Friday, November 18, 2011

Nov. 18: Journalist types

I correspond with numbers of journalists in Canada and Asia. One of them is a special type of journalist, the type that will not see what he does not want to see. I have long since learned there is no point in arguing with him. If you give him evidence, he will ignore it or wiggle around it.

Based now in China, he thinks China is a wonderfully free country. Tell  him about people jailed for their political views, and he will reply that at least he's allowed to smoke in restaurants. Tell him about the CIA led massacre of Maya in Guatemala; and he will say there must have been a good reason. It took him a long, long time to recognize that the US was torturing prisoners - and then he said it wasn't real torture. I mean not - real.

Norbert Cunningham is one of those. He pronounces that the Occupy movement is made of up dilletantes. Let's see, now. this is a movement all over the world. How many of them has Norbert met? or even seen?

The police actions, he tells us, have not been brutal. Really? Shooting a veteran in the face and splitting his skull is not brutal? Swinging clubs at people lying on the ground is not brutal? Have you seen any of the videos of the riot police, Norbert? Have you ever actually seen riot police in action? Ever known any?

The demonstrators - those people he has never seen - are all "whiners with smart phones". Kids. Spoiled brats. Norbert, I am an Occupy Moncton Protester.  I and not a kid. I would happily debate you in public on just about any topic your little mind should choose. You could even come with that whole collection of kissups that you call an editorial staff.

 But that won't happen, will it?

In fact, your lying newspaper won't even list my current events group at the library (first Tuesday of the month, 7 pm) even though it lists all other library events.

Oh, he also says that revolution worked in Libya because the people supported the revolutionaries. It's hard to know where to start on  his ignorance. In fact, there is no such single group as "the revolutionaries" in Libya. (They are now fighting with each other.) And the victory had something to do with the riot squad we sent to bomb the daylights out of civilians.

He is baffled that the occupy movement wants  democracy restored. "Gee," says Norbert. "We have democracy already."

Do you know what democracy means, Norbert? First,  It means we have access to information through - you know - newspapers and stuff. Norbert. You work for the Irving news media. Do you seriously suggest we have access to the information we need in order to make democratic decisions? Has your paper kept us up on scientific and legal news about fracking for shale gas? Has it even kept us up to date on what's happening in New Brunswick?

Democracy also means that people we elect represent us. Are you seriously suggesting that a Minister of Finance who was an Irving exec, and who is advised by a committee appointed by Irving, represents us?

You were the editorial page editor who published a column by Irving in which he named himself a member of the government - without being elected. Is this democracy?  Did you whimper a word about it?

Have you ever said a word critical of corporate power in this province?

Mind you, Norbert, I'm not arguing with you. You're a type who will never see what he doesn't want to see. I have seen the people at Occupy Moncton. What I saw were people of all ages. The young people I saw were intelligent - for the most part, rather more intelligent than you are. And, far from spoiled, they're trying to clean up the mess that people like you have left as their inheritance.

Moving on -There's a standing joke in jouranlism about the editorial writer who rants on some subject he obviously knows nothing about, then concludes with a thunderous, "something must be done." We have one of those today.

It's about the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies report (which is, in itself, a fraud perpetrated by corporate New Brunswick, one which has no scientific value, and is damaging to the schools.) Their report shows no great change in results over the years. (Considering that NB public schools rank among the dozen or so best systems in the world - and way ahead of the US and Britain - that seems decent.)

But no. The editorial writer is firm. "It's time to get back to basics".

Now, I've been in education and  teaching at all levels from elementary to university for close to fifty years. But I ain't real smart like these here editorial writers that Mr. Irving picks. So tell me. What the hell are basics?

Does it  mean the 3 Rs? So far as I know, the schools have never stopped doing that. Does it mean teaching them to memorize by chanting while the teacher beats a stick on the board? Been there. Doesn't work.

Here we have an editorial on education by someone who obviously knows nothing about it, has nothing to say, but still comes down with a thundering opinion.

On the op ed page, Louis Leger, president of Downtown Moncton Cetnreville Inc. contributes a column written in bureaucrateze that few will read. That's just as well. It's column on revitalizing downtown that shows no understanding of the subject at all - and is really a soft sell for the half wit idea of borrowing a couple of hundred million to build a hockey rink that one of the Irvings can make money out of while we pay for it - forever.

36 comments:

  1. This is the last time I am going to read this blog. You are tetched. Your attack on Norbert Cunningham was personal, and that, I feel, is inappropriate. Cunningham is entitled to his opinion, and to write a column expressing his opinion. If you disagree with him, fine, but don't make your comments a personal attack.

