The CBC Newfoundland and Labrador has reported this morning that Nancy O'Connor - Director of Communications for the Premier contacted Memorial University about the "Resign" Dwight Ball signs on poles prior to their removal by the Department of Transportation and Works.
In part O'Connor explains to CBC: "In my capacity in communications I reached out to my counterpart at
Memorial inquiring whether or not the poles belonged to the university
and if posters were permitted to be displayed on those poles," and "If the university did not permit the display of posters on those poles,
it would be a reasonable expectation that they would be removed."
The body of the actual email was:"Telling DB to resign ... Are these poles belonging to MUN or Power?
And are ppl allowed to put posters on them? If not can someone take them
down?"
Where do I begin?
If the communications director of the Premier does not know who owns utility poles in this province - she is not informed enough to serve as a communications director for any government department or agency. She might have visited the websites of Newfoundland Power, Nalcor, Telephone and Cable companies to educate herself.
What makes this worse is O'Connor's so-called expertise. She was a spokesperson for MT&L PR (Now known as "National") during the pro-Muskrat group development. In this regard she was listed as:
i) listed as Nalcor media contact for the response to Nunatukavut
complaints over lack of consultation on the Lower Churchill project;
ii) Listed as Nalcor media contact for panel hearings on the Lower Churchill development...
All of her work involving the promotion of the Williams project and she does not understand the distribution system of the province?
Nancy O'Connor a walking support mouth of the Muskrat project for Williams and company finds her way to be the comms director for the new Liberal Premier?
Nancy's expertise cannot be questioned as it relates to transforming herself to advance herself but it most certainly can and should be questioned as it relates to the important issues in this province.
Now let's look at this seasoned experienced professional's take on democracy. The most important thing on a Sunday morning for Ms. O'Connor was trying to get the Premier's face off utility poles? It was not why the pictures were on the poles? It was not why the people were infuriated with Ball? It was not dealing with the inflicted hardships of the budget? Ms. O"Connors concern was how do I thwart freedom of expression and protect my boss? It was to ask an independent academic institution - our provincial University to help - if they could in removing "Resign" signs?
‘Freedom of expression’ is one of the fundamental freedoms protected by section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 2(b) provides that everyone has “freedom of thought, belief,
opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media
of communication.”
In R. v. Keegstra,
([1990] 3 S.C.R. 697) the Supreme Court of Canada identified three main
objectives underlying the guarantee of free expression. First, free
expression is “instrumental in promoting the free flow of ideas
essential to democracy and the functioning of democratic institutions.”
Secondly, free expression is “an essential precondition of the search
for truth.” Thirdly, free expression is “worth protecting for its
intrinsic value to the self-realization of both speaker and listener.” Given the breadth of the underlying objectives, the guarantee of free expression has been held to apply to artistic, educational and even commercial expression, as well as political expression.
In consideration of all this Ms. O'Connor is trying to find an owner of poles who would thwart such expression?
Let's just say MU owned the poles and they did not allow posters. Is it O'Connor's most important duty to inquire of the University if they did and suggest they follow such rules?
I - we - pay her salary. She works for us. In my opinion - based on her activities involving the poles fiasco - she is not qualified to hold the position - particularly when we the people are paying her salary and benefits.
Now let's take a leap. If somebody in the Office of the Premier was trying to find a way to have the signs removed - are we to believe that some individual in the Department of Transportation and Works was thinking the exact same way at the same time - but no words, winks, nods were ever exchanged?
Showing posts with label premier. Show all posts
Showing posts with label premier. Show all posts
Thursday, June 23, 2016
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
"Sources told the CBC"
It's now day three of the investigation into the death of Don Dunphy.
This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.
Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.
Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.
I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.
Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good, that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.
There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.
Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.
The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.
In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?
1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication
This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.
I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?
We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.
Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.
A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family. Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.
We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.
We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.
It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.
On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.
This is Newfoundland and Labrador people - this is a very serious, disturbing, and critical situation. We must all be awake and alert to fully understand what took place on Easter Sunday in Mitchell's Brook.
Yesterday I made an argument that a judicial inquiry or coroner's inquest needs to be called on this event.
Today I will argue - that the investigation has been sullied and therefore the instruments available for an independent investigation are now limited to an inquiry or inquest.
I am deeply troubled as you should be that a "source/s" told the CBC that a long gun was aimed at the officer by Don Dunphy.
Let me state first - I believe in the anonymity of credible sources to the media - so as to ensure that information relevant to the public good, that might otherwise be swept under a rug - sees the light of day.
There are times however that sources use the media to set a stage - to manage - to spin - information that has not been properly vetted.
Yesterday two pieces of information became headlines provincially and nationally - the first was that a man was shot in Mitchell's Brook as a result of an incident that occurred when a member of the Premier's security detail was checking out a "threat" on Twitter. The second was that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer.
The CBC was told by some credible authority that Don Dunphy aimed a long gun at the officer. The Chief of Police and the Premier would not confirm that statement publicly. It is without a doubt a very compelling comment that may give rise to prejudicial and premature thoughts. It is without a doubt the very guts of what an investigation would be looking into.
In this case who are the possible sources that would lead the CBC - our national public media - to report such a stark and condemning piece of information?
1. Police authorities
2. Government authorities
3. The officer
4. Fabrication
This is not the type of information that would come from a person in the community - the term"long gun" is not normal Newfoundland language. It is more police speak and government speak.
I do not like the table set for me by people or authorities who wish to spin public opinion before the investigative process is complete. I do not want the partial truth - I want the truth. If this source was law enforcement or government - I do not believe an independent investigation by the police is possible. This "leak" of information is not acceptable. Who is responsible?
We need an inquiry or inquest to determine just such things.
Further - it is time that Premier Davis stop the media circuit - making comments such as he called the officer and offered him his personal support. Once again this is prejudicial and not something the Premier should be doing while an investigation is ongoing.
A man is dead - an officer from the security detail shot him - on his own property - the officer was investigating a perceived threat on Twitter toward the Premier or his family. Was the Premier's conversation with the officer recorded? It was inappropriate and could be viewed as interfering with a serious investigation. The Premier is a former police officer and his Chief of Staff a former RNC Chief - they know better than this. How did the Premier even know who the officer was? The public has not been told.
We must have an inquest or inquiry in order to maintain any level of confidence in the system of justice and to serve impartially both the officer and Don Dunphy.
We need an authority that can compel evidence - is in no way involved, and can be completely impartial.
It happens that our Premier is a former RNC officer and his Chief of Staff a former Chief of the RNC - this does matter and to ignore this ignores what could possibly be conceived as a conflict. The test for conflict must remain as perception.
On a side note - Power and Politics - Evan Solomon - the interview last night was unprofessional, incomplete, leading, and misleading. More on this later.
Monday, April 06, 2015
Judicial Inquiry or Coroner's Inquest needed
This is a very difficult and disturbing post I write. (NEW INFORMATION AT BOTTOM OF POST)
Yesterday Don Dunphy died at his home in Mitchell's Brook - St. Mary's Bay.
Don Dunphy was known to many on the local Twitter scene. Most knew he was an injured worker who was in terrible mental and physical pain. There were times when I would respond to his questions and even try to find a direction for him to take. There were times when I would block him - when I felt he was no longer interested in "normal" discussion regarding his situation. Clearly he had been in anguish for some time.
