So much is known now about the Muskrat Falls fiasco - that even with the information we do not have - we know we've been had.
The perplexing question is how do we stop it?
Dwight Ball, Danny Williams, and those making fortunes on our bankrupt backs are counting on 2 things.
The first is apathy and the second is disorganization.
Let's talk about apathy. In the last CRA Poll of "decided" voters the Liberals held 40%, the PC's held 33%, the NDP held 24%, the Labrador Party 2% and the Greens (not a provincial party) held 1%.
Now the reality is that the undecided/refused was 43%, therefore the Liberals have support of 22.8% the PC's have support of 18.8%, the NDP have support of 13.6%, the Labrador Party have support of 1.1% and the Greens have support of .57%.
Part of this can be attributed to apathy and that suits the politicians just fine. Despite their protestations that voter participation should be higher - they are doing nothing really to entice those who either are sick of politicians or those who could care less.
Next we get to disorganization - a large chunk of that 43% undecided/refused are people who want to participate - but are so fed up with the big three choices that they can't commit to anything. They are also discouraged by the improbability that any new or marginal party would stand a chance.
There are twitter and blog trolls whose job it is to discourage active democratic movement - by simply saying things like "that won't work" "can't be done" "extremists and naysayers" etc.
Politicians are currently comfortable that this is all it will take to keep a real democratic movement from going forward. Why are they comfortable? Because the opposition to them is disorganized.
We have talented bloggers, intelligent tweeters, backroom experts, and call show gurus. They come from varied backgrounds and have personalities that are as diverse as you can get. They certainly have enough wherewithal to begin a new political movement. They could form a Cabinet that would make the current crew and the PC's before them look like rank amateurs.
For the most part - these people - many of whom have had political affiliations in the past - do not put Party in front of Province. They will take aim at the real issues and let rip.
The government (regardless of which one) will attempt to take some of them out with political appointments or engage them in another way to diminish the pool of articulate opposition.
In Quebec and other provinces - political movements are seen as advantageous and are encouraged. In Newfoundland and Labrador we have oodles of political minions who will take great pleasure in knocking them down. They don't have the capability to take them down on wits - so they get involved in name calling like "naysayer", "partisan", and/or "conspiracy theorists".
The other favourite pastime in Newfoundland and Labrador is to turn one of these people who oppose government against another who opposes government. This is done subtly - someone who knows someone says this about someone. You know - I'm sure you've all heard it. Then there is the politicians go-to, try and negatively impact the life of one of their antagonists. Yes - they do this - all the time.
The not-so-subtle approach is to just have a number of minions go beyond the normal types of insults and question a person's sanity - publicly. They also bring out "experts" to try and downplay the findings of a blogger - regardless of the validity. This public approach is also designed to deter others from becoming involved.
This is what we are dealing with. This is real.
Until the bloggers, the Tweeters, the backroom experts, and the call-show gurus (unofficial opposition) get together and plan some real action under real leadership - Muskrat and every other fiasco will continue.
We won't have a province left - but thanks to social media we'll have an historical account of the opposition.
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Showing posts with label twitter. Show all posts
Sunday, September 24, 2017
Tuesday, April 07, 2015
The shooting aftermath and truth
This afternoon we had an "update" from the RCMP regarding the shooting of Don Dunphy by an RNC officer on Easter Sunday.
The report appeared to be an attempt to answer questions posed by bloggers and tweeters - most of are which ordinary citizens.
I am an ordinary citizen and I want to believe in our system of justice - I want to believe that our police services are sound and professional.
I also know scrutiny of our democracy is essential for it's survival - justice too must be prepared for intense scrutiny by citizens for that same purpose.
1. There have been many instances where evidence has been collected improperly,
2. People have been wrongfully convicted,
3. Citizens with mental illness have been shot,
4. Police officers from both forces been found guilty of crimes,
5. People have died while being held in the lock-up or in penal institutions
It is for these obvious reasons we must always remain diligent and as a society ensure that our system of justice remains intact. It is incumbent on all citizens to watch carefully - probe if necessary - to maintain a reasonable level of confidence in the system.
As an RNC or RCMP officer - you know the perils of the job. It is a job with risks - and many times significant risks and it should be noted that:
1. Many police officers have saved the lives of innocent people,
2. Arrested people who ultimately have been found guilty of heinous crimes,
3. Have been killed in the line of duty - while serving to protect,
4. The majority of them have served and retired with impeccable records of service.
With the power given a police officer - it certainly follows the responsibility is great. You are permitted to carry a loaded gun on your person and may fire it and take a life if the threat against you requires that response. Taking the life of another human being is a pretty large burden. You must expect that scrutiny will follow and you must be prepared to accept and participate in that scrutiny.
One moment a man is alive and having a conversation - the next moment he is dead. That's permanent and painful to think about.
I have noticed many making comments such as "well if we can't trust the police", or "well why wouldn't we believe the officer", or in response to people asking questions "why does everything have to be a conspiracy". These comments are not responsible, not helpful, and frankly naive. Not everything is good and not everything is bad - that's why we need critical thinking, constructive probing questions, and healthy skepticism.
Today we are faced with a situation where one man is dead and the only witness to the event - shot him. It is extremely difficult for all parties.
The RCMP "update" today said that Don Dunphy aimed a gun at the officer. Am I to presume the investigation on that information is complete? I can only assume at this time that this information is what has been provided by the officer. Are the forensics complete? Are the angles of gunshot/s - positioning of the gun found by the body of Mr. Dunphy all determined? Has everything the officer said been completely vetted? What I heard from the RCMP officer in response to a media question was that he could not comment on whether the officer followed protocol and was justified to shoot. I also heard the investigation is continuing. The RCMP might have said - the statement given by the officer says....
The RCMP "update" also answered the question regarding communication between the RCMP and the RNC prior to the officer going to Mr. Dunphy's house. There was a determination - said the update - that the visit to Mr. Dunphy's house was low risk and therefore only one officer went.
Clearly something went wrong - for people to ignore that or brush it aside would be willingly ignorant. A low risk assessment ended in the death of one person - shot by the only other witness. This must be the worst possible outcome.
The CBC was taking a bit of heat today on the "source/s told the CBC" piece regarding Mr. Dunphy pointing a gun. Today the RCMP claim this was their belief. Why did David Cochrane and the CBC tell us a day before the police were willing to? This breeds speculation of spin and targeted messaging.
The questions regarding this tragic event are such that an independent inquiry of some sort should be called.
As a citizen - I want to ensure this never happens again. I want to ensure everything possible was done to avoid this outcome.
A inquiry is needed now to place a degree of separation between the two forces that determined the low risk assessment which resulted in one man dead and the officer who shot him - as the only witness. This is a mess and it needs to be addressed.
Let's look at the possible questions:
1. What type of assessment was done and who was involved?
2. What information did the police use to determine a low risk assessment?
3. Who determined that the best approach was to send in an officer from special detail?
4. Who determined that it would not be more reasonable to send in an officer or officers who Mr. Dunphy was familiar with?
5. Did the RCMP know that Mr. Dunphy had a gun?
and on the evidence :
1. Did Mr. Dunphy fire a weapon?
2. Where was the alleged weapon during the entirety of the officer's presence in the home?
3. When did the alleged gun appear?
4. Where was Mr. Dunphy when he allegedly pointed the weapon - where was the officer?
5. What exactly was the conversation between the two?
6. What was talked about immediately before the alleged change in Mr. Dunphy's behavior?
7. Is there any evidence of violence in Mr. Dunphy's past?
Obviously a hundred more questions could be asked.
As I write this - news reports PRESS HERE Contains graphic material
and in January of this year PRESS HERE
Everyday there are reports on both sides - officers killed in the line of duty and officers being charged.
What is paramount for our people and for our system of justice is that we achieve the best truth possible and work to avoid this from ever happening again.
Remember Judge Luther's findings of a judicial inquiry of 2001 - an inquiry on the deaths of two people - one shot by an RCMP officer the other by an RNC officer. PRESS HERE
There are things to be learned from the tragic death of Mr. Dunphy in his own home on Easter Sunday.
