...the Irving press does not have what are surely the two, biggest stories of the day. The first one is a story from a source I would have normally have treated with caution but for the fact that large parts of it are already available and have been for months. Australia is planning to carry out provocative naval exercises near waters that China claims (the South China Sea). No, Australia is not planning to invade China. But it is certainly setting up the conditions for an 'incident' which could provoke a war between the US and China, a war that would almost certainly turn nuclear. And Australia certainly is doing this with the full knowledge and perhaps the encouragement of the White House.
Even if such a war didn't go nuclear (though I'm sure it would), even a conventional war would cause tremendous loss of life on both sides. And for reasons that are purely economic. That's a reason why I often suggest that our economic leadership is thoroughly without morality - and it has taken control of our political leadership, too.
Check out - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42030.htm
For the other story is one the Irving press could have checked just by looking on the web at 'US-Vietnam Relations 2014'. So, you take a look at that site. The US has for some years, been making nice to Vietnam. Perhaps you are old enough to remember when Vietnam was evil, when 60,000 brave, young American gave their lives because Vietnam was so evil it had to be destroyed It was so evil it was necessary to kill anywhere from 2 to 5 million of them, largely women, children, elderly....even using chemical weapons like agent orange, or the horror of burning people alive with napalm. Vietnam had to fight long years against 'Christian' France and the US. It was a war in which American troops routinely killed every man, woman and child in sight - just as the French had earlier. It was a war that killed so many, nobody will ever know the real number.
Now the US and Vietnam are becoming friends. And the US is sending aid to Vietnam. How nice! Apparently, the Vietnamese have all been converted, and aren't evil any more.
No. Remember. There are no such things as friends between countries. All countries act in their own interests or, more accurately, in the interests of their ruling class.
Vietnam is making nice with the US because it fears (correctly) that China wants to dominate its economy. And Vietnam sits right on the South China Sea that China is claiming as its own. It desperately needs an ally. It would make nice with Satan, if necessary. And that's what it has done.
The US or, more correctly, the billionaires who rule it, want Vietnam because they want military and economic domination over China. To do that, they need countries in the region on their side to provide bases so they can conquer China, and make it a vast and rich (for them) colony.
It has been 70 years since World War Two ended. We knew then that, for everybody's sake, we had to stop future wars or risk destroying all of us. And we didn't do a thing. The US, in particular has fought non-stop wars and killings for most of those 70 years, and all them to make multi-billionaires multi-multi-billionaires. In the process, China and Russia have both adopted our twisted version of capitalism, a version that gives real power to quite insane, immoral and murderous people. (You may know some.)
And now, the search for 'friends' has become quite wild. I wouldn't put any bets who will be on what side a year from now. Forget good guys and bad guys. There are only bad guys and their victims.
These are important times, Mr. Irving. Could you break open your piggy bank and spend a little bit to tell us about it?
____________________________________________________________________________
The front page of the Tand T has yet another, sentimental story about the killing of 3 police a year ago. Tomorrow is the anniversary of that terrible day. I suspect we might get a whole newspaper reliving that day, though the theme has really ceased to be about those who were killed. No. It's become the saga of the greatness of the courage of the people of Moncton. Look, all you editors, sentiment is worthy. But stories and columns that blather nothing but mush are of no help to anybody. If you want to be of help, you should be asking the hard questions you didn't ask a year ago, either.
1. Why was it legal for Bourgue to buy such rifles as he had? How many such rifles are there in this province which, I'm sure, has more potential killers in it? Why was it possible for a store to sell that sort of weapon? Why has the Irving press been carrying ads for such a store? What can we do about it?
2. Who sent those police to face a semi-automatic rifle when they had only pistols? Was no rifle available at all at the station? Why not? How far up the chain of command to we need to go on this?
3.And this can be related to the question of what incompetent ass sent police in camouflage outfits and combat rifles to confront a crowd of people, almost all of whom were quite peaceful?
It's all quite proper to mourn and even to babble as if this were a massive trial that all Moncton suffered. But news people should also be asking why this happened. And we should be getting information on why it happened.
But no, we get big stories on barbershop singers, A news that is really a free ad for the casino. A Shriner's parade. A campaign that raised money. Doesn't anybody at Irving press know what news is? Word is that VP Jamie Irving has a degree in journalism. He must have got it from a mail-order school.
