I'm actually writing this on the night of August 15 because I had an interesting note from a reader. (You can check it at the end of the column for August 15.) He says he doesn't like western imperialism, but might it not be better for Syria than rule by Assad? Now, that goes right to the heart of understanding political and economic affairs because the use of the word better means there must be a good and a bad, one on each side of better.
We are taught from childhood to see all behaviour as good or bad. I guess the first words I remember are, "No, Graeme. Bad boy." or, more rarely, "That's a good boy." But good and bad only sometimes have anything to do with decision making in the world of politics or of corporations. Usually, they are irrelevant.
The more common motive for political and corporate behaviour is like that of the lion who jumps on an animal, and eats it. The lion is being neither good nor bad. He's just hungry.
When Britain conquered an empire, it was praised, even in the churches, as being good for bringing blessing to the heathens. But British governments didn't build an empire to scatter blessings - however good that might have been. They did it to satisfy the hunger of the lions of British capitalism.
When the US invaded Iraq and killed over a million people, it had nothing to do with 9/11 or with Saddam being a bad man. It had to do with the hungry lions of the oil industry.
When shale gas companies explore New Brunswick, it has nothing to do with being good for the province. And when they cause damage, even death, they aren't being bad. They just don't give a damn about those things. They are hungry lions.
Understanding that is fundamental to understanding political and corporate behaviour. It's hard to remember it because we are raised to see only good and bad; and we miss that terrible other motive, self-interest, the human equivalent of a lion's unreasoning hunger.
In the same context, it's important no to waste time being pro or anti any nation. Most people in nations all over the world have no control over what there governments do. Most people are kept in complete ignorance of what their leaders are doing and why.
Decisions in the US, for example, are made by business and political leaders. The major function of the news media is to spread propaganda to support what the leaders do, and to keep people in ignorance of what is going on. The Moncton Times and Transcipt exemplifies this well.
Remembering that, let's consider whether Syria might be better off under western imperialism.
Congo was under western imperialism for 75 years. Nobody can even guess how many millions were murdered, tortured, mutilated, starved and enslaved in that time. Earlier, all of black Africa had suffered under western imperialism as 60 million died just in transit to the horrors of slavery in the US.
Lincoln freed the slaves. But that had nothing to do with being good. He didn't give a damn about them. The war to "free the slaves" was really to satisfy the hungers of rising industrial lions in the North. The slaves were just the propaganda cover that every war needs.
US imperialism has ruled Haiti for the best part of a century. That has created excellent profits for American and European factory and land owners, but left Haitians the poorest and most miserable people in the western world.
US imperialism overthrew the elected government of Guatemala, and installed a dictator. Then it systematically slaughtered a quarter million native peoples. Most news media didn't even report it.
Western imperialism supported Chiang-Kai Shek against Mao in China. Chiang, a Christian, was a puppet of the world's biggest drug dealer, and the killer of so many millions of Chinese that his score may rival that of even Mao.
But a Canadian government would never do that? We've done it. Often. In the Boer War, to our own native peoples, to Vietnam (where our "observers" acted as spies for the US army), to Libya. We did it to satisfy the hunger of our corporate lions. And we're going to do it again, soon.
Yes, Assad is a bad man.
But if you are ever in the tropical wilds, and get sick and feel faint - it really won't matter much to you whether the first hungry creature to come along is a lion or a tiger or a python.
No. Western imperialism would not be better for Syria.
Over the years, many countries - Spain, France, Britain, and now the US - have assumed the right to tell other nations how to run their affairs. They have all turned out to be just hungry lions.
I was raised to see things in terms of good and bad. But there is little use in arguing with a Harper or an Obama or even an Alward on those terms. Their masters are corporate bosses. And corporate bosses are forever hungry lions.
If there's something particularly interesting in the August 16 Moncton Times, I might add to this.
(It's next morning. The Tand T is so trivial and vapid - except for Alec Bruce and Jody Dallaire, it's not worth commenting on. Or reading.)
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Wednesday, August 15, 2012
August 15: lies, damn lies, and boring lies.
Today's report on Syria is a gem of an example of bad reporting. You know, if you read every report on Syria that ever appeared in the Irving Press, you would still have no idea what has been going on there. In papers around the world, it's long been recognized that the war was created by the western powers, and by Arab powers closely connected to them.
It's widely recognized that few of the rebels could be called freedom fighters. Many are mercenaries who will kill anybody for a buck. A large number are Islamic Jihadists. Many of the mass killings attributed by Reuters to Assad we now know to have been carred out by rebels - who are particularly interested in murdering the Christian population of Syria.
Norbert said several days ago that Assad would lose. Yes, Norbert, he will lose. So will we. So will most of the people of Syria. That policy document prepared by far right wingers, Project for the New American Century, the plan to establish american world economic dominance through mlitary power, has led us into slaughter, disaster and economic collapse. But don't tell Reuters. Or Norbert.
For misleading use of language, check out paragraph four in column 3. This one claims Assad is facing deeper isolation by being expelled from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. (Wow! Even the OIC is turning against him.) Well, actually, the OIC is controlled by Saudi Arabia which has been financing the rebels from the start, and which had a good deal to do with starting the rebellion. It's hard to see how getting expelled from it MORE DEEPLY isolates Syria.
The next paragraph says splits between the big powers, and between Saudi Arabia and Iran, have stymied diplomatic efforts to halt the bloodshed. Yeah. That's it. We just want to bring peace and motherhood back to Syria. It's them there Russians and I-ranis what's causin' the trouble. We just want to halt the bloodshed. Yeah.
Well, if we really wanted to halt bloodshed, we wouldn't have set it up in the first place; and we wouldn't be the major suppliers of weapons to the whole world. (Canada, on a per capita basis, is right up there.) From Algeria to Vietnam to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, - and Syria, the west has happily slaughtered millions.
For figures on war dead, Reuters still uses the grandly titled Syrian Oservatory of Human Rights, a one-man operation run by a haberdasher in England who gets his information from the rebels.
On the final column of the story (p. B7, paragraph 2, Reuters coyly hints that Saudi Arabia and Quatar are believed to be supplying money and weapons to the rebels.
Believed to be? This has been common knowledge from the start. And not only money and weapons, but training, and imported mercenaries. As well, Obama recently admitted openly what he was been doing secretly from the start - supplying money, weapons, military advisors, intelligence. So has Britain. Even medical aid is highly politicized, and often has nothing to do with medicine. Canada has recently shifted its medical aid from Red Crescent to a Syrian-Canadian group nobody has ever heard of, but is almost certainly a rebel front, just like the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights.
The story finishes by saying the end is near. Yes. It is. And the only result will be further chaos in the Middle East, a chaos that will be felt even in the streets of Moncton. It also, quite possibly, opens the way to World War Three.
This has not been a golden age for western forieign policy. And it's been a dreadfully decadent one for North American Journalism.
I regret to read that the editorial writer is ignorant of the causes of the Acadian deportation. It had very little to do with "imperial interests far from our shores." The deportation was wanted, decided on, and largely carried out by the northeastern colonies of what is now the US. The colonial government at Halifax was largely controlled by them. They were the land-hungry ones. For the same reason, the states further inland would demand the invasion of Canada just 200 years ago. (See how it all fits together, Mr. Editor?)
There is a powerful tongue-in-cheek column by Alec Bruce.
