The Toronto Sun is a newspaper designed to attract morons, bigots and louts. And it does very well in the Toronto region where all three groups are plentiful. Its columnists write to appeal to hatred and ignorance. Above all, they write to attract attention to themselves because they, like the women in bikinis who appear in every issue are there for only one reason - to sell newspapers. Only fools read Sun columnists.
Now check the headline in the Times and Transcript for January 30. It seems a columnist for the Toronto Sun has said that women's soccer is not a real sport because, if it were, it wouldn't be having its world championship in Moncton. This is just childish. Nyah, Nyah. And the Moncton mayor responded- Nyah, Nhay. Then, worse, the Moncton Times made it their front page, banner headline story written by Brent Mazerolle himself with a full colour photo. And it's more childish than the original story in The Sun.
So, when does the Irving press start featuring a daily beauty in a bikini?
The editorial would get a laugh even at The Toronto Sun. It's theme is that the premier's speech on his plans for New Brunswick was inspiring - even though it said nothing. Right.
Norbert does his usual silly bit about how more efficient woodstoves would not add to climate change and how the Doomsday Clock warning that we are close to nuclear war are invented concerns. In short, climate change isn't happening, and there will never be a nuclear war. In fact, at the bottom of his fourth column, he says that scientists who developed the idea of the Doomsday Clock are the same ones who invented climate change just so they could scare people.
Norbert, that is so silly, so ignorant, so illogical you really should be writing for The Sun. (or maybe posing in a bikini). For example, the Chicago scientists who invented the Doomsday Clock were most of them dead by the time climate change became an issue. And if you have some evidence that the same people were behind both concerns, I should be fascinated to see it.
However, your column should have a bigger audience so that morons, bigots and louts can be reassured that there is no climate change, and nuclear weapons don't exist.
I really don't understand how Justin Ryan can say so little in his columns. It's supposed to be about immigrants who settle in Moncton. But it tell us almost nothing. For example, there's a one-liner that Canadian schools teach different subjects, and Canadian teachers have different expectations from those in their homelands. That's intriguing. But it tells us nothing. How are they different? How does that affect the students?
In general, here are two pages where we should see serious discussion of Gallant's plans, and of the state of the economy. But we don't get either.
Why are we in economic trouble? Let's get past this childish babble about how we're spoiling ourselves with social services. Certainly, we should talk about our spending. But that talk is meaningless unless you also talk about our revenues. ALL of our revenues. And let's take a little look at the history of this.
In the Second World War, the Canadian government took full control of the Canadian economy. And it worked well. There was little inflation. Fundamental needs were protected for all of us. And much of that government control remained into the 50s and 60s. It was a time when Canadians, perhaps for the first time ever, could look forward to the economic future. Then we got the Ronald Reagan-Brian Mulroney-Margaret Thatcher revolutions.
Governments pretty much gave up on running the economy. The absurd theory that if you make the rich richer, we will all get richer took over. Control on big business were eased, in fact, largely dropped. Free trade gave big business the opportunity to abandon any responsibility to any people of any nation. And guess what?
From that time, the rich kept getting richer while the poor got poorer. That's the period in which the rich awarded themselves lavish salaries while steadily paying less in salaries and less in taxes. That's when we started hearing about a wage gap.
That was also the time of the spread of 'think tanks' to spread the propaganda of the rich. It was the time of the consolidation of almost all news media in the hands of a few billionaires. It was a time of the acceleration of bribery by the rich to get control of government. By now, it is so blatant that no serious scholar considers the US, for example, to be a democracy. (Or New Brunswick).
Nor does it ever stop. There is never a time when the very rich have enough. There will never be a time when we are told that 90% of us have too little.
That is what lies behind American military activity. (In fact, American military activity, like British, French, German, etc. has always been based on serving the interests of the rich.)
This greed is why all nations over the centuries have looked to religion to set limits on the greed - and on suffering and violence it creates. That's why our Faith Page now lists pancake breakfasts rather than discussion of the morality of those people who control our lives. And, more significantly, that's why we get the book Over the Cliff? which suggest solutions that are not solutions but the cause of the problem in the first place.
