bleeding heart

I guess we don't negotiate with "terrorists". Seriously, I find the "crime against humanity" theme to be, at best, profoundly overstated....coming from a poster who has opined that I "blame the West too much"...for actual, proven, uncontroversially-existing "crimes against humanity." So I'm a bit flummoxed by the whole discussion, to be honest.

But tim, you've completely ignored my points--about the need for serious, institutional analysis--in lieu of the "I knows it when I sees it" argument, which is a non-starter. Such an analysis of "left-wing bias" has never been seriously undertaken, using solid methodology (a point which matters to you in any other instance...why not this one?) The reason it's never been seriously undertaken? Well, you'd have to ask those making the "leftist bias" claims...and further ask them why they continue to make the allegation based only on their gut impressions.....a notoriously unreasonable way to look at a matter of such scope. The true, robust institutional study is THE only possible way to even discuss the matter intelligently. As for your notion that a study from right-wingers would find leftist bias, and a study from lefties would produce the opposite. Only if the person conducting the study is deluded or dishonest. I can say this especially since I offered an example (arguably the best-known example ever) in which such is not obviously the case: the Chomsky-Herman analysis. They did not expect to find a right-wing bias....nor a left-wing bias; but they were determined to let the analysis speak for itself, if either bias appeared to present itself in clear ways. It did not. Rather, the major news media, they discovered, conformed with remarkable (though of course not universal) tendencies to support Power: political and economic. Whether this power resided in or was sympathetic to liberal or conservative ideology didn't matter, as the essential agreements on everything about Power remained usually consistent. So, which big party a specific media outlet or organization supported varied (though papers switch support, editorially, more often than both left and right critics tend to claim); but as for the "hard news", there is no institutional left-wing bias. The bias that exists is that powerful people are trustworthy--not always, but when it counts....like when the military is sent somewhere, which evidently is proof positive that we are In the Right. Almost all major news organizations support even terrorism, provided it is us or our allies committing or supporting the terrorism. (There are numerous examples, some of them quite unequivocal, if you find this particular point dubious). In short, the "leftist bias" trope is lazy thinking....period. It's fluffy and self-indulgent, and the adherents refuse to put their money (or their effort) where their claims are.

Rabble had a live discussion with Giller-winner Lynn Coady; but then, that was a discussion about her book, not about politics.

Except for circumstances in which one person cannot work--which is not, I don't think, the matter we're discussing here--they make a choice to be a single-income family. The family of lower-income earners does not, or not as clearly, have the same choice. Are you opposed to a progressive tax system? Or do you think it should only apply to people without families...that having a family should erase the tax-paying difference?

For a moment I thought you had a serious point to make!....that was a pleasant, momentary delusion; my bad.

I listen to at least a portion of CC-Checkup regularly, because it's on when I pick up my wife from work. The idea that there is "no diversity" amongst callers is flatly untrue....no doubt a subsection belief of the "leftist media" trope that not one the hypothesis' adherents has ever been able to demonstrate...Not. A. Single. Time. Ever. I have never once listened to the program without hearing absolute opposite views emanating from the callers. Never. (And yes,. Murphy, to me, does a fine job....his actual skill is in this sort of thing, his bloviating, arrogant stupidity on all other matters kept usually on the back burner....one or two points aside, as has been already mentioned in this thread.)

The short answer, of course, is that progressive taxation will determine this is so...but it's not to punish "families"....as far as the point seems unfair (and it's not necessarily unfair) is because of circumstance. Put the question another way: why should people of (relative) means be financially rewarded for having one member not working?

Argus, your points on trolling are spot on. However, the idea that someone would come here just to mock Canada, deride Canadians, and talk about how wonderful his or her own country is in comparison...well, that's not really an issue, because no one on this forum is so sad and petty, and saddled by weak-kneed nationalism and delicate sensibilities dressed up as ridicule. Fortunately!

