Hollus

Seahawks by far played the better game. Steelers(perfect name) had'nt even got a 1rst down 19mins into the game. Every single questionable, marginal or outright bad call went against the Seahawks. Those articles are not the product of seahawk bias, its just simple deduction.

I guess you guys we're watching a different game than I.... http://www.patsfans.com/bob/display_story.php?story_id=2933 msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playoffs05/c...ht&lid=tab1pos2 http://www.footballoutsiders.com/2006/02/0.../audibles/3631/ http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...=bayless/060205 http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/sport...ll/13801313.htm ...the list is growing. EDIT:fixed links.

Last night the black and gold won the super bowl thanks to the worst officiating Ive ever seen... ...and today Steven Harper gets sworn in

Well... your ignoring all my main points aswell. Your telling me you still support the NDP even though Bob Rae ran the largest deficit in Ontarios History since the depression. And Layton wants to spend our tax dollars on booze for bums... Wow... I guesse Im the only one here that likes to see my money in my pocket... not in booze for bums. You could look into the history of provincial politics and pull out horror stories about every party. I dont think that type of argument holds much water. What do you know about the 'wine for homless' program? Can you atleast acknowledge what the findings of the program were? Should I assume your completely insensitive to the struggle against homlessness? Study toasts free drinks drinking their way to good health

Ive included living expenses in that price. Ah indeed. What are you taking? I havent focused on a degree yet. Still waiting for all applications to come back. Looking to enroll as an arts student and take a variety of classes(History,economics,polisci).

Ive included living expenses in that price.

Do you mean they should work full time while going to school? With most programs that wouldn't be possible. It's completely possible, I'm doing it right now. I'm a Finance major which last time I checked, is pretty demanding full-time compared to 'philosophy' or whatever we give most of those people student loans for. I'm taking full-time classes and I run a company as well, taking well over a combined 65 hours a week easy. You just can't drink every night, although its pretty tempting, I'll choose to graduate debt free and financially secure. Thats great that your taking advantage of your time. No doubt your hard work will pay off. But not everyone is as enterprising as yourself, nor should they have to be. Planning for my first year of school next year its looking like $16000, and thats on a pretty stringent budget. I dont imagine a job with a masters in social work will garner the same wage as say a master of engineering. A big student debt wouldnt be so bad if you could come out of school and have a good paying career to pay down debt, but thats not true for every vocation. I am kinda curious what kind of business you operate? Maybe sell me a franchise in Van?

Your telling us that your taking home $90,000 a year, have 4 beautiful kids and your about to buy a new car... why are we supposed to be feeling sorry for you again? Why should the government be using MY tax dollars to help buy your tools and put your kids in sports programs while I'm getting hit with a Conservative tax increase. Can you explain?

Whatever. "As a Crown corporation, the CBC operates at arm's length (autonomously) from the government in its day-to-day business." Wikipedia - CBC I agree, the more automony we can give the CBC the better. But I think you prove the point yourself with this statement: This radio station is really nice. But are you seriously comparing it to this? ckua is a nice little radio station. I enjoyed the blues program this evening... but do they have news correspondents in Israel? Will they be able to report on what's happening in Afghanistan, or even the East Coast? You keep going on about not wanting to pay for 'my' entertainment. The CBC is a service provided to Canadians. If you don't like it fine... but many do. As Sparhawk has already mentioned there aren't many services in this country that apply to 100% of the people.

Seriously. There's no need to be putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything about censorship and I don't argue that the CBC doesn't have it's biases. What I'm saying is it's important to have information from more than one source. There's value in a media source that doesn't rely on corporate interests and I know this may be a suprise to you kids, but there is such a thing as coporate sensorship as well. Enjoy privided link. Monsanto & Fox: Partners In Censorship

Thank you Sage...you are correct that that was my original point... Than you both missed my point. It's almost too easy to say it's typical. But did you translate Standing up for Canada as picking up a gun and fighting? I not talking about spilling blood. I'm talking about standing up for Canadian communities and Canadian citizens and not bowing to corporate interests.

Are you still on bunny ears? I just have basic cable and I still get CBS, ABC, FOX, NBC, CNN... Without the CRTC regulations watching CTV would be no differnt that watching CBS. It would be more cost effective for the CTV to just pipe shows from US markets than to payfor shows produced here. Canadian Content and US Content or just US content. Which gives you more selection? Just 2 of the many things the CRTC does: 1. Ensure that there is room for Canadian shows on Canadian TV and radio. I think this is a good thing. Maybe we disagree. I don't have any stats to back it up, but it seems that this policy is getting results with the success of Canadians on the international stage. But , you can't argue the option isn't there to switch over and catch Surviorir XXIV (or nancy gracy). 2. Regulate the channels broadcast in Canada. Not exaclty a mind blowing idea here folks. The Brits have Ofcom. In the US it's the FCC. Someone has to decide who's on channel 2 and who's on channel 6... I've only got so many channels on my dial. I know, I know you probably want to argue it's sensorship. And to a point it is. But wouldn't you rather have an independant body making these decisions than a political one. Someone has to. I can't even think of one? Can you name some for us? Did you even read any of the articles on the site? The CRTC is going to be used to... ...impose fines on telemarketers not following regulations. ...adding asian content. ...regulating the cell phone industry (and maybe not doing such a hot job... but that's a different arguement). ...Ensuring that these new internet phone companies tell their clients whether or not they have 911 service. Which one of these are we supposed to fear?

