - he/she has managed to increase the level of confusion, take a wide swipe at the intelligence of the population, cause even more questions that need to be vetted by a judicial inquiry, and continues to ignore the actions and behavior of some of his police colleagues.

Unlike the tweets of Mr. Dunphy - which were separated and referenced without context in the initial released information of the "perceived" threat, the CBC in this instance released all of the "email" so we could read it in context. Further the CBC unlike the immediate identification of Mr. Dunphy has yet to release the name of the officer.

Without at the very least the CBC telling us - the officers rank - years of service - educational background - professional areas of expertise - before or in conjunction with the release of the "email" - in my opinion is irresponsible. It appears the CBC is being controlled by somebody outside of it's own organization.

Over the past number of years and as recently as the days immediately after the death of Mr. Don Dunphy - the public has been served up with very questionable and some criminal activity of RNC officers.

We have been subject to wrongful convictions, failure to act on the Mount Cashel complaints, convictions under the criminal code, investigations of officers who did not act professionally during investigations, evidence being thrown out in court as the result of improper collection of said evidence. This coupled with events both in other provinces in Canada and and states in the USA involving questionable or criminal activity of police officers - provide educated reason for the public to be skeptical, concerned, troubled and vocal when an instance such as the shooting death of Mr. Dunphy happens.

The alleged "email" from the officer pointed many fingers at social media participants, callers to talk shows, and the "prolific ignorance prevailing in our society" - but failed however to point one finger at the behavior of some of his police colleagues as a significant reason for distrust and concern.

While this "email" appears to take some issue with social media and callers to talk shows speaking freely and asking questions that they feel need answers - there are many in society and authority who give thanks for such openness of communication and scrutiny of authorities. It has resulted in many instances where events that may never have seen the light of day - being fully vetted through independent inquiry.

The "email" has made its way to the public and presents a one-sided view of an event that took the life of the only other witness.

The positive components of the "email" revolve around identifying the need to help a person in crisis. If one reads the "email" and accepts as truth the entire contents then they are left with serious questions about WHSCC, sitting politicians, the RCMP and family members. The "email" allegedly written  by the officer who shot Mr. Dunphy certainly questions how Mr. Dunphy would have reached this state without receiving some sort of help.

It questions any other officer who has visited Dunphy prior to this event. It questions the response of government, commission employees, and politicians to Mr. Dunphy over a significant period of time. It even questions the role of his family and their response to his needs. What the "email" does state by the author is "For Mr. Dunphy we were certainly too late - " and "I unequivocally wish I could have visited Mr. Dunphy at a point in his life where another level of intervention may have been possible". So what was everybody else doing during that time? The statement and judgement issued by the officer in the alleged "email" can certainly appear to be damning to others who were in communication with Mr. Dunphy regarding his grievances. It certainly should be enough to warrant a judicial inquiry into the entire event that led to the death of Mr. Dunphy.

The "email" contains the following statement: "We live in a time where opinion is ubiquitous, while facts seemingly take a back seat to what is titillating." My response to that is when did we live in a time when opinion was not ubiquitous? My understanding is that the great wars were fought to protect that. With regard to the "titillating" comment - I take issue with the word used - however if we are to use it - arguably the most "titillating" information comes from this "email" by an anonymous author - leaked to the CBC and the select use of one tweet by Mr. Dunphy in isolation of the entire thread.

I would respectfully suggest the author of the "email" read a report entitled Police Involved Deaths - The Need for Reform found here and the Judicial Inquiry headed by Justice Donald Luther found here and the McDonald Commission of Inquiry found here and the Lamer Commission of Inquiry found here (University of Manitoba site - unbelievably it has been removed from the NL Dept. of Justice Link) and many others readily available thanks to the internet and social media. Perhaps the author of the "email" could provide some insight into the transcript between Sgt. Buckle and Const. Kelly found here currently under review of the Newfoundland and Labrador Department of Justice. Perhaps the author can suggest what the appropriate response from the public should be upon reading that transcript.