    ReplyDelete
  2. A couple of follow up questions to my post: When did Irving declare himself a member of government? (Please provide the exact date the op-ed piece, to which you refer, appeared in the paper). Also, please tell all readers why you have such an intense dislike of the paper. Your dislike is so intense, that it is clear it is personal. Did Cunningham refuse to publish letters written by you?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I shall, of course, be hearbroken. I have a deep respect for those who aren't afraid to call themselves anonymous.
    1. Irving's declaration that he was a member of the government appeared in the only column I have ever seen written by him. It was mid-December of 2010 - and I'm sure Norbert could give you the exact date because he was editorial page editor at the time. In it, Irving declared himself in coalition with the government. (No. Coalition does not mean in cooperation. It means to actually be part of something.)
    The German word is anschluss as in when Hitler declared Austria a part of Germany. In our parliamentary tradition, one can become part of a government only by being elected - and only by being asked to join the first place. For Mr. Irving to make such an announcement was both arrogant and unconstitutional.

    Cunningham engaged in a series of vicious and personal attacks. I feel no guilt for responding in kind. In fact, though, most of my comments referred to where he had made errors - or where he had made statements on matters he could not possibly know to be true.

    As for my reasons for disliking the paper, I have given them in a colid year of blogs. If you will take the trouble to read parliamentary reports on Canadian journalism, you will find them all to be pretty similar to what I say. The Irving press has a terrible reputation across Canada.

    Graeme is my real name. What's your's?

    ReplyDelete
  4. About china, maybe your friend could read : http://www.babelio.com/livres/Cormier-Les-heritiers-de-Tiananmen/294178

    provided that he reads french..

    ReplyDelete
  5. not a chance. It doesn't matter what evidence you give him. He's still convinced Obama is a secret Moslem and a socialist.

    ReplyDelete
  6. on a another note. norbert should get his head out of the sand and take a look around. if only he knew what the occupy protests were about. my father worked in the automobile industry in south western ontario for over 20 years.when the government decided to bail out the big shots in charge of gm, ford and chrysler, they never even considered the workers such as my father. anyway, it didn't get him his job back. he's been out of work for about two years. at his age (59), he's having a hell of a time finding work. meanwhile, the rich CEO's are still financing a terrible football team on the other side of the detroit river.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Graeme,

    J. D. Irving did not declare himself a member of anything. I quote from his op-ed article: "... over the past number of weeks, there has developed a growing coalition -- government, industry, community groups, academia and other concerned New Brunswickers -- focused on finding a better way forward for New Brunswick."

    You are splitting hairs with your definition of coalition.

    Check out dictionary.com. It defines coalition as "1. a combination or alliance, especially a temporary one between persons, factions, states, etc.; 2. a union into one body or mass; fusion.'

    Websters defines it as "an alliance for combined action, esp. a temporary alliance of political parties forming a government or of states."

    Note that Websters adds especially, but not defines it as only an alliance of parties to form a government.

    You are misrepresenting the facts when you continue to state Irving has declared himself a member of the government. In so doing, you leave me no choice but to question your motives and to dismiss your criticisms.

    I wrote the earlier posts under "Anonymous" to ask about your dislike of the T&T and Cunningham (not the posts about China and the protests).

    You Ask my name? It is Rob. I am a journalist, in China (not the apologist for China that you mentioned) and I have worked for the Irvings (at Telegraph-Journal [was laid off when they merged the paper with the Times-Globe]) and I have worked for CNN in Atlanta.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I regret to find that the post I wrote to respond to "Rob" does not seem to have appeared. So here it is all over.

    1. Rob - learn to read. Irving wrote that he and business leaders (and some others) had formed a coalition with the government. That means they were a part of the government.

    Contrary to your claim, I did not say that it was purely a party politics term. I said it means those in the coalition beoome the same. The German example of anschluss, which I gave, was a non-party use of term.
    In other words, Irving, as a (if not the) major leader of the business group was declaring himself a member of the government, along with others who also had no right to make any such claim. Can you follow that?
    a) If such a coalition were to occur, it would be extremely arrogant for anyone but the premier to announce it.
    b) It would also be a stunning break with Canadian democratic procedure.
    2. There has been a development since that time. A group (unelected by the people) has been hand-picked by our corporate leaders to plan the economy - you know - stuff like the budget. They have been officially recognized and given access to the Minister of Finance.

    In most democracies, such close contact between interest groups and a department is highly improper. Britain's defence minister recently had to resign in such a case.
    Here, thanks to journalists like Norbert, few people even know what happened.

    3.While you have your little dictionary out, look up corporatism. (It starts with a c.) You will find it defines corporatism as a union (coaltition) of government and business. And, if it's a half-decent dictionary, it will tell you another word for it - fascism.

    4. I dislike Norbert because he has routinely made personal attacks, often quite vicious ones. No. He has never rejected a letter from me. Nor would I care if he did.

    5. I dislike the TandT because it is a propaganda sheet for Mr. Irving. It's a scandalous rag.

    6. You once worked for CNN in Atlanta? Gee golly whiz! I - I'm just swept off my feet. I've done thousands of radio and TV pieces for CBC and private stations. I've written at least hundreds of newspaper columns. I went to Hong Kong to teach journalism to people like you.

    7. I do envy you being in China. Please say hello to an old friend if you run into him. He's Bruce Wallace, Bureau Chief for the LA Times in Asia. (At least, he was last I heard.) I taught him when he did his BA.