An independent inquiry is needed here regardless of the findings of the RCMP.
1. Who would interview the RCMP officer/s involved with risk assessment?
2. What can alleviate most doubt and concern as it relates to the only witness being the shooter?
3. What can we learn from the alleged sudden and unpredicted behavior of Mr. Dunphy?
4. What medical or psychiatric expertise exists on this alleged unpredicted behavioral change in Mr. Dunphy?
5. What can we learn about Mr. Dunphy's continued assertions about being a "tortured injured worker"?
6. Was the Premier's media circuit on the events harmful to the investigation?
7. What is the media's role?
There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon an officer who carries a sidearm. There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon that officer - when he determines a life might need to be taken. There must be a complete acceptance by an officer that scrutiny is expected following the death on another human being.
Let's use whatever tools are available to us to achieve this independent review. This is necessary for all parties involved and for the public to maintain confidence in the system of justice.
We all agree - we were not there - and therefore do not know what took place - let's try to achieve the best level of truth possible through an inquiry or inquest where information and testimony can be seen by all of us and recommendations can be made to avoid another similar tragedy.
When a life is gone - this is the least we can do.
The report appeared to be an attempt to answer questions posed by bloggers and tweeters - most of are which ordinary citizens.
I am an ordinary citizen and I want to believe in our system of justice - I want to believe that our police services are sound and professional.
I also know scrutiny of our democracy is essential for it's survival - justice too must be prepared for intense scrutiny by citizens for that same purpose.
1. There have been many instances where evidence has been collected improperly,
2. People have been wrongfully convicted,
3. Citizens with mental illness have been shot,
4. Police officers from both forces been found guilty of crimes,
5. People have died while being held in the lock-up or in penal institutions
It is for these obvious reasons we must always remain diligent and as a society ensure that our system of justice remains intact. It is incumbent on all citizens to watch carefully - probe if necessary - to maintain a reasonable level of confidence in the system.
As an RNC or RCMP officer - you know the perils of the job. It is a job with risks - and many times significant risks and it should be noted that:
1. Many police officers have saved the lives of innocent people,
2. Arrested people who ultimately have been found guilty of heinous crimes,
3. Have been killed in the line of duty - while serving to protect,
4. The majority of them have served and retired with impeccable records of service.
With the power given a police officer - it certainly follows the responsibility is great. You are permitted to carry a loaded gun on your person and may fire it and take a life if the threat against you requires that response. Taking the life of another human being is a pretty large burden. You must expect that scrutiny will follow and you must be prepared to accept and participate in that scrutiny.
One moment a man is alive and having a conversation - the next moment he is dead. That's permanent and painful to think about.
I have noticed many making comments such as "well if we can't trust the police", or "well why wouldn't we believe the officer", or in response to people asking questions "why does everything have to be a conspiracy". These comments are not responsible, not helpful, and frankly naive. Not everything is good and not everything is bad - that's why we need critical thinking, constructive probing questions, and healthy skepticism.
Today we are faced with a situation where one man is dead and the only witness to the event - shot him. It is extremely difficult for all parties.
The RCMP "update" today said that Don Dunphy aimed a gun at the officer. Am I to presume the investigation on that information is complete? I can only assume at this time that this information is what has been provided by the officer. Are the forensics complete? Are the angles of gunshot/s - positioning of the gun found by the body of Mr. Dunphy all determined? Has everything the officer said been completely vetted? What I heard from the RCMP officer in response to a media question was that he could not comment on whether the officer followed protocol and was justified to shoot. I also heard the investigation is continuing. The RCMP might have said - the statement given by the officer says....
The RCMP "update" also answered the question regarding communication between the RCMP and the RNC prior to the officer going to Mr. Dunphy's house. There was a determination - said the update - that the visit to Mr. Dunphy's house was low risk and therefore only one officer went.
Clearly something went wrong - for people to ignore that or brush it aside would be willingly ignorant. A low risk assessment ended in the death of one person - shot by the only other witness. This must be the worst possible outcome.
The CBC was taking a bit of heat today on the "source/s told the CBC" piece regarding Mr. Dunphy pointing a gun. Today the RCMP claim this was their belief. Why did David Cochrane and the CBC tell us a day before the police were willing to? This breeds speculation of spin and targeted messaging.
The questions regarding this tragic event are such that an independent inquiry of some sort should be called.
As a citizen - I want to ensure this never happens again. I want to ensure everything possible was done to avoid this outcome.
A inquiry is needed now to place a degree of separation between the two forces that determined the low risk assessment which resulted in one man dead and the officer who shot him - as the only witness. This is a mess and it needs to be addressed.
Let's look at the possible questions:
1. What type of assessment was done and who was involved?
2. What information did the police use to determine a low risk assessment?
3. Who determined that the best approach was to send in an officer from special detail?
4. Who determined that it would not be more reasonable to send in an officer or officers who Mr. Dunphy was familiar with?
5. Did the RCMP know that Mr. Dunphy had a gun?
and on the evidence :
1. Did Mr. Dunphy fire a weapon?
2. Where was the alleged weapon during the entirety of the officer's presence in the home?
3. When did the alleged gun appear?
4. Where was Mr. Dunphy when he allegedly pointed the weapon - where was the officer?
5. What exactly was the conversation between the two?
6. What was talked about immediately before the alleged change in Mr. Dunphy's behavior?
7. Is there any evidence of violence in Mr. Dunphy's past?
Obviously a hundred more questions could be asked.
As I write this - news reports PRESS HERE Contains graphic material
and in January of this year PRESS HERE
Everyday there are reports on both sides - officers killed in the line of duty and officers being charged.
What is paramount for our people and for our system of justice is that we achieve the best truth possible and work to avoid this from ever happening again.
Remember Judge Luther's findings of a judicial inquiry of 2001 - an inquiry on the deaths of two people - one shot by an RCMP officer the other by an RNC officer. PRESS HERE
There are things to be learned from the tragic death of Mr. Dunphy in his own home on Easter Sunday.
An independent inquiry is needed here regardless of the findings of the RCMP.
1. Who would interview the RCMP officer/s involved with risk assessment?
2. What can alleviate most doubt and concern as it relates to the only witness being the shooter?
3. What can we learn from the alleged sudden and unpredicted behavior of Mr. Dunphy?
4. What medical or psychiatric expertise exists on this alleged unpredicted behavioral change in Mr. Dunphy?
5. What can we learn about Mr. Dunphy's continued assertions about being a "tortured injured worker"?
6. Was the Premier's media circuit on the events harmful to the investigation?
7. What is the media's role?
There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon an officer who carries a sidearm. There is a great burden of responsibility placed upon that officer - when he determines a life might need to be taken. There must be a complete acceptance by an officer that scrutiny is expected following the death on another human being.
Let's use whatever tools are available to us to achieve this independent review. This is necessary for all parties involved and for the public to maintain confidence in the system of justice.
We all agree - we were not there - and therefore do not know what took place - let's try to achieve the best level of truth possible through an inquiry or inquest where information and testimony can be seen by all of us and recommendations can be made to avoid another similar tragedy.
When a life is gone - this is the least we can do.
"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.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Kent reveals Tory problem
After seven by-election losses in a row - the Tories are on their way out. Many of them understand what the people are saying and are planning their retirements in one way or another.
What happened to the PC's?
Media and some pundits credit the loss of public support to Danny Williams departure. I don't accept that reasoning rather I credit the downfall to Danny Williams leadership style and policies.
In my opinion - Williams enjoyed being surrounded by weak people (those who would not dare defy him) and eliminating those who might. (Beth Marshall, Paul Shelley, Tom Osborne and Fabian Manning) Danny did not build a strong leadership pool nor did he take the time to consult or include grass-roots Tories. I believe it was after all - all about him.
Danny's policy choices - most importantly - Muskrat Falls - have not been embraced by the people. Williams pot of money for governing was huge - oil revenues galore and let's not forget the benefits of Voisey's. These were Liberal deals and timing made it his administrations money.
How he spent that money - on behalf of the people - did not equate into anything more than quick wealth on the Avalon and a wonderful market to build houses in.
