bleeding heart

Pretty funny.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand the question.

I've heard this too. Of course we have a poorer view of long-term effects for MMA...but even so, my understanding si that the differences are monumental. Boxing is an extremely dangerous sport. MMA...not so much.

I genuinely admire the concessions, which in the heat of debate are difficult. Appreciated. As to determining CBC leftist bias, yes, a difficult proposition. But not an impossible one. But it would take more serious work than you and are likely to commit to, to put it mildly. I think the way to do it would be in the manner of a sober institutional study (logically the only way to determine institutional bias.). my model, for lack of knowledge of others, would be Chomsky and Herman's Manufacturing Consent, which wasn't about a single media entity, although the "liberal" NY Times and Washington Post get a lot of focus...the reasoning being their undisputed influence on other news media, which if anything was greater at the time of writing. Whatever one thinks of the authors--or of the book itself--no one disputes that it's a serious and meticulous attempt, and I think they took the right approach: 1. First of all, while their hypothesis was that the news acts fundamentally as a propaganda organ for the State, and for Business interests (quite distinct from "leftist propaganda," unless the subject's realm was the Soviet Union or Cuba, etc), they deliberately did not look for cherry-picked evidence. Their main approach was comparative: how do the media report on atrocities committed by the Enemy (Pol Pot, say, or the left-wing Latin American guerilla movements); and compare that to the reporting, both in quantity and quality, of their reporting on atrocities committed by the west, or by its Third World allies. It might surprise some people to discover that the terrors of a lot of "bad guys" are quite equally met by the "good guys"...demonstrated often through official declassified records and the like. 2. They also demonstrated a set of interrelated "news filters," comprised of ownership, advertising, flak, sourcing, and, yes, ideology. The picture they painted was of institutional biases, quite ingrained into the professional media culture. I believe the CBC would fit quite well into the paradigm...though, like I said, the effort is too large for me to concern myself with in the necessary detail. I couldn't of course blame you for not undertaking something of such size. But I do wonder why, of the so many voices calling "left-wing bias," that no serious and honest study has, to my knowledge, been attempted by the political Right...or even the political "centre." Maybe someday.

I agree with all of this. Coyne's views differ pretty sharply from my own in many ways. But obviously there's nothing wrong with that. I think he's principled, and can be insightful.

"Unexpected bonus." Case closed.

A slight misunderstanding, and it scarcely "speaks volumes," unless one is attempting point-scoring in an online discussion.

You'll have to me time to reply...I have to phrase it in a way that will not be easily conducive to a dishonest assessment of my own remarks.

But it was an analogy; so by definition the same principle applies to the real-life example. Further, this is perfectly clear. Read it again and you'll see. There's no way to misread it...that is, there's no way I could be saying or implying anything other than what is there in plain English. I wasn't implying it; I was stating it outright. That was the question under discussion here. The point is that I made my "premises" argument without equivocation. I don't know why you pretend I did not.

I think tim's suggestion, or at least part of it, is that the a lot of people voted for Obama based on a highly effective campaign (which won a major advertiser's award for marketing, significantly). The campaign slogans meant very little objectively, but were designed, doubtless with great care, to act as an empty slate upon which folks could insert their own political desires, whether explicit or inchoate. I agree with this assessment, incidentally. It's much like campaigns which suggest the correct toothpaste will help you find your life partner (that's an actual ad campaign); or of driving your shiny new truck up the rugged mountainside, presumably towards heaven (and unaccountably avoid getting the paint nicked on your $35 000 vehicle). It's worth noting that, so obviously and immediately successful was the campaign, that the McCain/Palin team wasted no time in emulating it, with talk of the "mavericks" who were running on a campaign of "change." In a way it's all old hat, but it took on extra energy in this particular campaign.

Well, how interesting that you've omitted my prefatory remarks that puts this into plain perspective; here is what immediately precedes the bit you quoted....which you must have seen...which begs the question again about the seriousness of your intentions in this discussion:

Awesome post, reefer.

I did no such thing. I stated that, as with poll questions generally, I would not blandly accept what I'd perceive as unspoken premises--radically implying that I don't think myself more thoughtful or insightful than the majority of American conservatives. (It's you who thinks them unable to form coherent thought, not me.) Roughly the opposite of your assertion, in other words. What was it you subsequently said about "reading two words skipping the rest and inserting their own prejudices as my opinions"?

OK, I took your own methodology here (and frankly was unsurprised at how easy this is) to "prove" that the CBC does not have a leftwing (or "cultural relativist") bias. I hasten to add that I don't consider the stuff I've found to be profoundly insightful, and it certainly lacks rigour. But that is the point; that is why it is a response to your links....because yours are quite weak too, as no doubt you are aware. However, there's an exception: the last link I've offered actually does make a strong and well-conceived argument (roughly to the opposite of your perspective on it)...which in my opinion puts my quick linking here somewhere above your own. http://www.policynote.ca/the-myth-of-the-left-wing-cbc/ http://www.canadaka.net/forums/jibber-jabber-f9/is-the-cbc-really-that-left-wing-t103398.html http://www.straight.com/news/richard-stursberg-reveals-cbc-study-indicated-conservatives-were-treated-best-national http://www.irpp.org/en/po/kyoto/is-cbc-really-biased/ http://www.herschelhardin.ca/commentaries/media/00aprcbc&bias.htm

As always.

