Morgan

Brainiac said: I think you speak with forked tongue, Brainiac. The gay marriage issue was Harper's finest hour. He spoke for the majority of Canadians, regardless of the 50/50 split myth that the media elites are desperately trying to promote. Furthermore, Harper clearly showed up the high handed elitist arrogance of the close leftist brothers, the NDP and LPOC, who were going to push through the bill come hell or high water using every trick in the parliamentary book. Harper also used this issue to show that the left wing politicians are using their elitist compadres, the unelected Supreme Court justices to pass left wing legislation. Martin could never get the same political leverage out of the gay marriage issue as Harper and the PC's who are you trying to kid? Martin agreed with the gay marriage bill for heavens sake and now is frantically trying to buy time by expanding the questions sent to the Supreme Court so their reply will come back AFTER the election and so it does not become an election issue that Harper could use. Martin would not have worry at all if anyone but Harper becomes leader of the PC's. And that's why CBC and the other media elites are trying to promote Stronach. She's on the same page as Paul Martin. Gay marriage is Martin's Achilles Heel and only a social conservative like Harper can use it to full advantage. Martin knows it, everyone knows it. Anyone but Harper as PC leader and the PC's have no chance to putting a significant dent in the number of seats won from the LPOC and NDP. #1.Martin's gay marriage Achilles Heel Dec.12/03 Canadian Press. #2. Martin's attempt to hide from the gay marriage issue, Dec.30/03, Montreal Gazette.

This topic is directed to BOTH pro and anti Bush posters. Bottom line is that I'm getting increasingly more worried about what I perceive to be the "real"one world government globalization neo-con Bush peeking through the veneer of a conservative Republican package.This fear may make some of you cheer, but for others, if my concern is well placed, would mean a death knell for conservative philosophy having any legitimate place anywhere in the world. 1. At first I became alarmed with Bush's out of control domestic spending- his entitlement hand outs would make many Democrats blush. Bush is acting more like an FDR than a Reagan. 2. Secondly, his regime change of Saddam is becoming more worrisome . No SirRiff, don't get excited, I'm not about to agree with you that it was about oil. Quite the opposite. At first I thought it was about national security and having a footprint in the ME. But the more I hear Bush gush about the Iraqis and their new found freedom, I'm almost thinking he's putting the needs of the Iraqis before the needs of Americans...like he's on a mission to free the poor and down trodden to bring them into the family of man. Then there's Bush's promise of $15 BILLION to Africa for AIDS, while very nice, is bizarre coming at a time that the US is running one of the biggest deficits ever. Also, there's no strategic benefit to the American taxpayers to pay out all this money to Africa. I could see maybe a couple of million focused on the purchase of AIDS drugs for a year as a form of extra US humanitarian aid to what it already ponies out, but come on, folks, $15 BILLION is somewhat EXCESSIVE. But I'm starting to believe that Bush has a noblesse oblige mindset to help the world at large, albeit with American taxpayers' dollars. 3. Thirdly, this amnesty guest worker plan is sheer garbage. Sorry, Craig, I disagree with you. It has no merit whatsoever. The Europeans have tried it and it's a failed plan. Even the Americans have it in place now with regards to agricultural workers and in no way has it stemmed the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico. Unlike Reagan who tried this plan in 1986 and had built in safe guards to try to enforce the borders after amnesty, Bush said nothing about enforcement in his speech this week. He did not even refer to illegals as people who are felons but rather he talked in heart felt terms of bringing these felons out of the shadows and giving them dignity. This pure and unadulterated noblesse oblige. Many illegals cause an enormous toll on Americans economically and socially. To grant de facto amnesty to 8-14 MILLION illegals is COMPASSION and IDEOLOGY, nothing else. Just check out the research done by the Center of Immigration Studies. The backgrounder article by Steven Camorata is chilling. Centre for Immigration Studies To say it's a crafty plan to buy the Republican party Hispanic votes is also a stretch. Hispanics are historically a predictable Democrat Party voting bloc, that is when Hispanics actually vote. So it's not crafty at all. Bush is basically ensuring that a Democrat Party dynasty will run the USA in the future. In fact, rather then wooing Hispanic votes to the Republican Party, it may be that Bush is purposely alienating the conservative base of the Republican Party, thereby creating a fracture like what the Red Tories under Joe Clark did so that Americans will be in the same position as Canadians...having to choose from varying shades of left wing political parties, the Republicans representing a "progressive" party rather than a conservative party. 4. Fourthly, the Kumbayah refrain that Bush is singing with Vincente Fox and Paul Martin at the Monterrey conference about a "borderless" North/South American economy is downright scary. But how can you have no borders if all countries have different health care plans? Answer, you have the US implement universal health care, so workers can float around at will. But in this cozy picture, the US citizens have the most to lose...choice and high quality health that they pay for through private insurance, PPO's. It would be a one way street of Mexican workers going up to the USA or Canada to a lesser degree to ttake advantage of arguably the best of the best physicians in the world. Coincidently, on the heels of Bush's Kumbayah and amnesty proposal to 14 Million illegals, comes a report from the U.S. Institute of Medicine that the USA needs to implement socialized medicine no later than 2010.Republican Dole supports universal health care and Bush's Health Minister Tommy Thompson says that a deadline of 2010 is unrealistic but he does not rule out the recommendation at all. Institute of Medicine says USA needs to adopt universal health care by 2010 5. Fifthly, Bush is getting real chummy with Paul Martin, whose Svengali is none other than Maurice Strong, billionaire turned socialist, one world governance cheerleader. In doing further research on Strong this morning what do I stumble across but a National Review article from 1997 on Strong in which some of Strong's famous pals are listed, and guess who intervened on Strong's behalf so he could run the infamous Rio Conference...none other than George Bush Sr. Maurice Strong's heavy weight US political connections which include George Bush, Sr. 6. Sixthly, I stumbled across Laurence Auster, a writer who contributes to National Review but also runs his own political news blog called "View From the Right" whose posts got me to re-think my image of Bush as a true conservative . It was Auster who caused me to look at the amnesty proposal as a conscious ploy to alienate conservatives. Please read the LINKS AND READER COMMENTS in his post about signals that Bush may be a left wing Trojan Horse within the Republican Party. Unnerving. Arguments for seeing Bush as a good liberal at heart Jan.14/04 AND Irving Kristol's article reveals the true meaning of Neo-conservative, annotated by Laurence Auster The Neo-Conservative Persuation by Irving Kristol I'd like to hear all your reactions to my concerns, both from left and right. Am I being too paranoid or are you now thinking further about all or some of the points I brought out?