The whole op ed page is a waste of time.
Gee! The story about Enbridge spilling 25 million litres of oil in accidents still hasn't appeared. They must be saving it for a special, all about shale gas, edition.
It's widely recognized that few of the rebels could be called freedom fighters. Many are mercenaries who will kill anybody for a buck. A large number are Islamic Jihadists. Many of the mass killings attributed by Reuters to Assad we now know to have been carred out by rebels - who are particularly interested in murdering the Christian population of Syria.
Norbert said several days ago that Assad would lose. Yes, Norbert, he will lose. So will we. So will most of the people of Syria. That policy document prepared by far right wingers, Project for the New American Century, the plan to establish american world economic dominance through mlitary power, has led us into slaughter, disaster and economic collapse. But don't tell Reuters. Or Norbert.
For misleading use of language, check out paragraph four in column 3. This one claims Assad is facing deeper isolation by being expelled from the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. (Wow! Even the OIC is turning against him.) Well, actually, the OIC is controlled by Saudi Arabia which has been financing the rebels from the start, and which had a good deal to do with starting the rebellion. It's hard to see how getting expelled from it MORE DEEPLY isolates Syria.
The next paragraph says splits between the big powers, and between Saudi Arabia and Iran, have stymied diplomatic efforts to halt the bloodshed. Yeah. That's it. We just want to bring peace and motherhood back to Syria. It's them there Russians and I-ranis what's causin' the trouble. We just want to halt the bloodshed. Yeah.
Well, if we really wanted to halt bloodshed, we wouldn't have set it up in the first place; and we wouldn't be the major suppliers of weapons to the whole world. (Canada, on a per capita basis, is right up there.) From Algeria to Vietnam to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, - and Syria, the west has happily slaughtered millions.
For figures on war dead, Reuters still uses the grandly titled Syrian Oservatory of Human Rights, a one-man operation run by a haberdasher in England who gets his information from the rebels.
On the final column of the story (p. B7, paragraph 2, Reuters coyly hints that Saudi Arabia and Quatar are believed to be supplying money and weapons to the rebels.
Believed to be? This has been common knowledge from the start. And not only money and weapons, but training, and imported mercenaries. As well, Obama recently admitted openly what he was been doing secretly from the start - supplying money, weapons, military advisors, intelligence. So has Britain. Even medical aid is highly politicized, and often has nothing to do with medicine. Canada has recently shifted its medical aid from Red Crescent to a Syrian-Canadian group nobody has ever heard of, but is almost certainly a rebel front, just like the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights.
The story finishes by saying the end is near. Yes. It is. And the only result will be further chaos in the Middle East, a chaos that will be felt even in the streets of Moncton. It also, quite possibly, opens the way to World War Three.
This has not been a golden age for western forieign policy. And it's been a dreadfully decadent one for North American Journalism.
I regret to read that the editorial writer is ignorant of the causes of the Acadian deportation. It had very little to do with "imperial interests far from our shores." The deportation was wanted, decided on, and largely carried out by the northeastern colonies of what is now the US. The colonial government at Halifax was largely controlled by them. They were the land-hungry ones. For the same reason, the states further inland would demand the invasion of Canada just 200 years ago. (See how it all fits together, Mr. Editor?)
There is a powerful tongue-in-cheek column by Alec Bruce.
The whole op ed page is a waste of time.
Gee! The story about Enbridge spilling 25 million litres of oil in accidents still hasn't appeared. They must be saving it for a special, all about shale gas, edition.
Tuesday, August 14, 2012
August 14: catching up...
Congratulations to the Moncton Times and Transcript for giving prompt and prominent space (p.1) to the story of how four citizens confronted the provincial government on its refusal to explain why the site for a new Moncton High was chosen. The government says it doesn't have to. The court says, "Oh, yes, you do."
Alward will still twist and squirm and delay, of course. But this is something City Council should have been leading the way on. Maybe we need more people like the fighting four to ask City Council what the pollutants are under Highfield Square. How bad are they? Do they affect commercial and residential properties near the square?
For an example of a useless news story, go to the bottom of p. 2 to read how Harper has directed some 10 million dollars in humanitarian aid for Syria away from Red Crescent- because some group we have never heard of says that Red Crescent is biased against the government side. That's what happens you're PostMedia or BrunswickMedia and you insist that your rerporters know nothing, see nothing, speak nothing; and simply take notes. What on earth is the point of this story? What does it really tell us.
First, the idea that any western leader gives a damn about the suffering of any Syrians on either side is laughable. If they didn't want Syrians to suffer, all they had to do was to not start a war in the first place. Here's the story.
It began as a simple plan along the lines of Libya. Provoke a civil war to overthrow a Syrian government that is an ally of Iran. Supply money, weapons, organizers, special ops, intelligence to the rebels. Install a new government friendly to the West. Then hit an isolated Iran, and take over the oil fields.
That was the plan. But the wheels came off.
It turns out that a high proportion of the rebels, especially those supplied and hired by Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, are Moslem Jihadists, the ones we're fighting against everywhere else. So the US is now rallying its NORAD team just in case they have to intervene to make sure the right "good" guys win.
The Canadian shift in humanitarian aid is just a small sign of that. The US has gone much further. It is ensuring that its money and weapons go only to those rebels it wants to win. But the clock is running down.
While the Syrian government seems sure to loose, timing could be everything. The American election is close - and Obama is in the lead. Israel's Netanyahu may decide he has to attack Iran now before Obama, with the election behind him, might nix an invasion. (I think Netanyahu considers Obama a more honest man that I do.) An attack now, with Syria still in chaos, could touch off wars all over the Middle East - and well beyond it.
That's why it's important for a reporter to ask questions, and to know which questions to ask.
While in hospital, I had the good luck to see a real reporter in action. (I don't watch TV at home; but a hospital room can get pretty lonely, especially without an appendix to talk to). I flipped through the usual, awful channels that are the reason I don't watch TV. Then I hit a programme called Power and Politics. It's on CBC (6 to 8p.m., I believe). The host was Evan Solomon, who was well-informed, sharp, and knew how to keep asking why and how even after his guests tried to the usual, long-winded answers that tried to hide the lying in a fog of words.
Wow! This guy is an experience. He's knowledgeable; he's tough; he has a powerful sense and use of drama. The Canadian ministers of Finance and of Natural Resources never did tell the truth, of course. But by the end of the show, Evan Solomon's questions had made it clear to viewers how lacking they were in any quality of statesmanship or trust. Like aging, scrawny hookers they stripped themselves bare with everything they said.
Among the gems:
1. The Minister of Natural Resources, trying to seem neutral buy really supporting the oil pipline industry, said that pipelines can be very safe with Enbridge, for example, suffering only three, minor accidents in recent years. Solomon shot him a look that pinned him to the wall like an insect.
"I have official figures here showing that Enbridge has had uncounted spills in that period with a total spillage of over 25 million litres. That's not just a few spills. That's not just minor damage."
(The minister muttered something about Solomon changing the subject.)
By the way, did the BrunswickNews tell you about that rate of spillage by Enbridge, a company that has wide shale gas rights in New Brunswick? Did Premier Alward mention it after his promise to inform us more fully about shale gas?
