Monday, July 11, 2011

July 11: A new record in in unethical and lying eidtorializing.

At first, my focus was on the sleaziness of  today's The Moncton Times and Transcript. The front page and biggest story of the day was a rock concert in Monctreal. Why is a Montreal rock concert such big news? Well, because it was by U-2, the group that is coming to Moncton in just two weeks. This isn't news. This is another Moncton T&T feature - a free ad.

Little else is worth reading until the editorial.

But, before that, the little else is worth a read. It's an opinion piece on the editorial page on reactng - but not over reacting to abuse of police power. Essentially, the argument is that the law should be enforced against policemen who break the law - as some did at the G20. But a criticism of those poliice who break or abuse the law should not be treated as a condemnation of all police, any more that a person who drives drunk should be a condemnation of all drivers.

Alas! The articles leave out an important point. Our political leaders have to generate trust - which can be done only by serious investigation of charges of wrong doing by police, and not just shovelling them under the rug. When that happens, you get a we versus them attitude on both sides.

This is going to be a serious challenge to Canada over the next few years as we move toward the American model of a police state, with police and intelligence having warrant-free permission to bug telephones, computer sites, and to investigate all sorts of dangerous people - like those who disagree with government policy.In the US raids and harrassment are common experience for anyone who opposes the Bush-Obama enthusiasm for invading.

Then there's the editorial. It's an attack on those who are opposed to "fracking" for shale gas in New Brunswick. The writer is at the top of T&T form for slandering, smearing, ignorance and lying.
The opponents to shale gas are, it says. spouting dubious "facts", and are driven by ideology.

(What ideology, mr. or ms. eidtorial writer? Do you know what the word ideology means, you twit?)

There should, according to the editorial, be reasonable discussion and debate. Quite so.

Now, explain to us how this reasonable discussion and debate occurs when, for ten years, neither the government nor the Brunswick Media have even told us that fracking was going on in the province. When they finally did break the news (under pressure), they told us very little, and that little consistently ignored the dangers.

Now, we are told, we have regulations. So everything is okay. Sure.
But Brunswick news has never told us exactly what those regulations are. Nor has it shown how (or if) they eliminate risk.

Moreover, we are told to trust political and news media leadership that for ten years lied to us by omission - and had allowed fracking to go on for all that time with no regulations at all. Nothing.

The lies are more outright towards the end. We are told the system has worked for years with no problems. No, it hasn't.

There have been lawsuits (successful) in the US concerning fracking damage. Many American banks are refusing to mortgate properties on or near fracking sites. France has banned fracking. Quebec has proclaimed a moratorium. Studies coming out of the  universities are showing severe environmental damage. None of this has even been mentioned in the lying Times&Transcript.

The next sentence says some juriscditions have had serious problems. Yes. That's what it says just after it says there are no problems.
But these problems, it goes on, just prove the need for strong regulations. There is much wrong with that  half-wit logic.
1. Were there strong regulations in place in the areas that had problems?
2. Were they enforced?.
3. How come our government had no regulations for ten years? How come the T&T never thought this worth mentioning? Why should we trust such a government and such a newspaper now to support serious regulations?
4. How does the editorial writer know that the new regulations will minimize risks, when scientific studies say we don't even know all the risks?
5. What stake does the master of of our bull terrier T&T have in this venture. After all, it is scarcely believable that this venture would be going ahead and the T&T would be such a vigorous liar for it if a provincial Mr. Big did not have a major stake in it.

As for the future development of the province depending on this project, forget it. Resource extraction outfits don't come here to bring prosperity. They come to rip off all they can get. Nor do they give a damn about what they do to the province. They don't have to live here. They're rich. There's a long history to prove that. It includes Congo, Haiti, Guatemala, much of the Caribbean Sea - sinkholes of poverty and despair whose misery has made a few outsiders extremely wealthy.(Guess which of those countries ae being destroyed by Canadian mining companies. Guess where your Levis and Fruit of the Loom and Chiquita bananas come from - at salaries of three dollars a day).

New Brunswick is not poor because it has too few exploiters. It's poor because it has too many. It's not poor because its governments are too tough on big business. Its poor because they are lapdogs for exploiters.

Think of the province's resources as the fruit of a banana. You are part of the peel. Mr. Big picks up the banana, gulps it down...... and the peel---well, you get the picture.

No comments:

Post a Comment