Last night was a spectacle to behold. Dwight Ball's Muskrat dinner was something to forget - if we could.
First let me thank some of the media for tweeting the latest Liberal Party function. Last night was a show of support for Dwight Ball by the party - thereby connecting themselves fully to his disastrous performance on the job.
From a media perspective - any journalist who is willing to portray that what the public (used to be naysayers, partisans, and conspiracy theorists) wants is an Inquiry is ignoring the so-called longstanding opposers to the project.
The indigenous people want the project to stop completely and they want specific material on the North Spur.
The longstanding opposers to the project want and are demanding a forensic audit now.
I believe most want the project to stop until an audit is complete so as the people can review all options for Muskrat Falls.
There is a strong belief that there is corruption, incompetence, straight up lies, hidden information, and incomplete data - regarding the project.
VOCM's question of the day - treats the public as if they got what they wanted with the announcement of an Inquiry. Then it encourages the public (based on that false assumption) to say what they want to find out from an Inquiry. Table #8 was Steele Hotels.
Then there is the permanent speaking note for Ball. "It's too late to stop it now". Then couched in - if I could I would tomorrow. Dwight Ball is just lying here. He uses Stan Marshall to back him up - so that he won't be responsible for that decision.
An Inquiry is going to review a project that will destroy us economically. An Inquiry is like reading a postmortem report. This is not what's going to get us out of this fiasco.
Next thing Ball's managers do is craft a little bit of we will get our way out of this through a new relationship with Quebec. In plain language - we are going cap in hand - completely vulnerable - to a savvy hydro giant to seek help. It means we are giving something else away.
Unbelievably but yet so - the amateur drafter of the speech must have been told that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are so gullible that if we throw in a Donald Trump reference - it will dissuade the discussion of looking at new political options. It must have taken Dwight's administrators some time to get him to understand how he could use the "specter" of "populism".
Finally let's look at the forum used to make such an announcement. Ball did not look to the media for live air-time to talk to the people and present factual data on why the project cannot be stopped or why an Inquiry is better than a forensic audit. He did not use a live appearance to explain why doing a forensic audit now and then being guided by those results to look at options - one being an Inquiry is not the right choice..
So Ball decided - or it was decided for him (he does not make decisions) that a Liberal Party fundraiser was to become a de facto branch of government that can be used when necessary to conduct government business. This is not an issue for the party - it is an issue for the province and her people. This was a disrespectful, idiotic, arrogant and despicable choice of forum.
As $500 a plate meals were served to those thriving off Muskrat - Ball thought he was talking to the people? No he was simply reassuring the corporate elite that despite what the people want - the project would continue and a forensic audit would be avoided right now.
All in all this was a kick in the face to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - and Ball does not mind being used to do this.
Dwight Ball lied last night. Dwight Ball lies all the time.
After he takes his knocks for this - the Party will present an alternative to his leadership - so they can carry on.
As for Siobhon Coady - her absence from all these "decisions" is an attempt to preserve her for another term.
Why Dwight Ball is doing this? I'd have to really look at who he is indebted to and for what. I can assuredly and confidently tell you he is a liar.
Showing posts with label john steele. Show all posts
Showing posts with label john steele. Show all posts
Friday, September 29, 2017
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
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.
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.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Motivate(ional) Questions for Dunderdale and Media
Funny to listen to talk a few talk show hosts, media, and politicians wonder aloud why the "opposers", "naysayers", "partisans", "conspiracy theorists", "armchair experts", and "idiots" are questioning the motives of those who support or comment positively on the proposed Muskrat Falls deal.
Well for months everybody who has opposed or questioned the deal has been called all the names above and asked what their motives are.
Okay - shoe is on the other foot.
1. Why would Ches Penney support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
2. Why would Cathy Bennett support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
3. Why would Dean MacDonald support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
4. Why would Peter Woodward support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
5. Why would John Steele support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
First of all none of the aforementioned or their like minded business colleagues are charged with ensuring that all of society benefits from the resource the people own. They are charged with making more and more profit not long-term benefits for ratepayers or future generations.
Second there is a distinct potential for them to make more money from this deal while asking you and I to pay for it.
