I stopped watching CBC, CTV and Global at least eight years ago because of biased reporting. Independent media and international media sources provide perspective and facts that better inform Canadians. Thanks for your work.
I stopped tuning in for news from those networks ten years ago after the infamous ride that Peter Mansbridge took in the back of the limousine carrying Justin Trudeau to Rideau Hall to be sworn in as Prime Minister. It was all just a bit too much, the literal straw that broke this camel's back. One might say it was reminiscent of some scene featuring Wayne and Garth wheeling about town in an AMC Pacer in Wayne's World - the perception of journalistic independence wiped away, instead overt fawning by a media personality of a Liberal politician on full display.
Regrettably, one cannot entirely escape seeing Mr. Mansbridge, his periodic gig shilling for the folks offering reverse mortgages to Canadian seniors now showing up on television screens - another Order of Canada recipient putting that elite Laurentian class pin to good use...
Rene, one way to avoid Mansbridge is to stop watching television.
Due to my hearing loss I no longer watch much television at all. When my wife watches, I periodically read the captions on the screen but most commonly I read a book. And, always, always, I look down at the book when Mansbridge comes on.
Oh, you can find him on the internet but he is eminently easy to ignore in that setting.
And, as for the Laurentian elite? I much prefer the "elite" of Alberta.
The one network one is fully guaranteed never to see him or his ilk sharing their thoughts, Ken, is on Fox News. A shame that Canadians have to pay for that channel as an add-on, but not so for CNN or MSNBC.
Interestingly, Mark Carney chose not to adorn his western duds with his Order of Canada pin while flipping pancakes at the Calgary Stampede. Probably best. It's unlikely to have garnered him any oohs and awes of approval from the crowd assembled before him there...
Maybe so, but they should. The Governor General's website describes the order as the "cornerstone of the Canadian Honours System... [recognizing] outstanding achievement, dedication to the community and service to the nation." Its motto is: "DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM (“They desire a better country”)."
What stood out to me when Mark Carney recently paid a visit to the Oval Office was President Trump greeting him with an American flag pin on his lapel. Contrast that with Mr. Carney, decked out in his Order of Canada pin. That spurred me into looking further into it.
Debating the merits of honouring someone whose career was largely spent reading Canadians the news on state television each night may be one thing, but awarding one to Lorne Michaels, recognized for his work producing, of all things, SNL - how does that align with the Order's motto? The arts and entertainment crowd, of course, are very, very well represented among the recipients. And then, of course, there's Henry Morgentaler.
On a positive note, Cecil Meritt, awarded a Victoria Cross for his bravery and leadership during the raid at Dieppe in 1942, refused being admitted into the Order of Canada. He already had Canada's highest decoration and that was good enough for him.
I am confused. As accused colonizers and murderers of First Nations children, we were supposed to be ashamed of Canada and, by extension, its flag just a few years ago. Trump shows up and our past is forgiven. Is it OK to venerate Sir John A. again? The Liberals need to provide explicit updates on their ever-shifting stance on what it means to be a Canadian.
They want to reduce emissions, yet welcome millions of people from warmer, and hence lower CO2, countries.
They feel very deeply about our colonizing past, yet welcome million of new colonizers.
Yes, immigration is very much not a zero sum game in the net zero BS game.
Any immigrant from a tropical/warm country instantly increases their emissions footprint by a factor of ten just for the energy consumed to prevent death, the say nothing of what job they end up doing.
That is why our emissions have gone up.
Not that I care, I can read so I know co2 is net net positive and the “social cost of carbon” is something like -$500 per ton, the most positive molecule in human history.
Second, yes, while I understand that restricting comments to those who actually pay for a subscription - including me! - has some economic rationale for you, for many of the Substacks to which I subscribe (both paid and freebies - the comment section is a real plus. I subscribe to those Substacks because I like / loathe (but must read for content with which I disagree but need) / or otherwise find important to read but the comments on those Substacks are frequently every bit as enlightening as the columns. Those comments provide perspective, seasoning, leavening if you will, for the basic commentary.
Put differently, often other readers are every bit as smart as the author of the particular Substack and have perspective that is really, really useful.