    Why am I not surprised that you worked for the Irvings?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Actually at NO TIME did Jim Irving state he was a member of government (via backdoor or otherwise). Please reprint the section of his letter that verifies your statement......... Please do that................. You make everything personal.Argue the facts, not personalities...against whom did Mr. Cunningham mount such a terrible attack?
    I'm sure 'Rob" can defend himself but your constant reference to Jim Irving declaring himself a member of government is complete BS. I defy you to reprint the paragraph or article where he did as you maintain. I am anything BUt an Irving apologist..far from it...but try to stick to facts and not rely your personal interpretation, based on your dislikes.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Oh - look. Try really hard to read. over that past weeks, says mr. irving, there has been a growing coalition of (various groups with government). The reference is to a group spearheaded by Mr. Irving. It was essentially of business with a scattering of other representatives as potted plants.

    No such group has a right to declare itself in coalition with a government - not in any form of democracy I have ever heard of.

    Mr. Irving chose to act as the spokesman for that group announcing it was in coalition.

    Now, you claim that really says he was not declaring himself in coalition?

    I'm sorry. You seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.

    ReplyDelete
  11. dear anonymous no. 3 -
    You will find the statement in the comment by anonymous no. 2. (can I call you no. 2 for short?)
    As to its meaning in declaring membership in government, I refer you the comment I wrote about.
    as to your comment I was talking BS, I bown my head to your wisdom, clarity and insight.
    as to my interpretations being personal, all interpretations are personal. Are you sure your understand the meaning of personal?

    Where did Norber make personal attacks? May I suggest you read his oolumn on the day I referred to it? May I also suggest you read the editorials and comments on our teachers and our schools of a year ago when he was editorial page editor?

    All interpretations, incidently, are based on likes and dislikes, though thoughtful people usually refer to those likes and dislikes as morals and ethics. Read The Bible some day. Much of it is about likes and dislikes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Graeme,

    This is a response from Rob. You have the problem with reading comprehension. Jim Irving did NOT declare himself a member of anything, not even a member of the summit. He never even hinted he was spearheading the movement. You are clearly misrepresenting the facts. You obviously have an intense hatred for the Irvings and you are trying to erroneously convince New Brunswickers that Irving is trying to pull something over on them.

    In my previous two posts, I provided the text of Irving's op-ed piece. Where did Irving say he was there? Show me where Jim Irving said he was now a member of government. Show me where Irving said he was in attendance. From the verbatim text, and given your skewed understanding and definition of coalition, I guess Irving was also declaring the members of academia, industry, community groups etc to be members of government? Why are you not raising a fuss about their sudden elevation to government?

    If you, our self-proclaimed philosopher king can comprehend the first paragraph of Irving's article, you should be able to understand right off that it was David Ganong and former premier Camille Theriault, co-chairs of the summit, who brought the groups together. Do note, contrary to your interpretation and infinite wisdom, that the reference is to a movement spearheaded by Ganong and Theriault. There is no reference, direct or inferred by Irving, that He himself was spearheading anything.

    All he did was write an opinion article outlining his thoughts about this issue. Anyone can write an opinion article and submit it for publication.

    Again, you are misrepresenting the facts. You are repeatedly saying Jim Irvng did something which he did not do. Also, when you are called on it, rather than prove the others are wrong, using facts, you fly into personal attacks and make snide references that we who contradict you are too stupid to meet you on your lofty intellectual plane.

    Rather than fly off on a tangent about me not being able to understand the meaning of coalition, just simply use the text of Irving's op-ed piece to show me where Irving said and did what you claim he said and did. Until you can prove your point, using Irving's own words, your argument has no validity and therefore no value.

    Get off your high horse you miserable old crank.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Sorry Graeme...but you're wrong. You chose the interpretation you wanted with respect to Jim Irving's op ed piece and have been beating it to death since. There is nothing wrong with my ability to read and understand. I suggest it is you who should sign up for remedial reading. If you can show me with facts(and not with your lofty sacrasm) where Jim Irving said what you say he said I will kiss your ass on the city hall steps. Now...show me. Show me in his exact words where Jim Irving said what you attribute to him.....and then be a man and admit you are WRONG. Even that that twerp Don Cherry did that.You can admit you're wrong when you are. And you most assuredly are in this case. Your comments regarding Jim Irving forming a coalition with government are so far off the wall as to be in the middle of the floor. And don't go on some long sacrastic explanation of the meaning of coalition.....I know what coalition means. You are not then only person in New Brunswick who ever went to school or read a book. But where I went to school I learned to be honest in my declarations. As i said previously I am far, far from an Irving apologist and I don't give a hoot if you criticize the Irvings until hell freezes over. But, please...just get it right.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous 3 was not saying your interpretations are personal. Anonymous 3 was saying you are unable to argue the facts, simply because you are wrong (but won't admit it), and as a result you launch into personal attacks against those who disagree -- and dare challenge -- with you.

