After we directed our readers to this bizzare post on Larry Hubich's blog, an interesting dialogue occurred between Hubich and some of his commenters.
Here are our thoughts.
First of all, you can tell a lot about a blogger by not only their posts, but by how they react to their detractors in the comments section.
Secondly, we have found that when a blogger screws up, they will try to bury the post under a myriad of new posts. Hubich who doesn't blog all that often buried that JG post under a pile of videos after he was challenged on his post.
Hubich`s comments are highlighted in blue.
My point is, that Gormley et al are making broad and sweeping statements that are false, inflammatory, and hate based. And attempting to paint everyone with the same brush.
You never hear him rant against the Chamber of Commerce or bloviating because Wal-Mart is constantly in court paying fines and settling lawsuits out of court for violating workers rights.
He and his employer need to be investigated by the RCMP for inciting hatred.
Rather than backing away from his ridiculous assertion that Gormley and Rawlco need to be investigated by the RCMP, Hubich restates it. For a union boss, he sure seems to have a thin skin.
Secondly, if Rawlco should be investigated for inciting hatred, by that same standard Hubich and the SFL should be investigated for similar posts on his blog about Brad Wall getting his marching orders from the Chamber of Commerce. Or is it just right wingers that need to be investigated? The whole thing about RCMP investigations is ludicrous.
Believe me, having spent the last 3 decades working in the labour movement I can distinguish between normal healthy respectful disagreement and hatred.
The problem is many reasonable people don't believe Hubich. We are unaware of any position he may have held on any Human Rights commission, or unaware of any law degree he may have. So we`re not quite sure what makes him believe that he has the ability to define hatred.
Then the comments become quite interesting.
Hubich deleted his next comment, in which he claimed that Rawlco had only contacted him twice personally to appear on JGL. Then this...
Last evening at 11:24 pm I posted an entry in response to a commenter here.
I my entry I suggested that in the past 2 years I have received invitations to respond on the John Gormley Show on only two occassions.
On reflection, that was not accurate, and I acknowledge that there were probably other instances to which I did not avail myself of the opportunity to response to requests. (Although I do not have records of those instances).
As a result, I have removed the erroneous posting and I offer an apology for any inconvenience the comment may have caused.
While Hubich retracted the comment (only after he was challenged), the fact is, he lied. Or he misspoke. Or he attempted to mislead about how many times he has been asked to appear on JGL. This gives us reasonable cause to ask, as the President of the largest labour organization in the province, what other things has Hubich not been exactly truthful about?
And finally....
As for you implying that I'm a spokesperson for the NDP, well I'm not.
No, we agree that Larry Hubich isn't.
However, at the last NDP convention Hubich was one of Dwain Lingenfelter's nominators, despite one of our commenters claims that he did not (and that he was actually there!). And the union/NDP ties in Saskatchewan are well documented.
This post from Hubich was ridiculous from the beginning, His comments only made it worse.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I get a charge out of reading blog postings and comments from people who have to hide their identity behind aliases or anonymous comments.
I get more of a charge out of blog owners who don't have the courage of conviction to declare their identity. It's easy to sit in the shadows or hide in dark corners and shoot one's mouth off.
Mr. Hubich,
Thank you for participating in this blog.
With respect to your comments about the "courage of our convictions", that is indeed the pot calling the kettle black.
We could claim the same about you and your boycott of the Gormley show.
Where are the courage of your convictions, Larry? Why won't you avail yourself to his program? What are you most afraid of?
Hey Larry,
Does that also go for some of your side of the fence, Leftdog...The Jurist? These blogs also post behind aliases..I assume you will put the same comment on thier blogs. No? What a surprise. Ladies and Gentlemen, Larry Hubich...Saskatchewan's biggest horses arse, and hypocrite!
Dear "Who ever you are",
I have had a meeting and conversation with the most senior officer of Rawlco Radio related to decorum. I have been awaiting a follow-up meeting with the general manager of radio operations.
I'm not afraid of Gormley's show, nor of debating him in any forum. Even he will acknowledge that.
As long as certain matters remain unresolved I am not interested in adjusting my schedule to participate in his show. That can change.
I equate it to this, I don't go to restaurants where the food they serve is not something I eat, or if the restaurant is dirty and in need of repair. If that same restaurant wants my business, they know what they need to do - clean it up, and change the menu.