Good then, we're agreed. The piont Im trying to make to you(which has already been made to you by sparhawk, in my opinion) is that the CBC cannot exist as a competently run source of information distinct from the bias' of a market-based info source, without our tax-dollars. So I am trying to defend against your idea of tampering with the balance of media and further consolidating information through the filter of corporate influence. Well Canadian artist have contributed a hell-of-alot more than the $2.50per month it costs each of us for the CBC. You must be pinching your pennies pretty hard. "Canada's artists and arts organizations are an economic force at the creative heart of the $39 billion cultural sector -- bigger than the agriculture, forestry, mining and oil and gas sectors combined." Im done with your selfish attitude of how to spend tax dollars.

Strawman. Please demonstrate first, and amaze me while you do it, that "many people" say this. It should not be hard, since there are, by your count, many people saying this. Poll perhaps? Survey result? Anything? How can I argue against of for your statement unless we have a factual base or a legitimate premise? It's like arguing whether Superman or Batman is tougher. You are directing the question towards whether or not what is good for the corporation is necessarily good for the country, based on the premise that it is an idea that many people support. I'd be glad to do that, but only if it is first demonstrated than many people do support that idea. My statment of: "its amazing how many people seem to subscribe to 'If its good for {insert corporate name}, its good for Canada." Is a personal perception based on impressions made throughout my communities and workplaces. Many people seem to have a belief that: crown-corp./state intervention=BAD, free enterprise/ market-based approach=GOOD I am simply trying to promote debate over our ability to govern for our best interests when industry is increasingly unregulated and left to its own design.

Good, then you won't mind paying for them directly, by subscription and relieve all those who do not share your joy of that burden. Or, you could pay for my entetainment out of your pocket as I pay for yours. Either way works for me. Has somebody here tried to somehow link the CBC (taxpayer) investment in Sirius with Canadian content requirements? Crazy talk! XM radio, their competitor, has the same CanCon requirements, and apparently has no need at all of my money- other than by subscription. CBC has zero business investing in business other than their own. Fellowtraveler: If you dont like the canadian made programing on the CBC thats fine, but dont try and take it away from the people that do. Wheres your contribution to canadian culture? Write us a script and send it in to the CBC so they can give you a voice. Unless of course, your not an artist and have nothing inteligent to say.

Your response is very understandable. No doubt such a change would cause a massive recession. What if the long term benifits outwieght the sacrifice? What if our economy could bounce back on our new system thats more conducive to nature and democracy, thus being more dependable and sustainable? Currently we are in a nose dive toward extinction. Is this what our soldiers of World War II died for? So we can bow our heads and serve corporations in fear of losing our jobs while the market takes over, destroying our lives and those yet born? Maybe the heroes of the 21rst century will be the ones that our willing to give up their livelyhood and endure the hardships of change for the betterment of humanity. The defense(and infringment) of ones rights and freedoms can take many forms. Certainly our shiny new cars, our super-thin super-big TVs and such will be much less prevailent. Are these things really worth the amount we invest in them? Us powerless? If we have a nation of people willing to make sacrifices for change it will be the ultra-rich who are powerless.

I can't believe you're actually admitting that you watch the trailer park boys! The cartoons my kids watch are more substantive than that show. And CBC news is like watching an advertisement for the Liberal party. Makes me sick to watch it. There's one thing decent on CBC is HNIC and its the only thing you've criticized. Well believe it! I certianly dont expect everyone to relate to 'trailer park boys'. Just because you've written it off does not mean its a bad show. Its actually quite inteligent in its portrayal of its characters dealing with real life issues. But I can certainly understand how someone would take one look at Ricky and Bubbles and write the show off as juvinille humor. Although, even without the substance, its funny as a cow-dung fight... and thats pretty funny. CBC news is bias just as is every form of news. Its up to the viewer to take in as many sources as possible and deduct the truth as best you can. I would say you are a bias viewer. I did not at all criticize HNIC. What gave you that idea?

If you want to talk about capatilistic and socialistic values there are much more relevent threads than this. Really? My TV came with a remote, so I can choose from quite a variety of programs. However, I usually choose to watch Canadian programing:corner gas, trailer park boys, rick mercer, the hour, cbc news corrospondent, passionate eye, are just a few of the quality canadian made programs. Maybe you'd prefer to watch programs produced in other countries, like CNN's Nancy Grace? -Genuine Canadian MagazineCanada is well known for our artistic contributions to the world, we our among the highest artist per capita populations. As I pionted out earlier with the 'guees who' reference, Canada needs canadian content laws inorder to nurture this talent and protect it from being overshadowed by our much larger(though no more talented) nieghbor. The CBC was right to reprimand Don Cherry. Hockey Night in Canada was not created as a pulpit for social predjudism, there are plenty other more appropriate programs for such dribble(like CNN's Nancy Grace show).