    Just so I can better understand your frame of mind, are you suffering from the initial stages of dementia?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Okay, kiddies. Try to follow the bouncing ball.

    Skip the personal slurs like references to dementia. I don't deny the dementia - but it beats Obtuseness. I'll skip on the offer to have my ass kissed. I don't doubt the ass-kissing expertise of a person who calls Mr. Irving 'Jim'. But save it for him.

    Now. There's a New Brunswick Business Council? It's a small group, made up of the bigger players. Among them are good ol' boy Jim, and Mike Ashar, president and CEO of Irving Oil.

    This group, as Irving said early in his column, had recently held a summit meeting on the economy. The op ed column was clearly about this summit.

    This is the group that had arrived at a coalition with the government.

    Now - step one. NO unelected group has the power to form a coalition with the government. If you want some expert guidance, consult the writings of Eugene Forsey. The New Brunswick Business Council was not elected by the people of New Brunswick. It cannot, therefore be in a coalition with a democratic government.

    2. If a coalition is formed, courtesy and protocol require that the prime minister announce it. This is a fundamental change in the government. Only the elected prime minister can annouce such a change. But he didn't.

    3. For all Rob's squirming, coalition means only one thing - the blending together of separate things into one. It does not mean cooperation. It does not mean good friends. It means becoming one thing. Germany and austria became just Germany. White milk and chocolate powder become chocolate milk. When two groups come together politically, the groups become one group - not united - just one, new group. To clarify your thinking, I suggest you use the Oxford English Dictionary - the big one of some 25 or 30 volumes.

    In reference to government, the two groups become one and the same. It is exactly the same meaning as the common meaning of coalition. There are no distinct and separate meanings of coalition. In politics, it normally refers to a coalition of two political parties. The parties become one and the same. This is not different from any other meaning of the word. It is simply its use in politics.
    Please learn how to use a dictionary.

    4. Are we ready to move on, now?

    5. "Jimmy" was a part of the summit he was referring to, and rather a prominent part. Unless he is in some sort of disagreement with his CEOs and with himself as president of Irving Oil (perhaps a split personality disorder) then he, as a member of that group, was announcing he was part of the coalition and, therefore, a member of the government.

    Do you follow this so far?

    5. Following that, he, with the Business Council, announced the formation of an appointed group (from among themselves) to plan the province's economic future. (That is normally a government function.)

    6. The premier then gave that group official status to meet with the Department of Finance to advise on economic matters. I do not know of another parliamentary intimacy which allows such intimacy with interest groups. Recently, the British minister of defence had to resign when it became known he had permitted such access to his department for an arms dealer.

    7. My reference to Norbert's personal attacks was to his column that started all this. Read it. (Mind you - people who accuse others of dementia, BS, and are addicted to baring their asses at City Hall, are not likely to see anything wrong with what Norbert said.)

    Will this convince you? No, of course not.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Graeme-o-phone,

    I call you that because you sound like a broken record.

    Yes, coalition is becoming one thing, various groups coming together as one. That, however, means one entity, and not necessary government. Groups can come together to form a coalition to work on issues that are non-governmental and do not involve the government. In this case, they formed one body to chart a new economic way for the province.

    given your analysis, any time the government works with interested parties, then those parties become members of government?

    Also, you need to ensure you have the facts straight. Jim Irving is not president of Irving Oil and, in fact, he has very little to do with that division of the family's business. Yet, you refer to him as president of Irving Oil.

    It is clear you have many opinions, but unfortunately they are seldom based on facts.

    Forget Germany. Germany has nothing to do with this discussion. Just answer my specific question and show me from the text of Irving's op-ed article where he "DECLARES" himself a member of government.

    You repeatedly say he "DECLARED" himself a member of government. That would he had to have say something like "I, Jim Iriving, am now a member of government." Show me where anything remotely like that appears in his op-ed article.

    You cannot show me, because it isn't in there. You have stated repeatedly that Irving declared himself a member of government. Where did he do this? i provided the full text of Irving's op-ed piece. I challenge you to show me where, exactly where, he made that declaration.

    You keep putting words in Irving's mouth and when challenged you fail to prove what you claim. Nowhere n the op-ed piece does Irving say he did anything.

    Why, when you are challenged on the facts do you always skirt the issue with nonsensical references to Germany and chocolate milk? Why do you refuse to provide factual proof to back up your claims? Perhaps because proof does not exist?

    I have to agree with the previous anonymous individual who asks if you have dementia? The fact that you try to compare Jim Irving with anyone or anything from Nazi Germany would suggest something clearly is wrong with your head.