Oddly the "email" suggests failures but does not insist on a judicial inquiry. Why not? These inquiries have resulted in policy and educational changes in police forces - have found deficiencies in Mental Health programs and responses to individuals needing that help.

The "email" states "The vocal minority engaged in social media and open line talk shows appear to want an immediate cyber-trial in a veritable town square, instead of a professional and detailed investigation involving interviews and scientific analysis." It did not say some of the vocal minority or some participants in social media and open line talk shows - it painted all of such participants to appear to want...

To the contrary - most people involved on social media and open line talk shows want a judicial inquiry. We want an inquiry independent of the police forces involved in the events leading to the death of Mr. Dunphy. I do note that the author of the "email" does not even suggest that potential appearances of conflict with police investigating police should be addressed.

The "email" bordering on a manifesto states: "Some will tell you that our Premier should be, or is an ordinary person; the reality however is that while they may have once been an "ordinary person" (if such a thing exists), they are now our Premier, and there is nothing ordinary about that Office. Society has eroded many of the comforts and standard amenities that should come with being an elected official - all in the name of politics."  

Surely this statement should cause all in a democracy to be concerned. The basic premise of democracy is the participation of all citizens in their governance - and does not include providing amenities and comforts for political office. It is a position of public service and the indisputable evidence that that person is "ordinary" is found in the arguable position that many Premiers and Cabinet Ministers are not educated sufficiently in the portfolio they hold. Perhaps the author of the "email" might tell us how to change our democracy to suit his/her beliefs on this political system. The "email" blames a society - he serves and is paid by - for eroding comforts and amenities of politicians. This appears to be an individual who believes in the entitlement of elected officials. It also ignores the conviction and incarceration of many politicians who felt they were entitled to more. It was his/her force that participated in the investigation of many of these politicians. Once an elected person ceases to be an ordinary person - they should quit or join in a political system where the public serves the politicians and not the other way around.

I also note the "email" is addressed to friends and colleagues - I was of the understanding by the media that it was addressed to colleagues. Has the email been sent to any person other than currently active duty RNC officers or has it been sent to others as well - if so - what is the complete list? Considering the CBC got a copy - how far did the original email go?

The email certainly goes a long way in describing the judgement of the officer on the event, on the mental health of Don Dunphy, on the behavior of participants in social media, on the behavior of open line talk show participants, how society treats politicians, and the general ignorance of people.

The "email" states the following: "Protective Policing — is predicated on intelligence led investigations.  Most will inherently view police work as something that is reactive.  ie.  Somebody is threatened and we respond accordingly.  Intelligence based policing is proactive, and in the case of protective services, attempts to identify potential concerns and disconcerting behavior, and through a risk analysis endeavors to assign threat levels and implement corrective measures before an act of targeted violence occurs.   Use the Ottawa shooting as an inverse comparison;  society was quick in this case to ask where the police were in identifying red flags.  Erroneous misleading statistics associated to the depth of work police carry out is difficult to explain in a media sound-bite, but people need to understand that a singular police file number does not capture what we do in its totality."

One of the key questions from the vocal portion of the public has been why did the officer attend Mr. Dunphy on his/her own without another officer. Was the risk assessment that led to this decision accurate? Many people I have spoken to have grave concerns about this and are concerned about circumstances such as this where there are no other witnesses to the outcome. Clearly the concern is warranted - as one individual has lost their life. This is what the majority of people in our society want to avoid. Further the question remains on whether or not the officer was under orders to attend the residence of Mr. Dunphy and if so by whom. On the issue of using an "inverse comparison" - we might also ask ourselves what would be the reaction if it was a police officer shot and killed by an individual - without witnesses. Would that individual be sending out emails to friends and colleagues suggesting the state of the officer at the time of the event? Would the individual be taken into custody? Would the CBC be publishing leaks? Have a look in South Carolina and ask - what would be the story if a video-tape had not been produced by a private citizen?

