The Week That Was.....
HELLO AGAIN!!! I think I have finally made a decision to go with a weekly format. This way, I only have to repeat myself once a week. So where to begin this week? Well, how about the small town of Port Perry, Ontario.
They could snap at any minute...
Anyone who reads the Sun (I do for a good laugh), should not have missed this column. In the April 2nd edition of the Sun, Mr. Mark Bonokoski (that pilar of wisdom) decided to cover the shooting of three dogs in this backwater town. The three dogs didn't just belong to anybody though. One of them belonged to a young lady who worked at a bar. The other two, to a man in jail for drug traficking. The young lady was adopting the other two from him, to give them a good home. But no worries, the dogs were supposedly shot for good reason. They apparently were not vicious, but according to the man who shot them, one William Cohoon, they're pit bulls, and are subject to change at any minute right? In all fairness, he did make a comment about them possibly bugging his livestock (nothing substatiated in the paper, but anything to make a case against firearm ownership would never be tolerated in the Sun.) I guess we can all be happy in one regards, at least she didn't have three kids right?
Harper's rough ride....
Seems that the Conservative wing of the media (aka most of it) feels that the Harper government is getting a rough ride of it lately, and apparently without good reason. This past week alone, there must have been two to three articles a DAY in the National Post proclaiming so. And let's not forget the Sun, 'No Free Ride For Harper' proclaimed one, 'The Media Doth Protest Too Much' another. With all the whining, one would assume that they were the epitome of Government Support pre-Harper. According to Alison Downie, it would not be so bad if the readers responded to it, but apparently the readers don't care. I would suggest three things to Alison. One, the Sun is not the only paper in town. Two, when those few of us who do read the Sun (even for a laugh) attempt to comment with a view that may not support Mr. Harper, somehow they never get published. Three, you should check the internet more often. The blogsphere is where it's at now. No politically slanted editors to pick through it, so the true point of the articles tends to get through. Believe me when I say that the media (aka the Star) is more than justified in picking apart Harper. That is not where it ends however. Lorrie Goldstein, another right wing hack, complains at length that the 'Liberal' media (supposedly an endless supply, yet once again, outside of the Star, can you name another?) does not treat the Liberals the same way as the Conservatives. Goldstein, of course, is no hypocrit. He has always treated the Liberals as well as he treats the Conservatives. Kinda funny that his latest tirade is titled the 'Hypogrits'. Perhaps Mr Goldstein, who represents everything I believe a Conservative is, should run for power. After all, double standards are his forte!!
Oh, Jonathan Kay....
From the National Post, Monday, April 3rd. 'Censorship in the name of human rights'. The name caught my eye, so I thought I'd give it a read. While I'll be the first to agree that the whole Politically Correct movement has gone haywire, and can now be used to justify about anything, it seems Mr Kay is either completely dishonest, and hopes that his readers are morons, or is a complete moron himself. He brings to the forefront an old case is Saskatchewan, where a man had purchased advertising rights in the StarPhoenix. Apparently, his advertisement consisted of a stick figure depiction of two men, holding hands, with a diagonal line through them. Beside the picture was references to Biblical scriptures. The article was meant to decry homosexuality. A human rights commission RIGHTLY decided that the ad was in violation of the rights of same-sex couples. Now most honest, intelligent people would get that it may not be the bible quotes, so much as the picture with the line through it that disturbed many. If we were to replace the picture of two men with a picture of a person of Jewish descent, or of African American descent, would he then get it? Instead of 'getting it', he goes on to proclaim the judgement as stating that Biblical scripture is hate speech. Nice try.... Sad thing, I bet many a right wing nut is sitting at home right now stating "Damn people prosecuting us Christians for no reason". He then delves into the Danish cartoon debate. Apparently, Syed Soharwardly had no right to be insulted by the fact that the Western Standard offended his beliefs by re-publishing the pictures. Apparently, only Christians have the right to freedom of belief. Personally, I commend Mr Soharwardly for taking the peaceful approach to resolution, instead of playing into the hands of lunatics like Kay, and his idols, VP Harper and Dubya. Of course, to make his case against Syed, Kay mentions that the man believes that the Palestinians fighting against Israel are not 'terrorists' but 'freedom fighters'. Hate to break it to you Jonathan, but MANY people see it this way, much like the 'insurgents' in Iraq (imagine, people actually fighting to regain their own nations from American oppression, how dare they!!). Now, they may not have the advantage of American funded, and built aircraft or supertanks, or laser guided missiles, so they fight with what they have. Unfortunately, it seems the only justification for killing is oil... if only they could understand this. In the end, Mr Kay makes perhaps the stupidest statement in recent memory "Human rights meant protecting vulnerable Canadians from baldfaced discrimination that prevents them from getting a job or an apartment. It shouldn't be a pretext for wading into political and social debates - much less the clash of civilizations." Yes, this guy gets paid to write this load.
The Promise Keepers
My last rant for the day. Once again, from the Post (Wednesday, April 5). You will remember this as the day after the throne speech. All in all, seems a straight forward article, discussing Harper's five priorities. Funny how the first point seems to be Government Accountability (assuming you can find the time, right Stephen?) Then Mr Harper will 'significantly' reduce my tax burden by cutting GST by 1%. Not sure how this is gonna help me. I mean, my food is already tax free (unless I'm eating at fancy restaurants or fast food joints every night, which all low income earners do ALL the time), and I have no big, expensive purchases upcoming. The fact is, as a Consumption tax, only those who can afford to spend MORE money are going to see any savings at all. Then of course, the promise that 'clinched' the election, the $1200 ( to be taxed of course) to be placed into the hands of parents across Canada. So to Susan, the single mother of three in downtown Toronto, working two jobs, and paying $1800 a month in daycare fees, enjoy the benefits of that $900 or so payment. Oh and by the way, you know those spots that opened up so your kids could go to daycare? Sorry, but they're about to disappear. Might as well stay home, and collect your $900 a month in welfare, and raise the kids yourself, he way a woman is supposed to, right Mr Harper? The icing on the cake however? "Canadians are tired of politicians who say one thing in opposition and, after winning high office, turn around and do the exact opposite" followed by 'The Conservatives could hardly be accused of that'. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. How quickly we forget Shapiro, Emerson and Fortier. So much for government accountability right? But hey, how could we expect the unbiased, intelligent editors of the Post to remember that right? By the way, in case you've forgotten this as well, the thing that 'won' Harper the election was the Liberals LOSING it, nothing else. nearly 70% of Canadians did not vote for the religious right. Have to say I found it quite ironic that the article was titled what it was...
anyway, enough of me
See you thursday
Truthfully Yours
They could snap at any minute...
Anyone who reads the Sun (I do for a good laugh), should not have missed this column. In the April 2nd edition of the Sun, Mr. Mark Bonokoski (that pilar of wisdom) decided to cover the shooting of three dogs in this backwater town. The three dogs didn't just belong to anybody though. One of them belonged to a young lady who worked at a bar. The other two, to a man in jail for drug traficking. The young lady was adopting the other two from him, to give them a good home. But no worries, the dogs were supposedly shot for good reason. They apparently were not vicious, but according to the man who shot them, one William Cohoon, they're pit bulls, and are subject to change at any minute right? In all fairness, he did make a comment about them possibly bugging his livestock (nothing substatiated in the paper, but anything to make a case against firearm ownership would never be tolerated in the Sun.) I guess we can all be happy in one regards, at least she didn't have three kids right?
Harper's rough ride....
Seems that the Conservative wing of the media (aka most of it) feels that the Harper government is getting a rough ride of it lately, and apparently without good reason. This past week alone, there must have been two to three articles a DAY in the National Post proclaiming so. And let's not forget the Sun, 'No Free Ride For Harper' proclaimed one, 'The Media Doth Protest Too Much' another. With all the whining, one would assume that they were the epitome of Government Support pre-Harper. According to Alison Downie, it would not be so bad if the readers responded to it, but apparently the readers don't care. I would suggest three things to Alison. One, the Sun is not the only paper in town. Two, when those few of us who do read the Sun (even for a laugh) attempt to comment with a view that may not support Mr. Harper, somehow they never get published. Three, you should check the internet more often. The blogsphere is where it's at now. No politically slanted editors to pick through it, so the true point of the articles tends to get through. Believe me when I say that the media (aka the Star) is more than justified in picking apart Harper. That is not where it ends however. Lorrie Goldstein, another right wing hack, complains at length that the 'Liberal' media (supposedly an endless supply, yet once again, outside of the Star, can you name another?) does not treat the Liberals the same way as the Conservatives. Goldstein, of course, is no hypocrit. He has always treated the Liberals as well as he treats the Conservatives. Kinda funny that his latest tirade is titled the 'Hypogrits'. Perhaps Mr Goldstein, who represents everything I believe a Conservative is, should run for power. After all, double standards are his forte!!
Oh, Jonathan Kay....
