speaker

Logic is not necessarily a strong point for some of the people here, nor critical thinking ability. Take this one the sky is blue. It is. Look. That's great stuff. Except of course for the fact that the sky really is red sometime and if you've missed it August 1991 you really should get out more. Where ever did you get the notion that advertisers aren't trying to get people to buy their product and that all they are trying to do is tell people that they have a lot of money to advertise? But that's not the point here, what is at issue is that all that money that these advertisers have to pay for their advertisement agencies to put advertisements on the TV, the Radio, and the Print, like the National Post and the Edmonton Sun etc, comes out of our pockets everytime we buy anything. The AST if you like, the advertisers slush tax. As someone who isn't from the left, let me assure you that I have some feel for the power of advertising. It is the advertising that has given us king Pierre, king Brian, king Jean, and might yet if we aren't careful give us a king Steven. It is the advertising that has made it possible for someone who is hooked to the tube to spend so much time in their living room that they have forgotten that the sky can be red. more's the pity. Remember the medium is the message.

You are quite right, why would a company sell to Canadians cheaper oil and gas than it could get from export. Not to mention the free trade agreement would kick in and we would be found in the wrong. Any oil and gas in Canada whether exported or not, once used, is part of the depletion of a very valuable Canadian resource. Who do you think would oppose a nations right to develop it's energy sufficiency? We might lose some small portion of our customers, but reliability and closeness would also count in American purchase decisions. In the meantime our own taxes would go a long way toward making this a more sustainable country, Plus having any unsold oil and gas still in the ground wouldn't hurt either.

I haven't seen any indication that America is in any way responsible for the lessening of the rate of increase in the green house gas emmissions in the USA. What financial incentives are you talking about? My understanding is that a good portion of the shift is due to American Corporations moving their consumer supply base to third world countries that are more than making up for the lessening of the rate of increase of Americas greenhouse gas emmissions. This becomes known then as an externality. Out of sight out of mind . And if we put the right spin on it the American establishment somehow has the good fortune to be considered to have done something beneficial? This is why governments and economics should not be left up to financial economists like Mr. Wilson.

This argument makes no sense. Obviously your fear of the media in the free market that has to compete for your viewership is greater than a government controlled media outlet that has everything to gain by skewing the news to their partisan view of the world. The former creates wealth, the latter as in the case of the CBC creates power. The CBC creates power? like King Pierre, King Brian, King Jean, King Steven, Does this say anything to you at all? I think that most people recognize that nowadays wealth creates power, therefore if the free enterprise media creates wealth then it is them that we should be blaming for this long list of hard hard reigns.

Is our water a commodity? Is our agricultural soil a commodity? How about our forest soils? The wildlife? How do you fairly pay some one too much? We might have to take some pay cuts either through higher costs of goods, higher costs that reflect the value of the goods rather than the marketplaces ripemoff and stabem approach, or through taxes to support industry that pays full cost for their inputs. I don't mind trading with anyone in the world including the Americans, but I don't think that Wilson got his economics in an era when externalities were recognized as part of the cost of production, and neither did the marketplace.

Ya, if everything is advertised then it is difficult not to buy advertised goods. therefore it is difficult not to support the commercial packed media. That industry makes so much money that the tendancy to monopoly is evidently overpowering. Now we don't just have to deal with a really obnoxious system of taxation, commercials to support them, but we have to contend with a media controlled by people who believe that they have the right to use their power to determine public policy with their capitalist bias.

Do you think then that allowing our oil to go at lower than cost of replacement is pragmatic? The world market couldn't care less about tomorrow. Leaving anything of such impotance to our future up to the marketplace is shortsighted. There is nothing that restricts our ability to impose a tax on exported oil and gas, and using that income to develop alternatives in Canada, for our climate and for our needs.

Montgomery Burns, it is true that no one is forcing me to buy products that are advertised on any of the commercial packed media. On the other hand pretty much everything short of air is advertised in the commercial packed media. It is then difficult to not support them. Taxation without representation. It would be no more difficult for someone who doesn't support the CBC to refrain from making enough income to require taxes supporting them.

