The Shotgun Blog
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Too Much TV
Last night was a bad night. I watched a little more TV than I suppose I should have. When I switched it on around quarter to 10, I went over to CP Pulse 24 - the Toronto news station. They were airing a live "memorial" to Jane Creba in Nathan Philips Square. This was no memorial. This was an anti-gun, pro-hippie, talking-just-to-hear-myself-speak extravaganza of the lowest order. There were tables set up to hold votive candles, which instead were covered in pamphlets and propaganda. Tied to the front of those tables were posters of infants and toddlers of all colors, with the quote "Guns Are Scary. They Hurt People."
One woman came on to speak, and I swear she was there for over 15 minutes. Which would have been nice, had she known the victim. I'm sure she would have eulogized her well. Instead, she was an activist who went on and on, smiling and laughing at times - very appropriate to the occasion, as I'm sure the grieving family would agree, if they wound up watching that drivel last night. I had time to make a coffee, go to the bathroom, on and on she went. At one point I raged to Mr. Right that I had time to hop on the subway, make it down to Nathan Philips Square, that cow would still be talking, and I could bitch-slap her live on television. Mr. Right just dumped more Bailey's into my coffee, waiting for the sedative effect to kick in. Good man.
Anyway, various people presented their agendas, there was a good shot of Jack Layton and Olivia Chow looking appropriately sombre (I didn't know Jack-o was able to take that smarmy grin off his face), and then mercifully it was over at about 10:15. And in a fit of self-flagellation, no doubt brought on by rage, I switched over to CBC Newsworld, to see a murdering Palestinian bastard saying how excited he was to face the Israelis. WTF?? I was intrigued. Then a voice over by Michael Douglas. Hmm... For the next hour and 45 minutes, I sat glued to the television, alternating between screaming and sobbing, while I watched a documentary called One Day in September. CBC put it on as part of its Passionate Eye series, to capitalize on the new Spielberg movie Munich.
I knew the story. I had just never seen it. My father had told me about it years ago, because Montreal hosted the next Olympics the year I was born, and he was telling me about the heavy security that they put up. I believe we were driving through Montreal's East End, past the white elephant of the Olympic Stadium, when he brought it up. Most of the world history I know I learned from him, and this was just another fact. Some other little tidbit. Now all of a sudden it's a popular subject again, thanks to Spielberg. Last night's documentary showed the bungling indifference of the German authorities, the missed opportunity of the Israelis to bring in Mossad while the hostages were still alive, the dedication of the terrorists to their cause, and how the lone Palestinian survivor is still proud of what he did, because it put the name of Palestine on everybody's lips.
I wept. I couldn't help myself. I demanded to know how many more times we would have to see the tortured faces of dead Jews before something was done about it once and for all. Personally, I don't think it was an accident that the Palestinians picked Germany to host their little spree. They wanted to make a point. A point that the Jews were without ally. That they would die. I was shocked not only by the images at the end of the burnt out helicopter and bloody bodies of the hostages, but by the German authorities who were interviewed, saying that Issa (the terrorist negotiator at the entrance to the Israeli apartments) was a nice enough guy, who might have been nice to know under different circumstances. I was shocked by the way the retired police were saying that the way they put their own man out in the open at the airport, without bullet-proof gear or helmet, without radio communications - it was stupid, something to laugh about now. Laugh? I wasn't laughing! I was precariously close to being sick.
I am a blogger. It means I'm obsessed by the news, and watch it all the time. But this was one of the few times I let something really get to me. As a matter of fact, it was one of three times. September 11th; hurricaine Katrina - specifically the story of Mr. Jackson, whose house tore in two while he and his wife were on the roof, and he clung to his grandchild while he watched his wife get washed away; and this film One Day in September.
Tonight, Dick Clark's return will be a welcome respite. But I'm sure those images will stay with me for months to come. Cross posted at Girl on the Right
Posted by RightGirl on December 31, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Too Much TV:
Palestinians know how to kill, destroy, steal and lie. Check what they did with the houses of the Israelis who left Gaza.
And now the sand monkey who is president of Iran. That's where we must focus and treat him the way we should before it's too late. Can you imagine a nuclear bomb dropped on Israel?
Posted by: Rémi houle | 2005-12-31 3:51:13 PM
How about posters saying instead of guns are scary, why not posters saying "gangs are scary". I thought anti gang ledgeslation was passed in this country. But that ledgeslation only implies to fat long haird white guys riding Harleys.
If this young girls death was caused by a drive by from some dude on a hog from the HA, you would hear the anti gang folk just a sceamin.
Posted by: Shawn | 2005-12-31 5:11:51 PM
I guess it was inevitable... "Three senior political leaders have agreed to declare war on guns" (meaning the Three Little Liberals: Martin, McGuinty, and Miller). This is the CTV news headline I see on the MSN.ca homepage right next to a picture of the late 15 year old Jane Creba, R.I.P., when I turn on my computer. Great, yet another war on yet another scary sounding noun. I guess they are copying the American obsession with declaring war on things, i.e. drugs, terror, etc. Like this will help. But where as the American wars really are against the people who perpetrate the actions, i.e. drug dealers/cartel (although I think everyone has forgotten about Clinton's "War on Drugs"), and Islamic extremists, this new Canadian "war" will really mean what it says: a war on guns, and no doubt a war on legitimate gun owners. Yeah, lets not go after the (mostly ethnic youth) gangs who are responsible for the majority of firearm murders (using stolen or illegal guns) in Canada, lets go after the legal gun we have in the registry, and lets prosecute their rightful owners. Next headline: Polls for Liberals jump up X% in Ontario, fall XX% in the West. Wowee. Well, in the words of Charlton Heston, I say: From My Cold Dead Hands.
