conrad black

The Editor:

On this day, the tenth anniversary of Conrad Black offspring, The National Post, I’m remembering the man’s current ordeal and I’d like share my thoughts, if not with the NP readership, at least with the editorial board.

I wonder if, when some three years ago those disgruntled Hollinger shareholders who asked the courts to help them get more money, had any idea of the events they would set in motion. And when the courts deemed Conrad Black’s management team to be evil and removed control from the majority owners, were these shareholders rubbing their hands in anticipation of huge profits now that the evil Conrad Black couldn’t get any more non compete payments? I wonder if those same shareholders now have any second thoughts about the wisdom of bring charges against Conrad Black, especially after seeing what kind of people the courts appointed to temporarily ‘mismanage’ the company. Its become rather easy to see that much of what has transpired since the Black management team was removed has not been of any benefit to the people who originally thought they were being short-changed.

Its also become obvious that the legal industry, both the court appointed directors and the other representatives from the legal system, have been very successful in filling their own wallets while emptying those of the shareholders and Conrad Black’s and making sure that very little actual justice was done.

Now, after confiscating as much of Conrad Black’s assets are they were able to, probably with the intent of limiting his ability to defend himself, the courts have sentenced him to serve 6 ½ years in prison for failing to share non compete payments with those envious Hollinger shareholders. So does that vindicate the launching of the lawsuit by Hollinger shareholders? Is justice being served by upholding their claim and penalizing Conrad Black?

I personally believe we have before us one of the most glaring examples of a legal industry completely out of touch with justice. The proof of this to be found in looking at the value of Hollinger stock since the courts took over. When Conrad Black was removed from control, the stock’s value plummeted. With this in mind, it becomes easy to see how the individuals that choose to buy any news publishing assets from Conrad Black would pay to keep him from re-entering as a competitor. It has always been obvious that non compete promises only needed to be extracted from one individual, Conrad Black, not from other Hollinger shareholders, so why should the undeserving get paid?

In the competitive world of newspaper publishing, the Black controlled Hollinger was considered the third largest newspaper chain in the world, a far cry from its insignificant status today. Clearly, no investors can be found who see the court-appointed opportunistic directors or the envy-riddled Hollinger shareholders as having any competence in the newspaper publishing field. I’m sure that if any members of that forlorn group, suggested they were prepared to publish anything, the competitors would laugh hysterically.

Despite the above, some twelve jurors considering that shareholders of Hollinger do have a legitimate claim to remuneration from the non-compete payments made to Conrad Black. Truth be told, even the company share values were based on Mr. Black’s ability to make newspapers profitable. Its easy to see that the financial community doesn’t agree with the jury and considers the remnants of Hollinger to be of rather insignificant value as compared to it worth before Mr. Black disappeared from the board of directors .

I cannot think of a more clear example, showing explicitly what ratio of value a good CEO has to a company in relation to the shareholders who just put up a little money. ‘Riding on the shoulders of giants’ comes to mind as an apt description.

But what of the legal system that laid the charges and encouraged a group of reason-challenged jurors to bring forth a guilty charge on Conrad Black? Is there no one to sit in judgment of the real thieves, the group of people who deliberately destroyed Conrad Black and in doing so, successfully destroyed the company and squandered the shareholder’s assets, all the while handsomely rewarding themselves, the huge tax-collector financed legal industry with the clout to impoverish anyone?

At this stage of the fiasco, I’d say the shareholders got what they deserved and only Conrad Black is paying any penalty. If the judge had sought to help the shareholders while penalizing Mr. Black, she’d have ignored giving jail time. She’d have ordered Conrad Black to manage Hollinger for the five years for a token salary of possibly a dollar a year, while only retaining his own shares and the profits from them. I’d say that’s probably the only way Hollinger shareholders would ever have gotten a financial return on their soured investment.

When he is released, Conrad Black will be some seventy years old and, thanks to Jean Cretien, without Canadian citizenship. If we want to do something for the man that started this paper, the only Canadian paper with which I have a good deal of agreement, each of us can lobby this government as hard as possible, to reinstate Conrad Black’s citizenship. We couldn’t add a better citizen to this country.

Gary Seinen

truth

Truth:
As human beings, the most significant problem we face today is the same problem all of our ancestors have faced throughout history - how can we be certain a particular thing is true or false. How can we know when we’re being misled?

Each of us, as individuals, must be able to see what to reject and what to accept in order to get the most out of life, to use our time to support things we won’t later regret, to avoid looking back at life and saying “I’d have done better if I’d realized “that” was nothing but a lie.”

Some of us are lucky enough to have parents who give much thought to truth and falsehood, who have consistent beliefs and pass their evaluative tools on to their children.

Other lucky members of society may, when going through school, meet an exceptional instructor who teaches them to reject all learning by rote, to question the validity of all things, especially that for which questionable proof is offered.

Largely though, the vast majority of people, myself no exception, fail to learn that many of the things we are taught early in life to be true, are in fact false. Some ideas (like santa claus) were never meant to be taken very seriously as the originator knew them to be false and was very aware that the society regarded them as false as well. These kind of lies aren’t real dangerous. The very dangerous ideas are those ideas believed to be true by the person feeding us the information.

