Gee golly whillikers. Seems it was just two days ago I said that when the New Brunswick people who count met for their summit meeting on the community, The Moncton Times would report it in flattering terms, and it would run a flattering editorial. Turns out I understimated the The Moncton Times enthusiasm for bootlicking.
It was the lead news article today, Tuesday, which means the story was written before the the first meeting was even held. There really wasn't any story to write yet. It simply repeated what it had already reported several days ago. But there it was, top of page one.
As for the editorial, well, it was obvious the editorial writer was in a dreadful tizzy, worrying about the order in which he/she should lick all those boots.
How would a competent and ethical newspaper have acted?
1. The assignment editor would have assigned a reporter to get information we don't yet have. And he/she would go over some questions with the reporter. For example:
a) Exactly how were the participants chosen? Were they elected? If not, who picked them?
b) Why were teachers selected as a group to be represented? If teachers, why not dentists? and retired people? and the poor? and the unemployed? and electricians? and truck drivers? and country singers? In fact, that whole summit gathering represents, perhaps, one percent of the population - all tarted up to pretend they represent a broad spectrum of opinion.
c) What, exactly, is meant by non-profit groups? Does that mean The Salvation Army and the churches? Does it mean social workers? Does it mean bloggers (I mean, this is as non-proft as it gets.)
Hint - non profit mean the Atlantic Institute of Market Studies, New Brunswick's pimp for big business. Technically, it doesn't make a profit for itself. It's job to to spread propaganda that will help its wealthy supporters make profits.
d) What are the unions thinking of in taking part in a scam like this? Now, there's a questiono I'd dearly love to know the answer to.
e) How could the organizers, Ganong and Theriault, make a public announcement of one of the major recommencations of the report (no tax increases) BEFORE THE SUMMIT HAD ITS FIRST MEETING?
Such an announcement makes the whole summit meeting a farce.
f) If they aren't going to raise taxes, how do they think they are going to reduce the debt?
g) If the leaders of the summit have made it a farce by announcing a conclusion before the group has even met, how can any person of integrity take part in it?
3. As for the editorial, it was, as expected, kiss kiss on both cheeks. The editor agreed completely that there must be no tax increases; and didn't even mention that crashing blunder of annoucing a major recommendation before the meeting was even held.
A very strange thing about the editorial is that the editor did not raise the issue of teachers being represented at an economic summit. But aren't these the same teachers the editorial writers have been public insulting for their incompetence and laziness for the past year? Has The Moncton Times changed its mind about teachers?
The editorial gives high praise the the business orentation of the summit, and to the addition of the mayor of Moncton. These assure economic wisdom.
The editorial writer seems not to remember that these same business leaders and the mayor of Moncton, just months ago, were coming in their pants with joy at the idea of us borrowing 84 million to build a hockey rink. Hadn't they noticed there was a world economic crisis so obvious that even I knew about it a year ago? And even I knew the government debt was too high. But a business leader like the owner of the hockey team was quoted in The Moncton Times as saying it was a great idea. Will he be one of the experts giving us advice on how to run the economy.?
I haven't seen a combination like that of bad reporting, bad assigning, bad editing, and unethical editorial writing since, well, since four days ago in The Moncton Times.
So let's try another prediction. The editorial page will praise the final report of the summit. Its recommendations will be .....
1. Do not raise taxes - unless you absolutely have to. Then, make sure you do not raise them on big corporations or the wealthy. Hit the middle class and the poor.
2. There will be no mention about electricty rates for large corporations. Those must stay low.
3. There will have to be cuts in government services - like social services, education, that kind of stuff. (But no cut in hockey rinks if the federal government is crazy enough to contribute to a new one for Moncton. Oh, and of course, we'll keep looking for a CFL team that will just need a few million dollars of taxpayers' help to make some millionaire owner into a billionaire.)
4. There will also have to be cuts in the civil service (but the report won't call it cutting. They'll call it "streamlining" the civil service to make it more efficient.) The same reasoning will be applied to social services and education.
5. There will be a recommendation that a good deal of work now done by government should be contracted out to the coporate leaders who are attending the summit. They will claim this will save taxes. (It won't. It's been tried before, in the US. It's not cheaper. It's more expensive.)
The general message of the summit can be summed up in five words. Government bad. Big business good.
