The National Post (A Rant)

Reading The National Post can give any right thinking human being a heartburn.

The National Post’s best use is a replacement for toilet paper.

The National Post’s editors sole qualification seems to be “must hate liberals and progressive at all cost”.

The National Post’s readers do not need to have an IQ more than 50.

For those who did not get the gist, I HATE The National Post. Whenever I have been brain dead (hangovers, sleepless nights etc.) I always read The National Post. Reading the editorials and the letters to the editors always wakes me from my stupor. I mean any newspaper giving Ann Coulter (United States’ hate machine) column space on their pages is in my books the most
pathetic excuse for a newspaper. This paper is exclusive for the low brow and Nationalist Canadians (and there are quite a few).

This paper was started by the (in-)famous Conard Black and right from the word go, the editorial and letters section of the paper were notoriously anti-French, anti-Immigrant, anti-Non-White and violently Homophobe. The paper espouses all the anti Canadian values that we all so cherish and take for granted which begs the question why does it sell at all at a national
level? I will not go into that in this post as I want to discuss an article I saw in today’s newspaper and demonstrate to you why I think this paper is trash.

“Foreign Aid Swipe At US Belies reality” by Steven Edwards.

I have never read any article by Edwards before but after going through it (the article) I realise that I have not really missed much. The tripe that he calls “analysis” was enough to make me tear of the section and polish my shoes with it (so there is some use for the paper after all!!)

In a nutshell Edwards says that the UN’s complaint that US and other rich countries are defaulting on their promise to spend 0.7% of their Gross National Income (GNI) on foreign aid is foolish as to the 0.22% of GNI that US government gives to the US, private contributions from the US is around 0.76% of GNI. Hence, the combined 0.98% is more than the stated target.
Similarly in Canada, 0.34% is the government contribution and 0.66% is the private contribution, hitting 1% well above the target.

Now, the moment I read the article I immediately saw the flaw in his argument. If a doofus like me can see it, I hope every thinking person out there saw it too.

Mr. Edwards, did you read your own article carefully or do you spit out garbage and collect the cheque and run?

He starts off by describing the situation where the governments of the rich countries pledged 0.7% of their GNI as foreign aid at a UN forum. The key words here are PLEDGED BY THE GOVERNMENTS. By the elected officials who have gone on to make promises on a world forum. They promised to put in 0.7% which comes from the taxes that the government collects from the denizens of the state. So if 0.7% was pledged, why the hell isn’t it allocated? DO NOT LOOK AT THE CITIZENS MAKING PRIVATE CONTRIBUTIONS. If the individual thinks that she wants to contribute more than what was already deducted from her taxes, it is her right to do so. The government or any other body (he sites the Hudson Institute of Washington as the source of this argument which is a hard core Right Wing body that has a nuclear scientist (who wrote papers on “how to win nuclear wars”) for a head) has no right to pad their figures
with a private contribution made between the individual and her choice of charity/family in another country or whatever way or method by which she chooses to disperse her wealth. This is like saying that the private contribution made by a citizen to The Sick Kids’ Hospital at Toronto is half of what the government funds, hence The Sick Kids’ Hospital is fully funded
by the government.

Why in the world would someone make such an atrociously stupid argument and still be allowed to command 1/3rd of the page on a national newspaper is beyond me. This clearly shows Edwards is a lackey of the right wing machine; He’s another wingnut who wants to seem to be “important” while he is putting in his article and saying not too subtly that UN is just a whiny world forum and has no clout. Of course, this is also the view of Hudson Institute which was a major backer of John Bolton, the Bush lackey who had to resign from his post as the UN ambassador from the US when the democrats refused to reconfirm his position. I think Edwards was, basically, called and told what to say and he did.

And that’s kind of journalism/opinion that really irks me. A “mighty” think tank body tells the journalist to write some crap on a national paper, and the journalist bends over backwards to do it. This is not journalism but diction at it’s best.

I once made the mistake of subscribing to The National Post (when I had just arrived in the country) thinking that the deal I was given was quite good from a national newspaper. In a week I found out why. Who in their right mind would read day after day the editorial and letters section that was racist and close minded. I cancelled it. I remember calling to cancel and
was asked by the person why I was cancelling. I said that the paper was absolutely crap and I disagreed with everything that the editors wrote. And the person said “I know what you mean”. When your employees think you are crap, then trust me, you are crap.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s