Apparently the media has been running amock with the earth-shattering news that PM Harper may not have eaten the communion wafer given to him during Romeo Lablanc's funeral.
There are video's of the "incident" if you wish to watch it online.. I won't link it here, becuase, in my mind, it's all but irrelevant.
Except to this extent. One might recall how the media was quick to corner and harass Stockwell Day on his position on abortion, but felt comfortable in completely avoiding the same harrasment of that noted good Catholic boy from Shawinigin, Jean Chretien.
So, here's my question.
What are the odds that the so-called journalists and bloggers who are all a-Twitter over this, who are so concerned over the extent to which Stephen Harper shows respect for strict Roman Catholic doctrine.. will now walk over to speak to Michael Ignatieff, and say, "Hey Mike, we know that you're not a 'church guy', but certainly, you must be onside with Catholic ideology, unlike that ne'er do well, Stephen Harper.. so, tell us, what's your position on abortion?"
Yeah, I'm not holding my breath either.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Michael Jackson.. and the cult of the modestly talented..
Is it just me, or is there something peculiar about how the modestly talented seem to attract a cult-like following that doesn't seem to be attracted to the truly gifted?
I mean, let's be serious. Ignoring the likelihood, firstly, that Michael Jackson was a pedophile, beyond that, can we truly understand the fixation on his death? I mean, CNN might as well be called the "Michael News Network", with both CNN and Headline News basically reporting on nothing but Michael, 24/7.
His music was catchy dance music. I admit to owning a copy of Thriller. I also own a copy of "Relax" by Frankie Goes to Hollywood - pretty much just as deep. Yet, upon his death, we see a Country, and a world, in hysterics. For what?
By all reasonable standards, Michael Jackson couldn't hold a candle to John Lennon. Yet when John Lennon was murdered, while there was certainly a collective sadness for his passing - there was nothing approaching the insanity we see today.
And, if we look to similar cultural events, we have to look to, well, Elvis, Lady Di, Marilyn Monroe.. see a pattern?
To be truly "cult worthy", it appears, you have to have nothing exceeding modest contribution to the world. The real contributors, the people who truly transform the world, don't obtain that sort of frenzied attraction, and perhaps that's just as well. I'm certain John Lennon wouldn't feel the need to have JNN 24/7, his legacy is safe in his music, which will stand the test of time far beyond anything Michael Jackson did in his short, bizarre lifetime.
Monday, July 6, 2009
Another civilian shot dead after Barrie officers stabbed
A man was shot dead seconds after stabbing two Barrie police officers during a confrontation yesterday near the busy Bayfield Mall. Full story here.
This is why I oppose the use of tasers as a suspect control devise.
Were tasers used here, while the officers may not have been stabbed, quite certainly, the suspect would be alive and breathing today, getting ready to probably mount some sort of insanity defence, but most certainly would be sucking resources from the governement in terms of detention costs, legal defence costs, psychological treatment costs, and on and on..
Get rid of tasers. More out of control suspects will be shot and killed.
And I'm good with that.
This is why I oppose the use of tasers as a suspect control devise.
Were tasers used here, while the officers may not have been stabbed, quite certainly, the suspect would be alive and breathing today, getting ready to probably mount some sort of insanity defence, but most certainly would be sucking resources from the governement in terms of detention costs, legal defence costs, psychological treatment costs, and on and on..
Get rid of tasers. More out of control suspects will be shot and killed.
And I'm good with that.
Friday, July 3, 2009
The Edmonton Journal.. helping the cause of ignorance and stupidity.
Headline today in the Edmonton Journal:
Is climate change behind drought?
Read the article here.
Now, I don't want to get embroiled in the whole global warming/climate change debate. I happen to find irritation with both extremes, as do many reputable scientists as I have discovered, and sit somewhere between the doomsday chicken-little crowd, led by David Suzuki (he of the massive bus tour, spewing CO2 out as fast as he can) and the absolute denialists.
I think the science suggests it's possible that man is having an impact on climate, but technology is still too limited to say that with certainty, and if so, is seriously deficient in predicting the extent of that impact and the inter-relationship between other factors and climate change, including the changes in the sun itself. But that discussion is for another day.
What I found annoying in the extreme is the complete absence of anything in the article which could even remotely be taken as support for the premise of the article itself.
It's as if the writer just makes the assumption that "everyone knows" that there is a suggested connection between global warming and drought conditions.
Thus is the way of news, and, unfortunately, politics - which relies for the most part on the maintstream media doing it's job to assist the public in making decisions regarding matters of public interest.
