Showing posts with label David Suzuki. Show all posts
Showing posts with label David Suzuki. Show all posts
Sunday, September 18, 2011
David Suzuki Extinguishes His Own Credibility
When the Ontario Liberal Party secured the endorsement of David Suzuki, they were so excited they went out and made an ad about it.
In it, Suzuki extinguishes what little remained of his own credibility. Gushing over Premier Dalton McGuinty's environmental record, Suzuki declares how excited he was when McGuinty promised to shut down Ontario's coal-fired power plants. He declares the promise to be "a big step" toward fixing Ontario's relationship with the environment.
The problem is that McGuinty made the promise, then promptly set about breaking it. In 2006, he promised to shut down those power plants by 2009. In 2009, he promised to shut them down by 2014 He might not be around to keep that promise in 2014. Even if he is, he probably won't.
Even McGuinty's vaunted green jobs accomplishments are fading, as green energy firms continue laying workers off. Adding to the comedy is McGuinty staging a photo op at a solar panel factory that had shut down production.
In other words, McGuinty's environmental record is not all rainbows and sunshine. It's actually piss-poor at best. All he's offering in the 2011 election is more of the promises he already broke. He'll never keep them.
It only makes sense that the Liberals would work so hard to establish themselves as good environmentalists. But Ontarians aren't stupid, and can spot a broken promise when someone makes it again. In their effort to brand themselves as the party for the environment, they've managed to counter-brand themselves as promise-breakers.
For himself, Suzuki has done worse. In attempting to brand himself the voice of environmentalism in the 2011 election, he's counter-branded himself as an unprincipled hack who offers the Liberal Party's broken promises up as if they were achievements.
He's definitively turned his back on his own credibility. He'll never be taken seriously again.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Failure of Leadership
Elizabeth May fails to accept blame for electoral defeat
In a six-page election postmortem document leaked to the Canadian Press, Green Party leader Elizabeth May seems to have a few excuses for her party's performance in the 2008 federal election.
It's all the party's fault.
"No campaign planning document was ever prepared that I saw," she writes in the document. "No campaign discussions and strategy calls took place during the campaign. My feeling throughout the campaign was that I was flying by the seat of my pants."
Yet as Green Party leader, May cannot escape the reality that ensuring that the election campaign was planned, and ensuring that strategy sessions were held before and during the election was her responsibility.
Yet despite her personal failure as the leader of the Green Party -- a failure that she either seems unable to fully appreciate or unable to admit to -- May seems to think that the campaign went fairly well.
"We dominated the first week in the protest over my exclusion from the debates. The second wave was our national leaders `whistle-stop' [train] tour. In all, I participated in events in 41 ridings," she continued. "Given the reality that this was our first major national campaign, and my first as leader, we did a remarkable job."
This despite the fact that the party fell significantly short of its goal of 10% of the popular vote and elected MPs. Again, the party fell short of the "millions" of votes predicted by party brass.
Yet as clueless as individuals such as Jim Harris and George Read proved to be, May was even more so. An election in which the party fails to achieve its goals -- and loses its only MP -- is not one in which the party has done "a remarkable job".
That's a failure, and this failure began with Elizabeth May's failure to lead her party.
If the Green Party needed yet another reason to turf May as leader, they certainly have it now.
If Elizabeth May were the leader she purports herself to be, she would at least recognize her failure as Green party leader and at the very least pledge to do better in future.
Instead, May can't even arrive at a decision regarding whether it's more important that she, the party leader, win a riding or if any Green Party candidate wins at all.
"The biggest problem area to sort out by the next campaign is how I can win in my riding [any riding] when I am out of the riding more than half the time. The push and pull is tough," she added. "Can we have any kind of decision that the leader winning in her seat is a top priority?"
Moreover, May wants to downgrade more of her leadership responsibility to her nearly-too-numerous-to-count deputy leaders.
"We need to have deputy leaders do events outside of their own ridings. We should start work now to obtain commitments from Green celebrities (entertainers, writers, sports figures) to do events and media for us during the campaign."
Of course when virtually none of her deputy leaders are neither contenders in their own riding nor publicly recognized by the vast majority of Canadians, this is a strategy that simply will not work for the party. As for more participation from green celebrities, May will once again find her plans wrought with difficulty. Farley Mowat is a quaint start, but when David Suzuki questions the need for the Green party to even exist, May should know her party is in some serious trouble: with no path to victory in any single riding, and no credibility.
