Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Sept. 29: The big story that isn't in the Irving press.

Harper has recently taken on a new campaign adviser. He's worked for Harper before – and the two have much in common.

Lynton Crosby is an Australian who has done well out of his skill at playing divisive and dirty politics. He's also a tobacco lobbyist of considerable note. His enemies call him evil – which I have no doubt he is. But he's very, very good at being evil. He's Harper's kinda guy.

He's particularly good at stirring up hatreds and fears based on racism and hysteria – again, something in common with Harper. (Not to mention something in common with Hitler.) He seems to work only for parties of the right and/or the rich. And he's been credited with winning elections almost on his own.

Check Lynton Crosby in google. See if you can find somebody who likes him.

How could the Irving press miss this story? It all reminds me of how we are reliving the 1930s of Hitler's Germany. The sides aren't quite as closely defined as they were in Germany. But the ideas and methods are much the same.

The Irving press also missed the story of how a Saudi bomber dropped its American bombs on a wedding party in Yemen, killing 38 people. But it's okay because – well – because the Saudis wouldn't drop a bomb on a wedding party, and the U.S. would never supply bombs for such a reason unless – well – you know – unless they thought it would bring peace to the world – as it has for Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan and Central America and Vietnam.

In fairness, though, the Irving press did get a big story on the last page of its world news. It's the last story in the section. “Nova Scotia school board bans dances for middle school.” Makes ya stop 'n' think, don't it?

The lead story in Canada&World News for today is that in a certain New Brunswick riding, it's hard to tell who will win the election.
Below it (and rightly so) is a less important story about Obama speaking to the U.N. General Assembly. He says that Syria's Assad has slaughtered tens of thousands of his own people – so that's not a matter of internal affairs. That's why the U.S. is seeking a solution to the war. He concludes, “...you cannot turn a lie into truth.”

Now, everybody in that room knew that Obama was lying. Everybody knew that the U.S. had hired, equipped and trained the 'rebels' in that war. Everybody knew that most of 'rebels' were not and still aren't Syrians. Everybody knew that the tens of thousands killed by Syrian troops were invading mercenaries. Everybody knew that the rebellion was collapsing long ago because the hired killers, most of them, ran. Everybody know that ISIS began as another U.S. attempt to defeat Syria with a proxy war – that's the way al Quaeda began, too. So why did Obama lie to an audience that knew he was lying – and when he knew that they knew he was lying?

He was lying because the speech wasn't for U.N. Assembly. It was for the folks back home who are used to believing lies, and accustomed to believing lying and propagandizing news media reports. And they don't want to believe that the biggest and most brutal killers in today's world are – Obama and them with, of course, the support of us. It's not an exaggeration to say that we are reliving the experience of Nazi Germany. And the motive, like Hitler's, is economic power.

Section A local news is less than exciting. We are told of a high mortality rate among prisoners in New Brunswick's jails and prisons. It would have been fascinating – if they hadn't already carried this story in a previous edition. As well, the story is largely made up of quotations from people who aren't telling us much. Reporting means doing a little digging, not just acting as a stenographer. It would be useful to see some legal advice on how this can be handled. As it is, the answers I'm reading are vague, and just dismiss the issue as something to be reviewed – some day – maybe… Perhaps a report could light a fire under the premier. This is not just an issue for relatives of those who die. It's an issue of human rights for prisoners and their families.

The only other item worth reading is on A5. It's about the New Brunswick Commission on Hydraulic Fracturing (fracking). Well, it would be worth reading if it said something.

It does tell us that the commissioners haven't yet made up their own minds. That doesn't reassure me a whole lot. If they haven't made up their minds on what has been world issue for over twenty years, this must be one, seriously retarded set of commissioners.

Then they say they're going to look at economic benefits, New Brunswick's economic reality, risks, challenges, opportunities, gush, gush… Think about that statement. There should be only two question to answer. 1. Will it harm people? 2. Will it harm the environment? We are going through what appears to be a rapid change in our climate due to the use of fossil fuels. The gas produced by fracking, like the gas produced by any other fossil fuel, contributes to climate change. It is not a 'clean' fuel. The only people who deny that are oil billionaires and village idiots.