2.The Minister of Finance was asked about his intention to investigate tax evasion by the Italian mob that controls the construction industry. (Montreal has multi cultural mobs. There used to be a Jewish mob that controlled gambling, until the government mob took over; the Irish mob controls the waterfront. And so it goes....) The minister replied that they are investigating it but had only recently learned of the construction scandal in Quebec.
I was stunned to hear that. I grew up just a few blocks from the heart of the Italian mob district. My neighbour was a small time hood for the mob. (He died young from a bad case of being wrapped up in a chain and dropped into a lake.) Some of my best friends in school were from mob families. By grade seven, I knew all about the Italian mob, the construction industry, and their corrupt ties with governments. And the Canadian government just found out?
Then he dropped a real clanger. I think it was because Solomon had rattled him with his magisterial questoning style. He said that Stephen Harper was already preparing tough legislation to investigate the massive scandal of the Quebec construction industry. Okay. But the minister knew he had to say more with those eyes locked on him. So he said Harper was preparing it to investigate other notorious hotbeds of corruption and thievery - like environmentalists, and unions who take hard-earned money from workers.
We look at Quebec; and we see the worst corruption and criminal scandal in Canadian history. Mr. Harper looks at it; and he sees a chance to strike at those who have dared to criticize him and his government.
Power and Politics. This programme is what reporting should be about. It's on CBC.
Norbert has a column, snarly but vague, on the martime bus transit crisis. Actually, it's a crisis that goes far beyond busses , and that takes in the need to drastically reorganize the rural maritimes. Pumping grants to dying villages isn't going to cut it. And maybe busses won't cut it. Anyway, we know what the government is going to do. Indeed, the fix is probably already in.
A new company will appear to take over the service. The government will agree to give it tax deductions and grant money. And it will be specified that the company may hire non-union workers.
Problem solved.
There are the usual good columns by Alec Bruce and Gwynne Dyer.
Alan Cochrane's column proves once again that there is nobody on that editorial staff capable of writing serious and informed comment about anything.
The editorial ponders what the federal government can do to ease such problems as the lobster fishery. Ponder no more. Harper has decided. He will allow the fishery on the East coast to destroy itself. Meanwhile, he will open the Arctic to commercial fishing. That step will pretty quickly destroy the last fishery in Canadian waters. But by then, Mr. Harper will have left politics to accept his reward in the form of a dozen or so directorships. So it won't be his problem.
That, in the corporate world, is called long-term planning.
Alward will still twist and squirm and delay, of course. But this is something City Council should have been leading the way on. Maybe we need more people like the fighting four to ask City Council what the pollutants are under Highfield Square. How bad are they? Do they affect commercial and residential properties near the square?
For an example of a useless news story, go to the bottom of p. 2 to read how Harper has directed some 10 million dollars in humanitarian aid for Syria away from Red Crescent- because some group we have never heard of says that Red Crescent is biased against the government side. That's what happens you're PostMedia or BrunswickMedia and you insist that your rerporters know nothing, see nothing, speak nothing; and simply take notes. What on earth is the point of this story? What does it really tell us.
First, the idea that any western leader gives a damn about the suffering of any Syrians on either side is laughable. If they didn't want Syrians to suffer, all they had to do was to not start a war in the first place. Here's the story.
It began as a simple plan along the lines of Libya. Provoke a civil war to overthrow a Syrian government that is an ally of Iran. Supply money, weapons, organizers, special ops, intelligence to the rebels. Install a new government friendly to the West. Then hit an isolated Iran, and take over the oil fields.
That was the plan. But the wheels came off.
It turns out that a high proportion of the rebels, especially those supplied and hired by Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, are Moslem Jihadists, the ones we're fighting against everywhere else. So the US is now rallying its NORAD team just in case they have to intervene to make sure the right "good" guys win.
The Canadian shift in humanitarian aid is just a small sign of that. The US has gone much further. It is ensuring that its money and weapons go only to those rebels it wants to win. But the clock is running down.
While the Syrian government seems sure to loose, timing could be everything. The American election is close - and Obama is in the lead. Israel's Netanyahu may decide he has to attack Iran now before Obama, with the election behind him, might nix an invasion. (I think Netanyahu considers Obama a more honest man that I do.) An attack now, with Syria still in chaos, could touch off wars all over the Middle East - and well beyond it.
That's why it's important for a reporter to ask questions, and to know which questions to ask.
While in hospital, I had the good luck to see a real reporter in action. (I don't watch TV at home; but a hospital room can get pretty lonely, especially without an appendix to talk to). I flipped through the usual, awful channels that are the reason I don't watch TV. Then I hit a programme called Power and Politics. It's on CBC (6 to 8p.m., I believe). The host was Evan Solomon, who was well-informed, sharp, and knew how to keep asking why and how even after his guests tried to the usual, long-winded answers that tried to hide the lying in a fog of words.
Wow! This guy is an experience. He's knowledgeable; he's tough; he has a powerful sense and use of drama. The Canadian ministers of Finance and of Natural Resources never did tell the truth, of course. But by the end of the show, Evan Solomon's questions had made it clear to viewers how lacking they were in any quality of statesmanship or trust. Like aging, scrawny hookers they stripped themselves bare with everything they said.
Among the gems:
1. The Minister of Natural Resources, trying to seem neutral buy really supporting the oil pipline industry, said that pipelines can be very safe with Enbridge, for example, suffering only three, minor accidents in recent years. Solomon shot him a look that pinned him to the wall like an insect.
"I have official figures here showing that Enbridge has had uncounted spills in that period with a total spillage of over 25 million litres. That's not just a few spills. That's not just minor damage."
(The minister muttered something about Solomon changing the subject.)
By the way, did the BrunswickNews tell you about that rate of spillage by Enbridge, a company that has wide shale gas rights in New Brunswick? Did Premier Alward mention it after his promise to inform us more fully about shale gas?
2.The Minister of Finance was asked about his intention to investigate tax evasion by the Italian mob that controls the construction industry. (Montreal has multi cultural mobs. There used to be a Jewish mob that controlled gambling, until the government mob took over; the Irish mob controls the waterfront. And so it goes....) The minister replied that they are investigating it but had only recently learned of the construction scandal in Quebec.
I was stunned to hear that. I grew up just a few blocks from the heart of the Italian mob district. My neighbour was a small time hood for the mob. (He died young from a bad case of being wrapped up in a chain and dropped into a lake.) Some of my best friends in school were from mob families. By grade seven, I knew all about the Italian mob, the construction industry, and their corrupt ties with governments. And the Canadian government just found out?
Then he dropped a real clanger. I think it was because Solomon had rattled him with his magisterial questoning style. He said that Stephen Harper was already preparing tough legislation to investigate the massive scandal of the Quebec construction industry. Okay. But the minister knew he had to say more with those eyes locked on him. So he said Harper was preparing it to investigate other notorious hotbeds of corruption and thievery - like environmentalists, and unions who take hard-earned money from workers.
We look at Quebec; and we see the worst corruption and criminal scandal in Canadian history. Mr. Harper looks at it; and he sees a chance to strike at those who have dared to criticize him and his government.
Power and Politics. This programme is what reporting should be about. It's on CBC.
Norbert has a column, snarly but vague, on the martime bus transit crisis. Actually, it's a crisis that goes far beyond busses , and that takes in the need to drastically reorganize the rural maritimes. Pumping grants to dying villages isn't going to cut it. And maybe busses won't cut it. Anyway, we know what the government is going to do. Indeed, the fix is probably already in.
