Thursday, March 19, 2015

March 19: More of the same...

Half of the front page is taken up with telling us our children have missed 13 days as snow days. Just that story goes on to the last page, enough fill a full page in all. There's even a big picture of children playing in the snow just to prove.....something.

Beside it is a big story in which the education minister says we need a plan. But he doesn't know what.

First, let's cool the rhetoric. Angry parents should understand that it is not the education system's job to babysit their children. Secondly, let's realize we cannot "make up" lost school time. Contrary to the minister's worries, education is not an assembly line with rows of children, and with teachers stuffing their heads with knowledge. Consequently, it's somewhere between difficult and impossible to make up for lost days. The development of brains doesn't happen that way.

For that matter, this is, according to our experts who tell us that climate change isn't happening, something that isn't likely to repeat or get worse. I mean, that's what our oil bosses tell us. And if you can't trust them, who can you trust?

Hell, when I was in high school I missed more days than that going to movies and wandering through the McGill Museum. (It had a great stuffed gorilla.)

The TandT wastes over two pages or two stories that could have been told in one, short story.

A man who robbed a store has been sent to a psychiatrist. Wow! Hot news. Front page, and continued at length inside. Ditto for the other biggie; commemorative coins are being circulated to support the women's world cup in soccer.  It could have been written in a paragraph but it goes on and on with mindless gushing, "I think it's awesome. The coins are amazing. It's another thing to bring the country together." ....
coins to inspire women and girls to get involved in game."

Yeah. Canada is saved, And it's a great advance for feminism.

A4 has a whole page of the names of people and newspapers nominated for national awards. Almost all are people we have never heard of, working for newspapers we never see. It's a whole page of no news value whatever. In the business, that's called a filler. It's used when you have an empty space to fill. So you stick in anything that's lying around. Most of section A, as usual, is filler.

And, if you read it, read it carefully.  The Irving press didn't win four awards. It got nominated for them. That's not brilliant for a newspaper chain that covers a province.

Then there's a story, again, about a debate which really isn't a debate but just a question and answer bout in the assembly. Our finance minister says our public service is bigger than average for the population it serves. Well, of course it does, you twit. This province has a small population - but it requires much the same departments as other governments do. That's why the civil service is bigger than average.

Tell Mr. Irving that if he wants to cut our services to save more of the little tax he does pay, let him do his own dirty work.

A7 has a story on government forest policy - which, largely, doesn't exist. Much of it is taken up with propaganda spouted by a representative of JDIrving, Glen Savoie,the Conservative natural resources critic, also pleads the case of that poor , abused  Mr. Irving.

It's a typical see nothing, know nothing, write nothing section A.
The editorial is its usual self-righteous, money-oriented self. It's all about developing mining resources; and the mining companies will have to reassure us with the honesty all oil and mining companies have. Apparently, it still has not occurred to the editorial writer that one role of a news paper is to do its own (honest) investigating. It is supposed to give us the information we need. But we all know there is not the slightest possibility of the Irving press doing that.

It concludes that all these, like shale gas, can play an important role in our recovery. Yes. They can also play an important role in our destruction.It might be nice to check first.

And if, as the editorial tells us, making the super-rich richer will benefit us by the super-rich creating jobs, how come that hasn't been working for years? The super-rich are getting richer. So how come we aren't knee-deep in good-paying jobs?

The editorial writer is never anything but a pimp for big business.

Norbert's column will be unintelligible to almost all readers. This one requires a knowledge of words rarely used, and of meaning only to specialists. Remember what the literacy level of your readers is, Norbert.

de Adder's cartoon? de Adder is certainly a top class cartoonist. And he can be up to the best with something to say. But usually it's pretty tame and, this time, subservient to the very rich. What's next? A cartoon of picking wings off flies?

Rod Allen's "commentary" begins with the world "I". Indeed, "I" appears quite freqently. It's an exciting column to read if you like trivial, irrelevant, and navel-gazing writers.

Even Alec Bruce is in that category today  with a column about how we have a lot of snow.

Jody Dallaire saves section A (and the whole paper) with a column about a neglected subject. How are women affected (or even noticed) in our economic planning? It's common that economic advance means better jobs - but mostly for men. She says this province should conduct a study on that as it plans its budget. I think she's right.
Canada&World has the story about gunmen killing at 20 in Tunisia. US Secretary of State John Kerry condemned the attack.  That's a start. But only a start.

John Kerry and friends deliberately destabilized Tunisia by setting up the murder of the dictator, Ghadaffi. Canada and the US made the destabilization worse by bombing the country. Why did we do it? Because the leader was a dictator? Come off it.Our best friend, Saudi Arabia, is ruled by the most rigid dictatorship on earth. The US has dictatorships scattered like daisies in a field all over Latin America.

The sin of Ghadaffi had nothing to do with dictatorship. He wanted to develop economic links with Russia and China. And that made American billionaires who controlled Tunisia's oil very, very angry. That's why Canadians killed Tunisians. And that deliberate destabilization is why 20 people got killed in an attack yesterday. Oh, those Muslim attackers were so evil.