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well, Graeme.....I realize it does little good to continue with this thread. Either (a) you realize you are wrong and are just having some fun..playying silly bugger..with your arguments or (b) you truly do not understand the difference between fact and speculation. It is not easy to believe that someone who reached such lofty stations in academic life as you take credit for coucld possibly be as stupid as sosme of your arguments wpuld seem to indicate. Therefore I can only conclude that you ARE just having fun, baiting those of us who have called on you to state FACT. There can be no opther conslsusion..ssurelay you are NBIT as stupid as one might assumne, based on the silly nature of your arguyments. If you really DO NOT understande the difference between published fact and your own personal speculation then perhaps you could ask one of those in attendance at the literacy group you allegedly speak to at Moncton library to (slowly) explain the difference. You admonished me a posting or two ago to read the Bible. Frabkly, I suspect I am as famuiliar with its widsom as are you..I would encourage YOU to check out Matthew 13:13.......
    As for "Jim" Irving...apparently it is OK for YOU to refer to him as Jim but not appropriate for me. I never met the man but i DO know he hjas nothing o with Irving Oil (get that fact right to, Graeme). As for me, I have noted several times I am NOT an Irving apologist. I refuse to buy Irving products or attend hockey games involving a well know hockey team owned by the Irving empire. Criticize the Irving empire to your heart's content..but , for God's sake, use FACT and not your warped anti Irving, anti-business speculation. At NO point..that is NO POINT (can you grasp that???) in the op-ed page did Jim Irving state, declare, allege or otherwise say the thingsyou attribute to him. (At this point I asssume you launch into your Nazi Germany rant). Sir...i respect you on several levels. I respect the fact you take the time to write a daily blog/. I respect the fact you leave yourself open to criticism. I respect the fact you have strong views. I do NOT respect the fact you refuse to argue fact for fact. You cannot show anyone just where Jim Irving said the things you say he said. You cannot even offer proof positbe that Jim Irving evcen attended the economic summit that has you so worked up. I assume he did but I don't know wthat for sure. do you/ Show me where it says that in the op ed piece. Someone (I'm sure you will know who) once said something aong the lines of "it makes no sense to argue with a fool. He will just bring you down to his level and then win on experience."

    (I also respect the fact that you do publish these viewpoints so that other who may read this blog can study the facts and draw their own conclusions.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ha,ha...its a good thing you took up education and not law, sir. You would not have done very well in court with arguments such as you put forward here. State FACTS....not your one opinion....................... (and for godness sake,,,,leave Nazi Germany out of it).

    ReplyDelete
  19. I shall continue to publish any comments you send. But I won't waste any time reading them.
    What I like about you people is that you are superb examples for our readers of kinds of thick-headedness that can expect to encounter from some people.

    You don't offer a single argument. You call names. But no "facts", no sources, no nothing.
    The closest to an argument is that one of you said not all coalitions are political. In fact, I had already said that. But when you make a coalition with a government, that is political.

    You see, gentle reader, there are some people you can never reach. Get used to it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Graeme,

    What in hell do you mean by "You don't offer a single argument. You call names. But no "facts", no sources, no nothing."

    I have made an argument and backed it up by posting Jim Irving's op-ed article in its entirety. I still challenge you to who me -- quoting from his article -- where he declares he is a member of government.

    You have not done so, because he did not do so.

    Irving's op-ed article is the best argument against your repeated claim that he declared himself a member of government.

    Again, quote from the article where he declared himself a member of government?

    You are the one who cannot argue the facts. You have said Jim Irivng declared himself a member of government; he did not. You said Jim Irving is president of Irving Oil; he is not. You said Jim Irving inferred he was spearheading the movement; he did not.

    In fact, you continue to tell readers that Jim Irving inferred he was spearheading the economic summit, even thigh I posted his article in which he wrote that David Ganong and Camille Theriault spearheaded the movement.

    You cannot argue on the facts, so you reduce the debate to attacks and name calling by inferring the rest of us are too stupid to understand what you are telling us.

    (If that is the way you taught, no wonder so many university graduates are illiterate and useless.)

    Again, I ask you to quote from Irving's article where he declared he was a member of government. Just do that and I will admit you are right and I am wrong.

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  21. By the way, Graeme, I see you did not publish the text of Irving's op-ed article. I presume that was because it refuted your claims? To readers who are interested in reading it for themselves, it was in the Dec 11, 2010 edition of the Times&Transcript. Read it and you will see that Graeme is misrepresenting the facts.

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have come to this discussion late, but I hope to shed some light on this argument. I recall reading what Irving wrote in the paper, and he never said he was a member of government, a member of the committee that organized the summit, or that he was behind the effort.

    From my recollection of that article, the author of this blog is wrong and would do him a greater service to acknowledge as much and stop reducing the discussion to personal attacks with those who disagree with him.

    I would also suggest the author some drawing comparisons with Nazi Germany. It is irrelevant to the discussion, it is nonsensical and it is distasteful. You cannot compare a businessman -- or those who disagree with you -- in 21st century New Brunswick with anyone or anything from 1930s Germany. Any reasonably educated person would have enough sense to realize that.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Well Graeme,

    I think you are the thick-headed one.

    I have been reading this string with interest and I found and read Irving's article after Rob noted the edition in which it was published. Nowhere does Irving say or do what you claim he said and did. I now know the truth because I took the time to read the article. I hope your other readers will do the same.

