It's always nice when someone drops by unexpectedly at the lake. Just a couple guys, friends of Ron, checking to make sure they were heading in the right direction. Ron thought he was tucked out of the way of visitors behind the white pines and the bluffs; yet, even in the wilderness, the outdoorsmen type will drop by for a visit if he's in the general vicinity and generally you're happy to have the company.
These two fellows asked if I'd heard of any break-ins recently on this lake. I guess some folks who aren't in residence at camps on the bigger lakes have taken some tough losses when their backs were turned. What are you going to do? You can't keep a camp under guard 24/7, right? And camp insurance always costs a fortune or isn't even available if you don't meet stringent fire prevention standards. I can hear Shelley saying, "Grampa, you digress."
It actually turned out to be a serendipitous meeting, these two fellows showing up when they did. I was headed down to the dock to rinse my socks out after a hand washing, forgetting Shelley had lifted the indoor/outdoor carpet to give it a complete drying in the sun. Where the rug had been, the dock was all slippery. These two fellows saw me slip and catch myself and insisted on replacing the missing carpet before they headed out so I would have a sure footing. The outdoorsman is just naturally safety conscious to the point of watching out for whoever they meet along life's path. It's been a lovely weekend so far, despite my high blood pressure acting up. The prescription for my gout seems to be working just fine. I shudder to think of how crippled up I'd have been without it: especially, if I'd slipped on the dock with no one there to notice. Shelley would have had my hide!
What she doesn't know won't worry her, right? A good lie of omission: Is there such a thing?
Showing posts with label Harper. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harper. Show all posts
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
Dell on What Is CBC Up To?
You know how something sticks in your craw? Someone will say something? or you see something? and something about it nags at you? Something just doesn't fit and you can't quite put your finger on what it is?
For me it was several things all on the same day.
One was the video report by Jennifer Hollet of CBC on June 27, 2010.
The other was Susan Ormiston's report to CBC 'The National' on the same day regarding the police abrogation of citizens' rights in Toronto at the G20, asking, "What country am I living in?"
Jennifer Hollet,of CBC, in her report, made a point of showing two videos side by side and a number of what I found intriguing statements, throughout her video report:
Prior to Ms. Hollet's report, another CBC reporter draws attention to a protester shouting out, "See you on youtube"
Then Ms. Hollet's report followed, in which she talks about the 70 "new security cameras" in Toronto for the G20...
" one could argue that these are actually the new security cameras." [Hollet holds up her flip cam]
"My flip cam allowed me to get right up close when protesters took over police vehicles"
..."Here I was shooting a police car on fire when riot police suddenly storm the crowd"
..."Just this morning, with everyone having these little cameras"..."Police can't separate the protesters from the press"..."the media line blurs"...
At this point the side by side videos are shown: "take a look...it's actually the CBC's "
Jennifer Hollet CBC video
Side by side are then two identical videos. The video was posted to youtube by the CBC video journalist...
Hollet draws attention to the fact a CBC journalist has posted to youtube...what's with that? why mention it?
Is she saying the CBC video was posted by the journalist filming it because he didn't think it would make it to air? ...or is she saying some news doesn't make it to air?...or is she saying, something you've seen as news is not real?
"as journalists we're trying to make sense of what you see?" is the ending.
Is someone manipulating the news?
... with staged bank bombings? terrorist acts that are really "controlled events"? to drum up public support for Harper's policies and discredit CSIS' whistleblower, Richard Fadden?
Is there an effort being made to draw Canadians' attention from the bigger story?
Richard Fadden has told Canadians that Harper's government has done nothing to close the loop-holes that make Canada vulnerable to foreign influence and theft of trade secrets and technology? [because PM Harper and his friends are getting rich leaving the loop-holes in place.]
If I wanted to draw the attention of the public to news manipulation, I'd do a piece like Jennifer Hollet's report. It comes across like a hostage trying to send a message.
If that's what Hollet was up to, sending an innocuous report with a deeper message, in such a way as to not draw attention from the censors, I would have used the same sort of word choices, phrasing, order of phrasing, visual clues, etc....
Susan Ormiston, "What country am I living in?"
CBC reports: "protestor shouts back: See you on youtube."
Jennifer Hollet does a piece on CBC news footage being posted at youtube.
Either CBC is slipping in the way it covers news, or CBC is telling Canadians, "look, listen and make sense of what you are seeing."
CBC news: what are you up to?
For me it was several things all on the same day.
One was the video report by Jennifer Hollet of CBC on June 27, 2010.
The other was Susan Ormiston's report to CBC 'The National' on the same day regarding the police abrogation of citizens' rights in Toronto at the G20, asking, "What country am I living in?"
Jennifer Hollet,of CBC, in her report, made a point of showing two videos side by side and a number of what I found intriguing statements, throughout her video report:
Prior to Ms. Hollet's report, another CBC reporter draws attention to a protester shouting out, "See you on youtube"
Then Ms. Hollet's report followed, in which she talks about the 70 "new security cameras" in Toronto for the G20...
" one could argue that these are actually the new security cameras." [Hollet holds up her flip cam]
"My flip cam allowed me to get right up close when protesters took over police vehicles"
..."Here I was shooting a police car on fire when riot police suddenly storm the crowd"
..."Just this morning, with everyone having these little cameras"..."Police can't separate the protesters from the press"..."the media line blurs"...
At this point the side by side videos are shown: "take a look...it's actually the CBC's "
Jennifer Hollet CBC video
Side by side are then two identical videos. The video was posted to youtube by the CBC video journalist...
Hollet draws attention to the fact a CBC journalist has posted to youtube...what's with that? why mention it?
Is she saying the CBC video was posted by the journalist filming it because he didn't think it would make it to air? ...or is she saying some news doesn't make it to air?...or is she saying, something you've seen as news is not real?
"as journalists we're trying to make sense of what you see?" is the ending.
Is someone manipulating the news?
... with staged bank bombings? terrorist acts that are really "controlled events"? to drum up public support for Harper's policies and discredit CSIS' whistleblower, Richard Fadden?
Is there an effort being made to draw Canadians' attention from the bigger story?
Richard Fadden has told Canadians that Harper's government has done nothing to close the loop-holes that make Canada vulnerable to foreign influence and theft of trade secrets and technology? [because PM Harper and his friends are getting rich leaving the loop-holes in place.]
If I wanted to draw the attention of the public to news manipulation, I'd do a piece like Jennifer Hollet's report. It comes across like a hostage trying to send a message.
If that's what Hollet was up to, sending an innocuous report with a deeper message, in such a way as to not draw attention from the censors, I would have used the same sort of word choices, phrasing, order of phrasing, visual clues, etc....
Susan Ormiston, "What country am I living in?"
CBC reports: "protestor shouts back: See you on youtube."
Jennifer Hollet does a piece on CBC news footage being posted at youtube.
Either CBC is slipping in the way it covers news, or CBC is telling Canadians, "look, listen and make sense of what you are seeing."
CBC news: what are you up to?
Monday, June 28, 2010
Dell on The Truth Behind Toronto's 2010 Summit Costs
For those of you following my posts on concerns surrounding the criminalization of Canadian citizens, you may want to check out the archived news for June 27th : CBC's The National with Peter Manbridge, reports from Rex Murphy and Susan Ormiston [the latter in Toronto for the G-20 Summit]. Susan Ormiston's reports included her describing a "visceral response" to the imagery before her in Toronto: "two or three lines" of riot police, two rows deep, sometimes reinforced by police on horses, and she found herself asking, "What country am I living in?" Susan Ormiston went on to describe how one woman had wept to see the city of her childhood filled with the enormous police presence.
Do you suppose this visual image of a huge police force in Canada was the real reason behind the spending of almost a billion tax dollars?
Rex Murphy suggests that the violence of a small group of 200 or so "losers" he also refers to as "The Black Bloc" [a misnomer because there is no group; it's just a catch-phrase for those who wear black and protest violently] will be a "partial cover" of PM Harper's spending almost one billion to host the two Summits. Has Rex Murphy already forgotten President Sarkozy's remarks of the day before?
When French President Sarkozy was asked about the price tag for the G-8 and G20 Summits in Canada, he side-stepped the question, instead saying he hadn't seen anything "opulent or luxurious". Interesting then, that Sarkozy should make a second statement which appeared to be a criticism of Canada, the host nation, saying that when France hosts the Summits, the cost will be one-tenth what Canada has spent. Why would Sarkozy make those two particular statements?
It would appear President Sarkozy found a nice way of drawing attention to what Harper was actually doing: using the G20 as a staged scene with a message for the Canadian populace.
The film imagery of these last days in Toronto is stunning. The last time I recall such effective propaganda imagery, the director was Leni Riefenstahl, and I imagine that classic piece of film was expensive, too. Riefenstahl's 1935, Triumph of the Will, was made at the request of her leader with a message for the populace. It was wildly successful.
If the spending of one billion on the two Summits wasn't about security [Fadden] and wasn't about luxury for the guest nations [Sarkozy], then it had to be something else. What might that be?
With already 600 protesters arrested and that number expected to rise overnight, Susan Ormiston additionally reported that the previous Quebec and Seattle Summits, where the black-garbed violent protesters also showed up, resulted in fewer arrests than in Toronto 2010. Ormiston also stated the FLQ October Crisis of 1970, [following the kidnapping of James Cross and Pierre Laporte, the latter murdered by his kidnappers], resulted in fewer arrests; in fact, 497 were arrested, but only 62 were charged and held.
Does Rex Murphy actually believe his talk of "heavy penalties" and "banned for life" treatment of protesters is going to have any meaning in the face of what Prime Minister Harper has actually done here? Harper has played fast and loose with our civil liberties and tax dollars, in order to orchestrate a show of the police power at his disposal. And why would he do that?
We're supposed to be pulling out of a war. If we don't, there are going to be protests. I predict Harper is gearing up the propaganda machine in advance of his release of that very news and perhaps news of a financial collapse to boot. Would PM Harper dare to use this country's police force against its own citizens? Harper hasn't said it, but I'm hearing the words, "Just watch me."
Do you suppose this visual image of a huge police force in Canada was the real reason behind the spending of almost a billion tax dollars?
Rex Murphy suggests that the violence of a small group of 200 or so "losers" he also refers to as "The Black Bloc" [a misnomer because there is no group; it's just a catch-phrase for those who wear black and protest violently] will be a "partial cover" of PM Harper's spending almost one billion to host the two Summits. Has Rex Murphy already forgotten President Sarkozy's remarks of the day before?
When French President Sarkozy was asked about the price tag for the G-8 and G20 Summits in Canada, he side-stepped the question, instead saying he hadn't seen anything "opulent or luxurious". Interesting then, that Sarkozy should make a second statement which appeared to be a criticism of Canada, the host nation, saying that when France hosts the Summits, the cost will be one-tenth what Canada has spent. Why would Sarkozy make those two particular statements?
It would appear President Sarkozy found a nice way of drawing attention to what Harper was actually doing: using the G20 as a staged scene with a message for the Canadian populace.
The film imagery of these last days in Toronto is stunning. The last time I recall such effective propaganda imagery, the director was Leni Riefenstahl, and I imagine that classic piece of film was expensive, too. Riefenstahl's 1935, Triumph of the Will, was made at the request of her leader with a message for the populace. It was wildly successful.
If the spending of one billion on the two Summits wasn't about security [Fadden] and wasn't about luxury for the guest nations [Sarkozy], then it had to be something else. What might that be?
With already 600 protesters arrested and that number expected to rise overnight, Susan Ormiston additionally reported that the previous Quebec and Seattle Summits, where the black-garbed violent protesters also showed up, resulted in fewer arrests than in Toronto 2010. Ormiston also stated the FLQ October Crisis of 1970, [following the kidnapping of James Cross and Pierre Laporte, the latter murdered by his kidnappers], resulted in fewer arrests; in fact, 497 were arrested, but only 62 were charged and held.
Does Rex Murphy actually believe his talk of "heavy penalties" and "banned for life" treatment of protesters is going to have any meaning in the face of what Prime Minister Harper has actually done here? Harper has played fast and loose with our civil liberties and tax dollars, in order to orchestrate a show of the police power at his disposal. And why would he do that?
We're supposed to be pulling out of a war. If we don't, there are going to be protests. I predict Harper is gearing up the propaganda machine in advance of his release of that very news and perhaps news of a financial collapse to boot. Would PM Harper dare to use this country's police force against its own citizens? Harper hasn't said it, but I'm hearing the words, "Just watch me."
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Dell on CSIS,Fadden, Harper & Air India
I am enjoying another sunny morning here in N. Ontario: Dorg is keeping me company while Shelley and Kevin are off on holiday with his family, returning in time for my next appointment with the clinic vampires.
Speaking of vampires, the news is rich with those who suck the life's blood out of Canada. This week, Peter Mansbridge's CBC interview with CSIS', Richard Fadden, was particularly thought provoking, as was the news that the federal government's tough on crime policy means more jail cells will be needed.
After watching the news, I found myself thinking about a book someone gave me several years ago: Kevin Trudeau was the author. I remember how I laughed out loud as he prefaced his work by saying he was telling the truth despite threats to his life. If he lived it was only because they didn't dare touch him because he told the truth. If he wound up dead, it was further proof he was telling the truth. A win/win situation. This was a brilliant marketing move: he's right no matter what. Unfortunately, Kevin Trudeau's marketing technique, with a few adjustments, works just as well in politics.
In Canada, according to the CBC news report, 80% of security money is spent on terrorism, despite evidence the greater national threat is foreign influence through long term efforts to control key persons in government and the ongoing theft of billions in trade and technology secrets. If there is a terrorist incident, the millions spent to fight terrorism will appear to have been a good decision. If there is no terrorist incident, it's because the money was spent to prevent one. It's a "win/win" situation, that fails to address the real threats.
Prime Minister Harper has announced he plans to build more jail cells. The Ontario government is rightly balking at a Federal policy intending to dump the cost of those jail cells on the provinces. If Canadians are going to get tough on crime, we need more jails, this despite a projected cost for those jail cells capable of breaking the finanacial backs of Canadians. If crime rates soar, Harper is right. If they go down, Harper is still right. It's "win/win" policies such as these that fail Canadians.
With technology advances, many of those in jail cells for non-violent crimes, could be monitored safely with house arrest in the community. Criminalizing the poor creates a 'them versus us' mentality necessary to motivate the public's fear and continued financial support of a tough approach to a perceived threat. With reports claiming 15% of adult Canadians use cannabis, I cannot help but notice the criminal "them" is "us".
If Fadden is correct in saying Canada's biggest threat is the billions of dollars lost to the theft of technology and trade information, we have not only misplaced our funds, but our fear as well. The government is willing to spend millions on airport security and install X-ray equipment for passengers, while the real threat, according to the findings of the Air India bombing report, is loose security then and now, along with crime protection agencies unwilling to share information.
The Canadian taxpayer, duped into the fearful belief that crime and terrorism are rising threats, is asked to dig into his pocket yet again and fork over more cash. As long as this government formulates policies using the "win/win" method, unwarranted rising taxes will continue to flourish. What is needed is social reform. Unfortunately, no one gets to rich with a scenario that promotes understanding instead of fear.
I'll post more on this subject after lunch and power nap. Would you believe that it is now pouring buckets of rain here? If we have rain, it's good for the garden. If we have no rain, it means I can spend time outside. Another "win/win" situation.
Speaking of vampires, the news is rich with those who suck the life's blood out of Canada. This week, Peter Mansbridge's CBC interview with CSIS', Richard Fadden, was particularly thought provoking, as was the news that the federal government's tough on crime policy means more jail cells will be needed.
After watching the news, I found myself thinking about a book someone gave me several years ago: Kevin Trudeau was the author. I remember how I laughed out loud as he prefaced his work by saying he was telling the truth despite threats to his life. If he lived it was only because they didn't dare touch him because he told the truth. If he wound up dead, it was further proof he was telling the truth. A win/win situation. This was a brilliant marketing move: he's right no matter what. Unfortunately, Kevin Trudeau's marketing technique, with a few adjustments, works just as well in politics.
In Canada, according to the CBC news report, 80% of security money is spent on terrorism, despite evidence the greater national threat is foreign influence through long term efforts to control key persons in government and the ongoing theft of billions in trade and technology secrets. If there is a terrorist incident, the millions spent to fight terrorism will appear to have been a good decision. If there is no terrorist incident, it's because the money was spent to prevent one. It's a "win/win" situation, that fails to address the real threats.
Prime Minister Harper has announced he plans to build more jail cells. The Ontario government is rightly balking at a Federal policy intending to dump the cost of those jail cells on the provinces. If Canadians are going to get tough on crime, we need more jails, this despite a projected cost for those jail cells capable of breaking the finanacial backs of Canadians. If crime rates soar, Harper is right. If they go down, Harper is still right. It's "win/win" policies such as these that fail Canadians.
With technology advances, many of those in jail cells for non-violent crimes, could be monitored safely with house arrest in the community. Criminalizing the poor creates a 'them versus us' mentality necessary to motivate the public's fear and continued financial support of a tough approach to a perceived threat. With reports claiming 15% of adult Canadians use cannabis, I cannot help but notice the criminal "them" is "us".
If Fadden is correct in saying Canada's biggest threat is the billions of dollars lost to the theft of technology and trade information, we have not only misplaced our funds, but our fear as well. The government is willing to spend millions on airport security and install X-ray equipment for passengers, while the real threat, according to the findings of the Air India bombing report, is loose security then and now, along with crime protection agencies unwilling to share information.
The Canadian taxpayer, duped into the fearful belief that crime and terrorism are rising threats, is asked to dig into his pocket yet again and fork over more cash. As long as this government formulates policies using the "win/win" method, unwarranted rising taxes will continue to flourish. What is needed is social reform. Unfortunately, no one gets to rich with a scenario that promotes understanding instead of fear.
I'll post more on this subject after lunch and power nap. Would you believe that it is now pouring buckets of rain here? If we have rain, it's good for the garden. If we have no rain, it means I can spend time outside. Another "win/win" situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
