The election stance of the The Moncton Times was never in doubt. Today, it was made obvious from the editorial cartoon, a sketch of Ignatieff dancing on an empty toothpaste tube. (The cartoonist draws well, but has neither depth nor independence in his art. The cartoon commonly - almost always - supports the position of the editors who support whoever they're told to support.)
The editorial, itself, follows the Harper formula for the election. It's an attack ad. There is no mention of any major issue, no mention of any policy except for one item in the Liberal platform - subsidized day care.
Nor is there any attempt at balance. Not a single reason is given in favour of it And the editorial writer is personally insulting to millions of Canadians.
I am no admirer of Ignatieff. I have only nce voted Liberal in my life -and that was because the candidate was a friend who I greatly admire for his abilities and his social conscience. According the the editorial writer, daycare is a subsidy for two-income Yuppies driving expensive SUVs in Canada's biggest cities.
Dear editor, you supercilious, sneering, servile ass...How about those two-income families that work at minimum wage in Walmart or gas stations, or fast food outlets and all the other cheapy jobs which are found in the biggest cities and the smallest villages right across Canada. What about those millions of two-income families who can't even afford their basic needs, and can be fired at a moment's notice?
Have you ever lived like that? You who spends his life wiping the boss' nose with your bare hands?
I grew up in a two-income family in one of Canada's biggest cities. We didn't have an SUV. We had no car at all until we got rich and could afford a used one when I was sixteen. When his employer cut his salary, my father shoveled snow at less than a dollar a day. My mother worked for the same low wages doing manual work at a big newspaper edited by flunkies like you. (Until we started school, my mother stayed home. But that meant we had to hope my father got lucky at the charity food dispensary.)
There's plenty of poverty in Moncton, Dieppe and Riverview And you have insulted everyone who is poor or who has any sense of decency. Ignatieff is out of touch with the real world? I don't doubt he his But you are scarcely the one to say so.
When you think, if you think, imagine a world without two-family incomes. All mothers would have to stay home. So we could all say goodbye to much of the underpaid commercial staff who make shopping so cheap for us. We would have to close down half of our schools (and you probably think that would be a good idea.) Our hospitals would cease to function. So would most of our restaurants. Even for those above the poverty level, they need two salaries to support the casinos, hockey teams, football teams, extra booze , and expensive SUVs that your paper daily urges on us.
You hypocritic lout! You probably know that we subsidize energy costs for billionaires, we subidize the oil sands project, you want to subsidize the hockey team (owned by guess who), we subsidize a wide range or rich people for billions of dollars per year. Meanwhile, we also subsidize the rich my letting them off taxes. But God forbid we should subsidize chldren.
It is really quite impossible to express the contempt you deserve.
You remind me of the poen by Alexander Pope who was a frequent visitor to the king of England's residence of the time in a village called Kew. There he was disgusted by the noble flunkies who spent their day flattering the king and publcly making a fuss and saying "who's 'ittle dog are you?" to the pet dog that the king adored. So Pope engraved on the dog's collar;
I am His Highness' dog at Kew.
Pray tell me, sir,
Who's dog are you?
I urge readers and the editor to read the editorial "Out of Touch with Canadians". Then read the commentary next to to it, "Hypocrisies of electioneering" by (Bill) Belliveau. It is reasoned and offers evidence for its claims. It is unbiased, It does not make hysterical rantings.
It is also well-researched, including points that should have appeared in the news stories of The Moncton Times and Transcript but, like most real news items, never made them.
I was surprised to read that Harper actually said, "Only the party with the most seats can form a government in a democracy?" Oh, so the Canadian government of 1917 was illegal. All the minority governments were illegal. The government of Israel is illegal. If that's true, then Harper has committed us to go to war in defense of an illegal government. I shall have to alert B"Nai Brith.
It's not possible that a prime minister of Canada would not know all this. He has to be lying. We also know that he proposed a coalition to the Bloc. He lied about that, too.
But let's not waste time stating the obvious.
The important thing to do is to read the editorial that is on a level of ignorance, lying, ranting that is surely unacceptable even in one of Canada's smallest cities. Look at the editorial cartoon that assumes we enjoy seeing a "me too" suck up to a bully.
Then read "Bill" Belliveau's column to see what an intelligent commentary looks like.
(No, I don't always agree with Belliveau. But I respect him as a person worth arguing with. And I respect him for his independence.)
Saturday, April 2, 2011
Friday, April 1, 2011
April 1: I wish I could agree....
"Stop complaining and taste what's on the political menu!" says the header on today's op ed page of The Moncton Time and Transcript. Lynda McGibbon, the writer, is a good writer. I wish I could agree with her this time. I really do. but I can't.
She compares an election to a sort of smorgasbord of tasty delights. I wish it were. I wish I could urge people to read the menu. I wish I could say I'm proud of Canadian democracy. But none of that is possible.
The smorgasbord has some tasty delights, I'm sure. It also has some fatal poisons. And the menu (our news media), give us no indication which is which.
For example, Harper intends to cut subisidies for political parties. Sound like a sensible measure? It's not. Putting parties on their own to raise all their money is a guarantee that the only parties ever to win another Canadian election will be parties financed as agents of corporations. They will be the only source, and we shall forever be governed by a Liberal Pary which is not Liberal, or a Conservative Party which is not conservative.
American democracy ceased to exist in any real sense years ago. President Obama is pretty much like President Bush because both have been finannced by the same billionaires. The same is true of the whole congress. There's a reason why the US government spent perhaps a trillion dollars to bail out bankers and other investors who pulled a monster scam by deliberately creating a housing bubble. There's a reason why they are not showing no rush to help the people who lost their homes, or the unemployed. There's a reason why the poverty gap in the US, growing for years, is now the biggest in the developed world.
Canada is going the same way. We don't elect governments. It's partly because we don't have enough information to do so. We just had a provincial election with no serious debate. The big parties didn't even have something that looked like a platform. One of them one, anyway. Of course. They're the only ones who have money. Guess where they get it. Guess who they really represent.
The same is true for most of Canada. The Conservatives are rolling in money. Guess where it comes from. Guess who the Conservatives govern for. (Hint -the same people the liberals government for.) Guess how much easier it will all be if we stop giving third parties at least a chance to get their message out. '
Who do you think will tell us about new parties or about parties that don't have enough money to buy the PR needed for a showing in an election? The Moncton Times and Tribune? Get real. Indeed, you won't find it in private newspapers, radio or TV anywhere in Canada. You might catch a bit on CBC; but it's pretty much muzzled by fear of Harper doing away with the system.