So, why do I write this when I have clearly paid my pittance (for that what it is) to you, Mr. Menzies? Simply put, your (actually kinda reasonable in some ways) action in limiting commentary functions to "encourage" folks to buy from you but until they do it limits severely MY ability to read pretty doggoned good additional perspective.
All of that to say that, as we all know, you can't please all the people all the time.
Thanks. It was a little bit of that but while folks might not believe it I was actually thinking it would be nice to give people who voluntarily pay some kind of special status. But I’m still experimenting so I’m going to try maybe just restricting comments to paid subs for, I dunno, the first 12 or 24 hours? What do you think?
I quite understand your rationale and I accept fully your thoughtfulness. However, as I say, it seems to me that you (and many other Substackers) generate some very interesting commentary.
With some Substacks I have found the Substacks to be simply excellent but, very interestingly, the commentary is every bit as good as the Substack itself. Just two examples of this are Future Doctrina, written by General Mick Ryan (Aus, Ret.), for which I happily pay and which is really good and Doomberg, written by an anonymous group and for which I get a freebie because it is REALLY expensive.
The examples that I cite are clearly very, very good (and are only a sample of the various Substacks that I peruse regularly) and their comment sections are really, really good (well, Doomberg used to be good but now I cannot see it). Your comment section is quite useful but it does not reach the quality of your very superior work (suck, suck).
Our betters will never stop trying to ensure their views have supremacy, and that all other views must be at the least curtailed, or at the most completely censured. They are terrified that their little dress world is falling apart, and that their heroes (PM Carey and PM Trudeau) have feet of clay.
I would love to get my hands on one of the New York World special editions with chromolithography colour printing, like this. Imagine how beautiful this looks on cloth paper:
I would also like to track down a copy of the Sept. 9, 1976 edition of the Edmonton Journal that introduced the green masthead (which hadn't been changed in 64 years, apparently.)
I stopped watching CBC, CTV and Global at least eight years ago because of biased reporting. Independent media and international media sources provide perspective and facts that better inform Canadians. Thanks for your work.
V Knight
Nova Scotia
I stopped tuning in for news from those networks ten years ago after the infamous ride that Peter Mansbridge took in the back of the limousine carrying Justin Trudeau to Rideau Hall to be sworn in as Prime Minister. It was all just a bit too much, the literal straw that broke this camel's back. One might say it was reminiscent of some scene featuring Wayne and Garth wheeling about town in an AMC Pacer in Wayne's World - the perception of journalistic independence wiped away, instead overt fawning by a media personality of a Liberal politician on full display.
Regrettably, one cannot entirely escape seeing Mr. Mansbridge, his periodic gig shilling for the folks offering reverse mortgages to Canadian seniors now showing up on television screens - another Order of Canada recipient putting that elite Laurentian class pin to good use...
Rene, one way to avoid Mansbridge is to stop watching television.
Due to my hearing loss I no longer watch much television at all. When my wife watches, I periodically read the captions on the screen but most commonly I read a book. And, always, always, I look down at the book when Mansbridge comes on.
Oh, you can find him on the internet but he is eminently easy to ignore in that setting.
And, as for the Laurentian elite? I much prefer the "elite" of Alberta.
The one network one is fully guaranteed never to see him or his ilk sharing their thoughts, Ken, is on Fox News. A shame that Canadians have to pay for that channel as an add-on, but not so for CNN or MSNBC.
Interestingly, Mark Carney chose not to adorn his western duds with his Order of Canada pin while flipping pancakes at the Calgary Stampede. Probably best. It's unlikely to have garnered him any oohs and awes of approval from the crowd assembled before him there...
I doubt many of us sufficiently care about the O of C to be able to recognize an official pin.
Maybe so, but they should. The Governor General's website describes the order as the "cornerstone of the Canadian Honours System... [recognizing] outstanding achievement, dedication to the community and service to the nation." Its motto is: "DESIDERANTES MELIOREM PATRIAM (“They desire a better country”)."
What stood out to me when Mark Carney recently paid a visit to the Oval Office was President Trump greeting him with an American flag pin on his lapel. Contrast that with Mr. Carney, decked out in his Order of Canada pin. That spurred me into looking further into it.
Debating the merits of honouring someone whose career was largely spent reading Canadians the news on state television each night may be one thing, but awarding one to Lorne Michaels, recognized for his work producing, of all things, SNL - how does that align with the Order's motto? The arts and entertainment crowd, of course, are very, very well represented among the recipients. And then, of course, there's Henry Morgentaler.
