Margaret Wente's sincere flattery

159 posts / 0 new
Last post
Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I have no problem with the Mea Culpa blog raising concerns over Wente's tendency to use others words as her own without crediting them. That strikes me as the normal conversation we should have about the nature of plagiarism. I also think the Globe's response was inadequate and self-serving. But I think the sudden escalation by, for example, the "Journalism Doctor" to "WHAT DO YOU MEAN THIS IS NO BIG DEAL THIS IS THE BIGGEST DEAL" is total bullshit. In fact, it's a very dangerous move that is tied up to hierarchical power dynamics which give us bad copyright law and ndividualistic notions of merit and worth rather than social and collaborative ones.

I believe, and you can find these same thoughts in the "What Wente Wrote" thread, that Wente should be fired not because she is a right-wing journalist (which is how my argument was repeatedly represented by a co-worker), but because she is deliberately divisive and toxic. We have this misconception about journalism in the West -- built through no accident by a merging of corporation, state and media -- that journalism is about finding obejctivity. As Michelle points out, this simply isn't possible. What journalism is is telling us the best stories possible based on the information we can find. Wente should be fired not only because her stories are bad, but because she is trying to tell stories which hurt. She should be fired because she is a bad journalist. A decent paper would want to tell stories wrought with ethical courage and conviction, not ones which sow hate and fear.

6079_Smith_W

Catchfire wrote:

 But I think the sudden escalation by, for example, the "Journalism Doctor" to "WHAT DO YOU MEAN THIS IS NO BIG DEAL THIS IS THE BIGGEST DEAL" is total bullshit.

I agree with that completely CF. That's why I am scratching my head a bit over Unionist's approach to this. The technical stuff is more important to me (for reasons I explained) but I don't have a problem if her politics is more important to U or you. But the difference is that  as much as we disagree with her slant, I'm not really in favour of convening anything like a star chamber or the House Unamerican Activities Committee over it. In fact, I strongly oppose it because you can bet it wouldn't be used primarily against the those on the right.

And besides, the works for the G and M, and they seem to have no problem with her politics, so our issue on that front is properly with them, no?

And I missed the reference to "journalism doctor". Was that the author of that article?

 

Unionist

Ah, the perils of communication.

Did I say we should call for action to be taken against Wente?

No, that would be the plagiarism crowd.

Not me.

Hope that's clear.

6079_Smith_W

Actually Unionist, I am also more concerned with them coming clean and changing rather than rapping anyone's knuckles.  And sorry if I didn't get that your in-bold reference at #98 was just hyperbolae (and no, I'm not being sarcastic).

You know, tax evasion and copying over peoples' shoulders might not be as sexy as a big fancy show trial, but it is usually getting sloppy or arrogant and making these technical fuckups that brings people and governments down - not their ideology, however reprehensible.

And really, the two are often just different sides of the same coin.

 

 

 

MegB

Catchfire wrote:

Wente should be fired not only because her stories are bad, but because she is trying to tell stories which hurt. She should be fired because she is a bad journalist. A decent paper would want to tell stories wrought with ethical courage and conviction, not ones which sow hate and fear.

Couldn't agree more. The objectivity of journalism has always been a fable, but it would seem that the only reason the mainstream media employs hacks like Wente is because their inflammatory rhetoric gains readership/viewership/listeners which, in turn, generates advertising revenue.

Sad, and disgusting.

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:

I guess this is a bit of a thread drift, but I think this allegiance or fetishization of "fact" is itself an ideology. So when we hope to discredit Wente on the basis of plagiarism rather than poisonous and deleterious motivations, we are setting up a court with rotten foundations that could turn on us anytime consensus changes over who decides "the facts." That article posted by Maysie and kropotkin seems dangerously ignorant of that.

Let me know when journalism schools start making ethics courses mandatory and then we can decide what the ethical "fact" is to which journalists must adhere.

Opinion columnists probably should not be held to the same standards as reporters (although plagiarism is still out of bounds). However, the Canadian Association of Journalists does have some stated principles, which you can find at:

http://www.caj.ca/?cat=9

In particular:

Quote:

Journalists have the duty and privilege to seek and report the truth, encourage civic debate to build our communities, and serve the public interest. We vigorously defend freedom of expression and freedom of the press as guaranteed under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We return society’s trust by practising our craft responsibly and respecting our fellow-citizens’ rights.