There are issues, very serious ones, that should be issues in this campaign. The severe limitations and the decline of Canadian democracy are serious issues. The dramatic crash in Canada's reputation around the world over the past decade or so has been stunning. From our international role to our human rights record to our very humble servitude to US policies, we have almost no international respect left. Nor do we deserve it. The gap between rich an poor in Canada is growing almost as fast as the one in the US.
Our military has been rebuilt to be nothing more than an auxiliary to the American military - which is now almost equally made up of serving Americans, and hired mercenaries from all over the gutters of the world.
When, recently, an American murdered two Pakistanis in public, the US paid a large sum of money and put on other pressure to get him out - though there was no legal basis to let him return to the US. When the US captures or kidnaps Canadian citizens, Canada doesn't say a word. In fact, the federal police assist the US in the kidnapping and, when the Canadian is sent to a foreign country for torture, the CSIS goes along to help out the torturers. When a Canadian juvenile was captured and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay (illegally), Canada said nothing. It continued to say nothing through years of torture and they trial by an illegally military court, illegally using testimoney obtained by torture. Canada has the shame of being the only country with a national captured in Afghanistan to do nothing whatever for its own citizen. (Oh, I know. You think the kid should rot in jail. let me know when it's your turn.)
Yeah. I'm real proud to be a Canadian.
If we're going to be a democracy, we need to know what's going on. We need honest news media. Media with brains would be a big help, too. We need to develop politicians, real ones, not just the hired hacks of corporations. It's never been easy to get political ideas off the ground without having big money. Harper plans to make it impossible.
Why did 40% of Canadians not vote the last time around? It's probably largely because of what I wrote above. And it's a pattern you can see in most western democracies. When George Bush first got elected president, he did it with the votes of something like 30% of the total American electorate.
I'm sorry to say it. But a Canadian election is not a smorgasbord of taste treats. It's a pig's wallow. We don't have the luxury of a democracy. Who will win elections in this country is decided by a handful of multimillionaires and billionaires, and by the newspapers and radio and TV stations they own.
You can make kids in school sing O Canada till they turn blue. It won't stop the cancers of our servility to big business and the US. It won't stop the steady growth of poverty we're watching, or the looting of both Canada and the US by a few hundred families.
I'll be happy someday to sing about a true north strong and free. But I'll wait until I see it.
P.S. Once again, Harper is in town on a campaign swing. Ever notice he never says it's mice to be back in the province his parents came from? Ever notice the news media never mention it? Ever notice we never hear of him visiting his parent's old home in Port Elgin, or perhaps drop in on the development called Harper Heights? (actually, there are no heights. it's dead flat - something like the Liberal and Conservative parties.)
Why doesn't he mention somethiing that could be worth more than a few votes in NB?
One possibility seems obvious. He's an arrogant snob. He doesn't want it generally known where his family comes from.
She compares an election to a sort of smorgasbord of tasty delights. I wish it were. I wish I could urge people to read the menu. I wish I could say I'm proud of Canadian democracy. But none of that is possible.
The smorgasbord has some tasty delights, I'm sure. It also has some fatal poisons. And the menu (our news media), give us no indication which is which.
For example, Harper intends to cut subisidies for political parties. Sound like a sensible measure? It's not. Putting parties on their own to raise all their money is a guarantee that the only parties ever to win another Canadian election will be parties financed as agents of corporations. They will be the only source, and we shall forever be governed by a Liberal Pary which is not Liberal, or a Conservative Party which is not conservative.
American democracy ceased to exist in any real sense years ago. President Obama is pretty much like President Bush because both have been finannced by the same billionaires. The same is true of the whole congress. There's a reason why the US government spent perhaps a trillion dollars to bail out bankers and other investors who pulled a monster scam by deliberately creating a housing bubble. There's a reason why they are not showing no rush to help the people who lost their homes, or the unemployed. There's a reason why the poverty gap in the US, growing for years, is now the biggest in the developed world.
Canada is going the same way. We don't elect governments. It's partly because we don't have enough information to do so. We just had a provincial election with no serious debate. The big parties didn't even have something that looked like a platform. One of them one, anyway. Of course. They're the only ones who have money. Guess where they get it. Guess who they really represent.
The same is true for most of Canada. The Conservatives are rolling in money. Guess where it comes from. Guess who the Conservatives govern for. (Hint -the same people the liberals government for.) Guess how much easier it will all be if we stop giving third parties at least a chance to get their message out. '
Who do you think will tell us about new parties or about parties that don't have enough money to buy the PR needed for a showing in an election? The Moncton Times and Tribune? Get real. Indeed, you won't find it in private newspapers, radio or TV anywhere in Canada. You might catch a bit on CBC; but it's pretty much muzzled by fear of Harper doing away with the system.
There are issues, very serious ones, that should be issues in this campaign. The severe limitations and the decline of Canadian democracy are serious issues. The dramatic crash in Canada's reputation around the world over the past decade or so has been stunning. From our international role to our human rights record to our very humble servitude to US policies, we have almost no international respect left. Nor do we deserve it. The gap between rich an poor in Canada is growing almost as fast as the one in the US.
Our military has been rebuilt to be nothing more than an auxiliary to the American military - which is now almost equally made up of serving Americans, and hired mercenaries from all over the gutters of the world.
When, recently, an American murdered two Pakistanis in public, the US paid a large sum of money and put on other pressure to get him out - though there was no legal basis to let him return to the US. When the US captures or kidnaps Canadian citizens, Canada doesn't say a word. In fact, the federal police assist the US in the kidnapping and, when the Canadian is sent to a foreign country for torture, the CSIS goes along to help out the torturers. When a Canadian juvenile was captured and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay (illegally), Canada said nothing. It continued to say nothing through years of torture and they trial by an illegally military court, illegally using testimoney obtained by torture. Canada has the shame of being the only country with a national captured in Afghanistan to do nothing whatever for its own citizen. (Oh, I know. You think the kid should rot in jail. let me know when it's your turn.)
Yeah. I'm real proud to be a Canadian.