We are in debt trouble, we are in deficit trouble, we are in demographic trouble, and we are in free fall. Highly doubtful that his Galway community is going to be the golden touch project he thought it might be.
People are very concerned about Muskrat Falls - the cost - the purpose - and most importantly the giveaway. Our resources should be used to grow our population - create long-term well paying jobs. It was Danny who was champion of this concept while in Opposition. Then how do we explain his fisheries, forestry, mining, and hydro policies? We can't because - once Premier - the giveaways were okay.
In what I refer to as Danny's decade - the province has not enjoyed growth in any real way. They all pump up the GDP - but who cares if that indicator is in isolation from other meaningful indicators such as population growth and age. Growth on the Avalon is attributed to shrinking in rural populations.
The former Premier got out before the crap hit the fan - but before he did - he groomed weak people to continue his path. His first was Kathy Dunderdale. The joy and pride of being Danny's chosen one was evident from day one. She would carry the Muskrat torch to the end - while he would carry on with his business interests - power to the Avalon and mining in Labrador.
His other political weaklings included Kennedy, Marshall, Kent, Johnson, Sullivan, Shea, and King (essentially the Cabinet base) were somehow of the belief somehow that they had a crack at the top job now.
When the day came however for a leadership race - they ran away - hid under Danny's coattails once again and allowed an "interim" Premier who did not want the job (supposedly) to actually win - uncontested. The beginning of the end.
As all political weaklings do - as party fortunes were changing - they pointed a finger at somebody else - not them - no not them. A bunch of children standing in front of a broken window.
Eventually their finger pointing and whispers caught on with an uninspired media and we were advised that Kathy Dunderdale had problems communicating the "really good" things they were doing.
As with gutless bullies in packs - they worked on Dunderdale until she left. There they sighed - all must be good now right?
Onward to a leadership election - while nice man Tom kept the Williams adoration embers burning. Minus their political guru Danny - the guys and gals did not know which way was up - they did not know which way to go. We had speculation on a dozen or so within the PC caucus who were thinking about it. One by one they dropped off - as the collective wisdom determined they needed a fresh face - somebody from outside. So Wayne Bennett and Bill Barry stepped forward while Danny's Cabinet flourished being followers. Barry came out bold - aggressive - unpolished while Bennett annoyed the Party brass.
As might be expected when the weak did not know what to do - Danny stepped in and proclaimed Barry unfit for leadership and indirectly pushed for a fellow named Frank Coleman. As with all good sheep the caucus followed and proceeded to prepare for a Frank coronation despite the presence of a formidable opponent (Barry).
We heard excuse after excuse from former wannabe leaders within the sitting rank and file - ranging from "not my time" to "health" to "family priorities".
Meanwhile Barry was fighting a losing battle in a delegated convention wherein his commentary to the people of the province really did not matter if the Party brass was orchestrating a winner.
Many people asked why Coleman - a political neophyte - by reports private family and business man would throw himself under the bright lights of politics. This was quickly followed by awkward appearances of a man who appeared quite friendly but out of his comfort zone.
Barry following the condemnation by the great one and in true gritty business style - weighed his odds and determined the risk was unfitting the unlikely reward. Barry quit leaving Coleman as an unwilling political deer in headlights. What followed was not able to be scripted. Coleman became Premier in waiting - even starting to put together staff for his 8th floor domain. Then like an unpredicted failure of a detonation test - HVP - came to the fore. I think it's fair to say the Coleman will be remembered in Newfoundland and Labrador for performance bonds related to a paving contract not for almost becoming Premier. As quick as you could say "cheese" for a photograph - we had the sad picture of Coleman's back as he walked away from his indescribably short political stint.
Now what? Well the wannabes who all had excuses they wanted us to believe just a month or two before - shed those reasons and came flying back to the leadership race. Once again we had the speculation of who was running - who was supporting - who had a chance. In the end - and after another stint with the nice man - there was Ottenheimer, Davis, and Kent. The once held idea of a new fresh face was replaced with the need for experience. Ironically the same weaklings who just a month before were willing to accept a fellow who had never sought political office before were now questioning the option of Ottenheimer because he did not have a seat in the legislature.
When Steve Kent started his political climb - I remember a young man tenting on the corner of streets with a sign - asking the people of Mount Pearl to support him for Council. It must have been a real power rush - some years later - to find himself a political traffic cop on the corner directing leadership. Here he was - a new man - at the heart of political power in the province - a kingmaker. Kent relished it - played it up - played coy - loved the attention and could not believe he was actually in a position to broker his own political pinnacle.
Ottenheimer claimed the fix was in - Davis and Kent denied it and then in a joyous coming-out paraded it on the convention floor. Shortly thereafter he became Deputy Premier. Did this new power go to his head? Unfortunately yes - culminating in Tweets last night after his party's loss of two more by-elections. Here they are:
1. What's next? You're going to see bold, progressive leadership from@PaulDavisNL and the @PCPartyNL. We've got big plans for this province.
2. There was no honeymoon period for our new Premier. That's life. A lot can change over the next year. Things change fast in politics.#NLpoli
3. Our Party still has a clear majority. We still plan to bring in a Throne Speech and a Budget. We will govern. We will lead.
4. The transformation in NL over the last decade has been nothing short of extraordinary. We're still the best party to govern.#PCNL #NLpoli
Unfortunately his words represent what IS wrong with the Tories. The real problem. He in essence has concluded the following: we don't care what the people think - we are right, we don't care what the people say we will lead anyway, we own the province and we are going to do what we want - what we think is best, and in spite of the people we are in power and plan to keep it that way.
Unfortunately the tweets also have a ring of desperation in them. That is because Kent believes that politics is a career rather than a period of public service. Career politicians are not helpful - not insightful - not life experienced - and not leaders. They expect a leader to perform for them - to ensure the longevity of the benefits both financial and social that politics and the people have provided.
Kent personifies the Tory problem - imagine if he is the only Tory seat left after the next general election. He does not like the prospect and it shows.
I believe the real strings of the Tory machine are well above Kent's power level. While he might be seen as a pliable one of those strings the puppeteers simply want to keep power for other more tangible business reasons. That's a sphere than Kent will never be allowed to enter - but he can certainly man the coat-check for those entering the real corridors of power.
What happened to the PC's?
Media and some pundits credit the loss of public support to Danny Williams departure. I don't accept that reasoning rather I credit the downfall to Danny Williams leadership style and policies.
In my opinion - Williams enjoyed being surrounded by weak people (those who would not dare defy him) and eliminating those who might. (Beth Marshall, Paul Shelley, Tom Osborne and Fabian Manning) Danny did not build a strong leadership pool nor did he take the time to consult or include grass-roots Tories. I believe it was after all - all about him.
Danny's policy choices - most importantly - Muskrat Falls - have not been embraced by the people. Williams pot of money for governing was huge - oil revenues galore and let's not forget the benefits of Voisey's. These were Liberal deals and timing made it his administrations money.
How he spent that money - on behalf of the people - did not equate into anything more than quick wealth on the Avalon and a wonderful market to build houses in.
We are in debt trouble, we are in deficit trouble, we are in demographic trouble, and we are in free fall. Highly doubtful that his Galway community is going to be the golden touch project he thought it might be.
People are very concerned about Muskrat Falls - the cost - the purpose - and most importantly the giveaway. Our resources should be used to grow our population - create long-term well paying jobs. It was Danny who was champion of this concept while in Opposition. Then how do we explain his fisheries, forestry, mining, and hydro policies? We can't because - once Premier - the giveaways were okay.
In what I refer to as Danny's decade - the province has not enjoyed growth in any real way. They all pump up the GDP - but who cares if that indicator is in isolation from other meaningful indicators such as population growth and age. Growth on the Avalon is attributed to shrinking in rural populations.
The former Premier got out before the crap hit the fan - but before he did - he groomed weak people to continue his path. His first was Kathy Dunderdale. The joy and pride of being Danny's chosen one was evident from day one. She would carry the Muskrat torch to the end - while he would carry on with his business interests - power to the Avalon and mining in Labrador.