When Coyne is on, he is really on.

Good advice, and I've been thinking along just these lines lately, in terms of my own postings.

"The wealthy" barely exist in the movie, except as glimpses of beautiful, educated people sipping wine and speaking French. (Perhaps THAT was the insult??? ) We really only get to know the leadership of Elysium, not its wealthy inhabitants generally. They are barely characters, aside from the President, and Jodie Foster's scene-chewing, elitist bitch. Now, if right-wing folks imagine that the portrayal of the leadership, whose violent policies intentionally ensure the horrific disparities, is a pointed political attack....I think it certainly is. But why they'd take it personally, when almost all of them too would be eking out a bare existence on shattered Earth, is beyond me.

I've not read it, but Ridley Scott has a good track record, so I'd check it out for sure.

I forgot. Movie reviews don't belong here...except when they do.

You totally omitted important groups...which you later defended because they were "subgroupings"...which is false. First of all, I posited dishonesty as one of two possible motivations, and said that on reflection, I genuinely don't know which one is true. Second, it wasn't "baseless"...I explained exactly what was wrong with your list--omission being the single error, since I agree that all those groupings actually exist. Done already. Like I said, I agree that the groups you mention all exist...and pointed out a crucial one which you've missed. If there are other missing ones which I haven't considered, perhaps someone else might point it out. Either way, my "developing my own list" is so obviously implied from my responses that I can only assume--again--that you have no wish for a serious discussion on the matter. And I've already explained, more than once, why I disagree with your assessment. Disagreement, when explained, is not a matter of ignoring your post.

?? You've offered four opinions. I'm looking for evidence of systemic bias...not only that, but "cultural relativist propaganda." what you've done instead, unwittingly, is to underline the paucity of evidence about the oft-made claim. Hell, one of your shining examples "proves" bias because, during a debate about a "one-state solution" in Israel, they had one person for it, and one against. This constitutes "bias" (and relativistic propaganda) because...well, because the debate itself is unwelcome for the shrinking commissars among us. By this logic, the CBC has exposed its pro-Iraq War bias...since all the pre-war debates were one-to-one, two-to-two, etc (standard debating practice, as the person in your link isn't quite bright enough to see)....which did not correspond with global opinion on the war, which was far and away against. So, there's the CBC's pro-war, pro-American, pro-elite bias...I just "proved" it. You see how easy that is? and how anyone can "prove" any bias they wish? Hell, one of them claim a "documentary" made on the subject....and the ONE example HE gives us is piss-poor. Go back and look if you don't believe me. Finally, you have yet to answer my question: how was the reporting on Idle No more "cultural relativist propaganda"? That was your claim for which I was asking for clarification. You seem to have sidestepped it. (I'll address the rest later)

(Slight spoiler alerts) A sort of "Occupy meets 70s-era Science Fiction." It's about the 99%, and it's about immigration...with a dollop of health care concerns and labour oppression to drive the plot. In case the lefty credentials weren't clear enough, the use of Mercenaries is also a huge problem...ultimately even for the one-percenters. But really it's just a very accomplished action film, with Matt Damon playing his patented Reluctant Hero. Some kick-ass weapons, some very cool, somewhat oldschool robots, and lots of violence. And like most action films, it plays to notions of justice. Max is an ex-con living on Earth, which has been devastated by environmental catastrophe and disease. The entire planet is essentially Haiti. But the very rich live on an orbital space station called Elysium, a beautiful place in which basically all health problems can be cured by ubiquitous machines. Max gets very hurt at work--directly as a result of unreasonable working conditions. So what's a poor shmoe to do? Well, find a way to Elysium to get illegally cured. Revolution is not really on his mind... initially. Meanwhile, there is also a plotted coup on Elysium by Jodie Foster's Delacourt, the Security Chief who is less disturbed by murdering poor people than is the beleaguered President of Elysium. A leader must do what a leader must do, as we all know too well. The writer-director Neil Blomkamp already made a splash with another dsytopian science-fiction film, the excellent District 9. And while I liked the former movie better, this one still rocks pretty good. Oh, and the weapons and the robots! Awesome. Definitely worth a watch.

If US officials have nothing to hide, they should cooperate with the investigation.

If it was honest, it was a fanatical argument that can't be taken seriously. If it wasn't a fanatical argument, it was dishonest. On reflection, I have no idea which one applies. Perhaps you could take a stab at it?