maplesyrup said: It's funny to a liberal when Harper is ridiculed by statist run CBC. But, as the article points out and which obviously you did not read past the headline, liberals would not think the stunt was so funny if the same thing happened to Paul Martin. In fact, Walsh would likely have been fired. If you like that kind of CBC humour, pay for it on your own dime. That's Gerry Nicholls' point...privatize CBC and let subscribers like you pay for CBC's yuks.

A scathing article in today's National Post[via NealeNews] calls for the privatization of CBC. The writer, Gerry Nicholls, vice-president of the National Citizens Coalition, says it's clear that CBC is politicized and it abuses taxpayers' money to promote its agenda. Nicholls cites the latest example of CBC's flagrant bias that occurred when CBC used the Mary Walsh stunt to ridicule Stephen Harper on the night he announced his intention to run for the PC leadership.Read it full text and see if you agree. I do. Harper stunt smacks of CBC bias by Gerry Nicholls, Nat'l Post, Jan.14/04

This is rather disconcerting and it's happening in France, on an EU directive. French gov't set to pass Internet Filter Bill, Computerworld, Jan.12/04

SirRiff, You don't get it. President Clinton and the 105th Congress passed the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) in 1998 to liberate Iraq, not Saudi Arabia, not any other despotic regime and we know there are many. The law was specific to Iraq because even back then...that is before 9/11...the USA identified Saddam Hussein as a "threat to international order." Enough said. You can bluster all you want but regime change for Iraq was passed under a left wing President.Clinton even to this day, when he visited Portugal, told the PM there that he was certain with all the intelligence he saw that Saddam had WMD. To call the USA a "rogue" nation is laughable. The USA must be in good company considering that 3/4 of the hallowed UN is comprised of rogue nations. As for the USA supporting human rights abusers...the man whose tax dollars support Fidel Castro has no room to sit in judgement of others.

