But Beaujolais Nouveau can be made into a decent drink. Just mix in hot chocolate, top with whipped cream and banana slices, and voila (as phony sophisticates love to say) you have something almost as good as beer.
Check out Section A, p. 7; and there you will find a free ad for (ta-da, all rise) the 2012 debut of Beaujolais Nouveau.
That is pretty much the highlight of Section A. There is, on p.2. a list of MLA expense figures. But, since we get no clear idea of what the expenses are for, it's a pretty useless list.
Sports has its usual free ad disguised as a story for tonight's hockey game. As always, the headline is "Wildtown" Catfight. Wow! Wildtown, Gutsy. Macho. He-man. Who's bringing the chips and beer?
Has it not occurred to anybody that the repeated use of Wildtown Catfight is just a trifle juvenile?
And there's another biased headline on what's going on in the Middle East. "More rockets strike Israel" The implication is clear. Poor, little Israel is being attacked again, and for no reason at all-----well, in fact, Israeli bombs have been striking Gaza for some weeks. And Israeli has been brutalizing, starving, imprisoning, taking land from, and killing the inhabitants of Gaza for over sixty years. But you will never learn that from The Moncton Times and Telegraph. Nor will you ever read that millions of Jews around the world do NOT support what the Israeli government is doing.
No-one can tell just how dangerous this situation is or how big a war this could escalate into. So remember this - Harper has publicly announced, without consulting parliament or the Canadian people, that Canada will support Israel no matter who is at fault.
Gee! It seems just days ago we were remembering those who died for, among other reasons, preserving our democratic institutions and our rights as a free people. Prominent in that was our right as a free people to decide when and where we want to go to war.
For some light humour, read p. C3. It has two stories (count them, two) on Brian Mulroney, the most discredited prime minister in Canadian history, the one who accepted huge bribes, then hid the money from taxation, then lied about it all, finally admitted what could not longer be denied and, thanks to get-tough-on-crime Harper, paid no penalty at all.
Now, this man who has spent his life making himself very rich while acting as a political servant of the very, very rich, and taking graft on the side was an invited speaker at the Learning Partnership tribute luncheon at St. Thomas U. Boy, I'll bet they're bustin' their buttons at St. Thomas U. And, of course, he praised shale gas. Of course. Mulroney is a man who built his career on kissing the rear ends of the very, very rich.
In the same speech, he said politicians must follow principle, not popularity. The gall of that hypocrite! I cannot help telling two brief stories about him.
I was doing radio coverage of the convention to choose a new, Conservative leader after Mulroney resigned. At regular intervals, prominent Conservatives would be introduced to the delegates in the audience. Each was followed by a standing ovation. Except for Mulroney. His name was followed by dead silence every time.
I watched as some of his loyalists moved to seats beside him. The next time his name was announced, the loyalists, about a dozen of them, jumped up to applaud and cheer. Then it faded, and they sank back into their seats. Nobody in that audience of Conservatives had joined in their applause.
Some weeks later, I was at a Conservative reception in Montreal. It was quite big, lots of chatting and circulating and free drinks. (I mean, there's a reason I was there.) Then the voices dropped substantially, and I noticed almost all had turned away from the door or were looking away from it. I looked back at the door. Brian and Mila had just entered the room.
Congratulations to the Learning Partnership and St. Thomas University for restoring respectability to a fine gentleman.
The editorial is a little more scum-bag and bottom-feeding than usual. He opens with praise for Dr. Cleary, then slides over to say she is all wrong. He refers to a "Policy of fear", so placed as to strongly suggest that she was simply using fear. I was at her speech. She did no such thing. She pointed out the risks. that's no more spreading fear than a traffic sign is.
Then he praises Alward for moving with caution. What caution? We have no idea of how he has been moving. We've had no reporting on it. We have very little idea of what regulations are in place, and no idea of how or if they are enforced. All we've had is a deliberately vague report on Dr. Cleary's talk in yesterday's paper, and now a pure propaganda editorial.
Oh, to be fair, we have had reports of what Dr. Lapierre says, And he doesn't play on fear. No. He issues sleeping pills.He doesn't spread fear. No. He spreads ignorance and doziness.
The editorial is pure propaganda. The last sentence is a gem of juvenilia. "How about it, New Brunswick? Do we want in?" Rah, rah, go team, go. That should go down well with the same sort of people who come in their pants when they read "Wildtown Catfight".
Can you read my lips, Mr. editor?