Typically, what we hear are the solutions the rich want to hear. But the reason we are in trouble is that we have been supporting the very rich in the style they like. We support the rich by lowering their taxes. (And, please, don't tell me the solution is simply to raise their taxes. The reality is that most of their money is hidden safely away from the tax collector.) The next edition of Over the Cliff? could do well to take a look at how much our corporate wealthy cost us - because that's where the solution is.
Reagan, Mulroney, Thatcher and fellow-travellers led a revolution. And we are not paying the price for it.
And that is why the whole, strategic face of the world is changing as the majority of people around the world are framing new alliances to stop us. But the US and its allies cannot fight so many people with just conventional weapons. They will have to use nuclear weapons.
And that, dear Norbert, is why you might want to start worrying.
__________________________________________________________________________
The Jan 31 paper doesn't reach the high standards set by Jan.30.
Most disturbing was a story on A7, "J.D.Irving, Limited Reading is Wild Readers of the Week".
My first thought was for the ego of a man who must have his name on everything. But there's a bigger problem here.
We are a society, Mr. Irving, not a herd of cattle. We, as a society, should be deciding how much money our schools should get, and what it should be for. Sponsoring a reading event sounds very nice. But the effect of it is to give people like you another toehold on our schools. And you, with your buddies at AIMS, have been making it clear that people like you should be running the schools - preferably for profit.
Money does not give you the right to do that. In a democracy, you have the same right as the rest of us in these matters - the right of one vote. May I suggest, then, you skip the philanthropist crap and, if you really want to help, pay decent taxes like the rest of us have to.
Bill Belliveau and Norbert once again wet their pants over Gallant's brilliant speech that said nothing. The rest of the editorial and op ed pages is pretty feeble stuff, with even Gwynne Dyer being pretty vague.
______________________________________________________________________________
In NewsToday, there's a bizarre story about our troops engaged in fighting in Iraq. The chief of defence staff supports the government position that we are not in a war, that our military people are simply defending themselves. Well, don't blame him. He has to follow the government line. But be patient, and read the whole story. It's a pretty good outline of what is happening. And Harper has cancelled one of the fundamental rights of a free country.
Can we at least hope for some informed speculation on why Harper has gone to war while saying he isn't?
I hadn't seen any - but here are some suggestions.
1. There are no votes to be won by declaring war - and the election is nigh.
2.Neither he nor Canada stands to gain anything from this war and, despite his frequently tough talk, Harper has been generally leery of war. And the only beneficiaries of the current war will be American oil billionaires. Their greed was behind the first Iraq war which is what eventually sent recruits to 'extremist' Islamic groups. The whole crisis is not a war between Islam and Chritianity. It's a war between the greed of American capitalism and just about everybody else.
Harper has no quarrel with greed. But he's reluctant to get involved unless there is a gain for Canadian capitalists.
Again, there is almost no foreign news. The biggest story, B6, is that Mitt Romney is not going to run for president. (Two stories, actually). Who could possibly care?
The most frightening story is on B3 "CSIS to get more anti-terror powers". Our spy agency will be getting the power to arbitrarily detain suspected terrorists, or "might be" terrorists, The RCMP will have the power to remove terrorist sites from the web. Sounds reasonable? Well, apart from dumping "innocent until proven guilty", there's another question. What is a terrorist? Is a shale gas protestor a terrorist? (Yes. They are already listed as such.) Is anybody who opposes Harper a terrorist? Quite possibly so. Under our milder laws, Tommy Douglas. the Baptist clergman who introduced medicare was under survellance as a danger to Canada.
Has Mr. Irving been under surveillance by CSIS? I doubt it. It's more likely that he reports to it.
The Faith Page, C6, has a long list of church activities, all of them designed to reduce the brain to putty. The sermonette is worse.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Generally, the most worrying thing is we are getting very, very limited information about the extent to which the world is turning away from us, and forming new trade groups and alliances to get away from the greed of western capitalism. There are now so many against us that they cannot be fought with conventional weapons. (For that matter, the US record of fighting small and poor nations with conventional weapons has not been brilliant.) And, in the alliances on the other side, there are lots of nuclear weapons. Even if the US could stop every one of them with rockets, the accumulation of nuclear explosions would be the final disaster.