From the National Post, Monday, April 3rd. 'Censorship in the name of human rights'. The name caught my eye, so I thought I'd give it a read. While I'll be the first to agree that the whole Politically Correct movement has gone haywire, and can now be used to justify about anything, it seems Mr Kay is either completely dishonest, and hopes that his readers are morons, or is a complete moron himself. He brings to the forefront an old case is Saskatchewan, where a man had purchased advertising rights in the StarPhoenix. Apparently, his advertisement consisted of a stick figure depiction of two men, holding hands, with a diagonal line through them. Beside the picture was references to Biblical scriptures. The article was meant to decry homosexuality. A human rights commission RIGHTLY decided that the ad was in violation of the rights of same-sex couples. Now most honest, intelligent people would get that it may not be the bible quotes, so much as the picture with the line through it that disturbed many. If we were to replace the picture of two men with a picture of a person of Jewish descent, or of African American descent, would he then get it? Instead of 'getting it', he goes on to proclaim the judgement as stating that Biblical scripture is hate speech. Nice try.... Sad thing, I bet many a right wing nut is sitting at home right now stating "Damn people prosecuting us Christians for no reason". He then delves into the Danish cartoon debate. Apparently, Syed Soharwardly had no right to be insulted by the fact that the Western Standard offended his beliefs by re-publishing the pictures. Apparently, only Christians have the right to freedom of belief. Personally, I commend Mr Soharwardly for taking the peaceful approach to resolution, instead of playing into the hands of lunatics like Kay, and his idols, VP Harper and Dubya. Of course, to make his case against Syed, Kay mentions that the man believes that the Palestinians fighting against Israel are not 'terrorists' but 'freedom fighters'. Hate to break it to you Jonathan, but MANY people see it this way, much like the 'insurgents' in Iraq (imagine, people actually fighting to regain their own nations from American oppression, how dare they!!). Now, they may not have the advantage of American funded, and built aircraft or supertanks, or laser guided missiles, so they fight with what they have. Unfortunately, it seems the only justification for killing is oil... if only they could understand this. In the end, Mr Kay makes perhaps the stupidest statement in recent memory "Human rights meant protecting vulnerable Canadians from baldfaced discrimination that prevents them from getting a job or an apartment. It shouldn't be a pretext for wading into political and social debates - much less the clash of civilizations." Yes, this guy gets paid to write this load.
The Promise Keepers
My last rant for the day. Once again, from the Post (Wednesday, April 5). You will remember this as the day after the throne speech. All in all, seems a straight forward article, discussing Harper's five priorities. Funny how the first point seems to be Government Accountability (assuming you can find the time, right Stephen?) Then Mr Harper will 'significantly' reduce my tax burden by cutting GST by 1%. Not sure how this is gonna help me. I mean, my food is already tax free (unless I'm eating at fancy restaurants or fast food joints every night, which all low income earners do ALL the time), and I have no big, expensive purchases upcoming. The fact is, as a Consumption tax, only those who can afford to spend MORE money are going to see any savings at all. Then of course, the promise that 'clinched' the election, the $1200 ( to be taxed of course) to be placed into the hands of parents across Canada. So to Susan, the single mother of three in downtown Toronto, working two jobs, and paying $1800 a month in daycare fees, enjoy the benefits of that $900 or so payment. Oh and by the way, you know those spots that opened up so your kids could go to daycare? Sorry, but they're about to disappear. Might as well stay home, and collect your $900 a month in welfare, and raise the kids yourself, he way a woman is supposed to, right Mr Harper? The icing on the cake however? "Canadians are tired of politicians who say one thing in opposition and, after winning high office, turn around and do the exact opposite" followed by 'The Conservatives could hardly be accused of that'. RIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGHT. How quickly we forget Shapiro, Emerson and Fortier. So much for government accountability right? But hey, how could we expect the unbiased, intelligent editors of the Post to remember that right? By the way, in case you've forgotten this as well, the thing that 'won' Harper the election was the Liberals LOSING it, nothing else. nearly 70% of Canadians did not vote for the religious right. Have to say I found it quite ironic that the article was titled what it was...
anyway, enough of me
See you thursday
Truthfully Yours
posted by RH Kelly at 1:17 PM
1 Comments:
Bush goes ballistic about other countries being evil and dangerous, because they have weapons of mass destruction. But, he insists on building up even a more deadly supply of nuclear arms right here in the US. What do you think? How does that work in a democracy again? How does being more threatening make us more likeable?Isn't the country with
the most weapons the biggest threat to the rest of the world? When one country is the biggest threat to the rest of the world, isn't that likely to be the most hated country?
What happened to us, people? When did we become such lemmings?
We have lost friends and influenced no one. No wonder most of the world thinks we suck. Thanks to what george bush has done to our country during the past three years, we do!
Post a Comment
<< Home