Two hundred years ago in New Brunswick, there was pretty much just one way to make some cash s....cut down timber.
There was a huge market for timbers in the British market, timber to be masts and hulls for the biggest navy and the biggest merchant marine in the world. A major reason Napoleon lost his wars of the time is that he could not duplicate the masts of the Royal Navy in either quality or quantity. (There was also a healthy trade in salt fish for the West Indian colonies, a trade that accounts for the enduring popularity of rum in Atlantic Canada. At one time it was so cheap that shopkeepers offered a free mug of rum along with the free crackers in a barrel for customers.) But timber was the real, cash crop.
The catch was you could cut the stuff only if you owned huge expanses of it and/or had the right to cut it. The huge expanses were necessary because only the best timber was acceptable, so the wastage was stunningly high. And that meant there was a catch. Only a small number of people had the necessary land or the right to harvest it. If you needed a job to make some money, you had to be acceptable to them.
Being acceptable meant being willing to accept low pay, terrible living and working conditions - and not in any way annoy your local timber baron.
When elections for a legislative assembly were introduced, the local timber baron (or one of his flunkies) would be a candidate. And he would win. In those days, there was no secret ballot. A voter stepped up to the polls, and named his choice in a clear voice that everyone could hear. Anyone who voted the wrong way would never get a job in that area again.
What was established from early days was a fear, a conformity, a submissiveness, an attitude of "I don't know; and I don't want to know." that, all of them, still run deep throughout the province. An unbroken pattern runs from the timber barons to the Irvings and all their corporate friends.. And, today, it runs down from the Irvings to the premier, embraces both the Liberals and Conservatives, absolutely controls most of the news media through the most sycophantic journalists I have ever seen, and, as I have also seen, right down to even parent-teacher associations.
What passes for an election here is dismaying. Public meetings are few, and public discussion almost non-existent. In the last election, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives had anything that could be called a platform. The Conservatives won on lies (transparency), meaningless promises (listening to people) and buzzwords (globalization). When the Conservative candidate called on me to gush about globalization, I asked her what it meant. It was obvious that she didn't know.
And it looks as though it's going to happen all over again. A population, almost entirely in dark about what's going on - and too fearful to ask or openly discuss what's going on - will play musical chairs with the Liberals and Conservatives as they have and their ancestors have for two centuries - despite the fact there there is no difference between them.
In the end, the people of this province are the only ones who can break this cycle of farce. And it has to be done very, very soon. The time factor is important because a huge change is crashing down on the whole world.
Major corporations have behaved in such irresponsible, incompetent, and even criminal ways that the whole world economy is in crisis. Worse, in their arrogance and their utter contempt for you, they have decided that you will pay the whole price for what they have done. Already, the people of Greece, Spain, Ireland, have been thrown to the wolves.The UK is very likely to follow. Poverty levels in the US are rising spectacularly- and don't believe the latest figures on a rise in employment down there. Those jobs are mostly part-time, dead-end, and low-paid.
In New Brunswick, your elected government does not run the province. Major corporate leaders do. Their focus, their whole purpose, is to make money for themselves. That's it. They don't answer to you. They don't care about you. They have utter contempt for you.
If they want shale gas, then you can bet that neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives will stop them. Will shale gas, in the long term, be destructive? They don't care. The don't have to live here. They suck whatever blood they can get here, then go do it again somewhere else. As long as there's money in it.
When K.C.Irving objected to paying taxes like other people, he simply abandoned his own country. (He now has his very own chapel; and we are invited to go there to reflect. I wonder what the Irvings reflect on when they kneel? I wonder who their God is?)
New Brunswickers, when and if they ever look up from their daily newspaper diet of what Miss Manners thinks or which celebrity is having a birthday, have a decision to make. There are really only two choices.
1. Educate your children to get them out of this province before it's too late.
2. Start learning about what is going on. Stop being afraid. Get off your butts, and create a democracy in this province. It's your future; and it's your children's futures. And nobody is going to do it for you.
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Oct. 6: contamination that is there and....
questions that aren't there.
At the bottom of my Oct. 5 column is a comment by a reader that, in fact, the Times and Transcript did report on contamination at Highfield Square. That's not as true as it sounds.
The report was on April 11, 2012. It was by Brent Mazerolle. The report was a vague one that there was SOME contamination, probably much of it from diesel fuel, and it would now be on the public record - and that this was a common problem in cities, not at all unique to Moncton.
It was a minimal and soothing report.(They had to say somethng. There were drilling rigs in Highfield Square.) What the report said, in effect, was "keep movin' , folks. Nothin' to look at here." That's not a report. It's a dismissal. It's like a doctor saying to a patient, "You have some cancer, probably from smoking. We'll keep it on file. Nothing to worry about. It's quite common, not at all unique to you."
This isn't reporting a story; it's burying it.
There seem to have been no questions. - like - how severe is the contamination? exactly what are the contaminants? after all, these are quite old railway yards going back way before diesel. And exactly what are the dangers of diesel contaminants? what will a clean-up cost? where are we going to dump all this stuff?
As for it being on the public record, I asked city hall for the information months ago. What I got from the councillors was no response at all. What I got from city hall offices was that there was some contamination. I was refused any information on what it was or how severe it was. It was only when I filed a request under laws concerning access to information that I got even a brief answer with some details.
That TandT report that our commenter referred to is is pretty damn close to lying. And its failure to ask questions suggests either reportorial incompetence or conspiracy in withholding essential information from the public. In the end, all we were told is that we should relax. No big deal. Forget about it.
Amusingly enough, Brent Mazerolle has an opinion column today on a related topic. It's on the refusal of the government to release Dr. Cleary's report on shale gas - and then it's abrupt backtracking on that refusal. He writes, "I know as a reporter I would be among the scrumming pack calling for heads to roll if government didn't have a coherent response to whatever the doctor has said."
Really?
Well, the government didn't have a coherent response. And I heard and read nothing from the scrumming pack, and certainly nothing from Brent Mazerolle. Not until now. And now is a long time AFTER the pot boiled over.
The Times and Transcript has still made no reference to the Highfield Square report that is in the city council file. It has not told us what the contaminants are or how serious they are. CBC has carried the story. And Toronto news media have written to me about it. But not a word from the Irving press.
So here are hints for some questions for the "scrumming pack" to ask.
1. Is it true that by law land owners must report contamination to the Minister of the Environment? (The Minister of the Environment is, of course, our environmental Batman, Bruce Fitch.) Did they report it to him? What was his response?
2. Is it true that landowners, by law, are required to conduct an immediate clean up?
3. If so, how come they didn't? And h ow come this situation, with over a century of contamination, seems never to have been dealt with?
4. The railway station is not an old building. How come it got permission to be built on contaminated land?
5. Same question for the Sobey's supermarket.
6. What are the dangers of these contaminants to us?
7.Where are we going to dump the contaminated soil?
other areas to explore....
1. We are offering six million dollars for this contaminated land. What would its market value be if it were healthy?
2. exactly what is the budget for the clean up?
3. The world economy is in the severest crisis we have ever seen. The next six months could and probably will see a meltdown in the middle east that will make it infinitely worse. The provincial debt is its own, little disaster area. There is no sign that Ottawa is going to be of any help in building our new hockey rink (sorry, events centre),
Is this a really, really smart time to plunge the rate payers and tax payers of this province into even heavier debt in order to buy contaminated land for an events centre that may never be built - and which would almost certainly be a money-loser, anyway?
In sympathy, you can see the land owners' problem. They are stuck with a piece of land that has become worthless to them. Even worse, they are obligated to spend millions in cleaning it up. Result - unhappy landowners.
But what if the city were to buy it - and to pay for the clean up? Result happy landowners.
Will the "events centre" get built? Who knows? Who cares? The problem for the landowners is worthless land and a huge cleaning responsibility. Problem solved.
In other news,
Norbert contributes one of the best columns I have ever seen in The Times and Transcript. It's well-written. It deals with a topic more important than we can even imagine - the use of drones to kill people and to spy on them. Already, 75 countries have drones - and one of those countries is Canada. Read this column, and take the implications very seriously, indeed. It's every bit as bad as Norbert says it is, and every bit as bad as he implies it could be.
There is also a superb op ed column by Jean-Claude Basque of Moncton. It's about New Brunswick as a welfare state for business.
Really, the relationship between big business and government in this province is much like that between the mafia and government in Quebec. The only difference is that the mafia doesn't just take. It also gives ---I have had invitations from mafioso to great wedding receptions, and some pretty cool funerals.
At the bottom of my Oct. 5 column is a comment by a reader that, in fact, the Times and Transcript did report on contamination at Highfield Square. That's not as true as it sounds.
The report was on April 11, 2012. It was by Brent Mazerolle. The report was a vague one that there was SOME contamination, probably much of it from diesel fuel, and it would now be on the public record - and that this was a common problem in cities, not at all unique to Moncton.
It was a minimal and soothing report.(They had to say somethng. There were drilling rigs in Highfield Square.) What the report said, in effect, was "keep movin' , folks. Nothin' to look at here." That's not a report. It's a dismissal. It's like a doctor saying to a patient, "You have some cancer, probably from smoking. We'll keep it on file. Nothing to worry about. It's quite common, not at all unique to you."
This isn't reporting a story; it's burying it.
There seem to have been no questions. - like - how severe is the contamination? exactly what are the contaminants? after all, these are quite old railway yards going back way before diesel. And exactly what are the dangers of diesel contaminants? what will a clean-up cost? where are we going to dump all this stuff?
As for it being on the public record, I asked city hall for the information months ago. What I got from the councillors was no response at all. What I got from city hall offices was that there was some contamination. I was refused any information on what it was or how severe it was. It was only when I filed a request under laws concerning access to information that I got even a brief answer with some details.
That TandT report that our commenter referred to is is pretty damn close to lying. And its failure to ask questions suggests either reportorial incompetence or conspiracy in withholding essential information from the public. In the end, all we were told is that we should relax. No big deal. Forget about it.
Amusingly enough, Brent Mazerolle has an opinion column today on a related topic. It's on the refusal of the government to release Dr. Cleary's report on shale gas - and then it's abrupt backtracking on that refusal. He writes, "I know as a reporter I would be among the scrumming pack calling for heads to roll if government didn't have a coherent response to whatever the doctor has said."
Really?
Well, the government didn't have a coherent response. And I heard and read nothing from the scrumming pack, and certainly nothing from Brent Mazerolle. Not until now. And now is a long time AFTER the pot boiled over.
The Times and Transcript has still made no reference to the Highfield Square report that is in the city council file. It has not told us what the contaminants are or how serious they are. CBC has carried the story. And Toronto news media have written to me about it. But not a word from the Irving press.
So here are hints for some questions for the "scrumming pack" to ask.
1. Is it true that by law land owners must report contamination to the Minister of the Environment? (The Minister of the Environment is, of course, our environmental Batman, Bruce Fitch.) Did they report it to him? What was his response?
2. Is it true that landowners, by law, are required to conduct an immediate clean up?
3. If so, how come they didn't? And h ow come this situation, with over a century of contamination, seems never to have been dealt with?
4. The railway station is not an old building. How come it got permission to be built on contaminated land?
5. Same question for the Sobey's supermarket.
6. What are the dangers of these contaminants to us?
7.Where are we going to dump the contaminated soil?
other areas to explore....
1. We are offering six million dollars for this contaminated land. What would its market value be if it were healthy?
2. exactly what is the budget for the clean up?
3. The world economy is in the severest crisis we have ever seen. The next six months could and probably will see a meltdown in the middle east that will make it infinitely worse. The provincial debt is its own, little disaster area. There is no sign that Ottawa is going to be of any help in building our new hockey rink (sorry, events centre),
Is this a really, really smart time to plunge the rate payers and tax payers of this province into even heavier debt in order to buy contaminated land for an events centre that may never be built - and which would almost certainly be a money-loser, anyway?
In sympathy, you can see the land owners' problem. They are stuck with a piece of land that has become worthless to them. Even worse, they are obligated to spend millions in cleaning it up. Result - unhappy landowners.
But what if the city were to buy it - and to pay for the clean up? Result happy landowners.
Will the "events centre" get built? Who knows? Who cares? The problem for the landowners is worthless land and a huge cleaning responsibility. Problem solved.
In other news,
Norbert contributes one of the best columns I have ever seen in The Times and Transcript. It's well-written. It deals with a topic more important than we can even imagine - the use of drones to kill people and to spy on them. Already, 75 countries have drones - and one of those countries is Canada. Read this column, and take the implications very seriously, indeed. It's every bit as bad as Norbert says it is, and every bit as bad as he implies it could be.
There is also a superb op ed column by Jean-Claude Basque of Moncton. It's about New Brunswick as a welfare state for business.
Really, the relationship between big business and government in this province is much like that between the mafia and government in Quebec. The only difference is that the mafia doesn't just take. It also gives ---I have had invitations from mafioso to great wedding receptions, and some pretty cool funerals.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Oct. 5: Good stories; but....
The most important stories, from a New Brunswick point of view, in today's paper are two related stories. They concern fracking for shale gas, and its impact on public health. The chief medical officer for the province had submitted a report on the subject which the government had said it would release on Sept. 30. But it didn't, and even suggested yesterday it might never release it.
One story is on how the government has done a remarkable about face, and decided to make the report public - something it refused to do in yesterday's news. The story also included delightfully fatuous statements by Environment Minister Bruce Fitch - real collectors' items.
1. He said there were some points on which his point of view differed from that of the chief medical officer. Yes, he, who is not a doctor, disagrees with some things a doctor says about health. Therefore, we are not allowed to to know what the doctor says.
2. The differently advantaged Mr. Fitch also says that new technology makes some of the report obsolete. Boy, things sure more fast in this world. I mean, the report was submitted just weeks ago, and the report is already technologically out of date. Gee. That must mean anything we look at will be out of date before we get a chance to even hear about it. Boy, ya gotta move fast to stay with the current. Good thing we have an expert like Bruce Fitch who knows more than doctors do about the state of health technology.
Why does the term "village idiot" keep coming to mind?
The second story is about Dr. Cleary, the chief medical officer, who says she was assured at the start that the report would be made public. There's a good deal in the story about the importance of a chief medical officer being free of interference by politicians.
Two, excellent and very important stories. So what's wrong with them?
1. They're on page 2. Real newspapers have the important stories of the day out where buyers can see them - on p. 1. Here are stories that deal with crucial issues that are going to affect all of us - and soon. We have to make some of the most important decisions in the history of this province. They are decisions that will affect us and out children and our children's children - if the province remains habitable that long. These stories are page 1. A big picture of a truck moving a house is not page 1 - except on a really, really slow day. Nor is an announcement "Wine Expo ready to pour".
2. Reporters should ask questions. Why should Mr. Fitch withhold such a report simply because he doesn't agree with part of it? Leaving aside the issue of whether anybody should give a damn what Mr. Fitch thinks about anything (or whether his is capable of thought at all), why is he going to release two reports about the issue on the same day? Isn't that a pretty indigestible meal for readers? Doesn't it seem as if Mr. Fitch wants to hit the public at one time with two reports because that will confuse the issue with an information overload? Doesn't it seem, in short, as if Mr. Fitch is trying to smother the public health issues in order to favour the shale gas industry?
Of course, the Times and Transcript would never report such questions or the answers. But it would be a useful experience for reporters who could then move out of New Brunswick to get jobs with real newspapers.
These stories are so important and raise so many issues essential to our future that they, above all others, should be the subject of an editorial. But what do we get for an editorial? We get the informed opinion that having a hovercraft for rescue work is a good idea. Way to speak out, Mr. Editorial Writer.
However, the editorial cartoon by de Adder is good.
Yesterday, CBC had the news that the soil under Highfield Square is contaminated, and dangerously so. Google news has it. The Times and Transcript doesn't. Now, the story came originally from my blog. Am I conceited to think the editorial staff of the TandT might read my blog? Not at all.
