Thursday, October 24, 2013

Oct. 24: Oh, grow up...

Today's editorial is, I am sure, a sincere one. That's why is so disheartening to see it is also such a childish one.

The editorial writer is disgusted that a political party, the Green Party, has called for an inquiry into the RCMP action in Rexton. In its thrilling and exciting sub heading "We Say" (as if anybody gives a damn what they say) "Call for inquiry implies serious, unfounded allegations against RCMP."

No, it doesn't, you twit. Inquiry is common after major events. Even choirs of guitarists who sing through their noses have inquiries after concerts to deteremine what worked well,and what didn't.

As well, a national authority on such police action, one who knows even more about it than the editorial writer of an Irving newspaper, has already raised questions about the action.

And the leader of the Green Party, it says, should follow the examples of Mr. Alward and Mr. Gallant. Right. We need more stuffed shirts in New Brunswick.

In the military, there are inquiries into even the most successful actions to see what can be learned from them. And those continue for centuries by military historians. There is nothing unusual, nothing that implies allegations serious or otherwise. I should be astonished if the RCMP has not already begun its own inquiry.

In this case, an astonishing feature was the appearance of men in combat gear, carrying military semi-automatics. We don't even know who they are because TandT reports have never made that clear.

What an ignorant and self-righteous editorial! What we really need is a much broader enquiry. What role did Mr. Alward's clumsy handling play in the outbreak of violence? What about all the lies that appeared in the Irving press on the subject of shale gas? What about the failure of the Irving press and Mr. Alward to provide us with information? What about the very, very suspicious case of prof. Lapierre? What about the ignoring and discrediting the Dr. Cleary report?

In the longer view, that violence was not caused by either protestors or police. It was caused by incompetent, dishonest, lying, manipulating politicians and journalists - acting to kiss up to their bosses in the world of big business.
________________________________________________________________

Norbert presents yet another ignorant but arrogant solution to all our problems - all of it based on things he knows nothing about.

For openers, and despite Norbert's claim, humanity is not all the same. Certrainly, there is no (or very little) difference between us racially. But there are huge differences socially. The family in China, for example, is a far more important unit than it is in Canada.

And, if Norbert is going to say that we all have great similarities to each other (which we do), then he might note that we are in many respects like the Nazis under Hitler. Indeed, there are few atrocities in history to match the American slaughter in Vietnam. We are, all of us, then, both good guys and bad guys.

Norbert also ignores a central point. Native people in Canada are legally entitled to certain rights because we live on land we took from them - and in exchange, we signed treaties giving them rights - and not a bad deal considering the comparison between what we got and what they got.

Norbert's policy is essentially assimilation. It has failed for over two centuries - some would say over four centuries.

Norbert is fond of adding "The Last Word", some wise-sounding saying he digs up for each column. These are often quite silly, and really have nothing to do with his column. Today, it's somebody who said if you treat people nicely, they'll be nice. If you treat them badly, they'll be bad. Now, what the hell does that mean?

In the context of this column, it can only mean that native peoples are bad. But if we treat them better, they'll be nice.  (Oh, that Mr. Cunningham is so smart.)
________________________________________________________________________

Most bothersome in this whole affair has been the treatment of the Cleary Report by the government and the Irving press.

The report was mangled, quite deliberately, when Dr. Cleary first delivered it. It was then ignored when she won a national award for it. At the same time, an academic fraud who has long been of service to the Irvings was brought in to discredit her report - though even his claimed credentials would not have qualified him for that.

He was discovered (though not by the government or the Irving Press) to have lied about his training. That left everyhing said, promised,  hinted by government, press and the shale gas companies lying in shreds on the floor.

Look, you lying wretches. With the exposure of prof. Lapierre as your patsy, that means there has been only one, independent,  scientific report by a qualified scientist ever done on the shale gas issue in New Brunswick. NOBODY has ever proven that report to be wrong. And it says this is one dangerous idea.

