I heard that twaddle with Moshe Lander, not sure why CTV didn’t just get Butts instead.
If Alberta were to separate, BC would be separated from the rest of canada and the rest of canada would lose access to BC and the pacific
So everyone would negotiate access.
If Canada falls apart, and I still hope it doesn’t, it’s very likely that most of BC joins with AB and SK, leaving a rump city state in vancouver that will have to ask nicely if it wants electricity and water from the new entity.
The clarity act was very clear that its region by region because the threat was the Quebec corridor along the st Laurence would lose the hydro assets up north
Applies everywhere.
And yes, it will come down to whether net zero fanatic Carney has learned anything because it’s those fantasies that will break the country, not smith.
In the 2015 election, I turned on the tv at 6:30 pm which was on CTV. I'd forgotten there was an election and was about to turn the channel, when the on air reporter was interviewing former premier Danny "the bankrupter" Williams. She gave him the microphone and allowed him to spew two uninterrupted minutes of vitriol towards Harper and the Conservatives. I waited for her to follow with an opposing view, which unsurprisingly, didn't come. Polls were still open.
This is the same organization who demanded they allowed to own all media in Canada, then got their way and are now demanding taxpayers pay for their incompetence.
This is also the same organization whose president (Kevin Krull) stepped into the newsroom to interfere in an unfavorable news story regarding Bell. What surprises me the most is that the liberals, despite an entire news media promoting their agenda, they weren't able to gain a majority. DEFUND CTV...
I was about to abandon all ships but then read this. How fair, how fab the Mr. Rogers comparison and the Alberta 11% population giving 15% of the dough. Does CBC know this? Oh right, I forgot.
It’s a complex world init? One person’s collaboration is another’s collusion. All in the mind and from a great distance, of course, because when examined with all the facts, and taking words for their literal meaning, distinctions are usually clearer. I’ve not seen the facts that show that fiscally conservative Stephen Harper is colluding with social democrat David Eby. You’re American so I can only say to Google the names you don’t know - or trust me, these folks do not share a world view. Likewise, the libertarian Danielle Smith and the left wing progressive Olivia Chow. The list of names includes people that professed “anti-elites” would have embraced as their own up until the point they got elected. Some were agitators and activists, that helped bring down governments. Perhaps your objection is to democracy itself. Fair enough.
Not that I don’t agree with some of your sentiment. The characteristics you describe are not attractive qualities. It’s just there’s no evidence that those are the defining and common characteristics of the people on the list. Or that it’s possible to get in a position of leadership and not have some people try to label you with those qualities.
My points stand. Both my relevant point that these people are not media elites (they are not even media) and thus the media elite person that made that allusion was being inaccurate in their most prominent statement. And secondarily “elite” is very often a good thing.
Just like “woke” sometimes good well meaning folks will use descriptive words with a positive meaning in a sarcastic and pejorative manner. As is their right. I’m closer to being a literalist. When I say “elite” I mean you demonstrate elite performance. If you’re in a political leadership role and you are not cognizant of your human limitations or are autocratic (seek to impose your views) or exclusively populist (oversimplified one-size-fits-all type) - sadly, used in the descriptive sense - you are not “elite,” in my view. You may be hanging with the elite, but from a leadership perspective, you simply are not one.
The vast majority of that list have a reputation of being Part of the Problem; members and/or supporters of the globalist elite who believe they Know Better™ and therefore have the right to make our decisions FOR us.
I wouldn't consider their approval a virtue.
Donald Trump has the support he has, because of how the decisions of this myopic elite have adversely affected the present and future of the ordinary citizen, in a manner reminiscent of a bull in a china shop.
Personally, I tend to prefer “elite” performance over rank amateur, but I know that’s not popular in some circles. Regardless, my list was not about “these are all great people. It was a clear and direct refutation of the claim that only “media elite” thought Carney did a good job in managing the US president, and everyone else rolled their eyes. My aim was to help the writer catch their own bias. We all have them but this writer is an elite in his field and, I believe, should be on the look-out for such bias in themselves.
I prefer that those who exhibit elite performance, as our society defines it, are always cognizant of their human limitations, and do not seek to impose their views upon the rest of us as a one-size-fits-all One True Way with a fundamentalist zeal that ignores those self-evident truths America's founders delineated in 1776.
And the people on your list, as well as the media elite the author notes, are out to impose their views as I describe.
They consider each other allies, part of a single societal elite that Knows Better™ than you or I do how we should live our lives ... primarily, in SUBMISSION to them as the Smart People™, as though life is a school-group project where one or two whiz kids make the decisions and the rest go along for the ride, for better or worse.
They consider Carney one of them, with justification given his history.
Such as these are all-in invested in their elite status – financially, professionally, politically, even in terms of reputation and their own self-esteem. They have built their ENTIRE lives around being perceived as the elite.