His other political weaklings included Kennedy, Marshall, Kent, Johnson, Sullivan, Shea, and King (essentially the Cabinet base) were somehow of the belief somehow that they had a crack at the top job now.
When the day came however for a leadership race - they ran away - hid under Danny's coattails once again and allowed an "interim" Premier who did not want the job (supposedly) to actually win - uncontested. The beginning of the end.
As all political weaklings do - as party fortunes were changing - they pointed a finger at somebody else - not them - no not them. A bunch of children standing in front of a broken window.
Eventually their finger pointing and whispers caught on with an uninspired media and we were advised that Kathy Dunderdale had problems communicating the "really good" things they were doing.
As with gutless bullies in packs - they worked on Dunderdale until she left. There they sighed - all must be good now right?
Onward to a leadership election - while nice man Tom kept the Williams adoration embers burning. Minus their political guru Danny - the guys and gals did not know which way was up - they did not know which way to go. We had speculation on a dozen or so within the PC caucus who were thinking about it. One by one they dropped off - as the collective wisdom determined they needed a fresh face - somebody from outside. So Wayne Bennett and Bill Barry stepped forward while Danny's Cabinet flourished being followers. Barry came out bold - aggressive - unpolished while Bennett annoyed the Party brass.
As might be expected when the weak did not know what to do - Danny stepped in and proclaimed Barry unfit for leadership and indirectly pushed for a fellow named Frank Coleman. As with all good sheep the caucus followed and proceeded to prepare for a Frank coronation despite the presence of a formidable opponent (Barry).
We heard excuse after excuse from former wannabe leaders within the sitting rank and file - ranging from "not my time" to "health" to "family priorities".
Meanwhile Barry was fighting a losing battle in a delegated convention wherein his commentary to the people of the province really did not matter if the Party brass was orchestrating a winner.
Many people asked why Coleman - a political neophyte - by reports private family and business man would throw himself under the bright lights of politics. This was quickly followed by awkward appearances of a man who appeared quite friendly but out of his comfort zone.
Barry following the condemnation by the great one and in true gritty business style - weighed his odds and determined the risk was unfitting the unlikely reward. Barry quit leaving Coleman as an unwilling political deer in headlights. What followed was not able to be scripted. Coleman became Premier in waiting - even starting to put together staff for his 8th floor domain. Then like an unpredicted failure of a detonation test - HVP - came to the fore. I think it's fair to say the Coleman will be remembered in Newfoundland and Labrador for performance bonds related to a paving contract not for almost becoming Premier. As quick as you could say "cheese" for a photograph - we had the sad picture of Coleman's back as he walked away from his indescribably short political stint.
Now what? Well the wannabes who all had excuses they wanted us to believe just a month or two before - shed those reasons and came flying back to the leadership race. Once again we had the speculation of who was running - who was supporting - who had a chance. In the end - and after another stint with the nice man - there was Ottenheimer, Davis, and Kent. The once held idea of a new fresh face was replaced with the need for experience. Ironically the same weaklings who just a month before were willing to accept a fellow who had never sought political office before were now questioning the option of Ottenheimer because he did not have a seat in the legislature.
When Steve Kent started his political climb - I remember a young man tenting on the corner of streets with a sign - asking the people of Mount Pearl to support him for Council. It must have been a real power rush - some years later - to find himself a political traffic cop on the corner directing leadership. Here he was - a new man - at the heart of political power in the province - a kingmaker. Kent relished it - played it up - played coy - loved the attention and could not believe he was actually in a position to broker his own political pinnacle.
Ottenheimer claimed the fix was in - Davis and Kent denied it and then in a joyous coming-out paraded it on the convention floor. Shortly thereafter he became Deputy Premier. Did this new power go to his head? Unfortunately yes - culminating in Tweets last night after his party's loss of two more by-elections. Here they are:
1. What's next? You're going to see bold, progressive leadership from
2. There was no honeymoon period for our new Premier. That's life. A lot can change over the next year. Things change fast in politics.
3. Our Party still has a clear majority. We still plan to bring in a Throne Speech and a Budget. We will govern. We will lead.
4. The transformation in NL over the last decade has been nothing short of extraordinary. We're still the best party to govern.
Unfortunately his words represent what IS wrong with the Tories. The real problem. He in essence has concluded the following: we don't care what the people think - we are right, we don't care what the people say we will lead anyway, we own the province and we are going to do what we want - what we think is best, and in spite of the people we are in power and plan to keep it that way.
Unfortunately the tweets also have a ring of desperation in them. That is because Kent believes that politics is a career rather than a period of public service. Career politicians are not helpful - not insightful - not life experienced - and not leaders. They expect a leader to perform for them - to ensure the longevity of the benefits both financial and social that politics and the people have provided.
Kent personifies the Tory problem - imagine if he is the only Tory seat left after the next general election. He does not like the prospect and it shows.
I believe the real strings of the Tory machine are well above Kent's power level. While he might be seen as a pliable one of those strings the puppeteers simply want to keep power for other more tangible business reasons. That's a sphere than Kent will never be allowed to enter - but he can certainly man the coat-check for those entering the real corridors of power.
Monday, January 27, 2014
O'Brien and Sullivan Communications 101
Last week David Cochrane interviewed Ministers Sullivan and O'Brien regarding - in part - the resignation of Kathy Dunderdale and what went wrong.
First off they both admitted that Kathy Dunderdale told them that she would resign before the next election. To the contrary Kathy Dunderdale told the people of the province and hundreds of PC delegates just a few months ago that she was staying put for the next election.
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?
Yes she told certain people she was going and others she was staying.
Second - Sullivan indicated that Kathy resigned mostly for the good of the party - to allow them to reorganize - regroup - and refresh. From what? Your party is not governed by polls is it? That's what you claim.
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?
Yes she said one thing one day and then did something contrary to that which was said the next. Further Sullivan's thought on refreshing - hardly seems likely when she and O'Brien remain. Why didn't they leave for the good of the party? They were as responsible for decisions - as Cabinet Ministers - as the Premier was. David referred to both O'Brien and Sullivan as strong supporters of the Premier - perhaps because they put forth just that. If you watch the interview however - if they are her friends - she doesn't need enemies.
Third - Kevin O'Brien claims that she was the first Premier who encountered social media. Really? I remember a significant load of it on former Premier Danny Williams. Be that as it may O'Brien exclaimed that it (social media) was used entirely against her.
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?
Yes - it is false and misleading. Actually it's a lie. It's doubtful Kent, Lane, and Collins have fingerprints left from Twitter presence - notwithstanding loyal Tories tweeting with vigor and venom.
Fourth - Then Kevin O'Brien adds that part of her problem was the "hostile media". Cochrane challenged him on that and then said "no not really".
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?
Guess that one's pretty simple. Propaganda - called on it - then withdrew.
Fifth - and Susan Sullivan should have plead the fifth instead of carrying on. Twitter and Facebook she said has been taken hostage by a "mob mentality". She compared it to a child's game whisper - where one child whispers to another down a chain of people and then they hear what comes out on the other side. She exclaimed that people under the cloak of anonymity made a statement which was partially untrue - and then others added to it and spread it - all the while changing the original point.
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?
The anonymous ones the Minister speaks of contain as many Tory hacks as those from any party. The most vocal opposition to this government's policy on Twitter - Facebook - and Blogs are not anonymous. The use of the words "mob mentality" is similar to other words they use to describe engaged citizens - such as "conspiracy theorists" and "naysayers". These words have been communicated so well - that even some media outlets use them.
So if the purpose of O'Brien and Sullivan was to reorganize - regroup - and refresh - they did nothing of the sort. I guess they should resign now as they also cannot communicate a message. If they did communicate what they meant - then we are in more trouble than we think.
Now just imagine having a conversation with them on Muskrat Falls?
The On Point interview can be found by CLICKING HERE
First off they both admitted that Kathy Dunderdale told them that she would resign before the next election. To the contrary Kathy Dunderdale told the people of the province and hundreds of PC delegates just a few months ago that she was staying put for the next election.
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?
Yes she told certain people she was going and others she was staying.