The struggle was very long and difficult for Mr. Dunphy. It was obvious he felt betrayed by a system and by elected officials.
I was eating an early Easter dinner with my parents when I noticed several marked an unmarked police vehicles zooming by with sirens on. Next there was one ambulance followed by additional police vehicles.
We were all hoping that if this was a vehicle accident - all were okay. The road to Mitchell's Brook is in horrific shape - no doubt for Mr. Donahue - a reminder of being left behind - uncared for - ignored.
There have been serious vehicle accidents on this road before. By the number of police vehicles present - it certainly did not look good.
Then came word via Twitter that there had been a shooting. There was a fatal shooting. All sorts of things run through your head when you are just minutes from the scene. Was this a domestic abuse situation? Was this an alcohol related event? It was awful. It certainly was not clear if there was any immediate danger to people in the community.
Then bit by bit details began coming out. When I drove near the site - I noticed a number of distraught people on the side of the road. Clearly this was and is a community in crisis.
The local media have been tweeting and reporting using one tweet from a thread of four consecutive tweets. We all know it's hard to complete a paragraph on Twitter - so quite often the use of one tweet without using the ones preceding it - on the same thread - can be misleading. This is not journalism. (I noticed the CBC has changed it's story - in an attempt to contain complete thread - but still not) - old story not available. When there are two people at a place and one ends up dead - how do we get the whole story?
Complaining about the media in this province is quite often futile as they hold themselves above criticism - they act like partisan politicians - and quite often try to demean or diminish the individual delivering the criticism. As with everything - this is not universal as some of them are above this behavior.
I have read the series of tweets - and being familiar with Don's use of words, grammar, and phraseology - I interpret it as there are 2 politicians who are already deceased - and if there is a God - it may have happened that way so as not to be able to enjoy their political pensions. Finally the tweet which is used by media as describing the "threat" - is Don telling the reader - he would name the deceased MHA's other than he did not want to unnecessarily hurt people in their family - who may well be "good" people. I did not and do not see a threat in the thread of tweets.
Journalists by profession - by talent - would immediately be looking at possible contexts of the thread and asking questions about the context they were being taken in. Unfortunately this was not the case to date - rather they have been repeating that a tweet was in fact a "threat". It was reassuring to see that some media outlets used the words "perceived threat" instead.
The natural questions that come from this event are as follows:
1. Who decided the tweets were in fact threats?
2. Who ordered the officer (reportedly from the Premier's detail) to show up to Mr. Dunphy's home on Easter Sunday?
3. Was the officer alone?
4. Was the officer in uniform?
5. Did the officer identify himself?
6. How did the officer get inside Mr. Dunphy's home?
7. Did the officer have a search warrant or arrest warrant?
8. Why didn't the RCMP conduct an investigation rather than a direct detail to the Premier?
9. Was this situation treated differently because the Premier is a former officer of the RNC and his Chief of Staff the former Chief of the RNC?
10. Were the RNC familiar with Mr. Dunphy prior to this event?
11. Did any of the RNC units investigate the potential that this individual was suffering from mental illness or extreme physical or mental duress?
12. What was the exact purpose of the visit to Mr. Dunphy's home?
13. Was Mr. Dunphy informed of this visit prior to the officer showing up?
14. Exactly what are the series of events immediately prior to the shooting?
15. Is there any video available of this event? Was Officer wearing a body cam?
16. Who will speak for the dead man?
Open Line, Back Talk, and Nightline have been an outlet for injured workers for many years and Mr. Dunphy did speak to the hosts via Twitter.
Anybody who observes Twitter must know that Mr. Dunphy believed the system was destroying him and that he certainly was very weary of politicians - who he felt did nothing for him.
This incident warrants a judicial inquiry - and must have one.
This government claims to be proactively dealing with mental health issues. If this is real and not a topic de jour - then certainly this situation must have a complete independent review.
If this government is truly serious about mental health and unnecessary consequences a judicial inquiry would be launched immediately.
Is there a lawyer representing Mr. Dunphy's family? Who will be speaking for him?
In Newfoundland and Labrador - if a member of the Premier's security detail actually shoots and kills a man on his own property - while being there because of a perceived Twitter threat - surely it is time to thoroughly investigate. We must have a judicial inquiry on this death or we must have a coroner's Inquest such as the one held for Ashley Smith in Ontario.
I watched carefully the interview with Premier Paul Davis just moments ago and am now more concerned about this situation.
More particularly when the Premier who knows an investigation is underway and claims to have been unaware of the tweet in question - decides to telephone the officer and offer his support. He has known him for a number of years he says.
New Questions:
1. Has the Premier jeopardized the integrity of the investigation by contacting the officer directly?
2. Is there any degree of separation between the Premier's Office and the RNC?
3. Davis says his staff controls his Premier's account and they would have been the ones who alerted police; so was that the former Chief of Police?
4. Why is the Premier offering his personal support to the officer at this critical investigative time?
Yesterday Don Dunphy died at his home in Mitchell's Brook - St. Mary's Bay.
Don Dunphy was known to many on the local Twitter scene. Most knew he was an injured worker who was in terrible mental and physical pain. There were times when I would respond to his questions and even try to find a direction for him to take. There were times when I would block him - when I felt he was no longer interested in "normal" discussion regarding his situation. Clearly he had been in anguish for some time.
The struggle was very long and difficult for Mr. Dunphy. It was obvious he felt betrayed by a system and by elected officials.
I was eating an early Easter dinner with my parents when I noticed several marked an unmarked police vehicles zooming by with sirens on. Next there was one ambulance followed by additional police vehicles.
We were all hoping that if this was a vehicle accident - all were okay. The road to Mitchell's Brook is in horrific shape - no doubt for Mr. Donahue - a reminder of being left behind - uncared for - ignored.
There have been serious vehicle accidents on this road before. By the number of police vehicles present - it certainly did not look good.
Then came word via Twitter that there had been a shooting. There was a fatal shooting. All sorts of things run through your head when you are just minutes from the scene. Was this a domestic abuse situation? Was this an alcohol related event? It was awful. It certainly was not clear if there was any immediate danger to people in the community.
Then bit by bit details began coming out. When I drove near the site - I noticed a number of distraught people on the side of the road. Clearly this was and is a community in crisis.
The local media have been tweeting and reporting using one tweet from a thread of four consecutive tweets. We all know it's hard to complete a paragraph on Twitter - so quite often the use of one tweet without using the ones preceding it - on the same thread - can be misleading. This is not journalism. (I noticed the CBC has changed it's story - in an attempt to contain complete thread - but still not) - old story not available. When there are two people at a place and one ends up dead - how do we get the whole story?
Complaining about the media in this province is quite often futile as they hold themselves above criticism - they act like partisan politicians - and quite often try to demean or diminish the individual delivering the criticism. As with everything - this is not universal as some of them are above this behavior.
I have read the series of tweets - and being familiar with Don's use of words, grammar, and phraseology - I interpret it as there are 2 politicians who are already deceased - and if there is a God - it may have happened that way so as not to be able to enjoy their political pensions. Finally the tweet which is used by media as describing the "threat" - is Don telling the reader - he would name the deceased MHA's other than he did not want to unnecessarily hurt people in their family - who may well be "good" people. I did not and do not see a threat in the thread of tweets.
