It’s incredibly uneducated to confuse a political movement, ie Zionism with a religion, ie Judaism. People are protesting the gross actions of an extreme government NOT a religion
There are not very many Canadian independent journalists. Corporate media in Canada are like the corporate media in the US and a lot of their reporting is very biased. Sometimes even taxpayer funded CBC would fall in the trap of spewing right-wing talking points. So I want to listen to and would pay to support independent journalists like Rachel. I don't care how Rachel appears in the videos; I only care about the content. Sadly, in this day and age, female professionals in whatever industry are still often judged by their looks much more so than the quality of their work.
All this talk about necklines reminds me of a story about my own youngest daughter when she was about twelve or so years old. Our family had spent the day swimming at the Sandbanks Park near Picton in eastern Ontario, and after we returned home that evening, my daughter wrote in her diary: "It's sad when you go to the beach and realize your Dad has bigger boobs than you do."
I understand that my problem with accepting the credibility of Rachel Gilmore exists entirely inside of me, and is impossible to justify. Rachel's concern with her surface is her choice, and is her response to the extreme societal pressures that are mercilessly applied to women. I know that her appearance does not preclude her intelligence and political insight, but I have great difficulty ignoring the surface - even though the surface could easily be said to be appealing in some respects. As a chemist I appreciate the importance of surfaces in ways such as catalysis. For me, Rachel's surface is inhibitory. For Canadian young people her appearance could well promote the spread of rational dialogue. This is why I'm happy that I paid a $125 subscription despite the fact that I will personally never make any use of it. All Canadians (young and old) need to come together in the face of The Untied Snakes of Amerrycow.
Rachel, thanks for your perspective on the bubble zones. I had been mildly okay with them and you are the first person to explain it in such a way that I get why they suck!
I paid a subscription to Rachel Gilmore ($125 I think) simply because Charlie Angus recommended it. I knew nothing about Rachel Gilmore, and if I'd known what she was like I never would have done so. I am an educated and experienced 70 year old man. I have a hard time taking seriously a young woman plastered in makeup who flaunts her breasts. She can keep the $125 because I know that it was my mistake in the first place. She can please cut me off from renewing the subscription and she can stop right now, because I just delete everything she sends straight away. I looked at the first dozen things that she sent and decided that young people these days are just too different from me. Look at a Charlie Angus offering, and you will sadly see that everyone in the audience is my age. If Rachel can communicate effectively with younger people then that's truly wonderful, but it's not me.
So you only saw makeup and breasts. Did you hear anything she said AT ALL. Well I hope she does reimburse you grandpa. Continue hiding in your boomer world. Signed by a 64yr old woman in a world who needs a lot more Rachels.
As a 72 year-old woman, a boomer, I have loved low necklines, though not at work. I do think her low necklines will distract many and cause some to take her less seriously. However, like you, I appreciate her intelligence. I focus on her words and not her bod. I find her analysis and her efforts at fair reporting to be admirable. I do not sense her favouring any political party, and I believe she is interested in giving us the information we need to defend the common good.
As a 72 year-old woman, I see your point and respect it. I do think her low necklines will distract many and cause some to take her less seriously. However, I find her analysis and effort at fair reporting to be admirable. I do not sense her favouring any political party, and I believe she is interested in giving us the information we need to defend the common good. I, too, am a fan of Charlie Angus.
Alfred, if you can't take someone seriously because of how they look then that is so much more your loss than theirs. After a couple of months of watching Rachel's reporting with my free subscription I finally ponied up for a paid subscription because her reporting is excellent and that's a hard thing to find in Canada.
Signed
A 61 year old, somewhat educated, extremely experienced man who loves boobs and LOVES great reporting!
It’s incredibly uneducated to confuse a political movement, ie Zionism with a religion, ie Judaism. People are protesting the gross actions of an extreme government NOT a religion
There are not very many Canadian independent journalists. Corporate media in Canada are like the corporate media in the US and a lot of their reporting is very biased. Sometimes even taxpayer funded CBC would fall in the trap of spewing right-wing talking points. So I want to listen to and would pay to support independent journalists like Rachel. I don't care how Rachel appears in the videos; I only care about the content. Sadly, in this day and age, female professionals in whatever industry are still often judged by their looks much more so than the quality of their work.
All this talk about necklines reminds me of a story about my own youngest daughter when she was about twelve or so years old. Our family had spent the day swimming at the Sandbanks Park near Picton in eastern Ontario, and after we returned home that evening, my daughter wrote in her diary: "It's sad when you go to the beach and realize your Dad has bigger boobs than you do."
Not a fan of Ben or his program on the radio. People on radio go into politics. Big Adler fan, however.
I understand that my problem with accepting the credibility of Rachel Gilmore exists entirely inside of me, and is impossible to justify. Rachel's concern with her surface is her choice, and is her response to the extreme societal pressures that are mercilessly applied to women. I know that her appearance does not preclude her intelligence and political insight, but I have great difficulty ignoring the surface - even though the surface could easily be said to be appealing in some respects. As a chemist I appreciate the importance of surfaces in ways such as catalysis. For me, Rachel's surface is inhibitory. For Canadian young people her appearance could well promote the spread of rational dialogue. This is why I'm happy that I paid a $125 subscription despite the fact that I will personally never make any use of it. All Canadians (young and old) need to come together in the face of The Untied Snakes of Amerrycow.
Rachel, thanks for your perspective on the bubble zones. I had been mildly okay with them and you are the first person to explain it in such a way that I get why they suck!
Bubble pop the bubble zones! 😂
I paid a subscription to Rachel Gilmore ($125 I think) simply because Charlie Angus recommended it. I knew nothing about Rachel Gilmore, and if I'd known what she was like I never would have done so. I am an educated and experienced 70 year old man. I have a hard time taking seriously a young woman plastered in makeup who flaunts her breasts. She can keep the $125 because I know that it was my mistake in the first place. She can please cut me off from renewing the subscription and she can stop right now, because I just delete everything she sends straight away. I looked at the first dozen things that she sent and decided that young people these days are just too different from me. Look at a Charlie Angus offering, and you will sadly see that everyone in the audience is my age. If Rachel can communicate effectively with younger people then that's truly wonderful, but it's not me.
So you only saw makeup and breasts. Did you hear anything she said AT ALL. Well I hope she does reimburse you grandpa. Continue hiding in your boomer world. Signed by a 64yr old woman in a world who needs a lot more Rachels.
As a 72 year-old woman, a boomer, I have loved low necklines, though not at work. I do think her low necklines will distract many and cause some to take her less seriously. However, like you, I appreciate her intelligence. I focus on her words and not her bod. I find her analysis and her efforts at fair reporting to be admirable. I do not sense her favouring any political party, and I believe she is interested in giving us the information we need to defend the common good.
As a 72 year-old woman, I see your point and respect it. I do think her low necklines will distract many and cause some to take her less seriously. However, I find her analysis and effort at fair reporting to be admirable. I do not sense her favouring any political party, and I believe she is interested in giving us the information we need to defend the common good. I, too, am a fan of Charlie Angus.
Alfred, if you can't take someone seriously because of how they look then that is so much more your loss than theirs. After a couple of months of watching Rachel's reporting with my free subscription I finally ponied up for a paid subscription because her reporting is excellent and that's a hard thing to find in Canada.
Signed
A 61 year old, somewhat educated, extremely experienced man who loves boobs and LOVES great reporting!