Otherwise, there are lots of other restaurants to choose from. That's the wonderful thing about the "free enterprise capitalist system."
Thank-you for posting my comment and reply.
p.s. Paulie, you'll have to talk to the people who run those blogs. They aren't mine.
Mr. Hubich,
Thank you for your response.
At best, it seems as though you are expecting Mr. Gormley to change his thoughts or program to appease you. That is equivalent to you embracing "big business" to appease him.
At worst, your "changing the menu" analogy is akin to asking Rawlco to fire their franchise player on the two NewsTalk stations because the President of the SFL doesn't agree with his opinions and as a result has boycotted his program.
Most credible media outlets don't ascribe to that sort of negotiation. We wouldn't expect Beck or O'Reilly to roll over because they want the SEIU's Andy Stern on their program. They didn't even roll over for the President when he excluded Fox from a White House briefing.
And still guests like Barney Frank appear because they know that O'Reilly is the highest rated news program. Frank understands the value of getting his message out, even thought the host may not agree with him.
Your tactics may work with the provincial NDP, but we doubt it will work with a private broadcaster like Rawlco.
Therefore, we assume you will never appear on JGL. We just can't see Rawlco changing the rules to suit you.
And quite frankly, they don't need to.
As a matter of fact, we believe your boycott hurts you and the union movement more than you think and actually helps JGL's ratings. The collective groans of his listeners, both union and non-union alike, when he repeatedly announces your boycott is palpable.
The fact that you would expect Gormley or Rawlco to appease you shows just how out of touch you are with what is really going on in Saskatchewan.
Good luck with that!
I wonder what the "certain unresolved matters" are. I can only assume Larry complained to the owners that their private sector is so mean to him.
Fact #1: Many JGL fans are not right-wing gun-toters. Heck, many *gasp* unionized public employees listen to his show. I think I already demonstrated that listenership is not an issue.
Fact #2: Mr. Hubich claims that he won't appear on John's show because it's low-down and poopy, but this is nonsense. Your restaurant analogy is poor: one visits a restaurant for his own benefit: to get food. One visits a radio show for his own benefit, but also the benefit of the LISTENER. Jack Layton guests on JGL because he can hold his own. Larry Hubich, simply put, cannot. John Gormley would beat Mr. Hubich in a debate any day. I can picture it already: JG would attack logical shortcomings of socialism, such as population loss, brain drain, high taxes, more crime, more welfare babies, more social services interventions, more people reliant on government and addicted to handouts, etc. Gormley would demonstrate that govt handouts PROMOTE societal ills. Mr. Hubich, on the other hand, would then obligatorily connote the private sector with Haliburton & Afghan bombs, demand that working people pay more tax, more handouts are needed to cure homelessness, and other associated nonsense. JG would laugh at him and tear him apart. (Sorry to be so mean, Larry, but it's the truth)
Bottom line: While Jack Layton wins support by appearing on JGL, Larry Hubich would invariably lose it.
" Jack Layton guests on JGL because he can hold his own."
You're joking, right? While I respect Jack for being willing to go on JGL, I don't know why he does when he loses horribly every time.
Probably the best example of Jack Layton being made a fool of would be the time Jack went on JGL and claimed that he wanted to stop the Alberta oil sands from further development because not one hectare of land has ever been reclaimed by the Alberta oil sands. With in seconds the JGL producers were on the internet and provided Jack with the fact that hundreds of hectares of oil sands land are reclaimed every single year, proving beyond any doubt that Jack Layton is a bold face liar.
Jack wasn't even man enough to apologize to the Canadian people for lying to us and trying to deceive us in such an underhanded manner. The CBC, as well as the rest of the Canadian mainstream media, decided not to report that a candidate for Prime Minister was lying in order to close a major Canadian industry and put ten of thousands of Canadians out of work.
People like Larry Hubich and Dwain Lingenfourther boycott not just JGL, but any media that will scrutinize their position. The prefer the CBC or CTV who will never challenge any statement made by a socialist.
Am I the only person who has noticed that any party John Gormley is in support of, ends with shame, disgrace and criminal investigations. Then the party is wiped right out and never runs again.
Post a Comment