But this perceived value depends upon the rest of us continually needing … and therefore deferring to … them and their “superior” guidance. Hence the motivation to encourage its imposition as The One True Way in every area, through both social pressure and in some cases the coercive force of law.
Donald Trump, in word and in policy, dissents from that paradigm. His policies instead expand respect for and protection of individual liberty – including the liberty to depart from that One True Way when it doesn’t work for us as individuals.
That erodes the perceived value of elite status in this society. Which is why the elites are motivated to the point of collusion, to tear him down.
Only responding to one point at a time. The first claim made was that only “media elites” praised Carney and everyone else rolled their eyes. I was curious about that and suspected, given the writer, that it might be inaccurate. Clearly it was. Once the big headline opener is proven to be an absolute fabrication, I tend not to read all the crap that follows.
As for what I may or may not have fallen for. You don’t even know who I voted for, let alone the criteria I used and how I weighted it. But then if you buy the stories this wanker sells then perhaps facts are not really that relevant anyway.
Bill: The Rewrite is a platform that discusses how media approach coverage and about media public policies. The broader coverage of responses that you are looking for can be found elsewhere and you might be more comfortable there
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate that The Rewrite has a specific focus, and my initial comment wasn’t intended to redirect your mission—which I support. I should’ve read the full article before responding. I own that.
That said, I’ve seen a wave of one-sided (often unfair) critiques that misrepresent or dismiss legitimate public interest in Carney’s recent moves. So when I saw a headline that, to me, implied the only positive response came from “media elites”—which I believed and then confirmed to be untrue—I reacted. As you know, headlines matter. They set the tone for an article and can shape public perception, especially when widely shared. In this case, the headline struck me as reinforcing a narrative I believe is factually off-base. And it included a dog-whistle term (perhaps unintentionally). So I provided a simple list of facts—without judgment, just for context and balance.
To be clear, I appreciate your writing, and this is a topic I’m genuinely interested in. I do tend to lean against steeper slants, but I hope that’s part of the value of these forums: to bring a variety of perspectives into the discussion. I’m not looking for breadth in every piece, but I do want to help them be more than counter-spin.
I enjoy Substack because it draws thoughtful people who engage with the material, not just consume it. But lately, I’ve seen more partisan noise creep into the discussions. When a commenter claimed to know my politics and motives simply because I pushed back on a narrative my response was too harsh, and the tone came off wrong—they weren’t intended to be directed at you personally.
You’re of course welcome to block or mute me if you see fit. But if not, I’ll continue to follow your work, challenge it from time to time, and make a better effort to avoid engaging when the comment thread turns partisan or personal.
……….. still waters run deep; PM Carney would be welcome in any Boardroom on Wall Street and Bonespurs knows it. Those with true power don’t brag about it, they simply exercise it when appropriate, with skill and expertise.
Globalists flock together. The rest of us aren't flocking with them any longer, because they have flocked us over in multiple ways.
Carney is Part of that Problem. Those who perceive the value of individual liberty, and the human limitations of the globalist elite, see that these wannabe emperors - despite their veneer of sophistication and genteel civility - are wearing robes of arrogance and condescension that are the uniform of bigotry these days, far more than brown shirts or white sheets. Let alone red hats.
To coin a phrase, that elite is for they/them - Donald Trump is for the rest of us.
What he DOES is far more respectful of our individual rights, than what is done by these genteel bigots. And every time he makes that evident - with bombast or not - the fact that such a "boorish" individual is more respected by the masses than they chafes their bigoted behinds.
In large part, because it threatens the perceived value of their most precious investment - their all-in, built-their-lives-around investment in the elite status that leads them to believe they are better than everyone else and therefore are worthy of our submission to them.
I heard that twaddle with Moshe Lander, not sure why CTV didn’t just get Butts instead.
If Alberta were to separate, BC would be separated from the rest of canada and the rest of canada would lose access to BC and the pacific
So everyone would negotiate access.
If Canada falls apart, and I still hope it doesn’t, it’s very likely that most of BC joins with AB and SK, leaving a rump city state in vancouver that will have to ask nicely if it wants electricity and water from the new entity.
The clarity act was very clear that its region by region because the threat was the Quebec corridor along the st Laurence would lose the hydro assets up north
Applies everywhere.
And yes, it will come down to whether net zero fanatic Carney has learned anything because it’s those fantasies that will break the country, not smith.
In the 2015 election, I turned on the tv at 6:30 pm which was on CTV. I'd forgotten there was an election and was about to turn the channel, when the on air reporter was interviewing former premier Danny "the bankrupter" Williams. She gave him the microphone and allowed him to spew two uninterrupted minutes of vitriol towards Harper and the Conservatives. I waited for her to follow with an opposing view, which unsurprisingly, didn't come. Polls were still open.