Army Guy, As I said, there is not (or not necessarily) proof...but there is certainly strong enough evidence to warrant an investigation, especially since the meeting about "regime change" (which occurred directly before the violent and illegal regime change) between Canadian, French and American officials took place in Montreal. And again, what "Western country" is going to hold an alliance of France, Canada and the United States accountable? Too funny. As for the UN, they went in after being invited by the coup-plotters themselves, working closely with American, French and Canadian forces. So...nope. And "wikileaks"? Wikileaks first of all is not some sort of investigative unit...but it's moot anyway, sicne the coup was plotted and took place in 2003 and 2004. Who do you propose would have intervened in the illegal behavior of an alliance...of the US, France, and Canada?

I think Gian's leftist leanings are clear enough, and I doubt he'd dispute it. (And, not to tack off-topic, but arts and entertainment tilt pretty heavily in liberal/leftist waves anyway, though of course not in every case.) But the CBC's "leftist bias" has been much alleged, and never proved in any substantive way. In fact, the charge is part of a larger charge...that of a "leftist media" generally. But if this were the case, the many conservatives with education, intelligence,insight, interest, and financial means (many a conservatives, I'd suggest) should by now have released some expansive works explaining the "leftist bias," why it exists..... ...and demonstrating that it exists. The failure to do so is the elephant in the room of this entire discussion. That is, they could undertake a serious institutional analysis, the way that Chomsky and Herman did with "Manufacturing Consent" (which, contrary to popular belief, does not propose a "rightwing bias" in the media....but it certainly takes on the "leftwing bias" allegation quite well). Until we get that, we have only bland claims...and, very rarely, a bit or piece of selectively-chosen "evidence"...the same method I could use to "prove" any sort of bias I wish.

??? Charges laid by whom? Impverished Haitians? Your actual question is this: why have the most wealthy, powerful, allied nations not punished themselves for illegal invasions....or to resorting to terrorism, mass murder, etc.? Is that a serious question?

.................

Well, if, as certainly seems to be the case, Canada was part of the plot (with France and the US) to overthrow the elected (and highly popular) leader of Haiti, and supported in his party's stead a violent dictatorship....,I would put it to you that this explicitly breaks international law on more than one measure...as well as breaking Canadian law.

Could be, or could even be the other way around. (Sheer speculation at this point, of course.) While Rust certainly crosses the line into police brutality and so on....it's Martin who seems, if anything, more unhinged. He has so far committed a murder and an outright assault upon an innocent man.

True Detective, after three and a half episodes of quietly building menace and melancholy, shows that it's got action chops to spare. A neighbourhood shown as a war zone, in more or less a single tracking shot, almost unbelievably long and, in its own way, quite beautiful ...really outstanding.

I agree these wages are lower than what I would have expected. As for the quality of the experience...I can agree with overthere and BC simultaneously.

A good point, Mighty AC. Obviously, yes....if it is unacceptable to see meat being prepared (or consumed by other predators in our care)...unless said meat is prepared ahead of time, "out of the public eye" as it were...then the situation is patently absurd.

It's good to see an official stance that is a also a principled one...Mayor Ford's unreflective whining aside.

I believe Argus is correct. My wife works for the Dept. of Transportation (in the high-pressure filed of Emergency Radio Services)....and to her knowledge, not a single employee has EVER gone to the Union Rep, in her many years there. She herself certainly hasn't. Most (and no, not all) harsh criticism of unions comes from people who read about some outrage on this or that rightwing blog. It usually ahs little basis in lived experience.

If it were that simple, PIK, there'd be a lot less debate. Anyway, your argument is with, for starters, Canada and the US, who sharply disagree with your assessment on an official level. A lot of Israelis disagree with it too.

Yeah....I'm willing to admit I'm wrong...but as it stands, I don't see any serious problem here.

So people shouldn't criticize homophobia...because the criticism will result in more homophobia?

True...better to stand than to sit in filth, if the choice must be made.

To those for whom assisted suicide is a major issue....well, at least as it stands now, they're pretty much going to have to forego lifelong conservative voting habits.

Let's not forget that the same people wanting to "give Rob ford the benefit of the doubt" (which I have no problem with, were it even faintly warranted), were the very first to NOT give the reporters the "benefit of the doubt." In other words, all things being equal, let's assume that the politically-powerful millionaires are telling the truth; and let's simultaneously assume that those who report unfavourably or criticize them...are dishonest. Such outright elitism always gets exposed like underwear at a frat party..