In his latest stroke of genius, Charles Adler marched in lockstep with the Conservative martyr brigade, heroically "telling it like it is" by suggesting "blacks" and "natives" have some kind of cultural problem that keep them at the bottom of the social hierarchy, and that our "the tyranny of politeness" is what keeps us from talking about it.
He rejects the findings of a report that indicate the policies of Mike Harris had something to do with the spate of current violence among Toronto's underprivileged.
His defamatory claptrap quickly reveals, however, that he wouldn't know tyranny if it came up and bit him in the ass: "Does anybody have the moral courage to talk back to this kind of larceny, this kind of deceipt, [sic] this kind of rhetorical manure? Are we really a free people?"
Larceny? Decei(p)t? You'd think Charles had been poked in the bum. Something scared him, anyway - for a man who's had it well all his life to suddenly stand up for freedom in this sewer of Canadian tyranny. (though perhaps a free person might also take advantage of their right to education and learn how to spell.)
Bear with me, his next dollop requires effort:
"Wouldn't a free people simply refuse to accept what they know in their hearts is nonsense, nonsense that is masking the real issues? I know we don't want to discuss problems in terms of colour, in terms of ethnicity, in terms of country of origin. We want to keep saying what the government and all agents of contemporary want us to say, that all people are the same, that all individuals are the same, that all groups are the same and when there is a problem, when that problem involves low outcomes in education, low outcomes in family unity and domestic harmony, higher rates of criminal behavior, drug addiction and violence."
Did you catch that? For all his self-proclaimed heroism (and knowledge of the heart), he won't take responsibility for his insinuations: "I know we don't want to discuss problems in terms of colour," he says. Why back down? I thought you were courageous, Mr. Adler?
I wonder where someone of the "class" so described by Adler gets these ideas of low self-worth? Certainly wouldn't be from the spoiled, greedy little gang of children using our nationally-syndicated newspapers to jerk off in public?
(Does the National Post even employ editors? Was this really written by a "professional"? ..."agents of contemporary" ... "nonsense that is masking the real issues." I suppose I could make a generalization about Mr. Adler's kind, too, based on this carelessness.)
So what are his constructive suggestions? They don't exist, short of hinting that "blacks" and "natives" should... er... take advantage of their freedom. Stick that nebulous concept up your policy pipe and smoke it.
But being constructive wasn't nearly as important as masking his racism in the rhetoric of moral superiority: "if this country were a tyranny, run by a dictator, I could understand how we could just feel we have no choice but to keep sucking on this multicultural lollipop until we gag. But I thought as a young child growing up in Canada that we a choice on speaking the truth or not speaking it. I thought that's what separated us from all those other countries where societies are under the thumb of the evil man with his evil secret police force and corrupt judges and lying media lapdogs."
Lying media lapdogs? Truth? Tyranny run by a dictator? Have you looked around recently? Are you sleeping?
Yes, Mr. Adler, let freedom ring. If only you could discover something worth talking about first.
He rejects the findings of a report that indicate the policies of Mike Harris had something to do with the spate of current violence among Toronto's underprivileged.
His defamatory claptrap quickly reveals, however, that he wouldn't know tyranny if it came up and bit him in the ass: "Does anybody have the moral courage to talk back to this kind of larceny, this kind of deceipt, [sic] this kind of rhetorical manure? Are we really a free people?"
Larceny? Decei(p)t? You'd think Charles had been poked in the bum. Something scared him, anyway - for a man who's had it well all his life to suddenly stand up for freedom in this sewer of Canadian tyranny. (though perhaps a free person might also take advantage of their right to education and learn how to spell.)
Bear with me, his next dollop requires effort:
"Wouldn't a free people simply refuse to accept what they know in their hearts is nonsense, nonsense that is masking the real issues? I know we don't want to discuss problems in terms of colour, in terms of ethnicity, in terms of country of origin. We want to keep saying what the government and all agents of contemporary want us to say, that all people are the same, that all individuals are the same, that all groups are the same and when there is a problem, when that problem involves low outcomes in education, low outcomes in family unity and domestic harmony, higher rates of criminal behavior, drug addiction and violence."
Did you catch that? For all his self-proclaimed heroism (and knowledge of the heart), he won't take responsibility for his insinuations: "I know we don't want to discuss problems in terms of colour," he says. Why back down? I thought you were courageous, Mr. Adler?
I wonder where someone of the "class" so described by Adler gets these ideas of low self-worth? Certainly wouldn't be from the spoiled, greedy little gang of children using our nationally-syndicated newspapers to jerk off in public?
(Does the National Post even employ editors? Was this really written by a "professional"? ..."agents of contemporary" ... "nonsense that is masking the real issues." I suppose I could make a generalization about Mr. Adler's kind, too, based on this carelessness.)
But being constructive wasn't nearly as important as masking his racism in the rhetoric of moral superiority: "if this country were a tyranny, run by a dictator, I could understand how we could just feel we have no choice but to keep sucking on this multicultural lollipop until we gag. But I thought as a young child growing up in Canada that we a choice on speaking the truth or not speaking it. I thought that's what separated us from all those other countries where societies are under the thumb of the evil man with his evil secret police force and corrupt judges and lying media lapdogs."
Lying media lapdogs? Truth? Tyranny run by a dictator? Have you looked around recently? Are you sleeping?
Yes, Mr. Adler, let freedom ring. If only you could discover something worth talking about first.
Labels: Charles Adler, cons, mainstream press, racism, slow learners
6 Comments:
James...
If I have one general question-slash-suggestion: Would it be possible for you to include links (where available) to the topics you discuss in your blogs or stories you take quotes from? I'm not often as well-read as I'd like, and thus need to find the background to have it make sense. Other times, it'd just be nice to have these quotes in context so I can get the complete feel for piece. (There's also, of course, the opportunity to use trusty e-mail links to then send off Letters to the Editor.)
Anyway, it's just a suggestion that may only be for my own benefit. :P
*feel for the piece.
Sorry, I had a Post editor take a look at my comment before I posted it.
The link i included was embedded in the text "stroke of genius."
Perhaps I should alter my template's colour choice for links? If only I knew someone gifted enough in HTML... ;)
I've highlighted the link in bold.
Now I feel foolish for missing it.
After reading it, I suppose it's possible they don't have blog editors (since it wasn't something published in the paper, assumedly), though just because *I* don't feel like editing my bloggers on my site, doesn't mean a major media conglomerate couldn't find someone to do so on theirs.
Then of course, there's the little matter of racism rationalized as free speech. So I'm guessing according to Mr. Adler, Hitler wasn't bad because he thought the Jews were the world's biggest problem, but only because he didn't let them or others who disagreed have a voice. The racism? Meh.
Freedom should not allow for intolerance. With his absurd reasoning, crimes should be okay because it's a free society. Sure, he doesn't think that, but it's the same thing.
Standing up for minorities equals a dictatorship. Got it, Chuck. Show me a society where majority rules with no consideration for the minority, and I'll run the hell away.
Sorry, racism and intolerance really get me ramped up and I tend to go on and on. :P
That's ok, it's got me worked up, too. If I have time, I'll comment on these other, more recent developments in this twilight-zone of nonsense:
http://warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080205-100949
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=286059
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Columnists/Jacobs_Mindelle/2008/02/05/4827882.html
Post a Comment
<< Home