A new company will appear to take over the service. The government will agree to give it tax deductions and grant money. And it will be specified that the company may hire non-union workers.
Problem solved.
There are the usual good columns by Alec Bruce and Gwynne Dyer.
Alan Cochrane's column proves once again that there is nobody on that editorial staff capable of writing serious and informed comment about anything.
The editorial ponders what the federal government can do to ease such problems as the lobster fishery. Ponder no more. Harper has decided. He will allow the fishery on the East coast to destroy itself. Meanwhile, he will open the Arctic to commercial fishing. That step will pretty quickly destroy the last fishery in Canadian waters. But by then, Mr. Harper will have left politics to accept his reward in the form of a dozen or so directorships. So it won't be his problem.
That, in the corporate world, is called long-term planning.
Monday, August 13, 2012
August13: Apologies
The last thing I remember of Wednesday night was lying helpless on my back with a masked man standing over me. He had a knife. Then all went black. When I came to, many hours later, a young woman was prodding me in a normally no trespassing area, while another was doing something with a long, plastic tube that I should have preferred not to have done to me, not even with a short, plastic tube.
However, I'm now home, and short by an appendix. By the way, if you ever suffer a sharp pain in your lower, right abdomen, don't waste your time taking it out on an angry blog. Go to emergency right away. Luckily, they were able to have me in an operating room within 90 minutes.
I won't write a regular blog right now because I've barely looked at today's paper - and because I have a pile of other jobs backed up. I'll start as, I think, my last blog said I would, with Norbert's column of last Wednesday on the Mars landing.
Norbert sees it as a magnificent triumph, an exciting moment in our knowledge of the universe - and so it is. But the US Congress does not give billions to NASA simply to provide us with show biz thrills. At root, space science is a military project; and NASA serves military purposes.
NASA research gave the US the ability to put spy stations into space, to keep them there; and it developed the technology to see a situation better and with more information than an agent on the spot could. The drone, a robot aircraft. can now be flown any place on earth to get information - or to kill, with the dead always reported as 'militants'. Maybe they are. But, if so, there must be a large number of children, even infants, women and elderly who are militants.
Drones are used to carry out assassinations, to attack countries with whom we are not at war, and which are no military threat to us. Best of all, there are usually no western witnesses to such attacks. Nor have our news media shown any eagerness to get the facts. The drone is very much a product of NASA research.
Since making drones is a very profitable venture for the defence industry, various forms of them are already on sale to countries and police forces around the world. The next step, with some designs already complete, is for drones that will have no pilot in the plane or on the ground. It will make its own decisions about who to kill. (Notice how the Mars vehicle makes some decisions on its own?). Fighter versions of such drones will travel many times are fast as the F-35; and, without the limits of human stress to worry about, will be the most manoeuverable aircraft ever built. Nor is this in the distant future. Indeed, such a drone is likely to be in service before the F-35, which would make our F-35s, at 40 billion? 50? 80?. the most expensive museum display pieces in history.
Oh - a final touch - plenty of countries can develop such aircaft. And are developing them. China, Russia, India are examples. As well, they will be, as most other weapons are, available on the open market.
War has, for this child of World War Two, changed since the days I ran around the schoolyard, my arms outstretched as the wings of a Spitfire shouting ratatat tat as I came up behind a Messerschmitt. (He shouted he was Spitfire, too. But they all try to fool you.)
We were all there. We were all in it. And there was no torture (that we knew of), no deliberate killing of civilians (that we knew of). We didn't hate, at least, not much. In fact, it was only late in World War Two that armies learned that most soldiers didn't want to kill. That's when psychologists were called in to make soldiers want to kill, even to enjoy it. Not coincidentally, we now have growing rates of mental illness and suicide among soldiers.
The hired killers, the mercenaries. have become so common that the coporations which recruit them have become among the biggest corporations in the world. They also supply police forces for whole countries. Even in a regular army, like that of the US, many soldiers are not citizens of the country they fight for. Foreigners join the US army on the promise they will be given citizenship on discharge. As wars become more brutal, most of us have become increasingly detached.
Partly, that's because with all the possibilies of modern news media, we are getting even less news than we did on World War One. We understood why we sent troops to France in 1914. We knew why we sent troops to Hong Kong in 1941. (It was a bad idea; but we knew what the intent was.)
But why did we bomb Libya? Why did we join the absurd war in Afghanistan? Why did the US and Britain invade Iraq? Why are drones attacking Somalia and Yemen? Why are we preparing to invade Syria to help the rebels defeat the government? After all, the major reason a rebellion exists is because the rebels have been getting money, training, weapons and mercenaries from western and certain Arab powers. As well, many of the rebels are Islamic Jihadists. Aren't we supposed to be against them?
Never before in history has so much money been spent on so many news media - with so little result.
These thoughts of the stunning changes in warfare, the general ignorance of what is going on, and our detachment from it all, were going through my mind on a sleepless night at the hospital. Suddenly, another great change occured to me. Where were the popular war songs?
Going back over a century and a half to the early days of mass popular music, every war produced masses of popular songs. As early as the Napoleonic wars, "Heart of Oak" was a hit in music halls and pubs. In the American civil war, sheet music popularized, "John Brown's Body".
Nor were such songs necessarily militant. There were more tender songs about the impact of war on home life '"Just Before the Battle, Mother". In the Boer War, there was "We are Marching to Praetoria." In World War One, there were hundreds of songs in sheet music, music halls, and early records."It's a long way to Tiperarry", "The whole world is waiting for the sunrise". By World War Two, " There'll always be an England"(check this on youtube with Vera Lynn. Magnificent.)
"A nightingale sang in Berkeley Square". "Praise the Lord; and pass the ammunition." Sometimes defiant, sometimes loving, sometimes nostalgic, sometimes hoping, songs like these dominated the charts through the war years. At the end of the war,there was even a war song that bridged the way to peace. Originally, a Czech song, it was copied the the Germans, then by the Allies as "Lili Marlene".
Then it stopped.
The only hit songs of the Vietnam war were protest songs like "Where have all the flowers gone?"
Then nothing. It's the same with movies. Afghanistan, the longest war the US has ever fought - and at the greatest cost in money - ---care to name a hit movie about it? US studios were making hit movies about World War Two before the US even entered it. It made them throughout the war - and still does.
It's as if we were deliberately detaching ourselves, giving up on any responsiblity, refusing to see what is happening, what has happened to us.....
-------------------------------------
Oh, I did glance at Norbert's column for today. He ranted that all bloggers are vain, attention-seeking, and ignorant. I agree. And it gives me a wonderful idea. Here is a great chance for Norbert to challenge a blogger to a public debate so he can show how ignorant the blogger is. Modesty forbids me to mention a name....no...I'm not modest. I'm a blogger. I'm vain.
My vanity suggests I should be the blogger for Norbert to challenge. And my attention-seeking side demands that he should be allowed to have his whole editorial staff with him to argue against me.
However, I'm now home, and short by an appendix. By the way, if you ever suffer a sharp pain in your lower, right abdomen, don't waste your time taking it out on an angry blog. Go to emergency right away. Luckily, they were able to have me in an operating room within 90 minutes.