____________________________________________________________________________
The editorial is a long one praising a speech by a US ambassador here in Moncton. Come on. He's an ambassador. It's his job to make happy speeches. It doesn't really mean a damn thing.
Norbert has yet another nothing column criticizing the Liberals. I don't like the Liberals, either, Norbert. But you're supposed to analyze what they're doing, what they should be doing, and why they aren't. All you do is say, "They're Yuckie-Poo."
Cormier has nothing useful to say about school dress codes. Alec Bruce is back to shilling for shale gas. Generally, his approach is we should develop it even if it means it kills every living thing in the province. I mean, you know, people need gasoline for their cars. Mr. Bruce, would it be possible to take a somewhat more analytical approach? After all, if it turns out that there are real dangers, then we can't go back to square one. Can we? No. Then, if it gets bad enough, our cars will just have to sit there with nobody to drive them. (Mind you; that might attract tourists).
The bottom column is by a stooge for the Fraser Institute, a so-called think tank for fools and liars. All of this is pure nonsense. I'll go into detail if somebody asks me. But this column is just trash that invents categories of people that are largely myth or ignorance. He also invents a history of the last 70 years that is either wrong or missing all the important parts.
What a sloppy, lazy, cheaply run newspaper!
And speaking of cheap, this is the third day in which my building has had no newspaper delivery at all. In fact, for the last five months when we have received it, it's been hours too late. The Irvings couldn't properly run a weed farm.
____________________________________________________________________
There's very little of Canada in Canada&World. And almost nothing about World. One story worth looking at is "UNB researchers uncover troubling history of anti-gay purge in Canadian military",
That's not at all surprising. Nor has it been surprising to read recently of mistreatment of women in the military.
Let's cut out all the rah-rah about war. The purpose of war is to kill. Most people don't like to kill. And soldiers start off like most people. They think killing is hateful. They see the enemy as humans just like themselves. History is full of wars between people like that who didn't want to kill. That's one reason so many of the military come to suffer PTSD. That resistance to killing, even when under fire, is why it can take anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 shots to kill one enemy soldier.
Check any War of 1812 battlefield, a period when the two sides stood almost within talking distance of each other. Then get the count of dead from all the shots that were fired at such close range. And it seems not possible that so few were killed. But relatively few were killed. Ever since World War Two the various militaries have been working on this problem.
The answer? They have to be trained to hate, to have contempt for the enemy, to feel racially superior. They have to go through what nations go through to justify invading other nations. News media and politicians reinforce that sense of hatred and superiority so that civilians, too, accept the killing as necessary. Harper has made a specialty of it. And I often refer to the use of loaded words in our news media to encourage hatred. A Muslim who kills someone is a terrorist. George Bush set up the mass murder of at least a million Iraqis, including very large numbers of women and children. I've never seen our news media refer to him or Tony Blair as terrorists - or even militants.
We have to realize that we have been programmed to hate, to feel superior (and our churches have learned to keep their mouths shut while all this is going on.)
People who joined our military were taught to hate gays. They were also taught to have contempt for women. That was part of the process of making them hate an enemy, and making them feel morally and racially superior. The same is true for almost every military in the world. We have to destroy the sense of decency and morality of our own children to make them effective fighters. That's why we should make sure that any war we fight is one we have to fight, and not just another one to make the rich richer.
On November 11, remember those who died. But forget the myth that there was something glorious about it. Remember. Remember as we should have remembered before we sent fighter-bombers to Iraq and Syria.
______________________________________________________________________________
The brightest spot in an otherwise miserable paper is on C3, a column by student columnist Tess Allen. It's on dress codes in school and how we raise children to be sexist.( I agree with only half of what she says.). But this column is a thought-provoking one It's intelligent; and it's well written. It's worth taking the time to read and thoughtful enough to discuss. Good stuff.
________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion? There are two, major things wrong with the Irving press.
1. It is owned by people who use simply as propaganda and as a way to take even more money from us. In short, it is run as a business. But a newspaper is not just a business.
2. To squeeze every dollar out in the best, business way, they go cheap on staff. They don't have nearly enough reporters to do the digging that gets to the real news. Worse, they overwork and misuse reporters and staff so they can present columns that don't cost the Irvings anything. They also spend almost nothing on the very good columnists, like Gwynne Dyer who are used by newspapers worth reading. Instead, they get "think-tank" hacks who come cheap and even free.