Think about it. Or just read Norbert again. And yawn.
Now check the headline in the Times and Transcript for January 30. It seems a columnist for the Toronto Sun has said that women's soccer is not a real sport because, if it were, it wouldn't be having its world championship in Moncton. This is just childish. Nyah, Nyah. And the Moncton mayor responded- Nyah, Nhay. Then, worse, the Moncton Times made it their front page, banner headline story written by Brent Mazerolle himself with a full colour photo. And it's more childish than the original story in The Sun.
So, when does the Irving press start featuring a daily beauty in a bikini?
The editorial would get a laugh even at The Toronto Sun. It's theme is that the premier's speech on his plans for New Brunswick was inspiring - even though it said nothing. Right.
Norbert does his usual silly bit about how more efficient woodstoves would not add to climate change and how the Doomsday Clock warning that we are close to nuclear war are invented concerns. In short, climate change isn't happening, and there will never be a nuclear war. In fact, at the bottom of his fourth column, he says that scientists who developed the idea of the Doomsday Clock are the same ones who invented climate change just so they could scare people.
Norbert, that is so silly, so ignorant, so illogical you really should be writing for The Sun. (or maybe posing in a bikini). For example, the Chicago scientists who invented the Doomsday Clock were most of them dead by the time climate change became an issue. And if you have some evidence that the same people were behind both concerns, I should be fascinated to see it.
However, your column should have a bigger audience so that morons, bigots and louts can be reassured that there is no climate change, and nuclear weapons don't exist.
I really don't understand how Justin Ryan can say so little in his columns. It's supposed to be about immigrants who settle in Moncton. But it tell us almost nothing. For example, there's a one-liner that Canadian schools teach different subjects, and Canadian teachers have different expectations from those in their homelands. That's intriguing. But it tells us nothing. How are they different? How does that affect the students?
In general, here are two pages where we should see serious discussion of Gallant's plans, and of the state of the economy. But we don't get either.
Why are we in economic trouble? Let's get past this childish babble about how we're spoiling ourselves with social services. Certainly, we should talk about our spending. But that talk is meaningless unless you also talk about our revenues. ALL of our revenues. And let's take a little look at the history of this.
In the Second World War, the Canadian government took full control of the Canadian economy. And it worked well. There was little inflation. Fundamental needs were protected for all of us. And much of that government control remained into the 50s and 60s. It was a time when Canadians, perhaps for the first time ever, could look forward to the economic future. Then we got the Ronald Reagan-Brian Mulroney-Margaret Thatcher revolutions.
Governments pretty much gave up on running the economy. The absurd theory that if you make the rich richer, we will all get richer took over. Control on big business were eased, in fact, largely dropped. Free trade gave big business the opportunity to abandon any responsibility to any people of any nation. And guess what?
From that time, the rich kept getting richer while the poor got poorer. That's the period in which the rich awarded themselves lavish salaries while steadily paying less in salaries and less in taxes. That's when we started hearing about a wage gap.
That was also the time of the spread of 'think tanks' to spread the propaganda of the rich. It was the time of the consolidation of almost all news media in the hands of a few billionaires. It was a time of the acceleration of bribery by the rich to get control of government. By now, it is so blatant that no serious scholar considers the US, for example, to be a democracy. (Or New Brunswick).
Nor does it ever stop. There is never a time when the very rich have enough. There will never be a time when we are told that 90% of us have too little.
That is what lies behind American military activity. (In fact, American military activity, like British, French, German, etc. has always been based on serving the interests of the rich.)
This greed is why all nations over the centuries have looked to religion to set limits on the greed - and on suffering and violence it creates. That's why our Faith Page now lists pancake breakfasts rather than discussion of the morality of those people who control our lives. And, more significantly, that's why we get the book Over the Cliff? which suggest solutions that are not solutions but the cause of the problem in the first place.
