A guest piece
Submitted by William Hayes:
The Oct 1st issue of the Globe & Mail contained an opinion piece by historian Michael Bliss claiming “Conservatives have seized the central ground of the political spectrum.” Here’s a link:
Nonsense! No political party pursuing policies such as those noted below occupies the centre of Canadian political understanding:
· blocks progress in reaching international agreement on how to deal with climate change;
· refuses to ratify the Cluster Munitions Treaty;
· inhibits the export of inexpensive HIV/AIDS drugs to suffering 3rd world peoples;
· and, most recently, characterizes women as a “left-wing fringe group”.
We Canadians have a better understanding of the world and our place in it than these shameful Conservative policies.
29 comments:
"...the centre of Canadian political understanding"
How do you ascertain which given policy reflects that centre?
Thanks for highlighting this issue. Many pieces appearing in the G&M lately have similar curious spins. There is speculation, ( by some ) in the Globe blogs as to why this is happening . Another article today, quoting a suspicious poll, says women are abandoning Iggy in large numbers because they don't trust him. Harper at the keyboard, however, is lauded as a masterstroke. This is not the level of journalism we're used to reading in the G&M.
I thought I noticed this trend but worried it might be my naturally suspicious view of media like the Globe. Which blogs? I want to read them.
Given the long, slow drift to the Right all across North America, I'm not sure this column isn't correct. It's a horrifying prospect though, to think Canadians have been fooled into believing that Harper and his gang of thugs are in the political centre.
It seems to me that we're veering closer and closer to what seems almost a police state, and I will cite the following examples:
The continuing stupid war against drugs, particularly marijuana, that has been stepped up under the Tories. The recent photo in our local paper of cops wearing camoflauge gear, complete with painted faces, to raid pot growers' fields, would have been a good comedy skit except it's not so funny when it's real.
How many Canadians have had their lives ruined just for smoking a little weed? There are literally hundreds of thousands of us who quietly have a puff in our own homes and have never ever been in trouble with the law, but are too frightened to admit it and stand up for change. With good reason, now that Harper has increased the penalties.
Next, the revelations that Crown Attorneys in Ontario routinely have police checks done on prospective jurors that go well beyond what is permissable, then don't tell the Defence. Turns out this dates back to the Harris days; what a surprise! It won't stop either, it will just go deeper under the radar as justice becomes increasingly hard to procure unless you have the dollars to buy it.
And now, let us all bow our heads and pray to the god of conformity and mediocrity who protects us from the evils of critical thinking and imagination.
Oops, better be careful or people will think this is from Wally!
Good work William, let's see more!
Canada is ranked 4th in the world for quality of living. The US is 13th. With Harper's love of the good ole USofA how long will it take him to drive us down to that number. The tory's slogan should be: "Leading the race to the bottom!"
"This is not the level of journalism we're used to reading in the G&M." says Anon.
Yer kiddin', right? You've never read the singularly appalling and lurid, wretch inducing Agony Aunt crap of Christie Blatchford?
The Globe is gone, pal. Gone like a cool intelectual breeze. The knuckle draggers are in charge now. No more Jan Wong. No more Heather Mallick. No more John Barber. No more "Because Perspective Is Everything." Just Christie Blatchford "Telling It Like It Is"
Anon, the G&M bills itself as Canada's newspaper, and for lack of competition, it probably is. So we have every right to question it's integrity when it comes to questions of bias in reporting . It's fast becoming more MSM in it's obvious preferences, and it's only sites like Ben's that give forums to voice concerns. William is bang on with this piece. Anybody can log onto the G&M site to participate in the blogs .
Is Christie the Globe's version of Rosie DiManno or vice versa? I can never tell.
It will be interesting to see how the The Globe and Mail and The Star report the Ontario Auditor General’s criticisms of eHealth spending practices. My sadness about the events of this matter is three-fold:
(1) The mismanagement of some funding, misdirected for the gain of some public officials and some private companies, that might have been used for the common good elsewhere;
(2) The loss of time, during which more progress might have been made towards the important goal of creating a province-wide scheme for electronic health records, which will benefit all of us;
(3) The discredit to the notion that government can act efficiently and effectively for our common good, which is central to our understanding of what democracy is all about.
Of these three, the last is of most concern to me. Conservatives, who have neither an interest in nor an intention of supporting effective government action for public health, will attempt to use the events for their own private purpose, which amounts to little short of the devolution of government itself. We others must be vigilant not only by demanding that Health Ministry spending practices change, but also by rejecting the conservative notion that the system itself stinks.