Third - unlike average Joe or Josephine citizen - their investment activity is likely at higher levels and more diversified meaning that indirectly more money will flow to them and their families.
Fourth - if the worst happens and electricity rates go through the roof - each of them are likely more able to absorb the increases without changing lifestyle or having to choose between heat and food. Further the potential for direct personal/business gain from this proposed deal will outweigh their losses from an increased electric bill.
Fifth - It is most common for business to flock behind any industrial deal as has been evidenced globally and if the worst happens - governments are usually very receptive to bailouts for the elite of the business community.
The people who have publicly opposed the deal have been scrutinized completely right from whether they are or have been blue red or orange, may have interests in other energy potentials, or just plain naysayers.
Now that the "business" community has come out of the closet in support of this deal - perhaps they would like to share their investment holdings so we the public can examine their possible motives for such a position. Perhaps they can tell us if their companies are supporting the project or if it just a personal opinion.
Perhaps they could reveal if they have business interests in Nova Scotia.
Perhaps they could reveal if they or their corporate interests ever completed projects for government or ever received money from government.
We also might want to review information on political funding such as the example below.
In 2010 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,000.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,250.00 PC
In 2009 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,250.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,000.00 PC
In 2008 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 4,500.00 PC
In 2007 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 5,000.00 PC (G/E)
Or perhaps we need a more comprehensive look at what these people are involved in - that might make them support this project:
Dean Macdonald
Press Here or
Perhaps how the Danny Williams led government investment (untendered) money for Persona (Dean Macdonald) quickly became an enhancement for a Nova Scotian firm.
Press Here which quickly precipitated Press Here and then to Press Here
You see the deal is "good" may definitely be in the eye of a specific beholder. There is no equation that guarantees that when a particular business makes money from a deal = that society will also be better off. There is no guarantee that the people who own the resource (us) will benefit fairly and equitably because a corporation/s make/s money.
We have plenty of examples where corporations have done significantly well from our resources while we received less than equitable return.
Just so that we are clear - the information presented above does not even insinuate that the individuals are doing something wrong - what it does do is state categorically that what is good for them does not necessarily equate to what is good for you.
It does insinuate that government is not behaving in a manner that is expected from the people who employ them, elect them, and own the resource and is ignoring the genuine, educated, and entitled right of citizens to oppose, object, question, and protest any major public policy or resource development.
Extremism is not good in any society and at any level. It is not reasonable to expect 100% support from the people for any government policy, investment, and/or development - that would be extreme. Equally it is unreasonable for the Premier and government to ignore, condemn, or attempt to thwart all opposition to a particular development. This is extreme and the Premier and her government are guilty of it.
Make no mistake - when government policy is made regarding things like minimum wage hikes - the business community complains and is opposed to policy that might enhance the lives of many but reduce their own profitability. Business has no problem complaining and lobbying to lower taxation, reduce royalties, restrict injured workers benefits, and reduce government spending including a reduction in public servants and programs. It equally has no problem asking for investment dollars with minimum or no repayment of same. Business regularly asks to be exempt from secondary processing while having unfettered access to natural resources. All these things to maximize their own profitability - while knowing there are those who will not benefit as much or at all - if they are successful.
The question then becomes the role of government.
Dunderdale and team can trot out all the businesses they like to demonstrate support for the proposed Muskrat Falls deal but that is not the support they need for this project. They need the support of the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will be paying for the project. They need the support of the majority of ratepayers. They answer to and work for those who elect them. Businesses do not vote - people do.
The backup quarterback for Team Muskrat is another story. Danny Williams is another post coming soon. Is he now speaking as former Premier, the architect of the deal, a Director of a mining company, or an investor? The media should be certain to find out so that his commentaries on the project are placed in proper perspective.
Well for months everybody who has opposed or questioned the deal has been called all the names above and asked what their motives are.
Okay - shoe is on the other foot.
1. Why would Ches Penney support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
2. Why would Cathy Bennett support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
3. Why would Dean MacDonald support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
4. Why would Peter Woodward support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
5. Why would John Steele support the proposed Muskrat Falls deal?
Press Here for more background
First of all none of the aforementioned or their like minded business colleagues are charged with ensuring that all of society benefits from the resource the people own. They are charged with making more and more profit not long-term benefits for ratepayers or future generations.