Brainiac, What would differentiate a PC party led by a Red Tory like Stronach from the LPOC led by a fiscal conservative like Martin? Answer: no difference Voters would continue to vote LPOC because liberals are familiar but a Red Tory led conservative party, while it's a similar product, is untested. I think a great segment of Canadian voters are looking for a change. They are PO'd with social liberalism as symbolized by the gay marriage and pot decriminalization issues. A Harper led conservative party would offer a real change, a genuine new conservative choice. But a Stronach led conservative party would not...same old same old bland Red Tory conservatism...Stronach believes in gay marriage and I'll wager she supports legalizing pot. Gay marriage had everyone up in arms this year. I think Harper could take full advantage of that voter outrage and the gay marriage issue alone, if nothing else, could win many new ridings for conservatives under Harper's leadership. The Red Tories should run under the LPOC banner. That's the party Red Tories are aligned with philosophically. For them to pretend they are "conservatives" is ridiculous.

Stein, If the Kyoto Accord moves forward, you'll end up paying your taxes to a fat Third World dictator who could give 2 hoots about the environment. Kyoto Accord has more to do with re-distribution of wealth than saving the environment. First World countries would pay Third World countries for environment "credits" and everyone is happy. Here's a clue for you as to the credibility of Kyoto. For example China, India, Mexico are exempt from the Kyoto Accord requirements for reducing greenhouse emissions to 1990 standards even though India is one of the chief pollutors in the world, China is poised to take over the lead in a few short years, and in Mexzico City the pollution is so bad people wear masks when they walk on the sidewalks...that should tip you off that Kyoto is political not environmental. Kyoto will not bring about pristine valleys but it sure will do wonders for Third World dictators' Swiss bank accounts.

righturnonred said: If a Democrat presidential candidate came out today and promoted a platform based on the following, I predict George Bush would LOSE big time in the upcoming election: 1. active enforcement of the existing immigration laws which would involve: illegals deported, employers of illegals heavily fined, federal funds with held from states that allow their cities and counties to dispense free welfare, medical, and higher education services to illegals, tripling of border patrol staff 2. no increase in taxes 3. the war on terror continued I've been monitoring a solidly pro-Bush conservative site at Lucianne.com the last few days ( it's my understanding that Lucianne has some sort of wait list for outsiders/newbies to post there so monitoring is all you can do) and the outrage at Bush's "amnesty called guest worker" program is something fierce. Many posters are saying that they will vote in a Republican Congress and a Democrat president and make Bush a one term President in 2004 election unless he pulls this proposal off the table. They say a Republican Congress and a Democrat WH is good because that's when Republicans work harder for their vote, and the Democrat President has to water down his left wing policies to get them through Congress. One poster said that a recent History Channel poll, albeit not a precise one, showed that 75% of Americans were against Bush's immigration proposal. This immigration proposal is a hornet's nest for Bush. It will interesting to see how this develops.

Well said, Neal. And your previous description of Belinda Stronach as a Paul Martin in a skirt is very apropos. If elected PC leader, she will fracture the unification as soon as she opens her yap about abortion, gay marriage, immigration reform. Let's face it. Stronach is yet another tycoon with a noblesse oblige mindset. She and Paul Martin and Maurice Strong probably see each other at the same cocktail parties. Why don't these Red Tories just join the LPOC? Why in heavens can't they be honest with themselves? You can't be a fiscal conservative & social liberal and still call yourself a conservative. That's nonsense. The latter impacts the former. What looked so hopeful just a month ago is now pretty depressing. The media will embrace Belinda as own of their own "elite" [gosh I hate that word, it confers nobility to journalist flunkies) and Harper will get shafted. Maybe Harper should immigrate to the USA and run as a Republican. If Stronach wins the PC leadership, IMO, the conservative party is dead. The PC's will continue to be lap dogs of the LPOC as they were under Joe ouch Clark. Frank Stronach, Belinda's rich poppa, ran as a federal Liberal candidate. As well Frank Stronach gave financial support to Brian Tobin's campaign to become leader of the LPOC. That's Belinda's upbringing in one sentence-she was raised in a high profile Liberal family. And as an adult she picks another high profile liberal as a close friend...none other than Billy Jeff Clinton. What does that tell you about her "inner" political ideology? This is a sad turn of events, indeed.

