Truth or Consequence

In a previous post, I slagged the CBC and Rex Murphy for spouting climate denier nonsense. The response from the CBC was interesting, including the claim that the CBC was not obligated “to determine what is ‘truth’.” Truth was in quotation marks because the writer, the Executive Producer of The National, is of the view that truth is subjective; there is no such thing as objective truth. Several of the commenters wholeheartedly supported this view, which I mocked the lot of them for. It is amazing democracy has survived this long.

Let’s try again. I hold the belief that some things are true, that there is truth. Facts are true. For example: The Earth revolves around the Sun. Or, Smoking greatly increases the risk of getting cancer. Certain principles are also true, such as “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal….” If you don’t believe that some things are true, how do you get through the day?
(more…)

Rex in all his controversy...
Photo Credit: National Speakers bureau

As of late anyone reading InformedVote will have noticed the writings of Brian Gordon and his vitriol against Rex Murphy. Now, don’t get me wrong, there are litanies of reasons why I too personally despise the man, but I cannot bring myself as far as Mr. Gordon to demand that he be obligated to report what Brian thinks is the true NEWS.

Before digressing into the whole issue of “what is NEWS”, let us clear up a few things on the topic of Rex Murphy. Like most people from western Canada I find him uncouth, unsophisticated, and possessing of the ranting-ignoramus-fisherman personality us Westerners are often too eager to paint on anyone born east of Riviere de Loop. As unfair as we out West may be at times, the painting of this brush on Rex has, for ontological reasons, been fair. My own problem with Rex is not that he has strong opinions, just that when I look at his analysis it appears that he sets out to take contrarian views (often actually popular minority opinions) simply for the opportunity to intentionally produce a rant that will both offend a predictable opposition, but at the same time not be so extreme as to create any serious blow-back from a unified Canadian front. Let me be clear on this – I believe Rex does this intentionally, calculated, methodically, and simply to be in the spotlight. This is precisely why I, and no one else who takes seriously thought, learning, and writing, can honestly have a soft spot for the man. One cannot purposely be a contrarian; being a contrarian is a burden that one bears BECAUSE one has sought out truth – this is supposed to be an involuntary burden. Now for ontology…
(more…)

Fox News: Fair and Balanced?

I recently posted this article: “CBC: Keeping Canadian Voters Confused by Paying Rex Murphy to Spout Nonsense on Climate Change” in response to a diatribe by Rex Murphy on climate change. Murphy thinks a former mining stock promoter and an economist are more credible than Canada’s climate scientists. I think this is a travesty, and I wasn’t the only one. I wrote the Ombudsman and a friend of mine wrote The National’s Executive Producer. The reply he received was absolutely shocking. Don’t count on the CBC for “truth”; they don’t believe it exists.

Mr. Harrison, the Executive Producer, correctly points out that the CBC has covered climate change fairly extensively. However, read some of the quotes from Mr. Harrison’s email and see if you think the CBC is a trustworthy source of information – or worthy of your tax dollars. [Note: I have pasted the full email here.]
(more…)

Rex Murphy's View of the Earth

In a recent post, I pointed out that Rex Murphy is spouting climate denial based on the testimony of two self-annointed climate ‘experts,’ McIntrye and McKitrick. Quack #1 is a former mining stock promoter, and #2 is an economist. But who knows more about the science of global warming than stock promoters and economists, eh?

Rex can’t handle the truth because it contradicts his economic beliefs. Like many, Rex doesn’t understand that the economy is part of the environment, not the other way around. Rex Murphy is a modern-day inquisitor, terrified that a new view of the world will upset his privileged place, and I say the CBC should not be paying him to propagandize. I’ve discussed the deniers in greater depth on my climate change blog: The Great Global Warming Inquisition: Where Scientists are Galileo and the Church is Market Fundamentalism.
(more…)

Flick off, Rex. Just flick off

How can we expect Canadians to vote in an informed manner when the CBC provides a platform – on the news, no less – to a nutter who chooses to believe paid oil company shills rather than Canada’s own climate scientists? Rex Murphy proudly notes that he gets his climate science from two guys who are not climate scientists; one is a former mining stock promoter and the other is an economist. Like Murphy, the economist is tight with the Libertarian Fraser Institute, which receives funding from ExxonMobil.

At best, this calls into question Murphy’s sense, and at worse, his integrity. Is he receiving money from Big Oil? Why else would any sane person believe two uncredentialed shills rather than Canada’s own scientists? Perhaps, like Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Rex Murphy believes this whole ‘global warming thing’ is a socialist conspiracy to take over the world?
(more…)

The other day on Power and Politics, Evan Solomon discussed sexism in the House of Commons. This was in response to accusations by opposition members that when women stand to speak in the House, they are shouted down even louder than when a man stands up. Shocking! Predictably, the panel discussion didn’t get anywhere as this isn’t a new story – nothing has changed over the years. Ironically, this new CBC political program, discussing sexism, is a replacement show for Don Newman, who everyday for many years, with his dervlish masculinity, opened up his show with the famous lines, “Welcome to the BROADcast”.

I will never forget the episode when Newman had a very animated female MP from Quebec on the show, and for some odd reason the CBC cameraman zoomed in and out on the gap in her front teeth. She was large, wore blue eyeshadow and red lipstick. She was no Madonna. It was obviously no technical accident as a CBC cameraman on that show has as much seniority and skill as Santa does on Christmas.
(more…)

When I was growing up on the prairie, there was one way I could cure my fix for political knowledge and that was to watch the CBC nightly news and specifically Barbara Frum as she hosted The Journal.

Ms. Frum, the mother of David who south of the border crafted those three infamous words for George W Bush, “Axis of Evil”, provided thirty minutes of grilling questions to the issues of the day by hosting famous political figures and leaving none unscathed from her skill and curiosity. She was known as an exceptional journalist and her profound passion and commitment to that profession dictated her style. She was smart, tough and smart.

Now a days, and with the launch of yet again another attempt by CBC at redesign, we see Evan Solomon and Kady O’Malley trying to truncate the network’s need to pull in new, younger, savvy political fiends. I applaud their attempt, I just don’t think it will work.
(more…)

My political action, or my theory (insomuch as I can be said to have one) can be expressed very simply: create counterweights.

Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Tens of thousands of airplanes successfully land and take off without incident at major Canadian airports every year. There were significantly fewer traffic accidents in North America during the past five years. The Prime Minister shoved a protester today. A celebrity actor was arrested at the airport for illicit drug possession.

Which news story is likely to be reported heavily in the newspapers and blogs? Which ones will attract the most attention from readers? It is a good time to be alive, but one unfortunate aspect of today’s times is that we live in an age of instant entertainment and political correctness, in which bad news is reported more frequently than good news and in which people are quick to judge and criticize others. We give our political leaders a hard time, demanding instant solutions to difficult and complex problems, criticizing them often and rarely praising them. If you were to examine snapshots taken of a senior career politician from his/her first election to the present, you would probably see an individual who has aged significantly more than most people in their demographic cohort, not unlike the photo timelines of petty criminals that the police sometimes show at anti-drug workshops.
(more…)

I have been following with much interest the downward spiral and final fizzles of Bishop Raymond Lahey’s ignoble and sadly typical priestly career. The media it would seem, on the surface has done everything in its power to flog this story to death and drag the once unjustly good name of Bishop Lahey through the mud. What has shocked me though, is that while interviews of the victims of this once powerful man abound, the public has been left completely ignorant of the sheer influence Lahey once had in Antigonish County. It is staggering, given the number of boys who have now come forward attesting to the Bishop’s pedophilic tendencies, that the focus has been entirely upon Lahey’s ecclesiastic rank and the awful, yet ironic fact that Lahey was in charge of the settlement soon to be paid to survivors of the same cruel form of Catholic charity he also imbibed in. I have been meditating on the appalling morbidity of this and the fact that it did not compel this new round of victims to come forward earlier. This article, rather than merely reporting and commenting on events, tenders a hypothesis (sadly one that has not been raised thus far): that Bishop Lahey was not confronted because of his tremendous influence in the affairs and daily operations of the community of Antigonish.
(more…)

I, like most people, have to admit to certain beguilement, when seeing a fight take place in the media.
Two pugilists swinging …bludgeoning each another with their point of view. Usually it’s the politically left and the political right battling it out. Usually it’s one argument pitted against another.
And usually the strongest one wins.
Usually… but not now.

Now….. the winner is not the one with the best argument. Best intentions. Or best plans.
Now the winner is the one … who was loudest, who was more outraged, and who got the biggest apology.
(more…)