So, dismayingly perhaps, they not only seem to be committed to the existence of truth, but they also defend freedom of expression.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

lagatta wrote:
Imagine getting Wente, of all people, to write about cycling - she of the SUV in TORONTO (this is not a Toronto-phobic comment; I don't like bashing anywhere, it is simply absurd to drive such a thing in a major city unless you have some strange type of trade-related requirement; and most tradespersons prefer vans and such).

Driving a SUV in the city  demonstrates that people can be ignorant shitheads anywhere.

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:

What journalism is is telling us the best stories possible based on the information we can find. Wente should be fired not only because her stories are bad, but because she is trying to tell stories which hurt. She should be fired because she is a bad journalist. A decent paper would want to tell stories wrought with ethical courage and conviction, not ones which sow hate and fear.

Are you certain that you want to make that the standard? That opinion columnists should be fired if they hold positions with which you disagree? It seems a little extreme. Should Murray Dobbin, Gerry Caplan, Linda McQuaig, or Heather Mallick be fired if a reader disagrees with his or her opinion? 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Why does a journalist who copies without attribution merit a national outcry, but not one who (say) writes columns supporting warmongering or misogyny?

Has no one ever criticized Wente for her writing?

Geez, man. No one has ever demanded the Globe and Mail launch an internal investigation over the CONTENT of her writing and discipline her if found guilty.

No one has ever started a national scandal over an individual reactionary columnist as distinguished from all the others.

This is like discovering that Ezra Levant has a phony degree from some comic-book university. That he has lied on his CV. So we should rant about his being a fraud, and demand that media refuse to carry this fraudster's comments for that reason??

This is the triumph of form over content. It is unworthy of progressive people's attention. And when some worthy progressive writer is found in the future to have made a mistake (or several), it will come back to haunt us.

6079_Smith_W wrote:
... the more important problem for me is that we don't know if she can be trusted ...

Your comment leaves me breathless.

quizzical

ya think hate speech and fear sewing are all good? just a difference of opinion? 

ygtbk

quizzical wrote:

ya think hate speech and fear sowing are all good? just a difference of opinion? 

I do know that putting someone (typically, but not always, the government) in charge of what opinions are allowed to be expressed usually ends badly. And yes, different people may have different opinions, and I'm fine with that.

So, quizzical, do YOU think that opinion columnists should be fired if someone disagrees with them? I'd want danger pay...

onlinediscountanvils

Everything's okay-o when I'm with Tadeo.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

ygbtk wrote:
Are you certain that you want to make that the standard? That opinion columnists should be fired if they hold positions with which you disagree? It seems a little extreme. Should Murray Dobbin, Gerry Caplan, Linda McQuaig, or Heather Mallick be fired if a reader disagrees with his or her opinion?

I suppose I need to find a way to make this point clearer, because this caricature of my argument seems to always haunt me. When I say that an argument is divisive and hateful, that is not a euphemism for "right wing," "conservative," or "something with which I disagree": it is a specific characterization of their methodology and practice. There are many editorialists I would consider conservative who do not follow Wente (and Blatchford, and Glenn Beck) in their ways. Mordecai Richler and Joan Didion spring to mind. It's not so much that I think such "journalists" should be fired, I don't think they should be hired.

And if you're looking for left-wing equivalences that would fit my criteria, you need only review my moderating history, which I 'm sure you will find beyond ethical reproach.

onlinediscountanvils

ygtbk

Catchfire wrote:

ygbtk wrote:
Are you certain that you want to make that the standard? That opinion columnists should be fired if they hold positions with which you disagree? It seems a little extreme. Should Murray Dobbin, Gerry Caplan, Linda McQuaig, or Heather Mallick be fired if a reader disagrees with his or her opinion?

When I say that an argument is divisive and hateful, that is not a euphemism for "right wing," "conservative," or "something with which I disagree": it is a specific characterization of their methodology and practice.

Can someone who believes that there are no facts make that argument coherently? No.

If Margaret Wente wrote a series of sweetness and light columns, would Rabble run her stuff? I don't think so but would love to be proven wrong. 

