Thursday, 2 June 2011

Globe And Mail Blew The Call

Consider: Trade Minister launches blistering attack on NDP

And the 'blistering attack'...
International Trade Minister Ed Fast launched a fresh partisan attack on the new Official Opposition, accusing New Democrats of being set on policies that would “stall growth, kill jobs and set Canadian families back.”

oh, and:
Mr. Fast called Jack Layton's party “reflexively and ideologically anti-trade,” accusing it of acting contrary to the interests of “hard-working Canadians.”

So where is the attack? 

Socialism ruins economies, destroys incentive, hurts the poor, lacks compassion and will indeed stall growth.
Stating a justifiable true position is not an attack.
The socialists inability to articulate any logical contra points gives credence to the Globes notion of an attack because words are said without a thoughtful response: but there has actually been no attack.
The Globe needs a lesson on what an attack is:

If I write in a news paper something untrue and assert it as though it was, that is an attack.
Example of untrue assertion:
The NDP party believes in personal responsibility.  They desire Canadians to work hard, play by the rules and 'get ahead' based on the results each man and woman produce.  The NDP party believes in transparency, which is why they released their Constitution a while ago.  They trust voters with their core beliefs and they have nothing to hide.  The NDP believes throwing money at people is devaluing because it calls Canadians potential 'weak'.  Instead, the NDP encourages Canadians to rise up, stir themselves up and press on!`

The above quote is an attack on the NDP because it is untrue and I said it as though it was true.

Ironically, the Globe attempted to denigrate the Conservative government because it presented something untrue (headline stating: blistering attack) as though it was true.  Its only an attack if untrue Globe. Report the news, leave your subtle commentary for the editorial section.


  1. Sorry Ryan, but I think you're incorrect here. An attack is going on offense (as a goalie, you're only used to being on the receiving end of these ;-). When Vancouver scored with 18 seconds left the other night, they were on attack, but there were also being true (e.g., they didn't break any rules of the game).

    In fact, I thikn that Mr. Fast is forcing the NDP to defend their policies. They either need to show that (a) they aren't "anti-tride" or (b) if they are "anti-trade" how that would be better for the economy.


  2. Erik,
    Thanks for the comment; there are about 20 definitions of attack. you used a particular definition: to take the initiative in a game, sport, etc: after a few minutes, the team began to attack

    There are several other uses of 'attack' many of which are negative.

    My point agrees with your point in that the Conservatives are making the NDP explain themselves by pointing out their policy.
    My other point is that the Conservatives held them to account by calling out their policy. Perhaps the Globe used 'attack' to mean: to direct hostile words or writings at; criticize or abuse vehemently. if so, then the Globe was wrong and there was no attack.


Think of how you can make your point and be respectful.
Try to keep cursing to a minimum; with thanks.

Ratings and Recommendations by outbrain