Second there is a distinct potential for them to make more money from this deal while asking you and I to pay for it.
Third - unlike average Joe or Josephine citizen - their investment activity is likely at higher levels and more diversified meaning that indirectly more money will flow to them and their families.
Fourth - if the worst happens and electricity rates go through the roof - each of them are likely more able to absorb the increases without changing lifestyle or having to choose between heat and food. Further the potential for direct personal/business gain from this proposed deal will outweigh their losses from an increased electric bill.
Fifth - It is most common for business to flock behind any industrial deal as has been evidenced globally and if the worst happens - governments are usually very receptive to bailouts for the elite of the business community.
The people who have publicly opposed the deal have been scrutinized completely right from whether they are or have been blue red or orange, may have interests in other energy potentials, or just plain naysayers.
Now that the "business" community has come out of the closet in support of this deal - perhaps they would like to share their investment holdings so we the public can examine their possible motives for such a position. Perhaps they can tell us if their companies are supporting the project or if it just a personal opinion.
Perhaps they could reveal if they have business interests in Nova Scotia.
Perhaps they could reveal if they or their corporate interests ever completed projects for government or ever received money from government.
We also might want to review information on political funding such as the example below.
In 2010 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,000.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd St. John’s, NL $2,250.00 PC
In 2009 political contributions
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,250.00 PC
Pennecon Energy Ltd. St. John's, NL 2,000.00 PC
In 2008 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 4,500.00 PC
In 2007 political contributions
Pennecon Ltd. St. John's, NL 5,000.00 PC (G/E)
Or perhaps we need a more comprehensive look at what these people are involved in - that might make them support this project:
Dean Macdonald
Press Here or
Perhaps how the Danny Williams led government investment (untendered) money for Persona (Dean Macdonald) quickly became an enhancement for a Nova Scotian firm.
Press Here which quickly precipitated Press Here and then to Press Here
You see the deal is "good" may definitely be in the eye of a specific beholder. There is no equation that guarantees that when a particular business makes money from a deal = that society will also be better off. There is no guarantee that the people who own the resource (us) will benefit fairly and equitably because a corporation/s make/s money.
We have plenty of examples where corporations have done significantly well from our resources while we received less than equitable return.
Just so that we are clear - the information presented above does not even insinuate that the individuals are doing something wrong - what it does do is state categorically that what is good for them does not necessarily equate to what is good for you.
It does insinuate that government is not behaving in a manner that is expected from the people who employ them, elect them, and own the resource and is ignoring the genuine, educated, and entitled right of citizens to oppose, object, question, and protest any major public policy or resource development.
Extremism is not good in any society and at any level. It is not reasonable to expect 100% support from the people for any government policy, investment, and/or development - that would be extreme. Equally it is unreasonable for the Premier and government to ignore, condemn, or attempt to thwart all opposition to a particular development. This is extreme and the Premier and her government are guilty of it.
Make no mistake - when government policy is made regarding things like minimum wage hikes - the business community complains and is opposed to policy that might enhance the lives of many but reduce their own profitability. Business has no problem complaining and lobbying to lower taxation, reduce royalties, restrict injured workers benefits, and reduce government spending including a reduction in public servants and programs. It equally has no problem asking for investment dollars with minimum or no repayment of same. Business regularly asks to be exempt from secondary processing while having unfettered access to natural resources. All these things to maximize their own profitability - while knowing there are those who will not benefit as much or at all - if they are successful.
The question then becomes the role of government.
Dunderdale and team can trot out all the businesses they like to demonstrate support for the proposed Muskrat Falls deal but that is not the support they need for this project. They need the support of the hundreds of thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who will be paying for the project. They need the support of the majority of ratepayers. They answer to and work for those who elect them. Businesses do not vote - people do.
The backup quarterback for Team Muskrat is another story. Danny Williams is another post coming soon. Is he now speaking as former Premier, the architect of the deal, a Director of a mining company, or an investor? The media should be certain to find out so that his commentaries on the project are placed in proper perspective.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)