I wonder how many innocent Tunisians were killed by Canadian bombs. I must have missed the story on it.

By the way, how many people yesterday - or any day - were killed by rockets fired from American drones all over the world. How many were innocent? How many were children? Elderly? I've never seen a report on that in our news media. It's now certainly more than ISIS has killed. Is killing them okay if they look different from us?

How many were killed in Afghanistan? How many millions were killed in Vietnam? In Iraq? How many were civilians? How many were children? Gunmen kill some cartoonists at a racist magazine in Paris, and just about every newspaper  in the western world urges us to buy Charlie Hebdo T shirts.

Page B4 reminds us that we are now killing people in Iraq. Why? To help our good friends in Iraq? I don't even know anybody in Iraq. Anyway, if we wanted to save lives in Iraq, we should have sent troops over to fight the American invasion which killed far more people that ISIS has, and left Iraq in poverty and chaos.

In fact, if we are hot on protecting people who are being exploited, impoverished and murdered, we should be sending our troops to fight the US in Haiti. Guatemala, Panama, Venezuela. And we should have sent them to defend the people of Vietnam who were slaughtered in uncounted millions by the US.

Do we think it's okay to kill, cripple, orphan, impoverish millions because they look different from us or have a different religion? Then get a dictionary. Look up "racist".

Oh, are we there to help arab countries? Then how come they aren't doing much of anything?. In fact, the only people in that whole region making any significant contribution are those evil Iranians. Why are we killing people to defend people who are not interested in defending themselves and each other?

The answer, of course, is that we are not there to defend anybody. It is extremely rare for any country to go to war to just to help somebody. We are there because American oil billionaires want control of that whole region.  To maintain that control, they have to destroy ISIS which, in fact, is a creation of US foreign policy - with arms and money to support it supplied by the US and its allies.

Those whom the gods would destroy, they first make billionaires.

Harper, on B3, commits himself to support everything Israel might do, from stealing even more land from Palestine to kicking Palestinians off their own property and giving it to Israelis, to forever holding Palestinians as prisoners in their own land. Why? Is Israel the only nation in the history of the world that is perfect? Are Palestinians scum of the earth who deserve whatever is done to them?

We all know the real reason he's doing it. But there's no word of it, ever, in the Irving press.

B5 has the photo of a Russian sailor. Take a good look at his face. There's a face we are told is so evil that we must destroy it. ...even if it means killing every person on this planet.

Those whom the gods would destroy....
The Irving press is always bad. This one is disgusting. Our news, in general, is nothing but propaganda that fans hatred and fear and killing. We are encouraged in our news media to be racist, self-righteous It's reminiscent of those of those little groups we see, radiating the light of the Lord, as they hold up signs outside the hospital to denounce abortions. But they have no trouble of supporting the racism and mass murder that seems embedded in our (Christian?) society.
Oh, on B3 is a story about how our secret police are investigating protest groups, even in advance of the passage of the anti-terrorist bill. Yep. They've already reported to Harper. And  they're keeping an eye protest groups - native peoples, anti-shale gas, social media (like this). citizen journalism that spreads "alternative information" to the regular news media (like this). As a human rights lawyer who is quoted in the story says, this is unconstitutional. Moreover, "In a true democracy, protest and dissent should be celebrated, not investigated."

There is no mention of whether they are investigating people like the Irvings. And the Irving press is safe because there is no more ass-kissing news medium in the western world. And possibly the eastern world.

We live in a Canada that makes me ashamed that I am not in prison.


  1. You've confused Tunisia and Libya. Tunisia was the first of the Arab Spring countries and had a non-violent revolt that overturned its dictator Ben Ali. It has lots of problems, but the major one seems to me to be garbage collection, not violence. It has no oil to speak of.

    Libya is next door, was ruled by Gadaffi, who vowed that the streets would run with the blood of the peaceful protesters and then set about making his prediction come true. A short civil war under a NATO no-fly zone toppled Gadaffi. The country is now torn by strife between two rebel factions, as so often happens when you have a violent uprising. Libya is awash in oil.

  2. You're write. And I was wrong. There's no excuse for it.
    However, let's not be too hard on Gadaffi. He may have make the streets run with blood - but it would have to be an awful lot of blood to catch up with the blood spilled by the US all over the world.
    And the civil war had nothing to do with a civil uprising or a "NATO -no-fly zone". It had everything to do with oil. The so-called no-fly zone had lots of flying - but fighter bombers on our side.

    Tunisia does, indeed, have problems. I spent some time there. It's a country I have no desire to see, ever again.


  3. You're write. And I was wrong. There's no excuse for it.
    However, let's not be too hard on Gadaffi. He may have make the streets run with blood - but it would have to be an awful lot of blood to catch up with the blood spilled by the US all over the world.
    And the civil war had nothing to do with a civil uprising or a "NATO -no-fly zone". It had everything to do with oil. The so-called no-fly zone had lots of flying - but fighter bombers on our side.

    Tunisia does, indeed, have problems. I spent some time there. It's a country I have no desire to see, ever again.