This is the same organization who demanded they allowed to own all media in Canada, then got their way and are now demanding taxpayers pay for their incompetence.
This is also the same organization whose president (Kevin Krull) stepped into the newsroom to interfere in an unfavorable news story regarding Bell. What surprises me the most is that the liberals, despite an entire news media promoting their agenda, they weren't able to gain a majority. DEFUND CTV...
I was about to abandon all ships but then read this. How fair, how fab the Mr. Rogers comparison and the Alberta 11% population giving 15% of the dough. Does CBC know this? Oh right, I forgot.
The media knows not to bite the hand that feeds them i.e. The Liberal government subsidies to the media.
Yes, Mark "The Trump-Tamer" Carney sure turned that situation around quickly, a situation described in the media as an "existential threat".
Was the media duped or duplicitous?
I call it "The Shipping News Election".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN4ggCXwUsU
The ‘media’ worked with Carney to ensure his election.
Alberta can't go it alone until it drops its protections on dairy.
Phffffffffffffff
Here’s a quick and incomplete list of non-media folks that have spoken positively of PM Carney’s televise meeting with Trump:
Canadian Political Figures
1. Doug Ford – Premier of Ontario – May 6, 2025 – Statement to press
2. David Eby – Premier of British Columbia – May 6, 2025 – Press conference
3. Danielle Smith – Premier of Alberta – May 6, 2025 – Press release
4. Scott Moe – Premier of Saskatchewan – May 6, 2025 – Public statement
5. Olivia Chow – Mayor of Toronto – May 6, 2025 – Social media post
U.S. Political Figures
6. Lisa Murkowski – U.S. Senator (Republican, Alaska) – May 7, 2025 – Senate floor speech
7. Susan Collins – U.S. Senator (Republican, Maine) – May 7, 2025 – Press interview
8. Amy Klobuchar – U.S. Senator (Democrat, Minnesota) – May 7, 2025 – Public statement
Other International Leaders
9. Emmanuel Macron – President of France – May 6, 2025 – Official statement
10. Keir Starmer – Prime Minister of the United Kingdom – May 6, 2025 – Social media post
11. Anthony Albanese – Prime Minister of Australia – May 6, 2025 – Press release
Former Politicians
12. Stephen Harper – Former Prime Minister of Canada – May 7, 2025 – CBC interview
13. Michael Bloomberg – Former Mayor of New York City – May 7, 2025 – New York Times op-ed
14. Angela Merkel – Former Chancellor of Germany – May 7, 2025 – Public statement
He didn’t make things worse.
Great, proves he has more brain cells than Trudeau, but that’s a low bar.
That is not what the story is about, which is that all the election tough talk was nonsense.
And you fell for it.
It’s a complex world init? One person’s collaboration is another’s collusion. All in the mind and from a great distance, of course, because when examined with all the facts, and taking words for their literal meaning, distinctions are usually clearer. I’ve not seen the facts that show that fiscally conservative Stephen Harper is colluding with social democrat David Eby. You’re American so I can only say to Google the names you don’t know - or trust me, these folks do not share a world view. Likewise, the libertarian Danielle Smith and the left wing progressive Olivia Chow. The list of names includes people that professed “anti-elites” would have embraced as their own up until the point they got elected. Some were agitators and activists, that helped bring down governments. Perhaps your objection is to democracy itself. Fair enough.
Not that I don’t agree with some of your sentiment. The characteristics you describe are not attractive qualities. It’s just there’s no evidence that those are the defining and common characteristics of the people on the list. Or that it’s possible to get in a position of leadership and not have some people try to label you with those qualities.
My points stand. Both my relevant point that these people are not media elites (they are not even media) and thus the media elite person that made that allusion was being inaccurate in their most prominent statement. And secondarily “elite” is very often a good thing.
Just like “woke” sometimes good well meaning folks will use descriptive words with a positive meaning in a sarcastic and pejorative manner. As is their right. I’m closer to being a literalist. When I say “elite” I mean you demonstrate elite performance. If you’re in a political leadership role and you are not cognizant of your human limitations or are autocratic (seek to impose your views) or exclusively populist (oversimplified one-size-fits-all type) - sadly, used in the descriptive sense - you are not “elite,” in my view. You may be hanging with the elite, but from a leadership perspective, you simply are not one.
The vast majority of that list have a reputation of being Part of the Problem; members and/or supporters of the globalist elite who believe they Know Better™ and therefore have the right to make our decisions FOR us.
I wouldn't consider their approval a virtue.
Donald Trump has the support he has, because of how the decisions of this myopic elite have adversely affected the present and future of the ordinary citizen, in a manner reminiscent of a bull in a china shop.