Catchfire wrote:

And if you're looking for left-wing equivalences that would fit my criteria, you need only review my moderating history, which I 'm sure you will find beyond ethical reproach.

I was thinking of something more like this, since your moderating style, although inclined to snark, is almost beyond ethical reproach:

http://www.melaniephillips.com/apology-to-me-by-heather-mallick-and-the-toronto-star

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist

Seems the removal of the 100-post limit has made it easier to spam threads when you don't like the direction they're taking.

Slumberjack

Have to agree with Unionist here.  If Wente or Oda both went out tomorrow and shot people in the head at random, it wouldn't substantially alter how I already feel about them.

onlinediscountanvils

"A picture is worth a thousand words." - Margaret Wente(?)

onlinediscountanvils

Catchfire wrote:
And if you're looking for left-wing equivalences that would fit my criteria

 

Chris Hedges comes to mind.

 

onlinediscountanvils

Boom Boom wrote:
What kind of writing does she do - political commentary?

 

Yes.

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist wrote:
Seems the removal of the 100-post limit has made it easier to spam threads when you don't like the direction they're taking.

 

Seems like that was your 12th post in this thread. If you don't like the direction, please start a new one more to your liking.

6079_Smith_W

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Catchfire wrote:
And if you're looking for left-wing equivalences that would fit my criteria

Chris Hedges comes to mind.

Why? His position on the black block? Me, I can think of far more glaring examples which get posted here on a regular basis.

This is a good example of how this question of who is too slanted, too rude, too manipulative or too hateful is very often a matter of perception. Of course there are people in all camps who use strong or offensive argument, and even manipulate or lie, but If we shut up everyone whom everyone wanted to shut up no one would be allowed to speak at all. Besides - it is not going to happen. And I don't think any of us would want it to.

If someone writes something misleading or offensive, challenge it. But there is a good reason why the bar for censorship, hate speech and suppressing someone for their values should be set very high.

And again, that is why this often comes back to points of accuracy in reporting - something which can be clearly challenged.

 

 

MegB

ygtbk wrote:

Catchfire wrote:

ygbtk wrote:
Are you certain that you want to make that the standard? That opinion columnists should be fired if they hold positions with which you disagree? It seems a little extreme. Should Murray Dobbin, Gerry Caplan, Linda McQuaig, or Heather Mallick be fired if a reader disagrees with his or her opinion?

When I say that an argument is divisive and hateful, that is not a euphemism for "right wing," "conservative," or "something with which I disagree": it is a specific characterization of their methodology and practice.

Can someone who believes that there are no facts make that argument coherently? No.

If Margaret Wente wrote a series of sweetness and light columns, would Rabble run her stuff? I don't think so but would love to be proven wrong. 

  

Whatever it is you're hoping to accomplish by intentionally misinterpreting CF's posts (baiting), I strongly suggest you give up on it.  That kind of passive-aggressive behavior isn't tolerated here.  Find some other way to entertain yourself.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Is plagiarism simply an academic/journalistic form of blasphemy?

ygtbk

@Rebecca West:

Thanks for the advice/admonishment. However, I categorically deny that I am intentionally misinterpreting Catchfire's posts. I am attempting to engage with what I understand to be his position. See what Smith said at #123 if you want an alternative formulation of "shutting people up merely because you disagree with them is not on (or at the least has a really high bar)".

onlinediscountanvils

6079_Smith_W wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Catchfire wrote:
And if you're looking for left-wing equivalences that would fit my criteria

Chris Hedges comes to mind.

Why?

A privileged white dude calling people parasites and cancers qualifies as divisive and hateful in my books.

6079_Smith_W

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Catchfire wrote:
And if you're looking for left-wing equivalences that would fit my criteria

Chris Hedges comes to mind.

Why?

A privileged white dude calling people parasites and cancers qualifies as divisive and hateful in my books.

Frankly I agree with much of his argument regarding violent elements in protest, and I don't agree with your assessment.

My guess is there are some things I find divisive and hateful which you have no problem with at all.

So what are we supposed to do about it? Again, this illustrates my point; how do we differentiate between material which really should prevented from distribution, and that which we simply do not agree with, or which we find rude and manipulative?