If we're going to be a democracy, we need to know what's going on. We need honest news media. Media with brains would be a big help, too. We need to develop politicians, real ones, not just the hired hacks of corporations. It's never been easy to get political ideas off the ground without having big money. Harper plans to make it impossible.
Why did 40% of Canadians not vote the last time around? It's probably largely because of what I wrote above. And it's a pattern you can see in most western democracies. When George Bush first got elected president, he did it with the votes of something like 30% of the total American electorate.
I'm sorry to say it. But a Canadian election is not a smorgasbord of taste treats. It's a pig's wallow. We don't have the luxury of a democracy. Who will win elections in this country is decided by a handful of multimillionaires and billionaires, and by the newspapers and radio and TV stations they own.
You can make kids in school sing O Canada till they turn blue. It won't stop the cancers of our servility to big business and the US. It won't stop the steady growth of poverty we're watching, or the looting of both Canada and the US by a few hundred families.
I'll be happy someday to sing about a true north strong and free. But I'll wait until I see it.
P.S. Once again, Harper is in town on a campaign swing. Ever notice he never says it's mice to be back in the province his parents came from? Ever notice the news media never mention it? Ever notice we never hear of him visiting his parent's old home in Port Elgin, or perhaps drop in on the development called Harper Heights? (actually, there are no heights. it's dead flat - something like the Liberal and Conservative parties.)
Why doesn't he mention somethiing that could be worth more than a few votes in NB?
One possibility seems obvious. He's an arrogant snob. He doesn't want it generally known where his family comes from.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
March 31: The Moncton Times - boring today, but with a schocker.
Today's Moncton Times continues, like yesterday'sk, is boring and irrelevant - and that's quite a trick with a national election going on. It hasn't even picked up on the coalition scare tactic of Harper. I thought they'd be on that one like a shot. When the opposition did propose a coalition a year or two ago, the editorial was quite clear. A coalition was outside Canadian constitutional practice. It was illegal and unconstitutional. Since then, the Ottawa Sun has upped the ante by saying coalitions are immoral.
Interestingly, when Mr James Irving anncounced in the pages of the Moncton Times that he and his unelected friends were forming a coalition with the government (and that was certainly illegal), the editors hid under their desks and pretended not to notice it. So far, at least, we have not seen an editorial proclaiming Mr. Irving either criminal or immorall.
Incidentally, Harper's conservative party was formed in a coalition with most of the Progressive Conservatives. Does that mean Mr. Harper is immoral and criminal? I'm very open to suggestions.
For that matter, the Progressive-Conservative party itself is the product of a coalition of two parties -the Conservative Party, and the largely western Progressive Party. As well, the federal government of Canada was a coalition toward the end of World War I. Governments of many countries, Israel is a prime example, are commonly formed by coalitions. I look forward to the Moncton Times editorial calling the Conservative party of Canada, and the governments of Israel both illegal and immoral.
Generally, today's Times and Transcript is the usual product of editors who lack the integrity to report the news without bias and who, if they had integrity, still don't have enought brains to find their own bellybuttons using both hands.
But the shocker is on the op ed page. Elsie Hambrook chairs The New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Her columns are invariably well written, and among the very few intellectually stiumlating columns in a the paper. This particular column is a brief, clear, highly readable, and unflinching recognition of how far women have still to go to win equaliry in this province. But...
...the shocker is at the bottom of the first column. "If this is my last column (due to the government cutting the Advisory Council's funding), here is a list of of the work left to do..."
That's an astonishing statement. Usually, a newspaper pays for columnists. I've written a thousand or more of them. I have wrtten them free for charitable groups and for community groups. But I have never written a free one at the request of a newspaper and, indeed, have never heard of such a thing.
Columnists of a real newspaper are chosen by the editors. They are chosen for their expertise (like Gwynn Dyer) or for their broad knowledge and ability to communicate (like Alec Bruce) - and, I should have thought, for insight into community and wider needs (like Elsie Hambrook).
Has The Times been getting this as a freebie? Or because of her title? I should thnk the that a newspaper whose editors think the great need for Moncton is an eighty million dollar hockey rink badly needs an Elsie Hambrook to retain what shreds of intelligence and integrity it still has.
Why is it possible that Elsie Hambrook might have written her last column?
Interestingly, when Mr James Irving anncounced in the pages of the Moncton Times that he and his unelected friends were forming a coalition with the government (and that was certainly illegal), the editors hid under their desks and pretended not to notice it. So far, at least, we have not seen an editorial proclaiming Mr. Irving either criminal or immorall.
Incidentally, Harper's conservative party was formed in a coalition with most of the Progressive Conservatives. Does that mean Mr. Harper is immoral and criminal? I'm very open to suggestions.
For that matter, the Progressive-Conservative party itself is the product of a coalition of two parties -the Conservative Party, and the largely western Progressive Party. As well, the federal government of Canada was a coalition toward the end of World War I. Governments of many countries, Israel is a prime example, are commonly formed by coalitions. I look forward to the Moncton Times editorial calling the Conservative party of Canada, and the governments of Israel both illegal and immoral.
Generally, today's Times and Transcript is the usual product of editors who lack the integrity to report the news without bias and who, if they had integrity, still don't have enought brains to find their own bellybuttons using both hands.
But the shocker is on the op ed page. Elsie Hambrook chairs The New Brunswick Advisory Council on the Status of Women. Her columns are invariably well written, and among the very few intellectually stiumlating columns in a the paper. This particular column is a brief, clear, highly readable, and unflinching recognition of how far women have still to go to win equaliry in this province. But...
...the shocker is at the bottom of the first column. "If this is my last column (due to the government cutting the Advisory Council's funding), here is a list of of the work left to do..."
That's an astonishing statement. Usually, a newspaper pays for columnists. I've written a thousand or more of them. I have wrtten them free for charitable groups and for community groups. But I have never written a free one at the request of a newspaper and, indeed, have never heard of such a thing.
Columnists of a real newspaper are chosen by the editors. They are chosen for their expertise (like Gwynn Dyer) or for their broad knowledge and ability to communicate (like Alec Bruce) - and, I should have thought, for insight into community and wider needs (like Elsie Hambrook).
Has The Times been getting this as a freebie? Or because of her title? I should thnk the that a newspaper whose editors think the great need for Moncton is an eighty million dollar hockey rink badly needs an Elsie Hambrook to retain what shreds of intelligence and integrity it still has.
Why is it possible that Elsie Hambrook might have written her last column?