Journalists by profession - by talent - would immediately be looking at possible contexts of the thread and asking questions about the context they were being taken in. Unfortunately this was not the case to date - rather they have been repeating that a tweet was in fact a "threat". It was reassuring to see that some media outlets used the words "perceived threat" instead.
The natural questions that come from this event are as follows:
1. Who decided the tweets were in fact threats?
2. Who ordered the officer (reportedly from the Premier's detail) to show up to Mr. Dunphy's home on Easter Sunday?
3. Was the officer alone?
4. Was the officer in uniform?
5. Did the officer identify himself?
6. How did the officer get inside Mr. Dunphy's home?
7. Did the officer have a search warrant or arrest warrant?
8. Why didn't the RCMP conduct an investigation rather than a direct detail to the Premier?
9. Was this situation treated differently because the Premier is a former officer of the RNC and his Chief of Staff the former Chief of the RNC?
10. Were the RNC familiar with Mr. Dunphy prior to this event?
11. Did any of the RNC units investigate the potential that this individual was suffering from mental illness or extreme physical or mental duress?
12. What was the exact purpose of the visit to Mr. Dunphy's home?
13. Was Mr. Dunphy informed of this visit prior to the officer showing up?
14. Exactly what are the series of events immediately prior to the shooting?
15. Is there any video available of this event? Was Officer wearing a body cam?
16. Who will speak for the dead man?
Open Line, Back Talk, and Nightline have been an outlet for injured workers for many years and Mr. Dunphy did speak to the hosts via Twitter.
Anybody who observes Twitter must know that Mr. Dunphy believed the system was destroying him and that he certainly was very weary of politicians - who he felt did nothing for him.
This incident warrants a judicial inquiry - and must have one.
This government claims to be proactively dealing with mental health issues. If this is real and not a topic de jour - then certainly this situation must have a complete independent review.
If this government is truly serious about mental health and unnecessary consequences a judicial inquiry would be launched immediately.
Is there a lawyer representing Mr. Dunphy's family? Who will be speaking for him?
In Newfoundland and Labrador - if a member of the Premier's security detail actually shoots and kills a man on his own property - while being there because of a perceived Twitter threat - surely it is time to thoroughly investigate. We must have a judicial inquiry on this death or we must have a coroner's Inquest such as the one held for Ashley Smith in Ontario.
I watched carefully the interview with Premier Paul Davis just moments ago and am now more concerned about this situation.
More particularly when the Premier who knows an investigation is underway and claims to have been unaware of the tweet in question - decides to telephone the officer and offer his support. He has known him for a number of years he says.
New Questions:
1. Has the Premier jeopardized the integrity of the investigation by contacting the officer directly?
2. Is there any degree of separation between the Premier's Office and the RNC?
3. Davis says his staff controls his Premier's account and they would have been the ones who alerted police; so was that the former Chief of Police?
4. Why is the Premier offering his personal support to the officer at this critical investigative time?
Friday, September 05, 2014
Election must be called by January 2015
If the PC's go beyond January 24th to call an election - they are ignoring the law. The House of Assembly Act was amended in 2004. This is the first time since - provisions for election upon the early resignation of a Premier - 3.1 - apply.
Where are the experts? Where are the authoritative opinions or interpretations? Our democracy and laws are at stake.
Here are the relevant sections:
Duration of House of Assembly
The people of this province must demand that the law be upheld and demand a ruling on the legislation.
Let's look at the intent - the law provides the establishment of a fixed election date - to provide predictability and stability in the election process and to reduce political opportunism. Secondly the law provided for an exception - in that it anticipates that a Premier could resign early. The law defines early as before the end of the third year. Given this eventuality the law prescribes that the fixed election date provision is no longer applicable and establishes a new process with limits. The limit prescribed is- not later than 12 months afterward.
The reason the wording "before the end of the third year" is used in 3.1 to outline timing - is that by the end of the third year the election is already set by law in 3.
Therefore the only meaning one can attribute to the word "afterward" is relative to the resignation date NOT the date a new leader is chosen and sworn in. Otherwise an election would never have to be held as long as he/she is not sworn in as Premier. That is also the reason the words "in either case no later than provided for in 3" are not used to define a new time limit in the event of a resignation.
The election must be called by January 24th 2015 and we must demand the law be followed. If this means going to the Lieutenant Governor or to the courts for interpretation - then so be it.
The reason for my review of the language again - this time - taking off the "loophole" blinders and giving credit to the drafters (Justice Department officials) - is because what was taking place by the PC's appeared to be in direct conflict with the intent of the law.
Additionally if one reads section 3.1 minus the wording between comma's which defines a new leader - one can see the intent was the date referring to the resignation. The only reason the inserted wording was used was to differentiate the authority of a new leader versus an interim leader.
Where are the experts? Where are the authoritative opinions or interpretations? Our democracy and laws are at stake.
Here are the relevant sections:
Duration of House of Assembly
3.
(1) Notwithstanding subsection (2), the Lieutenant-Governor may, by
proclamation in Her Majesty’s name, prorogue or dissolve the House of
Assembly when the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit.
(2)
A polling day at a general election shall be held on the second Tuesday
in October, 2007 and afterward on the second Tuesday in October in the
fourth calendar year following the polling day at the most recently held
general election.
Election on change of Premier
3.1
Where the leader of the political party that forms the government
resigns his or her position as leader and as Premier of the province
before the end of the third year following the most recent general
election, the person who is elected by the party to replace him or her
as the leader of the party and who is sworn in as the Premier of the
province by the Lieutenant-Governor shall, not later than 12 months
afterward, provide advice to the Lieutenant-Governor that the House of
Assembly be dissolved and a general election be held.
The people of this province must demand that the law be upheld and demand a ruling on the legislation.
Let's look at the intent - the law provides the establishment of a fixed election date - to provide predictability and stability in the election process and to reduce political opportunism. Secondly the law provided for an exception - in that it anticipates that a Premier could resign early. The law defines early as before the end of the third year. Given this eventuality the law prescribes that the fixed election date provision is no longer applicable and establishes a new process with limits. The limit prescribed is- not later than 12 months afterward.
The reason the wording "before the end of the third year" is used in 3.1 to outline timing - is that by the end of the third year the election is already set by law in 3.
Therefore the only meaning one can attribute to the word "afterward" is relative to the resignation date NOT the date a new leader is chosen and sworn in. Otherwise an election would never have to be held as long as he/she is not sworn in as Premier. That is also the reason the words "in either case no later than provided for in 3" are not used to define a new time limit in the event of a resignation.
The election must be called by January 24th 2015 and we must demand the law be followed. If this means going to the Lieutenant Governor or to the courts for interpretation - then so be it.
The reason for my review of the language again - this time - taking off the "loophole" blinders and giving credit to the drafters (Justice Department officials) - is because what was taking place by the PC's appeared to be in direct conflict with the intent of the law.
Additionally if one reads section 3.1 minus the wording between comma's which defines a new leader - one can see the intent was the date referring to the resignation. The only reason the inserted wording was used was to differentiate the authority of a new leader versus an interim leader.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Enough of the Bullshit
This week we heard our former Premier Danny Williams use the word bullshit to describe population projections for Newfoundland and Labrador by the Conference Board of Canada.
We also heard him dismiss Bill Barry completely for a run at the PC leadership.
Top that with a new legacy for his family announced with plenty of "Mile One" like fanfare.