Second - Sullivan indicated that Kathy resigned mostly for the good of the party - to allow them to reorganize - regroup - and refresh. From what? Your party is not governed by polls is it? That's what you claim.
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?
Yes she said one thing one day and then did something contrary to that which was said the next. Further Sullivan's thought on refreshing - hardly seems likely when she and O'Brien remain. Why didn't they leave for the good of the party? They were as responsible for decisions - as Cabinet Ministers - as the Premier was. David referred to both O'Brien and Sullivan as strong supporters of the Premier - perhaps because they put forth just that. If you watch the interview however - if they are her friends - she doesn't need enemies.
Third - Kevin O'Brien claims that she was the first Premier who encountered social media. Really? I remember a significant load of it on former Premier Danny Williams. Be that as it may O'Brien exclaimed that it (social media) was used entirely against her.
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?
Yes - it is false and misleading. Actually it's a lie. It's doubtful Kent, Lane, and Collins have fingerprints left from Twitter presence - notwithstanding loyal Tories tweeting with vigor and venom.
Fourth - Then Kevin O'Brien adds that part of her problem was the "hostile media". Cochrane challenged him on that and then said "no not really".
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?
Guess that one's pretty simple. Propaganda - called on it - then withdrew.
Fifth - and Susan Sullivan should have plead the fifth instead of carrying on. Twitter and Facebook she said has been taken hostage by a "mob mentality". She compared it to a child's game whisper - where one child whispers to another down a chain of people and then they hear what comes out on the other side. She exclaimed that people under the cloak of anonymity made a statement which was partially untrue - and then others added to it and spread it - all the while changing the original point.
DO YOU SEE HOW THIS INFORMATION WAS NOT COMMUNICATED WELL?
The anonymous ones the Minister speaks of contain as many Tory hacks as those from any party. The most vocal opposition to this government's policy on Twitter - Facebook - and Blogs are not anonymous. The use of the words "mob mentality" is similar to other words they use to describe engaged citizens - such as "conspiracy theorists" and "naysayers". These words have been communicated so well - that even some media outlets use them.
So if the purpose of O'Brien and Sullivan was to reorganize - regroup - and refresh - they did nothing of the sort. I guess they should resign now as they also cannot communicate a message. If they did communicate what they meant - then we are in more trouble than we think.
Now just imagine having a conversation with them on Muskrat Falls?
The On Point interview can be found by CLICKING HERE
Friday, January 24, 2014
Collins shows loss of Premier in vain for PC's
Newfoundland and Labrador has many serious issues on the table. Not the least of which are the Muskrat Falls legacy of economic horror, health care, the Auditor General's findings, chronic unemployment and continued secrecy in government. The governing PC's have a few serious issues of their own.
One would think that the loss of a Premier - due to crashing polls, a complete disconnect with what the people of the province want, and a number of people dead during the blackout - would wake-up the skeleton left behind. Unfortunately - it's business as usual for this arrogant crew of partisans.
Sandy Collins at the height of this mess - decides - it's business as usual for him. What device was Sandy using to tweet? Who pays for the device? Who employs Sandy? Who pays his salary and benefits? He is a wannabe farceur - who confuses the role of his office with his amateur hobby.
He demonstrates this government's trademark arrogance and embraces the opportunity to verbally abuse ordinary citizens. His level of immaturity is obvious when one considers what he chooses to spend time on.
Your Premier just resigned - your party is in the tank - and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not want your government anymore. Playing twitter tag may be amusing to you but perhaps you should try marbles instead.
Collins has not learned a thing from the past month or so and clearly he plans to carry on - business as usual. No doubt that will land him a plum Cabinet post.
First demonstration:
It all started when Brad Cabana and Sandy Collins were having a few twitter jabs.
One would think that the loss of a Premier - due to crashing polls, a complete disconnect with what the people of the province want, and a number of people dead during the blackout - would wake-up the skeleton left behind. Unfortunately - it's business as usual for this arrogant crew of partisans.
Sandy Collins at the height of this mess - decides - it's business as usual for him. What device was Sandy using to tweet? Who pays for the device? Who employs Sandy? Who pays his salary and benefits? He is a wannabe farceur - who confuses the role of his office with his amateur hobby.
He demonstrates this government's trademark arrogance and embraces the opportunity to verbally abuse ordinary citizens. His level of immaturity is obvious when one considers what he chooses to spend time on.
Your Premier just resigned - your party is in the tank - and Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do not want your government anymore. Playing twitter tag may be amusing to you but perhaps you should try marbles instead.
Collins has not learned a thing from the past month or so and clearly he plans to carry on - business as usual. No doubt that will land him a plum Cabinet post.
First demonstration:
It all started when Brad Cabana and Sandy Collins were having a few twitter jabs.
@SandyRCollins I notice Kathy didn't give Sandi a hug or kiss as she left..-
@BradCabana Bradley! It's you! Have you heard the news?...there's a leadership race coming up? You in? -
-
@BradCabana You left?....or you were ignored to the point where it was just kinda...how do I say...awkward? @SandyRCollins@BradCabana what an interesting yet commonly arrogant response. Business as usual.@SandyRCollins You mean you cheated so publicly that the country laughed out loud, and it was...awkward-
-
@SandyRCollins Ya, akward to break the rules to get the woman in,and then akward to stab her in the back to get out -
@BradCabana listen I wanna make it up to you....i'll pay the $5k or whatever it is and you run this time 'round k? @SandyRCollins@MurfAD@BradCabana@NfldAnchor@mclabradore hI'll pay 5000 for you to stop using"k" like a child on a playground. grow up- Interesting offer MT@SandyRCollins:
@BradCabana listen I wanna make it up to you....i'll pay the $5k or whatever it is and you run this time -
@PeterCBC@BradCabana Peter, if he accepts I may have to ask you to spot me $5k...that cool? -
-
@PeterCBC@BradCabana True, I hear though one of those positions just opened up:) Want me to drop your name? - you.
#nlpoli
Sandy Collins
@SandyRCollins@hydroqueen@MurfAD@PeterCBC@BradCabana How Sue Kelland-Dyer-ish of you to be trolling. Are you ever NOT on Twitter?
Rock Solid Politics
Sue Kelland-Dyer
Peter Cowan
Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Take them by the scruff of their political necks and heave em out!
Somehow the Ottawa painted picture of Newfoundland and Labrador fishermen and stamps has become obscured by graffiti depicting overstuffed Senators with stamps and EI Referees doling money to the Conservatives.
My oh my and the right-wing fundamentalist Harper Cabinet would have Canadians believe that ordinary citizens are trying to bilk (Obtain or withhold money by deceit or without justification; cheat or defraud) Employment Insurance funds. There us some irony here, don't you think?
Take them by the scruff of their kiss-the-baby political necks and heave em out - is probably the best advice after a Victoria Day weekend filled with anything but Royal Protocol.
The Queen herself is being usurped as Senators and Senior Staff of the PMO flaunt their entitlements of riches whether the receiver or the giver.
Today comes word from the Canadian Press and CBC that many Chairpersons of the Board of Referees who adjudicate EI appeals are giving political contributions to the Conservatives both before and after their plum patronage appointment.
Now what chance does an unemployed have to successfully appeal a rejection by the EI crowd? How do we know if what plays into their demonstrated partisan and arbitrary minds when some poor soul seeks to collect a legal entitlement? How could we know? The perception of potential conflict is there - that's why there are rules.
Now Harper claims he wants to tighten up on EI claims and apparently quota's are attached to the catch. So what should an ordinary oilskin believe?
Well how about this little scunchion from the CP article
The government appointed John Buddy Wiens of Morden, Man., as a chairman of the EI referees board for the Winnipeg district in April 2008. Elections Canada records show Wiens made three donations — totalling $1,500 — to the Portage-Lisgar Conservative riding association in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
"No, I'm sorry. You got me," Wiens said. "I'm totally by surprise."
Rodney Balkwill of Brandon, Man., was named a chairman of the EI referees board in February 2009. Elections Canada records show Balkwill made a single donation of $250 to the 2011 election campaign of Conservative MP Merv Tweed.