I won't write a regular blog right now because I've barely looked at today's paper - and because I have a pile of other jobs backed up. I'll start as, I think, my last blog said I would, with Norbert's column of last Wednesday on the Mars landing.
Norbert sees it as a magnificent triumph, an exciting moment in our knowledge of the universe - and so it is. But the US Congress does not give billions to NASA simply to provide us with show biz thrills. At root, space science is a military project; and NASA serves military purposes.
NASA research gave the US the ability to put spy stations into space, to keep them there; and it developed the technology to see a situation better and with more information than an agent on the spot could. The drone, a robot aircraft. can now be flown any place on earth to get information - or to kill, with the dead always reported as 'militants'. Maybe they are. But, if so, there must be a large number of children, even infants, women and elderly who are militants.
Drones are used to carry out assassinations, to attack countries with whom we are not at war, and which are no military threat to us. Best of all, there are usually no western witnesses to such attacks. Nor have our news media shown any eagerness to get the facts. The drone is very much a product of NASA research.
Since making drones is a very profitable venture for the defence industry, various forms of them are already on sale to countries and police forces around the world. The next step, with some designs already complete, is for drones that will have no pilot in the plane or on the ground. It will make its own decisions about who to kill. (Notice how the Mars vehicle makes some decisions on its own?). Fighter versions of such drones will travel many times are fast as the F-35; and, without the limits of human stress to worry about, will be the most manoeuverable aircraft ever built. Nor is this in the distant future. Indeed, such a drone is likely to be in service before the F-35, which would make our F-35s, at 40 billion? 50? 80?. the most expensive museum display pieces in history.
Oh - a final touch - plenty of countries can develop such aircaft. And are developing them. China, Russia, India are examples. As well, they will be, as most other weapons are, available on the open market.
War has, for this child of World War Two, changed since the days I ran around the schoolyard, my arms outstretched as the wings of a Spitfire shouting ratatat tat as I came up behind a Messerschmitt. (He shouted he was Spitfire, too. But they all try to fool you.)
We were all there. We were all in it. And there was no torture (that we knew of), no deliberate killing of civilians (that we knew of). We didn't hate, at least, not much. In fact, it was only late in World War Two that armies learned that most soldiers didn't want to kill. That's when psychologists were called in to make soldiers want to kill, even to enjoy it. Not coincidentally, we now have growing rates of mental illness and suicide among soldiers.
The hired killers, the mercenaries. have become so common that the coporations which recruit them have become among the biggest corporations in the world. They also supply police forces for whole countries. Even in a regular army, like that of the US, many soldiers are not citizens of the country they fight for. Foreigners join the US army on the promise they will be given citizenship on discharge. As wars become more brutal, most of us have become increasingly detached.
Partly, that's because with all the possibilies of modern news media, we are getting even less news than we did on World War One. We understood why we sent troops to France in 1914. We knew why we sent troops to Hong Kong in 1941. (It was a bad idea; but we knew what the intent was.)
But why did we bomb Libya? Why did we join the absurd war in Afghanistan? Why did the US and Britain invade Iraq? Why are drones attacking Somalia and Yemen? Why are we preparing to invade Syria to help the rebels defeat the government? After all, the major reason a rebellion exists is because the rebels have been getting money, training, weapons and mercenaries from western and certain Arab powers. As well, many of the rebels are Islamic Jihadists. Aren't we supposed to be against them?
Never before in history has so much money been spent on so many news media - with so little result.
These thoughts of the stunning changes in warfare, the general ignorance of what is going on, and our detachment from it all, were going through my mind on a sleepless night at the hospital. Suddenly, another great change occured to me. Where were the popular war songs?
Going back over a century and a half to the early days of mass popular music, every war produced masses of popular songs. As early as the Napoleonic wars, "Heart of Oak" was a hit in music halls and pubs. In the American civil war, sheet music popularized, "John Brown's Body".
Nor were such songs necessarily militant. There were more tender songs about the impact of war on home life '"Just Before the Battle, Mother". In the Boer War, there was "We are Marching to Praetoria." In World War One, there were hundreds of songs in sheet music, music halls, and early records."It's a long way to Tiperarry", "The whole world is waiting for the sunrise". By World War Two, " There'll always be an England"(check this on youtube with Vera Lynn. Magnificent.)
"A nightingale sang in Berkeley Square". "Praise the Lord; and pass the ammunition." Sometimes defiant, sometimes loving, sometimes nostalgic, sometimes hoping, songs like these dominated the charts through the war years. At the end of the war,there was even a war song that bridged the way to peace. Originally, a Czech song, it was copied the the Germans, then by the Allies as "Lili Marlene".
Then it stopped.
The only hit songs of the Vietnam war were protest songs like "Where have all the flowers gone?"
Then nothing. It's the same with movies. Afghanistan, the longest war the US has ever fought - and at the greatest cost in money - ---care to name a hit movie about it? US studios were making hit movies about World War Two before the US even entered it. It made them throughout the war - and still does.
It's as if we were deliberately detaching ourselves, giving up on any responsiblity, refusing to see what is happening, what has happened to us.....
-------------------------------------
Oh, I did glance at Norbert's column for today. He ranted that all bloggers are vain, attention-seeking, and ignorant. I agree. And it gives me a wonderful idea. Here is a great chance for Norbert to challenge a blogger to a public debate so he can show how ignorant the blogger is. Modesty forbids me to mention a name....no...I'm not modest. I'm a blogger. I'm vain.
My vanity suggests I should be the blogger for Norbert to challenge. And my attention-seeking side demands that he should be allowed to have his whole editorial staff with him to argue against me.
Wednesday, August 8, 2012
August 8: toe nails and the news...
But first, read p. A3, "Headstart needs school supplies". Read it! And hang your head in shame. All credit to Headstart for putting itself up front to help buy school supplies for children whose parents can't afford it. All credit to Headstart.
But we give tax breaks in ten and hundreds of millions, and we give sweetheart contracts, to billionaires. We kiss up to a billionaire's private newspapers. We give honours and banquets to people who have spent their lives ripping us off. And we give so little of a damn about our own children that we won't bother to spend the small sums it would take to give all of them an equal chance.
Our conservatives and liberals, our corporate leaders, and their kiss-ass newspapers are beneath contempt. Read the op-ed page. That's the page where this sort of arrogant, selfish, and cruel (yes, cruel) behaviour should be discussed. Read it. What you'll see are two, tivial columns - one, of them, admittedly decently written. But they have nothing to do with the corruption, greed and lying of this province that sometimes makes Quebec look like a Sunday School.
Why was Moncton High moved so far and at such great cost? Why won't the Ward Two councillors, (Henderson and Leger or the mayor or anybody in that sinkhole of ignorance and sleaze we call city hall) tellwhat what the pollutants are under Highfield Square? Why such a drastic measure of shutting out bus drivers when they just want a living wage? And when, without a question, we'll hand over millions of acres of timber to the rich; and we'll run expensive, government campaigns to do a favour for shale gas companies that poison us in return?
These are not just political questions. They are moral ones. We're talking about lying, about cheating, about abuse on a massive scale. But have you ever heard your preachers talk about his on a Sunday? Not bloody likely. Some of them may point a finger at gays. But very few gays are billionaires (So far as we know.) No wonder so many people stay home on Sunday.
Oh, yes. The toenail stuff.
