Saturday, April 11, 2015

When the bells ring, political pets respond

Of course, not all journalists react in Pavlovian ways but the Black Press crew is reliable.

Recommend this post


  1. Not that its any of my business (after all, I'm only a taxpayer and a minimal one at that) but I'd like to know:
    1) Who purchased the Osprey and for how much (Would this be a private enterpriser planning to compete with Kinder/Morgan Kleanup Corp?)
    2) Who/what caused the spill? Surely some human entity caused/observed this incident?
    3) What stopped the toxic flow, or did it just run out? (I mean, was the source exhausted? I know it ran out or was pumped out.)
    4)How does one determine that is "80% cleaned up" when one doesn't know what the 100% quantity was? ie. Are there several 20%s still lurking on the seabed or on the shoreline?

    I really don't expect any answers, but I don't think this incident should be allowed to fade away like the Mt. Polley spill. After all, there is the possibility an incident of this nature could occur again. In spite of World Class readiness etc.

    1. Well, I didn't expect and didn't get any answers! One more, just in case.
      5) How does the revised spill quantity affect the "80% cleaned up" figure? When the greater amount of spill was discovered did the cleanup volume increase? Or did the volume of cleanup stay the same, thus reducing the % accordingly?

  2. If this was a "dry run" as it were, for our "governments collective response" to a disaster, it was pathetic.Time is a factor in all of these types of incidents. First of all, this "spill" was very small. Targeting an adequate response should have been a priority from the get go. Secondly, the "political" and of course the "nonsense" from the media should have been ignored. They are "not" the professionals involved, standards are in place for these incidents. If they are inadequate, as has been shown, they must be improved and quickly.
    Having the photo op premier and her gang of "news trolls", get on the bandwagon and add the "shill tune", to the disaster news, is purely political grandstanding. Especially, saying that the BC government could do, "a far better job". Ask the folks in the Quesnel area, about the Mt. Polley spill disaster response.
    The last thing you do, is put these people in charge of anything that they have a hand in, whether it be the Mining or Oil and Gas disaster response. These people are supposed to regulate, not respond to emergencies that involve their funders or supporters. One wonders, what and how that would be handled....
    As for the potential...imagine 3 to 5 meter seas, high winds, and hundreds of thousands of liters of fuel or oil, in the ocean, heading for land, along the north or central coast. Sorry, you simply don't have the money, equipment and technology to clean up this type of horrific "man made" disaster. Ask the people at Prince William Sound in Alaska. Billions were spent to clean up the Exxon Valdez disaster and 30 years later, the oil is still there, in the beaches and tidal washes.
    As for Christy, and her "cheering section" are clearly out of your depth. There far more problems with oil and gas transport by ship, than you realize. A wakeup call yes...will you heed it...ah..not likely.
    This spill was in a "fish bowl" by comparison to Prince William Sound, and within a "perceived" minimum response time. It was pitiful and totally inadequate. So was the political response...from both levels of government.

  3. You know it's not right Coast Guard cannot speak with the people. Not right at all.

  4. Ottawa dictates what CCG can do and pretty much what the official line is. Don't forget Harper's official "Gag Policy" - can't say anything unless it has been cleared by the PMO !!!

    I am sure that the CCG employees, for the most part, would be busting a gut to do the right thing - but they are not allowed to. Either by equipment deficiencies and gag orders etc.

    What a poxy place Canada is becoming under the leadership (?) of Herr Stephen Harper - out very own Dick - Tator.


  5. I googled "political pets" and couldn't find anything referenced in the context used here. Is this a proprietary phrase? Can I use it whenever I happen to be in a discussion about the state of affairs of our province and country? Are our political pets smart enough to know their names when called? .....or do they just know when the can of food is getting opened (no matter who happens to be doing the opening)?

    1. I was thinking of using a graphic that illustrates Pavlov's experiment. The dog salivates when presented with a reward. The animal is conditioned by presenting food with the sound of a whistle. After a while, the food can be withdrawn and the dog will salivate to the whistle alone.

      Certain "journalists" have been similarly conditioned except the reward is something other than food. (Maybe a job for the wife orkids and/or access to talking points and pre-release of information. They don't need a reward each and every time their assistance is needed. They are sufficiently conditioned that they will respond any time they sense help is needed by the masters.



This is an archive only of items published before April 22, 2016. These and newer articles are available at:

If you read an article at this blogger site, you can comment on it at the new site.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.