Read the article.
It's pathetic.
Aside from any discussion of the issue of global warming, in just referencing the issue of drought generally, the article boldly instructs it's readers:
This is a newspaper, these people are supposed to be professionals - this is not some hamfisted, home-made blog site. And yet, one might ask, "Who are these experts who say "we haven't seen the worst of it?"
Go ahead, read the article - there are no named experts, no sources for the supposed "facts" being reported.
And the moronic effort at "reporting" continues.
Ok, again, what climatologists are you referring to, and what are the so-called "predictions" you are referencing. Surely, you can't just print an article, not an editorial opinion - but an article, making factual assertions without any attributed source, can you?
Apparently, in the Edmonton Journal, you can.
Shall we further examine the abundant folly apparent in the article?
Well, after making the defensible statement in the lead in to the article that, "Nobody can point with any authority to global warming as the culprit," only a few paragraphs later, the article apparently ignores it's own foundation, and goes on to assert that our farmers ARE victims of global warming.
Apparently, they forgot their first point - and, again, point to nothing, no source at all, to make the assertion that global warming has caused or even contributed to the drought.
This is what passes for journalism in this country. This is where so many citizens obtain their information, upon which they then make decisions at the ballot box.
Following up on yesterday's blog, this is a travesty. So many who read that article will make the logical assumption that it must have some factual basis to support it. And, even if you believe the connection posited by some extreme global waring advocates, it's not as if the article provides the source of such assertions to allow you to use the article in any defensible manner as something to truly bolster your cause.
Such is what passes for journalism today. Such is what forms the basis of our citizens "educated" decisions when they enter the voting booth.
As quoted from James Travers yesterday, in addition to the suggestion, "Don't just vote, think." I supposed we have to add to that, "Don't just read, read critically."
Is climate change behind drought?
Read the article here.
Now, I don't want to get embroiled in the whole global warming/climate change debate. I happen to find irritation with both extremes, as do many reputable scientists as I have discovered, and sit somewhere between the doomsday chicken-little crowd, led by David Suzuki (he of the massive bus tour, spewing CO2 out as fast as he can) and the absolute denialists.
I think the science suggests it's possible that man is having an impact on climate, but technology is still too limited to say that with certainty, and if so, is seriously deficient in predicting the extent of that impact and the inter-relationship between other factors and climate change, including the changes in the sun itself. But that discussion is for another day.
What I found annoying in the extreme is the complete absence of anything in the article which could even remotely be taken as support for the premise of the article itself.
It's as if the writer just makes the assumption that "everyone knows" that there is a suggested connection between global warming and drought conditions.
Thus is the way of news, and, unfortunately, politics - which relies for the most part on the maintstream media doing it's job to assist the public in making decisions regarding matters of public interest.
Read the article.
It's pathetic.
Aside from any discussion of the issue of global warming, in just referencing the issue of drought generally, the article boldly instructs it's readers:
..some weather experts say: "We haven't seen the worst of it."
This is a newspaper, these people are supposed to be professionals - this is not some hamfisted, home-made blog site. And yet, one might ask, "Who are these experts who say "we haven't seen the worst of it?"
Go ahead, read the article - there are no named experts, no sources for the supposed "facts" being reported.
And the moronic effort at "reporting" continues.
..there is a disturbing trend here that meshes with predictions from climatologists who fear we're headed into more and more climate trouble
Ok, again, what climatologists are you referring to, and what are the so-called "predictions" you are referencing. Surely, you can't just print an article, not an editorial opinion - but an article, making factual assertions without any attributed source, can you?
Apparently, in the Edmonton Journal, you can.
Shall we further examine the abundant folly apparent in the article?
Well, after making the defensible statement in the lead in to the article that, "Nobody can point with any authority to global warming as the culprit," only a few paragraphs later, the article apparently ignores it's own foundation, and goes on to assert that our farmers ARE victims of global warming.
Apparently, they forgot their first point - and, again, point to nothing, no source at all, to make the assertion that global warming has caused or even contributed to the drought.
This is what passes for journalism in this country. This is where so many citizens obtain their information, upon which they then make decisions at the ballot box.
Following up on yesterday's blog, this is a travesty. So many who read that article will make the logical assumption that it must have some factual basis to support it. And, even if you believe the connection posited by some extreme global waring advocates, it's not as if the article provides the source of such assertions to allow you to use the article in any defensible manner as something to truly bolster your cause.
