The Death of the Blog

According to Ted McKeough in a special to The Star:

NEW YORK—There have been plenty of commentators arguing that blogs will lead to the demise of "old" media organizations that publish newspapers, magazines and books. ABC News columnist Michael S. Malone predicted the end of newspapers last year when he saw "the first links embedded in blogs. There was simply nothing in the physical world that could ever hope to match the ability to leap through cyberspace from story to story, file to file, with almost infinite extension." Or as former editor-in-chief of MSNBC.com Merrill Brown put it: "The future of the news industry is seriously threatened by the seemingly irrevocable move by young people away from traditional sources of news."Yet despite the proliferation and popularity of blogs, the obliteration of mainstream media as we know it is just not happening. Rather than resembling a steamroller, blogs are looking like the cheese on the bread that is mainstream media; or if you prefer, the icing on the cake.

As it now stands, the reason that so many blog links go to MSM is because, currently, the MSM is the dominant gatherers of news and content. No blogger can afford, individually, to, for example, imbed a journalist with the troops in the front lines of Iraq (or as most MSM outlets do, in the green zone). An except to this has been Steve Marshall of Guerrilla News who produced a Sundance award winning doc while doing this on his own tab.
This will change when there are more bloggers at the places where news occurs. News will be something that is reported in real time, by the participants and direct observers. And the main media for this will be blogs, in real time. And with the use of aggregators and spiders, a second after someone posts something interesting, the world will have it.
Then the MSM will become republishers. And they will die.

Seal Hunt - Newfoundlanders Protest Right Back at Them

Got news that the do-gooding urban doh-heads looking to interfere with the Seal Harvest are blocked in their hotels by family members and supporters and unable to get to the helicopters to bother the working men on the ice.
Hurrah for Newfies!!!!

The Hypocrisy of Seal Hunt Opponents

Got a chance to listen in on the CBC Noon call in show on the Seal Hunt over lunch. Of course, there were a number of callers who like seals they've never met a lot better than people they've never met. What struck me was how the whiners were those typical urban pissers and moaners who know what's good for Newfoundlanders, and for seals, almost certainly never having seen either close up.
There were three observations I made from listening to the pap spewed by one of these metrosexual, do-gooding, humanity hating creeps. They made me chuckle. Bitterly.
1/ That they feel its perfectly natural and necessary for them to dictate to people living in Northern Newfoundland how to live, while they vehemently protest, in huge numbers and with loud voices, when they fear that these hated small towners might try and restrict their liberties to do or say anything they want: kill their unborn babies, marry their same sex squash partner, or abrogate their parental responsibilities by having the government raise their children;
2/ That they don't mind having uninformed Americans stick their noses into Canadian affairs when they support their own uninformed opinions;
3/ These saps are likely also strong anti-poverty advocates. But to them the amount of money that sealers make is trivial (stated amount was $1200, real average is $5000) and does not warrant participating in the hunt. They are so distanced from real economic conditions in Canada that they are convinced that sealers can get other employment, or that $5k isn't very much. To a Northern Newfoundlander $5k feeds and clothes a family for a year. (They also shoot down the value of $1200 a year in child care not recognizing that this is a fortune for an average family in most rural areas.)
I despise these creeps. They are responsible for me becoming the cynic that I sometimes am.

Why Would the YWCA Produce a Childcare Report Anyway?

The YWCA, in their mission and vision, do not pretend to carry any responsibility whatsoever to offer benefit to children, unless they are girl children, to wit:
Mission
YWCA Toronto is an association of diverse and caring women dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls through dynamic leadership, advocacy, and a range of unique and essential services that promote personal growth and economic independence.
Vision
Through a holistic and partnership approach, the YWCA will expand its programs and services to meet the more complex array of emergency and long term community needs, significantly increase its financial resource base and be widely valued for its commitment to equity, access, safety and a just society and as a leader in advocacy and service to women and girls.

Not a mention of kids, except girl kids.