William, the " system " will always carry a certain odour about it as long as humans are involved. And this fallibility is the reason that the vigilance of an informed citizery is so critical. If government, ( with it's countless exigencies ), is demeaned to such a extent that the public simply walks away holding it's nose, then the Reformers have won. I'm not sure what the prize will look like, but Canada will be a much smaller place, indeed.
Having met Christie Blatchford a few times, and Rosie Dimanno not at all, unfortunately, I assert that these two broads give good pen -- far better than the politically-correct feminist hyenas and their bloated bland glands plugged with lumps of self-righteousness.
(Holy poop, Scatman, Wally Keeler really really does hate women and beats them up in back alleys.)
As I can see, the one individual posing as assorted anonymous dingbats, have no clue about what the political centre and how any given policy reflects that so-called centre.
More government, bigger government, or as one loudmouth called, more power to to The State.
Right, more power to screw it up more.
Who determines what is for the "common good." Well, for starters, anything that remotely smells of conservativeness, is never for the common good -- as defined by those who create minimal amounts of wealth for the common good.
Interestingly, it is usual that those who have never created a job for others, are inclined to denigrate and stomp their petty feet to take away the wealth of those who created it and created jobs in the process.
It is wrong to state that all the comments attributed to anonymous are written by 1 individual. I always post as anonymous and I often see other posts that I know are not mine appearing under that label.
Perhaps paranoia, perhaps a fishing expedition. But incorrect.
I personally think it does not matter much who posts. What matters most is what the person posts. I agree or disagree with the idea. It would be dumb to disagree if a good idea were written just because you do not like or usually disagree with the person expressing it.
So, why would we need to figure out if it is one person or a number of people?
You see, Anonymous 12th Poster,
Wally need to know who the posters are so he can more finely tune his personal attacks. It's just no fun for him attacking people willy nilly.
It's not about the ideas or positions being advanced - it's about his own perceived right to crap all over anyone who doesn't share his ludicrous right wing idealogy. And he does love being the centre of attention.
I assert that it is one pertson who posts under all the assorted anonymouses. That person continues to deny it.
as far as the personal accusation that I crap all over everyone who doesn't agree, I'm used to the slanderous abuse I receive from the self-righteous who make up untruths about me and post them to the world -- ie. that I am a woman-hater and likely to beat up women in back alleys
I don't spread unfounded slanderous allegations about someone in thje public domain -- only individuals without ethics or morals does that. Usually those who crap all over individuals (Blatchford, Dimanno) for they don't agree with their opinion.
I was hoping to be anonymous dingbat #1, but it looks like I'll have settle for #3.
I think we should all just keep our shticks on the ice.
That's the point. You assert it is one person. Others assert they know for a fact that it is not but most seem to agree this doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the ideas.
If I had been accused --by that unspecified person or people-- of being "a woman-hater and likely to beat up women in back alleys" I don't think I would repeat it, which you seem to do frequently. I would never have known that had been said about you except for you repeating it over and over.
This seems weird to me. You seem to enjoy being attacked and being thought of in a negative light. I can't relate to that. I prefer a positive exchange of ideas but I do not shy away if it gets lively with significant disagreement in there. I do shy away when it becomes an ad hominem exchange, putting personal insult before the exchange of ideas. And that's whether it is Wally being insulted or Wally doing the insulting.
There's no difference amongst dingbats.
Did everyone read my woman-hating letter-to-the-editor in today's Northumberland Today?
Wally, do you mean the patronising, look-at-me letter chastising women for their alleged failure to honour their sisters' contributions?
The one where you chided women for going in a different direction with a statue to commemmorate abuse victims than what you endorse, a tribute to a long dead writer and actor?
Well sir, thanks alot for your gratuitous advice, but we ladies can figure these things out for ourselves. Now go write a poem or something and leave us alone.
Let's talk " turkey ", William. According to a lengthy article by Margaret Webb in today's ( Sat, Star ), the organic turkey producer may go the way of the dodo, in favour of large " industrial agriculture " which relies on processed feed, chemicals and antibiotics in confined " growing " spaces to produce a " cheaper bird ". For those who are apprehensive about these kinds of developments remember the claim that " Economies of scale are economies of disaster " from David Waltner-Toews, author of Food,Sex,and Salmonella : Why Our Food is Making Us Sick, and try to enjoy your Thanksgiving dinner.