So why include economic benefits, New Brunswick's economic reality, risks, challenges, opportunities….in the commission's studies? There can be only one reason. This commission is intended to become a soft-sell for fracking.

We'll be told there are some risks, but the risks are outweighed when you look at the economic benefits and the job creation.

Then, for a little while, there will be economic benefits. But they come at quite a price.

Climate change can kill billions and, in time and not much time, everybody. We've been warned very clearly. And we've been warned we don't have much time to act on those warnings. Oh, I'm sure there are huge profits to be made. But those profits won't last long when so many customers are dying.

To talk about balancing the risks with the profits, opportunities, jobs...is idiocy. It's like lying on railway tracks on the argument that while it is risky because a train could kill you, it's worth it because you'll get your name in the paper.

I know the task of dealing with climate change is a huge one. I also know there is no choice. We cannot have fossil fuels. We can't. That's it. That also means we can't afford wars because we can't waste money and time on them. To babble about studying economic reality, opportunities is either criminal or stupid.

But there are people who make lots of money out of oil and out of war spending. That's a reality, too.
Norbert writes on the importance of freedom of speech, while admitting that it is also legitimate to criminalize hate speech. Well, one can certainly agree with that. But our governments, helped along by news media like the Irving press and by politicians like Harper, have been talking up fear and hatred for some years now. They've aimed it in particular at Muslims, and they've used it not only to prevent a Muslim woman from becoming a Canadian, and as an excuse for doing almost nothing about refugees, to justify a Canadian gestapo (just like the American one), and for striking down our personal freedoms as citizens.

How come you didn't mention that, Norbert?

The guest commentary is by a think-tanker for Atlantic Institute of Market Studies. Which means he's a propagandist for big business. It's about a privatization of part of the Newfoundlandland Land registry service which, we are assured, would be more efficient than those gucky, old, civil servants.

Quite apart from the obvious bias of the writer, who in Moncton could possibly give a damn who operates the Newfoundland land registry?

Alec Bruce's column is a good one about the role of small entrepreneurs in the New Brunswick economy. But it will generally be seen as a 'three cheers' for capitalists in general. Bruce might have made it clear that there's one hell of a big difference between the behaviour of small entrepreneurs and that of the large capitalists who actually run this province.

I know that big business likes to play games with the Chamber of Commerce to convince us that all capitalists are “good guys”. The reality is that most of the big ones are quite vicious and destructive.

I had trouble with the editorial. It recommends a woman, very active as a feminist throughout her life, for the Order of Moncton. She certainly sounds deserving. But there are people charged with deciding who get this order. And it's no business of the editorialist to intervene in that process. Questioning or endorsing the decision after it's made is certainly admissable. But sticking a foot in the door before the decision is, minimally, in bad taste.

It also has a short paragraph (the second one) which I can't understand. He or she writes that the western world deserves some credit for the feminist movement (Of course it does. I've never heard anyone who questioned that). Then it adds, “the roots of which are nonethless sunk somewhat shallowly in the suffragette movement of the late nineteenth century.” I have no idea why the word 'nonetheless' is in there. And “Somewhat shallowly” ? The suffragette movement was the key to the development of equality for women. It's what gave women the right to vote. That's a clumsy, awkward, wordy sentence that seems to have no meaning at all.

However, just to annoy the editorial writer, I'll offer another key to equality for women – the invention of the typewriter. Before that, all office workers, including secretaries, were men. But capitalists found that men could be expensive – so they looked for a cheaper alternative to men. Thus, about the turn of the century, the invention of the female secretary.

Before that, the only jobs for women were taking in washing, becoming domestic servants, occasional unskilled labour – and really, really cheap teachers, usually at the lower grade levels because they weren't considered to have to intellectual prowess of men.

The prohibition movement was also an important factor in giving women a public voice.        

1 comment:

  1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FppW5ml4vdw