This "email" reinforces not reduces the need for a judicial inquiry on this matter.

I am the daughter and granddaughter of retired uniformed officers. 

Tories avoid paper trail on Coleman/Humber Valley Paving affair?

The House of Assembly revealed something very scary today.

As we all might have anticipated the HOA question period was filled with inquiry over the Coleman affair.

I await the Hansard - in order to demonstrate how many times Minister McGrath used the word verbal when explaining the process of determining the release from Contract of Humber Valley Paving.

There was apparently verbal communication between the Minister and Premier on this subject. There were all kinds of verbal communications between the Minister and representatives of the company. The only thing I heard that might have been in writing is the document that released Humber Valley Paving from the contract and any consequence of bond.

This was a multi-million dollar contract between government and Humber Valley Paving and it was with a company where Frank Coleman (the incoming Premier) was CEO and majority shareholder. The discussions - as they were mostly verbal - will not give us real time frames and will not confirm or deny that these discussions were being held at a time Frank Coleman may have been looking at a run for the leadership of the Tories.

These very important details seem to have no written back-up. I remember a time not so long ago - where Ministers were not taking briefing notes - they were being briefed verbally. Here we go again.

Of course this stinks - because the company was apparently sold and could have been in a real unsaleable state had the bond been tested. This going on at a time just prior to Frank Coleman announcing his candidacy for the Tories and via our system the keys to the Premier's Office.

Oh yes this needs to be investigated. The sooner the better. What options do we have now to prevent such negotiations going on verbally - leaving us - the people, the taxpayer, their boss - without any paper trail?

Danny Dumaresque Live and Unfettered

Next Monday - January 13th - from 6 to 8 pm join me on Talk with Sue "For the Record" Series 2 After the Sanction with special guest Danny Dumaresque.

Danny is also featured in Talk with Sue For the Record in 2013 Pre-Sanction.

After the energy crisis of the last couple of weeks - left over a hundred thousand people without power - rolling blackouts - school and college closures - and worse several of our people sick and one citizen dead from carbon monoxide - many people are asking how and why.

We have heard from government, Nalcor, and Muskrat supporters over and over on talk shows - social media - and through news conferences and news releases. Now we need to hear from people with a different message - a different point of view - and those who are not afraid to speak openly and frankly about this situation.

Danny Dumaresque is a former member of the Board of Newfoundland and Labrador - a candidate for the provincial Liberal leadership - a former MHA - a businessman - father and a strong advocate for all things Labrador.

Dumaresque has spoken openly over many years regarding Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro and Nalcor and has spent countless hours reviewing Nalcor material on Muskrat Falls, researching tunnels across water for transport and energy, energy choices, energy for industrial development, and achieving true energy independence.

The show will feature Danny Dumaresque live and unfettered. He will have 2 hours to talk about what we've all been talking about.

If you have any questions you would like me to ask Danny - please leave them in the comments section.

Please join the show on Monday by CLICKING HERE

The previous 10 episodes have garnered over 25,000 listens and downloads.

Love to have you join us.

VOCM apology to Innu people - Sincere? or...

The headline in the Telegram says it all - or does it?

Steele Communications apologizes on air for behavior of radio host

VOCM - it's parent company, Steele Communications, Randy Simms, and general manager Mike Murphy have all publicly apologized to Simeon Tshakapesh and the Innu people for remarks made by Openline Host Randy Simms.

Obviously an apology was deserved and the man behind the mic should be watched carefully - however was the apology sincere?

Randy Simms and Paddy Daley have oft in the past allowed or made comments on air that were false, misleading, offensive, and personally damaging - yet they continued on - no apology - no retraction. In fact - they usually justify by saying that some private citizens are not private because they call a talk show. This apparently justification for using their power behind the mic for whatever reason they choose.