And that's not fair. I have no love for either the Liberals or Conservatives of New Brunswick. I think they're both patsies for corporate leaders. That's why it's not fair to blame the government for our problems. The people to be blamed for our problems are the ones who control whichever party is in governmnent. You can tell lthem that tomorrow when they'll all be gathered at the summit.
Oh - I guess The Moncton Times shouldn't be expected to know ancient history like the 1920s, 30s, and the second world war. The idea behind the summit - bringing people together to represent certain groups, and then pretending that gives it authority of some sort is called corporatism. It means that, like this summit, people of power and influence get invited to the summit, with a few other groups, like teachers and unions, added for decoration. There was a surge of corporatism in Europe beginning in the 1920s.
Corporatism is quite different from democracy. Democracy means we all have the same rights - as individuals. Corporatism means we have rights ONLY according the the group we belong to - and the boss gets the right to decide which groups are the ones that count. You have rights, maybe, but only depending on the groups you belong to. And that means that most people have no rights at all.
Earlier this month, the editorials of The Moncton Times patriotically reminded us to remember our war dead and to honour them. Obviously, it has itself forgotten why they died. They died fighting fascism. Corporatism, giving rights according to group membership, was the foundation stone of fascism.
This week, we are taking a giant step back to the 1920s, back to Benito Mussolini - Il Duce. And as I watch the failure of New Brunswick and of the New Brunswick press to even realize what it is happening, let alone their cheering for it, I really despair of this place.
Well, raise right hands high. Palms up. Remember that next November 11.
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Monday, November 29, 2010
Governments Have Failed says Ganong and Theriault.
surprise, surprise! Two days before their summit even meets, messers. Ganong and Theriault have announced the solution to New Brunswick's fiscal problems. Yessirree. New Brunswick has relied too much on the politicians, both federal and provincial, to do anything for the economy. Government just can't do it. But you know who can?
Another big surprise. Private business can. Damn right. Look what a great job private business has done in a century of controlling places like Haiti - and well over a century in Congo. Look at the wonderful things American private bankers have done for the US economy.
Come off it, G and T. Your summit is a scam. It will certainly be praised by the Moncton TandT. But that's vritually proof that it's a scam.
Polioticians have never in our lifetimes been in charge of anything in New Brunswick. Its always been big business. Corporations and the wealthy pay for both major parties - and they get something for their money. If there's a fiscal crisis, nobody is more responsible for it than the kind of people who will dominate the "summit". (Summit - boy. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.)
New Brunswick is going to go the same route as most of the industrial powers. All are in economic trouble because of the power which pays off in underegualtion of corporations, undertaxing of the wealthy, and loans and other favours to corporations. And now they're making the poor pay for the mess they made. The bankers behind the US crisis got bailouts, and get to pay low taxes on their multi-million dollar bonuses. But the poor in the US are being made to pay through cuts in social services, cuts in education, cuts in basic human needs.
That's what the summit is about. We've been ripped off for decades by big business. Now, we're going to get hit to get hit for a problem we never caused.
Will New Brunswickers go for the bait? You get they will. Heck. They've been fooled for years into thinking Liberals and Conservatives are different, and fooled into believing politicians of either party actually run the province.
Nail the poor? Sure thing. Cut taxes for the rich? You can bet on it. What we are going to see is a summit of sharks pretending they're gathering to help swimmers who are drowning.
Another big surprise. Private business can. Damn right. Look what a great job private business has done in a century of controlling places like Haiti - and well over a century in Congo. Look at the wonderful things American private bankers have done for the US economy.
Come off it, G and T. Your summit is a scam. It will certainly be praised by the Moncton TandT. But that's vritually proof that it's a scam.
Polioticians have never in our lifetimes been in charge of anything in New Brunswick. Its always been big business. Corporations and the wealthy pay for both major parties - and they get something for their money. If there's a fiscal crisis, nobody is more responsible for it than the kind of people who will dominate the "summit". (Summit - boy. Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.)
New Brunswick is going to go the same route as most of the industrial powers. All are in economic trouble because of the power which pays off in underegualtion of corporations, undertaxing of the wealthy, and loans and other favours to corporations. And now they're making the poor pay for the mess they made. The bankers behind the US crisis got bailouts, and get to pay low taxes on their multi-million dollar bonuses. But the poor in the US are being made to pay through cuts in social services, cuts in education, cuts in basic human needs.
That's what the summit is about. We've been ripped off for decades by big business. Now, we're going to get hit to get hit for a problem we never caused.
