- February 06, 2012 - 15:34
Wakeham has twisted himself into a pretzel to excuse Cleary's damaging comments and condemn Penashue's defence of a traditional Newfoundland industry. I can't help believing that if Penashue had called for the end of the seal hunt and Cleary had criticized him for it, Wakeham would still take Cleary's side, for no reason other than partisan preference.
- Maurice E. Adams
- February 05, 2012 - 09:12
To STAMP: You are a very perceptive reader STAMP, and it seems to be, an even more talented writer. Hope you do a lot more and on many more topics. Why not try your hand at Muskrat Falls?
- February 05, 2012 - 07:21
I wonder why the Pulitzer Prize is considered such aa important award, when any time a journalist speaks of another you would think they were all deserving of one.
- February 04, 2012 - 12:32
Wakeham's entire column constitutes an inventive, if somewhat transparent, application of the straw man construct. A straw man is normally a misrepresentation of someone's position as a precursor to attacking it. In this case however, Wakeham has misrepresented Cleary's stand to make it easier to defend. Cleary did not merely ask a question about the future of the seal fishery as Wakeham contends. Like Jeopardy, Cleary's question was his answer. He made it abundantly clear that the $1 million revenue from the industry was not worth the hassle and that Canada should pull the plug on it. "Time to consider ending seal hunt, MP Cleary says". Oddly Wakeham goes on to enumerate all the good reasons for supporting the fishery. His call for an "open and blunt discussion about the future of sealing" is entirely reasonable but the suggestion falls well short of its intended purpose - that of taking his one-time professional colleague Ryan Cleary off the hook. Not that Cleary himself didn't immediately comprehend the enormity of the damage not only to an industry already on the ropes but perhaps to his own political career. Within hours he was up in the House - literally wrapped in a seal hide thicker than his own - shaking his finger at the Harper government for not doing enough to help the industry. Almost humorous were it not for the incongruity of a handful of fishermen risking life and limb for paltry earnings while their professional tormenters rake in the bags of tax-free cash from the comfort and safety of their ivory towers. “As expected”, says Wakeham, “the amoral crowd of anti-sealing loons exploited Cleary's words.” Yes that inevitability was fairly obvious to everyone it seems except Cleary.
- bernard kellly
- February 04, 2012 - 15:11
Amen brother Stamp...I also think Wakehams article as nothing but a load of cods wallop,,,,, questioning is one thing...advocating termination is something entirely different....unless of course one has an agenda of one's own....
- Thanks MP Cleary for having the gumption to phrase a Question properly and effectively
- February 04, 2012 - 09:44
For once in 63 years the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has sent a Member of Parliament off to Otttawa who is not afraid to ask the questions necessary. OH What a Titan of Economics this province could have been if the MPs of the past stood up for their electorate and saw to it that the province's natural resources were developed for our benefit, but instead they remained silent and let our Natural Resources be stripped out of here for the economic betterment of the other provinces, all because they didn't want to muddy the waters for their own personal economies. POLITICAL PATRONAGE MUST GO. Thank You MP Ryan Cleary!