It was Tweed's idea that he sit on the board, Balkwill said.
_________________________________
If you look at the mandate - a key phrase is obvious:
The Employment Insurance Boards of Referees (EIBR) function as a first-level, independent, administrative tribunal mandated to provide fair and impartial quasi-judicial hearings of appeals of Employment Insurance decisions. (emphasis added)
_________________________________
Donations to politicians both before and after appointments really squeezes the sticky filaments out of the quasi-judicial cucumber and leaves it more vulnerable to prey of the partisan.
And so the Harper Accountability Act continues as the three ring circus reaches new popularity. The addition of clowns, pigs, high-wire performances, and jugglers really seems to have caught the attention of the people. Everybody is just holding their breath for the next one to jump into the pool from about 50 metres up.
If Wallin, Duffy, or Wright had spent a week fishing the North Atlantic in a sea - I'd say they worked hard for their entitlements. But these pontificating buffoons should crawl back to the private sector and peddle their acts there. They should be joined by the Prime Minister - where his corporate buddies may hire him - but unlikely to really let him near projections.
Right now there should be an independent review of the "independent reviews" that were done for hard-working Canadians who were denied Employment Insurance.
My oh my and the right-wing fundamentalist Harper Cabinet would have Canadians believe that ordinary citizens are trying to bilk (Obtain or withhold money by deceit or without justification; cheat or defraud) Employment Insurance funds. There us some irony here, don't you think?
Take them by the scruff of their kiss-the-baby political necks and heave em out - is probably the best advice after a Victoria Day weekend filled with anything but Royal Protocol.
The Queen herself is being usurped as Senators and Senior Staff of the PMO flaunt their entitlements of riches whether the receiver or the giver.
Today comes word from the Canadian Press and CBC that many Chairpersons of the Board of Referees who adjudicate EI appeals are giving political contributions to the Conservatives both before and after their plum patronage appointment.
Now what chance does an unemployed have to successfully appeal a rejection by the EI crowd? How do we know if what plays into their demonstrated partisan and arbitrary minds when some poor soul seeks to collect a legal entitlement? How could we know? The perception of potential conflict is there - that's why there are rules.
Now Harper claims he wants to tighten up on EI claims and apparently quota's are attached to the catch. So what should an ordinary oilskin believe?
Well how about this little scunchion from the CP article
The government appointed John Buddy Wiens of Morden, Man., as a chairman of the EI referees board for the Winnipeg district in April 2008. Elections Canada records show Wiens made three donations — totalling $1,500 — to the Portage-Lisgar Conservative riding association in 2009, 2010 and 2011.
'You got me'
In a telephone interview, Wiens confirmed he made the donations, but said no one told him it was against the rules. He said he did not recall reading the section of the EI referees boards' handbook about political activities."No, I'm sorry. You got me," Wiens said. "I'm totally by surprise."
Rodney Balkwill of Brandon, Man., was named a chairman of the EI referees board in February 2009. Elections Canada records show Balkwill made a single donation of $250 to the 2011 election campaign of Conservative MP Merv Tweed.
It was Tweed's idea that he sit on the board, Balkwill said.
_________________________________
If you look at the mandate - a key phrase is obvious:
The Employment Insurance Boards of Referees (EIBR) function as a first-level, independent, administrative tribunal mandated to provide fair and impartial quasi-judicial hearings of appeals of Employment Insurance decisions. (emphasis added)
_________________________________
Donations to politicians both before and after appointments really squeezes the sticky filaments out of the quasi-judicial cucumber and leaves it more vulnerable to prey of the partisan.
And so the Harper Accountability Act continues as the three ring circus reaches new popularity. The addition of clowns, pigs, high-wire performances, and jugglers really seems to have caught the attention of the people. Everybody is just holding their breath for the next one to jump into the pool from about 50 metres up.
If Wallin, Duffy, or Wright had spent a week fishing the North Atlantic in a sea - I'd say they worked hard for their entitlements. But these pontificating buffoons should crawl back to the private sector and peddle their acts there. They should be joined by the Prime Minister - where his corporate buddies may hire him - but unlikely to really let him near projections.
Right now there should be an independent review of the "independent reviews" that were done for hard-working Canadians who were denied Employment Insurance.
Monday, May 20, 2013
Power of the People and Twitter being used to Oust Harper
A tremendous social media campaign is happening on Twitter.
The #pmharpermustresign hash tag is exploding and taking Canada Trends by storm.
This has lead to a petition to Oust the Prime Minister. The Petition is PRESS HERE
About 1 Canadian a minute is signing on.
This of course follows the resignations of Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy from the Conservative Caucus of Senate and Nigel Wright as the Chief of Staff of the PMO.
It appears that Canadians may have had enough.
How long before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do the same to Kathy Dunderdale and Co.?
It certainly has already begun.
The #pmharpermustresign hash tag is exploding and taking Canada Trends by storm.
This has lead to a petition to Oust the Prime Minister. The Petition is PRESS HERE
About 1 Canadian a minute is signing on.
This of course follows the resignations of Pamela Wallin and Mike Duffy from the Conservative Caucus of Senate and Nigel Wright as the Chief of Staff of the PMO.
It appears that Canadians may have had enough.
How long before the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do the same to Kathy Dunderdale and Co.?
It certainly has already begun.
Friday, April 19, 2013
I do not like Green Eggs and Kale - I do not like them Dunderdale
With apologies to Dr. Seuss
With grave concern for the future of our place.
So which is it Premier Dunderdale? Stop or Go?
The Tories - under the leadership of Kathy Dunderdale - are likewise swimming in circles like a goldfish on its last fins.
Which way Premier - they must ask - this way or that?
What to do Premier - they must ask - stop or go?
What to say Premier - they must ask - we agree or disagree?
Do we like Green Eggs and Kale ?
Do we like them Dunderdale?
Do we like them with a Tweet - do we like them extra sweet?
I do not like Green Eggs and Kale - for I am the floundering Dunderdale.
Do we like them in the House?
Do we like them with a Mouse?
Do we like them from a Can?
We must ask the Ross Wiseman.
Do we like them with Facebook?
Do we like them down the Lane?
Do we like them with a Kent?
Do we like them with Gin and Collins?
I do not like Green Eggs and Kale - for I am the floundering Dunderdale.
Not in a dory! Not on the dock!
Not on Facebook! Dunderdale! Let me be!
I would not, could not, in a tweet.
I could not, would not, with a skeet.
I will not eat them with a Kent.
I will not eat them down a Lane.
I will not eat them here or there.
I will not eat them anywhere.
I do not like them, Dunderdale-I-am.
BUT WAIT
WE do so like
Green Eggs and Kale!
Thank you!
Thank you,
Dunderdale.
Now as fickle as this may seem - after listening to the Premier and her legion of speakers - regarding Twittergate - nothing can be taken seriously.
That is the most serious problem we have. Just stop and think a minute - these are the people responsible for the Muskrat Falls deal.
With grave concern for the future of our place.
So which is it Premier Dunderdale? Stop or Go?
The Tories - under the leadership of Kathy Dunderdale - are likewise swimming in circles like a goldfish on its last fins.
Which way Premier - they must ask - this way or that?
What to do Premier - they must ask - stop or go?
What to say Premier - they must ask - we agree or disagree?
Do we like Green Eggs and Kale ?
Do we like them Dunderdale?
Do we like them with a Tweet - do we like them extra sweet?
I do not like Green Eggs and Kale - for I am the floundering Dunderdale.
Do we like them in the House?
Do we like them with a Mouse?
Do we like them from a Can?
We must ask the Ross Wiseman.
Do we like them with Facebook?
Do we like them down the Lane?
Do we like them with a Kent?
Do we like them with Gin and Collins?
I do not like Green Eggs and Kale - for I am the floundering Dunderdale.
Not in a dory! Not on the dock!
Not on Facebook! Dunderdale! Let me be!
I would not, could not, in a tweet.
I could not, would not, with a skeet.
I will not eat them with a Kent.
I will not eat them down a Lane.
I will not eat them here or there.
I will not eat them anywhere.