You cannot understand the news by reading it or listening to it. You can't do that any more than you can tell what a dead man looked like and what his favourite necktie was simply by examining his toenail clippings.
The daily news, of necessity, is a collection of toenail clippings. Opinion columns can help to broaden your understanding. But only a little, and often with heavy bias. If you want to understand the news - what's going on in Syria? Why is Africa in such poverty and disorder? Why is the US government so in a tizzy over an Iranian nuclear bomb programme that almost certainly doesn't exist? Why isn't there more democracy in Africa and the middle east?Why are we standing on the edge of World War Three?
Is it because Moslems are evil? Is it because dictators have forced their way into power and obstructed democracy? Is it because Israel is terribly, terribly threatened? Is it because people in Africa and the Middle East are all stupid? Because they aren't Christians?
Wrong on all connts. (Christians, in fact, have been among the worst mass murderers in history. You think all those chaplains in Hitler's armed forces didn't know what was going on?)
First, most countries in Africa and the Middle East aren't real countries at all. At the end of World
War One, western leaders, notably Bitain, the US and France, drew lines on a map and said, this is now Saudi Arabia; this is now Palestine. The people were often a jumble of various tribes and religions. It didn't matter. They were handed over to Britain and France (mostly) to run. That had already happened to Congo, where millions were murdered, tortured and enslaved to dig for minerals for western billinaires. (And, no, the Belgians were not real big on buiding schools, either.)
Congo was made free: and it elected a president after World War Two. But the mining companies soon arranged it to have him killed, and a more friendly government installed. The corruption, murder and abuse still go on, with Candian mining companies prominent.
After World War One, major control of Saudi Arabia was handed over to British oil companies. They found the head of a tribe of bandits, told him he was king, and if he'd be nice to them, they'd be nice to him. It's worked out well for both sides. And that's what Lawrence of Arabia was all about.
Same thing with Iran which got a shah (who was also a dictator). Both Saudi Arabia and Iran were bled dry. But Iran was nasty. It decided to be a democracy, and to negotiate the price of oil and working conditions.
Britain, France and the US (for a 35% share of the oil) overthrew the elected leader, and re-installed a dictator, the shah. That's when Iran revolted against the west, turned to Islam and got rid of the shah.
These are all artificial countries designed, essentially, to produce huge profits for western corporations. And, because they aren't real countries but just groups of disparate people, you get lots of civil wars. In the same way, South Africa was a region divided into countries to benefit Dutch settlers, then conquered and combined by the British into a country to get control of the gold. Nor were the British in any hurry to develop schools or democracy.
Civil wars are okay with the western powers - so long as the wars don't interfere with the flow of oil or gold, etc. In fact, civil wars are good because they create a market for the western defence industries. (and the sale of weapons is a very big factor, indeed. President Eisenhower was dead right when he warned the US about the military-industrial complex. Almost all of the weapons in the hands of drug lords in Mexico were bought in the US. And their billions of dollars every year have been laundered in western banks.)
In fact, civil wars are often stirred up by the west- as to get rid of a dictator that they put in power in the first place, but might now, for example, be flirting with China or something else that western corporations don't like. The cases of Libya and Iraq spring to mind.
Generally, the west does not like democracies. Democracies have a terrible habit of wanting something back for their oil and minerals. It's much cheaper just to pay off a dictator. (Ever notice the TandT has not mentioned the demonstrations in Saudi Arabia? Or how the king has ordered his troops to fire on demonstrators?)
Anyway, as long as people are divided and fighting each other, then they won't be getting together to deal with the real problem - western corporations. Africa and the Middle East are in a confused mess because corporations like it that way.
The US wants control of Iran. Syria is Iran's major ally. Now do you understand why Syrians are killing each other? Don't worry if you miss this war. There are lots more to come.
Wars are seldom between good and evil. they're between people. And people, most people, are prone to greed and ruthlessness. If you want understand wars, don't look for good guys and bad guys. Just look for people, all of them doing things for people reasons. Then the news will make sense.
And greed and ruthlessness are awhy Headstart has to raise money for our own children.
My, this was a long one. I wanted to do one on Norbert's column. It's a good column. But there's another story involved in the Mars mission. Maybe tomorrow.
Meanwhile, spare some money for Headstart; and apologize to it for electing the miserable wretches we did.
And, hey, give the rich another tax break. They hurt, too, you know. I mean, it's not as if they would dream of sending their own children to underfunded and exploited schools like our chldren have to go to.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
August 7: Education in the news....
It is extremely rare, especially in North America, to find a journalist who a clue of what education is about. There are journalistic experts galore on hockey and baseball and football. And, certainly, no news medium would dream of letting just anybody cover a sports story. Every news medium I ever worked for had at least two, sports experts - and sometimes a dozen or more. That's why the sports section is usually the most professional section of any news medium.
But an education story? Any bozo will do to cover it. In fact, why cover it at all? When our superintendant of English schools left, there was only the briefest announcement of it. Nobody asked why. Nobody asked any questions at all. Heck, nobody even knew which questions to ask.
The new superintendant got a big story - but largely about how he used to be an electrician, and could change lightbulbs - yuk, yuk. (Can you imagine the sports page carrying a story like that about, say, a top draft pick for the NHL?)
The public school may be the single, most important institution in our society. It's crucial to the intellectual and job training, and social development of our children. And what it does is highly complex, often subtle, sometimes seeming just "touchy-freely" to those who don't understand the skill involved and the need for it. It's also a high spending area. That combination of general ignorance of what schools do and how they do it, combined with the lure of profit, is making education an easy target for corporations.
Corporate understanding of education is, to say the least, primitive. Commonly, it's the understanding reflected in "studies" (actually propaganda pieces) put together by outfits like Atlantic Institude of Marketing Studies.In them, education is much like a factory assembly line, mass-producing identical products. As to the social and intellectal aspects of education, big business couldn't care less.
What's happening across the US and Britain, inspired by corporate bosses, is a plan to take over public schools, to privatize them. It's well advanced in both countries - and with the predictable results. The privatized and partially-privatized schools are more interested in statistical results than in real learning; they apply business methods to education in the apparent belief that business methods are good for everything. Business methods are not good for everything. The privatized and semi-privatized schools are becoming a heavy expense, even for those who can afford them. They have led to a devaluation and a degrading of the remaining public schools. In the US, where this is most advanced, there has been a stunning drop in national education standards in just one generation.
In their attacks on public schooling, corporate bosses are destroying what is arguably the most important social - and economic - development in two centuries.
It's happening in New Brunswick, too, as private business has an eye on our children. The thin edge of the wedge is the farcical use of standardized tests to rate schools.
I thought of this as I read Alec Bruce's column - especially the last, two paragraphs, and his emphasis on the importance of the "dawn of our careers as human beings". That's what our public schools are about. They are about developing our children, not handing them over to profit-seekers.
But when the Moncton Times and Transcript covered the story of the change of superintendants, no reporter had the wit to ask the only questions that mattered. (I should add that I don't know whether he would agree with what I'm saying. I'm leaning heavily on his closing words.)
Sorry to take so long on Bruce's column. But it's such an important one, and such a little-understood one, I couldn't say anything useful in less space.
Norbert has a silly column about this being the "silly season" in journalism because there's really no news.