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
March 30: The Moncton Times&Transcript - Bo-ring
The front page headline is a real heart-stopper. "Who are ordinary Canadians?" Everywhere you go in Moncton people are talking about that one, I'm sure. The rest of the front page is stuff you wouldn't be able to get anywhere but New Brunswick - like a big picture promo for the hockey team, and a free ad for the Casino, "Casino offers free games for gambling newbies". Great. Just what New Brunswick needs to go along with its campaign to get people to drink more booze.
Whatever it takes to save the rich from paying their share of the taxes.
The big item in the NewsToday section is "Confident Harper pursues majority government". Gee. And all this time I thought Harper called an election because he wanted to lose.
Normally, the Moncton Times is at least annoying in its pandering to big business and the political views of its owners. And in its ceaseless propaganda and its verbal abuse of anyone who who has no way to hit back. Today's paper was different. It was just utterly boring and pointless.
Have you seen Snapshot? I think that's what it's called. It's one of those freebie papers that pays for itself with ads. This one, though, is different. It seems to aimed at the illiterate and terribly, terribly bored. It consists entirely of photos of people you have never heard of smiling at the camera. It's a sort of preview of hell, in which we are forced to spend eternity looking at some stranger's photo album of childhood pictures.
The world news section of The Moncton Times is not only boring but, ever since the invention of radio and then TV, it is stale news, already at least a day old. Unless The Times&Transcript has something terribly original to say about world news, it should just drop it. As to whether Harper is confident, that's an opinion. A news item can say, "Harper appears confident". That is clearly stating it as an opinion. It cannot say, "Harper confident", not unless The Times has reporters who can see around corners.
As to the election, who gives a damn who ordinary Canadians are? That's not what the vote is about. Nor do I much care to waste time on reading who is attacking who. Save that for the supermarket tabs.
We are voting in a national election. I would really like to know what the parties stand for. That does not mean I am interested in whether they will give a new arena to Mudville. I would like to know the general principles on which the party would govern.
No, I do not mean another assinine statement about being fiscally responsible. Many pirates were fiscally responsible when they buried their treasure, then killed the men who knew where it was. I mean such things as what they stand for as a guiding principles of foreign policy for Canada? I mean what do they see as the balance between human needs and our resources. What do they think is the role of government in our society? (Do they all, like Allward, think that the only requirement to govern is to have ears?)
Precisely what do they propose to do about environmental concerns?
Does any of them think we are a colony to the US far more than we ever were to Britain? Of are they convinced we must always do whatever the US wants us to - because that's the way Canadian big business likes it?
What are the likely consequences of their proposals? That does not mean we HAVE to do something because... It means what are ALL the likely consequences? For example, if we intend to fight a major war in the next twenty years, we MUST have the F-35 fighter.
Likely consequences:
1. Since we cannot engage in such a war by ourselves, it must mean following the US lead in foreign policy and in deciding who to go to war against. So much for an independent Canadian policy.
2. The F-35 will almost certainly prove so expensive we shall have to neglect other elements of our military, leaving us as, essentially, a small addition to the US air force - with the rest of the military only big enough for parades.
3. We might well also have to cut back on areas like health and education.
4..Informed estimates are that such a war would go nuclear within two weeks, maybe less. So what's the point?
Democracy rests on an informed and involved people. New Brunswickers, thanks in large part to their newspapers, are among the least informed in Canada. For the same reason, they are among the most heavily propagandized in Canada. And, thanks to the fears invoked by a few powerful families, we are among the least inolved people in our own public affairs. (The last provincial election was won by a party whose only platform plank was that it would use its ears. There was virtually no public debate or public involvement.)
Today's Moncton Times was not just boring and irrelevant, it is an example of the most serious threat to democracy. That's not an exaggeration. It's a reality. This is a province in which a businesman announced he and his friends had formed a coalition with the government. Such a statement from any unelected person is anti-democratic and unconstitutional.
But nobody said a word.
Whatever it takes to save the rich from paying their share of the taxes.
The big item in the NewsToday section is "Confident Harper pursues majority government". Gee. And all this time I thought Harper called an election because he wanted to lose.
Normally, the Moncton Times is at least annoying in its pandering to big business and the political views of its owners. And in its ceaseless propaganda and its verbal abuse of anyone who who has no way to hit back. Today's paper was different. It was just utterly boring and pointless.
Have you seen Snapshot? I think that's what it's called. It's one of those freebie papers that pays for itself with ads. This one, though, is different. It seems to aimed at the illiterate and terribly, terribly bored. It consists entirely of photos of people you have never heard of smiling at the camera. It's a sort of preview of hell, in which we are forced to spend eternity looking at some stranger's photo album of childhood pictures.
The world news section of The Moncton Times is not only boring but, ever since the invention of radio and then TV, it is stale news, already at least a day old. Unless The Times&Transcript has something terribly original to say about world news, it should just drop it. As to whether Harper is confident, that's an opinion. A news item can say, "Harper appears confident". That is clearly stating it as an opinion. It cannot say, "Harper confident", not unless The Times has reporters who can see around corners.
As to the election, who gives a damn who ordinary Canadians are? That's not what the vote is about. Nor do I much care to waste time on reading who is attacking who. Save that for the supermarket tabs.
We are voting in a national election. I would really like to know what the parties stand for. That does not mean I am interested in whether they will give a new arena to Mudville. I would like to know the general principles on which the party would govern.
No, I do not mean another assinine statement about being fiscally responsible. Many pirates were fiscally responsible when they buried their treasure, then killed the men who knew where it was. I mean such things as what they stand for as a guiding principles of foreign policy for Canada? I mean what do they see as the balance between human needs and our resources. What do they think is the role of government in our society? (Do they all, like Allward, think that the only requirement to govern is to have ears?)
Precisely what do they propose to do about environmental concerns?
Does any of them think we are a colony to the US far more than we ever were to Britain? Of are they convinced we must always do whatever the US wants us to - because that's the way Canadian big business likes it?
What are the likely consequences of their proposals? That does not mean we HAVE to do something because... It means what are ALL the likely consequences? For example, if we intend to fight a major war in the next twenty years, we MUST have the F-35 fighter.
Likely consequences:
1. Since we cannot engage in such a war by ourselves, it must mean following the US lead in foreign policy and in deciding who to go to war against. So much for an independent Canadian policy.
