Missive

Danny Wiwwiams is vewy vewy mad at the National Post:

I am disappointed, yet not surprised, by the nasty attacks on me in the National Post ( "From Newfoundland, another tantrum," editorial; and "The Cuckoo of Corner Brook," by Peter Foster; both of Aug. 26). I certainly can take the criticism. Where I draw the line is at mean-spirited insinuations and inaccuracies about our province and its people.

Slight problem for the rest of Fearless Leader’s polemic: neither the masthead, nor Peter Foster, make “mean-spirited insinuations and inaccuracies about our province and its people.”

Between them, the editorial and Foster’s comment mention Danny Williams, by name or by title, 26 times. There is only one reference — that in the editorial — to the people of the province:

Many resident [sic] of Newfoundland complain that Canadians in the rest of the country take a patronizing attitude to their province. But given the way their tantrum-prone Premier depends on the adults in Ottawa to keep bailing him out of his self-made problems, is it any wonder?

But, hey, when the Sun King says, as he did, “I think I represent, in my heart and soul, the hearts and souls of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians”… he means it. Somewhere in his weird little parallel universe, he honestly means it.

When His Premierosity, bizarrely, goes to verbal war to defend the reputation of the province and its people from criticisms, fair, accurate, or otherwise, that are leveled at Himself in personam, it isn’t obvious which flaw is at fault.

It is his genius reading-comprehension skills, so awesome, yet still not powerful enough to detect the blatant mistakes which were (passively) made during Our Dear Expropriation? Or is it the megalomania?

While we are on the topic of Our Dear Letter to the Editor, he repeats the claim — perhaps he took it from the many totally spontaneous CBC or VOCM web comments — about the nature of Abitibi’s expropriated assets:

There is no doubt that the pulp-and-paper industry is facing difficult times globally. However, Abitibi broke its covenant with our government under the original terms of its operations in the province. We could not simply allow it to desert the workers while keeping rights to our timber, hydro and lands; valuable natural assets that were entrusted to this company based on certain terms and conditions. Our expropriation of those natural resources was the right thing to do for our people.

If Abitibi had broken this “covenant” which governed the “terms” of its operations… why on earth was there any need to expropriate those “rights to our timber, hydro and lands”? If those “certain terms and conditions” had been breached, according to the orthodox theory, didn’t those rights automatically revert, escheat, or otherwise terminate? If so… what was the expropration all about?

Perhaps someone can pick up the phone, and call His Premierosity — 709-729-3960 — and finally ask the Great Lawyer about this rather obvious contradiction in legal theories.