I do not like them, Dunderdale-I-am.
BUT WAIT
WE do so like
Green Eggs and Kale!
Thank you!
Thank you,
Dunderdale.
Now as fickle as this may seem - after listening to the Premier and her legion of speakers - regarding Twittergate - nothing can be taken seriously.
That is the most serious problem we have. Just stop and think a minute - these are the people responsible for the Muskrat Falls deal.
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.
_________________________________________
Friday, June 29, 2012
What's behind the VOCM Attack?
Here's the problem. VOCM boasts about the size of its listening audience - particularly their talk-shows.
If this is true then Randy Simms and VOCM allowed out and out lies to be broadcast - about a private citizen - to thousands of people.
Is this the role of a commercial radio station? Clearly it is not. So why then did VOCM allow it and to date not address it?
And yes it continues - over the air - on twitter - anywhere Paddy can get a smack in.
The difference is - he has a mic - and he controls a commercial radio program. Each and every time he comments it goes to thousands of people. What is the purpose?
The following is a sample of Paddy Daly's tirades :
At least you're not at home "crooked" like Sue - Paddy Daly states today on the airwaves.
or this today on Twitter
@hydroqueen let's get the rules straight? you are flying solo with your ramblings. call or be quiet. gutless. hypocrite.
I have not been on his or Randy's show for a long time now and did nothing to precipitate the commentary about me by callers like "Bob".
So VOCM will do this: They will allow slander and lies about a private person - and then provide that person the opportunity to call in and talk about it. As you can see by the "rules" Paddy has set above - I am being told I am to be quiet - unless I am calling him.
Again I ask - why is all this going on? It certainly is not in the interest of public discourse on issues of societal concern.
The term gutless is interesting. He has a program on a commercial broadcast station and continues to take pot-shots - harassing me to call his show.
After reading a post on my blog last weekend - Paddy tweeted the following:
@hydroqueen you poor woman.
This is also a very revealing comment. A very interesting choice of words - indeed.
There is something behind all of this and perhaps VOCM, Paddy, and Randy can let us know exactly what that is.
Until then - VOCM, Paddy and Randy do not control my blog or my twitter - so I will carry on.
Again people take note: it's me today - it may be you tomorrow.
My interest is Newfoundland and Labrador and the future generations. If that means speaking up and asking questions - then that's what I will do. If that means I challenge government on very bad resource deals, regressive legislation, or positions of potential conflict - then I will. If that causes unfair attacks and harassment - so be it. I have been doing it for 25 years - still here.
If this is true then Randy Simms and VOCM allowed out and out lies to be broadcast - about a private citizen - to thousands of people.
Is this the role of a commercial radio station? Clearly it is not. So why then did VOCM allow it and to date not address it?
And yes it continues - over the air - on twitter - anywhere Paddy can get a smack in.
The difference is - he has a mic - and he controls a commercial radio program. Each and every time he comments it goes to thousands of people. What is the purpose?
The following is a sample of Paddy Daly's tirades :
At least you're not at home "crooked" like Sue - Paddy Daly states today on the airwaves.
or this today on Twitter
@hydroqueen let's get the rules straight? you are flying solo with your ramblings. call or be quiet. gutless. hypocrite.
I have not been on his or Randy's show for a long time now and did nothing to precipitate the commentary about me by callers like "Bob".
So VOCM will do this: They will allow slander and lies about a private person - and then provide that person the opportunity to call in and talk about it. As you can see by the "rules" Paddy has set above - I am being told I am to be quiet - unless I am calling him.
Again I ask - why is all this going on? It certainly is not in the interest of public discourse on issues of societal concern.
The term gutless is interesting. He has a program on a commercial broadcast station and continues to take pot-shots - harassing me to call his show.
After reading a post on my blog last weekend - Paddy tweeted the following:
This is also a very revealing comment. A very interesting choice of words - indeed.
There is something behind all of this and perhaps VOCM, Paddy, and Randy can let us know exactly what that is.
Until then - VOCM, Paddy and Randy do not control my blog or my twitter - so I will carry on.
Again people take note: it's me today - it may be you tomorrow.
My interest is Newfoundland and Labrador and the future generations. If that means speaking up and asking questions - then that's what I will do. If that means I challenge government on very bad resource deals, regressive legislation, or positions of potential conflict - then I will. If that causes unfair attacks and harassment - so be it. I have been doing it for 25 years - still here.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Darin King - Twit of the Twitter - Condemns his Own Party!
Yesterday in the House of Assembly - Darin King proved - once again that he is full of it - wit -twit twitter.
Below is a partial transcript of what Mr. King was saying during debate on Interim Supply, Bill 2.
Let’s be clear, members in this House do not debate through Twitter, contrary to popular believe. I have said that, Mr. Chair, I do not engage very often but I did engage a couple of nights ago to say that if you have important questions on the fishery or sealing – because I would love to talk about all of that today – that this is the place to do it. Not only is it the place to do it, you have an obligation and a responsibility, when you put your name on the ballot to get elected to represent the people, you have a responsibility to raise those issues on the floor of the House of Assembly, I submit to you, and I invite you to do that today.
This is not a joke people - he actually said this. What did the media do? Nothing!
When the House of Assembly was held hostage by his government for months - they did not open it - what happened? Well the Minister of Natural Resources was debating the Muskrat Falls deal 140 characters at a time - and on some occasions a host of Tory Ministers and backbenchers were on Twitter debating with other politicians, bloggers, and other Tweeters from the province.
Then he says that MHA's who put their name on a ballot have the responsibility to raise issues on the floor of the House of Assembly. No - you don't say Minister - that is what the population was telling you when your government would NOT OPEN the HOA.
With a straight face King rose in the HOA and said that rubbish. Worse he was not challenged and berated by a media who knew the difference.
So Mr. King I believe you just taught Mr. Kennedy a lesson. And as Kennedy so loves novellas and poetry - might I recommend Of Mice and Men or perhaps Bobby Burns' "To a Mouse".
So if the media is going to declare that issues as important as Muskrat Falls are over - perhaps they could stop the nonsense and deception being delivered by our Ruling Party.
Further - making this worse is the fact that when the Tories were twitting away - while the House was closed - the same media was reporting as NEWS - that the government members were now debating on Twitter.
While you're at it - let's get to the bottom of the fishery - 140 characters at a time.
Below is a partial transcript of what Mr. King was saying during debate on Interim Supply, Bill 2.
Let’s be clear, members in this House do not debate through Twitter, contrary to popular believe. I have said that, Mr. Chair, I do not engage very often but I did engage a couple of nights ago to say that if you have important questions on the fishery or sealing – because I would love to talk about all of that today – that this is the place to do it. Not only is it the place to do it, you have an obligation and a responsibility, when you put your name on the ballot to get elected to represent the people, you have a responsibility to raise those issues on the floor of the House of Assembly, I submit to you, and I invite you to do that today.
This is not a joke people - he actually said this. What did the media do? Nothing!
When the House of Assembly was held hostage by his government for months - they did not open it - what happened? Well the Minister of Natural Resources was debating the Muskrat Falls deal 140 characters at a time - and on some occasions a host of Tory Ministers and backbenchers were on Twitter debating with other politicians, bloggers, and other Tweeters from the province.
Then he says that MHA's who put their name on a ballot have the responsibility to raise issues on the floor of the House of Assembly. No - you don't say Minister - that is what the population was telling you when your government would NOT OPEN the HOA.
With a straight face King rose in the HOA and said that rubbish. Worse he was not challenged and berated by a media who knew the difference.
So Mr. King I believe you just taught Mr. Kennedy a lesson. And as Kennedy so loves novellas and poetry - might I recommend Of Mice and Men or perhaps Bobby Burns' "To a Mouse".
So if the media is going to declare that issues as important as Muskrat Falls are over - perhaps they could stop the nonsense and deception being delivered by our Ruling Party.
Further - making this worse is the fact that when the Tories were twitting away - while the House was closed - the same media was reporting as NEWS - that the government members were now debating on Twitter.