Posted by: Big Makk | 2005-12-31 6:17:47 PM
Go pass some more useless gun laws, harass some more duck hunters, sniff each other’s behind in recognition of a job well done. Just remember one thing, your last feeble gutless ball less tit less attempt contributed to the death of a beautiful young girl.
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2005-12-31 8:48:31 PM
and then wake up new years day and read this drivel. It was only a matter of time before the gun violence was Mike Harris' fault. This rant is wrong and dishonest in so many ways, where do you begin?
There is a deadly cost to cutting social programs, says Linda McQuaig
Jan. 1, 2006. 01:00 AM
Ten years ago, Mike Harris slashed Ontario's welfare rates by 22 per cent, thereby cutting by almost one-quarter the incomes of Ontario's most vulnerable families.
The young kids in those vulnerable families are now teenagers. Recently, there's been an upsurge in violent crime by gangs of teenagers. Is it far-fetched to think there might be a connection?
There's ample research to show that conditions of poverty, economic disparity and social marginalization are among the factors that lead to crime, notes Wendy Cukier, who teaches justice studies at Ryerson University.
But in recent years, our ruling elites have steadfastly ignored such well-documented and intuitively obvious connections, as they've redirected an ever bigger share of the national income to themselves, via tax cuts.
That was why Harris cut welfare rates — to deliver tax cuts, with the biggest tax savings going to the richest members of society. The Harris policies took money from the poor and handed it to the rich.
Did we really think this wouldn't affect poorer children, who already faced more difficulties than their schoolmates?
Of course, during the Depression, people suffered great poverty without turning to crime. But back then poverty was the norm. Today's poor live amid general affluence, giving them a dangerous sense of exclusion from the mainstream.
The Harris government also cut spending on an array of programs aimed at ensuring disadvantaged kids integrate into the mainstream. It cut funds for teaching English to immigrants, for social workers in the schools, for community recreation.
And when some kids behaved badly, it banned them from school with a "zero tolerance" policy. Where did we think they would go?
For an angry teen who feels excluded from the mainstream, a gang offers a sense of belonging, prestige, dignity and status among his peers. The mainstream offers less and less.
Of course, the mainstream offers jail. The Boxing Day slaying has renewed calls for toughening up our criminal justice system.
That's understandable. But it's also what we've been doing for the past decade. We've toughened up our laws considerably, including mandatory minimum sentences for gun-related crimes.
The courts generally deal harshly with violent criminals — as they should.
But if we really want to make this a liveable society, not just enjoy the satisfaction of locking up bad people, we should intervene much earlier.
We still don't seem to grasp the connection between slashing social supports and social breakdown, including violent crime.
In the midst of the current election campaign, the Liberals and the Conservatives are promising massive tax cuts, rather than massive social re-investment.
Tax cuts may put more cash in our pockets. But are we really better off if we have more cash for shopping — yet no longer feel safe to go shopping?
Economics teaches us there's no such thing as a free lunch. Recent experience in Toronto should remind us there's no such thing as a free tax cut.
Posted by: Chazz | 2006-01-01 8:49:50 AM
Chazz, spoken like a true socialist drone. You people never will understand that liberty, freedom and independence comes from facing the fact that only the individual can achieve that for himself. Your type has created a welfare dependent mentality that will forever drag people to dependence upon the state. I find both you and your "CARING" attitude disgusting. Find a host, create a false need, create a job based upon this need and you have the welfare state. The family used to provide the backstop in life but has been progreeively taxed away since the pearson years. Government will never replace one family member at home, never. You people are as I have said in other posts, lice, backed up by your, not my, charter of rights. It being the most undemocratic document ever written. It doesn’t protect minorities it protects those that make a living " protecting" and "caring" for minorities. A legitimacy document if there ever was one. It becomes more apparent every day why you people so dislike personal liberty and the personal freedom to choose, it takes away the individuals right to make decisions and gives it to government and drones like yourself. THE WEST WANTS OUT.
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2006-01-01 10:18:17 AM
Gee Chazz, sounds like Toronto can't catch a break. Lots of money to spend but it's too dangerous to go out to spend it. Well what can I say: GOOD!!! I love it!!! Hopefully this leads to the downfall of Ontario society. Don't expect Alberta or anyone to care what happens; after all, the rich Ontarians were the ones responsible for the NEP. It will be a pleasure to see the rich white people of Toronto fail miserably.
Posted by: Scott | 2006-01-01 10:26:52 AM
Oops,First line Never understand that .
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2006-01-01 10:28:53 AM
Those aren't my words. I was just as offended by this article and wanted you to see it. Drivel.
Posted by: Chazz | 2006-01-01 11:58:14 AM
I love the way that certain Canadians (such as Linda McQuaig, the writer of that article) will dig up, and use, certain facts about the US, and yet will ignore those that don't support their theories.
For example, back in 1994, the Congress and President Clinton passed and signed a welfare reform act that had all the lefties in tizzie. So many dire consequences were predicted.
And crime rates in the US went up, right? Um, no, they fell. Have been falling for years. Proving there is no connection between welfare rates and welfare availability, and crime.
Jeez, I wonder why Ms. McQuaig didn't bother to mention what happened in the US?
Posted by: David Crawford | 2006-01-01 1:33:19 PM
Sorry Chazz, my sincere apology.
Posted by: Western Canadian | 2006-01-01 2:01:23 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.