No. No news at all. We could be facing a world war at any time in the next two months. Our children may be entering a school system that faces radical changes we know nothing about. We have a mass transit strike that imposes severe hardship on large numbers of people. We have a world economic system that's still crashing. We have a US that is shifting its major forces to the Pacific to hem in China (read much about it in the TandT?) We have a shale gas operator in NB that is so distrusted by the US government that it will no longer accept the company's safety reports. Starvation around the world is at record levels. We have polluted soil under Highfield Square, where the city is planning an "events" centre. But City Council won't tell us what it is or how dangerous it is. We have a major school being moved at huge expense to an odd location - and the the provincial government won't tell us why.
And Norbert tells us this is the silly season which "..requires common sense be left at home before entering the newsroom." Well, he certainly follows his own advice.
The editorial can be summed up in two words. "Vroom, vroom".
The biggest story (advertised in a yellow square at the top of A1, and covering two pages at A8 and A9) is an interview of complete and utter triviality with the general manager of the casino.
There is the idea of a good story on A6 "Screen time still replaces active play for youths".It's an important topic. But it so quickly wanders away from the decline of active play into other aspects of electronic playthings that it misses a chance to make any point at all. That's bad editing.
But an education story? Any bozo will do to cover it. In fact, why cover it at all? When our superintendant of English schools left, there was only the briefest announcement of it. Nobody asked why. Nobody asked any questions at all. Heck, nobody even knew which questions to ask.
The new superintendant got a big story - but largely about how he used to be an electrician, and could change lightbulbs - yuk, yuk. (Can you imagine the sports page carrying a story like that about, say, a top draft pick for the NHL?)
The public school may be the single, most important institution in our society. It's crucial to the intellectual and job training, and social development of our children. And what it does is highly complex, often subtle, sometimes seeming just "touchy-freely" to those who don't understand the skill involved and the need for it. It's also a high spending area. That combination of general ignorance of what schools do and how they do it, combined with the lure of profit, is making education an easy target for corporations.
Corporate understanding of education is, to say the least, primitive. Commonly, it's the understanding reflected in "studies" (actually propaganda pieces) put together by outfits like Atlantic Institude of Marketing Studies.In them, education is much like a factory assembly line, mass-producing identical products. As to the social and intellectal aspects of education, big business couldn't care less.
What's happening across the US and Britain, inspired by corporate bosses, is a plan to take over public schools, to privatize them. It's well advanced in both countries - and with the predictable results. The privatized and partially-privatized schools are more interested in statistical results than in real learning; they apply business methods to education in the apparent belief that business methods are good for everything. Business methods are not good for everything. The privatized and semi-privatized schools are becoming a heavy expense, even for those who can afford them. They have led to a devaluation and a degrading of the remaining public schools. In the US, where this is most advanced, there has been a stunning drop in national education standards in just one generation.
In their attacks on public schooling, corporate bosses are destroying what is arguably the most important social - and economic - development in two centuries.
It's happening in New Brunswick, too, as private business has an eye on our children. The thin edge of the wedge is the farcical use of standardized tests to rate schools.
I thought of this as I read Alec Bruce's column - especially the last, two paragraphs, and his emphasis on the importance of the "dawn of our careers as human beings". That's what our public schools are about. They are about developing our children, not handing them over to profit-seekers.
But when the Moncton Times and Transcript covered the story of the change of superintendants, no reporter had the wit to ask the only questions that mattered. (I should add that I don't know whether he would agree with what I'm saying. I'm leaning heavily on his closing words.)
Sorry to take so long on Bruce's column. But it's such an important one, and such a little-understood one, I couldn't say anything useful in less space.
Norbert has a silly column about this being the "silly season" in journalism because there's really no news.
No. No news at all. We could be facing a world war at any time in the next two months. Our children may be entering a school system that faces radical changes we know nothing about. We have a mass transit strike that imposes severe hardship on large numbers of people. We have a world economic system that's still crashing. We have a US that is shifting its major forces to the Pacific to hem in China (read much about it in the TandT?) We have a shale gas operator in NB that is so distrusted by the US government that it will no longer accept the company's safety reports. Starvation around the world is at record levels. We have polluted soil under Highfield Square, where the city is planning an "events" centre. But City Council won't tell us what it is or how dangerous it is. We have a major school being moved at huge expense to an odd location - and the the provincial government won't tell us why.
And Norbert tells us this is the silly season which "..requires common sense be left at home before entering the newsroom." Well, he certainly follows his own advice.
The editorial can be summed up in two words. "Vroom, vroom".
The biggest story (advertised in a yellow square at the top of A1, and covering two pages at A8 and A9) is an interview of complete and utter triviality with the general manager of the casino.
There is the idea of a good story on A6 "Screen time still replaces active play for youths".It's an important topic. But it so quickly wanders away from the decline of active play into other aspects of electronic playthings that it misses a chance to make any point at all. That's bad editing.
Monday, August 6, 2012
August 6: Maybe it's the heat......
...but, oh, there is close to nothing worth reading in today's Moncton Times and Transcript. The big headline story is that assistance dogs, such as guide dogs for the blind are a big help. Gee! Who would have guessed? And that breaking story takes up over half a page.
The next big story is that the Riverview air traffic control centre is a busy place. That's another half page - with a picture of three people busy sittiing at computer screens.
Another half page is about how labelling people (hipsters, geeks,Brits) can sometimes be useful. This flash comes from a sociology prof- and that alone seems good reason for finding a label for sociology profs. Yes, it can be useful. But we've sll known that for a long time, even before the Stone Age. But I'm so happy a sociology prof has had the courage and insight to make it offical.
It's also called stereotyping; and it can be very, very bad at certain times if you're a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, gay, poor....just about anything. And we all do it, anyway.
So what's the point of this story? Why is it front page?
Oh, and would somebody tell the good professor that to exaggerate means to overstate something. Therefore, you cannot over-exaggerate, since exaggerate all by itself means to go over the top. You might as well say overoverstate. (Or was it the reporter who made that error? Who knows? At the TandT, it could even have been the editor.)
There is no news to report on the lobster fishery problem. So it's reported anyway, on p. 3, against a yellow background to tell us.....I guess.....that there is nothing to report..
Then there's the usual irrelevant (and often untrue) guff about button-poppin' pride on New Brunswick Day. On p. 2, we are told that a Shediac native invented the crossword puzzle in 1926. In fact, crossword puzzles were commonly made for children in nineteenth century Britain. The first modern crossword to be published was in the New York World on Dec. 21, 1913. And the man who made it was not from Shediac. He was from Liverpool, England.
Norbert points with pride to the New Brunswick invention of the snow blower. Another blooper. The snowblower was invented by a man named Simard from Montreal, who founded the Simard snow blower company. He got the idea from watching grain threshers in 1894; and began manufacturing them in the 1920s.
C,mon, fellas. It's not hard to check on these things. Anyway, Bell did not really invent the telephone or the Wright Brothers the airplane. Nor was the first, published crossword back in 1913 really mark the invention of the crossword. It's history goes back for centuries. To attribute any invention to just one person is usually a mug's game.
If we could prove that there is something in New Brunswick that creates famous people, then we'd have something to talk about. Otherwise, this is just local boosterism.
