Tuesday, March 8, 2011

March 8: A sequel to March 7 - or - you could see this one coming.

On March 7, The Moncton Times and Transcript ran a commentary by one of its favourite propaganda machines, The Fraser Institute. Disguised as an attack on corporations for taking too much of our money, it was really pitch for us to give them even more - in the form of lower taxes.

Today, it followed up with an attack on the federal Liberals for opposing lower corporation taxes. Unlike the Fraser Institute, it does offer some sources for its argument that low corporation taxes are good for everybody. The sources are Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, the president of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce - all those impartial and good-hearted people who care only about what is best for us serfs.  Oh, yeah. The writer also quoted Obama. Remember him? He's the guy who's presidential campaign was financed by Wall St.

And those people who want corporation to pay their share on  educating children or maintaining health care? Well, they are just layabouts who envy the corporate class. People who want to be able to heat their houses, feed their families, and get the chance of a good education are really looking for a "nanny" state that will "pillage and plunder" Canada's employers, then come for "our" wallets next. And when he said "our" he didn't mean you and me. He met the better sort like him and the rich people he advises and whom we are robbing so terribly that they don't know where their next billion will come from.

This commentary is so ignorant, so sneering, so arrogant, so condescending and such a professional kiss-up, I ended the reading with a strong urge to put a boot up his otherwise unattractive rear end.

Two things to note.

1. The Moncton Times and Tribune is off on another vicious campaign like the one to denigrate public schools and teachers. This time, they have found a commentator of even lower ethics than their usual editorial writer. Watch for more and worse. Obviously, Big Daddy is as interested in this crusade as he was in the one against p ublic schools.

2.  The commentator is listed as Phil Seely, a business advisor and a Moncton area pastor.
As it happens,  I am a religious person, and I take my faith seriously enough to avoid most of the churches - because I think they accomodate themselves far too much to the powerful and influential. But the tone of this commentary is much worse than a lazy and accomodating Christianity. In fact, in tone and message, it is the most thoroughly anti-Christian statement I have read.

Note to the editor - publish propaganda if you must.But please don't do it in such a contemptible manner.
Note to Moncton clergy - what do you think of a "pastor" who could write such a commentary? What would be your Christian evaluation of that pastor and his choice of friends?

Or are you too busy discussing just how thick the gold paving is on the streets of heaven?

No comments:

Post a Comment