What's bullshit is this:
I need a line here - and I need a line there. I need for you to be proud. I need a development on the lower churchill. You will be Premier - you will run - you will not run? We got it - we are have - we are cool, hip, and PROUD.
Grimes should shut-up - but I don't need to? Harper should shut-up - but I don't need to? The Conference Board of Canada - well that's bullshit - listen to my well researched statistics and projections instead?
Hydro-Quebec is good - Hydro-Quebec is bad - take em on - lace up the skates - go around em - through em.
I will fight with Abitibi - shag it if we lose two papermills? I will fight with Harper - shag it if we lose any number of things?
I will boot Fabian out (he supported his people)? I will remove Tom from Cabinet (for something he did not do)?
I will tell you when to be proud and tell you when it's over. I will tell what resources will be developed and when? I will avail of those resources myself - when I want and how I want?
The throne of God is diminished in his presence?
That's bullshit. It always was bullshit and remains bullshit.
I will tell the media when they can speak to me - what they can ask me - and dismiss them at my will - I will punish and sue and punish and threaten to sue - don't give a shit if it's valid?
Look at me - I'm Danny Williams - Look at me?
Bullshit.
We also heard him dismiss Bill Barry completely for a run at the PC leadership.
Top that with a new legacy for his family announced with plenty of "Mile One" like fanfare.
What's bullshit is this:
I need a line here - and I need a line there. I need for you to be proud. I need a development on the lower churchill. You will be Premier - you will run - you will not run? We got it - we are have - we are cool, hip, and PROUD.
Grimes should shut-up - but I don't need to? Harper should shut-up - but I don't need to? The Conference Board of Canada - well that's bullshit - listen to my well researched statistics and projections instead?
Hydro-Quebec is good - Hydro-Quebec is bad - take em on - lace up the skates - go around em - through em.
I will fight with Abitibi - shag it if we lose two papermills? I will fight with Harper - shag it if we lose any number of things?
I will boot Fabian out (he supported his people)? I will remove Tom from Cabinet (for something he did not do)?
I will tell you when to be proud and tell you when it's over. I will tell what resources will be developed and when? I will avail of those resources myself - when I want and how I want?
The throne of God is diminished in his presence?
That's bullshit. It always was bullshit and remains bullshit.
I will tell the media when they can speak to me - what they can ask me - and dismiss them at my will - I will punish and sue and punish and threaten to sue - don't give a shit if it's valid?
Look at me - I'm Danny Williams - Look at me?
Bullshit.
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Lift the Galway Shawl
As taxpayers and owners of vast crown land resources - we should be assured that the land sale to Danny Williams was indeed the best use of that particular asset.
We need to review the purchase process, price, and subsequent series of approvals for the publicized development.
We must determine what the value of the land would have been if the government - through its Crown Agency - had sought zoning changes for the land - prior to sale.
Further we should determine if the government - through its Crown Agency - should have subdivided the vast amount of land in order to attract more bidders.
The other issues regarding this development include;
1. Are there other existing business operations in the land area that may be negatively impacted by the development.
2. Are their agricultural interests that are or will be impacted by this development?
3. What are the water supply plans for this development?
4. What other business interests utilize the watershed area of Thomas Pond?
5. Are there any mineral exploration activities in the area?
6. Are there forestry interests being impeded by the development?
This project has not received enough media or public scrutiny - and when a politician is involved with the acquisition of the land - it is exponentially needed.
It is absolutely critical that natural resource deals provide the best return for the owners of that resource - the people of the province.
We need to review the purchase process, price, and subsequent series of approvals for the publicized development.
We must determine what the value of the land would have been if the government - through its Crown Agency - had sought zoning changes for the land - prior to sale.
Further we should determine if the government - through its Crown Agency - should have subdivided the vast amount of land in order to attract more bidders.
The other issues regarding this development include;
1. Are there other existing business operations in the land area that may be negatively impacted by the development.
2. Are their agricultural interests that are or will be impacted by this development?
3. What are the water supply plans for this development?
4. What other business interests utilize the watershed area of Thomas Pond?
5. Are there any mineral exploration activities in the area?
6. Are there forestry interests being impeded by the development?
This project has not received enough media or public scrutiny - and when a politician is involved with the acquisition of the land - it is exponentially needed.
It is absolutely critical that natural resource deals provide the best return for the owners of that resource - the people of the province.
Saturday, May 11, 2013
Who will be the next Premier? Do or Die Time!
There is little doubt that Dunderdale and Co. are on their way out - albeit a very long swan song. People across all walks are fed up with secrecy, arrogance, tribalism, and mismanagement. They are equally sick of the inept backbench and bumbling Ministers.
The costs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be astronomical and potentially crippling within a decade. Those responsible - of course - will be long gone and pensioned. Probably Florida golfing in the winter - or taking residency in another Province - for many of them dreaming of the great Senate seat to come.
They know they are leaving a mess that they will not have to deal with. They know there will be no cash and mounting debt. They know there will be an aged population - with no ability to finance the basic social needs of health and housing. They know education will suffer as fewer and fewer schools remain viable - particularly in rural communities. They also know that urban cities and regional centres will be challenged even more with the lack of affordable housing filled aging seniors homes, and crime. They know the population will continue to decline and numbers of children will be way down as we lose our brightest from this and the next generation to jurisdictions with vision. They count on the inevitable province of Atlantica to ease the mourning Newfoundlanders - shattered by the loss of their beloved Island. They know that Labrador - the resource mecca - will either partner with their geographical mate Quebec or sit as a new Territory. They also believe it will not grow much unless that partnership is with Quebec - and thereby ensuring some resource wealth will actually be used in the Big Land.
I say "they" and I mean those with the real political power - the puppeteers - the ones who are not overly evident in day to day commentary, news, or the House of Assembly. They are the ones who pull "saviours" out of their hat - for the weary voters to "believe" in. They are the corporate elite who find democracy to be a hindrance however more civil than the dictatorship they long for. They are the ones with no political ideology rather an ideology based on finance - their own to be exact - and control of crown asset wealth. They are the ones who can trigger responses in politicians by having a cup of coffee with them, or a round of golf, or in most cases patting them on the head and telling them they are doing well. They are the ones who creep their way into the bureaucracy of governments - so they can guide their intellectually lazy political masters - in a direction that suits their real agendas. Every now and then one of "they" gets caught and some end up in jail - despite the throngs of underlings willing to cover or do time for them.
So what are we left with? Well unless something very drastic happens to our political system or somebody - who is not able to be bought or manipulated - accidentally wins a leadership and then government - we are stuck with the misfortune above.
Getting Newfoundland and Labrador back on the right track is going to take a lot of doing and the decisions are tough. It is going to take a backbone of steel to take the necessary actions. The next Premier would have to be able to say no to fish pirates, Ottawa, mining wannabes, oil companies, and individuals like Danny Williams, Ches Penney, Brian Tobin, Dean MacDonald and their ilk. The new Premier would have to use his/her vision to represent the electorate and have Mandela like integrity - to save this place.
The new Premier has to smarten-up the population and be exhilarated by public education and intelligent debate. The new Premier has to believe that smart people don't only reside in one Party but reside across the political spectrum. The new Premier must be confident enough that others may duly criticize and from that grow a more enlightened understanding. The new Premier must serve the people and Newfoundland and Labrador - not the multitudes of outstretched Party hands seeking their interests above all others.