Im definatley willing to look at the sacrifices we need to make, both as a nation and as an individual. Thats very close to the point of this thread. Maybe the things we have to give up wont necessarily lower our standard of living. "Ecosystems are -- or can be -- the wealth of the poor. For many of the 1.1 billion people living in severe poverty, nature is a daily lifeline -- an asset for those with few other material means. This is especially true for the rural poor, who comprise three-quarters of all poor households worldwide. Harvests from forests, fisheries, and farm fields are a primary source of rural income, and a fall-back when other sources of employment falter. But programs to reduce poverty often fail to account for the important link between environment and the livelihoods of the rural poor. As a consequence, the full potential of ecosystems as a wealth-creating asset for the poor -- not just a survival mechanism -- has yet to be effectively tapped." "But for the poor to tap that income, they must be able to reap the benefits of their good stewardship. Unfortunately, the poor are rarely in such a position of power over natural resources." World Resources 2005 -- The Wealth of the Poor: Managing ecosystems to fight poverty Maybe all we need is a new system that will distribute wealth rather than consolidate it. I dont see the need for an individual to be excessively rich like those that our society holds up in such high regard.

Ya. I never meant to imply that Canadian Content law was bought about by a democratic process. Though, I think its been good for us. If Don Cherry wants to get a show like Howards he can bash all the nationalities he wants.

I'd like to ask you the same question, and how capatilism is going to account for them.I am not a communist. Obviously an idealist. Human values to me means alot of things. In this thread its been used as a term to refer to as tml12 said:"good christian values" or as I said "finding common ground on the basic 'human values' inwhich we would like to govern our society" Sustainable development- I think we could all agree on that Environment- I dont think anyone wants to leave a scoarched and lifeless earth International Law- Dont think we should be supporting rebel factions to overthow demacraticly elected governments inorder to protect corporate interests. Human rights abuse- mabye Im alone on this, but Id like to see corporations adhere to a set list of regulations instead of jumping around to take advantage of the impoverished. Desperation should not be able to be used as a competitive edge. Yes, I can hear you now:"this is all very nice-but your dreaming-it'll never happen". To which I reply: Where theres a will theres a way, and if you dont believe that than your part of the problem.

Mission successful. Billions of taxpayers dollars given away to campaign supporters with no criminal investigation in view. Oh come on. Your not saying these noble politicians used nationalism and fear to prop up some grand scheme of funneling tax payers money into their friends pockets are you. Everyone knows that kinda stuff dont happen.

Fair enough, but your taking that statment alittle out of context. The overal statment of my post remains unchallenged: Corporations accountable to their shareholders[investment] interests, and lack the capacity to protect 'human values'.

The way I see it(by no means do I consider myself an economic expert, so I welcome any challenging veiws) corporations are bought and sold on the stock market. A corporations success relies on its ability grow interms of profits(shareholder returns). A corporations failure is the result of maintaining management for any reason other than remaining competitive and increasing shareholder returns(reasons such as 'human values' that have no economic trading power). If a 'corporation A' doesnt persue profit by every possible means(breaking human rights law, environmental law, outsourcing factories to less regulated contries) than the door is left open for a 'corporation B' that will. Then shareholders sell off all their 'corporation A' and buy the 'corporation B' So if not accountability to the shareholders(more accuretly shareholder's investment) then who?

Please explain to me where I've been 'disingenuous' or claimed to have 'altruism' on our side. I never said capatilism hasnt done me well, it has. Im saying the nature of capatilism is contradictory to democracy. If you would like to continue on down the path of the corporate state and consolidation, suit yourself. I, However, am trying to understand how we can evolve the system to serve a us and the rest of the world. Where theres a will theres a way. The orignal nature of capitalism was that it would not be counterproductive to democracy. Adam Smith, widely regarded as the father of modern economics, argued it should include "good Christian values." Looking at the U.S., the only time Bush feels the need to include "good Christian values" in his government is when he is campaigning. I think that otherwise, he is all about the big corporate (read: Enron) guys. Ya man. I dont think many would argue that society should be based on some form of "good Christian values" as you say. Although it should not be religion that dictates these values, finding common ground on the basic "human values" inwhich we would like to govern our society shouldnt be difficult. Its the implemintation thats difficult, being that we've strayed so far from these values(or perhaps never really valued them). Well, Adam Smith said "Christian" because he was writing in a time and in a society when Christianity was the dominant religion and there was no separation between church and state. We can incorporate "Christian values" in modern Canadian society without to them as "Christian." For example, having welfare programs, helping the less fortunate in society, and generally treating everyone with respect and dignity would probably be defined as "Christian values" by Smith but need not be solely about Christianity if we created a government like this in Canada or the U.S. today. I agree, but how can one nation initiate change without simply being left behind? With capatilism being a global reality, changes at the local level can be easily undermined. What could we do to make the first step toward change, without paralyzing our current economics? Thats the question I really want to address.