While you're at it - let's get to the bottom of the fishery - 140 characters at a time.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Investigation Needed! Fear of Retribution - Dunderdale's Administation
Take these three statements found in the Telegram in 2012:
- St. John’s lawyer Ches Crosbie said he doesn’t want to become a target for speaking on the Muskrat Falls project, but he’s doing it anyway.
“I don’t want to get pissed on by the government,” he said. “Like anyone, I don’t want to make myself a target.”
- Fisheries Minister, Darin King, having just removed funding from the FFAW explains why.
"I've clearly learned that no matter what we do in this situation, the FFAW is always going to have a criticism to be lobbied at government. "There's no way they're ever going to be working with us for the betterment of the industry."
- Russell Wangersky on a letter the Telegram received wherein the person asked to remain anonymous.
Friday, a letter came in where the writer said “I would like to publish the attached as a letter to the editor but can't do it under my name.”
Asked for the reasons for requesting anonymity, the writer mentioned concerns about government retribution against family members.
__________________________________________________________
These are just a few examples of many wherein either people express their fear of government or the Premier and her Ministers describing bloggers, tweeters, and callers to talk-shows as naysayers, political hacks, ignorant, or foolish.
Darin King on the Fisheries Broadcast yesterday went on to say that criticism (publicly) is not necessary just come sit at the table. Number one that is a lie - to stop criticizing government does not guarantee they will ever sit at a table. Number two - the desire of this Minister and others - including the Premier - that public discourse be halted is very disturbing. Number three - the continued labelling of citizens who criticize by using very negative adjectives or adverbs - in an attempt to shut them up - is the sign of a very weak government that is not confident in its policies.
Russell Wangersky is his piece says:
"The fear of retribution is not new: whether it’s a reality or not is hard to know for sure. I know businessmen I’ve talked to in the province — and I’ve said this before — who are willing to talk a lot about Muskrat Falls in private, but who will never speak publicly.
And there have been cases where the province has removed people from positions for making comments the government didn’t approve of."
Russell is one of the few journalists we have left in the province - however - he too questions the reality of retribution. Maybe it's time for Russell and his colleagues to truly investigate this hypothesis and determine once and for all whether this is the case or not.
I am certain it is - as I personally - have been and continue to be on the receiving end.
The Dunderdale administration was trained like seals by Premier Williams on the art of attacking citizens and media who dare criticize. While the terribly weak MHA's who bless Danny Williams for their good fortune - continue to behave as told - in order to hang on to the best gig they will ever have; the media should not be so intimidated - that is unless there's something we don't know about their bosses.
The talk-shows on VOCM are NOT what they used to be - the rules are different - and they control the flow of what is debated or discussed. It is NOT a free for all. What Steele and the shareholders of Newfoundland Capital Corporation (headquartered in Nova Scotia) should understand - is that if this intimidation of intelligent citizens continues - the programs will be left with - Tony - Margorie - and Jack - accompanied by Tory Ministers and backbenchers praising the statue of Dunderdale or the inverted M archway heading into the promised Dannyland.
- St. John’s lawyer Ches Crosbie said he doesn’t want to become a target for speaking on the Muskrat Falls project, but he’s doing it anyway.
“I don’t want to get pissed on by the government,” he said. “Like anyone, I don’t want to make myself a target.”
- Fisheries Minister, Darin King, having just removed funding from the FFAW explains why.
"I've clearly learned that no matter what we do in this situation, the FFAW is always going to have a criticism to be lobbied at government. "There's no way they're ever going to be working with us for the betterment of the industry."
- Russell Wangersky on a letter the Telegram received wherein the person asked to remain anonymous.
Friday, a letter came in where the writer said “I would like to publish the attached as a letter to the editor but can't do it under my name.”
Asked for the reasons for requesting anonymity, the writer mentioned concerns about government retribution against family members.
__________________________________________________________
These are just a few examples of many wherein either people express their fear of government or the Premier and her Ministers describing bloggers, tweeters, and callers to talk-shows as naysayers, political hacks, ignorant, or foolish.
Darin King on the Fisheries Broadcast yesterday went on to say that criticism (publicly) is not necessary just come sit at the table. Number one that is a lie - to stop criticizing government does not guarantee they will ever sit at a table. Number two - the desire of this Minister and others - including the Premier - that public discourse be halted is very disturbing. Number three - the continued labelling of citizens who criticize by using very negative adjectives or adverbs - in an attempt to shut them up - is the sign of a very weak government that is not confident in its policies.
Russell Wangersky is his piece says:
"The fear of retribution is not new: whether it’s a reality or not is hard to know for sure. I know businessmen I’ve talked to in the province — and I’ve said this before — who are willing to talk a lot about Muskrat Falls in private, but who will never speak publicly.
And there have been cases where the province has removed people from positions for making comments the government didn’t approve of."
Russell is one of the few journalists we have left in the province - however - he too questions the reality of retribution. Maybe it's time for Russell and his colleagues to truly investigate this hypothesis and determine once and for all whether this is the case or not.
I am certain it is - as I personally - have been and continue to be on the receiving end.
The Dunderdale administration was trained like seals by Premier Williams on the art of attacking citizens and media who dare criticize. While the terribly weak MHA's who bless Danny Williams for their good fortune - continue to behave as told - in order to hang on to the best gig they will ever have; the media should not be so intimidated - that is unless there's something we don't know about their bosses.
The talk-shows on VOCM are NOT what they used to be - the rules are different - and they control the flow of what is debated or discussed. It is NOT a free for all. What Steele and the shareholders of Newfoundland Capital Corporation (headquartered in Nova Scotia) should understand - is that if this intimidation of intelligent citizens continues - the programs will be left with - Tony - Margorie - and Jack - accompanied by Tory Ministers and backbenchers praising the statue of Dunderdale or the inverted M archway heading into the promised Dannyland.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Oompa Loompas use Twitter to debate the Emera Chocolate Factory
I woke up this morning only to hear that the House of Assembly was open last night and I missed it.
Tweeter was alive with NDP member Dale Kirby fending off Ministers and PC backbenchers on the issue of Muskrat Falls.
The use of Twitter by Dale Kirby is reasonable as the Tories will NOT open the House of Assembly. The use of Twitter by backbench Tories may be the only real opportunity to show their zealous loyalty.
The use of Twitter by Ministers is an insult to the public they serve.
The use of Twitter by Ministers to debate a 6 billion dollar deal represents regime tactics you'd expect from North Korea.
We live in a modern democracy but we would be hard-pressed to defend that.
We are living under a government that will not listen to critics - regardless of their background or expertise.
We are living under a government that will block and thwart due processes that were established to protect our system from incompetence and corruption.
We are living under a government that will not provide open access to information to the people, the media, and the Auditor General.
We are living under a government that does not serve the people - but abuses the power the Premier says she is humbled by.
Remember Wonka had a chocolate factory and so did we under Joey - and apparently we will get another Upper Churchill too.
One thing we should remember - is that the government we get is the government we deserve so perhaps we should all reflect - and then take the action necessary to advise the oompa loompas that this project is not on.
Tweeter was alive with NDP member Dale Kirby fending off Ministers and PC backbenchers on the issue of Muskrat Falls.
The use of Twitter by Dale Kirby is reasonable as the Tories will NOT open the House of Assembly. The use of Twitter by backbench Tories may be the only real opportunity to show their zealous loyalty.
The use of Twitter by Ministers is an insult to the public they serve.
The use of Twitter by Ministers to debate a 6 billion dollar deal represents regime tactics you'd expect from North Korea.
We live in a modern democracy but we would be hard-pressed to defend that.
We are living under a government that will not listen to critics - regardless of their background or expertise.
We are living under a government that will block and thwart due processes that were established to protect our system from incompetence and corruption.
We are living under a government that will not provide open access to information to the people, the media, and the Auditor General.
We are living under a government that does not serve the people - but abuses the power the Premier says she is humbled by.
Remember Wonka had a chocolate factory and so did we under Joey - and apparently we will get another Upper Churchill too.
One thing we should remember - is that the government we get is the government we deserve so perhaps we should all reflect - and then take the action necessary to advise the oompa loompas that this project is not on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)