Such is what passes for journalism today. Such is what forms the basis of our citizens "educated" decisions when they enter the voting booth.
As quoted from James Travers yesterday, in addition to the suggestion, "Don't just vote, think." I supposed we have to add to that, "Don't just read, read critically."
Thursday, July 2, 2009
James Travers, he of the MSM, get's it right.. Politics is Stupid and is Broken. So what's the answer?
James Travers, of the Toronto Star, of the hated "maintstream media", pens an article this morning on "Why Parliament Hill's Gong Show Goes On". I wish I had written it - see the article here.
It's harsh and it's utterly true. And, for the most part, it's non-partisan. Travers hits on how parliament, and politics, has gone sideways in this country, touching on hyperpartisanship, lack of accountability, and hidden amongs all of his points, is, in my opinion, the source of it all - our collective ignorance.
As he points out:
Personally, I think this is at the core. At a Canada Day barbecue yesterday, I was fortunate to have a conversation with a few people who I would consider relatively bright and relatively non-political. The discussion was with respect to teaching kids about how to use the internet, and the one comment was that the major task was to teach your kids "critical thinking". That not everything on Wikipedia is necessarily true, and you need to look into it deeper to understand the truth.
Swiffer floor cleaner will not kill your dog.
Seriously.
And while the discussion wasn't political, per se, we did talk about global warming, and how little we really know about it, even though a few of us, myself included, have spent a lot of time reading up and trying to understand it.
Such is the bane of our political situation - the collective ignorance of the electorate. And it's not just collective ignorance, but, it's laced with a healthy dose of arrogance and partisanship to boot. Think about that combination.
When most of us go to vote, the little conversation going on in the back of our brain is something like this:
"I haven't really taken the time to examine and understand the issues that are important to me in an objective way, but I don't need to. I am quite certain that I DO understand them, because, well, the people that think like me all agree, and my party also has nice little soundbites in their election propoganda that confirms my way of thinking, so, I know I'm right, and those bastards on the "other side", well, THEY are the ones who are truly ignorant."
This is how politics works, for the most part. We talk with like-minded people - the "Blogging Tories" all go to eachother's websites and rather than discuss things in a critical fashion, we collectively attack Liberals and their thoughts and ideas (see my own blog from time to time).. and, when we do stroll into Liberal blogs, we do so, not to engage, but to insult.
Not to be left out, the Liberals do much the same, and while they talk about ignorant and fascist conservatives, morons like Canadian Cynic through profanity and epithets around like confetti, making no real point whatseover, but, apparently, becoming very popular with their little crowd.
And no one learns anything.
No one stops to say, "maybe I'm wrong".
No one says, "What if my party is making a mistake?"
I've had a difficult year with my son, which many parents do with 17 year old's, and this past winter, as we were shopping for a graduation suit, he was having some stress about this and that, and I said to him, "90% of our problems usually are brought on by ourselves. Becuase of that, if you always think about what SOMEONE ELSE is doing wrong when you have a problem, you are likely missing 90% of the answer, and will probably continue to be unhappy. So, my advise, whenever you're upset, START by asking yourself, "what have I done to contribute to this situation?"
My son, I am proud to say, has had a tremendous turnaround in this past year, is entering University in the fall, and is working full-time helping younger children from difficult homes. He has since that conversation, parroted that piece of advice to me a few times, and, I think, he seems happier, and more centered. The credit goes to him - but, I think, he has taken to heart some of my advice, and I think it's done him well.
Such is, perhaps, the start of a solution to the partisan stupidity in Canada. Maybe, spend a little time, asking "what I am I doing wrong? What is "my party" doing wrong? Do I really understand the problem - and what are other politicians saying on this point - and do they have a point?
I'm far from perfect. But, I do spend some time on Liberal bloggers sites, and more than not, I discuss and debate, rather than attack and insult. Try it out. It doesn't hurt, and you might learn something.
It's harsh and it's utterly true. And, for the most part, it's non-partisan. Travers hits on how parliament, and politics, has gone sideways in this country, touching on hyperpartisanship, lack of accountability, and hidden amongs all of his points, is, in my opinion, the source of it all - our collective ignorance.
As he points out:
Happiness here is reducing complex problems to a bumper sticker. "Do the Crime, Do the Time" resonates, but it doesn't make Canadians safer any more than cutting the GST made us noticeably richer. Keep it simple, stupid, is the rule, not the exception. So stick this on your subsidized Suburban: "Don't just vote, think."
