There's a particular hatred the far-left in Canada holds for Rex Murphy. It's mostly because he occupies a position in the Canadian media -- a contributor for the CBC and host of Cross Country Checkup -- that suggests to them that he should be one of them. But he is unequivocally not one of them.
This becomes most evident whenever he takes aim at one of the far-left's sacred cattle. When he does so a single sentence uttered by Murphy can leave the far-left quivering in outrage.
Such was apparently the case when Murphy took aim at one of the far-left's most recent sacred cattle: the so-called "white privilege" theory. (It doesn't really measure up as a theory, but I've already been over that.) That provoked sputtering outrage from David Bernans of the Montreal Media Coop. In the course of his diatribe, Bernans manages to prove everything Murphy says about the promoters of "white privilege" "theory" to be absolutely correct.
To whit:
"Rex Murphy offers us this pearl of wisdom in his latest National Post column:
'It is bitterly ironic that the anti-racist message has been reduced to this: You have all that you have only because you have white skin.'
No Rex. You have all that you have because of your truly unparalleled talents as an apologist for the wealthy and powerful. No person of any race or gender can suck up to powerful interests with as much self-righteousness and ostentatious erudition as you. You are a sycophant extraordinaire.
You have no qualms with knowingly misrepresenting the white privilege thesis in your hard-won column at the National Post. It's true Rex, you cannot explain every single advantage that every white person has only by reference to white privilege. Therefore, white privilege does not exist. Case closed. That must really put the National Post editorial board and other predominantly white institutions at ease."
This particular outburst left me with a new appreciation for much earlier in Murphy's column, when he wrote the following:
"For if there is one movement, that by its humourlessness, its obsessive mania and its blindness to its failings, chokes on its own goals, it is the so-called anti-racism movement."
Because he couldn't handle Murphy espousing on the many, many shortcomings of "white privilege" "theory" peddling "anti-racists" (each of these terms framed separately because they are all separately absurd) Bernans finishes his "rebuttal" with a racially-charged remark.
That shouldn't surprise anyone, though: it's what new-age racists like David Bernans do.
Showing posts with label Rex Murphy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rex Murphy. Show all posts
Monday, May 19, 2014
Sunday, February 23, 2014
Press Progress Just Can't Play By Their Own Rules
The folks at Press Progress sure do like to play by their own rules. And like any good left-wing organization, they themselves don't play by the rules they demand other people play by.
Press Progress has been among the more obnoxious participants in the campaign to attempt to run Rex Murphy off the CBC. They insist that his failure to disclose what may or may not be paid speeches to various oilsands-friendly groups before speaking about the oilsands on CBC's The National is unethical.
So you would think that Press Progress would play by its own rules and disclose who funds their operation, or any organizational links they may have, on any stories where it could be of ethical concern, right? Right?
Well, if you read their recent sad attempt at a "gotcha" article about Jason Kenney attending Conservative Party fundraisers while also traveling on government business, you may or may not notice something missing: Press Progress' disclosure that they, as a project of the Broadbent Institute, are essentially an NDP proxy.
They do pretend to be non-partisan. The Broadbent Institute pretends to be non-partisan. And in fact they're so non-partisan that the NDP broke the law in order to fund them. Which is really not very non-partisan at all.
This probably explains precisely why the story simply fails to mention the number of NDP MPs who also attend party fundraisers while traveling for public business, on the public dime. Liberals do it too. It's quite common.
Of course, Press Progress can hardly taddle on NDP MPs while maintaining direct links to the NDP. Ethics or not, that just cannot work for them. Interesting how quickly Press Progress dispenses with its own purported ethical standards.
And besides: playing by the same rules they presume to make for others? Where's the fun in that?
Press Progress has been among the more obnoxious participants in the campaign to attempt to run Rex Murphy off the CBC. They insist that his failure to disclose what may or may not be paid speeches to various oilsands-friendly groups before speaking about the oilsands on CBC's The National is unethical.
So you would think that Press Progress would play by its own rules and disclose who funds their operation, or any organizational links they may have, on any stories where it could be of ethical concern, right? Right?
Well, if you read their recent sad attempt at a "gotcha" article about Jason Kenney attending Conservative Party fundraisers while also traveling on government business, you may or may not notice something missing: Press Progress' disclosure that they, as a project of the Broadbent Institute, are essentially an NDP proxy.
They do pretend to be non-partisan. The Broadbent Institute pretends to be non-partisan. And in fact they're so non-partisan that the NDP broke the law in order to fund them. Which is really not very non-partisan at all.
This probably explains precisely why the story simply fails to mention the number of NDP MPs who also attend party fundraisers while traveling for public business, on the public dime. Liberals do it too. It's quite common.
Of course, Press Progress can hardly taddle on NDP MPs while maintaining direct links to the NDP. Ethics or not, that just cannot work for them. Interesting how quickly Press Progress dispenses with its own purported ethical standards.
And besides: playing by the same rules they presume to make for others? Where's the fun in that?
Monday, December 19, 2011
John Doyle is His Own Political Santa Claus
There's something about a television critic whose work seems to be far more about politics than it is about what's actually on TV that provokes a cringe among so many Canadians.
That cringe becomes more cringe-y still when one considers just how invested Doyle is in the soul-crushing status quo of the Canadian media. But when he takes that devotion and applies it to playing Santa Claus... well, the results are not pretty.
That's precisely what Doyle does in his most recent Globe and Mail column, and the results of his political "naughty and nice" list are predictable to anyone who paid any attention whatsoever to Doyle during 2011.
Topping his list is federal Minister of the Environment Peter Kent. Because Doyle doesn't like him. That seems to be pretty much it.
The second is Sun News Network anchor Krista Erickson. Erickson, you see, asked "iconic" interpretive dancer Margie Gillis some forbidden questions back in June, and Doyle has never forgiven her. The consensus media -- the keepers of the aforementioned soul-crushing status quo -- never forgive anyone who asks forbidden questions. Just ask Dan Gardner.
Coming in third is Rex Murphy -- a familiar target of hatred for the far-left. The far-left find Murphy to be a comforting locus for their hatred because he is skeptical of their causes celibre on, of all networks, the CBC. The CBC, they assure us, is theirs, and no viewpoints can be tolerated there other than their own.
Thus Doyle's revulsion at Don Cherry -- another far-left hate magnet -- and Kevin O'Leary. Cherry is, well... Cherry, and O'Leary was seen to be insufficiently deferential to American journalist Chris Hedges.
Closing out the list at #9 was another Sun News Network anchor, Brian Lilley. Doyle seems to resent Lilley for asking tough questions about the CBC, but there's more to it than that. Although Doyle ridiculed Sun News for not being an instant success at a time when it wasn't airing in all of Canada's media markets, Doyle likely hasn't forgiven the network for promptly beginning to break ratings records just two months later.
Also mentioned was Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, although seemingly not formally included on the list. Ford, you see, committed the grievous sin of not being sufficiently jovial when accosted at his home by no-talent "comedienne" Mary Walsh. Remember that Walsh was conducting that particular ambush, and the real reason for Ford's inclusion becomes crystal clear.
Well, if John Doyle is handing out Santa's presents to anyone this year -- be it to TV producers and personalities or to anyone else -- the people who rightly belong on the naughty list can expect generous presents, and the people who rightly belong on the nice list. Not only does this particular Santa suck at his job, he's also ass-backward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)