The importance of learning a reliable method to determine truth can’t be overstated yet we will not, at present, be able to find a significant number of people who even agree on what is an appropriate method to determine the validity of an idea. Some will tell you to believe the bible. Some will say trust the experts. Some will say believe nothing.

For myself, the fog finally lifted after studying the philosophy of objectivism and learning that reality doesn’t lie. If facts observed in the real world are rejected to prove an argument then the argument is necessarily false.

contractor dictionary

A CONTRACTOR’S DICTIONARY
(Courtesy of the Windsor Construction Association)

CONTRACTOR: A gambler who never gets to shuffle, cut or deal.

BID OPENING: A poker game in which the losing hand wins.

BID: A wild guess carried out to two decimal points.

LOW BIDDER: A contractor who is wondering just what he left out.

ENGINEER’S ESTIMATE: The cost of construction in heaven.

PROJECT MANAGER: A conductor of an orchestra in which every musician belongs to a different union.

CRITICAL PATH METHOD: a management technique for losing your shirt under perfect control.

STRIKE: An effort to increase egg production by strangling the chicken.

DELAYED PAYMENT: A tourniquet applied at the pockets.

COMPLETION DATE: The point at which the liquidation damages start.

AUDITOR: A person who goes in after the war is lost and bayonets the wounded.

LAWYER: A person who goes in after the auditors and strips the bodies.

fishing

Open letter to the Sierra Legal Defense Fund:

Thank you for bringing to my attention the Department of Fisheries and Oceans study that claims to prove silt is at the root of the disappearing salmon problem and that in particular, logging road construction produces the silt that is causing the devastation experienced by the fishing industry.

I personally do not believe this to be true. Logging roads, not to mention an number of other roads, have been around far longer than the fish have been missing. For many years, when no consideration was given to silting or erosion at all, we saw some of the largest returns of fish. As well, the mighty, muddy Fraser river has enticed significant numbers of returning salmon over the last ever so many centuries. No, I think there is a different cause for the fish loss.

Some people say that the El Nino overheated water is the problem - that predatory fish that follow the warmer water north are enjoying juvenile salmon for breakfast, lunch and diner.
However, I disagree with that as well. I think the DFO’s “environmentally friendly” catch and release policies are the cause and definitely warrant much more research.

Consider the experience from a fishy perspective, of being hooked - the sensation of total shock when that insignificant meal turns out to be attached to your lower lip and it is now controlling you. And regardless of how hard you fight the excruciating pain you aren’t powerful enough to resist the relentless pull in a direction you don’t want to go. As you weaken, you’re being dragged away from all of your acquaintances and in the periphery of your senses you detect this huge plastic object with a bunch of yelling and waving humans in it. With the last feeble shwish of your tail, in the last desperate effort to escape, you experience the final indignity - the net.

Now, totally trapped, you are dragged from the net, some contaminating fingers are inserted in your gills and while you’re held in the most degrading position you’ve ever been in, a flash of light blinds you. All your dreams of spawning and leaving a million descendants to carry on for you come to an end.

But such is not yet the case, for you’ve been caught by a fisherperson who, by law, must follow the practice of “catch and release” for all salmon caught. Terrified, in pain, blind and disoriented, this individual drops you back in the water.

As a human being, consider the psychological damage incurred by a four year old cold blooded creature that has spent it’s entire life gulping down things that don’t do it any harm - suddenly to have a bait fish return such a horrific bite.

But it doesn’t end there. After this fish fully comprehends that he/she is once more free, a second psychological blow truly destroys the fish’s ego. Now waves of self doubt and inadequacy overwhelm this rejected fish. Yes, this fish now concludes that he/she was judged not worthy of retention, not even fit to be eaten, for while you may be able to see life from a fishy perspective, no fish has the ability to see life from a human perspective. This fish doesn’t view being released as an act of benevolent consideration; it simply feels rejected.

I’m sure that this fish, surviving such a traumatic experience, will, after a time of reflection, decide not to reproduce. A fish having knowledge of being caught and then rejected would want to spare their offspring a similar fate.

I’m convinced that the “catch and release” survivors have become sterile, probably by choice, or from psychological damage - something only further research could tell us. Quite possibly these fish are even presenting a convincing argument to their “in school” peers in favor of celibacy.

My theory also explains why the Department of Fisheries and Oceans officials do such an abysmal job of predicting numbers of returning salmon accurately. These celibate fish are counted and expected to reproduce by DFO officialdom but when reaching the spawning grounds they don’t deliver the goods - their eggs don’t hatch , so no fingerlings and four years later, no adults.

However, I’m sure the DFO is doing its best to protect the fish from the fish’s greatest source of predation - humans. Fisherpersons are in fact, disappearing faster than are the fish and to the DFO’s credit, though it took a few years longer on the west coast, they’ve managed both sides of Canada equally well.

I regret that my presentation lacks the polish of the study by the DFO , but I happen to be a taxpayer rather than a tax spender and can only afford a simple letter to the editor. If the public were to contribute as generously to me as they do to the DFO, I would be able to hire the appropriate help and conduct a thorough study. My thesis could then have at least as much credibility as theirs.