I had a relative (now deceased) who is currently being considered for sainthood, Reverend Zenon Decarie. But the Pope has not yet contacted me to ask what role I played in his saintliness. (I would appreciate hints from Norbert on this point.He can make up some that sound good. "Moncton native played key role in creation of a saint.")
Section D also breaks the big news that David Beckham and some guy called the TV Chef are going to drive their motorcycles from Los Angeles to San Francisco. I can't wait. I'll bet this must be the first time it's every been done.
The editorial is a brainless and pointless one that starts out as a feel good item about New Brunswick Day, then shifts gears to pimp for shale gas. Norbert's piece is similar with a whole list of things invented here.
Then there's the usual list of famous people who came from here - like Louis Mayer, a founder of MGM, and Walter Pidgeon, the actor. The trouble with examples like those is that there is no reason to believe that living a small part of their lives in New Brunswick had any effect at all on their sucess.
I checked just two of Norbert's NB "inventions", the snowblower and the SCUBA tank. Norbert was wrong on both. Primitive self-contained breathing apparatus goes back to the eighteenth century. Modern development is almost entirely from the US, Britain, and Italy - all before and during World War II.
Craig Babstock's "opinion" piece, thrills us with "Judges, Criminal Code frown on use of firearms during crimes". Who would have guessed? Allen Abel tells us his usual little story about life in Washington that, as usual, tells us nothing at all.
Even the letters to the editor page is pretty much a disaster zone. The Letter of the Day is a piece of political bafflegab from the CEO of Health Council of Canada to tell us what exciting things it's doing - a sure sign it's doing nothing at all.
There's a similar piece of propaganda from the federal Minister of Fisheries. He and his government, despite all appearances that they are destroying fisheries and ocean research, assures us that wonderful things are happening.
In this whole, damned paper there is only one item worth reading - Alec Bruce's column on rural self-determination. I'm not entirely convinced by it. But it's a pleasure to read something intelligent in this fish-wrapper edition.
1. HINT TO THE EDITORS - The news services are full of stories about disasters and lies in the shale gas industry, notably in the case of Enbridge (another name to celebrate on New Brunswick Day). Weren't you going to keep us up on all that?
2. To Ward Two councillors Henderson and Leger, can you now find time to answer my questions? What is the pollutant that lies under Highfield Square - you know - the one where the supermarket that stocks our food is? How bad is it? Can it be treated? And if you don't want to tell us what's going on, why did you run for office?
3, A general reminder - current events group - tomorrow, Tueday, August 7 and 7 p.m. at the Moncton Library. I haven't settled on topics yet - but, despite the crashing dullness of the Moncton Times and Transcript, and BrunswickNews in general, some very serious things are happening.
The next big story is that the Riverview air traffic control centre is a busy place. That's another half page - with a picture of three people busy sittiing at computer screens.
Another half page is about how labelling people (hipsters, geeks,Brits) can sometimes be useful. This flash comes from a sociology prof- and that alone seems good reason for finding a label for sociology profs. Yes, it can be useful. But we've sll known that for a long time, even before the Stone Age. But I'm so happy a sociology prof has had the courage and insight to make it offical.
It's also called stereotyping; and it can be very, very bad at certain times if you're a Jew, Moslem, Hindu, gay, poor....just about anything. And we all do it, anyway.
So what's the point of this story? Why is it front page?
Oh, and would somebody tell the good professor that to exaggerate means to overstate something. Therefore, you cannot over-exaggerate, since exaggerate all by itself means to go over the top. You might as well say overoverstate. (Or was it the reporter who made that error? Who knows? At the TandT, it could even have been the editor.)
There is no news to report on the lobster fishery problem. So it's reported anyway, on p. 3, against a yellow background to tell us.....I guess.....that there is nothing to report..
Then there's the usual irrelevant (and often untrue) guff about button-poppin' pride on New Brunswick Day. On p. 2, we are told that a Shediac native invented the crossword puzzle in 1926. In fact, crossword puzzles were commonly made for children in nineteenth century Britain. The first modern crossword to be published was in the New York World on Dec. 21, 1913. And the man who made it was not from Shediac. He was from Liverpool, England.
Norbert points with pride to the New Brunswick invention of the snow blower. Another blooper. The snowblower was invented by a man named Simard from Montreal, who founded the Simard snow blower company. He got the idea from watching grain threshers in 1894; and began manufacturing them in the 1920s.
C,mon, fellas. It's not hard to check on these things. Anyway, Bell did not really invent the telephone or the Wright Brothers the airplane. Nor was the first, published crossword back in 1913 really mark the invention of the crossword. It's history goes back for centuries. To attribute any invention to just one person is usually a mug's game.
If we could prove that there is something in New Brunswick that creates famous people, then we'd have something to talk about. Otherwise, this is just local boosterism.
I had a relative (now deceased) who is currently being considered for sainthood, Reverend Zenon Decarie. But the Pope has not yet contacted me to ask what role I played in his saintliness. (I would appreciate hints from Norbert on this point.He can make up some that sound good. "Moncton native played key role in creation of a saint.")
Section D also breaks the big news that David Beckham and some guy called the TV Chef are going to drive their motorcycles from Los Angeles to San Francisco. I can't wait. I'll bet this must be the first time it's every been done.
The editorial is a brainless and pointless one that starts out as a feel good item about New Brunswick Day, then shifts gears to pimp for shale gas. Norbert's piece is similar with a whole list of things invented here.
Then there's the usual list of famous people who came from here - like Louis Mayer, a founder of MGM, and Walter Pidgeon, the actor. The trouble with examples like those is that there is no reason to believe that living a small part of their lives in New Brunswick had any effect at all on their sucess.
I checked just two of Norbert's NB "inventions", the snowblower and the SCUBA tank. Norbert was wrong on both. Primitive self-contained breathing apparatus goes back to the eighteenth century. Modern development is almost entirely from the US, Britain, and Italy - all before and during World War II.
Craig Babstock's "opinion" piece, thrills us with "Judges, Criminal Code frown on use of firearms during crimes". Who would have guessed? Allen Abel tells us his usual little story about life in Washington that, as usual, tells us nothing at all.
Even the letters to the editor page is pretty much a disaster zone. The Letter of the Day is a piece of political bafflegab from the CEO of Health Council of Canada to tell us what exciting things it's doing - a sure sign it's doing nothing at all.
There's a similar piece of propaganda from the federal Minister of Fisheries. He and his government, despite all appearances that they are destroying fisheries and ocean research, assures us that wonderful things are happening.
In this whole, damned paper there is only one item worth reading - Alec Bruce's column on rural self-determination. I'm not entirely convinced by it. But it's a pleasure to read something intelligent in this fish-wrapper edition.
1. HINT TO THE EDITORS - The news services are full of stories about disasters and lies in the shale gas industry, notably in the case of Enbridge (another name to celebrate on New Brunswick Day). Weren't you going to keep us up on all that?
2. To Ward Two councillors Henderson and Leger, can you now find time to answer my questions? What is the pollutant that lies under Highfield Square - you know - the one where the supermarket that stocks our food is? How bad is it? Can it be treated? And if you don't want to tell us what's going on, why did you run for office?
3, A general reminder - current events group - tomorrow, Tueday, August 7 and 7 p.m. at the Moncton Library. I haven't settled on topics yet - but, despite the crashing dullness of the Moncton Times and Transcript, and BrunswickNews in general, some very serious things are happening.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)