The new Premier must return the ownership of information back to the people and believe that by doing that may bring opposition but in the end lead to right choices. The new Premier must lead by taking knowledge by the horns and understand when the bureaucracy has been infiltrated by special interests "they". The new Premier must encourage knowledge and understanding of policies, legislation, and contracts.
The new Premier must believe in and practice true democracy. The doors of his/her office are as open to one ordinary citizen as they are to the corporate elite (they) and Party players. The new Premier must insure integrity within our systems of advocacy and not seek the unnecessary protection of their office. The new Premier must believe in the freedom of the press, access to information, and the shareholders rights in a Crown Corporation. The new Premier should seek to uphold all democratic procedures both in the House of Assembly and the Elections process.
The new Premier must be willing to serve his/her Province first - not seek to make nice with a federal Party or other Provinces. The new Premier must be willing to turn his/her back on issues of save Canada, Ontario, Nova Scotia etc. - there is already a federal system for that. If by chance a development in our province benefits others as well - fair enough but the new Premier must seek the best deal for us.
The new Premier must respect the people and believe that he/she is working for them not the other way around. The new Premier must understand that he/she is spending our money and bartering our resources and not use these both as if he/she is doing us a favour. The new Premier must celebrate successes with the people - all the people - and be willing to take significant responsibility for costly errors made with the peoples money or resources.
Many people in politics come in for all the right reasons and before long succumb to partisanship, party brass, one political party whip or another. Many politicians start by feeling humble and end up hiding behind the sullied apron of an arrogant "leader". Many people get into politics because it's the best gig they will ever have and the time is right under a guaranteed win. These individuals will do and say whatever is necessary to keep such an undeserved windfall and chase the Cabinet carrot around the room until dizzy. There are others who get into politics through encouragement of Party brass - praising them as necessary to place another puppet onto their stage of manipulation.
If you really have it - if you really can serve, lead, and are out of manipulative reach - you should apply. Will the rest of you please leave?
1. Do you have the strength to stop this Muskrat deal?
2. Do you have the strength to employ the brightest of the bright without partisan filters?
3. Will you truly seek to strengthen the lives of our most vulnerable?
4. Will you conduct yourself through independent education, investigation, and thought?
5. Will you strip the bureaucracy of industrial insiders, resume distributors, and partisan nitwits?
6. Will you release information to the people without nonsense of "proprietary" interest?
7. Will you recognize all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as shareholders of our crown assets?
8. Will you be the designer not copier of legislative templates?
9. Will you really maximize value of resource development for the people?
10. Will you recognize that native resources such as water, energy, forests, and minerals are stationary and therefore - those wanting to exploit them will pay maximum value?
11. Will you really be the CEO of our wealth and maximize profits for the shareholders - regardless that the shareholders are all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
12. Will you promise to deliver services from our revenues that are reflective of what the people want to spend their money on?
13. Will you seek to employ the best candidates for any position regardless of their perceived political leanings?
14. Will you truly consult with the people before making budgetary choices?
15. Will you protect democracy from those who wish to dismantle it?
16. Will you protect the integrity of our electoral system?
17. Will you take charge of the fishery and do what in necessary to offset the failure of Confederation regarding this wild resource?
18. Will you develop rural Newfoundland and Labrador through tourism, infrastructure, industry, and population?
19. Will you - in good faith - deal with pensioners, the public service, health professionals, educators, police, firefighters, correctional officers, safety officials, sheriffs and judicial staff, and Newfoundland and Labrador businesses?
20. Will you seek advice within your province when at all possible and not rely on "experts" who will deliver your desired outcome?
21. Will you give every Newfoundland and Labrador family an acre of Crown Land?
22. Will you give taxation breaks, grants, loans, and infrastructure to small local companies in the same manner you will to outside large corporate interests?
23. Will you end poverty for children and families? Will you protect children from abuse?
24. Will you seek to strengthen our democracy by passing whistle blower legislation, recall legislation, and legislation banning corporate and union donations?
25. Will you protect the environment for future generations?
26. Will you protect the people through the establishment of necessary search and rescue assets?
27. Will you do what is necessary to protect our province from Ottawa and refuse to give up anything else?
28. Will you demand a proper equalization system and demand inclusion in all federal government trade deals?
29. Will you demand compensation for mismanagement of the fishery and demand that Canada take custodial control of the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap? Are you willing to do what comes next if they refuse?
30. Will you allow the media proper access to information? Will you tell the truth?
If you are not willing to do these things - what do you want? A job? We're not hiring!
If you are not willing to do these things - move over for those who will.
We are collapsing - right now we need a leader not a saviour.
The costs to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be astronomical and potentially crippling within a decade. Those responsible - of course - will be long gone and pensioned. Probably Florida golfing in the winter - or taking residency in another Province - for many of them dreaming of the great Senate seat to come.
They know they are leaving a mess that they will not have to deal with. They know there will be no cash and mounting debt. They know there will be an aged population - with no ability to finance the basic social needs of health and housing. They know education will suffer as fewer and fewer schools remain viable - particularly in rural communities. They also know that urban cities and regional centres will be challenged even more with the lack of affordable housing filled aging seniors homes, and crime. They know the population will continue to decline and numbers of children will be way down as we lose our brightest from this and the next generation to jurisdictions with vision. They count on the inevitable province of Atlantica to ease the mourning Newfoundlanders - shattered by the loss of their beloved Island. They know that Labrador - the resource mecca - will either partner with their geographical mate Quebec or sit as a new Territory. They also believe it will not grow much unless that partnership is with Quebec - and thereby ensuring some resource wealth will actually be used in the Big Land.
I say "they" and I mean those with the real political power - the puppeteers - the ones who are not overly evident in day to day commentary, news, or the House of Assembly. They are the ones who pull "saviours" out of their hat - for the weary voters to "believe" in. They are the corporate elite who find democracy to be a hindrance however more civil than the dictatorship they long for. They are the ones with no political ideology rather an ideology based on finance - their own to be exact - and control of crown asset wealth. They are the ones who can trigger responses in politicians by having a cup of coffee with them, or a round of golf, or in most cases patting them on the head and telling them they are doing well. They are the ones who creep their way into the bureaucracy of governments - so they can guide their intellectually lazy political masters - in a direction that suits their real agendas. Every now and then one of "they" gets caught and some end up in jail - despite the throngs of underlings willing to cover or do time for them.
So what are we left with? Well unless something very drastic happens to our political system or somebody - who is not able to be bought or manipulated - accidentally wins a leadership and then government - we are stuck with the misfortune above.
Getting Newfoundland and Labrador back on the right track is going to take a lot of doing and the decisions are tough. It is going to take a backbone of steel to take the necessary actions. The next Premier would have to be able to say no to fish pirates, Ottawa, mining wannabes, oil companies, and individuals like Danny Williams, Ches Penney, Brian Tobin, Dean MacDonald and their ilk. The new Premier would have to use his/her vision to represent the electorate and have Mandela like integrity - to save this place.
The new Premier has to smarten-up the population and be exhilarated by public education and intelligent debate. The new Premier has to believe that smart people don't only reside in one Party but reside across the political spectrum. The new Premier must be confident enough that others may duly criticize and from that grow a more enlightened understanding. The new Premier must serve the people and Newfoundland and Labrador - not the multitudes of outstretched Party hands seeking their interests above all others.