And it really has become very much worse in recent months. Just shows you. I wouldn't have though it possible for it to get worse.
Even if such a war didn't go nuclear (though I'm sure it would), even a conventional war would cause tremendous loss of life on both sides. And for reasons that are purely economic. That's a reason why I often suggest that our economic leadership is thoroughly without morality - and it has taken control of our political leadership, too.
Check out - http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article42030.htm
For the other story is one the Irving press could have checked just by looking on the web at 'US-Vietnam Relations 2014'. So, you take a look at that site. The US has for some years, been making nice to Vietnam. Perhaps you are old enough to remember when Vietnam was evil, when 60,000 brave, young American gave their lives because Vietnam was so evil it had to be destroyed It was so evil it was necessary to kill anywhere from 2 to 5 million of them, largely women, children, elderly....even using chemical weapons like agent orange, or the horror of burning people alive with napalm. Vietnam had to fight long years against 'Christian' France and the US. It was a war in which American troops routinely killed every man, woman and child in sight - just as the French had earlier. It was a war that killed so many, nobody will ever know the real number.
Now the US and Vietnam are becoming friends. And the US is sending aid to Vietnam. How nice! Apparently, the Vietnamese have all been converted, and aren't evil any more.
No. Remember. There are no such things as friends between countries. All countries act in their own interests or, more accurately, in the interests of their ruling class.
Vietnam is making nice with the US because it fears (correctly) that China wants to dominate its economy. And Vietnam sits right on the South China Sea that China is claiming as its own. It desperately needs an ally. It would make nice with Satan, if necessary. And that's what it has done.
The US or, more correctly, the billionaires who rule it, want Vietnam because they want military and economic domination over China. To do that, they need countries in the region on their side to provide bases so they can conquer China, and make it a vast and rich (for them) colony.
It has been 70 years since World War Two ended. We knew then that, for everybody's sake, we had to stop future wars or risk destroying all of us. And we didn't do a thing. The US, in particular has fought non-stop wars and killings for most of those 70 years, and all them to make multi-billionaires multi-multi-billionaires. In the process, China and Russia have both adopted our twisted version of capitalism, a version that gives real power to quite insane, immoral and murderous people. (You may know some.)
And now, the search for 'friends' has become quite wild. I wouldn't put any bets who will be on what side a year from now. Forget good guys and bad guys. There are only bad guys and their victims.
These are important times, Mr. Irving. Could you break open your piggy bank and spend a little bit to tell us about it?
____________________________________________________________________________
The front page of the Tand T has yet another, sentimental story about the killing of 3 police a year ago. Tomorrow is the anniversary of that terrible day. I suspect we might get a whole newspaper reliving that day, though the theme has really ceased to be about those who were killed. No. It's become the saga of the greatness of the courage of the people of Moncton. Look, all you editors, sentiment is worthy. But stories and columns that blather nothing but mush are of no help to anybody. If you want to be of help, you should be asking the hard questions you didn't ask a year ago, either.
1. Why was it legal for Bourgue to buy such rifles as he had? How many such rifles are there in this province which, I'm sure, has more potential killers in it? Why was it possible for a store to sell that sort of weapon? Why has the Irving press been carrying ads for such a store? What can we do about it?
2. Who sent those police to face a semi-automatic rifle when they had only pistols? Was no rifle available at all at the station? Why not? How far up the chain of command to we need to go on this?
3.And this can be related to the question of what incompetent ass sent police in camouflage outfits and combat rifles to confront a crowd of people, almost all of whom were quite peaceful?
It's all quite proper to mourn and even to babble as if this were a massive trial that all Moncton suffered. But news people should also be asking why this happened. And we should be getting information on why it happened.
But no, we get big stories on barbershop singers, A news that is really a free ad for the casino. A Shriner's parade. A campaign that raised money. Doesn't anybody at Irving press know what news is? Word is that VP Jamie Irving has a degree in journalism. He must have got it from a mail-order school.
____________________________________________________________________________
The editorial is a long one praising a speech by a US ambassador here in Moncton. Come on. He's an ambassador. It's his job to make happy speeches. It doesn't really mean a damn thing.