Will New Brunswickers go for the bait? You get they will. Heck. They've been fooled for years into thinking Liberals and Conservatives are different, and fooled into believing politicians of either party actually run the province.
Nail the poor? Sure thing. Cut taxes for the rich? You can bet on it. What we are going to see is a summit of sharks pretending they're gathering to help swimmers who are drowning.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Norbert Cunningham.
Young Norbert is the editorial page editor of the Moncton TandT. He often writes a column on that page about our use of words Without exception, I look enjoy. He understand the subject well; I'm interested in that subject; and he writes well. He appeared again on Friday, Nov. 26. But this time, it was an embarassment to read.
It wasn't about words. It was about politicians and the news media. And it was a dreadful misuse of words as well as - how can I describe it....?
First he uses the labels Conservative and Liberal as though they actually mean something more than party labels. They will vary a little, depart a little each from the other from time to time. You know, like a red car is different from a blue car of the same make and model. A person who understands the uses of words so well should know that.
He also seems to think the word Conservative means the same as conservative. And Liberal means the same as Liberal. They don't. Harper is a liberal in the true meaning of the word. He's a late nineteenth century liberal. But he's a liberal. Ignatieff is whatever he thinks is useful. That will probably be a little less liberal than Harper. But not much.
In any case, not one person in ten thousand knows the meaning of either word. John A. MacDonald knew what the words meant. That's why he always called himself a Liberal-Conservative. But then the Liberals came along and, under Laurier, changed themselves into Liberal-Conservatives but still called themselves Liberals. So the old Liberal-Conservatives had to call themselves something else. For a while, they called themselves Progressive Conservatives. But that didn't fool anybody. So they chose the only other label that voters were familiar with.
Then he accuses the news media of picking on the Harper Conservatives just because of some scandals.
Hello? Norbert? Isn't the media supposed to report scandals in our democratic system? Are you suggesting our news media are all owned by Liberals? If so, wouldn't that make The whole New Brunswick press, including young Norbert, Liberal? And the National Post? And all those other millionaires who own news media?
In the end, he ends up as so many Americans have - using liberal and conservative as swear words that don't mean the same thing to any two people.
He ends up defending the Conservatives for not going too far in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. Well, yes, they can be defended against such a charge. In fact, they've done less than any other country in the industrial world to deal with the question at all. That's quite likely one reason why Canada is now in the global toilet of world opinion.
Please, Norbert. Give us more great columns on words. Leave the political commentary to Sarah Palin.
It wasn't about words. It was about politicians and the news media. And it was a dreadful misuse of words as well as - how can I describe it....?
First he uses the labels Conservative and Liberal as though they actually mean something more than party labels. They will vary a little, depart a little each from the other from time to time. You know, like a red car is different from a blue car of the same make and model. A person who understands the uses of words so well should know that.
He also seems to think the word Conservative means the same as conservative. And Liberal means the same as Liberal. They don't. Harper is a liberal in the true meaning of the word. He's a late nineteenth century liberal. But he's a liberal. Ignatieff is whatever he thinks is useful. That will probably be a little less liberal than Harper. But not much.
In any case, not one person in ten thousand knows the meaning of either word. John A. MacDonald knew what the words meant. That's why he always called himself a Liberal-Conservative. But then the Liberals came along and, under Laurier, changed themselves into Liberal-Conservatives but still called themselves Liberals. So the old Liberal-Conservatives had to call themselves something else. For a while, they called themselves Progressive Conservatives. But that didn't fool anybody. So they chose the only other label that voters were familiar with.
Then he accuses the news media of picking on the Harper Conservatives just because of some scandals.
Hello? Norbert? Isn't the media supposed to report scandals in our democratic system? Are you suggesting our news media are all owned by Liberals? If so, wouldn't that make The whole New Brunswick press, including young Norbert, Liberal? And the National Post? And all those other millionaires who own news media?
In the end, he ends up as so many Americans have - using liberal and conservative as swear words that don't mean the same thing to any two people.
He ends up defending the Conservatives for not going too far in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions. Well, yes, they can be defended against such a charge. In fact, they've done less than any other country in the industrial world to deal with the question at all. That's quite likely one reason why Canada is now in the global toilet of world opinion.
Please, Norbert. Give us more great columns on words. Leave the political commentary to Sarah Palin.