2. The F-35 will almost certainly prove so expensive we shall have to neglect other elements of our military, leaving us as, essentially, a small addition to the US air force - with the rest of the military only big enough for parades.
3. We might well also have to cut back on areas like health and education.
4..Informed estimates are that such a war would go nuclear within two weeks, maybe less. So what's the point?
Democracy rests on an informed and involved people. New Brunswickers, thanks in large part to their newspapers, are among the least informed in Canada. For the same reason, they are among the most heavily propagandized in Canada. And, thanks to the fears invoked by a few powerful families, we are among the least inolved people in our own public affairs. (The last provincial election was won by a party whose only platform plank was that it would use its ears. There was virtually no public debate or public involvement.)
Today's Moncton Times was not just boring and irrelevant, it is an example of the most serious threat to democracy. That's not an exaggeration. It's a reality. This is a province in which a businesman announced he and his friends had formed a coalition with the government. Such a statement from any unelected person is anti-democratic and unconstitutional.
But nobody said a word.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
March 29: PP3,the fairy godmother that will save our economy
The op ed page of today carries yet another message from private business, this time written by Nancy
Whipp of the Moncton Chamber of Commerce. It's the usual pitch to let private business get its fingers into the provincial budget. This time, it's in the form of PP3s, Private Public Partnerships, in which business joins with government in public projects like, say, building a school. That, she says, will free up government money and reduce the debt.
Right. And kissing a frog will turn it into a prince.
She produces a survey showing that a large majority of Canadians are in favour of PP3s. (There are just two problems with this survey. 1. It was conducted by something called the Canada Council for Public-Private Partnership. What would you expect from a survey conducted by a pressure group? Surveyers can do wonders with the wording of a question. 2. What can such a survey possibly mean, anyway? A good half of adult Canadians are functionally illiterate. They half has no idea what a PP3 is. 3. Not one percent of Canadians have sufficient training to understand the economics of a PP3. 4. The Canada Council for Public-Private Partnership obviously knows nothing of Canadian history. PP3s have been done in Canada -with expensive results.
Just a touch of common sense, here. If we go into a public private partnership to build a high school, private business would expect to interested in make a profit on it. And quite reasonably so. That's what business is for.
Who is going to pay the cost plus profits? We are. There is no magic money that comes floating down from the sky. Public or private or both, we still pay the whole shot. And we also have to include profits.
Woulldn't it be cheaper in the first place to require big business to pay its full share of taxes and its full share of utility costs? And to stop expecting handouts and loans and land from us to billionaires?
Perhaps The Chamber of Commerce could take a break from standing up to listen to O Canada, and spend the time reading some Canadian history. In particular, they should look at the Canadian economy in World War One when it was controlled by big business. They would learn, as every indisturialized state did, that trusting to big business was extremely inefficient and damaging both economically and socially. That's why every leading country in World War Two switched to extensive government controls on the economy. The results this time were excellent. And that's why Canadian business for a decade and more after the war studied the federal government to learn its methods.
The government "must commit itself to the creation of an economic climate of confidence with the private sector"?
Get real. There is no province in Canada in which a provincial government has been so servile to big business as it has been in New Brunswick (and most provinces have been pretty servile.) As a result, there may be no province which has given away so much of its wealth to billionaires.
Big business complains that government is inefficient and too expensive? Well, it's the money of big business that put government there. And if it thinks government should balance its budget, maybe big business should
pay its taxes and stop asking for gifts.
Whipp of the Moncton Chamber of Commerce. It's the usual pitch to let private business get its fingers into the provincial budget. This time, it's in the form of PP3s, Private Public Partnerships, in which business joins with government in public projects like, say, building a school. That, she says, will free up government money and reduce the debt.
Right. And kissing a frog will turn it into a prince.
She produces a survey showing that a large majority of Canadians are in favour of PP3s. (There are just two problems with this survey. 1. It was conducted by something called the Canada Council for Public-Private Partnership. What would you expect from a survey conducted by a pressure group? Surveyers can do wonders with the wording of a question. 2. What can such a survey possibly mean, anyway? A good half of adult Canadians are functionally illiterate. They half has no idea what a PP3 is. 3. Not one percent of Canadians have sufficient training to understand the economics of a PP3. 4. The Canada Council for Public-Private Partnership obviously knows nothing of Canadian history. PP3s have been done in Canada -with expensive results.
Just a touch of common sense, here. If we go into a public private partnership to build a high school, private business would expect to interested in make a profit on it. And quite reasonably so. That's what business is for.
Who is going to pay the cost plus profits? We are. There is no magic money that comes floating down from the sky. Public or private or both, we still pay the whole shot. And we also have to include profits.
Woulldn't it be cheaper in the first place to require big business to pay its full share of taxes and its full share of utility costs? And to stop expecting handouts and loans and land from us to billionaires?
Perhaps The Chamber of Commerce could take a break from standing up to listen to O Canada, and spend the time reading some Canadian history. In particular, they should look at the Canadian economy in World War One when it was controlled by big business. They would learn, as every indisturialized state did, that trusting to big business was extremely inefficient and damaging both economically and socially. That's why every leading country in World War Two switched to extensive government controls on the economy. The results this time were excellent. And that's why Canadian business for a decade and more after the war studied the federal government to learn its methods.
The government "must commit itself to the creation of an economic climate of confidence with the private sector"?
Get real. There is no province in Canada in which a provincial government has been so servile to big business as it has been in New Brunswick (and most provinces have been pretty servile.) As a result, there may be no province which has given away so much of its wealth to billionaires.
Big business complains that government is inefficient and too expensive? Well, it's the money of big business that put government there. And if it thinks government should balance its budget, maybe big business should
pay its taxes and stop asking for gifts.
Monday, March 28, 2011
March 28: The editorial that defines The Moncton Times&Transcript
"Discipline needed in obesity battle" is an editorial that sums up all the ignorance, bias and self-contradictory logic that one daily finds in The Moncton Times.
In response to a concern that the problem of childhood obesity has become a serious one,the editorial writer immediately dismisses any need for governments and civil servants to get involved. (By the way, I wish somebody would buy that paper a dictionary. A bureaucrat is a person who is the head of a government department. Big business is organized in departments, too. That's because as business grew, it modelled its structure on the system developing in kingdoms of the seventeenth century. And that was because the old system of government by inherited wealth did not produce enough people with brains to run the country. Louis XIV made notable advances in this form of running an organization with his appointments for department heads he called intendants. Canadian big business eagerly copied the civil service structure of Canada in the 1940s and 50s. That's why we now have thousands of "bureacrats" in private business who have titles like VP public relations, VP overseas trade, etc. Big business is full of bureacrats and bureaucracy. Too bad the editorial writer doesn't know that, and thinks bureaucrat is just a dirty word.)