Yet, as it turns out, May isn't willing to quite. Unable to admit her failure, she instead insists that she's the party's only hope.
"I intend to remain as leader of the Green party," she insists. "My personal popularity with the Canadian electorate is something, speaking as objectively as possible, that the Green party needs. I did not become leader of this party to quit and, in so doing, watch it decline."
In other words, if the Green Party wants to be rid of Elizabeth May, they'll have to force her from the party leadership. She has no intentions of going gracefully.
But whether she goes gracefully or kicking and screaming, the important thing for the Green Part is that she goes. Hopefully, for the Green Party's sake, the party membership will get cracking on that lickety-split.
In a six-page election postmortem document leaked to the Canadian Press, Green Party leader Elizabeth May seems to have a few excuses for her party's performance in the 2008 federal election.
It's all the party's fault.
"No campaign planning document was ever prepared that I saw," she writes in the document. "No campaign discussions and strategy calls took place during the campaign. My feeling throughout the campaign was that I was flying by the seat of my pants."
Yet as Green Party leader, May cannot escape the reality that ensuring that the election campaign was planned, and ensuring that strategy sessions were held before and during the election was her responsibility.
Yet despite her personal failure as the leader of the Green Party -- a failure that she either seems unable to fully appreciate or unable to admit to -- May seems to think that the campaign went fairly well.
"We dominated the first week in the protest over my exclusion from the debates. The second wave was our national leaders `whistle-stop' [train] tour. In all, I participated in events in 41 ridings," she continued. "Given the reality that this was our first major national campaign, and my first as leader, we did a remarkable job."
This despite the fact that the party fell significantly short of its goal of 10% of the popular vote and elected MPs. Again, the party fell short of the "millions" of votes predicted by party brass.
Yet as clueless as individuals such as Jim Harris and George Read proved to be, May was even more so. An election in which the party fails to achieve its goals -- and loses its only MP -- is not one in which the party has done "a remarkable job".
That's a failure, and this failure began with Elizabeth May's failure to lead her party.
If the Green Party needed yet another reason to turf May as leader, they certainly have it now.
If Elizabeth May were the leader she purports herself to be, she would at least recognize her failure as Green party leader and at the very least pledge to do better in future.
Instead, May can't even arrive at a decision regarding whether it's more important that she, the party leader, win a riding or if any Green Party candidate wins at all.
"The biggest problem area to sort out by the next campaign is how I can win in my riding [any riding] when I am out of the riding more than half the time. The push and pull is tough," she added. "Can we have any kind of decision that the leader winning in her seat is a top priority?"
Moreover, May wants to downgrade more of her leadership responsibility to her nearly-too-numerous-to-count deputy leaders.
"We need to have deputy leaders do events outside of their own ridings. We should start work now to obtain commitments from Green celebrities (entertainers, writers, sports figures) to do events and media for us during the campaign."
Of course when virtually none of her deputy leaders are neither contenders in their own riding nor publicly recognized by the vast majority of Canadians, this is a strategy that simply will not work for the party. As for more participation from green celebrities, May will once again find her plans wrought with difficulty. Farley Mowat is a quaint start, but when David Suzuki questions the need for the Green party to even exist, May should know her party is in some serious trouble: with no path to victory in any single riding, and no credibility.
Yet, as it turns out, May isn't willing to quite. Unable to admit her failure, she instead insists that she's the party's only hope.
"I intend to remain as leader of the Green party," she insists. "My personal popularity with the Canadian electorate is something, speaking as objectively as possible, that the Green party needs. I did not become leader of this party to quit and, in so doing, watch it decline."
In other words, if the Green Party wants to be rid of Elizabeth May, they'll have to force her from the party leadership. She has no intentions of going gracefully.
But whether she goes gracefully or kicking and screaming, the important thing for the Green Part is that she goes. Hopefully, for the Green Party's sake, the party membership will get cracking on that lickety-split.
Saturday, May 19, 2007
Eco-Hero or Eco Ego? Vol. 2 - David Suzuki
Our recent "Jeffrey Monaghan: Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego?" article has inspired a new feature here at the Nexus, one aimed at facilitating some clarity in the ongoing climate change debate.
This new ongoing feature will be called the "Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego?" series, and will feature profiles on environmental activists.