Thursday, November 25, 2010
The Moncton Tiimes and Catching Up to Congo and Haiti and Guatemala
New Burnswick has an economic critis coming - so we's all excited about a summit conference on the eononomy coming up this weekend. It's essentially a business confeence - with a few others tossed in as decorations. The Moncton Times and Trnascript, as always, is opening its pages to some of the greedier elements in the corporation world to express their veiws. (Their views do not ever involve sacrifices on the part of big business. No, it's them poor people what's the problem.
Today's gem (Nov, 25) us by a David Barnett who's all esccited and wetting his pants about the summit meeting this weekend. He is a certified business analyst (which means close to nothing but it sounds like, you know, professional. Actually, like think tanks, CBIs are fronts for big business. This one is a gem.
Why are we facing an economic crisis? Well, it can't be the light tax load we ask from big business, or the contract or grants or free land we've given them. No. The big cause is the minimum wage. Trouble is, you see, the poor have the silly idea they should be able to live on in. Well, they shouldn't. After all, we can get that work done in China or Haiti aor Congo or Guatemala where people are not so spolied as to expect to live.
We need ti be bold says Mr. Barnett. We need to give people incentives to work. Yeah. that's what we need. How do you think Mr. Ganong, the chair of the summit got rich? Well, he had the guts, gumption and inventive to have a rich daddy. That's the kind of spirit New Brunswick needs.
So, instead of a single morther staying home with a child just getting welfare. she can find work for seven bucks an hour or so - and the government will top it off to welfare level. That way she can get back her sefl esteem and learn to solve her problems through he own efforts. (Gee, what a wizard idea. That could have saved a bundle on bank and automotive bailours.) And, of course, the baby will soon catch on to looking after itself in whatever kind of housing one can get at that level and with whatever kind of food one can buy.
And, just for example, if she finds a job with a dollar an hour raise, that would be a great motive to encourage her to solve her own problems.
Good news for Mr. Barnett. Some of our great world leaders have led millions to this heaven where there are no taxes at all for the corporations, no minimum wage, no services. And they work like a charm, and have worked for over a century. Congo, Haiti, Guatemala....
Go live there, Mr. Barnett. You'll love it. Send us more articles about how wonderful it is. And don't worry. The Moncton Times and Telegraph will print any crap you can imagine. Right there on the Op Ed page. You'll be welcome. The owner of the paper is a forward thinking guy, just like you.
Today's gem (Nov, 25) us by a David Barnett who's all esccited and wetting his pants about the summit meeting this weekend. He is a certified business analyst (which means close to nothing but it sounds like, you know, professional. Actually, like think tanks, CBIs are fronts for big business. This one is a gem.
Why are we facing an economic crisis? Well, it can't be the light tax load we ask from big business, or the contract or grants or free land we've given them. No. The big cause is the minimum wage. Trouble is, you see, the poor have the silly idea they should be able to live on in. Well, they shouldn't. After all, we can get that work done in China or Haiti aor Congo or Guatemala where people are not so spolied as to expect to live.
We need ti be bold says Mr. Barnett. We need to give people incentives to work. Yeah. that's what we need. How do you think Mr. Ganong, the chair of the summit got rich? Well, he had the guts, gumption and inventive to have a rich daddy. That's the kind of spirit New Brunswick needs.
So, instead of a single morther staying home with a child just getting welfare. she can find work for seven bucks an hour or so - and the government will top it off to welfare level. That way she can get back her sefl esteem and learn to solve her problems through he own efforts. (Gee, what a wizard idea. That could have saved a bundle on bank and automotive bailours.) And, of course, the baby will soon catch on to looking after itself in whatever kind of housing one can get at that level and with whatever kind of food one can buy.
And, just for example, if she finds a job with a dollar an hour raise, that would be a great motive to encourage her to solve her own problems.
Good news for Mr. Barnett. Some of our great world leaders have led millions to this heaven where there are no taxes at all for the corporations, no minimum wage, no services. And they work like a charm, and have worked for over a century. Congo, Haiti, Guatemala....
Go live there, Mr. Barnett. You'll love it. Send us more articles about how wonderful it is. And don't worry. The Moncton Times and Telegraph will print any crap you can imagine. Right there on the Op Ed page. You'll be welcome. The owner of the paper is a forward thinking guy, just like you.