On a positive note, Cecil Meritt, awarded a Victoria Cross for his bravery and leadership during the raid at Dieppe in 1942, refused being admitted into the Order of Canada. He already had Canada's highest decoration and that was good enough for him.
Lest we forget...
I am confused. As accused colonizers and murderers of First Nations children, we were supposed to be ashamed of Canada and, by extension, its flag just a few years ago. Trump shows up and our past is forgiven. Is it OK to venerate Sir John A. again? The Liberals need to provide explicit updates on their ever-shifting stance on what it means to be a Canadian.
They want to reduce emissions, yet welcome millions of people from warmer, and hence lower CO2, countries.
They feel very deeply about our colonizing past, yet welcome million of new colonizers.
Yes, immigration is very much not a zero sum game in the net zero BS game.
Any immigrant from a tropical/warm country instantly increases their emissions footprint by a factor of ten just for the energy consumed to prevent death, the say nothing of what job they end up doing.
That is why our emissions have gone up.
Not that I care, I can read so I know co2 is net net positive and the “social cost of carbon” is something like -$500 per ton, the most positive molecule in human history.
They really must all collude on the biggest nonsense stories, it’s like they are reading from the same copy, like on the climate nonsense.
Another victory for independent media.
One item to look at is the climate star chamber at Columbia called Coveringclimatenow.org
They have hundreds of “media partners” who regurgitate their outlandish propaganda.
It’s how identical stories appear all over the globe same day same wording.
As my favorite snark John Robson says, the herd of “independent media” stampeding in the same direction all the time..
First, as always, always, well done, Sir.
Second, yes, while I understand that restricting comments to those who actually pay for a subscription - including me! - has some economic rationale for you, for many of the Substacks to which I subscribe (both paid and freebies - the comment section is a real plus. I subscribe to those Substacks because I like / loathe (but must read for content with which I disagree but need) / or otherwise find important to read but the comments on those Substacks are frequently every bit as enlightening as the columns. Those comments provide perspective, seasoning, leavening if you will, for the basic commentary.
Put differently, often other readers are every bit as smart as the author of the particular Substack and have perspective that is really, really useful.
So, why do I write this when I have clearly paid my pittance (for that what it is) to you, Mr. Menzies? Simply put, your (actually kinda reasonable in some ways) action in limiting commentary functions to "encourage" folks to buy from you but until they do it limits severely MY ability to read pretty doggoned good additional perspective.
All of that to say that, as we all know, you can't please all the people all the time.
Thanks. It was a little bit of that but while folks might not believe it I was actually thinking it would be nice to give people who voluntarily pay some kind of special status. But I’m still experimenting so I’m going to try maybe just restricting comments to paid subs for, I dunno, the first 12 or 24 hours? What do you think?
I quite understand your rationale and I accept fully your thoughtfulness. However, as I say, it seems to me that you (and many other Substackers) generate some very interesting commentary.
With some Substacks I have found the Substacks to be simply excellent but, very interestingly, the commentary is every bit as good as the Substack itself. Just two examples of this are Future Doctrina, written by General Mick Ryan (Aus, Ret.), for which I happily pay and which is really good and Doomberg, written by an anonymous group and for which I get a freebie because it is REALLY expensive.
The examples that I cite are clearly very, very good (and are only a sample of the various Substacks that I peruse regularly) and their comment sections are really, really good (well, Doomberg used to be good but now I cannot see it). Your comment section is quite useful but it does not reach the quality of your very superior work (suck, suck).
Our betters will never stop trying to ensure their views have supremacy, and that all other views must be at the least curtailed, or at the most completely censured. They are terrified that their little dress world is falling apart, and that their heroes (PM Carey and PM Trudeau) have feet of clay.
Nice antique newspaper collection!
I would love to get my hands on one of the New York World special editions with chromolithography colour printing, like this. Imagine how beautiful this looks on cloth paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_World#/media/File:New_York_World_-_Twain.jpg
I would also like to track down a copy of the Sept. 9, 1976 edition of the Edmonton Journal that introduced the green masthead (which hadn't been changed in 64 years, apparently.)