geoffrey wrote "Wow, you sure love groundless fear mongering don't you speaker? Real GDP is the best way to determine a nations wealth, there is no better measure. Real GNP is an accurate method to tell if domestic productivity and economic power has increased (which it has dramatically). NAFTA has benifetted Canadians much more than Americans. We would have no auto industry without it. Ontario would be an improvrished have-not province without it. Alberta would not have the money to procede with the oil sands project. Seriously, are you so naive to believe we have enough investment capital in a small country like ours to fund major projects? Or are you one of those that believe all industry should be in the government's hands anyways? You really have no idea what your talking about do? Selling our nation out? Canadian's hold more foreign ownership than the yanks. Buying companies cross-border was allowed before NAFTA anyways! Protectionism is ignornance at its finest. While there can be places where domestic industries need to be protected from massive multi-nationals and dumping, in general, free trade creates the best possible economic situation for our country. We are a nation of exports, without them, we are 2nd-world. Who's going to take our products when we load theirs up with tariffs and other barriers? Oh wait, no one!!! I'd really love to hear your ideas on calculating national wealth without GDP or GNP. Some 'protectionist blind-nationalist' index?" I guess I would be calculating national wealth as an estimation of our resources, rather than as a ratio of what money is transferred in one direction to another. GDP and GNP do not take into account environmental costs of such activities, do not take into account resource depletion caused by the sell off of resources, and therefore do not give us an estimate of where we will be once those resources are gone, or simply tied into American hands because of the terms of the FTA. I would rather be 2nd world than bankrupted by short sighted fools that can see nothing past a dollar coming into their pockets. Protectionist, you bet. I will protect my country from the empire builders. We are doing more than protecting our own butts, we are giving our kids kids a chance to have something.

We're better off economically? I asked those questions as rhetorical statements. I never considered that there might be Canadians out there who are pleased with the deal that Wilson and the boys gave to the American corporations. GDP and GNP are such useless calculations of a nations worth that I'm surprised there are still people trying to shill them. I suppose that if you figure that what the nation is worth is what is in the pockets and purses of Canadians after we have sold everything at less than replacement value then GNP might be valid

I think that if I was a Canadian I wouldn't want to sell off our oil as quickly as we can. and I am Canadian. Counting on the alternatives without having any resources committed to their enhancement seems like a fools paradise to me. The true cost of our oil has to include the depletion factor so that we can be prepared when oil doesn't merely run out but becomes so expensive that we can't afford to use it. On our farms, in our fishboats, in the forests and factories. If the only ones willing to pay the price continue to be the American Military we would be better off providing them with an alternative before the need gets too much for the poor guys.

Just out of curiousity then what is non mainstream media? Georgia Strait?

It's good to see so many believe in the power of poositive thought. Wilson will be good for us because ....or Wilson will be good for US CAN relations... or Harper has led the fight to rebuild the Conservative party by bringing back the guys who wrecked it and Canada in their first incarnation... If any of you are actually Canadians and not closet or openly American, you should give your head a shake. NAFTA was good for Canada? What is the percentage of Canadian industry that is owned by the American multinationals as opposed to what it was before the Mulrooney era? Brian was an American Prime Minister and I thought we were well rid of him. Bringing back his right hand man is about as subtle as you'd expect from the LIB Cons.

This is a response to the fellowtraveller who didn't notice in my previous posts when I mentioned that there is bias in all the shows on the cbc. There is right wing bias and there is left wing bias on the news, business news, commentary, science shows, discussion, educational shows, comedy shows, I haven't noticed any in the weather programs. There is left wing bias in the well... all of the above as well. I am helping to pay for all of that, and I don't mind, because I understand that there is a need for balance and that all reporters are not clones of some kind of super reporter. There isn't much point in this case in getting too specific is there? I could list all the programs on CBC if you like. I am paying for the importation of drivel from the US because other Canadian networks refuse to spend the money to develop Canadian talent and Canadian culture because it would eat into their corporate profits. I am paying for it every time I buy any thing that is advertised on radio or tv whether I watch those shows or not and I do not. whether I watch those networks or not and I do not. Let's start a campaign to free up Canadian purses from the money grubbing swine that insist on playing this crap at us.

I think that it is fairly definite that no matter what broadcasting system we have we pay for it. I would rather pay for it through my taxes than be subject to the incessant noise of commercials. So I agree I will pay more taxes to the CBC if only they will cease and desist with the commercials. Let's see how that flies with their competitors.

I suspect I'm to the left of centre on some issues and to the right of centre on some. Perhaps the fact that I'm not single dimensional makes it easier for me to see that many of the programs on CBC aren't too biased one way or the other. And yes I used the expression "Too Biased". Of course there is bias, There aren't even comedy shows that don't show bias. The good ones show all sides in a dispute to be somewhat hairbrained. At least the ones that aren't imported from the US. for the most part they are drivel in any direction. Don't discount RCI so quickly, Canadians in New Orleans were happy to have it during the hurricanes. As well it provides Canadian troops overseas with a very valuable link to home. This part of the service is enough to justify the expenditure of CBC resources, our resources, our tax money all by itself. It doesn't do any good to have such a service if we don't have some programs to put on it. It would hardly be appropriate to simply rebroadcast American Forces Radio to Our soldiers, now would it? This is just part of the unthinking effort of the ultra right to take everything out of the control of the people and place it in the loving hands of the really big corporations that can then charge us not taxes, god forbid but payments for more commercials which is added to our purchases and over which I would have even less control than I do now. You want to know how expensive broadcasting can be? Give the other Corps the oligopoly.