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
The Canadian Tax Federation's Love-In With Moncton Times
The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation, despite its democratic sounding title, is another of those propaganda outfitls for the rich in Canada - like the Fraser Institute, Aims, and the rest, all the ones who want you to think they're on your side; so when it sends an article in, The Moncton Times wets its pants in excitement, and puts it right on the editorial page itself - along with a kiss-up editorial. (Say what you like. The people who run The Times know where their paycheques are coming from.)
The big pitch here is that we have to reduce the debt; and there are two ways to do that. One would be to raise taxes. The other would be to cut services. The Times and The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation are in favour of cutting services. Of course. We have our children in under-maintaned and even dangerous schools because we have been underfunding education even before the economic crisis. But that's where some of the cuts will have to come from. We have the elderly to care for. We have families that work hard, but still live in poverty. Tough. We'll have to cut programmes for thrm.
We have people don't work nearly as hard as minimum wage workers, but make many times higher salaries, people who don't have to worry dangerous schools or poverty, or heating bills or malnutrition. The names Ganong and Thibaudeault spring to mind - you know - the economic summit boys.
Now, what we have is a tax system that undertaxes the rich and corporations. It also does them substantial favours that the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation seems not to notice. Meanwhile, the poor and th middle classes pay taxes that are high, though often hidden. Provincial lotteries are a ttax, deliberately aimed at the poor. So is the casino. So are sales taxes. So are education fund-raisers.
The rich don't give a damn about the rest of us. That's why they could drool over the prospect of a new, 80 plus million dollar hockey arena, but can't find the money to maintain public schools.
Forget the nonsense about how if we tax corporations, they'll get made at us and leave and we'll all be poor. Corporations are not here to give out money. They're here to take it out. You get some of it. Just a little bit.
The myth is that if you keep taxes low, the rich will create ever more more, and we'll all ge more and more prosperous.
It's theory that flies in the face of long experience. If cutting taxes for the rich created prosperity, then New Brunswick would make any oil emirate look like a slum. Haiti is a nearby example of a country where business has paid huge profits to the owners for a century, but has left most of the Haitians in wretched condition.
Not raising taxes on corporations or the rich simply gives them more to take away, and less for us to spend on what New Brunswick needs. That's what we're watching in the US. Banks have been loaned vast sums of money. They're used it to give huge bonusses to each other and to shareholders. But not mot much has made its way down to the taxpayers.
Of course not, corporations and the rich can then spend it wherever they want to. It's possible that not a penny would get back.
Meanwhile, most money spent by government does stay here (though, alas, much of it goes to the rich and corporations who are friends of the government.)
The Canadian Taxpayer's Federation likes to pretend it's there to help you. It isn't. Neither is the Moncton Times @ Transcript.
The big pitch here is that we have to reduce the debt; and there are two ways to do that. One would be to raise taxes. The other would be to cut services. The Times and The Canadian Taxpayers' Federation are in favour of cutting services. Of course. We have our children in under-maintaned and even dangerous schools because we have been underfunding education even before the economic crisis. But that's where some of the cuts will have to come from. We have the elderly to care for. We have families that work hard, but still live in poverty. Tough. We'll have to cut programmes for thrm.
We have people don't work nearly as hard as minimum wage workers, but make many times higher salaries, people who don't have to worry dangerous schools or poverty, or heating bills or malnutrition. The names Ganong and Thibaudeault spring to mind - you know - the economic summit boys.
Now, what we have is a tax system that undertaxes the rich and corporations. It also does them substantial favours that the Canadian Taxpayers' Federation seems not to notice. Meanwhile, the poor and th middle classes pay taxes that are high, though often hidden. Provincial lotteries are a ttax, deliberately aimed at the poor. So is the casino. So are sales taxes. So are education fund-raisers.
The rich don't give a damn about the rest of us. That's why they could drool over the prospect of a new, 80 plus million dollar hockey arena, but can't find the money to maintain public schools.
Forget the nonsense about how if we tax corporations, they'll get made at us and leave and we'll all be poor. Corporations are not here to give out money. They're here to take it out. You get some of it. Just a little bit.
The myth is that if you keep taxes low, the rich will create ever more more, and we'll all ge more and more prosperous.
It's theory that flies in the face of long experience. If cutting taxes for the rich created prosperity, then New Brunswick would make any oil emirate look like a slum. Haiti is a nearby example of a country where business has paid huge profits to the owners for a century, but has left most of the Haitians in wretched condition.