Journalists, like all the rest of us, will read anything which is likely to mention them personally. That's why I have made it a point to mention editorial staff names in almost every blog. I don't expect them to love me for it. But I know it guarantees that they'll either read it or hear about it
But the TandT has not mentioned the story; and it's not likely to. Too bad, because there's a lot of questions for reporters to ask.
1. If the city knew about the contamination from the start, and had a budget to deal with it, why didn't it tell us that?
2. Why did city councillors (notably those of ward two and including the deputy mayor) not reply to my requests or even acknowledge they had received them?
3. If the studies of contamination are not yet complete, how could the city, months ago, have determined the cost of clean-up?
4. Exactly where is this contaminated soil going to be sent?
5. Does the contamination stop at the sidewalk of Main? Or does it cross the street? Isn't that where we're supposed to get all the delightful restaurants that will spring up around the "events centre" ?
6. The contamination in the soil did not appear just a few months ago. It goes back at least a century. So how come the city gave the builders of Highfield Square permission to do so in the first place?
Reporters should not just take notes. They should ask questions.
Democracy cannot exist in a society that does not have essential information coming through its news media. That's why New Brunswick doesn't have democracy. We have a newspaper that is dishonest, deliberately trivial, and exists only to keep us in the dark. There's a good deal of that all over the world. (I shall never forget the days when the only news I could get came from The New China News Agency.) The Irving press is not different from most of the rest of the world. It's just one of the worst - perhaps even a notch below The New China News Agency.
Alec Bruce is in good form - if more optimistic about Justin Trudeau and the federal Libs than I am. Suzuki has an important column on a topic the Canadian and New Brunswick governments have pretty much ignored. Lynda MacGibbon's column looks trivial at first glance. But it isn't. It's one to think about, and to remember this weekend.
One story is on how the government has done a remarkable about face, and decided to make the report public - something it refused to do in yesterday's news. The story also included delightfully fatuous statements by Environment Minister Bruce Fitch - real collectors' items.
1. He said there were some points on which his point of view differed from that of the chief medical officer. Yes, he, who is not a doctor, disagrees with some things a doctor says about health. Therefore, we are not allowed to to know what the doctor says.
2. The differently advantaged Mr. Fitch also says that new technology makes some of the report obsolete. Boy, things sure more fast in this world. I mean, the report was submitted just weeks ago, and the report is already technologically out of date. Gee. That must mean anything we look at will be out of date before we get a chance to even hear about it. Boy, ya gotta move fast to stay with the current. Good thing we have an expert like Bruce Fitch who knows more than doctors do about the state of health technology.
Why does the term "village idiot" keep coming to mind?
The second story is about Dr. Cleary, the chief medical officer, who says she was assured at the start that the report would be made public. There's a good deal in the story about the importance of a chief medical officer being free of interference by politicians.
Two, excellent and very important stories. So what's wrong with them?
1. They're on page 2. Real newspapers have the important stories of the day out where buyers can see them - on p. 1. Here are stories that deal with crucial issues that are going to affect all of us - and soon. We have to make some of the most important decisions in the history of this province. They are decisions that will affect us and out children and our children's children - if the province remains habitable that long. These stories are page 1. A big picture of a truck moving a house is not page 1 - except on a really, really slow day. Nor is an announcement "Wine Expo ready to pour".
2. Reporters should ask questions. Why should Mr. Fitch withhold such a report simply because he doesn't agree with part of it? Leaving aside the issue of whether anybody should give a damn what Mr. Fitch thinks about anything (or whether his is capable of thought at all), why is he going to release two reports about the issue on the same day? Isn't that a pretty indigestible meal for readers? Doesn't it seem as if Mr. Fitch wants to hit the public at one time with two reports because that will confuse the issue with an information overload? Doesn't it seem, in short, as if Mr. Fitch is trying to smother the public health issues in order to favour the shale gas industry?
Of course, the Times and Transcript would never report such questions or the answers. But it would be a useful experience for reporters who could then move out of New Brunswick to get jobs with real newspapers.
These stories are so important and raise so many issues essential to our future that they, above all others, should be the subject of an editorial. But what do we get for an editorial? We get the informed opinion that having a hovercraft for rescue work is a good idea. Way to speak out, Mr. Editorial Writer.
However, the editorial cartoon by de Adder is good.
Yesterday, CBC had the news that the soil under Highfield Square is contaminated, and dangerously so. Google news has it. The Times and Transcript doesn't. Now, the story came originally from my blog. Am I conceited to think the editorial staff of the TandT might read my blog? Not at all.
Journalists, like all the rest of us, will read anything which is likely to mention them personally. That's why I have made it a point to mention editorial staff names in almost every blog. I don't expect them to love me for it. But I know it guarantees that they'll either read it or hear about it
But the TandT has not mentioned the story; and it's not likely to. Too bad, because there's a lot of questions for reporters to ask.
1. If the city knew about the contamination from the start, and had a budget to deal with it, why didn't it tell us that?
2. Why did city councillors (notably those of ward two and including the deputy mayor) not reply to my requests or even acknowledge they had received them?
3. If the studies of contamination are not yet complete, how could the city, months ago, have determined the cost of clean-up?
4. Exactly where is this contaminated soil going to be sent?
5. Does the contamination stop at the sidewalk of Main? Or does it cross the street? Isn't that where we're supposed to get all the delightful restaurants that will spring up around the "events centre" ?
6. The contamination in the soil did not appear just a few months ago. It goes back at least a century. So how come the city gave the builders of Highfield Square permission to do so in the first place?
Reporters should not just take notes. They should ask questions.
Democracy cannot exist in a society that does not have essential information coming through its news media. That's why New Brunswick doesn't have democracy. We have a newspaper that is dishonest, deliberately trivial, and exists only to keep us in the dark. There's a good deal of that all over the world. (I shall never forget the days when the only news I could get came from The New China News Agency.) The Irving press is not different from most of the rest of the world. It's just one of the worst - perhaps even a notch below The New China News Agency.
Alec Bruce is in good form - if more optimistic about Justin Trudeau and the federal Libs than I am. Suzuki has an important column on a topic the Canadian and New Brunswick governments have pretty much ignored. Lynda MacGibbon's column looks trivial at first glance. But it isn't. It's one to think about, and to remember this weekend.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
Oct. 4: Something very big is happening...
The big story of the day is hidden on p. A6. The Dr. Cleary report on shale gas and public health is not likely to be released - not ever.The reasons given for holding it back are obviously untrue. One minister says it's held back because quite a few departments have to look at it. So?
You make multiple copies. All departments look at it at the same time. That takes no more time than one department looking at it.
Another government clown, a Bruce Fitch, said that the government is waiting for a "more important" report from some a professor who will be looking at concerns beyond health. So?
Won't the health risks still be there no matter what the other report says? Is he suggesting the development of shale gas might be okay if only, say, 30% or our environment is destroyed and only a few hundred thousand made ill?
He added that parts of the two reports might overlap. Such parts would be deleted. Why? Is there something dangerous in reading parts twice? Or, more likely, it he saying they will cut out parts they don't like?
The government promised from the start it would be informing us. So did The Moncton Times and Transcript. Obviously, neither had any intention of doing so. In fact, we have had no information from them in over ten years of exploration - and they still don't even have regulations. All we're getting is propaganda about how good it will be.
The reality is the government doesn't give a damn about the health dangers. And it doesn't give a damn because it's bosses don't give a damn. They want the profits from that gas no matter what it does to us. They're treating us like children. Worse, they're treating us like children for whom they have utter contempt.
There is a grimly humorous report on B, p.1. Brian Mulroney gave a speech at a tribute to him in Toronto. Imagine that. A prime minister who admitted he illegally accepted a large sum of money, secretly, in a suitcase while he was prime minister - clearly accepting a bribe - and who also hid it to avoid paying tax on it was asked to speak at a tribute honouring him. (He also received no punishment for accepting the bribe or for avoiding taxes.) Only in Canada, you say? Pity.
He used the speech to praise free trade which (thanks to him) has made the world prosperous. And he's right. It sure has been prosperous for him and his friends. (Just yesterday, it was announced in the US that 93% of all economic gains of the past year in that country have gone to the super-rich one percent. It's much the same in Canada. Indeed, jobs are being lost and incomes for most of us cut as this new, free trade world world takes effect.) But Mulroney is quite right. It has worked well for people like him and like the sort of people who would attend a dinner honouring a man of proven sleaze. (For some reason, Harper has not applied his "get tough on crime policy" on the former P.M.)
How can "commentators" like the editorial writer and Rod Allen write such trivial crap year after year when they have news like this that screams for comment?
Luckily, Alec Bruce and Jody Dallaire are in place.
There's really little to say about today's paper. It's mostly, as always, trivia. So let's get started on something bigger that has not appeared in the paper - and won't. We are well into a revolution in government that is bigger than anything seen in more than 200 years. And we are about to lose everything we gained in those centuries and even longer.
First, let's dispose of a silly myth promoted by the TandT - that big government is bad, that it's inefficient, that is gets in the way of business efficiency. And let's also dispose of the myth that big business is opposed to big government. In fact, big business loves big government. It's a major source of income and profit (and welfare) for corporations. In the US, for example, if it weren't for big government and big government spending, the immensely profitable defence industries wouldn't exist. Here in Canada, a leader we know and love would not be developing shipyard to build warships for the government, and come out of it with a modern, up-to-the-minute shipyard that can be used for private business.
Corporations want big government to give it lush contracts for what they like to call public/private/projects.
There are projects that were public, but which friendly governments cut in private business for a share, usually on very good terms, indeed. You can see it big-time in road building and maintenance. Watch for it many other public areas like prisons, police forces,schools, health care.
Corporations want government to be big. They need it to be big to hand out lush contracts to corporations so they can run what used to be public services.
In the US, profit-making in education has shown up in a public/private hybrid called "charter schools". I don't know what the costs and profits are like. But I do know they have been educational disasters, with the US dropping into the basement of the developing world for education quality.
Ditto with privately-owned prisons. And, under private ownership (paid for with tax dollars), the prisons are actually less efficient. For example, they refuse to take prisoners with health problems. These are expensive prisoners - so they get dumped back in the public prisons. The American army now relies so heavily on mercenaries that the mercenary business has become one of the biggest in the world.
Britain's Conservative government is following the US lead, privatizing prisons, police services, and security of all sorts - almost all of it supplied by the same people who provide mercenary soldiers. Are they value for money? Well, security was an expensive disaster at the London Olympics. The private company responsible for it made such a mess that some 17,000 British troops had to be rushed to London, along with thousands of police from across the UK. Estimates are that it will take the army two years to get back to normal. Meanwhile, the private contractor got full pay for his services.
Harper is looking for the same in Canada. Private prisons are already on the agenda. So is a gradual privatization of health care. CBC is very much in the gunsights.
Corporations need big government to raise big taxes (but not theirs) so it can hand out sweetheart contracts to corporations. And, if people object, they need big business to keep those people in line. That's why US police forces have been militarizing with armoured cars, heavier duty weapons, and drones. That's why "Homeland Security" recently purchased a billion rounds of ammunition for use in the US.
They need big government to fight the wars that give the corporations economic power all over the world. It is no coincidence that Iraq, Libya, and Iran are all major oil producers.
And, after all, those poor, innocent shale gas fracking sites need protection from demonstrators who could be terrorist agitators. You need big government for that.
And you need a big government and you need big news media owned by big corporation to spread the propaganda of fear and hatred -fear and hatred of Moslems, for example. You have to learn to focus on the fears and hatreds. You have to learn to trust big brother to protect you.
I know Norbert hasn't figured that out yet. But, yes, corporation need and want big government.
That's the background to the change that's coming (that already is well advanced) in our democracy. I'll finish it next time the TandT has a really boring edition.
Oh, yesterday, a friend (Roy McMullin) lured me to Victoria park, sat me on a bench, pointed a camera at me, and asked me questions, mostly political. Natrually, I modestly refused to have my picture taken. But he hit me. So I cooperated.
He did three videos and put them on youtube. (There must be a problem with his lens. I'm sure I have more hair than that.) Anyway, the easiest way to find them is to go to youtube and search Graeme Decarie. They should be the first ones to pop up.
You make multiple copies. All departments look at it at the same time. That takes no more time than one department looking at it.
Another government clown, a Bruce Fitch, said that the government is waiting for a "more important" report from some a professor who will be looking at concerns beyond health. So?
Won't the health risks still be there no matter what the other report says? Is he suggesting the development of shale gas might be okay if only, say, 30% or our environment is destroyed and only a few hundred thousand made ill?
He added that parts of the two reports might overlap. Such parts would be deleted. Why? Is there something dangerous in reading parts twice? Or, more likely, it he saying they will cut out parts they don't like?
The government promised from the start it would be informing us. So did The Moncton Times and Transcript. Obviously, neither had any intention of doing so. In fact, we have had no information from them in over ten years of exploration - and they still don't even have regulations. All we're getting is propaganda about how good it will be.
The reality is the government doesn't give a damn about the health dangers. And it doesn't give a damn because it's bosses don't give a damn. They want the profits from that gas no matter what it does to us. They're treating us like children. Worse, they're treating us like children for whom they have utter contempt.
There is a grimly humorous report on B, p.1. Brian Mulroney gave a speech at a tribute to him in Toronto. Imagine that. A prime minister who admitted he illegally accepted a large sum of money, secretly, in a suitcase while he was prime minister - clearly accepting a bribe - and who also hid it to avoid paying tax on it was asked to speak at a tribute honouring him. (He also received no punishment for accepting the bribe or for avoiding taxes.) Only in Canada, you say? Pity.
He used the speech to praise free trade which (thanks to him) has made the world prosperous. And he's right. It sure has been prosperous for him and his friends. (Just yesterday, it was announced in the US that 93% of all economic gains of the past year in that country have gone to the super-rich one percent. It's much the same in Canada. Indeed, jobs are being lost and incomes for most of us cut as this new, free trade world world takes effect.) But Mulroney is quite right. It has worked well for people like him and like the sort of people who would attend a dinner honouring a man of proven sleaze. (For some reason, Harper has not applied his "get tough on crime policy" on the former P.M.)
How can "commentators" like the editorial writer and Rod Allen write such trivial crap year after year when they have news like this that screams for comment?
Luckily, Alec Bruce and Jody Dallaire are in place.
There's really little to say about today's paper. It's mostly, as always, trivia. So let's get started on something bigger that has not appeared in the paper - and won't. We are well into a revolution in government that is bigger than anything seen in more than 200 years. And we are about to lose everything we gained in those centuries and even longer.
First, let's dispose of a silly myth promoted by the TandT - that big government is bad, that it's inefficient, that is gets in the way of business efficiency. And let's also dispose of the myth that big business is opposed to big government. In fact, big business loves big government. It's a major source of income and profit (and welfare) for corporations. In the US, for example, if it weren't for big government and big government spending, the immensely profitable defence industries wouldn't exist. Here in Canada, a leader we know and love would not be developing shipyard to build warships for the government, and come out of it with a modern, up-to-the-minute shipyard that can be used for private business.
Corporations want big government to give it lush contracts for what they like to call public/private/projects.
There are projects that were public, but which friendly governments cut in private business for a share, usually on very good terms, indeed. You can see it big-time in road building and maintenance. Watch for it many other public areas like prisons, police forces,schools, health care.
Corporations want government to be big. They need it to be big to hand out lush contracts to corporations so they can run what used to be public services.
In the US, profit-making in education has shown up in a public/private hybrid called "charter schools". I don't know what the costs and profits are like. But I do know they have been educational disasters, with the US dropping into the basement of the developing world for education quality.
Ditto with privately-owned prisons. And, under private ownership (paid for with tax dollars), the prisons are actually less efficient. For example, they refuse to take prisoners with health problems. These are expensive prisoners - so they get dumped back in the public prisons. The American army now relies so heavily on mercenaries that the mercenary business has become one of the biggest in the world.