It's simple, says the writer. It's the fault of the education system (of course). Students should be getting one hour of vigorous exercise every day at school.
Let's see now, take a pretty average high school of about a thousand students. They're in school about six hours a day. So that would mean some 170 children per gymn class. Think about that.
Even if you could jam 170 vigorous exercisers into the existing gymns, you would need to hire hundreds of more gymn teachers. But, even then, you're not going to get much vigorous exercises with 170 people - and the necessary equipment - jammed into one gymnasium. We would have to hundreds of millions building at least three or four gymns for each school - not to mention millions more on equipment.
We already have a school system in which school buildings and staffs are inadequate - and we know the government is opposed to raising taxes for anything but hockey rinks. So I guess we'd just have to cut down even further on maintenance; (though that might add to the bills as school buildings collapse).
We could also get rid of quite a few teachers since an hour a day would have to be time taken away from the academic curriculum. Let's see. What subjects would we cut? Math and chemistry? (We can't cut history because it's already been mostly cut out already. We replaced it by making children stand up for the daily embarassment of listening to dreadful recordings of O Canada played on PA systems).
However we might do it, we'd need a lot of adminstrators to plan the massive changes in curriculum and buildings and equipment, etc. So we'd have to hire lots more bureaucrats. In fact, we would have to put the health of our children entirely in the hands of bueaucrats, educational administrators and teachers - the very people The Moncton Times has been editorially accusing of being incompetent. Does that opinion reflect a drastic change of opinion? Or a sudden onset of Altsheimer's? (In the same editorial, he rails against new layers of bureaucracy and, at the same time, proposes a scheme that would need just that.)
Then he says it's all up to the parents. Oh? Does that include the many families in which both parents have to work to survive? Is the editorial writer unaware of studies, American ones in particular, that show child obesity to be linked with poverty? That means that passing the problem over to the parents isn't going to help much. That aspect of the problem can be solved in the US and Canada only if we stop allowing the rich to keep so much and the rest of us to keep so little. Is that what the editorial writer is suggesting?
The editorial closes, "A regimen of exercise, healthy food, common sense, discipline and above all, parental involvement, are not a complex concept."
(I shall pass lightly over the two, glaring errors in grammar in that sentence.)
In fact, the areas he/she mentions are extremely complex. Nor are they helped by opinion full of ignorance, bias, and lack of common sense.
Most of us, alas, cannot cannot hope for the regimen of exercise, healthy food, common sense and discipline in which we jog to work and home every day. That must explain why those who work at The Moncton Times are so natably slim and svelte - and why the parking lot is always empty.
In response to a concern that the problem of childhood obesity has become a serious one,the editorial writer immediately dismisses any need for governments and civil servants to get involved. (By the way, I wish somebody would buy that paper a dictionary. A bureaucrat is a person who is the head of a government department. Big business is organized in departments, too. That's because as business grew, it modelled its structure on the system developing in kingdoms of the seventeenth century. And that was because the old system of government by inherited wealth did not produce enough people with brains to run the country. Louis XIV made notable advances in this form of running an organization with his appointments for department heads he called intendants. Canadian big business eagerly copied the civil service structure of Canada in the 1940s and 50s. That's why we now have thousands of "bureacrats" in private business who have titles like VP public relations, VP overseas trade, etc. Big business is full of bureacrats and bureaucracy. Too bad the editorial writer doesn't know that, and thinks bureaucrat is just a dirty word.)
It's simple, says the writer. It's the fault of the education system (of course). Students should be getting one hour of vigorous exercise every day at school.
Let's see now, take a pretty average high school of about a thousand students. They're in school about six hours a day. So that would mean some 170 children per gymn class. Think about that.
Even if you could jam 170 vigorous exercisers into the existing gymns, you would need to hire hundreds of more gymn teachers. But, even then, you're not going to get much vigorous exercises with 170 people - and the necessary equipment - jammed into one gymnasium. We would have to hundreds of millions building at least three or four gymns for each school - not to mention millions more on equipment.
We already have a school system in which school buildings and staffs are inadequate - and we know the government is opposed to raising taxes for anything but hockey rinks. So I guess we'd just have to cut down even further on maintenance; (though that might add to the bills as school buildings collapse).
We could also get rid of quite a few teachers since an hour a day would have to be time taken away from the academic curriculum. Let's see. What subjects would we cut? Math and chemistry? (We can't cut history because it's already been mostly cut out already. We replaced it by making children stand up for the daily embarassment of listening to dreadful recordings of O Canada played on PA systems).
However we might do it, we'd need a lot of adminstrators to plan the massive changes in curriculum and buildings and equipment, etc. So we'd have to hire lots more bureaucrats. In fact, we would have to put the health of our children entirely in the hands of bueaucrats, educational administrators and teachers - the very people The Moncton Times has been editorially accusing of being incompetent. Does that opinion reflect a drastic change of opinion? Or a sudden onset of Altsheimer's? (In the same editorial, he rails against new layers of bureaucracy and, at the same time, proposes a scheme that would need just that.)
Then he says it's all up to the parents. Oh? Does that include the many families in which both parents have to work to survive? Is the editorial writer unaware of studies, American ones in particular, that show child obesity to be linked with poverty? That means that passing the problem over to the parents isn't going to help much. That aspect of the problem can be solved in the US and Canada only if we stop allowing the rich to keep so much and the rest of us to keep so little. Is that what the editorial writer is suggesting?
The editorial closes, "A regimen of exercise, healthy food, common sense, discipline and above all, parental involvement, are not a complex concept."
(I shall pass lightly over the two, glaring errors in grammar in that sentence.)
In fact, the areas he/she mentions are extremely complex. Nor are they helped by opinion full of ignorance, bias, and lack of common sense.
Most of us, alas, cannot cannot hope for the regimen of exercise, healthy food, common sense and discipline in which we jog to work and home every day. That must explain why those who work at The Moncton Times are so natably slim and svelte - and why the parking lot is always empty.