And add into the mix the fact that it is very, very hard to prevent that distribution. To take it back to Wente and the G and M, I'm not happy at all that they include that kind of voice on their pages, but  centre-right and right-wing media will probably always exist. While I am fine with criticising arguments of hers I disagree with, I won't be adding my voice to those calling for her dismissal because of her politics. As far as I am concerned, that is up to the paper to decide.

 

onlinediscountanvils

6079_Smith_W wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Catchfire wrote:
And if you're looking for left-wing equivalences that would fit my criteria

Chris Hedges comes to mind.

Why?

A privileged white dude calling people parasites and cancers qualifies as divisive and hateful in my books.

Frankly I agree with much of his argument regarding violent elements in protest, and I don't agree with your assessment.

Do you agree with his labelling of the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party as "parasites"?

Unionist

This thread is about Margaret Wente, plagiarism, etc. [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/activism/cancer-occupy]This thread[/url] is about Chris Hedges, the Black Bloc, the PFJ, and the JPF.

 

6079_Smith_W

onlinediscountanvils wrote:

Do you agree with his labelling of the American Indian Movement and the Black Panther Party as "parasites"?

Well I expect picking that apart will be a bit too much of a diversion for this thread.

Just went back and read his article. Given that that is not exactly what he said - it has been tweaked for full effect - I still agree with his basic thesis in the article. I probably wouldn't have mentioned those two groups myself, but I think his implication that there are exploitative elements in all movements is fair comment, even if it gets some peoples' backs up. And it is interesting that that snippet and that one opinion of his gets him branded by many as a traitor.

(edit)

cross posted with you U.

Yes, I agree, but it does touch on a relevant issue, and so long as we keep it to a quick response and get back on track, I think it is worth addressing.

It does, after all, get to the core of why one supports these writers or not.

/drift

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

ygtbk wrote:
Can someone who believes that there are no facts make that argument coherently? No.

If Margaret Wente wrote a series of sweetness and light columns, would Rabble run her stuff? I don't think so but would love to be proven wrong.

I don't think there are no facts. I think that what we think of as facts are fictions--stories. Does that help? I think this is off topic, though. As for your second question, why would rabble, a left-wing site, publish Wente's columns, even if she was -- what? -- polite?

jjuares

Catchfire wrote:

ygtbk wrote:
Can someone who believes that there are no facts make that argument coherently? No.

If Margaret Wente wrote a series of sweetness and light columns, would Rabble run her stuff? I don't think so but would love to be proven wrong.

I don't think there are no facts. I think that what we think of as facts are fictions--stories. Does that help? I think this is off topic, though. As for your second question, why would rabble, a left-wing site, publish Wente's columns, even if she was -- what? -- polite?

I disagree with Catchfire. When we think of facts as stories as he says, we are trying to bend the world around us in an artificial narrative structure. You see this belief in journalism all the time. The newscasters tell us about how they try to tell the story about a particular event. Stories have protagonists and good and bad guys. Sometimes events are not stories but facts, changes and developments. We limit our understanding of the world when we impose a narrative structure on everything.

As for facts, they are important, Reagan's Freudian slip notwithstanding. And a search for an objective truth is important and empowering for the left and our greatest weapon. The minute the left abandons a belief in an objective truth is the time when the left needs to close up shop and let the Harpers of the world do what they will.  

onlinediscountanvils

Unionist, I'm not sure why you're so determined to police this thread to make sure it keeps to your idea of being on topic - especially when you've declared this subject to be "uninteresting at best" and "unworthy of progressive people's attention".

I don't mind the drifts or "diversions" in this thread, but since you apparently do, I've provided some appropriate links.

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/bev-oda-officially-resigns]This thread[/url] is about Bev Oda.

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/ontario/ford-desecration-pt-iv-march-detroit-con... thread[/url] is about Toronto.

[url=http://rabble.ca/babble/media/karl-nerenberg-ezra-levant-openly-promotes... thread[/url] is about Ezra Levant.

[url=http://rabble.ca/node/add/forum/394]Here[/url] is where I started [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/media/margaret-wentes-sincere-flattery]this[/url] thread.

[url=http://rabble.ca/node/add/forum/394]Here[/url] is where you can start a thread on the NYT and WMD.