Certainly, there are some eco-heroes out there -- good people, fighting for positive change that protects our natural environment. God bless them. After all, the human race won't survive very long without a healthy planet to sustain it. Eco-heroes deserve our respect. It should also be noted that like any true hero, eco-heroes usually aren't terribly likely to describe themselves as such.
Ego-egos, on other hand, very much do think of themselves as heroes. Yet their motivations are typically very, very different. These people aren't really motivated by visions of environmental security. They have various different interests -- political, social, and personal. These people are among the rogue's gallery of the environmental battle.
In order to best explore the true intentions of environmental activist, particularly in regards to climate change, it's very important that I myself explain my views on climate change.
Climate change activists insist that climate change is caused by human activity. They're partially correct.
It's well known that the combustion of fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases, which produce the greenhouse effect. Given the level of human fossil fuel consumption, there is no question that human activity has an impact on climate change. There is a question regarding how much of an impact human activity has.
The other portion of the science on climate change -- the portion that insists that climate change is due to natural variations -- clearly makes a solid point as well. The variation of the climate throughout history has been solidly demonstrated. According to scientists who support this position, there are various natural processes that cause an increase in climate temperature.
As such, it's entirely plausible that there's nothing we can do to stop climate change. We can certianly slow the process by reducing the amount of impact human activity has on this phenomenon, but to believe we can stop the planet's demonstrated natural cycles is nothing more than a delusion.
Each side of the debate -- and yes, there is a debate, like it or not -- has its merits. Strict dogmatic adherence to either side will not do the debate any good. This is why it's so important to expose the eco-egos for what they are. It's important that the amount of influence these would-be demagogues can exert is lessened so that a real scientific discourse -- free from political manipulation -- can unfold.
The environmentalist villains of the drama -- the eco-egos -- don't want this debate to ever happen. They claim that it's "over". It isn't. Meanwhile, the heroes amongst the environentalists -- the eco-heroes -- are helping to facilitate this debate in their own way (although they clearly have their own beliefs to support).
Hopefully, this new feature here at The Nexus can help people separate the two.
David Suzuki: Icon of Canadian scientific community, or junk science demagogue?
David Suzuki is, without a doubt Canada's best-known scientific mind. CBC viewers named Suzuki the ninth greatest Canadian in history. He has hosted CBC's The Nature of Things for more than 30 years. He is also widely recognized on the international stage.
Suzuki is Canada's foremost climate change activist. He has managed to turn his celebrity and the admiration that he has earned by revealling the wonders of science to generations of young Canadians into a strong base of political capital from which he can address the issue.
As the founder of the David Suzuki Foundation, Suzuki has encouraged activism on numerous environmental issues, while keeping himself out of the political arena.
Unfortunately, Suzuki has indulged himself in some rather partisan loud-mouthery. In a clip used to promote CBC's The Hour, Suzuki tells host George Stroumbouloupolis "he [Australian Minister John Howard] is so far up mr Bush's backside that he can't back out."
Interestingly, the CBC's ad spots don't make any note that the comment is about Howard, not Harper.
Here in Canada, Suzuki has often complained that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hasn't met with him in person -- further demonstrating the sense among many celebrities that they should be entitled to meet with heads of state at their leisure. In a more public event, Suzuki approached Environement Minister John Baird at a Green Living Show in April, following the release of the Conservative party Green Plan and told him, "it's a disappointment, John. Please come see us."
Despite a number of outbursts, Suzuki has favoured cooperation over confrontation.
Suzuki differs from many activists by turning down the terror alert level and providing people with an astonishing variety of things they can do to reduce their carbon footprint.
Yet, there is one element of his approach that Suzuki needs to ammend, and that is his insistence that the debate is settled. In February, Suzuki walked out of a radio interview after the host suggested that the debate wasn't settled. Suzuki would have done better for himself by admitting that the debate is not settled, or at least defend his belief that it is. On this occasion, he refused to do either, electing instead to retreat.
There is one other weakness to Suzuki's activism -- Suzuki is not a climatologist, nor does he study a related field. He's a geneticist by trade. If criticisms of credentials apply to scientists who dissent from the climate change dogma, then certainly they must apply to Suzuki as well.
However, as a spokesperson, Suzuki is superb. And even if his personal grasp of the issue can be questioned based on his credentials, the fact remains that Suzuki is only so outspoken because he genuinely cares.
