Sunday, August 18, 2013

August 14: Sleaze

The pages upon pages of pictures of kites were bad enough. Obviously, the Irvings must think we have no brains at all. (Well, of course they do. Who else would put up with their half-wit newspapers.). Most of the TandT  for Friday and Saturday was unpeakably childish, even moronic.
But the pure sleaze was Brent Mazerolle's story on Page A 1, (energy institute starts work.).

Obviously,  Irving and friends intend to steamroller this through - no matter what. Yessir, the Energy Institute is poised to give respectability - like putting a Sunday go to church hat on a hooker.
I'll just hit on a couple of points of this delberately slobbering, ignorant and misleading "Story"/

1. We read it constantly underlined that a "foreigner" going to such a conference  (by the way, Brent, was it a conference or a workshop? - there's a  difference_  - amyway that a foreigner getting invited to a conference is a big deal.
Brent, academic conferences commonly, even normally, have have foreigners at them. It's no big deal. It's not as if prof Lapierre were invited to the become chamberlain of the court of Genbhis Khan. You keep hammering that point as though it were a big deal. Brent - it means buggar all. And I don't think you're stupid. It think that was deliberately misleading writing.

He reports that the debate now has gone beyond whether there should be fracking. The issue is to ensure it's safe. Prof. Lapierre, what possibly qualification to you have to make such a statement? All the evidence I have seen suggests there is one hell of a debate over whether there should be fracking at all. . It's raging in the US and Canada. There's a debate in Europe. Some areas, like Quebec, have forbidden it - case closed.

Prof. Lapierre, are you really so stupid as to make such a statement in public? Is Brent Mazerolle really so stupid as to believe it? Be assured that I shall defend both of you against any charges of stupidity. Manipulative? Misleading? Unethical? Oh, yes. All of those in spades But not stupid.

The story includes an account of the setting up of the Energy Institute - an "independent" gathering of scientists and "fellows" What he's talking about is the typical structure of a "think tank" - of a propaganda institute like Atlantic Insitute of Market Studies or the CD Howe Insistute or the Fraser Institute - all of them claiiming to be independent, all of them with a sprinkling of respectable names, and with "fellows" who are given fancy titles to spin lies.

Around the world, scientists are very worried about the impact of processes like fracking. The Energy Institute will  pick out the ones who can be trusted to see things the right way. Get used to it. Our universities are owned by big business. Lots of professors are honest. But the pressure is on them to keep their mouths shut. And if they do say something, the Irving Press won't report it.

University administrators have been playing the game for a long time. Expect nothing useful or honest from them.

This is the big push. Exploration is going ahead no matter what. Discontented peasants will be ignored, if possible, by the Irving Press. And if they can't be ignored, the Irving press will support the severest measures.

These people are thorough bastards.


Notice how Lac Megantic has disappeared from the news? We get lots of stuff on the Senate, lots on the investigation of pet shops in Campbellton.  Not a word about how 47 people were killed in Megantic. Not a word about whether oil is still being shipped to St. John and, if so, how.

Has Mr. Irving decided to forego his profits? That sounds unlikely, but possibly the result of a stroll through the beautiful gardens of the Irving Chapel among God's wonderful flowers, a sermon by a reverend doctor, and coffee and fellowship with other, ardent Christians in "The Barn".

Will Mr. "get tough on crime" Harper insist on a full and transparent investigation? Not bloody likely. Remember how Brian Mulroney accepted a bribe (crime one), then hid the money from taxation (crime two)? And his punishment? He had to pay the taxes. He would have been given worse for smoking in a restaurtant.

Will Mr. Alward, who assured us all our railways tracks were in great shape be taking a look at a small private line that runs from Maine into St. John? Well, it wouldn't matter if he did - would it" He'd just see whatever his boss told him to see

The Faith page has its usual "safe" sermon. This one is we shouldn't gossip. Way to tell 'em baby. Gossping is wrong. forget the liars whose  stories and columns appear in our press every day. Forget the 47 dead that we're not going to do anythinig about. The world's no. 1 problem is gossip. After all, telling stories about people could be bearing false witness (though it often isn't). Funny Jesus hardly mentioned gossip at all. Good thing we have Reverend Hawksworth to take up the slack.
There's a new face on Friday for the op ed slot, a reporter named Cole Hobson. I read it with, at first, some hope. He writes decently. He dances to the edge in his comment. But he just dances, and is very careful never to step over the line. We'll see.
And now, quite unintentionally, to annoy some people.

As we close the annual celebration of the Acadian people - and I quite agrree that there should be such a celebration - but we humans are very choosy about what we care to remember and celebrate.

I'm a mix of French and Scottish. But my French ancestors like most French, didn't originally come from France Some were a Hunnish people from the East. Some as in Normandy, were the Normn Vikings The latter would later conquer English.

Scots like to kid themselves that Scotland was never conquered. In fact, it was. The Romans took the southern half, and pulled out because it wasn't worth the cost. then the Vikings conquered most of it. And there was a good deal of to and froing with the Irish. So, I guess I'm really French, Scot, Hun, Roman, Viking - and a whole lot of ancestors who pushed each other out of the way to grab land.

Now, the expulsion of the Acadians was certainly and act of cruelty and greed. The main force behind it was not "the English" - who were certainly capable of unlimited greed. It was in the people of the English colonies who wanted more land - the same force that would drive them to invade Canada in 1812 (a point not much covered in the 1823 "celebrations". Indeed, the US freqnently for a century after 1812 spoke of either invading or annexing Canada, so they could grab our minerals, lands, etc.. (So much for our history of friendship).

But how did the Acadians get this land? Weren't there people already here? And didn't they suffer from the Acadians just as the Acdians would suffer from the English?

We celebtrate the survival of the Acadians as a people - as well we should. I thought of that as I  saw the celebration cartoon in Friday's paper. But history is an eternal process of some people pushing others aside. We should certainly celebrate those who are determined enough to retain the contact with their past.

So how come we don't do it for native peoples?


1 comment:

  1. Why don't we celebrate the history of the native peoples? There is an easy answer to that one. They have land and they have legal treaties. These interfere in the implementation of the corporate theft agenda. Therefore, celebrating their history would be against corporate interests. And we can't have that now, can we?