[url=http://rabble.ca/node/add/forum/409]Here[/url], or possibly [url=http://rabble.ca/node/add/forum/405]here[/url], is where you can start a thread on non-Euclidian geometry.

[url=http://rabble.ca/node/add/forum/394]Here[/url] is where you can start your own thread about Margaret Wente, plagiarism, etc. under your own set of parameters.

6079_Smith_W

@ jjuares

I sort of agree, although I don't think there is any such thing as objective truth. There was a great CBC Ideas program in the early 80s - The Politics of Information -  which pointed the idea of objectivity didn't exist until the advent of news services and media chains. Before that time, people read the business paper, the church paper, the union paper, the pro-government paper, and everyone was aware that each was an interpretation of events. Nowadays, may people assume the mainstream media are objective - The Truth, in essence.

Of course that isn't accurate. The closest one can come in my opinion is to try and be honest and fair. But while there are facts that cannot be disputed, journalism is always coloured to some degree by the opinions and perspectives of writers and editors. In fact I don't think one can be that effective a writer without having values and opinions.

That said, I agree with you in spirit - that writers can try to adhere to standards of honesty and fairness. As for those biases, I don't think they would be damaging if more people were aware of them.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

I like diversions too, but the one I started about facts is taking on a life of its own. So I respectfully request that and more discussion about facts (or at least exclusively on: facts, value of; facts, ideology of; facts, existence of; facts ma'am, just the) please take place here.

This thread is about Margaret Wente and Euclidian geometry. Thank you!

DaveW

back to Wente and Globe letters:

....................

Carol Wainio’s view

A week ago, on a little blog called Media Culpa, I asked if Globe and Mail columnist Margaret Wente should get “a zero for plagiarism” – the penalty she recommends for students. I’d found errors and attribution problems before, and stumbled on an older column while checking a recent quote.

It went viral, Ms. Wente was disciplined and penned an aggressive “defence.”

Did I “accuse” Ms. Wente of “stealing”? No. I laid texts side by side, provided links, dates, noted where words were identical, near identical, lacked quotation marks, and asked how this compared to the plagiarism of Fareed Zakaria or Maureen Dowd.

Nor did I claim Ms. Wente was a “serial plagiarist,” despite six or seven recent “corrections” – almost all related to attribution.

I’m no expert, but I know that attribution involves more than crediting someone’s words or ideas. It’s about telling readers how we know what we know – a principle essential to public trust.

Ms. Wente claims I took issue with her opinions (A Columnist Defends Herself – Sept. 25). That’s incorrect. It’s her methods.

It speaks to Ms. Wente’s character that she chose to attack mine, rather than acknowledge articles in Maclean’s, the National Post, and J-Source – which took her to task for plagiarism in much stronger terms. Instead, she used The Globe’s pages and readership to attack not those colleagues of her own stature, but small people – readers like me. A reader who reluctantly set up a blog to record things newspapers neglected. That record speaks for itself.

Carol Wainio, Ottawa

........

MegB

ygtbk wrote:

@Rebecca West:

Thanks for the advice/admonishment. However, I categorically deny that I am intentionally misinterpreting Catchfire's posts.

As is your privilege.

 

 

Quote:

I am attempting to engage with what I understand to be his position. See what Smith said at #123 if you want an alternative formulation of "shutting people up merely because you disagree with them is not on (or at the least has a really high bar)".

I'm sorry, but I think you're too bright for that argument to be anything but disingenuous. There's a place for straw men arguments and other such fairy tales.  This isn't it.  Now, back to the subject at hand ...

ygtbk

@ Rebecca:

Well, thanks for calling me bright, I guess, although I'm less than thrilled with disingenuous.

The discussion about facts and stories continues in another thread. And I do think Smith nailed it in saying:

Quote:

If someone writes something misleading or offensive, challenge it. But there is a good reason why the bar for censorship, hate speech and suppressing someone for their values should be set very high.

6079_Smith_W

To clarify, I was talking about legal limits to free speech in public. I don't want to get into this, but I think there are few other elements in play here. And there are plenty of things that are perfectly legal which would rightly get me tossed here - like swearing at someone.