While hardly a paragon of virtue on the subject, Suzuki certainly qualifies as an eco-hero.
This new ongoing feature will be called the "Eco-Hero or Eco-Ego?" series, and will feature profiles on environmental activists.
Certainly, there are some eco-heroes out there -- good people, fighting for positive change that protects our natural environment. God bless them. After all, the human race won't survive very long without a healthy planet to sustain it. Eco-heroes deserve our respect. It should also be noted that like any true hero, eco-heroes usually aren't terribly likely to describe themselves as such.
Ego-egos, on other hand, very much do think of themselves as heroes. Yet their motivations are typically very, very different. These people aren't really motivated by visions of environmental security. They have various different interests -- political, social, and personal. These people are among the rogue's gallery of the environmental battle.
In order to best explore the true intentions of environmental activist, particularly in regards to climate change, it's very important that I myself explain my views on climate change.
Climate change activists insist that climate change is caused by human activity. They're partially correct.
It's well known that the combustion of fossil fuels produces greenhouse gases, which produce the greenhouse effect. Given the level of human fossil fuel consumption, there is no question that human activity has an impact on climate change. There is a question regarding how much of an impact human activity has.
The other portion of the science on climate change -- the portion that insists that climate change is due to natural variations -- clearly makes a solid point as well. The variation of the climate throughout history has been solidly demonstrated. According to scientists who support this position, there are various natural processes that cause an increase in climate temperature.
As such, it's entirely plausible that there's nothing we can do to stop climate change. We can certianly slow the process by reducing the amount of impact human activity has on this phenomenon, but to believe we can stop the planet's demonstrated natural cycles is nothing more than a delusion.
Each side of the debate -- and yes, there is a debate, like it or not -- has its merits. Strict dogmatic adherence to either side will not do the debate any good. This is why it's so important to expose the eco-egos for what they are. It's important that the amount of influence these would-be demagogues can exert is lessened so that a real scientific discourse -- free from political manipulation -- can unfold.
The environmentalist villains of the drama -- the eco-egos -- don't want this debate to ever happen. They claim that it's "over". It isn't. Meanwhile, the heroes amongst the environentalists -- the eco-heroes -- are helping to facilitate this debate in their own way (although they clearly have their own beliefs to support).
Hopefully, this new feature here at The Nexus can help people separate the two.
David Suzuki: Icon of Canadian scientific community, or junk science demagogue?
David Suzuki is, without a doubt Canada's best-known scientific mind. CBC viewers named Suzuki the ninth greatest Canadian in history. He has hosted CBC's The Nature of Things for more than 30 years. He is also widely recognized on the international stage.
Suzuki is Canada's foremost climate change activist. He has managed to turn his celebrity and the admiration that he has earned by revealling the wonders of science to generations of young Canadians into a strong base of political capital from which he can address the issue.
As the founder of the David Suzuki Foundation, Suzuki has encouraged activism on numerous environmental issues, while keeping himself out of the political arena.
Unfortunately, Suzuki has indulged himself in some rather partisan loud-mouthery. In a clip used to promote CBC's The Hour, Suzuki tells host George Stroumbouloupolis "he [Australian Minister John Howard] is so far up mr Bush's backside that he can't back out."
Interestingly, the CBC's ad spots don't make any note that the comment is about Howard, not Harper.
Here in Canada, Suzuki has often complained that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hasn't met with him in person -- further demonstrating the sense among many celebrities that they should be entitled to meet with heads of state at their leisure. In a more public event, Suzuki approached Environement Minister John Baird at a Green Living Show in April, following the release of the Conservative party Green Plan and told him, "it's a disappointment, John. Please come see us."
Despite a number of outbursts, Suzuki has favoured cooperation over confrontation.
Suzuki differs from many activists by turning down the terror alert level and providing people with an astonishing variety of things they can do to reduce their carbon footprint.
Yet, there is one element of his approach that Suzuki needs to ammend, and that is his insistence that the debate is settled. In February, Suzuki walked out of a radio interview after the host suggested that the debate wasn't settled. Suzuki would have done better for himself by admitting that the debate is not settled, or at least defend his belief that it is. On this occasion, he refused to do either, electing instead to retreat.