I wish I could follow the advice of Norbert's quotation, and talk to you liars and hypocrites as if you were nice people to that you would become nice. But Norbert's quotations are as silly and feather-headed as he is.

You ignored the Cleary report. You didn't prove it wrong - because you couldn't. So you ignored it, and you found a fraud artist to cover up. But now he's been discovered. And you still ignore the Cleary Report.

What caused the violence at Rexton? It was the shale gas companies, the Irving ownership of all the newspapers, the complicity of the Liberal and Conservative parties and their utter failure to show any leadership - or honesty - or character - or even basic intelligence.

There is NO scientific evidence that shale gas is good for us or even harmless. We Do have the evidence that it is extremely dangerous. And you refuse to even mention it.

This is one hell of a display of greed, indifference, lack of leadership, and quite disgusting journalism.
______________________________________________________________
Rod Allen talks about Rod Allen. He thinks we care.

Interesting column by Beth Lyons on abortion. In fact, abortion has been common for centuries, even in New Brunswick, usually at great risk to the women having them. It was (quitely) accepted as early as the 1870s with drug store sales  of a drug said to deal with "female" irregularity. When I first saw those ads, I assumed they meant that female irregularity was different from male irregularity. Actually, it was a "respectably" discreet ad for an abortion drug.

I know of no evidence that the banning of medical abortions will make any significant change in the rate of abortion.  However, if it will make you feel better, toss a buck in the collection basket. It's cheaper than being a real Christian.

5 comments:

  1. "Look, you lying wretches. With the exposure of prof. Lapierre as your patsy, that means there has been only one, independent, scientific report by a qualified scientist ever done on the shale gas issue in New Brunswick. NOBODY has ever proven that report to be wrong. And it says this is one dangerous idea."

    Some (most?) folks in NB can't see the forest for the trees. Personally, I have given up, and plan on exiting stage right. I make regular visits to the Irving chapel to pray that my real estate's value doesn't end up in the crapper before I can shake it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "as if anybody gives a damn what they say"

    You seem to devote a lot of time to this for someone who doesn't care what they say.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ho, ho, ho. Close your little eyes, and try to think really hard ---well, let's just go for trying to think.
    "We say" carries the assumption that what "we say" is important and informed - which it is usual that it is neither. It was their arrogance I was pointing to.
    Do you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I appreciate your warm and humble response, although it’s not a very measured reaction for someone who claims to abhor arrogance.

    Looking past your tone, your answer doesn't really refute my point. If anything, it does the opposite. I'm not sure "we say" implies any level of knowledge. Lots of people spout off opinions every day without much understanding or wisdom of the issue.

    But let's say you're right about the "important" part and that the arrogance you ascribe to "we say" isn't just your own interpretation of two short words. Isn't what the newspaper says important? Isn't that the fundamental assumption, or aspiration, of this entire blog? I assumed you placed a high value on journalism and created this because you wanted better from the T&T, but now you're saying the content of the newspaper isn't important.

    There's a logical disconnect between those two positions: either the newspaper is important and what it says matters, or it isn't. But if it’s the latter, then why would someone spend so much time critiquing it every day? Hence my previous comment. But there I go “thinking” again!

    Also, your bio is full of typos and is dripping in arrogance. Glass houses and all that. Have a good day.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Ah, I see you have a logic problem - and you're a person who loves to get into arguments about nothing.

    I say that what a newspaper is SHOULD BE important. And what it says SHOULD matter. that is not true of anything in the Irving press.

    Am I arrogant? i don't know. My experience is that all of us have a dose of arrogance and self-absorption. And, yes, I'm proud to have made it out of the world i was born into. And I suppose that we could have a long argument about whether pride is the same as arrogance.

    But I won't. This section is normally reserved for dicussion of substance of some issues raised. It is not about the wretched egos and/or personal failings of either of us. Neither of us is that important.

    If you want to talk substance, I'll talk it. If you just want to exchange childish insults. then I won't waste my time.

    ReplyDelete