The difference is they will not apologize to women, particularly to a woman they have always felt comfortable attacking - probably with the government's blessing.

Refresh your memory click HERE  or  HERE  or  HERE

I am not the only one that VOCM, Steele Communications, Newfoundland Capital Corporation, Randy and Paddy allow to be slandered - there are many more.

The difference right now is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the multi-millionaires, and certain business interests need the Innu people to work with them. This I'm sure VOCM will assist in when they can. The government does not need me or many other citizens of this province and would prefer if we would just go away. The public attack on people such as myself assists the government in their efforts to avoid critique, tough questions, and opposition to ill-fated policy positions.

In my opinion this apology to the Innu people was necessary not sincere. The truth is always in the facts somewhere - we just have to open our eyes and look.

What's behind the VOCM Attack?

Here's the problem. VOCM boasts about the size of its listening audience - particularly their talk-shows.

If this is true then Randy Simms and VOCM allowed out and out lies to be broadcast - about a private citizen - to thousands of people.

Is this the role of a commercial radio station? Clearly it is not. So why then did VOCM allow it and to date not address it?

And yes it continues - over the air - on twitter - anywhere Paddy can get a smack in.

The difference is - he has a mic - and he controls a commercial radio program. Each and every time he comments it goes to thousands of people. What is the purpose?

The following is a sample of Paddy Daly's tirades :

At least you're not at home "crooked" like Sue - Paddy Daly states today on the airwaves.

or this today on Twitter

@hydroqueen let's get the rules straight? you are flying solo with your ramblings. call or be quiet. gutless. hypocrite.

I have not been on his or Randy's show for a long time now and did nothing to precipitate the commentary about me by callers like "Bob".

So VOCM will do this: They will allow slander and lies about a private person - and then provide that person the opportunity to call in and talk about it. As you can see by the "rules" Paddy has set above - I am being told I am to be quiet - unless I am calling him.

Again I ask - why is all this going on? It certainly is not in the interest of public discourse on issues of societal concern.

The term gutless is interesting. He has a program on a commercial broadcast station and continues to take pot-shots - harassing me to call his show.

After reading a post on my blog last weekend - Paddy tweeted the following:

@hydroqueen you poor woman.

This is also a very revealing comment. A very interesting choice of words - indeed.

There is something behind all of this and perhaps VOCM, Paddy, and Randy can let us know exactly what that is.

Until then - VOCM, Paddy and Randy do not control my blog or my twitter - so I will carry on.

Again people take note: it's me today - it may be you tomorrow.

My interest is Newfoundland and Labrador and the future generations. If that means speaking up and asking questions - then that's what I will do. If that means I challenge government on very bad resource deals, regressive legislation, or positions of potential conflict - then I will. If that causes unfair attacks and harassment - so be it. I have been doing it for 25 years - still here.

Why YOU should care about the Fishery!

Please click HERE - to listen to the latest episode of Talk with Sue and Shannon - Newfoundland and Labrador's newest Talk Show.

This discussion on the fishery was feisty and demonstrates why YOU should care about this industry and valuable renewable resource.

Join us again next Sunday for the next show.

Listen to NEW episode of Talk with Sue - Hear what the callers had to Say

Listen to my new episode Talk with Sue Electoral Reform PRESS HERE

Interesting chat with a lady from Trinity North, Andrew Parsons MHA Burgeo-La Poile, and an observer of our election from New Brunswick.

Talk with Sue Second Show - Electoral Reform - the Sleeping Democracy - Dunderdale's arrogance!

Join us tonight at 8 pm - Talk with Sue - Second Show deals with electoral reform.

Does the Dunderdale government respect the electorate?

42% of people did not vote. Why?

The House of Assembly -why isn't it open?

Why type of electoral system would you like to see?

Why type of electoral reform would wake up our sleeping democracy?

What happened during the election - lets talk about polls, threats, and Ross Reid and Len Simms - their scandalous reappointment's.

