Michael Hardner

I think the US has been acting far more conscientuously of late and this is one thing that ticks me off about leftists - they will not admit this. It seems to me there was LESS outcry from the left when the US was more invoved in dirty tricks in Latin America etc. etc. You can say that it's because the cold war is over, but the fact is that the US is cleaning up their act. It seems to me that people are more angry about the past than what is happening now. I was against the recent wars in Iraq and Afghanistan on principle, but let's face it: they were awful regimes that deserved to fall and these places now have a future. We should be paying more attention to what's going on in the emerging countries, like the former Soviet states as these are hotspots of the future.

Sure. Something like that. Ted Rogers is another big player. Try to find a simple list of individuals with large media holdings itemized by what they own and you'll have some trouble.

Read what I wrote. I wrote that America has SHIFTED to the left socially, not that America is LEFT socially. Do you understand the difference ? What is the support for gay rights, living together, etc. etc. now versus 1980 ? The rest of your post here hinges on your misunderstanding of my statement that there has been a shift to the left socially since 1980.

Yes it is. It puts more money in his pocket. Nobody is automatic pizza delivery at 8$ an hour. Minimum wage jobs are low-skilled jobs. If you can't do one, you probably can't do any job.

What about Ken Thomson ? Who are the owners ?

Aren't they always pushing to raise the minimum wage ? Isn't a minimum wage earner, by definition, a "little man" ? Unless you're talking about the roots of these people, which is always the NE. Like they say, Dean's gramma was bridesmaid to Bush's gramma. The family compact...

Such acrimony... come on, now we're all on the same team right ? I'm sure Harper is capable of leading a minority government, but with 107 seats (under the old seat distribution) out of touch for him it's hard to see it happening. Y'all should hope for an NDP surge to 25% to help the CPC's chances. Should be a good what ? Massacre ? I guess so. It doesn't look like anybody will have the juice to beat him and take the CPC leadership. Will the Canadian people fall in love with Stephen Harper and vote him PM in 2004 ? Hmmmm.... Here are some keys to that happening: 1) Martin's public speaking hasn't seemed too confident of late. He stammers, he looks perplexed. This doesn't instill confidence in the voter. 2) The BIG scandal that broke on the west coast could come up with some major dirt in the PM's office. 3) The economy isn't doing that well. 4) If the big three parties are ALL new faces, why not choose Harper ? They voted for the devil they knew in Chretien - maybe they'll give Martin the pass this time just out of boredom with the Libs. It still seems unlikely, but early on the CPC seems to still have things going their way...

Well, I like it. I think it provides a needed service - especially CBC radio. $50/year doesn't seem like that much compared to $500/year I pay for cable. I do think they could manage it better, though.

How about a quota system ?

I didn't imply that they had to turn to talk radio because they were breaking the rules. I do think that their opinions were unsupported in mainstream media before, though. Didn't you agree with that above ? Sure they have. As much as NYT, BBC, LAT, CNN has anyway. These media are only left from your viewpoint anyway. They're actually middle-of-the-road. If you want left read Mother Jones, NOW magazine, MS. magazine etc. etc. CNN, and the NYT have been accused with kowtowing to the US government by the actual left. And... are you right wing or mainstream anyway ? You should decide. If you're right wing, then the mainstream hasn't been carrying your views before FOX, Rush et al came along. If you're mainstream, then, well I guess almost the whole world is left. ... I'm trying to concede a point here, that there is a place for right-wing views in public dialogue that hasn't been allowed before. We don't have to disagree on EVERYTHING, do we ? The sky is blue. Ok. Yes, this is what I said above. I concur. I was just saying that I'll accept any point of view if it's given in good faith, that's all. Look, before Reagan everybody was left-wing by your standards. Eisenhower was. Nixon. All of them. (North) America has shifted to the right fiscally since Reagan and to the left socially. LBJ and Trudeau were big spenders. Nixon didn't really change much spending-wise. That was the thinking back then. Was Nixon part of the left-wing conspiracy ? I don't know. Maybe you can tell me.

What do I mean by 'the rules' ? I dunno... Don't lie, back up your statements etc.

Another thought - I have a friend who's a true leftist and he adores Michael Moore. In fact, I've heard him make statements about Moore that almost exactly mirror yours on Rush. Maybe these types of personalities are appearing because the increased media channels are causing a widening of the spectrum of political discussion at both ends, including the attendant adjustments that have to be made by the mainstream. Good food for thought.

Well, Morgan, you've done a good job of explaining the importance and significance of commentators like Rush to someone like yourself. There is a place for right-wing and even far right-wing views in the public discourse as long as they follow the rules. Cheers.

Well, I was wondering what made Rush "respected" and your answer was that he has a lot of support. Michael Moore and Chretien both have had a lot of support too, so I guess they're "respected". I wouldn't consider Rush "respected" because he isn't taken seriously by the mainstream press. That's a stretch. But whatever. Ok. Maybe Rush isn't a liar, but he sure shoots his mouth off without thinking too much about the consequences. He's also weak and irresponsible and possibly a law-breaker, but... I'm more interested in the fact that our political dialogue has been supplanted by a chorus of single-minded ranters of the right and left. Since I started posting on forums like this in late 1999 I have interacted with many fair and even-minded conservatives who have changed my mind on more than a few issues. This, I think, is the strength of these forums. They allow reasonable and open-minded people to reach a meeting of minds. And I can see that this was the synergy that the founding fathers knew would foster the best government. But media demagogues run counter to this. I urge reasonable people of the left and right to take the Michael Moores, Rush Limbaughs of the world with a grain of salt. Listen to them, then go and do your own research.

BTW - do you think the US will move against other dictators and torturers that don't challenge their authority ? I don't. Again, it's not in their interests to do so. I only take exception with the party line that the US always acts in the world's best interests etc.

I don't think you understand the difference between "getting" Iraqi oil and ensuring stability in the region. Stability in the region (including protecting Saudi oilfields as you admit) means stable prices. I don't think the US "wants" Iraqi oil, nor do I think that there's some kind of oil conspiracy happening. It's in the US interests to promote stability in the region and especially to act against rogue states that challenge regional peace and stability. Yes, I was against the war in Iraq on principle. But I can't deny reality and I don't - which is why I can see that the US acts in its own interests. You are correct with this. Even though I was against the war in Iraq, I think that Iraq is far better off now than it was under Saddam and I'm hopeful that Iraq will form a bridge to a new stable secular and democratic middle east.

As SirRiff stated, and you missed, it's not about taking over as much as it is about ensuring stability - political stability and supply stability. What kind of proof would you like ? I'm sure I can't provide enough, in any case. I don't care whether the US persues policies in its self-interest. In fact, in whose interest SHOULD it persue policies ? But the idea that the US is engages in world-wide policing on an even-handed basis for the sole purpose of international justice is naive. Why would they support the Saudis ? Is Saudi Arabia a democracy ?

Rush (Mr. Limbaugh) also said that he thought the NY Times hadn't run a story on Whitewater yet, when in fact they broke the story. This year he basically said that the Philadelphia Eagles kept Donovan McNabb because he's black. Smart move. At season's end, he's headed for the pro bowl and his team had nine straight wins...

So is Michael Moore. So what ? If the criteria is the amount of public support, I guess you're a huge Chretien fan then. Right. People who listen to AM radio are good, people who buy books and go to movies are bad... got it. So he deserves respect because he openly lies, rather than trying to hide his lies like the others. Got it. He's a proven liar. There are many examples. If you can't see this, then you're a blind follower and aren't open minded to debate about it. This wouldn't be a surprise because Rush makes his living preaching to the converted every day. One example of his lying I can remember is when he said that banks assumed all the risks in the federal student loan programme. He didn't have a clue. The loans are guaranteed by the government. When pressed, he claimed that there's a risk in that a bank that fills out the forms incorrectly could be held responsible. Some risk. I didn't call you a half-wit, I said "IF" Rush's fans are half-wits etc. Anyway... I'm trying to talk about partisanship and the decline of political dialogue. You don't seem to understand that. Instead you want to say I love Hillary Clinton. Try to wrap your mind around the idea that I'm talking about BOTH sides here. Yes, I've listened to Rush. He's an entertainer, pure and simple. He won't allow himself to be interviewed by real journalists because he would soil himself intellectually. But the problem isn't Rush, it's the whole game left and right... If you were a leftist, I'd tell you what the problems are with leftism too. At least I'm trying to be objective. Yes, I agree with Moore more than Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter etc. but I think that the bigger problem is the degeneration of political debate into one-way electronic channels by all of the above. Look. You love Rush et al, and you hate Moore et al. You demonize one side and love the other. I think both sides have to take responsibility for the impending implosion of the politcal process. If you think the left is to blame for everything that's wrong with our society then there's no point in trying to discuss this with me at a higher level.

Well... not off by heart, anyway. Is it... Limbaugh ? I think it is..

Rush is respected by whom ? Michael Moore won an Oscar too, so what ? They're both entertaining clowns in the political sideshow. I notice that you called Rush a "commentator" rather than a journalist. I suspect it's because you know that Rush spews untruths at about the same rate as the other political clowns such as Moore. You're obviously too partisan to have this discussion. What is "impact" ? Brittany Spears has quite an "impact" and her songs are excellent "commentary" but she doesn't add anything to the political dialogue. If you want to say Rush should be respected because thousands of illiterate half-wits listen to him, I don't buy that theory. Nor do I believe that Michael Moore's bestselling books mean that he helps the political dialogue one bit. So it is with Rush and Moore and the other clowns of politics. I think people have to start putting aside their political differences and looking at the political environment, regardless of ideology. You think Rush is a valuable human being, so I would opine that you're too partisan to take part in that process.

SirRiff seems to have summarized the situation correctly. I understand that the US has to act in its own interests to keep its economy going, and I even understand why politicians need to whitewash the dirty deeds of their dirty friends. But I don't understand why seemingly intelligent people feel a need to repeat the mistruths of those above them. In order to preserve his belief that the US acts for the global good, Morgan has convinced himself that the US doesn't really need oil and that invading Canada would be "easier" than invading Iraq....

There was another thread with a discussion similar to this one. Politics now serves only to entertain and shock people - they don't see any connection to their lives beyond that. The Moore site isn't supposed to expand political dialogue any more than an episode of Rush Limbaugh does. It's tit-for-tat.

It's not dialogue and debate, it's cat fighting for entertainment only. Dialogue and debate would be too dull to watch. That's what's on CSPAN etc.

Like Arnold you mean ? US talk radio, or television pretty much anywhere is a major problem to democracy because these media don't lend themselves to political discussion, just arguing. It's not a left or right thing. It's the unfortunate fact that an ill-informed populace can easily be manipulated. In the past, we had leaders who rose above but little by little we've seen our leaders go lower and lower to get more votes. LBJ did it masterfully with radio, then television. Reagan's team was arguably one of the best. Now, it's all about attack ads and misleading television spots. The powers that be will continue to run North America into the ground because it works to do so. Chretien and GW Bush are two leaders who typify the problems of paying attention to polls and appearances at the cost of real problems being ignored. The founding fathers didn't set up our democracy to be run by uninformed rabble in an environment of mass media.