That being said why would they (a) be interested in childcare at all, and, (b) apply for $ from the Libs to fund a plan to create a national childcare program?
It's simple, silly. To provide benefits to their constituency, i.e. women. To make women's lives better, to allow them to be more politically active to gain more power for . . . women. (Not that there's anything wrong with women - half the people I love or like are women.)
The YWCA doesn't give a flying fig whether children benefit or not, so long as a program creates something like 400,000 new $50,000 jobs for... women. Their advocacy to get the employment fits within their mission, actually doing the best thing for children doesn't.

Their program is a 'supply' program, not a 'demand' program. They insist that a place be available for every child under 6 in Canada - from Tuk to Toronto and Vic to Joe Batts Arm. Whether the place is needed or not. Plus a national head office, and 'hubs' to manage the regional activities. They demand that a national education program be built for the care givers.

And they boast about the Quebec program, that provides spots for 1/5 of les enfants, and the Liberal program, that simply called for a transfer of cash which could only provide 4% of the money needed for the program the YWCA believe is necessary. And for them, the work that mothers do to raise their children in a loving way is of no value. Women who stay home to raise children are beneath contempt for the YWCA; they refer to subsidies for daycare as stigmatizing and state that when a woman's primary role is as a mother, then her child is more likely to suffer poverty and social exclusions. And they say that paying Moms to stay home is too expensive.

As far as costs go, to pay the bills for this program, every household in Canada would need to pony up $3,000 a year, whether there is a need or not! Yes, not the $1Billion a year that the Libs proposed, but $30 Billion a year? Or $15,000 a kid (assuming every kid under 6 takes a place). There might be a lotta educated$50k an annum child care technicians playing hearts if the YWCA gets their way.

Question.
Why not just take the $15k per kid and pay $15k to the Moms.
But I guess that wouldn't create jobs for all them other wimmin.

The Monty Python Perspective on Rights

Imagine a bunch of civilians sitting on a hill during the time of Jesus, making plans to rebel against the hated Romans...
REG: Agreed. Francis?
FRANCIS: Yeah. I think Judith's point of view is very valid, Reg, provided the Movement never forgets that it is the inalienable right of every man--
STAN (Eric Idle): Or woman.
FRANCIS: Or woman... to rid himself--
STAN: Or herself.
FRANCIS: Or herself.
REG: (John Cleese) Agreed.
FRANCIS: Thank you, brother.
STAN: Or sister.
FRANCIS: Or sister. Where was I?
REG: Furthermore, it is the birthright of every man--
STAN: Or woman.
REG: Why don't you shut up about women, Stan. You're putting us off.
STAN: Women have a perfect right to play a part in our movement, Reg.
FRANCIS: Why are you always on about women, Stan?
STAN: I want to be one.
REG: What?
STAN: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me 'Loretta'.
REG: What?!
LORETTA: It's my right as a man.
JUDITH: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?
LORETTA: I want to have babies.
REG: You want to have babies?!
LORETTA: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.
REG: But... you can't have babies.
LORETTA: Don't you oppress me.
REG: I'm not oppressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb! Where's the foetus going to gestate?! You going to keep it in a box?!
LORETTA: [crying]
JUDITH: Here! I-- I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.
FRANCIS: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister. Sorry.
REG: What's the point?
FRANCIS: What?
REG: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies when he can't have babies?!
FRANCIS: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
REG: Symbolic of his struggle against reality.

The Most Dangerous Man in the World's in Texas

Art Baker reveals a prof in Texas that truly scares the bejeezus piss out of me.

Charles Taylor to Make Bid for Liberal Leadership

Late Monday night from a jail cell, former Liberian dictator and war lord Charles Taylor announced he was seeking the leadership of the Liberal Party of Canada, although he has never even been to Canada. "I have the necessary experience, and, as well I would need to make very minor changes to my monogrammed towels and personalized license plates (Lib One)."
Observers believe this is just a stunt to possibly provide Taylor a means of evading a jail sentence; no Liberal politician has ever had to serve time for a criminal offense, while others are not so sure. Said Liberal Party member, Earl Mudflat of Lower Shobagan, NS, "It's time for Canada to be ruled by a visible minority , and Mr. Taylor has this as well as being tough on crime."
There was no comment from party leadership hopeful, Michael Ignatieff, who in the past has supported torture as a necessary tool.