    Why, then, don't you just admit you are wrong and that you have been misrepresenting -- whether intentionally or mistakenly -- the facts. Perhaps it would also be a good time to just simply admit you are simply trying to piss in the Irvings' corn flakes for no reason other than you do not like them!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi. I am Steve. What has astonished me is that the author of this blog, who claims to have been a teacher, has such a hard time understanding what Rob and the others have been saying. How can someone so "intelligent" be so ignorant?

    I too have found a copy of Jim Irving's writing, and I too cannot see where he did what the Graeme says he did. I think Graeme's dislike and distrust of the Irvings has caused him to assume something that he should not assume.

    Remember what happens when you assume!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Hi all,

    Just a question: where is the post of Irving's article? Rob said he posted it here, but I cannot find it. I would like to read it to see for myself if Irving made such a declaration. Has it been withheld for a reason? Is Graeme (??) afraid it will show him to be wrong? If it will not be posted here, where can I find it?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Graeme,

    This is from Rob: You say we do not provide facts. I tried to post Irving's op-ed article but there must have been a glitch. Here, I send it again. I challenge you one more time, show me where Irving declared himself a member of government and inferred he spearheaded the summit.

    Text of Irvng's article (Part 1):

    The recent Future NB summit in Moncton provided an important opportunity to discuss the challenges facing New Brunswick and to work together to define a way forward.
    David Ganong and Camille Theriault, co-chairs of the event organized by the NB Business Council, did a great job bringing together many different interest groups. Most encouraging was the level of commitment, creative ideas and engagement on this very important subject.
    Both Premier Alward and Finance Minister Higgs have highlighted the fiscal challenges we face.
    As a result, over the past number of weeks, there has developed a growing coalition - government, industry, community groups, academia and other concerned New Brunswickers - focused on finding a better way forward for New Brunswick.
    New Brunswick's full potential can be achieved by focusing on three key areas - skilled people, efficient policies and dedicated process improvement.
    We are living and competing in a global marketplace. New Brunswick is one of the most export-dependent provinces in Canada (second only to Ontario).
    About 35,000 New Brunswickers are employed in the manufacturing sector, producing world-class goods and services for the global market.
    We are also the most forestry-dependent province per capita in Canada.
    Government policies can help or hinder New Brunswick's competitiveness.
    For example, in the forest products business, approximately 50 per cent of our costs are impacted by government policies.
    Any savings from our own productivity efforts are diminished by the uncompetitive government policies that impact half of our costs.
    For example today, New Brunswick government policy - which has built up over a number of years - is responsible for:
    * The highest natural gas distribution rates in North America
    * The highest forest industry electricity rates in Canada
    * The second-highest rate for Crown stumpage (trees) in Canada (slightly behind N.S.)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Tet of Irving's article (Part 2):

    Other Canadian jurisdictions have already responded with competitive policies to sustain forestry jobs.
    New Brunswick needs to respond as well, and quickly: soon is not an adequate target.
    Many of these issues have been discussed for years, yet they continue to remain unresolved, threatening more jobs.
    Faster, better, cheaper: This is the challenge from our global competitors.
    At J.D. Irving Limited, I am extremely proud of our outstanding team of men and women throughout our organization.
    Their perseverance, passion and focus on the day-to-day effort of "finding a better way" motivates me.
    They are meeting these challenges with world-class productivity, science and technology.
    Our annual rate of improvement throughout our woodlands operations over the last five years has been six per cent - which is the benchmark for top quartile companies around the world.
    We are not alone.
    Throughout New Brunswick there are many other companies, organizations and volunteers who share this commitment to continuous improvement - of products, services and the quality of life we enjoy.
    Government needs to do the same.
    There is potential that should be realized immediately for the benefit of taxpayers and communities.
    In northern New Brunswick, we are growing twice the volume of wood on an acre of our private land versus an adjacent acre of Crown land.
    This performance is being achieved at half the cost of what it takes to manage an acre of Crown land.
    At the same time, independent audits confirm we are achieving all of our environmental objectives on this private land.
    There are real savings in tax dollars for New Brunswickers in narrowing this significant cost gap, while at the same time, increasing provincial revenue from Crown lands.
    This can all be achieved while still maintaining top environmental performance.
    The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) should be assigned economic objectives that provide benefits to taxpayers and drive investment by industry - in addition to the current environmental priorities.
    Improving efficiency should be a priority.
    As an example, DNR should use the existing computer database and GPS technology instead of requiring paper copy reporting.
    This would still hold industry accountable, yet would save taxpayers more than $2 million a year.
    This is just one of many opportunities to save and improve.
    Government, like industry, has to embrace a mindset of being more efficient.
    We can succeed right here in New Brunswick - provided government can get the competitive inputs right. The will and skill of these New Brunswickers deserve competitive policies now.
    New Brunswick's location and proximity to global markets are assets.
    Being a small province, we must be able to focus on issues as well as new opportunities, and respond quickly to them.
    We must be agile.
    New Brunswick doesn't control a rising Canadian dollar or global competition, but we can secure jobs by investing in people and policies to drive efficiency and competitiveness.
    The Future NB summit demonstrates how people and ideas can come together for positive change. Let's continue to build on this momentum.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Graeme,

    I commend you for posting at least the first part of Irving's article. Now, please show me with direct quote where Irving declared he was a member of government. Also, show me with direct quote where Irving inferred he was spearheading the summit.

    I want direct quotes and not references to Germany. Don't go off on a tangent, just refer to direct quotes from the text of the article. Don't talk in circles and surmise and make inferences, just provide direct quotes from the article.

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  29. Competing and winning from New Brunswick
    JIM IRVING J.D. IRVING LIMITED u. The Times - Transcript. Moncton, N.B.: Dec 11, 2010. pg. D.7

    The recent Future NB summit in Moncton provided an important opportunity to discuss the challenges facing New Brunswick and to work together to define a way forward. David Ganong and Camille Theriault, co-chairs of the event organized by the NB Business Council, did a great job bringing together many different interest groups. Most encouraging was the level of commitment, creative ideas and engagement on this very important subject.

    Both Premier Alward and Finance Minister Higgs have highlighted the fiscal challenges we face. As a result, over the past number of weeks, there has developed a growing coalition - government, industry, community groups, academia and other concerned New Brunswickers - focused on finding a better way forward for New Brunswick. New Brunswick's full potential can be achieved by focusing on three key areas - skilled people, efficient policies and dedicated process improvement.

    We are living and competing in a global marketplace. New Brunswick is one of the most export-dependent provinces in Canada (second only to Ontario). About 35,000 New Brunswickers are employed in the manufacturing sector producing world-class goods and services for the global market.

    ReplyDelete
  30. We are also the most forestry-dependent province per capita in Canada. Government policies can help or hinder New Brunswick's competitiveness. For example, in the forest products business, approximately 50 per cent of our costs are impacted by government policies.

    Any savings from our own productivity efforts are diminished by the uncompetitive government policies that impact half of our costs. For example today, N.B. government policy - which has built up over a number of years - is responsible for:

    * The highest natural gas distribution rates in North America.

    * The highest forest industry electricity rates in Canada.

    * The second-highest rate for Crown stumpage (trees) in Canada (slightly behind Nova Scotia).

    Other Canadian jurisdictions have already responded with competitive policies to sustain forestry jobs. New Brunswick needs to respond as well, and quickly: 'soon' is not an adequate target. Many of these issues have been discussed for years yet they remain unresolved, threatening more jobs.

    Faster, better, cheaper: This is the challenge from our global competitors. At J.D. Irving Limited, I am extremely proud of our outstanding team of men and women throughout our organization. Their perseverance, passion and focus on the day-to-day effort of 'finding a better way' motivates me.

    They are meeting these challenges with world-class productivity, science and technology. Our annual rate of improvement throughout our woodlands operations over the last five years has been six per cent, which is the benchmark for top quartile companies around the world.

    We are not alone. Throughout New Brunswick there are many other companies, organizations and volunteers who share this commitment to continuous improvement - of products, services, and the quality of life we enjoy.

    Government needs to do the same. There is potential that should be realized immediately for the benefit of taxpayers and communities.

    In northern N.B., we are growing twice the volume of wood on an acre of our private land versus an adjacent acre of Crown Land. This performance is being achieved at half the cost of what it takes to manage an acre of Crown Land.

    At the same time, independent audits confirm we are achieving all of our environmental objectives on this private land. There are real savings in tax dollars for New Brunswickers in narrowing this significant cost gap, while at the same time, increasing provincial revenue from Crown Lands. This can all be achieved while still maintaining top environmental performance.

    The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) should be assigned economic objectives that provide benefits to taxpayers and drive investment by industry - in addition to the current environmental priorities.

    Improving efficiency should be a priority. As an example, DNR should use the existing computer database and GPS technology instead of requiring paper copy reporting. This would still hold industry accountable yet would save taxpayers more than $2 million a year. This is just one of many opportunities to save and improve. Government, like industry, has to embrace a mindset of being more efficient.

    We can succeed right here in New Brunswick - provided government can get the competitive inputs right. The will and skill of these New Brunswickers deserve competitive policies now.

    New Brunswick's location and proximity to markets are assets. Being a small province, we must be able to focus on issues as well as new opportunities, and respond quickly to them. We must be agile.

    New Brunswick doesn't control a rising Canadian dollar or global competition but we can secure jobs by investing in people and policies to drive efficiency and competitiveness. The Future NB summit demonstrates how people and ideas can come together for positive change.

    Let's continue to build on this momentum.

    n Jim Irving is the president of J.D. Irving, Limited.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I wrote a general response - which, for some reason, has not appeared here. This is not a response to anonymous 1, 2, or 3 - but to what appears to be an anonymous 4.