Two questions:
(1) Are their ways to know just what the phrase ”the centre of Canadian political understanding” means? Yes, there are. See, for example, the writings of these Canadians, famous in the field of public opinion research:
Michael Adams, in his book Fire and Ice
Angus Reid, in his book Shakedown
(2) Are there forms of capital that are equally as important as financial capital? Yes, there are. See, for example, material produced by the initiative of the Saguaro Seminar: Civic Engagement in America at Harvard University, at this website:
BetterTogether
These two questions and their answers are related to the notion of the common good, which some of us realize is central to democracy.
“Wally, do you mean the patronising, look-at-me letter chastising women for their alleged failure to honour their sisters' contributions?”
Oh cut the feminist jargon, ‘sisters’ and all of the clone drone hand-me-down language. The failure is not ‘alleged’; it’s real. If you think otherwise, and you do, then please enlighten me as to what the ‘sisters’ in Cobourg have done to honour Susanna Moodie, or Marie Dressler. And I am talking about ‘sisters’ (as you use the term), not a mixed gender org promoting Dressler’s films.
BTW, three of your 'sisters' (I refer to them as individual women) came to me in the Dutch Oven yesterday to thank me for writing the letter, and in one case, learned about Moodie's anti-slavery activities.
“The one where you chided women for going in a different direction with a statue to commemmorate abuse victims than what you endorse, a tribute to a long dead writer and actor?”
The equivalent comment about “dead white writers” which is another jargonista clone from the boring sisterhood-lums. Yes, I admire a woman who stood up against the ‘dead white men’ of the day to oppose slavery, who illuminated the living conditions in the bush on the edge of this town with a literary panache unmatched by the local sisterhood. Yes, I admire a woman who bravely went on her own career, in the days when women were expected to be barefoot and in the kitchen, in the days when women who were independent were looked down on and denigrated. You can dismiss them as nothing more than a “long dead writer and actor” unworthy of commemoration, but that is your failed karma, not mine.
“Well sir, thanks alot for your gratuitous advice, but we ladies can figure these things out for ourselves. Now go write a poem or something and leave us alone.”
I will not leave "us" alone. Sorry, you don’t get to boss me around and tell me what to do – I ain’t your spouse or anyone else’s spouse, so back off with the phoney “we ladies.” No one elected you to represent the ladies constituency, so don’t presume that your arrogance speaks on behalf of them all.
Come down from your high horse, and speak for yourself alone. That’s what I do. I don’t have the temerity or conceit to presume that I speak for 'us gentlemen.'
At any rate, I don’t go into the public domain accusing you of being a man-hater. I have better class than to do something like that.
"Now go write a poem or something" demanded The Boss.
Well I did, but on my own volition and inspiration, as has always been the case. It's a portion of poem that has already garnered two comments from women, not 'sisters', but individual women able to see the world outside the confinement of feminist jargon. It's about a undead white man closing in on his mortality.
It can been viewed and read HERE. Enjoy it, or in your case, deplore it.
Thank you William for your considered response to my initial query. I appreciate that you took the few days to research and post such a response.
Insofar as the common good is concerned, I am more inclined to individual rights rather than group rights. I am an autonomous individual who loaths the oppressive elements of the common good. (Note that I did not say: loathes the common good. It seems silly to have to point that out, but I would otherwise be slandered as a common-good-hater).
I did work on various committees of a housing co-op for 25plus years, so I am not adverse to participating in the common good.
The common good can be as detrimental to individuality as unbridled individualism can be detrimental to the common good.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I know, but personally I like Frances Gage's sculpture very much. I think the sheltering form is unique and well executed. I would like to see it on a raised base but that's a minor quibble.
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is a throwaway excuse of those with no artistic sensibility.
Who originally threw it away?
"Remember how in that communion only, beholding beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities (for he has hold not of an image but of a reality), and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may."
-Plato
What did Plato know?
Every squished up piece of clay by a child is "unique" and each mother aserts it is art. Przt.
"well-executed" is a weak criteria. I have seen rifs of similar art as a dime-a-dozen.
The sculptor herself said that her own piece "is for the birds."
I believe her.
It is low level creativity on the part of Ms Cage
"Beauty is bought by judgement of the eye."
William Shakespeare, Love's Labour's Lost
"Beauty in things exists merely in the mind which contemplates them."
David Hume's 'Essays, Moral and Political'
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and it may be necessary from time to time to give a stupid or misinformed beholder a black eye."
Miss Piggy
Post a Comment