Britain's Conservative government is following the US lead, privatizing prisons, police services, and security of all sorts - almost all of it supplied by the same people who provide mercenary soldiers. Are they value for money? Well, security was an expensive disaster at the London Olympics. The private company responsible for it made such a mess that some 17,000 British troops had to be rushed to London, along with thousands of police from across the UK. Estimates are that it will take the army two years to get back to normal. Meanwhile, the private contractor got full pay for his services.
Harper is looking for the same in Canada. Private prisons are already on the agenda. So is a gradual privatization of health care. CBC is very much in the gunsights.
Corporations need big government to raise big taxes (but not theirs) so it can hand out sweetheart contracts to corporations. And, if people object, they need big business to keep those people in line. That's why US police forces have been militarizing with armoured cars, heavier duty weapons, and drones. That's why "Homeland Security" recently purchased a billion rounds of ammunition for use in the US.
They need big government to fight the wars that give the corporations economic power all over the world. It is no coincidence that Iraq, Libya, and Iran are all major oil producers.
And, after all, those poor, innocent shale gas fracking sites need protection from demonstrators who could be terrorist agitators. You need big government for that.
And you need a big government and you need big news media owned by big corporation to spread the propaganda of fear and hatred -fear and hatred of Moslems, for example. You have to learn to focus on the fears and hatreds. You have to learn to trust big brother to protect you.
I know Norbert hasn't figured that out yet. But, yes, corporation need and want big government.
That's the background to the change that's coming (that already is well advanced) in our democracy. I'll finish it next time the TandT has a really boring edition.
Oh, yesterday, a friend (Roy McMullin) lured me to Victoria park, sat me on a bench, pointed a camera at me, and asked me questions, mostly political. Natrually, I modestly refused to have my picture taken. But he hit me. So I cooperated.
He did three videos and put them on youtube. (There must be a problem with his lens. I'm sure I have more hair than that.) Anyway, the easiest way to find them is to go to youtube and search Graeme Decarie. They should be the first ones to pop up.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Oct. 3: Pictures, pictures...
Pictures could be useful in telling a story. If, for example, you wanted to show the full horror of a modern war, some pictures of bodies, ruined buildings, starving children would take over where words run out of meaning. Unfortunately, pictures are also useful to fill space on the cheap in a newspaper that doesn't really want to say anything, anyway. Take a look at today's lead story, p.1.
A passenger jet made an emergency landing at Moncton airport. Okay. It has no profound effect on either Moncton or New Brunswick but, okay, it's unusual. So there's big picture of a jet airliner for anybody who doesn't know what one looks like. It's continued on p. 6.
By then, this minor incident which will affect nobody's life has become a full page story - and with five more photos (count them, five) of what strangers look like when sitting or standing in an airport waiting room.
Most of the story and all of the photos are useless. They tell us almost nothing that matters to us. But they fill space, and do it pretty cheaply. That's a sure sign of a newspaper that has no intention of telling us real news, and has so much contempt for us readers that it doesn't care what appears in it pages - so long as it doesn't tell us anything.
Section B, p. 1 has a story "Russia tells NATO to stay away from Syrian conflict" A quarter of the space is given over to a photo of a Syrian rebel sitting on a motorcycle, and smiling at the camera. What does that tell us about Russia, NATO, Syria? What does it tell us about anything?
One of the very few stories of any importance in the whole paper is buried on B6. Canada's second largest meat packing and processing plant has flooded the market across Canada (yes, even New Brunswick) and into the US with millions of pounds of tainted beef which could cause illness and even death. It's the biggest meat recall in Canadian history, with some 1,500 products on the danger list. And we still don't know how big this is going to get. Even as I write this, I'm wondering about the food in my freezer - and so should you. Geegollywhiz, seems to me this is bigger news than a page of pictures of people standing in an airport. But there are no pictures for this one. Meanwhile....
Page A8 has a picture of smiling business people standing around the mayor Leblanc to take bows for raising money for our Discovery Centre. And you will certainly want to cut that one out and frame it. But I think some readers might also be interested in seeing pictures and names of people who might be responsible flooding this country with tainted meat. (Have we had photos yet of the Irving people named for price-fixing in Quebec? Has the TandT even mentined the story.)
The Moncton Times, two days after CBC news, has the story that the government has not and may never release the report on shale gas and public health that was prepared by the province's chief medical officer for health, Dr. Cleary. This is the government that promised two years ago to pay attention to the people, and that promised to give us full information in the shale gas debate.
Their performance since then seems to make it clear that these people are not just sleezes and propaganda agents for the shale gas industy, but also bare-faced liars. Any Conservative MLA who will not resign from the legislature or, at least, from the Conservative Party, can only be a person of no integrity at all. This, like the Liberal government before us, is not just incompetent. It exists purely to sell us out.
Meanwhile, the King's College story on access to information, the one that rated New Brunswick a failure in almost all respects ( but has not been reported in the TandT - only on CBC -) has drawn a reaction from Anne Bertrand, the government's own Access to Information and Privacy Officer. She deplores the MLAs discussing languages policy in a Liberal/Conservative committee, but with the public completely closed out. I think it's much worse than that.
It's politically stupid. It also shows a fundamental failure to understand what democracy means.
Premier Allward certainly has the right to hold such secret meetings. The stupidity of it is that such secret meetings are bound to raise suspicion, fear, anger - and so spark a rise of confusions, wildly unfocused discussion and accusations in the general public. The will also draw every nutbar in the province out of the woodwork to join in with raving that will drive tensions even higher.
It's dumb, My Allward. Politically, it's really, really dumb.
But opening those meetings to the public would not help. So very few would be able to attend that public meetings would have all the dangers of private ones. So would meetings with just press coverage. (Besides, who can trust most of our press?)
You see, Mr. Alward, we have what's called a democracy. In a democracy, each person and/or party frames a policy based on principles and specific proposals. That is what goes to the public for general discussion. One advantage of this is it focuses the discussion on issues raised in the policy. This focus provides some possibility for intelligent discussion rather than ranting or fear-mongering.
In a democracy, it is the party which wins that sort of debate that wins in the election - and that takes responsiblity for doing what it said it would do, and for how it works out.
Liberals and Conservatives have no business working out a common policy. When you do that, Mr. Allward, you're shaking off the responsibility that you have to lead the province, and making it a joint responsibility. People did not elect the Liberals to take responsibility. They elected you.
Indeed, I'm surprised at the Liberal leadership for being dumb enough to agree to these meetings. It should be holding Liberal meetings to decide a policy based on Liberal principles. Then it could present that to us. Of course, it would first have to decide what Liberal principles are.
A general and vaguely defined debate on language (or anything else) is a guarantee of confusion, distrust, and anger. Present your policy. Explain it. Then we discuss it and decide what we think. That is what we call democracy.
Speaking of democracy, we appear to be living through its final days. There is a powerful movement on to deliver all power into the hands of people who have no responsibility whatever to answer to us for what they do. Something that looks like democracy will be retained. But it will be just window dressing. Some people who are worth taking seriously say it has already happened in the US. I think they're right. It has unquestionably happened in New Brunswick a long time ago -though it can probably still be reversed in this province.
Some slack news day, perhaps I shall try to write about that. It would be easier to talk about it; But one thing I've learned from the current events group is that New Brunswickers just don't like public talks or public discussion. The blog does well in readership, and it is still growing. But the public Current Events group doesn't draw flies.
That's too bad because as democracy disappears, we should at least wave it goodbye.
A passenger jet made an emergency landing at Moncton airport. Okay. It has no profound effect on either Moncton or New Brunswick but, okay, it's unusual. So there's big picture of a jet airliner for anybody who doesn't know what one looks like. It's continued on p. 6.
By then, this minor incident which will affect nobody's life has become a full page story - and with five more photos (count them, five) of what strangers look like when sitting or standing in an airport waiting room.
Most of the story and all of the photos are useless. They tell us almost nothing that matters to us. But they fill space, and do it pretty cheaply. That's a sure sign of a newspaper that has no intention of telling us real news, and has so much contempt for us readers that it doesn't care what appears in it pages - so long as it doesn't tell us anything.
Section B, p. 1 has a story "Russia tells NATO to stay away from Syrian conflict" A quarter of the space is given over to a photo of a Syrian rebel sitting on a motorcycle, and smiling at the camera. What does that tell us about Russia, NATO, Syria? What does it tell us about anything?
One of the very few stories of any importance in the whole paper is buried on B6. Canada's second largest meat packing and processing plant has flooded the market across Canada (yes, even New Brunswick) and into the US with millions of pounds of tainted beef which could cause illness and even death. It's the biggest meat recall in Canadian history, with some 1,500 products on the danger list. And we still don't know how big this is going to get. Even as I write this, I'm wondering about the food in my freezer - and so should you. Geegollywhiz, seems to me this is bigger news than a page of pictures of people standing in an airport. But there are no pictures for this one. Meanwhile....
Page A8 has a picture of smiling business people standing around the mayor Leblanc to take bows for raising money for our Discovery Centre. And you will certainly want to cut that one out and frame it. But I think some readers might also be interested in seeing pictures and names of people who might be responsible flooding this country with tainted meat. (Have we had photos yet of the Irving people named for price-fixing in Quebec? Has the TandT even mentined the story.)
The Moncton Times, two days after CBC news, has the story that the government has not and may never release the report on shale gas and public health that was prepared by the province's chief medical officer for health, Dr. Cleary. This is the government that promised two years ago to pay attention to the people, and that promised to give us full information in the shale gas debate.
Their performance since then seems to make it clear that these people are not just sleezes and propaganda agents for the shale gas industy, but also bare-faced liars. Any Conservative MLA who will not resign from the legislature or, at least, from the Conservative Party, can only be a person of no integrity at all. This, like the Liberal government before us, is not just incompetent. It exists purely to sell us out.
Meanwhile, the King's College story on access to information, the one that rated New Brunswick a failure in almost all respects ( but has not been reported in the TandT - only on CBC -) has drawn a reaction from Anne Bertrand, the government's own Access to Information and Privacy Officer. She deplores the MLAs discussing languages policy in a Liberal/Conservative committee, but with the public completely closed out. I think it's much worse than that.
It's politically stupid. It also shows a fundamental failure to understand what democracy means.
Premier Allward certainly has the right to hold such secret meetings. The stupidity of it is that such secret meetings are bound to raise suspicion, fear, anger - and so spark a rise of confusions, wildly unfocused discussion and accusations in the general public. The will also draw every nutbar in the province out of the woodwork to join in with raving that will drive tensions even higher.
It's dumb, My Allward. Politically, it's really, really dumb.
But opening those meetings to the public would not help. So very few would be able to attend that public meetings would have all the dangers of private ones. So would meetings with just press coverage. (Besides, who can trust most of our press?)
You see, Mr. Alward, we have what's called a democracy. In a democracy, each person and/or party frames a policy based on principles and specific proposals. That is what goes to the public for general discussion. One advantage of this is it focuses the discussion on issues raised in the policy. This focus provides some possibility for intelligent discussion rather than ranting or fear-mongering.
In a democracy, it is the party which wins that sort of debate that wins in the election - and that takes responsiblity for doing what it said it would do, and for how it works out.
Liberals and Conservatives have no business working out a common policy. When you do that, Mr. Allward, you're shaking off the responsibility that you have to lead the province, and making it a joint responsibility. People did not elect the Liberals to take responsibility. They elected you.
Indeed, I'm surprised at the Liberal leadership for being dumb enough to agree to these meetings. It should be holding Liberal meetings to decide a policy based on Liberal principles. Then it could present that to us. Of course, it would first have to decide what Liberal principles are.
A general and vaguely defined debate on language (or anything else) is a guarantee of confusion, distrust, and anger. Present your policy. Explain it. Then we discuss it and decide what we think. That is what we call democracy.
Speaking of democracy, we appear to be living through its final days. There is a powerful movement on to deliver all power into the hands of people who have no responsibility whatever to answer to us for what they do. Something that looks like democracy will be retained. But it will be just window dressing. Some people who are worth taking seriously say it has already happened in the US. I think they're right. It has unquestionably happened in New Brunswick a long time ago -though it can probably still be reversed in this province.
Some slack news day, perhaps I shall try to write about that. It would be easier to talk about it; But one thing I've learned from the current events group is that New Brunswickers just don't like public talks or public discussion. The blog does well in readership, and it is still growing. But the public Current Events group doesn't draw flies.
That's too bad because as democracy disappears, we should at least wave it goodbye.
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Oct. 2: Ask, just ask,.........
and you will receive...
Re: Request for Information - RTIPPA
An
environmental investigation was completed in 2012 for the Highfield
Square Mall property located on Main Street. Not all areas of
Highfield Square were assessed as part of this investigation.
The
assessment identified the following in some areas of the property:
- Contaminated fill soils (heavy metals – arsenic and copper) above the applicable CCME1 commercial criteria;
- Impacted groundwater (aluminium, arsenic, cadmium, iron, zinc and chloride) at concentrations in excess of the CCME freshwater aquatic life guidelines;
- Impacted groundwater (zinc, cadmium and PCE2) in excess of the non-potable MOE3 criteria.
Additional
assessment work is required to determine the extent of the PCE
contamination in the groundwater.
1 CCME:
Canadian Council of Minister of the Environment
2 PCE:
tetrachloroethylene
3 MOE:
Ontario Ministry of the Environment
Elaine
Aucoin
Director
of Environmental Planning and Management
_______________________________________________________________________________________
This is the very speedy response I received to an official request for information that I sent to city hall. Earlier requests I had made (before the right to access to information from municipalities was a applied) got me nowhere. City councillors, especially for Ward Two, I found to be quite useless. But an official request brought this very quick response - for which I thank Elaine Aucoin. Now - what does it mean?
I do not pretend to be an expert in pollutants. But, surely, a list of pollutants, all above acceptable levels, like the list above must be some concern for , among others, the following reasons.
1. The investigation has not even been completed yet. It could well be worse.
2. The city's option on buying this land expires within weeks. That's not a whole lot of time for further investigation, public information, and discussion.
3. As matters are, this does not sound like an ideal location for a civic centre and a park, however attractive architect drawings might look.
4. Removal of contaminated soil is a very lengthy and expensive process. Usually, it has to be trucked a thousand miles or more to a district willing to accept it - for a price. (Of course, I can see this city council simply dumping it in the river.)
Highfield Square is a lot of soil to dump - and you can't just go down a foot or so. We so far have no idea how deep this will have to go.
Is this all being saved up for us as a surprise for AFTER we have bought the land?
For the Moncton Times and Transcript, why didn't you ask these obvious questions? People might get the impression you are deliberately keeping us in the dark.
For reporters at the TandT, remember that a reporter does not simply take dictation. A reporter asks questions. So pray for that day you can quit the Irving press and get a job with a real newspaper.
In related news,New Brunswick and its municipalities came under heavy criticism yesterday in a university report that rated them the worst of a rather bad lot in the Atlantic provinces when it came to speed and usefulness in delivering information. The province, St. John, Fredericton and Moncton all scored straight Fs in both categories.
Obviously, the Moncton Department of Environment Management and Planning stands well above the sordid lot that surrounds it. I had a full response from ms. Aucoin within two working days.
But there is a problem in this province. There's a culture of secrecy, even of fear - and it hangs over an even deeper culture of political dishonesty (to put it as gently as I can.)
By the way, you will not read about that report on New Brunswick's Fs in The Moncton Times and Transcript. I got it on the only reliable source of local news in this province - CBC radio. Get that Norbert? It was your hated CBC, not your wretched Times andTranscript, that carried a story of such obvious importance.
By the way, I notice no mention in today's paper (or any other day's) of the report on Shale gas and public health. This is the one long ago submitted to the provincial government by Dr. Cleary. It was supposed to be made public at the end of September, just in time for the general meeting of New Brunswick doctors.