I expect Shannon will join me for this discussion.

We have 4 years (I think) - let's do something to get it right.

Let's raise the percentage of those voting to 75!

Click HERE to join the show at 8 tonight.

Election Day Questions - Try them out! They might be very revealing!

1. Did Danny Williams vote? Where did he vote? Will he say who he voted for?

2. Do you think the media coverage of the election was slanted in any way?

3. What do you think of polling during the election? Should they be limited to random sampling or should they be allowed to do opt-in - self directed polls that do not have a margin of error?

4. Do you believe the media provided balanced coverage of platforms and did they do any research on what was provided by the parties or did they simply report?

5. Do you believe there is an urban/rural divide?

6. Do you believe that all PC supporters agree with the Muskrat Falls deal?

7. Do you believe the public service pensioners will vote Liberal as per their pledge "no increase - no vote"?

8. Do you know if the NDP lead by Lorraine Michael supports the Muskrat Falls deal?

9. Do you think there should be public funding of elections - that is a party receives an amount per vote they receive from the provincial treasury?

10. Do you believe that corporations, unions, municipalities, and other organizations should be prohibited from donating to a political party?

No big Deal Muskrat! So Cochrane and Dunderdale keep telling is.

The "journalists" are having a field day - downplaying the importance of Muskrat Falls to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

The panel contestants are saying it's not even on the radar.

Funny thing that - it has been a constant issue on the talk shows, a continuing paper seller for the Telegram, and something Dunderdale insists is not an issue.

If health, education, and deficits are key - I don't know why the Telegram has been inundated with letters to the editor on Muskrat Falls.

These letters coming from people with affiliation to all party stripes and those without a vested interest in its failure as a deal.

Yes we have seen health issues raised but they are by professional organizations representing health care workers.

We have heard education raised by students and teachers organizations.

The public - at least those who care about the future of this place - have been raising Muskrat Falls. Look at the weekend and tell me what the top issue is - in the minds of those who wish to write. Ed Martin CEO Nalcor has been busier than the Cabinet Ministers answering questions about Muskrat Falls. Randy had Shawn Skinner on for a show, followed by Aylward and Michael on what? Muskrat Falls.

Despite Dunderdales protestations - Muskrat has been coming up at the door for most candidates.

Most importantly - what issue will still be around after the election? Muskrat Falls!

This is why Dave Cochrane can groan on like a boy with a belly-ache over Muskrat Falls not being an issue. Yet day after day all the "journalists" and Dunderdale keep telling us it's not an issue.

Rumors abound! Run her out of Town - if you speak out you will be targetted!

Today is gearing up to be a very interesting day.

For those of you who heard Paddy Daly today on Back-Talk - did you hear his conversation with Doug Stanley, an independent pharmacy owner in Burin. Somewhere in that conversation Paddy asked Doug - do you think the problem with getting a meeting with the Minister is personal - with one of your members or somebody who represents you?

Interesting question don't you think - where did that come from. Do tell Paddy.

Earlier today a member of the CICPO asked me if a meeting was denied because I was the Executive Director of the group. Apparently he had been speaking to a representative of another group who suggested this was the case. That follows many other instances out of this group - raising the same question. Interesting point.

Further I have been subject to Ministers and the Premier herself allegedly telling members of the CICPO that - in a round-a-bout way - you should get rid of her. Even gone as far to ask me to remove my blog or make me stop blogging.

I remember another Executive Director under the same threats. I remember Rob Ritter of the NLMA being lambasted by the Premier and Minister with his professionalism under attack.

We know Premier - if you do not agree with government and you speak out - you will be targeted and they will attempt to shut you up. Just imagine this - and imagine that it is acceptable behavior in a mature democracy.

Then there's another Minister directing pharmacy owners to stay off the airways and get to the table. And yet another member who spoke out against a government policy in the past - was chastised - once again behind his back by another Minister.

There are many more examples but this should suffice - to prove our democracy is under attack by Dunderdale and gang. Bullying is not only acceptable to them but is encouraged and used on a day to day basis.

How many people have put a PC sign on their lawn out of fear?

Yes Newfoundland and Labrador there is a Sasquatch - ask Kathy

Newfoundland and Labrador politics is reaching new lows - the silence from Dunderdale is scary. Is she able to explain the finances of the province? Why is Marshall the only point man now from health and tax - to deception and misinformation?

Then Minister Marshall gets a free ride. How many times have the hosts of the VOCM triple play talk-shows been asked - "the next time Minister Marshall comes on ask him about the Dr. Wade Locke report on pharmacy"? How many times - including last week was Marshall on-air right after the question was asked - only to have the host pass him a pair of skates - and avoid the question?

Why have the leaders not been asked to spend a morning on Open-Line to address the public? That used to be a common thing - that is pre-DanTory.

Kathy Dunderdale saunters by and passes a comment about the Liberal Policy Agenda; that's not affordable. Then dutifully Tony calls in to say that the Libs never spent all the money the Tories did and let all the infrastructure crumble. Now talking to Tony is probably the best example of wasting breath one could find. The fellow is inexplicably full of blue blood and the thought of any transfusion is like an O recipient trying to digest AB. The body just simply rejects it. It matters not to Tony that the words he utters are untrue, misleading, or at best skewed - he carries on anyway. Does Tony offer anything new when he calls again and again? No! But that works - Tony has his role for the Tories.

Kathy is the recipient of an urban economy that is flush from oil revenues - primarily from deals made by the Liberals. The money rolls from Voisey's Bay and the economy of the Placentia area grows on the back of Liberal deals. Does she know how to spend it? No - she does not - but that's okay she will spend it all anyway and take it in as fast the oil will pump. There is not a care for the future or the people who will attempt to live in it.

The only thing Kathy is responsible for is the Muskrat deal inseminated by Williams. This deal is bad - simple as that. There is no justification for it on any level and the questions keep coming from people in the public who are cognizant of the damage it could cause.

The equalization folklore has grown into a Sasquatch - I remember when "we got it" - it looked something like ... and then it had two heads. The equalization situation is worse now than it ever was and we are not better off. Back to the Sasquatch - the government now says he are a "have" province. Fiction - pure fiction, as government spins so hard a crater is forming below them - and we are going to fall into it. We are a "have" province because Harper changed the formula but NOT to our benefit.

The two billion we achieved from Martin and the federal Libs is offset by the ten billion we lose under Harper. What did Kathy, Danny, and Tories do about it? Nothing - they insured that Fabian Manning would not be elected. You can tell how upset Stephen is by that.

Under the Tories we lost two valuable paper-mills, fish plants, and several federal services. Happy Valley-Goose Bay has not done any better. Where is the new base - the new commitment promised over and over and over? A new prison? Custodial control nose and tail? Joint management? So what does Kathy do? Let's start afresh with the traitor - let's start liking Harper again.

Let's face it - the new love-in of Harper had already begun under Williams prior to his departure. Why? The answer to that is simple - Williams wanted the Emera deal. The unspoken - the unexplored - the absence of the media - all contributing to the big lie being perpetrated on our people.

The fishery continues to collapse for communities, fishermen, and plant workers but is moving ahead fine for the owners of the stock (that is not the people). The greatest eco-disaster of the modern ages and yet - nothing is sought in retribution. We lose 40,000 people - not a word - just the continued drone of incompetent politicians echoing in our ears. Our rural communities devastated - families ripped apart without a second thought by Kathy and her colleagues clones. Economies barely surviving on Alberta money - while seniors lose their families and are dragged into homes outside of their home-towns. One parent raising children in a two parent household.

And then the likes of Paddy - Paddy Daly - laughing his way through "Iceland is bankrupt". The decree from on high - atop the hill on Kenmount Road. The man who repeats what you have just said to him - yet seems so unfamiliar (aka putting words in somebodies mouth). The man who is waiting to be convinced one way or another on the Muskrat Falls deal as he declares all are not doing a good job of explaining it to him. This may not be the problem he thinks - perhaps he just does not get it and perhaps that's his own fault. Tis easier for Paddy to condemn the caller as a "know-it-all" or somebody who "does not have the gift of debate" - than to simply recognize he is ignorant on the subject.

Dumbing down of our population is key to allow the power brokers most of whom we do not know or ever see. Dumbing down to take our resources and make us feel good while they do it.

Then there are the MHA'selite remainder rediscovering the depths of unethical behavior through misinformation, deceit, and spin. The Jerome Kennedy's of the lower power hungry - fighting whoever is in front of him - taking low blows - dodging in the shadows - where bullies hang out. Then there is our Premier - the unelected leader of Danny's Party. The woman who would serve her king at all costs. Jogging, jogging, jogging, into a new wardrobe for the photo-ops of Ross Reid's carefully crafted spending of the budget.

This new game is dangerous and the people will not win if we play it. The threats veiled or direct, the interference in the peoples' right to speak, the underlying deceit of the power brokers, and the direct control of the future by Danny, Dean, and Brian - will result in the making of billionaires on the backs of our people.

Social Media "darling" will VOCM balance the mix? Election Fairness?

On September 20th Paddy Daly interviewed an individual the Morning Show VOCM host called a Social Media "darling", Rhonda McMeekin. Apparently - the station is unaware or simply failed to mention the political affiliation of this person and her role in this election in the intro or extro. The Morning Show went on to play this interview as an information piece on the role social media will play in this campaign.

Rhonda McMeekin then used Minister Jerome Kennedy as an example of how to affectively use Twitter. The PC Minister was the only politician mentioned by name and was used as a positive as McMeekin explained how one could get to know the other side of Kennedy.

Clearly VOCM must balance out this interview with social media "darlings" of the other two parties and allow them their say - particularly when highlighting a particular politician.

Couple this with the playful tweets going on between McMeekin and other VOCM employees and other activities like delivering coffee etc. and you have one mess of a situation.

During an election campaign fairness in broadcast is paramount. Will this be allowed to continue?

Was this a free political message?

This is not a joke or somebody's playpen - this is an election.

Listen to the interview PRESS HERE

Rural Newfoundland and Labrador - Stop the Tories from destroying You

Listen to the exchange between myself and Paddy Daly Click Here

The Story of George Murphy - much more than gas prices!

Everybody knows George - he is the wonderful person that keeps us regularly up to date on home heating fuel and gas prices. This he does for his fellow citizens - at no charge - and is ultimately more valuable than our paid consumer representative.

George has also over the years plunked himself in the middle of other important issues concerning Newfoundland and Labrador - again at no charge. George cares about other people - no doubt about it. He cares so much the Liberals (in their usual way) used his services - at no charge.

George is a tested and true Newfoundlander and Labradorian - he deserves all the accolades he gets for the "public service" he provides. You see that really is public service and not self service. The Liberals need to gut the house and return the party back to the people. There are many George's out there - good people - who have proven their worth and love for this province.

Now George recently ran in a by-election and placed a respectable second - but George deserved to win. If it was based on public profile and service - and not on Danny's leftover team  - Brazil probably would have placed second. The Liberals continued to receive the same message - clean house - rid yourselves of the regurgitated, recycled, faceless, inner sanctum dwellers - who are just waiting for their turn again.


The Libs - sitting in wait - honestly- sitting waiting sitting waiting - for the Tories to fail. That is the lump sum ambition of what is left over there. Meanwhile more and more philosophically inclined Libs sit and wait for the Party to clean itself up. It is looking disheveled, worn, weary, and most of all lazy. They feel they are entitled to government.

The Liberals recycling of past politicos and "party-executive" program - if adopted by the provinces multi materials stewardship board - would put to shame the best efforts of green advocates.

Who does this party belong to anyway? Maybe they will tell us. The latest tour of the Province in an effort to "consult" with people is really a public relations exercise - have they listened before?

George is a good fellow - and he is now with the NDP - hope he is being respected. Because I believe in democracy - I can never say - the NDP will not win - but there has not been enough effort into building and attracting - rather just repeating the social messages of Tommy Douglas. Douglas was extraordinary - and as one voice he brought many together and thereby pushed progressive policies through.

Ultimately I suppose the story of George demonstrates the public is not requiring the best - but whatever the partisan chef serves up. In this case it was a PC. Now because I love Bell Island so much - this causes me more grief. Bell Island has always had real promise and has always been let down. Listening to Mayor Gary Gosine speak passionately of his Tickle home is as hard as listening to Gus on the fishery. Why? Because they deserve to be listened to but they are drowned out by partisan mules delivering the message of those addicted to power but allergic to service.

It's too easy for us townies to say "resettle" - to whatever community might be in difficulty. It is too easy for Islanders to say "Labrador has to understand they have little population and have to share their wealth of natural resources". That's just us being lazy and that laziness makes it easy to be partisan. All you have to do is join the chant. That's how a boy from the interior of the island - who has seen more spruce bud-worms than cod can Randy on about there is not enough fish and rural Newfoundland and Labrador just has to suck it up.

Women and men of this province - we have to step to the plate - take our precious democracy seriously - do not seek a messiah - but rather proven Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who just feel it in the gut when our province and her people hurt. We have to take a turn at bat - so that a Brad Cabana cannot be the top news story over the real issues facing us. We have to get to first base and demand our media to - bring us the real goods. How will we know when we are on our way home? When people like George Murphy are not used by the likes of what's left of the Liberal club - when we elect people based on real positions and demonstrated commitment - not somebody who calls Randy, Bill, or Paddy and says I am a first time caller and I'm running for the Williams team. How about when we take stewardship to mean something more than a word on a sign and when we say as parents - it is not good enough to put a roof over their heads and food in their bellies - rather protect our children for all your worth from the partisan power brokers and the bobble heads who follow them.

If you do not protect the next generation - your children from this - most of these politicos won't. They make sure their children have a prosperous future another way - and that hurts us all.

Hats off George and I hope you don't mind that I "used" you for this blog post. I did so with all good intentions.

Polling Periods and Once a Week Rules

VOCM has adopted a policy during elections that a candidate can only call each program once a week. On Randy's show - ordinary callers are restricted to once a week plus free for all Friday' - ordinary callers on Bill's Back-Talk are limited to once a week unless there is an emerging issue with moving and new information. Linda's Night-Line is open to all ordinary callers every night.

These are the general rules and relatively speaking they are fair.

Four times a year for approximately two weeks each time a political poll is conducted. During this time Government abuses the time open to all of them on the programs for unpaid political messages or information which can be presented at a News Conference or by a News Release. It would then be up to each news agency to determine whether or not the story makes the line-up.

Polling periods should be curtailed in the same way as an election with this exception. Calls to the shows should be limited to one government member a week - with of course open access at all times for the Premier.

The Ministers have an ability and the resources to distribute News Releases and hold News Conference. They can attempt to sway political polls that way.

The government with inordinate amounts of taxpayer dollars - human resources - and political volunteers - does not need to "hog" open-lines as well.

This attempt to alter public opinion in two week "extreme" doses four times a year - is not warranted and takes away from the free and open "public" debate. Ordinary people have only these programs to regularly put out their points of view. To have that time diminished by any government - bent on "good" polling results - with millions in public resources for public relations is wrong. They will not stop themselves - so perhaps we should ask they respect the "peoples" time for discussion.

That's fair - right Premier?