There is one other weakness to Suzuki's activism -- Suzuki is not a climatologist, nor does he study a related field. He's a geneticist by trade. If criticisms of credentials apply to scientists who dissent from the climate change dogma, then certainly they must apply to Suzuki as well.
However, as a spokesperson, Suzuki is superb. And even if his personal grasp of the issue can be questioned based on his credentials, the fact remains that Suzuki is only so outspoken because he genuinely cares.
While hardly a paragon of virtue on the subject, Suzuki certainly qualifies as an eco-hero.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Update: Kevin Potvin Still Pouting
Life's tough, Kevin: Get a Helmet
The sad, sad tale of Kevin Potvin whining about the widespread censure (not censor) that Kevin Potvin recieved over his controversial and boneheaded 9/11 comments continued this week, with the most recent issue of his Republic of East Vancouver "newspaper".
The May 10th issue of Potvin's throw-away bi-monthly rag features the most recent of numerous tirades against those who Potvin feels are so "unjustly" "oppressing" him. In previous tirades, Potvin outwardly raged against his opponents, points the finger of blame at the NDP for allegedly "leaking" the original article (which, for the record, was willingly published for public consumption), and accused the "corporate news media" of "censoring" him.
In his most recent article, Potvin publicly lodges complaint about the fact that his attempts to extend his own 15 minutes of fame by lodging complaint were cut short. He accuses his detractors of "turtling" by refusing to respond to his purile attempts to stir up further controversy by waging a private war with the "evil" "corporate news media".
He relates the tale of his complaint against Ian King, the writer of what Potvin refers to as "a late hit", an article that compared Potvin to Doug Collins, the would-have-been candidate for the Reform party who was expelled from the party by Preston Manning for espousing racist viewpoints on a radio program.
Potvin claims the comparison is "defamatory". Yet, one can easily find the comparison between Kevin Potvin, a candidate who stirred up unwelcome controversy for his party by expressing celebratory views regarding 9/11 -- and no matter how he may try to deny it, this is precisely what he has done -- and Doug Collins, a candidate who stirred up unwelcome controversy for his party by making racist comments, as well as trivializing the Holocaust. Both would-be candidates were removed by their respective party leaders.
Where, precisely, is the comparison defamatory? If by "defamatory", you mean "true", Potvin may be on to something. Otherwise...
(Fortunately Potvin's readers are at hand to keep his head on straight...)
Continuing our "tragic" little tale, Potvin notes that his complaint was directed to SUN media's lawyer. After being informed by Potvin that he "wouldn't be speaking through a lawyer, but rather through [his] readers, so nothing would be off the record", Potvin was simply told "no dice".
SUN's lawyer refused to be drug into Potvin's sad little media war. Apparently, to Potvin, this is "turtling" as well.
His complaint with the Vancouver Sun didn't even get that far. When he demanded an apology for an allegedly "defamatory" (again, actually "true") headline describing his column as pro-9/11, he was simply told "move on with your life. The rest of us have."
According to Potvin, this unqalified rejection of his complaint is "turtling".
He also complained that the writer in question, who in an email described Potvin as "fundamentally a prick" referred him to the Sun's lawyer as well. In Potvin's eyes, this is "turtling" as well.
In the absence of such a lawyer, Potvin was referred to the deputy managing editor. Potvin then launches into a long, rambling complaint about how David Suzuki, editor-for-a-day entirely ignored Potvin's plight in his "Green edition" of the Vancouver Sun. He also whines that Suzuki made no mention of neo-imperialism, war in Africa or the Middle East, or (predictably) 9/11.
Hoo boy. Not only does Potvin expect everyone to participate in his little media war, but he also expects David Suzuki, of all people, to participate in his 9/11 conspiracy crusade.
Hoooooo boy.
He also suggests that by ignoring his plight, both Suzuki and Green Party leader Elizabeth May are in league with "the unelected corporate board rooms and their media organ, the National Post).
Hoooooooooooo boy.
Yet as he often does, Potvin saves the greater hilarity for last. He not once, but twice refers to himself as "the only Green party candidate in the country who could potentially win a seat". Even after the Green Party's second-place finish in London Centre, Potvin has deluded himself to be the cream of the crop of Green Party candidates, the only one electable among them.
This, despite the fact that he is entirely unelectable.