    1. Irving's op ed was a response to a "summit meeting" organized by a business council of which Irving is a member. He does not have to say he is a member. His is listed at its site as a member.
    2. Irving participated in that summit meeting.
    3. his op ed piece is a report on that meeting.
    4. In it, he says the group formed a coalition with the government.
    5. He was, and is, a member of the group. As a member of the group, then, he is part of a coalition with the government. (I know, I know. He did not say I, James (call me Jim) Irving am a member of the coalition. He doesn't have to. If the group is in coaltion and he is a member of the group, then by definition he is in the coalition.)
    6. such a coalition is contrary to Canadian parliamentary practice. In a democracy, you get into government by being elected, not by appointing yourself.
    7. A government system in which business is officially represented and without election is called corporatism. Check any dictionary. Corporatism is a form of fascism.
    A committee hand-picked by Irving's committee is now officially involved in setting New Brunswick economic policy. They are now, though unelected, an official part of the government process. That is what is called corporatism. It's also called fascism. Yes, it's a nasty word, and I'm sure it couldn't happen in 21st century New Brunswick. But it is happening.
    2. Hitler was not just a oddity who appeared in Germany and shot himself in the mouth in 1945.
    History is full of Hitlers - power-hungry, mass-murderers, torturers. They have been produced in every empire that ever existed - Rome, the Huns, Belgium, Britain, France, Spain, China, Japam..... (Oh, I know. It's not terrible when Britain or the US kills or tortures or plunders - that's the spread of civilization.)

    In the real world, Canada and the US have been world leaders in racism, anti-semitism (someday, read None is Too Many - about anti-semitism in Canada throughout the 1930s and 40s.) The US has a similar record. Canadian prime minister Mackenzie King was a great admirer of Hitler. So were numbers of Canadian business leaders. So was Henry Ford. So were leaders of American banking houses.

    Never assume that Hitler was a one-time-only figure, and that he could not happen here.

    The US murdered 200,000 to 250,000 native peoples in Guatemala. Clinton publicly apologized for it. (google New York Times Guatemala Clinton Apology). It did not make most of the North American news. I guess they think it's nicer to get killed by American bullets than Nazi bullets. And nicer to get tortured by the CIA than by the Gestapo.
    And now - a simply quiz. Just yes or no.
    1. Did Irving say that an unelected group was now in coalition with the government?
    2.Is Irving a member of that group?
    3. Does corporatism mean involvement of unelected organizations in the process of government?
    4. Is corporatism a form of fascism?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Congratulations Graeme, you have finally admitted you are wrong. In many previous posts you have stated categorically that Irving declared himself a member of government. At least now, you acknowledge he never said it, even though you persist with your warped interpretation and assumption that Irving did what you claim.

    again, show me a direct reference to where irving appointed himself a member of government.

    Irving wrote that a coalition of interest groups was forming, but he never stated he was a part of it.

    again, you go off a=on she wild freaking tangent about nazi germany which is not germaine to this discussion.

    You should be advised that you are bordering on libel when you compare someone to hitler. You really should consult a lawyer if you are going to compare Irving to mass murderers and torturers. And you have the freaking nerve to say we who disagree with you resort to name calling.

    I beseech you to provide a specific instance of an Irving torturing and/or killing anyone.

    You are in serious legal territory at this point, and while i am not a fan of the Irvings, and while I have no interest in protecting their reputation, I am thinking I should inform Jim Irving of the comparison who have just made.

    I have never heard of an Irving in this province killing and/or torturing anyone. Whether you like them or you hate them, it is inadvisable to compare them to Hitler and mass murderers. Only someone with diminished capacity would do so.

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  33. don't pay the fool rob. I never suggested irving tortured or killed anyone. (you really are a great example of the no-balls-at-all reporter who spends his career defending the rich and powerul against the poor.)

    I said that unelected representation in government is what is called corporatism. and corporatism is a form of fascism.

    That does not suggest that Mr. Irving has a tooth brush moustache or looks like Charlie Chapline. It says what a dictionary says.

    For that matter, I am disturbed by your slanders of Hitler. Can you give me a direct quotation in which he says "I will torture people." ?

    And where does he say, "I will kill all Jews."?
    Are you assuming that from his statement about a final solution? But that could have meant anything.

    thank you to you and your friends. You have done wonders in building my readership.

    ReplyDelete
  34. I guess that I am anonymous 4. I posted the full statement from Mr Irving, just to give an idea to everybody what it looked like. I read your blog regularly and enjoy it. I have no connection whatsoever to Rob or anybody else.

    -D

    ReplyDelete
  35. Graeme,

    Are you a Nazi? Are you an anti-semite?

    I cannot provide a direct quote from Hitler, then again, I never drew any comparisons to Hitler -- you did.

    Are you trying to suggest that me referring to your inference that Irving is in the same category as Hitler damages Hitler's reputation?

    Get some psychiatric help now. Here is a contact number for Canadian Mental Health Association, Moncton Region: 859-8114. Best of luck. They have many types of medication that should be of use to you.

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  36. I get so confused. I'm living in a world in which everybody has the same name.

    ReplyDelete