Saturday, March 26, 2011
March 26: Why is Nato in Libya? and why a Canadian in command? and why is Allen Abel?
That a Canadian air force officer has been named head of the Libyan NATO mission at least made it into The Moncton Times&Transcript. But it has so far not occured to anybody (in most of Canada's media) to ask why this is happening.
1. Why is NATO, an organization formed to protect European nations against attack, being used to attack Libya which, for all its faults, has not attacked Europe? Why has the UN made itself irrelevant by handing over responsibilities like Libya to what has become the equivalent of the old British Empire (the white part) when it became an organization to fight Dutch settlers in South Africa back in 1899?
2.Why this sudden passion for the rights and freedoms of the Libyan people when we have been a close ally of their dictator for well over a decade? Why did the western world supply Ghadaffi with the tanks we are now bombing? Why did we give him the money to hire the mercenaries we are attacking?
It was the same with Egypt. Obama came down on the side of the rebels to get rid of Mubarak. But he, like earlier presidents, had been the major supporter of Mubarak, and the major supplier of the weapons that his army (largely paid for by the US) used to shoot at the rebels. He also seems to be interested in making sure the new rulers of Egypt will be pretty much the same people as the old ones.
2. Why was a Canadian named the commander of the NATO operation in Libya? It's an honour, of course, and I hum O Canada as I write this. But we are a relatively small player in that war. We are also one of the few air forces there to have had no experience in aerial warfare for over fifty years.
As well, Canada, once a highly respected country around the world, has fallen deeply into disrepute in the Harper years, and had begun to do so well before Harper. (That's why we didn't get a Security Council seat at the UN.) So -why are we suddenly being honoured? Could it be possible that it has something to do with Obama wanting to keep his distance - but also wanting an obedient lapdog to be in charge?
That brings us to Allen Abel, the T&T's man in Washington. Well, he does have two things in common with the T&T. 1. He has never written anything but trivia. 2. He has never criticized anybody who had real power. (When he wrote an expose of corruption in the US, it was notable that almost all of it was devoted to small-timers.) Added to that, he is the least observant observer I have ever read.
Today, for example, is about the National Mall in Washington, devoted to Americans who died in wars. An interview at the end of the column pretty much sums up his the tone of the whole thing. He asked a man what he thought of the Libyan war. The reply (clearly intended as the punch line for the column )was, "Somebody needs our help and asks for it, we got to help them."
Right. That's why the US will no doubt send help for the rebels in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the ones in the Emirate of Bahrain, and the ones in Syria. That's why the US government rushed to help the people of Haiti; (so far, it has not sent a penny of its promised aid.)
Among those monuments at a mall dedicated to Americans who died in war, where is the one to the native peoples who died in their millions? Where is the one to those who died in the two American invasions of Canada? To those brave Americans who died in fighting the evil Mexicans when those Americans crossed into Mexico to take lands and settle them with their slaves. Mexico objuected to slavery on its territory, so the American land grabbers rose in righteous indignation. Remember Davey Crockett? He was a land speculator and slave trader.
The result of that ware was that Mexico lost a third of its land. That third became the southwest US.
How can there be no monument to the millions of Americans (so they would come to be) who died under the harsh conditions of slavery?
Of course, they couldn't cover all the wars in one mall. It has only 19 memorials. The US has had close to two hundred wars. There were all those Central American countries like Haiti, Cuba, Guatemala, invaded to establish dictatorships. There was the conquest of The Phillipines. There was the nineteenth century attack on Japan to force it to trade with the US. There was the forcible takeover of Hawaii. (When you next watch Dog, The Bounty Hunter, notice how many of the poor in Hawaii are native Hawaiians).
Abel, in all seriousness, quotes "Americans came to liberate, not to conquer, to restore freedom and to end Tyranny." Sure. That's why they, with the British and French, overthrew the democratic government of Iran to install a dictator in 1950. Then overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala about the same time. That's why they happily recognized Pinochet who overthrew democracy in Chile.That's why they supported Chiang Kai Sheck in China - a ruthless dictator who was also a world leader in drug selling.
There is, curiously, a monument to the holocaust. There certainly should be monuments to the holocaust, of course. But why in a site dedicated to Americans who died in war? No Americans, unless they were American Jewish tourists caught in Germany in 1939, died in the holocaust. The US did not go to war because of the holocaust. Nobody did. Both Canada and the US were passionately anti-semitic at the time.
Most of the people of the western allies knew nothing of the holocaust until the war was almost over. Even then, Canada and the US persisted if maintaining strict Jewish quotas long after the war, and the anti-semitism in both countries was easily visible into the 1960s.
The Washington Mall doesn't represent those who died as they were killing millions of Africans, native peoples, Mexicans, Central Americans, Phillipinos, Canadians,Vietnamese (who didn't want them there)....
Why do they commemorate a slaughter they never founght against and, in fact, was publicly supported by Henry Ford and by Lindbergh? (Ford was a key source of the money that brought Hitler to power. He was also the owner of a virulentaly anti-semitic newspaper.)
So why does The Moncton Times and Transcript, a paper that largely ignores most of the world, have a weekly column on Washington when it doesn't even have a regular column on Fredericton?
There's a hint in today's column. It twice take snide cracks at Obama. There's the one about Obama winning a Peace Prize, then getting into three wars. There's the one about his "Obama Doctrine of both prosecuting a war and hightaling from it at the same time." And there's the use of loaded words. When Obama is asked a question, Abel does not say that he replied. He says that "Obama muttered..." That's how you write propaganda.
Obama's Peace Prize was a fraud, of course. But getting into wars has been a characteristic of most presidents. As well, it has scarcely been a peculiarly Obama doctrine to proseucte a war and hightail it at the same time. Remember Vietnam?
Why is Abel in The Moncton Times and Transcript. Look at his tone; look at his choice of words; look at those he criticizes (and doesn't criticize) in "reports" like his series on corruption. We get hime because he's part of the breed of neo-conservatives that Irving and friends like - just as they like all those propaganda "think-tanks".
Canadian big business has been desparate for years to make relations with the US ever closer. That's why Mulroney became the first Conservative leader in Canadian history to be in favour of free trade. That's why we have troops in Afghanistan. That's why we have aircraft in Libya. Let's not kid ourselves that Harper sits up at night worrying about those poor people in Libya and their lack of democracy.
After all he's never shown any such worry about Canadians.