Perhaps Peter O'Neil is right. Kevin Potvin's 15 minutes of fame should be mercifully allowed to expire. Fortunately, despite his desperate efforts to keep the mainstream media's attention wired inexorably on him have largely failed.
While he continues his sad little crusade against the "corporate media" in his little "newspaper", Kevin Potvin might remember a popular adage: "if you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough".
The sad, sad tale of Kevin Potvin whining about the widespread censure (not censor) that Kevin Potvin recieved over his controversial and boneheaded 9/11 comments continued this week, with the most recent issue of his Republic of East Vancouver "newspaper".
The May 10th issue of Potvin's throw-away bi-monthly rag features the most recent of numerous tirades against those who Potvin feels are so "unjustly" "oppressing" him. In previous tirades, Potvin outwardly raged against his opponents, points the finger of blame at the NDP for allegedly "leaking" the original article (which, for the record, was willingly published for public consumption), and accused the "corporate news media" of "censoring" him.
In his most recent article, Potvin publicly lodges complaint about the fact that his attempts to extend his own 15 minutes of fame by lodging complaint were cut short. He accuses his detractors of "turtling" by refusing to respond to his purile attempts to stir up further controversy by waging a private war with the "evil" "corporate news media".
He relates the tale of his complaint against Ian King, the writer of what Potvin refers to as "a late hit", an article that compared Potvin to Doug Collins, the would-have-been candidate for the Reform party who was expelled from the party by Preston Manning for espousing racist viewpoints on a radio program.
Potvin claims the comparison is "defamatory". Yet, one can easily find the comparison between Kevin Potvin, a candidate who stirred up unwelcome controversy for his party by expressing celebratory views regarding 9/11 -- and no matter how he may try to deny it, this is precisely what he has done -- and Doug Collins, a candidate who stirred up unwelcome controversy for his party by making racist comments, as well as trivializing the Holocaust. Both would-be candidates were removed by their respective party leaders.
Where, precisely, is the comparison defamatory? If by "defamatory", you mean "true", Potvin may be on to something. Otherwise...
(Fortunately Potvin's readers are at hand to keep his head on straight...)
Continuing our "tragic" little tale, Potvin notes that his complaint was directed to SUN media's lawyer. After being informed by Potvin that he "wouldn't be speaking through a lawyer, but rather through [his] readers, so nothing would be off the record", Potvin was simply told "no dice".
SUN's lawyer refused to be drug into Potvin's sad little media war. Apparently, to Potvin, this is "turtling" as well.
His complaint with the Vancouver Sun didn't even get that far. When he demanded an apology for an allegedly "defamatory" (again, actually "true") headline describing his column as pro-9/11, he was simply told "move on with your life. The rest of us have."
According to Potvin, this unqalified rejection of his complaint is "turtling".
He also complained that the writer in question, who in an email described Potvin as "fundamentally a prick" referred him to the Sun's lawyer as well. In Potvin's eyes, this is "turtling" as well.
In the absence of such a lawyer, Potvin was referred to the deputy managing editor. Potvin then launches into a long, rambling complaint about how David Suzuki, editor-for-a-day entirely ignored Potvin's plight in his "Green edition" of the Vancouver Sun. He also whines that Suzuki made no mention of neo-imperialism, war in Africa or the Middle East, or (predictably) 9/11.
Hoo boy. Not only does Potvin expect everyone to participate in his little media war, but he also expects David Suzuki, of all people, to participate in his 9/11 conspiracy crusade.
Hoooooo boy.
He also suggests that by ignoring his plight, both Suzuki and Green Party leader Elizabeth May are in league with "the unelected corporate board rooms and their media organ, the National Post).
Hoooooooooooo boy.
Yet as he often does, Potvin saves the greater hilarity for last. He not once, but twice refers to himself as "the only Green party candidate in the country who could potentially win a seat". Even after the Green Party's second-place finish in London Centre, Potvin has deluded himself to be the cream of the crop of Green Party candidates, the only one electable among them.
This, despite the fact that he is entirely unelectable.
Perhaps Peter O'Neil is right. Kevin Potvin's 15 minutes of fame should be mercifully allowed to expire. Fortunately, despite his desperate efforts to keep the mainstream media's attention wired inexorably on him have largely failed.
While he continues his sad little crusade against the "corporate media" in his little "newspaper", Kevin Potvin might remember a popular adage: "if you're gonna be dumb, you gotta be tough".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)