The new Premier must return the ownership of information back to the people and believe that by doing that may bring opposition but in the end lead to right choices. The new Premier must lead by taking knowledge by the horns and understand when the bureaucracy has been infiltrated by special interests "they". The new Premier must encourage knowledge and understanding of policies, legislation, and contracts.
The new Premier must believe in and practice true democracy. The doors of his/her office are as open to one ordinary citizen as they are to the corporate elite (they) and Party players. The new Premier must insure integrity within our systems of advocacy and not seek the unnecessary protection of their office. The new Premier must believe in the freedom of the press, access to information, and the shareholders rights in a Crown Corporation. The new Premier should seek to uphold all democratic procedures both in the House of Assembly and the Elections process.
The new Premier must be willing to serve his/her Province first - not seek to make nice with a federal Party or other Provinces. The new Premier must be willing to turn his/her back on issues of save Canada, Ontario, Nova Scotia etc. - there is already a federal system for that. If by chance a development in our province benefits others as well - fair enough but the new Premier must seek the best deal for us.
The new Premier must respect the people and believe that he/she is working for them not the other way around. The new Premier must understand that he/she is spending our money and bartering our resources and not use these both as if he/she is doing us a favour. The new Premier must celebrate successes with the people - all the people - and be willing to take significant responsibility for costly errors made with the peoples money or resources.
Many people in politics come in for all the right reasons and before long succumb to partisanship, party brass, one political party whip or another. Many politicians start by feeling humble and end up hiding behind the sullied apron of an arrogant "leader". Many people get into politics because it's the best gig they will ever have and the time is right under a guaranteed win. These individuals will do and say whatever is necessary to keep such an undeserved windfall and chase the Cabinet carrot around the room until dizzy. There are others who get into politics through encouragement of Party brass - praising them as necessary to place another puppet onto their stage of manipulation.
If you really have it - if you really can serve, lead, and are out of manipulative reach - you should apply. Will the rest of you please leave?
1. Do you have the strength to stop this Muskrat deal?
2. Do you have the strength to employ the brightest of the bright without partisan filters?
3. Will you truly seek to strengthen the lives of our most vulnerable?
4. Will you conduct yourself through independent education, investigation, and thought?
5. Will you strip the bureaucracy of industrial insiders, resume distributors, and partisan nitwits?
6. Will you release information to the people without nonsense of "proprietary" interest?
7. Will you recognize all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians as shareholders of our crown assets?
8. Will you be the designer not copier of legislative templates?
9. Will you really maximize value of resource development for the people?
10. Will you recognize that native resources such as water, energy, forests, and minerals are stationary and therefore - those wanting to exploit them will pay maximum value?
11. Will you really be the CEO of our wealth and maximize profits for the shareholders - regardless that the shareholders are all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians?
12. Will you promise to deliver services from our revenues that are reflective of what the people want to spend their money on?
13. Will you seek to employ the best candidates for any position regardless of their perceived political leanings?
14. Will you truly consult with the people before making budgetary choices?
15. Will you protect democracy from those who wish to dismantle it?
16. Will you protect the integrity of our electoral system?
17. Will you take charge of the fishery and do what in necessary to offset the failure of Confederation regarding this wild resource?
18. Will you develop rural Newfoundland and Labrador through tourism, infrastructure, industry, and population?
19. Will you - in good faith - deal with pensioners, the public service, health professionals, educators, police, firefighters, correctional officers, safety officials, sheriffs and judicial staff, and Newfoundland and Labrador businesses?
20. Will you seek advice within your province when at all possible and not rely on "experts" who will deliver your desired outcome?
21. Will you give every Newfoundland and Labrador family an acre of Crown Land?
22. Will you give taxation breaks, grants, loans, and infrastructure to small local companies in the same manner you will to outside large corporate interests?
23. Will you end poverty for children and families? Will you protect children from abuse?
24. Will you seek to strengthen our democracy by passing whistle blower legislation, recall legislation, and legislation banning corporate and union donations?
25. Will you protect the environment for future generations?
26. Will you protect the people through the establishment of necessary search and rescue assets?
27. Will you do what is necessary to protect our province from Ottawa and refuse to give up anything else?
28. Will you demand a proper equalization system and demand inclusion in all federal government trade deals?
29. Will you demand compensation for mismanagement of the fishery and demand that Canada take custodial control of the Grand Banks and Flemish Cap? Are you willing to do what comes next if they refuse?
30. Will you allow the media proper access to information? Will you tell the truth?
If you are not willing to do these things - what do you want? A job? We're not hiring!
If you are not willing to do these things - move over for those who will.
We are collapsing - right now we need a leader not a saviour.
Thursday, April 18, 2013
To Engage or not to Engage - The Premier's Soliloquy
The quote below is from a Telegram story:
The premier said her Twitter account hasn’t been active for a year — purposefully.
“I have decided to disengage from Twitter,” she said. “I don’t mind if my cabinet ministers or my ministers or other people do it, but as premier of the province, I have taken the position, personally, that I don’t want to be engaged.”
_________________________________________
Engaged or not engaged - that is the question.
Whether tis nobler in the Premier's mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of trouble.
Well fair Ophelia - when you wanted, erected, promoted, and pontificated on the Office of Public Engagement - you should never have yourself become disengaged.
_________________________________________
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office, and the spurns
That patient merit of th' unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? Who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life, "Shakespeare"
________________________________________
Then Madame Premier - take upon yourself a real job,
unless thou layest thouself off.
Turn to Hamlet - ask that he place you upon a throne in Dannyville - wherein Costco will be close at hand. In that you can learn to engage, start by tweeting and then perhaps show thouself on the book of face. In there you might find an image of distaste and certainly,
________________________________________
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all,
And thus the native hue of resolution
Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought,
And enterprise of great pitch and moment
With this regard their currents turn awry
And lose the name of action. "Shakespeare"
________________________________________
Oh Ophelia of the lost Atlantica with power surging over the falls. Taketh and damn them all - make every last drop flow through your coffers so that your queendom will be secure. But do not seek the knight in shining armour for they all have political swords from which they will extract from you the bosom of your greatness.
To engage or not to engage that is the question.
The premier said her Twitter account hasn’t been active for a year — purposefully.
“I have decided to disengage from Twitter,” she said. “I don’t mind if my cabinet ministers or my ministers or other people do it, but as premier of the province, I have taken the position, personally, that I don’t want to be engaged.”
_________________________________________
Engaged or not engaged - that is the question.
Whether tis nobler in the Premier's mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to take arms against a sea of trouble.
Well fair Ophelia - when you wanted, erected, promoted, and pontificated on the Office of Public Engagement - you should never have yourself become disengaged.
_________________________________________
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Roger Grimes - For the Record
Former Premier Roger Grimes will join me on Talk with Sue tonight.
This will be a 90 minute program dedicated to the Muskrat Falls deal.
It will be an important conversation for a number of reasons:
1. As a former Premier - he is among a very few that can relate to the job that Premier Dunderdale has.
2. As the Premier who signed the Voisey's Bay deal he can relate to the listener - the comparison between that project and the current proposed Muskrat Falls deal, he can relate to the listener - the sanction processes used for such developments, he can relate to the listener - where potential conflicts may be, he can relate to the listener - former proposed deals on the Lower Churchill, he can relate to the listener - the balance that must be found between industrial development and the maximization of benefits to the people when developing natural resources, he can relate to the listener - his concerns regarding the proposed Muskrat deal based on his experiences as Premier, as a Cabinet Minister, and now as an ordinary citizen, taxpayer, and ratepayer, and he can relate to the listener his experiences with Hydro-Quebec and Quebec.