Allan Abel is in the T&T because he's a propagandist who sends us warm and fuzzy pictures of Washington. That's why he's our teddybear in Washington.
1. Why is NATO, an organization formed to protect European nations against attack, being used to attack Libya which, for all its faults, has not attacked Europe? Why has the UN made itself irrelevant by handing over responsibilities like Libya to what has become the equivalent of the old British Empire (the white part) when it became an organization to fight Dutch settlers in South Africa back in 1899?
2.Why this sudden passion for the rights and freedoms of the Libyan people when we have been a close ally of their dictator for well over a decade? Why did the western world supply Ghadaffi with the tanks we are now bombing? Why did we give him the money to hire the mercenaries we are attacking?
It was the same with Egypt. Obama came down on the side of the rebels to get rid of Mubarak. But he, like earlier presidents, had been the major supporter of Mubarak, and the major supplier of the weapons that his army (largely paid for by the US) used to shoot at the rebels. He also seems to be interested in making sure the new rulers of Egypt will be pretty much the same people as the old ones.
2. Why was a Canadian named the commander of the NATO operation in Libya? It's an honour, of course, and I hum O Canada as I write this. But we are a relatively small player in that war. We are also one of the few air forces there to have had no experience in aerial warfare for over fifty years.
As well, Canada, once a highly respected country around the world, has fallen deeply into disrepute in the Harper years, and had begun to do so well before Harper. (That's why we didn't get a Security Council seat at the UN.) So -why are we suddenly being honoured? Could it be possible that it has something to do with Obama wanting to keep his distance - but also wanting an obedient lapdog to be in charge?
That brings us to Allen Abel, the T&T's man in Washington. Well, he does have two things in common with the T&T. 1. He has never written anything but trivia. 2. He has never criticized anybody who had real power. (When he wrote an expose of corruption in the US, it was notable that almost all of it was devoted to small-timers.) Added to that, he is the least observant observer I have ever read.
Today, for example, is about the National Mall in Washington, devoted to Americans who died in wars. An interview at the end of the column pretty much sums up his the tone of the whole thing. He asked a man what he thought of the Libyan war. The reply (clearly intended as the punch line for the column )was, "Somebody needs our help and asks for it, we got to help them."
Right. That's why the US will no doubt send help for the rebels in the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the ones in the Emirate of Bahrain, and the ones in Syria. That's why the US government rushed to help the people of Haiti; (so far, it has not sent a penny of its promised aid.)
Among those monuments at a mall dedicated to Americans who died in war, where is the one to the native peoples who died in their millions? Where is the one to those who died in the two American invasions of Canada? To those brave Americans who died in fighting the evil Mexicans when those Americans crossed into Mexico to take lands and settle them with their slaves. Mexico objuected to slavery on its territory, so the American land grabbers rose in righteous indignation. Remember Davey Crockett? He was a land speculator and slave trader.
The result of that ware was that Mexico lost a third of its land. That third became the southwest US.
How can there be no monument to the millions of Americans (so they would come to be) who died under the harsh conditions of slavery?
Of course, they couldn't cover all the wars in one mall. It has only 19 memorials. The US has had close to two hundred wars. There were all those Central American countries like Haiti, Cuba, Guatemala, invaded to establish dictatorships. There was the conquest of The Phillipines. There was the nineteenth century attack on Japan to force it to trade with the US. There was the forcible takeover of Hawaii. (When you next watch Dog, The Bounty Hunter, notice how many of the poor in Hawaii are native Hawaiians).
Abel, in all seriousness, quotes "Americans came to liberate, not to conquer, to restore freedom and to end Tyranny." Sure. That's why they, with the British and French, overthrew the democratic government of Iran to install a dictator in 1950. Then overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala about the same time. That's why they happily recognized Pinochet who overthrew democracy in Chile.That's why they supported Chiang Kai Sheck in China - a ruthless dictator who was also a world leader in drug selling.
There is, curiously, a monument to the holocaust. There certainly should be monuments to the holocaust, of course. But why in a site dedicated to Americans who died in war? No Americans, unless they were American Jewish tourists caught in Germany in 1939, died in the holocaust. The US did not go to war because of the holocaust. Nobody did. Both Canada and the US were passionately anti-semitic at the time.
Most of the people of the western allies knew nothing of the holocaust until the war was almost over. Even then, Canada and the US persisted if maintaining strict Jewish quotas long after the war, and the anti-semitism in both countries was easily visible into the 1960s.
The Washington Mall doesn't represent those who died as they were killing millions of Africans, native peoples, Mexicans, Central Americans, Phillipinos, Canadians,Vietnamese (who didn't want them there)....
Why do they commemorate a slaughter they never founght against and, in fact, was publicly supported by Henry Ford and by Lindbergh? (Ford was a key source of the money that brought Hitler to power. He was also the owner of a virulentaly anti-semitic newspaper.)
So why does The Moncton Times and Transcript, a paper that largely ignores most of the world, have a weekly column on Washington when it doesn't even have a regular column on Fredericton?
There's a hint in today's column. It twice take snide cracks at Obama. There's the one about Obama winning a Peace Prize, then getting into three wars. There's the one about his "Obama Doctrine of both prosecuting a war and hightaling from it at the same time." And there's the use of loaded words. When Obama is asked a question, Abel does not say that he replied. He says that "Obama muttered..." That's how you write propaganda.
Obama's Peace Prize was a fraud, of course. But getting into wars has been a characteristic of most presidents. As well, it has scarcely been a peculiarly Obama doctrine to proseucte a war and hightail it at the same time. Remember Vietnam?
Why is Abel in The Moncton Times and Transcript. Look at his tone; look at his choice of words; look at those he criticizes (and doesn't criticize) in "reports" like his series on corruption. We get hime because he's part of the breed of neo-conservatives that Irving and friends like - just as they like all those propaganda "think-tanks".
Canadian big business has been desparate for years to make relations with the US ever closer. That's why Mulroney became the first Conservative leader in Canadian history to be in favour of free trade. That's why we have troops in Afghanistan. That's why we have aircraft in Libya. Let's not kid ourselves that Harper sits up at night worrying about those poor people in Libya and their lack of democracy.
After all he's never shown any such worry about Canadians.
Allan Abel is in the T&T because he's a propagandist who sends us warm and fuzzy pictures of Washington. That's why he's our teddybear in Washington.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)