Not raising taxes on corporations or the rich simply gives them more to take away, and less for us to spend on what New Brunswick needs. That's what we're watching in the US. Banks have been loaned vast sums of money. They're used it to give huge bonusses to each other and to shareholders. But not mot much has made its way down to the taxpayers.
Of course not, corporations and the rich can then spend it wherever they want to. It's possible that not a penny would get back.
Meanwhile, most money spent by government does stay here (though, alas, much of it goes to the rich and corporations who are friends of the government.)
The Canadian Taxpayer's Federation likes to pretend it's there to help you. It isn't. Neither is the Moncton Times @ Transcript.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Moncton High School
The NB government has great concern about Moncton High School. They're afraid it might cost too much to repair - and certainly too much to rebuild. If they do anything at all, they will have to cut something else in the education budget, a budget that's already much too small.
This is the same provincial government and municipal government that thinks Moncton's A1 priority, and is willing to borrow the money for it, (as well as pay a heftier federal tax for a large part of it) is a new hockey arena at eighty million plus. Hey, the whole world is talking about the Moncton Wi\ldcats. Grrrr! Well, almost the whole world. From here to Sussex. Maybe.
Tough luck kids. Not to worry, though. The Moncton Times&Transcript keeps us up to date so we know how lousy the schools are and how lazy the teachers are and how the teacher's union runs everything and has a secret brothel in a retirement home somewhere close to the Wesleyan Methodist church on St. George. So you kids aren't missing anything. (Ever notice the Times never criticizes the minister of education?)
Actually, the future of this province does not lie in giving more grants and tax breaks to corporations. The Summit Meeting will say it is. But that's because The Summit Meeting is being sponsored by big corporations. You'l notice there are no people invited to sit at the meeting to represent, say, people who don't know how they're going to pay for heat this winter.
The children in our schools ARE the future of this province. We need schools that can teach well, and that can hold them at least to the end of high school. Our schools do both of those things well; in the latter case coming up best in Canada (though the editorial writer, perhaps having a bad moustache day, thought that being the best was bad and deserved a severe putdown.
We need graduates who can go on to produce the skilled workers that business needs if it's going to grow in New Brunswick. This province is not going to break into the economic big leagues sitting on its collective rear end watching hockey games and catering to trade shows to help the hotel business.
But the City Council of Moncton and the provincial government were both eager to pay over half of the cost of that arena.
Even to maintain the present level of education spending is inadequate. Almost all of the schools need serious maintenance. They also need more money for supplies and staff. But we have leaders, both political and economic, whose top priority is an 84 million dollar hockey arena. And that is beneath contempt.
No. One thing is lower. Citizens who will let them get away with it.
This is the same provincial government and municipal government that thinks Moncton's A1 priority, and is willing to borrow the money for it, (as well as pay a heftier federal tax for a large part of it) is a new hockey arena at eighty million plus. Hey, the whole world is talking about the Moncton Wi\ldcats. Grrrr! Well, almost the whole world. From here to Sussex. Maybe.
Tough luck kids. Not to worry, though. The Moncton Times&Transcript keeps us up to date so we know how lousy the schools are and how lazy the teachers are and how the teacher's union runs everything and has a secret brothel in a retirement home somewhere close to the Wesleyan Methodist church on St. George. So you kids aren't missing anything. (Ever notice the Times never criticizes the minister of education?)
Actually, the future of this province does not lie in giving more grants and tax breaks to corporations. The Summit Meeting will say it is. But that's because The Summit Meeting is being sponsored by big corporations. You'l notice there are no people invited to sit at the meeting to represent, say, people who don't know how they're going to pay for heat this winter.
The children in our schools ARE the future of this province. We need schools that can teach well, and that can hold them at least to the end of high school. Our schools do both of those things well; in the latter case coming up best in Canada (though the editorial writer, perhaps having a bad moustache day, thought that being the best was bad and deserved a severe putdown.
We need graduates who can go on to produce the skilled workers that business needs if it's going to grow in New Brunswick. This province is not going to break into the economic big leagues sitting on its collective rear end watching hockey games and catering to trade shows to help the hotel business.
But the City Council of Moncton and the provincial government were both eager to pay over half of the cost of that arena.
Even to maintain the present level of education spending is inadequate. Almost all of the schools need serious maintenance. They also need more money for supplies and staff. But we have leaders, both political and economic, whose top priority is an 84 million dollar hockey arena. And that is beneath contempt.
No. One thing is lower. Citizens who will let them get away with it.
Saturday, November 20, 2010
New Brunswick Enters a New Era - Sort Of...
In today's Moncton Times, there is a must read article on the op ed (the page opposite the editorial page.)
That's a prominent spot in a newspaper. But in this great and free land of ours, anybody can write his or her opinion there. All you have to do is to be named something like Donald Ganong (Chairman of some business) or Camille Theriault ) chairman of some business. In any case, these jes' ordinary folks is settin' up a summit to decide how to run the province.
Oh, I know. In a democracy, people are supposed to involve themselves in keeping informed, then to play their roles in political parties to decide what the want for themselves. But in NB, as in North American in general, New Brunswickers rarely bother to be informed. They leave the whole thing up to corporation heads. Then the corporation heads give piles of money to both Liberals and Conservatives who both have whatever policies the corporation heads tell them to. And then we have the excitement of an election so we can all pretend we have a democracy just like - well, whoever does have one these days.
It should be a short meeting. Messers Ganong and Thibeault already know the answer to our economic problems. They write in the article that the only way to go is to encourage private business - but con't go after corporations from outside the province. In other words, help the big companies that are already here. (I thought that's what we've always done. In fact, I thought that we're in trouble because that's thw ay it's always been done. But, then, I ain't smart like messter Ganong and Thilbeault.)
They say, quite correctly, that all people have a share in developing a healthy economy. But you can understand had hard it would be to get a table to seat everybody.So they're inviting leaders in business, unions, education, health care, non-profits (propaganda outfits like Atlantic Institute of Marketing Studies, and government. The don't say how they will choose those leaders - but I think we can guess it will be essentially a meeting of business leaders along with AIMS and governmennt leaders who are puppets of big business, and an assortment of kiss-ups from education, health care and unions.
That doesn't represent mearly all people of New Brunswick. But, what the hell, most New Brunswickers have long ago shown they don't want to be consulted and they don't want to know anything. That why they buy the Times and Transcript.
In short, this "summit" is a propaganda gimmick for the rich and their favourite club, AIMS. And the day after the meeting, the headline on The Moncton Times will be Summit Meeting a Big Success. There will also be an editorial in praise.
In reality. This is a mug's game to rip us off once more. Thank you messrs. Ganong and Thibeault for your leadership. It's a please to be ripped off in both, official languages.
That's a prominent spot in a newspaper. But in this great and free land of ours, anybody can write his or her opinion there. All you have to do is to be named something like Donald Ganong (Chairman of some business) or Camille Theriault ) chairman of some business. In any case, these jes' ordinary folks is settin' up a summit to decide how to run the province.
Oh, I know. In a democracy, people are supposed to involve themselves in keeping informed, then to play their roles in political parties to decide what the want for themselves. But in NB, as in North American in general, New Brunswickers rarely bother to be informed. They leave the whole thing up to corporation heads. Then the corporation heads give piles of money to both Liberals and Conservatives who both have whatever policies the corporation heads tell them to. And then we have the excitement of an election so we can all pretend we have a democracy just like - well, whoever does have one these days.
It should be a short meeting. Messers Ganong and Thibeault already know the answer to our economic problems. They write in the article that the only way to go is to encourage private business - but con't go after corporations from outside the province. In other words, help the big companies that are already here. (I thought that's what we've always done. In fact, I thought that we're in trouble because that's thw ay it's always been done. But, then, I ain't smart like messter Ganong and Thilbeault.)
They say, quite correctly, that all people have a share in developing a healthy economy. But you can understand had hard it would be to get a table to seat everybody.So they're inviting leaders in business, unions, education, health care, non-profits (propaganda outfits like Atlantic Institute of Marketing Studies, and government. The don't say how they will choose those leaders - but I think we can guess it will be essentially a meeting of business leaders along with AIMS and governmennt leaders who are puppets of big business, and an assortment of kiss-ups from education, health care and unions.
That doesn't represent mearly all people of New Brunswick. But, what the hell, most New Brunswickers have long ago shown they don't want to be consulted and they don't want to know anything. That why they buy the Times and Transcript.
In short, this "summit" is a propaganda gimmick for the rich and their favourite club, AIMS. And the day after the meeting, the headline on The Moncton Times will be Summit Meeting a Big Success. There will also be an editorial in praise.
In reality. This is a mug's game to rip us off once more. Thank you messrs. Ganong and Thibeault for your leadership. It's a please to be ripped off in both, official languages.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)