Personally, I think this is at the core. At a Canada Day barbecue yesterday, I was fortunate to have a conversation with a few people who I would consider relatively bright and relatively non-political. The discussion was with respect to teaching kids about how to use the internet, and the one comment was that the major task was to teach your kids "critical thinking". That not everything on Wikipedia is necessarily true, and you need to look into it deeper to understand the truth.
Swiffer floor cleaner will not kill your dog.
Seriously.
And while the discussion wasn't political, per se, we did talk about global warming, and how little we really know about it, even though a few of us, myself included, have spent a lot of time reading up and trying to understand it.
Such is the bane of our political situation - the collective ignorance of the electorate. And it's not just collective ignorance, but, it's laced with a healthy dose of arrogance and partisanship to boot. Think about that combination.
When most of us go to vote, the little conversation going on in the back of our brain is something like this:
"I haven't really taken the time to examine and understand the issues that are important to me in an objective way, but I don't need to. I am quite certain that I DO understand them, because, well, the people that think like me all agree, and my party also has nice little soundbites in their election propoganda that confirms my way of thinking, so, I know I'm right, and those bastards on the "other side", well, THEY are the ones who are truly ignorant."
This is how politics works, for the most part. We talk with like-minded people - the "Blogging Tories" all go to eachother's websites and rather than discuss things in a critical fashion, we collectively attack Liberals and their thoughts and ideas (see my own blog from time to time).. and, when we do stroll into Liberal blogs, we do so, not to engage, but to insult.
Not to be left out, the Liberals do much the same, and while they talk about ignorant and fascist conservatives, morons like Canadian Cynic through profanity and epithets around like confetti, making no real point whatseover, but, apparently, becoming very popular with their little crowd.
And no one learns anything.
No one stops to say, "maybe I'm wrong".
No one says, "What if my party is making a mistake?"
I've had a difficult year with my son, which many parents do with 17 year old's, and this past winter, as we were shopping for a graduation suit, he was having some stress about this and that, and I said to him, "90% of our problems usually are brought on by ourselves. Becuase of that, if you always think about what SOMEONE ELSE is doing wrong when you have a problem, you are likely missing 90% of the answer, and will probably continue to be unhappy. So, my advise, whenever you're upset, START by asking yourself, "what have I done to contribute to this situation?"
My son, I am proud to say, has had a tremendous turnaround in this past year, is entering University in the fall, and is working full-time helping younger children from difficult homes. He has since that conversation, parroted that piece of advice to me a few times, and, I think, he seems happier, and more centered. The credit goes to him - but, I think, he has taken to heart some of my advice, and I think it's done him well.
Such is, perhaps, the start of a solution to the partisan stupidity in Canada. Maybe, spend a little time, asking "what I am I doing wrong? What is "my party" doing wrong? Do I really understand the problem - and what are other politicians saying on this point - and do they have a point?
I'm far from perfect. But, I do spend some time on Liberal bloggers sites, and more than not, I discuss and debate, rather than attack and insult. Try it out. It doesn't hurt, and you might learn something.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Happy Canada Day!
This past year, I planted a new maple tree in my yard. It stands there, unassuming, buffeted by Southern Alberta winds, and while it bends, it doesn't break, and, I know, that slowly, and surely, over time, it will grow to be something strong and beautiful.
Such is my maple, such is my Country.
Happy Birthday, Canada!
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Did I say two weeks ago that Ignatieff had peaked?
So, Thursday CBC reports:
..my thoughts return to a brief comment I made on James Curran's site exactly one week earlier.
To use the words of Ignatieff's shnauzer, WK, guess the Tories are getting "less unpopular."
Indeed.
The federal Conservatives have pulled slightly ahead of the Liberals in voter support for the first time in months, according to a new EKOS poll released exclusively to CBC News after a week of political brinkmanship that saw Michael Ignatieff threaten to trigger a summer election.
Asked which party they would support if a federal election were held tomorrow, 34.8 per cent of respondents said they would cast their ballots for Stephen Harper's Tories, while 32.6 per cent opted for Ignatieff's Liberals, EKOS said.
..my thoughts return to a brief comment I made on James Curran's site exactly one week earlier.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The New Ekos Poll is Out
CBC has released its latest poll. Here's the full poll.
Posted by James Curran at 11:45 AM
Reactions:
1 comments:
roblaw said...One might opine that Michael has peaked too early.
To use the words of Ignatieff's shnauzer, WK, guess the Tories are getting "less unpopular."
Indeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
