Lots bout news we never hear for today...
For openers, there's the howler told by Greg Coleman of Romspan mortgage (a company that needs rezoning cooperation from Moncton City Council) that yes, he did give money to some candidates. The reason? Well, he said, companies often to that because they want to encourage the democratic process. Yeah. It's to encourage democracy.
That's a good line, so good that, as I remember it, Stephen Leacock used it in one of his comic stories.
Apparently, other companies were lusting to encourage democracy, too. Indications are that a large number of them were giving money for democracy - though the intrepid reporters of the Moncton Times and Tribune were silent on this
Great as his love for democracy is, Mr. Coleman gave only $250 to $500 per candidate. Obviously, the word around the business community is that, unlike those greedy bus drivers, city council candidates still come at reasonable prices.
And let's face something realistically. If large numbers of business leaders were giving money, then it must be that council candidates have a record of accepting it.
Will regulations help? Not unless the news media do their job.
We have such regulation for for federal and provincial politicians. Okay. So tell me how much Messrs. Irving, McCain, Ganong, Coleman et al gave to the Liberals and Conservatives to "encourage the democratic process." What percentage of those parties' incomes came from corporations and wealthy indivicuals? How much did Mr. Irving give to the NDP and the Greens to encourage their role in the "democratic purpose"?
I have seen one or two occasional hints of this in the TandT over the years. But never more than that.
Even in this case, it wasn't Irving or Rogers or CTV news media that broke the story. It was CBC - you know - the one Norbert doesn't like. Gee. All those reporters covering the election - and it never occured to one of them to ask how much was spent or where it came from.
Then there's Reuters. NewsToday has another Reuters example of how to lie with a straight face. "Iran threatens to wipe Israel off 'face of the earth'." In fact, if you read the story carefully, it's evident Iran said no such thing.
What does "Iran says" mean? The hills and rocks and sand spoke up? The people as a whole spoke? They voted unanimously? The leader of Iran spoke?
Since nations can't speak, we use "Canada refuses to support environment controls" not to mean that all Canadians said that. It means Harper, as leader of Canada, said it. But the leader of Iran did NOT make that statement about Israel. Read the whole story. It was the head of an airborne division who said it. And, more fact, that is NOT actually what he said, anyway. Read the whole story.
"IF THEY TAKE ANY ACTION, they will hand us an excuse to wipe them off the face of the earth."
Hilary Clinton, when running for presidential nomination - and then and now a person whose views are a hell of a lot more important than those of a divisional commaner. When she was running against Obama, she said, "We can wipe Iran off the face of the earth." I don't recall seeing a newspaper report of that, not even in twisted form. American general Curtis Lemay who killed half a million civilians in the helpless country of Cambodia (with which the US was not even at war) said he would "...bomb them back into the stone age." And he did, forcing survivors to live in caves, to get no medical help, and to statve."
The Reuters report also repeats a threat to wipe Irael off the map, a threat allegedly made by the Iranian president in 1995. Just about every reputable news commentator in the world has said that is NOT what the Iranian president said. But I guess neither Reuters nor theTandT editors waste time on reputable commentators.
All this is a rerun of a speech to the UN by Russian president Gorbachev to the UN. I was then a high school teacher; and a group of us sitting in the staff room at lunch time, were watching it and listening to it when, as Gorbachev pointed dramatically a the US ambassador, the translator said, "We will destroy you."
The teachers sitting beside me was a Czech who was fluent in Russian. She jumped to her feet. "That's not what he said, He said communism will destroy capitalism." Within a few days, the news media were hearing from translators all over the world that Gorbachev had NOT said that the Soviet Union would destroy the US. No matter. Most of the North American news media ignored the expert translators. That's why most North Americans still believe that Gorbachev threatened to kill them all.
Then there are the parts of the Iran story that are just left out.
1. The US has no right to impose sanctions on anybody. To do so is an act of war - and according to international law such an attack can be made only when you are attacked. (That's why - though Reuters doesn't mention it - both China and Japan have told the US to get stuffed.)
2. The US and Israel, through interference with computers, caused severe damage to Iranian nuclear research stations. That is illegal and an act of war.
3. The US and Israel have cooperated to assassinate Iranian scientists. That is illegal and an act of war.
4. Israeli and US speical ops have slipped into Iran for targetted assassinations and other duties. That is illegal and an act of war.
So what's going on?
Iran has oil. That oil was controlled by Britain and France who forced pretty terrible terms on Iran. Then Iran formed a democracy in the early 50s. The democratic government sought better terms for its oil. Britain and France attacked Iran with the help of the US which came in for a 25% cut of the oil. They destroyed a secular democracy, and established a brutal dictator - the shah.
That was when a very secular Iran turned to Islam as its only hope. And, through Islamic help, Iran got rid of the shah. That's also why Iran has a bitter hatred of Britain, France and the US. So why are NATO and Israel so eager for a war with Iran? Are they worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon and attacking?
Get real. Israel has some 250 nuclear weapons. Norad has somehere over 2000. Probably way over.
The US wants control of Iranian oil. Israel wants military dominance of the region and, quite possibly, more territory.
And why is Obama reluctantly going along?
He's going along because if he doesn't, he'll lose big campaign money and, probably, the election.
Why is he reluctant? Because it creates the real possiblity of a nuclear showdown with China and Russia, with both sides blundering into an unpredictable war. Because even if we win, the whole region will be in chaos for at least decades.
He's also worried about the months until the Fall election. The oil industry and the Israeli lobby pretty much control him now. But if he wins, he'll be a relatively free man. That's why the oil industry and Israel want war before the election.
There's a reason why Reuters so heavily slants its news. We're being set up.
In other words, New Brunswick is not the only part of this world smothering in cottuption and greed and indifference to human suffering. and absolutely stinking privately-owned news media.
As for humanitarian concerns about Syria? What a laugh - if you're really, really ghoulish. We'll, talk a bit about that tomorrow.