But, surprise, surprise. It hasn't been released. Now it's too late for the meeting - and I have a strong suspicion it may never be released. After all, who in this government or in the shall gas industry or at the Times and Transcript gives a damn about public health?
Section A of the paper is the usual free ad (a big story about renovations to some bars - be still, my heart). There are also two pictures (pp. 3 and 10) women walking in the rain with umbrellas. I have no idea what those pictures are supposed to tell us-and the captions give no hint.)
Newstoday has an interesting story about Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird giving hell to the UN for not stopping the bloodshed in Syria. I don't think I am ever so ashamed to be a Canadian as when I read the news about this man. He may be a hypocrite. He may be stupid. He may be both. But even he should know well the bloodshed in Syria is not being caused by only the Syrian government. It is being caused as well by the other side - the side we and the US and Saudi Arabia and the emirates who are supplying money, training, special ops, weapons and mercenaries to the rebels - of whom a high proportion are people the US itself declares to be terrorists.
What started all this? The west and the richer Arab states and Israel want Syria broken up into smaller and weaker states. They want chaos. That will give Israel a freer hand to attack Lebanon and get its fresh water. It will also open up Iran to easier attack. And, of course, the fact that Iran has oil has nothing to do with it. No. The west and Israel just want to overthrow the Iranian government so they can give it the blessing of democracy - the king of Saudi Arabia is a great fan of democracy.)
Actually, Iran is already a democracy. In fact, it's on its second democracy. The first one was overthrown by Britain, France and the US who replaced it with a dictatorship in the 1950s.
But the UN is in the way. That's why the west is busily destroying the UN, so it can replace it with more cooperative organizations like NATO and the Arab league.
And John Baird? Baird is a loud-mouthed hypocrite who can be trusted to kiss the ass he's told to kiss. Take a long look at the photo of him. This is what Canada has fallen to in the world.
In letters to the editor, a shining example of how long it can take some people to get the point. A writer complains that Crandall University is being criticized simply because it will not endorse homosexuality.
In fact, nobody has asked Crandall to endorse anybody. The whole debate is about whether Crandall has a right to discriminate against people. Endorsing them has nothing to do with it. I don't endorse Baptists. But I don't discriminate against them. I have no objection to Baptists becoming teachers or lawyers or secretaries. Some of my best friends are Baptists. That's not the question. What we asking Baptists to do is 1.obey the law and 2. act like Christians.
The letter concludes with "God bless the folks at Crandall". Absolutely. They need all the blessing they can get to overcome their unfortunate ways. I notice, with approval, that gays do not make it a practice to discriminate against Baptists. I would ask, then, for Baptists to be as law-abiding and as Christian as gays.
TONIGHT, TONIGHT....WON'T BE JUST ANY NIGHT.....
CURRENT EVENTS. MONCTON LIBRARY. 7 TO 8 P.M.
ALL ARE WELCOME. INDEED, ALL ARE COMMANDED TO ATTEND.
I GET SO LONELY.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
This is the very speedy response I received to an official request for information that I sent to city hall. Earlier requests I had made (before the right to access to information from municipalities was a applied) got me nowhere. City councillors, especially for Ward Two, I found to be quite useless. But an official request brought this very quick response - for which I thank Elaine Aucoin. Now - what does it mean?
I do not pretend to be an expert in pollutants. But, surely, a list of pollutants, all above acceptable levels, like the list above must be some concern for , among others, the following reasons.
1. The investigation has not even been completed yet. It could well be worse.
2. The city's option on buying this land expires within weeks. That's not a whole lot of time for further investigation, public information, and discussion.
3. As matters are, this does not sound like an ideal location for a civic centre and a park, however attractive architect drawings might look.
4. Removal of contaminated soil is a very lengthy and expensive process. Usually, it has to be trucked a thousand miles or more to a district willing to accept it - for a price. (Of course, I can see this city council simply dumping it in the river.)
Highfield Square is a lot of soil to dump - and you can't just go down a foot or so. We so far have no idea how deep this will have to go.
Is this all being saved up for us as a surprise for AFTER we have bought the land?
For the Moncton Times and Transcript, why didn't you ask these obvious questions? People might get the impression you are deliberately keeping us in the dark.
For reporters at the TandT, remember that a reporter does not simply take dictation. A reporter asks questions. So pray for that day you can quit the Irving press and get a job with a real newspaper.
In related news,New Brunswick and its municipalities came under heavy criticism yesterday in a university report that rated them the worst of a rather bad lot in the Atlantic provinces when it came to speed and usefulness in delivering information. The province, St. John, Fredericton and Moncton all scored straight Fs in both categories.
Obviously, the Moncton Department of Environment Management and Planning stands well above the sordid lot that surrounds it. I had a full response from ms. Aucoin within two working days.
But there is a problem in this province. There's a culture of secrecy, even of fear - and it hangs over an even deeper culture of political dishonesty (to put it as gently as I can.)
By the way, you will not read about that report on New Brunswick's Fs in The Moncton Times and Transcript. I got it on the only reliable source of local news in this province - CBC radio. Get that Norbert? It was your hated CBC, not your wretched Times andTranscript, that carried a story of such obvious importance.
By the way, I notice no mention in today's paper (or any other day's) of the report on Shale gas and public health. This is the one long ago submitted to the provincial government by Dr. Cleary. It was supposed to be made public at the end of September, just in time for the general meeting of New Brunswick doctors.
But, surprise, surprise. It hasn't been released. Now it's too late for the meeting - and I have a strong suspicion it may never be released. After all, who in this government or in the shall gas industry or at the Times and Transcript gives a damn about public health?
Section A of the paper is the usual free ad (a big story about renovations to some bars - be still, my heart). There are also two pictures (pp. 3 and 10) women walking in the rain with umbrellas. I have no idea what those pictures are supposed to tell us-and the captions give no hint.)
Newstoday has an interesting story about Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird giving hell to the UN for not stopping the bloodshed in Syria. I don't think I am ever so ashamed to be a Canadian as when I read the news about this man. He may be a hypocrite. He may be stupid. He may be both. But even he should know well the bloodshed in Syria is not being caused by only the Syrian government. It is being caused as well by the other side - the side we and the US and Saudi Arabia and the emirates who are supplying money, training, special ops, weapons and mercenaries to the rebels - of whom a high proportion are people the US itself declares to be terrorists.
What started all this? The west and the richer Arab states and Israel want Syria broken up into smaller and weaker states. They want chaos. That will give Israel a freer hand to attack Lebanon and get its fresh water. It will also open up Iran to easier attack. And, of course, the fact that Iran has oil has nothing to do with it. No. The west and Israel just want to overthrow the Iranian government so they can give it the blessing of democracy - the king of Saudi Arabia is a great fan of democracy.)
Actually, Iran is already a democracy. In fact, it's on its second democracy. The first one was overthrown by Britain, France and the US who replaced it with a dictatorship in the 1950s.
But the UN is in the way. That's why the west is busily destroying the UN, so it can replace it with more cooperative organizations like NATO and the Arab league.
And John Baird? Baird is a loud-mouthed hypocrite who can be trusted to kiss the ass he's told to kiss. Take a long look at the photo of him. This is what Canada has fallen to in the world.
In letters to the editor, a shining example of how long it can take some people to get the point. A writer complains that Crandall University is being criticized simply because it will not endorse homosexuality.
In fact, nobody has asked Crandall to endorse anybody. The whole debate is about whether Crandall has a right to discriminate against people. Endorsing them has nothing to do with it. I don't endorse Baptists. But I don't discriminate against them. I have no objection to Baptists becoming teachers or lawyers or secretaries. Some of my best friends are Baptists. That's not the question. What we asking Baptists to do is 1.obey the law and 2. act like Christians.
The letter concludes with "God bless the folks at Crandall". Absolutely. They need all the blessing they can get to overcome their unfortunate ways. I notice, with approval, that gays do not make it a practice to discriminate against Baptists. I would ask, then, for Baptists to be as law-abiding and as Christian as gays.
TONIGHT, TONIGHT....WON'T BE JUST ANY NIGHT.....
CURRENT EVENTS. MONCTON LIBRARY. 7 TO 8 P.M.