Typically, what we hear are the solutions the rich want to hear. But the reason we are in trouble is that we have been supporting the very rich in the style they like. We support the rich by lowering their taxes. (And, please, don't tell me the solution is simply to raise their taxes. The reality is that most of their money is hidden safely away from the tax collector.) The next edition of Over the Cliff? could do well to take a look at how much our corporate wealthy cost us - because that's where the solution is.
Reagan, Mulroney, Thatcher and fellow-travellers led a revolution. And we are not paying the price for it.
And that is why the whole, strategic face of the world is changing as the majority of people around the world are framing new alliances to stop us. But the US and its allies cannot fight so many people with just conventional weapons. They will have to use nuclear weapons.
And that, dear Norbert, is why you might want to start worrying.
__________________________________________________________________________
The Jan 31 paper doesn't reach the high standards set by Jan.30.
Most disturbing was a story on A7, "J.D.Irving, Limited Reading is Wild Readers of the Week".
My first thought was for the ego of a man who must have his name on everything. But there's a bigger problem here.
We are a society, Mr. Irving, not a herd of cattle. We, as a society, should be deciding how much money our schools should get, and what it should be for. Sponsoring a reading event sounds very nice. But the effect of it is to give people like you another toehold on our schools. And you, with your buddies at AIMS, have been making it clear that people like you should be running the schools - preferably for profit.
Money does not give you the right to do that. In a democracy, you have the same right as the rest of us in these matters - the right of one vote. May I suggest, then, you skip the philanthropist crap and, if you really want to help, pay decent taxes like the rest of us have to.
Bill Belliveau and Norbert once again wet their pants over Gallant's brilliant speech that said nothing. The rest of the editorial and op ed pages is pretty feeble stuff, with even Gwynne Dyer being pretty vague.
______________________________________________________________________________
In NewsToday, there's a bizarre story about our troops engaged in fighting in Iraq. The chief of defence staff supports the government position that we are not in a war, that our military people are simply defending themselves. Well, don't blame him. He has to follow the government line. But be patient, and read the whole story. It's a pretty good outline of what is happening. And Harper has cancelled one of the fundamental rights of a free country.
Can we at least hope for some informed speculation on why Harper has gone to war while saying he isn't?
I hadn't seen any - but here are some suggestions.
1. There are no votes to be won by declaring war - and the election is nigh.
2.Neither he nor Canada stands to gain anything from this war and, despite his frequently tough talk, Harper has been generally leery of war. And the only beneficiaries of the current war will be American oil billionaires. Their greed was behind the first Iraq war which is what eventually sent recruits to 'extremist' Islamic groups. The whole crisis is not a war between Islam and Chritianity. It's a war between the greed of American capitalism and just about everybody else.
Harper has no quarrel with greed. But he's reluctant to get involved unless there is a gain for Canadian capitalists.
Again, there is almost no foreign news. The biggest story, B6, is that Mitt Romney is not going to run for president. (Two stories, actually). Who could possibly care?
The most frightening story is on B3 "CSIS to get more anti-terror powers". Our spy agency will be getting the power to arbitrarily detain suspected terrorists, or "might be" terrorists, The RCMP will have the power to remove terrorist sites from the web. Sounds reasonable? Well, apart from dumping "innocent until proven guilty", there's another question. What is a terrorist? Is a shale gas protestor a terrorist? (Yes. They are already listed as such.) Is anybody who opposes Harper a terrorist? Quite possibly so. Under our milder laws, Tommy Douglas. the Baptist clergman who introduced medicare was under survellance as a danger to Canada.
Has Mr. Irving been under surveillance by CSIS? I doubt it. It's more likely that he reports to it.
The Faith Page, C6, has a long list of church activities, all of them designed to reduce the brain to putty. The sermonette is worse.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Generally, the most worrying thing is we are getting very, very limited information about the extent to which the world is turning away from us, and forming new trade groups and alliances to get away from the greed of western capitalism. There are now so many against us that they cannot be fought with conventional weapons. (For that matter, the US record of fighting small and poor nations with conventional weapons has not been brilliant.) And, in the alliances on the other side, there are lots of nuclear weapons. Even if the US could stop every one of them with rockets, the accumulation of nuclear explosions would be the final disaster.
Think about it. Or just read Norbert again. And yawn.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment