Saturday, June 2, 2012

June 2: Being D and D...

Back in the 50s, Marlon Brando starred in On the Waterfront, a film about gangsters who dominated a neighbourhood in which everyone was terrified into silence about what was going on.  The favourite warning of the gangsters was, "Are you D and D?" (Deaf and dumb). If you weren't D and D, you could end up like Brando's brother, skewered on a meat hook, and hanging from a fence as a public warning.

Our corporate gangsters smile and nod at the Moncton Times and Tribune. It's D and D - and D (deaf, dumb and dead).

The Times has apecial report on the front page about the daily work  of the Codiac RCMP, photos of a couple of "hot bodies", a long about Canada Day which is still a month off, stuff like that. But not a word about the the anti-fracking demonstration at City Hall today.  The gangsters were pleased. So The Times is D and D (and D).

The had a reporter at today's demo (After disregarding two, sizable demonstrations this week.) The reporter is an intelligent person - and some day she's going to be a fine reporter. But she' only interning. An assignment editor should be helping a reporter to learn the game - and should use experienced reporters for big stories. To use an intern at a large demonstrtion is like using a medical intern for a heart transplant.

Generally, you might find something you want to read in section A. But not much.

In NewsToday, Mr. Alward is proposing an elected Senate. He says it will give the Atlantic provinces a stronger voice against the big provinces in Ottawa. No, it won't.

Close  your eyes really hard, David, and think, We are, indeed outnumbered in the House of Commons. But if we elect senators, then the big provinces will elect them, too. So, we'll still be outnumbered. It's a bozo idea.

Anyway, if we did elect senators why should we think they would repreent us? All the Liberals and Conservatives we now have in Ottawa and in Fredericton don't represent us. They represent the big money that enslaves this province. How on earth would electing our senators do anything to change that?

 The Senate was designed in the first place as a body to represent the rich, just in case those common people in the Commons poposed something silly like taxing the rich. It never really has had a function; and most of the babble about it being a place of sober xecond thought is just babble. It's expensive, and it's largely useless.

You can get rid of it. Or you can keep it as a sort of luxury retirement home. Those are the only choices.

There's a story on Syria that says nothing which is, at least, better than the usual story that says lots - but most of it propaganda.

Enbridge gas has an exciting proposal to raise rates 30%. In keeping with an old, New Brunswick tradition, the increases on industry and for the private homes of the wealthy will be lower. The big increases will be for the poor. Good thinking.

The editorial is the usual lout piece about getting tough with Codiac Transpo drivers. I'll take the editorialist seriously when he gets tough with Irving and Ganong and McCain. The bus drivers, by the way, are among those who will be paying more than a 30% increase for their natural gas. The Irvings and Ganongs and McCains won't.  Give  those bus drivers hell, editor.  Give them real hell, and maybe the boss will bend over so you can kiss him again

Good column by Gwynne Dyer. I don't entirely agree with him. I think what's going on in the middle east is much more complicated than he allows.  But, agree or disagree with him, he's a commentator to take seriously.


Decent column by Norbert Cunnigham on history - its value and meaning. I don't entirely agree with it- But his argument is reasonable, and a solid starting point for thinking and discussion - which is what such a column should be.

Then there's a letter to the editor from the sort of person who places great importance on following Holy writ - but is pretty selective about which bits she chooses to follow. In this case, she supports the anti-gay stance of Crandall University.

Well, yes, The Bible does say that gays are bad. It also says you should beat and/or kill your children - check out Deut. 21, Exodus 21, Psalms 137-139, Exodus 19.  and others. So why aren't Crandall administrators out there slaughtering children? There are also references to eating your friends and relatives. So when are you holdiing a church supper with barbecued pastor?

And have you noticed there's no mention of Adam and Eve getting married? But they had children. How can you let righteous (or self-righteous) Christians read that?

Yes, I know there are elaborate arguments that those passages don't really mean what they say. But how convenient just to assume that among all these, the injunctions against gays are really God's  plain word!

I'd like to talk about the anti-fracking demonstration in Moncton. But I'm biased in favour of the demonstrators, so I shouldn't mix it in with this commentary on the Tand T.

I'll add it as a post after  this one. Just remember. You have to read both.

Oh, and don't forget current events, Tuesday, June 5 at 7 p.m. for The Quebec Student strike: Protest or \Revolution?  At Moncton Library.







No comments:

Post a Comment