Personally, I tend to prefer “elite” performance over rank amateur, but I know that’s not popular in some circles. Regardless, my list was not about “these are all great people. It was a clear and direct refutation of the claim that only “media elite” thought Carney did a good job in managing the US president, and everyone else rolled their eyes. My aim was to help the writer catch their own bias. We all have them but this writer is an elite in his field and, I believe, should be on the look-out for such bias in themselves.
I prefer that those who exhibit elite performance, as our society defines it, are always cognizant of their human limitations, and do not seek to impose their views upon the rest of us as a one-size-fits-all One True Way with a fundamentalist zeal that ignores those self-evident truths America's founders delineated in 1776.
And the people on your list, as well as the media elite the author notes, are out to impose their views as I describe.
They consider each other allies, part of a single societal elite that Knows Better™ than you or I do how we should live our lives ... primarily, in SUBMISSION to them as the Smart People™, as though life is a school-group project where one or two whiz kids make the decisions and the rest go along for the ride, for better or worse.
They consider Carney one of them, with justification given his history.
Such as these are all-in invested in their elite status – financially, professionally, politically, even in terms of reputation and their own self-esteem. They have built their ENTIRE lives around being perceived as the elite.
But this perceived value depends upon the rest of us continually needing … and therefore deferring to … them and their “superior” guidance. Hence the motivation to encourage its imposition as The One True Way in every area, through both social pressure and in some cases the coercive force of law.
Donald Trump, in word and in policy, dissents from that paradigm. His policies instead expand respect for and protection of individual liberty – including the liberty to depart from that One True Way when it doesn’t work for us as individuals.
That erodes the perceived value of elite status in this society. Which is why the elites are motivated to the point of collusion, to tear him down.
Only responding to one point at a time. The first claim made was that only “media elites” praised Carney and everyone else rolled their eyes. I was curious about that and suspected, given the writer, that it might be inaccurate. Clearly it was. Once the big headline opener is proven to be an absolute fabrication, I tend not to read all the crap that follows.
As for what I may or may not have fallen for. You don’t even know who I voted for, let alone the criteria I used and how I weighted it. But then if you buy the stories this wanker sells then perhaps facts are not really that relevant anyway.
Bill: The Rewrite is a platform that discusses how media approach coverage and about media public policies. The broader coverage of responses that you are looking for can be found elsewhere and you might be more comfortable there
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate that The Rewrite has a specific focus, and my initial comment wasn’t intended to redirect your mission—which I support. I should’ve read the full article before responding. I own that.
That said, I’ve seen a wave of one-sided (often unfair) critiques that misrepresent or dismiss legitimate public interest in Carney’s recent moves. So when I saw a headline that, to me, implied the only positive response came from “media elites”—which I believed and then confirmed to be untrue—I reacted. As you know, headlines matter. They set the tone for an article and can shape public perception, especially when widely shared. In this case, the headline struck me as reinforcing a narrative I believe is factually off-base. And it included a dog-whistle term (perhaps unintentionally). So I provided a simple list of facts—without judgment, just for context and balance.
To be clear, I appreciate your writing, and this is a topic I’m genuinely interested in. I do tend to lean against steeper slants, but I hope that’s part of the value of these forums: to bring a variety of perspectives into the discussion. I’m not looking for breadth in every piece, but I do want to help them be more than counter-spin.
I enjoy Substack because it draws thoughtful people who engage with the material, not just consume it. But lately, I’ve seen more partisan noise creep into the discussions. When a commenter claimed to know my politics and motives simply because I pushed back on a narrative my response was too harsh, and the tone came off wrong—they weren’t intended to be directed at you personally.
You’re of course welcome to block or mute me if you see fit. But if not, I’ll continue to follow your work, challenge it from time to time, and make a better effort to avoid engaging when the comment thread turns partisan or personal.
……….. still waters run deep; PM Carney would be welcome in any Boardroom on Wall Street and Bonespurs knows it. Those with true power don’t brag about it, they simply exercise it when appropriate, with skill and expertise.
Globalists flock together. The rest of us aren't flocking with them any longer, because they have flocked us over in multiple ways.
Carney is Part of that Problem. Those who perceive the value of individual liberty, and the human limitations of the globalist elite, see that these wannabe emperors - despite their veneer of sophistication and genteel civility - are wearing robes of arrogance and condescension that are the uniform of bigotry these days, far more than brown shirts or white sheets. Let alone red hats.
To coin a phrase, that elite is for they/them - Donald Trump is for the rest of us.
What he DOES is far more respectful of our individual rights, than what is done by these genteel bigots. And every time he makes that evident - with bombast or not - the fact that such a "boorish" individual is more respected by the masses than they chafes their bigoted behinds.
In large part, because it threatens the perceived value of their most precious investment - their all-in, built-their-lives-around investment in the elite status that leads them to believe they are better than everyone else and therefore are worthy of our submission to them.
Great reply. Couldn’t agree more.