ALL ARE WELCOME. INDEED, ALL ARE COMMANDED TO ATTEND.
I GET SO LONELY.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Oct. 1: a great day for free ads...
The new condos overlooking the golf course are selling well. And there's even a picture of the developer to prove it. And it's in a "lifestyle community". Wow! Lifestyle!
This is front page news in The Moncton Times and Transcript.
Another "read all about it" on front page is a story about two restaurants being named among the best in Canada - and the exciting word that in this city of foodbanks running short, high-end restaurants are on the rise.
And that pretty well sums up the big stories for section A.
For serious news that YOU need to know, the sports section has a full page of game results for every league you have ever heard of - and a few you probably haven't. But at least the sports section does carry news.
NewsToday is mostly ads - including a free one disguised as a news story that a new Harvey's will be opening in Moncton. And there's even a picture of what a Harvey's looks like before it's really built.
But it also has a quite decent story on Omar Khadr's return to Canada. What keeps it decent is that it doesn't report much of the gutter statements made by Canadian government figures, including Vic Toews and John Baird. Both of them made it clear that they were doing what they should have done ten years ago, but doing it only because of American pressure.
Both them made it clear they saw this return as a dreadful threat to God-fearing, Conservative-voting Canadians - that mindless, finger-pointing variety of Christians who constitute an essential element of the federal Conservative's electoral base. Baird, in particular made a boorish play to assure Canadians he will keep them safe from terrorism ( which means anything done by Moslems, but does not include the millions killed by our side.)
But if you want to find those statements, you'll have to read a paper from west of New Brunswick. The Globe and Mail for Saturday and Sunday would be a good choice.
Of course, Mr. Khadr should have known the law. The law is that western soldiers are allowed to invade any country, and shoot civilians. But civilians are not allowed to shoot back. What he should have done as he was being shot at was to stand up and sing "God Bless America".
Anyway, we can be sure that if Jesus had caught a fifteen year old under those circumstances, he would certainly have imprisoned him in solitary for ten years, tortured him and put him under trial for a crime that was not a crime at the time, and did not happen within that court's jurisdiction - oh, and used evidence obtained under torture..
Go with God, Vic Toews and John Baird.
And God help God.
There is, at last, a long-promised story about shale gas. But it doesn't tell us anything about shale gas. It just says municipalities would like to have some input into discussions about it. Good luck. But what has happened to the promise to keep us informed about shale gas? There are a great many news stories about it from all over the world. But not one has found its way into the pages of the TandT.
Then there's the editorial and op ed pages. Lord love a duck...
The editorial fusses over whether Moncton has enough ministers in the cabinet. As if it matters. Apparently, the editor is under the impression that politicians make the decisions in this province. But, surely, even the editor of the TandT can't be that dumb.
Norbert has another column of quick looks at various things, none of them worth looking at. He begins with Justin Trudeau, expressing uncertainty that he is up to being a leader. Norbert is being too kind.
There is nothing on the op ed page. (Craig Babstock had a nice time in Las Vegas. I'm happy for him. Allan Abel writes about how US celebrities are supporting Obama. He names a dozen or so. Then, he names a dozen or so who are supporting Romney. And his point is?)
Even Alec Bruce is disappointing. He writes about how a columnist named Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail) has been slapped on the wrist for plagiarism.
Well, for openers, and guessing from the papers I see on local newsstands, very few readers of the TandT know who Margaret Wente is. Nor will they have a journalist's knowledge of what plagiarism is, and why it's so bad. He also takes one hell of a leap in defending it. He says that lots of bloggers do it; and they don't get their wrists slapped.
What's wrong with that?
1. It smears all bloggers whether he says "all" or not.
2. It has nothing to do with the Margaret Wente case. Wente is a professional journalist. She knows the rules. Justifying what she did by saying amateur bloggers do it is like justifying a clumsy surgeon's botched heart operation by saying an amateur would have botched it, too.
3. Margaret Wente gets paid for what she writes. That's taking money under false pretences.
He closes by saying none of this excuses Wente's actions. Then he says it does. And then adds a final smear of bloggers.
If he keeps that up, he could become editor of The Moncton Times and Transcript.
Even by TandT's relaxed standards, this is not a good day.
This is front page news in The Moncton Times and Transcript.
Another "read all about it" on front page is a story about two restaurants being named among the best in Canada - and the exciting word that in this city of foodbanks running short, high-end restaurants are on the rise.
And that pretty well sums up the big stories for section A.
For serious news that YOU need to know, the sports section has a full page of game results for every league you have ever heard of - and a few you probably haven't. But at least the sports section does carry news.
NewsToday is mostly ads - including a free one disguised as a news story that a new Harvey's will be opening in Moncton. And there's even a picture of what a Harvey's looks like before it's really built.
But it also has a quite decent story on Omar Khadr's return to Canada. What keeps it decent is that it doesn't report much of the gutter statements made by Canadian government figures, including Vic Toews and John Baird. Both of them made it clear that they were doing what they should have done ten years ago, but doing it only because of American pressure.
Both them made it clear they saw this return as a dreadful threat to God-fearing, Conservative-voting Canadians - that mindless, finger-pointing variety of Christians who constitute an essential element of the federal Conservative's electoral base. Baird, in particular made a boorish play to assure Canadians he will keep them safe from terrorism ( which means anything done by Moslems, but does not include the millions killed by our side.)
But if you want to find those statements, you'll have to read a paper from west of New Brunswick. The Globe and Mail for Saturday and Sunday would be a good choice.
Of course, Mr. Khadr should have known the law. The law is that western soldiers are allowed to invade any country, and shoot civilians. But civilians are not allowed to shoot back. What he should have done as he was being shot at was to stand up and sing "God Bless America".
Anyway, we can be sure that if Jesus had caught a fifteen year old under those circumstances, he would certainly have imprisoned him in solitary for ten years, tortured him and put him under trial for a crime that was not a crime at the time, and did not happen within that court's jurisdiction - oh, and used evidence obtained under torture..
Go with God, Vic Toews and John Baird.
And God help God.
There is, at last, a long-promised story about shale gas. But it doesn't tell us anything about shale gas. It just says municipalities would like to have some input into discussions about it. Good luck. But what has happened to the promise to keep us informed about shale gas? There are a great many news stories about it from all over the world. But not one has found its way into the pages of the TandT.
Then there's the editorial and op ed pages. Lord love a duck...
The editorial fusses over whether Moncton has enough ministers in the cabinet. As if it matters. Apparently, the editor is under the impression that politicians make the decisions in this province. But, surely, even the editor of the TandT can't be that dumb.
Norbert has another column of quick looks at various things, none of them worth looking at. He begins with Justin Trudeau, expressing uncertainty that he is up to being a leader. Norbert is being too kind.
There is nothing on the op ed page. (Craig Babstock had a nice time in Las Vegas. I'm happy for him. Allan Abel writes about how US celebrities are supporting Obama. He names a dozen or so. Then, he names a dozen or so who are supporting Romney. And his point is?)
Even Alec Bruce is disappointing. He writes about how a columnist named Margaret Wente (Globe and Mail) has been slapped on the wrist for plagiarism.
Well, for openers, and guessing from the papers I see on local newsstands, very few readers of the TandT know who Margaret Wente is. Nor will they have a journalist's knowledge of what plagiarism is, and why it's so bad. He also takes one hell of a leap in defending it. He says that lots of bloggers do it; and they don't get their wrists slapped.
What's wrong with that?
1. It smears all bloggers whether he says "all" or not.
2. It has nothing to do with the Margaret Wente case. Wente is a professional journalist. She knows the rules. Justifying what she did by saying amateur bloggers do it is like justifying a clumsy surgeon's botched heart operation by saying an amateur would have botched it, too.
3. Margaret Wente gets paid for what she writes. That's taking money under false pretences.
He closes by saying none of this excuses Wente's actions. Then he says it does. And then adds a final smear of bloggers.
If he keeps that up, he could become editor of The Moncton Times and Transcript.
Even by TandT's relaxed standards, this is not a good day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)