Norbert has yet another nothing column criticizing the Liberals. I don't like the Liberals, either, Norbert. But you're supposed to analyze what they're doing, what they should be doing, and why they aren't. All you do is say, "They're Yuckie-Poo."
Cormier has nothing useful to say about school dress codes. Alec Bruce is back to shilling for shale gas. Generally, his approach is we should develop it even if it means it kills every living thing in the province. I mean, you know, people need gasoline for their cars. Mr. Bruce, would it be possible to take a somewhat more analytical approach? After all, if it turns out that there are real dangers, then we can't go back to square one. Can we? No. Then, if it gets bad enough, our cars will just have to sit there with nobody to drive them. (Mind you; that might attract tourists).
The bottom column is by a stooge for the Fraser Institute, a so-called think tank for fools and liars. All of this is pure nonsense. I'll go into detail if somebody asks me. But this column is just trash that invents categories of people that are largely myth or ignorance. He also invents a history of the last 70 years that is either wrong or missing all the important parts.
What a sloppy, lazy, cheaply run newspaper!
And speaking of cheap, this is the third day in which my building has had no newspaper delivery at all. In fact, for the last five months when we have received it, it's been hours too late. The Irvings couldn't properly run a weed farm.
____________________________________________________________________
There's very little of Canada in Canada&World. And almost nothing about World. One story worth looking at is "UNB researchers uncover troubling history of anti-gay purge in Canadian military",
That's not at all surprising. Nor has it been surprising to read recently of mistreatment of women in the military.
Let's cut out all the rah-rah about war. The purpose of war is to kill. Most people don't like to kill. And soldiers start off like most people. They think killing is hateful. They see the enemy as humans just like themselves. History is full of wars between people like that who didn't want to kill. That's one reason so many of the military come to suffer PTSD. That resistance to killing, even when under fire, is why it can take anywhere from 20,000 to 60,000 shots to kill one enemy soldier.
Check any War of 1812 battlefield, a period when the two sides stood almost within talking distance of each other. Then get the count of dead from all the shots that were fired at such close range. And it seems not possible that so few were killed. But relatively few were killed. Ever since World War Two the various militaries have been working on this problem.
The answer? They have to be trained to hate, to have contempt for the enemy, to feel racially superior. They have to go through what nations go through to justify invading other nations. News media and politicians reinforce that sense of hatred and superiority so that civilians, too, accept the killing as necessary. Harper has made a specialty of it. And I often refer to the use of loaded words in our news media to encourage hatred. A Muslim who kills someone is a terrorist. George Bush set up the mass murder of at least a million Iraqis, including very large numbers of women and children. I've never seen our news media refer to him or Tony Blair as terrorists - or even militants.
We have to realize that we have been programmed to hate, to feel superior (and our churches have learned to keep their mouths shut while all this is going on.)
People who joined our military were taught to hate gays. They were also taught to have contempt for women. That was part of the process of making them hate an enemy, and making them feel morally and racially superior. The same is true for almost every military in the world. We have to destroy the sense of decency and morality of our own children to make them effective fighters. That's why we should make sure that any war we fight is one we have to fight, and not just another one to make the rich richer.
On November 11, remember those who died. But forget the myth that there was something glorious about it. Remember. Remember as we should have remembered before we sent fighter-bombers to Iraq and Syria.
______________________________________________________________________________
The brightest spot in an otherwise miserable paper is on C3, a column by student columnist Tess Allen. It's on dress codes in school and how we raise children to be sexist.( I agree with only half of what she says.). But this column is a thought-provoking one It's intelligent; and it's well written. It's worth taking the time to read and thoughtful enough to discuss. Good stuff.
________________________________________________________________________________
Conclusion? There are two, major things wrong with the Irving press.
1. It is owned by people who use simply as propaganda and as a way to take even more money from us. In short, it is run as a business. But a newspaper is not just a business.
2. To squeeze every dollar out in the best, business way, they go cheap on staff. They don't have nearly enough reporters to do the digging that gets to the real news. Worse, they overwork and misuse reporters and staff so they can present columns that don't cost the Irvings anything. They also spend almost nothing on the very good columnists, like Gwynne Dyer who are used by newspapers worth reading. Instead, they get "think-tank" hacks who come cheap and even free.
And it really has become very much worse in recent months. Just shows you. I wouldn't have though it possible for it to get worse.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment