Wednesday, January 10, 2018

MSM: Fake News you can Trust



There was a somewhat bizarre full page add in today's Vancouver Province. It said "There are a lot of media outlets out there. We are one you can trust. We know the difference between real news and fake news." Fake news, that's something Donald Trump would say. As far as there being a lot of media outlets there sure aren't in Western Canada. Post Media News monopoly bought them all up and got rid of several to eliminate competition.

My first question is, what brought on this knee jerk reaction? It sounds like an oil company trying to convince us how green they are. When has the credibility of the paper been questioned?

I like the Vancouver Province. I'm not going to compare it to the Vancouver Sun because there is no comparison. They are the same now. After Post Media News put Harold Munro in charge of both papers they are virtually identical with the same set of reporters writing for both papers. I preferred the Vancouver Province when Wayne Moriarty was in charge. I honestly think it was slightly more objective then. Harold Munro is in my opinion a little too quick to cave in to the Corporate interest like in the Peter Leask disaster.

Come to think of it, the last time the paper ran a full page add about their pledge to tell the truth was right after Harold Munro folded like a cheap tent on the Peter Leask story. That was clearly a case of "The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

Likewise, this full page add came right after the fake news about the police busting a small time HA rival. It's a difficult balance in today's news industry. The MSM has to cater to their corporate advertisers without pissing off their readers who the corporations pay for them to advertise to. Thankfully I dont give a f*ck about either. That's why I'm a broke ass b*tch. Yet a poor man is better than a liar. There was another full page ad from Communist China in the paper again today. Imagine that. Right when they raised the price of gas at the pumps again.

Corporate monopolies are never a good thing. Especially in the oil industry. The only time corporate monopolies are good is when the consumers are shareholders in the corporation.

12 comments:

  1. They cut msp premiums then said they're going to raise the carbon tax 8-10 cents a liter to make up for it, indicating what the Carbo tax really is. A tax by any other name is still a tax.
    The leaders of the IMF were trying to pressure Stephen Harper years ago to raise gas taxes, comparable to European prices. An attempt to socialize the world at our expense while corporations pillage the world. Christine Lagarde (IMF) the one saying we don't pay enough taxes makes over $ 400 000 a year, and guess what, they don't have to pay taxes.
    The game is rigged, thanks for your part Denis, helping expose the real gangsters

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. The carbon tax, the meat tax, they're all just trendy names for more taxes. That is the neo con.

      Delete
  2. One thing many forget is just when these taxes came to be and why.

    In the Middle Ages, the 10% tiff not only paid for infrastructure but also your social net (if your house burned down, the lord was obliged to rebuilt it for you, if you didn't have food, the lord was obliged to feed you and your family, if you didn't have gainful employment, the lord was obliged to help you find gainful employment, if your roof was damaged in a storm, the lord was obliged to help fix it).

    Today, modern indoctrination attempts to lie by saying how "repressive" the Middle Ages were and we were only "free" after the Revolution (aka "reformation") leading to the falsely-called "enlightenment" (which was really just a natural progression of the Middle Ages as history shows).

    Yet, today, can you imagine how much tax, insurance fees, payroll deductions, etc a person would be forced to give up to get you the same coverage?!


    The more infrastructure around the world crumbles (and it is!) the more money the governments need to try to fix all that is falling apart.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/american-infrastructure-falling-apart-2017-2/#since-2007-the-us-has-been-consistently-lagging-behind-other-nations-when-it-comes-to-infrastructure-development-1

    (While the above is about the USA, I would posit the infrastructure in the USA is taken better care of than that in Canada - the USA has a Federal Dept of Highways, for instance.)

    Hence the push for "euthanasia" - if you kill off the sick and the old, you do not have to worry about the "costs" associated with taking care of them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The "Lord's" owned the land and would hang you for poaching and flay and torture you for not paying your taxes.
      Imagine what could be done with the trillions spent on war destroying other people's infrastructure, so the neo cons can get the contracts to rebuild other nations infrastructure.
      I call bullshit on the euthanasia thing to, if you warehouse the sick and the old and the junkies there's trillions for the pharmaceutical rackets too, mess with their cheddar end up like the Sherman s
      The biggest chunk of most municipalities budgets is going to service debt, interest on the debt and pension obligations. You won't hear that on the MSM. I like the way Dennis's blog has evolved to help expose the "real" sophisticated gangsters

      Delete
    2. Jeff - I have to ask you where you learned about Medieval law. Which country do you refer to? Which years? Please cite your sources for the lord's ability to hang and torture.

