Even the NY Times ... oh, the infamy
May 25 - Master Meriadoc could lecture us well on the virtues of being unnoticed ... at least for a short period of time.
Was Canada Just Too Good to Be True?.
Actually, it's a pretty good article but either he doesn't know about or chooses to ignore some troubling questions about the procrastination of the Liberal Party in allowing the non-confidence vote or the thoughts in the minds of some Westeners and Quebeckers.
Or maybe he just hadn't read the opening paragraphs of this.
Or, more significantly, this Lorrie Goldstein column that takes a pretty close look at the Grewal-Murphy tape and Insta!Stronach Cabinet post.
May 29 - Today's editorial in the Toronto Sun, Can't we take a little criticism? says that Canadians should be thanking Krauss; it seems that Clifford Krauss has been slammed for his article in the NY Times for puncturing some of Canada's illusions about itself.
We hope Clifford Krauss is reading this, because after the week he's had, he deserves a thank-you.
The New York Times' Canadian correspondent filed a stinging dispatch from Toronto last week that predictably riled many Canucks -- because, we submit, it was true.
I must read the wrong papers, because I didn't know there was hostility to the article. But still, the
NY Times has had a few articles about Canada since the publication ban on Jean Brault testimony was lifted that focused on Adscam and the Liberal Party's manipulations to stay in power, and I am somewhat surprised that the latest item from Krauss was received with more outrage up here than his previous report (noted
here) and the op-ed by Canadian David Frum which appeared in the
NY Times (and noted in the same link) which were far more critical by what they implied.
Posted by: Debbye at
11:35 AM
| Comments (8)
| Add Comment
Post contains 312 words, total size 3 kb.
1
An excellent article, especially this quote; "Of course, quite a few nations have an embellished sense of righteousness, not least among them, many would say, Canada's southern neighbor."
Posted by: Flanstein at May 25, 2005 04:17 PM (XYwW8)
2
For an alternative view, there's the latest eruption from Mt. Simpson. Seems there's this rogue opposition MP running around trapping innocent chiefs of staff into exquisitely prudent abstractions. For four hours. Or,
equally plausible to an outsider, that he was indeed sniffing around, visiting cabinet ministers, opening up lines of communication for a switch, hoping to secure something then or later for himself and/or his wife.
http://www.andrewcoyne.com
***********************************************
His latest column is up; link provided; an excellent political essay. Compare it to Mr. Simpson (G&M spavined-hackneyed nag; his best cliche is "thin gruel". He has not written an original thought since his last thank-you card to Santy Claus 68 years ago).
Support Andre Coyne vs. the Liberals who want us to forget the tapes of four hours long.
Bloggers, please keep it up top.
AC Coyne is a worthy. Bravo.
Posted by: maz2 at May 25, 2005 06:37 PM (2+PY/)
3
Flanstein, Krauss was writing in American, not Canadian, and there is a difference. There is no U.S. parallel to the gossipy nature of the Canadian media about American national issues because we such to be inpolite and properly falls under the "none of our business" category.
Ask yourself: how often do mainstream U.S. publications criticize or air the dirty laundry of other countries? Krauss's article contains absolutely no international affairs content; that's a clue.
I too noticed that Krauss inserted some "even-handed treatment" in his article but again, you'd have to read it in American to pick up on what was not said and thus implicitly communicated.
As I said: better when Canada was unnoticed (but that too should be read in American.)
Maz2, fear not! Read the Goldstein article and go "hmmm."
Posted by: Debbye at May 25, 2005 08:51 PM (ynrmu)
4
Hmmm.
BTW, if you were wondering why Murphy isn't going after CTV or the Globe and Mail, the following may be of interest:
Step 1: Google: "ivan fecan" ctv globe
Step 2: Google: "ivan fecan" "paul martin"
Step 3: Pour very large darnk.
Just a thought
Posted by: Tony at May 25, 2005 09:51 PM (tjFjH)
5
I caught this one two - Back last November after the election the NYT was praising Canada. Now this. The stabbing buggers!
Posted by: Darcey at May 26, 2005 12:52 AM (lcgli)
6
"There is no U.S. parallel to the gossipy nature of the Canadian media about American national issues because we such to be inpolite and properly falls under the "none of our business" category."
Ahem, most American media don't comment on foreign affairs because they don't believe that anything that happens outside their country is important (unless America is involved in which case it becomes VERY important)- not because they are polite.
Posted by: Flanstein at May 26, 2005 08:16 AM (XYwW8)
7
Once again more ammunition that "ought" to be used by the RCMP in investigating the levels of corruption and to what levels the Liberals will go to hold onto their power.
The question that remains to be answered is, will the RCMP actually investigate?
Who has the authority to order/ask the RCMP to investigate these charges?
Will that person/persons please step forward and demand an investigation?
I really don't care what the outcome of the investigation is (VBEG), lets get the thing started!
Posted by: crabby mr bill at May 26, 2005 11:42 AM (rp6r3)
8
"Who has the authority to order/ask the RCMP to investigate these charges?"
Don;t forget "Who has the ability to order the RCMP to forget the afore-mentioned investigation or cover up the results?
Posted by: Jay at May 26, 2005 01:06 PM (PuNh2)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
18kb generated in CPU 0.0529, elapsed 0.1477 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.1391 seconds, 150 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