3. When he was Premier - Danny Williams was the Leader of the Opposition and demanded certain things in the House of Assembly relative to the Voisey's Bay deal - then Danny became Premier and since then Roger has been retired and is unable to directly participate in the upcoming House of Assembly debate. What would he demand if he were in the HOA now?
4. As Premier he was privy to many direct discussions and reports from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the state of power supply, the choices for new supply, the price of power both industrially and domestic, and the governance of Crown Corporations.
5. It will allow the listener to hear in totality the reasoning behind his concerns about this deal. It will not be interrupted by commercials or shortened based on time restrictions of other programs both talk-shows and news outlets.
This is the type of program that the new social media accommodates. It adds an additional democratic tool that people can avail of. It helps to offset the disproportionate time allotted to government spin paid for by our tax dollars.
More and more in the future we will see these types of programs and learn to use them for information, debate, and discourse. As our political system is now - with the apathy we suffer - we are going to need this medium.
To hear this program join me live tonight Press HERE
This will be a 90 minute program dedicated to the Muskrat Falls deal.
It will be an important conversation for a number of reasons:
1. As a former Premier - he is among a very few that can relate to the job that Premier Dunderdale has.
2. As the Premier who signed the Voisey's Bay deal he can relate to the listener - the comparison between that project and the current proposed Muskrat Falls deal, he can relate to the listener - the sanction processes used for such developments, he can relate to the listener - where potential conflicts may be, he can relate to the listener - former proposed deals on the Lower Churchill, he can relate to the listener - the balance that must be found between industrial development and the maximization of benefits to the people when developing natural resources, he can relate to the listener - his concerns regarding the proposed Muskrat deal based on his experiences as Premier, as a Cabinet Minister, and now as an ordinary citizen, taxpayer, and ratepayer, and he can relate to the listener his experiences with Hydro-Quebec and Quebec.
3. When he was Premier - Danny Williams was the Leader of the Opposition and demanded certain things in the House of Assembly relative to the Voisey's Bay deal - then Danny became Premier and since then Roger has been retired and is unable to directly participate in the upcoming House of Assembly debate. What would he demand if he were in the HOA now?
4. As Premier he was privy to many direct discussions and reports from Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, the state of power supply, the choices for new supply, the price of power both industrially and domestic, and the governance of Crown Corporations.
5. It will allow the listener to hear in totality the reasoning behind his concerns about this deal. It will not be interrupted by commercials or shortened based on time restrictions of other programs both talk-shows and news outlets.
This is the type of program that the new social media accommodates. It adds an additional democratic tool that people can avail of. It helps to offset the disproportionate time allotted to government spin paid for by our tax dollars.
More and more in the future we will see these types of programs and learn to use them for information, debate, and discourse. As our political system is now - with the apathy we suffer - we are going to need this medium.
To hear this program join me live tonight Press HERE
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Harper Enemy of the State? Premiers must take Action
I always begin my posts on the Prime Minister by reminding the reader that Stephen Harper is a liar. No doubt that causes problems in our nation - not the least of which is setting a very bad example for young Canadians.
Now our "leader" is threatening our country. How? Well this man who sits atop the Canadian political heap is shovelling sh-t (figuratively speaking) and tossing it on the masses below.
Once again this ne'er-do-well is saying no to yet another First Ministers meeting.
Canada consists of provinces and territories and under confederation agree to a federal presence in areas of joint service delivery, national security, and to a certain degree matters of law. Under such terms provinces and territories agree to a federal taxation base provided by personal and corporate interests. Considering the monies raised to allow a country to exist are garnered from these sources - it is necessary and only reasonable that these parties are directly involved in the allocation of those funds.
Harper's insistence on running a one-man state and his determination to design Canada in his vision continues to jeopardize both the national economy and sovereignty. Make no mistake the international corporate giants do have his ear - while the electorate does not. This is a recipe for disaster. Harper's obvious desire to be a CEO should be achieved in private not public service.
The Premier's for their part are starting to wear some of the blame here. It is unacceptable to be ignored by the federal government and therefore the provinces and territories must take action to correct this problem. The whining of these individuals to the media has not and will not achieve regular meetings with Harper.
As Quebeckers go to the polls my instinct tells me that this is a real problem for Charest and will become a bigger problem as the dog days of summer continue to the fall. This in turn may cause additional and constitutional problems as we head into the winter of our discontent.
The people of Canada elect their respective provincial governments and they fully expect these politicians to represent their interests in the federation. If they fail in doing so - the people look to the media for proper questioning of the situation. I cannot think of anything more important in Canada right now than the state of communication, collaboration, and cooperation between the PMO and the Premier's. This means a first Ministers meeting must occur at least on an annual basis.
Currently the aloof Harper is winning the battle without having to raise a sword. This is not acceptable.
The Premiers, media, and federal MPs have the responsibility to deal with this situation or run the risk that Harper's spoiled honey will stick to them.
Now our "leader" is threatening our country. How? Well this man who sits atop the Canadian political heap is shovelling sh-t (figuratively speaking) and tossing it on the masses below.
Once again this ne'er-do-well is saying no to yet another First Ministers meeting.
Canada consists of provinces and territories and under confederation agree to a federal presence in areas of joint service delivery, national security, and to a certain degree matters of law. Under such terms provinces and territories agree to a federal taxation base provided by personal and corporate interests. Considering the monies raised to allow a country to exist are garnered from these sources - it is necessary and only reasonable that these parties are directly involved in the allocation of those funds.
Harper's insistence on running a one-man state and his determination to design Canada in his vision continues to jeopardize both the national economy and sovereignty. Make no mistake the international corporate giants do have his ear - while the electorate does not. This is a recipe for disaster. Harper's obvious desire to be a CEO should be achieved in private not public service.
The Premier's for their part are starting to wear some of the blame here. It is unacceptable to be ignored by the federal government and therefore the provinces and territories must take action to correct this problem. The whining of these individuals to the media has not and will not achieve regular meetings with Harper.
As Quebeckers go to the polls my instinct tells me that this is a real problem for Charest and will become a bigger problem as the dog days of summer continue to the fall. This in turn may cause additional and constitutional problems as we head into the winter of our discontent.
The people of Canada elect their respective provincial governments and they fully expect these politicians to represent their interests in the federation. If they fail in doing so - the people look to the media for proper questioning of the situation. I cannot think of anything more important in Canada right now than the state of communication, collaboration, and cooperation between the PMO and the Premier's. This means a first Ministers meeting must occur at least on an annual basis.
Currently the aloof Harper is winning the battle without having to raise a sword. This is not acceptable.
The Premiers, media, and federal MPs have the responsibility to deal with this situation or run the risk that Harper's spoiled honey will stick to them.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Damn Kirby's Tweet - The Premier should Resign!
MHA Dale Kirby said that somebody lied in the House of Assembly! Oh my Stop the Presses!
And imagine he did not even identify who he was talking about!! Stop the Presses!
Kathy Dunderdale said not to long ago: “The criticism can sometimes be relentless, and from a small handful of people, but they tend to be very loud and scathing, and personal, and mean”.
These comments were about who? She did not name the individuals and therefore she labelled all local bloggers and people who call open-line programs.