      Yes, there are codified laws from the era you can refer to. Please use credible sources.

      For instance, the law against littering in Medieval England (no, contrary to hollywood portrayals of throwing filth out of windows into the street being accepted practice, the reality is it was illegal to litter).

      For instance, regarding the nature of the Forest Laws that covered wildlife management. They also covered endangered species in England, such as rabbits, who were not native to England but only introduced after William I became King following 1066, which prohibited their hunting:

      https://books.google.ca/books?id=pBu8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA30&lpg=PA30&dq=law+against+littering+in+medieval+england&source=bl&ots=oLwEfksiM4&sig=91voF8MRjIVX-QomXNg6ovyAsTA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp_puqwNPYAhUJ5IMKHSZXDFkQ6AEIPjAF#v=onepage&q=law%20against%20littering%20in%20medieval%20england&f=false

      As for euthanasia, answer this question, who is paying for these, as you state, "trillions" of dollars worth of drugs in Canada?

      As for the citing of pension obligations, you refute your own argument against mine of euthanasia.

      Delete
    3. It is pretty commonly known that torture was a common element of British society in medieval times. The Tower of London hosts many artifacts on display that were used for torture during that time period.

      During the dark ages as they were called, people were burned at the stake for being a witch or tortured for whatever reason they wanted. The Magna Carta obtained civl liberty for the elite not the common peasant.

      Although it is theoretically possible that some communities in medieval times followed a king Arthur model, I highly doubt that was the norm throughout the kingdom. Exploitation and over taxation was just as common there as it was anywhere else.

      I realize the movie Braveheart was fiction but historically the British lords in Scotland did do some pretty horrible things.

      Delete
    4. You, of all people who promote concepts that go against the what is "commonly known" should know there is a great difference between what is commonly believed and fact.

      Taxation was set at 10%. Compare that to today.

      Delete
    5. Oh, by the way, the burning of the witches thing in the so-called dark ages is not true.

      That was in what is present day USA (ie Salem) by protestants in the 17th Century. Thank you, protestant "reformation".

      For instance, the canons (laws) of the Church, and particularly the canon 'Episcopi', denied the reality of witches and forbade their persecution.

      Pope Alexander IV, in 1257, had refused demands of inquiries (English word for the Latin, 'Inquisition') into witchcraft unless manifest heresy, not merely witchcraft, could be proved.

      So, if someone in the middle ages claimed to be a witch, nothing could be done (unless they also claimed to be Catholic AND a witch).

      Only after the so-called reformation allowed the moral basis of society to be torn asunder do we see any real accusations of witchcraft and demonology present in society. (now look at the prevalence of witchcraft and demonology and satanism and note the direct correlation between it's rise and that of drug use - do the math, it's there and it is a fact)

      Delete
    6. History would declare otherwise. That is something we will never agree on. The Dark Ages were called the Dark Ages for a reason.

      Delete
  3. I'm the one who has to die when it's time to die so no one has the right to deny me that choice when my quality of life diminishes to the point I no longer want to live or be a burden.
    Personally I believe the whole healthcare/pharmaceutical industry's have morphed into big rackets and euthenasia is not one of their agenda's, they would rather keep everybody on life support as long as they can because there so much money and job's dependent. You tell me who pays for it all, you're the doctor. I know it can cost 30 thousand a month just for a hep C treatment and it cost a whole lot more for HIV. So let's just warehouse them in brand new condos on prime real estate in the heart of Vancouver where they fester like a cancer in the heart of our city. It only cost $15000 a year in disability cheques compared to the cost of meds and healthcare that's nothing. I'm assuming our tax dollars are absorbed into the big black hole and the corporation's profit
    The ones fighting for euthenasia are fighting for the right to a relatively painless and dignified death.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No doubt some people who fight for euthanasia as you say simply want the right to a relatively painless and dignified death. However, one does feel a concern that corporations could use it to kill off anyone who doesn't have medical coverage as an expense to society.

      Delete
    2. Euthanasia is, in essence, no different that what China is doing by harvesting organs.

      The human, the only self-aware creature, ever, has been reduced to a mere commodity with a price/cost limit.

      When the cost associated with keeping someone alive is compared to their productive value, euthanasia becomes a practical matter.

      If all we had was a natural end, like a plant, things would be different.

      Delete