/drift

MegB

6079_Smith_W wrote:

To clarify, I was talking about legal limits to free speech in public. I don't want to get into this, but I think there are few other elements in play here. And there are plenty of things that are perfectly legal which would rightly get me tossed here - like swearing at someone.

/drift


[drift]
Personally, I'd be very entertained by seeing you swear at another babbler. That preturnatural aura of calm rationality of yours is freaky in a doublethoughtspeak kind of way ;)
[/drift]

6079_Smith_W

Yeah, nice try.

I'm sure there are a few people who would love to see me get my ass booted.

*grin*

Sorry, but I think I'll continue to keep my foot off the third rail.

 

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

We almost got him, Rebecca. Next time. (On a non-related note, is there an instigator rule at babble? Subquestion: does it apply to mods?)

Unionist

Rebecca West wrote:
That preturnatural aura of calm rationality of yours is freaky in a doublethoughtspeak kind of way ;)

Beautifully put, Rebecca!

But it seems to me I've seen those words before somewhere...

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

So which one of these BC writers is plagiarizing?  You would think they would be ill from drinking each others bath water.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Palmer+Adrian+sets+example+taking+high+...

http://www.burnabynow.com/news/Playing+nice/7336454/story.html

MegB

Quote:

We almost got him, Rebecca. Next time. (On a non-related note, is there an instigator rule at babble? Subquestion: does it apply to mods?)

We're beholden to rules? I thought we were supreme overlords of babble. I'm already feeling oppressed.

MegB

Unionist wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:
That preturnatural aura of calm rationality of yours is freaky in a doublethoughtspeak kind of way ;)

Beautifully put, Rebecca!

But it seems to me I've seen those words before somewhere...

 


Yes, it does have a familiar ring ...

DaveW

she's baaaaack,

with as one reader notes in the comments, an editorial "cage" to envelope her:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/the-awful-truth-about-social-p...

 

 

Michelle

I guess that's the new thing for her columns now - that they're going to hold all comments on her articles for screening first and then lock it down after a few hours.  Interesting.  I wonder if they're going to do that for all articles by all writers there from now on?

I can see how that makes sense from the employer's point of view since they're going to keep her on despite her egregious plagiarism outlined by Media Culpa, which goes way beyond what the Globe has acknowledged publicly.  Employers have an obligation to provide a harassment-free workplace, and they probably know that a lot of readers are so angry that they'll be writing vicious things in the comments.  So I guess this is their solution.  At least they're still letting some critical comments through about Wente's column returning.

Anyhow, reading through the comments (I haven't even bothered to waste my time reading her article - waste of good internet space if you ask me), I see that a lot of people are leaving comments saying that the moderators didn't let their legitimately critical comments of Wente through.  So I think when reading through the comments on her article, you can assume that the ratio of critical comments to supportive ones is way, way higher than it appears with the ones they let through.

lagatta

The article was just a stupid rightwing trope about how useless social programmes (such as public housing) are. I didn't have time to write a well-thought-out rebuttal - there are many kinds of social housing, and not all create ghettos. I live in a co-op, which is a form of social housing, and it is well kept-up and peaceful. While across the street there was a place we called "the crackhouse" (la piquerie), privately owned and all sorts of horrible, violent stuff going on there and outside it. It was probably no accident that it was burnt out by fire (nobody was killed or injured) and only now is it being renovated.

There are a hell of a lot of government subsidies to the huge new condos going up in Toronto now - can you imagine the infrastructure costs of those? Ours are more modest because the boom is more modest, but also because nothing here can be higher than our so-called "mountain" (Ottawa has similar rules about the Peace Tower). There is almost no construction of affordable rental housing. Many families have to move off-island because of the dearth of dwellings large enough for a family with a couple of children, at a mortgage or rental price they can afford, meaning they usually need two cars and pollute city neighbourhoods by driving through them twice a day...

No, I don't think the private sector can solve the housing crisis. Not to mention the trend to "outsourcing" which is outsourcing jobs and job opportunities. I look at the old tools in my tool box and they are made in Canada. Now they are almost all made in China or other low-wage countries.

And indeed, the irony is delicious. Wente committed grave professional faults that are sackable offences - and she complains about the "shiftless" poor?

Pages