I want her to apologize in the House of Assembly to the people of this province. I want the Premier to acknowledge that her remarks were reckless, unfair, and unwarranted.
It is more important that she apologize as she was making the comments about the people she is employed by. Absolute insubordination by our Premier.
AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALL OF THIS?
In my opinion the purpose is to deflect from her government's dismal performance on all levels. The purpose is to deflect away from the disaster on the Burin Peninsula and other rural areas of our province. It is to deflect away from the collapse of our fishing industry, and the fiasco which is the Emera deal. It is to deflect away from the loss of the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre, the loss of jobs in Federal parks and other federal offices. It is to deflect away from the Search and Rescue inadequacies and most importantly away from the loss of a young Labradorian's life.
AND NOW?
A Newfoundland fisherman gets ill at sea and the crew calls for a Doctor's assistance. The crew seeks to determine if they need a medevac. Their call goes to Italy! That's right people Italy! The crew is unable to get anywhere with the call and are left stranded with their medical emergency. Meanwhile...
From the Canadian Forces: 09/05/2012
HALIFAX – A CH-149 Cormorant helicopter from 103 (Search and Rescue) Squadron, Gander NF and a CC-130 Hercules aircraft from 413 (Transport and Rescue) Squadron from Greenwood NS are currently involved in a medical evacuation for a crewmember aboard Spanish fishing vessel, F/V Calvao, located approximately 445 kilometres southeast off St. John’s, Newfoundland.
Both aircraft were tasked early Wednesday afternoon, when Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC) in Halifax received a request from the United States Coast Guard ‘s (USCG) Rescue Coordination Centre in Boston to perform the medevac, as the vessel is in the Boston Search and Rescue region but Canadian assets were in closer proximity at the time of the incident.
This event is an excellent example of the close coordination that exists between US and Canadian Search & Rescue assets on a daily basis. To offer context, the distance from St John’s NF to the vessel is slightly further than the distance between Halifax and Sydney NS (434 km).
The Premier and her Cabinet should all be removed from office - the absolute dismantling of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the treatment of our province in this nation is all a result of the Premier, her Cabinet, and Caucus. Anything for the loan guarantee right? Who and what is driving this? We demand to know!
Premier Dunderdale if you want to deal with the word LIAR - deal with Stephen Harper who is a LIAR. His lies to this province will cost us billions. Deal with that!
And imagine he did not even identify who he was talking about!! Stop the Presses!
Kathy Dunderdale said not to long ago: “The criticism can sometimes be relentless, and from a small handful of people, but they tend to be very loud and scathing, and personal, and mean”.
These comments were about who? She did not name the individuals and therefore she labelled all local bloggers and people who call open-line programs.
I want her to apologize in the House of Assembly to the people of this province. I want the Premier to acknowledge that her remarks were reckless, unfair, and unwarranted.
It is more important that she apologize as she was making the comments about the people she is employed by. Absolute insubordination by our Premier.
AND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF ALL OF THIS?
In my opinion the purpose is to deflect from her government's dismal performance on all levels. The purpose is to deflect away from the disaster on the Burin Peninsula and other rural areas of our province. It is to deflect away from the collapse of our fishing industry, and the fiasco which is the Emera deal. It is to deflect away from the loss of the Marine Rescue Sub-Centre, the loss of jobs in Federal parks and other federal offices. It is to deflect away from the Search and Rescue inadequacies and most importantly away from the loss of a young Labradorian's life.
AND NOW?
A Newfoundland fisherman gets ill at sea and the crew calls for a Doctor's assistance. The crew seeks to determine if they need a medevac. Their call goes to Italy! That's right people Italy! The crew is unable to get anywhere with the call and are left stranded with their medical emergency. Meanwhile...
From the Canadian Forces: 09/05/2012
HALIFAX – A CH-149 Cormorant helicopter from 103 (Search and Rescue) Squadron, Gander NF and a CC-130 Hercules aircraft from 413 (Transport and Rescue) Squadron from Greenwood NS are currently involved in a medical evacuation for a crewmember aboard Spanish fishing vessel, F/V Calvao, located approximately 445 kilometres southeast off St. John’s, Newfoundland.
Both aircraft were tasked early Wednesday afternoon, when Joint Rescue Coordination Centre (JRCC) in Halifax received a request from the United States Coast Guard ‘s (USCG) Rescue Coordination Centre in Boston to perform the medevac, as the vessel is in the Boston Search and Rescue region but Canadian assets were in closer proximity at the time of the incident.
This event is an excellent example of the close coordination that exists between US and Canadian Search & Rescue assets on a daily basis. To offer context, the distance from St John’s NF to the vessel is slightly further than the distance between Halifax and Sydney NS (434 km).
The Premier and her Cabinet should all be removed from office - the absolute dismantling of rural Newfoundland and Labrador and the treatment of our province in this nation is all a result of the Premier, her Cabinet, and Caucus. Anything for the loan guarantee right? Who and what is driving this? We demand to know!
Premier Dunderdale if you want to deal with the word LIAR - deal with Stephen Harper who is a LIAR. His lies to this province will cost us billions. Deal with that!
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Bullying Works and Bullying is Rewarded - Right Premier?
The attitude of the Dunderdale administration is progressively getting worse. The underlying message is "we have the power" and apparently they will abuse it.
When we speak of bullies - we think of somebody who might be physically imposing or somebody who surrounds him/herself with goon-like followers. When we speak of bullies we think of people who abuse their perceived power by forcing people to accept their point of view or actions.
Bully is (noun): A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
Bullying is (verb): Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
Darin King continues to maintain his actions toward the FFAW. It is bullying - and he is a bully.
Kathy Dunderdale and Jerome Kennedy continue to force the Emera deal on Muskrat Falls down our throats - by bullying people who speak up against it.
Look at Stephen Harper - a bully and a liar - he also is the Prime Minister.
If our society accepts this continued behavior by our elected public servants - we cannot feign shock at the actions of children when bullying one another.
By accepting the unacceptable behavior of our politicians - we say to our children - bully bully and bully some more. If your child follows the lead of these politicians - they can expect that they may be elected, rise to the position of Cabinet Minister and may even become Premier.
By permitting our politicians to act this way - and in fact rewarding them with re-election - the message is clear for bullies - keep it up - you too can rise to the top.
When we speak of bullies - we think of somebody who might be physically imposing or somebody who surrounds him/herself with goon-like followers. When we speak of bullies we think of people who abuse their perceived power by forcing people to accept their point of view or actions.
Bully is (noun): A person who uses strength or power to harm or intimidate those who are weaker.
Bullying is (verb): Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants.
Darin King continues to maintain his actions toward the FFAW. It is bullying - and he is a bully.
Kathy Dunderdale and Jerome Kennedy continue to force the Emera deal on Muskrat Falls down our throats - by bullying people who speak up against it.
Look at Stephen Harper - a bully and a liar - he also is the Prime Minister.
If our society accepts this continued behavior by our elected public servants - we cannot feign shock at the actions of children when bullying one another.
By accepting the unacceptable behavior of our politicians - we say to our children - bully bully and bully some more. If your child follows the lead of these politicians - they can expect that they may be elected, rise to the position of Cabinet Minister and may even become Premier.
By permitting our politicians to act this way - and in fact rewarding them with re-election - the message is clear for bullies - keep it up - you too can rise to the top.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)