Someones missing the point of the word balanced here. There should not be any program that is right or left wing. It should be balanced: There should be views, commentary, bias even, going all directions. While the private systems are radically biased toward the consumerism, corporate profit making perspective, in comparison I find the CBC to be a very refreshing challenge of all ideals and social behaviours. Occasionally it is way too conservative for me, and other times it is too left wing for my liking. TV or radio. People should also remember that the mothercorp provides services overseas on Radio Canada International, no mean feat for a relatively small country with limited budget.

Yes, exactly, this is what david emerson said. There is no real difference between the two parties, let's just call them the libcons and be done with it. There would be a majority without the need to compomise in coalition or partnership governance. Go for it. The cats will win every time.

I know that views are balanced when I don't agree with more than I do agree with. The news should be a presentation of the facts, unfortunately the view that history is written by the winners has subverted reporters and media owners to the point where it has devolved to the point of history being written by those who are willing to do anything to keep their jobs. There is enough of that at the CBC let alone the right wing private press. sports is scores not views? since when? One of the arts I really enjoy and don't get nearly enough of on private networks is comedy. That touch of humour that makes it possible to laugh at the woes some of us feel when we lose sight of how lucky we are.

I think that if we had had a CBC style national newspaper it would have made the concentration of that media into the hands of a capitalist elite and all of the right wing agenda mongers less likely. I listen to the CBC and I watch the CBC for the balanced views of Canadians whether in the news sports or arts. The pawns of the corporamerica "think tanks" would have us all go blind.

Wow! I feel so humbled. I don’t know whether to cry or bow down and worship… perhaps both. Please don’t take offense that one of the possessors of a “small mind” would dare to suggest that perhaps you need to ask those who TELL you that the idea of classes is anti-American to explain their use of the word “class.” I dare to suggest that in the hope that after having a fuller understanding of just what they mean… they being those that “tell you” and/or “teach you”… you’d humble yourself enough to explain it to all of us of smaller minds, because every study that I’ve ever tried to read and understand… without much luck as you can well see… always defines members of certain social stratum that share certain economic, social and/or cultural characteristics as “class or classes.” Thus lower class, middle class, and upper class. How anyone could believe that any nation… be it communist, socialist, capitalist, or any number of other “ist” and/or combinations of them it might be… could be entirely and wholly without divisions of “class” in some way shape or form… is beyond me! And I don’t mean to suggest that one such as yourself… of such obviously superior intellect… would be stupid enough to buy into that. But since you’ve deigned to respond and point out the flaws, to others, in the comments of a smaller mind… perhaps you’d be good enough to explain to me… and others… exactly what type of political philosophy is it that condones the government seize the product of one’s labor, through coercion and under threat of imprisonment and forfeiture of all properties, in order to redistribute the wealth that was seized through coercion and under threat of imprisonment and forfeiture of all properties, to others that it deems more worthy or more in need of the wealth of another that was seized through governmental coercion and under the threat of imprisonment and forfeiture of all properties? Communism? Socialism? Some type of social-democracy or even maybe some transitional form of a mixture of socialism and capitalism… socialist-capitalism… perhaps? There's these socialist type educational programs called anger management studies... You want to know what I call a government that does all of that to it's hard working "middle class"? that depends on who it is that is benefitting from the governments largesse. Since Bush and his government are the pawns of the puppet master corporamerica I don't really think that the lucky "lower class" is going to be rolling in your hard earned cash. A socialist government would be one that cares enough about said lower class to assist it. When the effort and direction of the aid is for the benefit of the presidents buddies, or string pullers, socialism doesn't enter into it anywhere. Unless of course you think that providing jobs at the front lines in foreign nations is assistance.

Zues said that Bush and the upper class are ruining the middle and lower classes. then he added this But he is a liberal! He's a socialist-democrat globalist! There are some issues that the Dems don't care for... but hell... they can't stand Liberman for some of the same things. Doesn't neoconservatism have its roots in Trokskyist socialism? Let's face it... the U.S. is socialist! Like it or not. First off I was taught that the very idea of classes was anti- American, and now I'm told that America is not only classy but socialist to boot. Well live and learn I always say. If there wasn't the spin there wouldn't be anything. I know I know consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds but on the other hand it does help in arguments.

The reason that there is abortion clinics, and a government sanctioned access to abortion is that there was always a right to abortion and women who needed one knew that. They therefore went where the had to go or did what they had to do to get one. Taking away the right to abortion which governments did for reasons both positive and idiotic, over the years did not change this, It only made it more dangerous for those women who had to get one. It's not a question of privacy, other than the common decency of people who let others get on with their lives as best they can, or one of convenience. It is a matter of respecting the rights to decent medical care of some who would turn to coathangers and vacuums .

Ahh well. if Mark Steyn said it then... 'nuff said. bleeding heart liberal pinko media at it again.

The only positive way that I know to stop this terrible liberal media from reaching inside your mind and turning it to mush is to turn off your tv, quit reading any newspapers, don't go to any blog spots, and make sure you have tinfoil on all the walls and ceilings and floors. Liberal Media, Ha!!! When one loses all sense of perspective what does one look at?