gorjac said: What stringent rules? You must be kidding. Maxine Carr could cross the border and say she feared being persecuted in the UK, and she'd be welcomed by Cdn. immigration officials with open arms as a "refugee." I'm not sure what can be done. The LPOC are big fans of the notion that murderers serve their sentences and then have a "fresh" start , tabula erasa and all the wonderful stuff.

maplesyrup said: Since when is university education an "entitlement?" Get serious. Of course, everyone would want to be a student indefinitely, but that's not the way life is. There are some things in life that you need to work for, maplesyrup, and not always expect "someone else" to pick up the tab. Also, not every person is suited for college. Some people are better suited to trade school. How many sociology/anthropology graduates does society need?

KrustyKidd said about O'Neill's "expose"of the Bush Admin. making plans for regime change in Iraq before 9/11: You're right KK-this is not news. In fact if O'Neill and Lesley Stahl, who interviewed him on 60 minutes, were not so dishonest they would have brought to light a factual little tidbit...Congress and President Bill Clinton voted "regime change in Iraq" as official US law as of October 31, 1998. Congress First Voted to Back Regime Change in Iraq in 1998 under President Bill Clinton Clinton in fact was getting very vocal about using whatever means necessary to get Saddam out of Iraq, but then the Monica Lewinsky impeachment thingie came up in January, 1999 and Clinton became distracted. So, I repeat, regime change was official US policy as of October 31,1998. It's no wonder the Bush Admin. talked about it pre-9/11...for that matter, so did the Clinton Admin. As for O'Neill...what an arrogant twit. He was fired by Bush and now he's trying to get revenge. He's the moron who was dancing with Bono in Africa while he was Treasury Dept. Head...duh...how does Africa, schmmozing with"give peace a chance" singer activist, and treasury all relate to one another? Answer: they don't except in O'Neill's brain. O'Neill was also strongly opposed to Bush's plan for tax cuts, which turned out to be the best thing that could have been done to kickstart the US economy.

Thanks to NealeNews, this story by Peter Worthington has come to light about CBC bias in reporting about the conflicts in Afghanistan and most shamefully in Iraq. A must read in full text! Fyi, CBC's "miniscule" $800 Million budget has been "magically" restored to $1.3 Billion...poor performance has its rewards...Award-winning filmmaker Garth Pritchard blasts CBC for its anti-American and anti-military bias, Jan.11/04

Michael and Neal, 1. There's a discussion thread about Bush's immigration "reform" proposal and how it may affect his re-election under US Politics section. Within that thread I have posted some article links and will be posting more as this reform plan is getting alot of discussion and press in the US. Keep in mind that guest worker plans have been tried in Europe and for the most part have been a disaster and have contributed to considerable social and economic problems in the long run. What's even worse for the US trying to implement a guest worker program is that in the USA, unlike most Europeon countries, birthright citizenship is enshrined in the US constitution.So even if a guest worker and spouse are Mexican nationals, as soon as they have a baby in the US, that baby is a US citizen. Bingo. Subsequently, even if the work dries up for the Mexican worker and spouse in the US, they can stay in the USA forever and get free welfare, medical, educational benefits because of their US citizen child. That's exactly what has happened in California and that's what has contributed to the budget crisis there. Bush can issue 3 year renewable guest worker permits to his heart's content, but as soon as bambino is in the picture, guest worker permit cannot be enforced. Who is going to take care of the American citizen minor in the USA if Mom and Pop are deported???? Bush needs to pass a constitutional amendent through Congress that curtails birth right citizenship, which the Democrats would fight tooth and nail against passing. Bush is saying guest workers are not eligible for citizenship, but what he is not saying is that children of guest workers born in the USA are eligible for citizenship...and there's the rub... 2. Bush only got 30% of the Hispanic vote in 2000. Hispanics traditionally represent a solid voting bloc for the Democrats as well as undervoting at elections. So he'd need to get alot of Hispanic voters to make up for the potential loss of his conservative voters. 3. Here's an article from the National Post that addresses the mess that already exists in the Cdn Refugee system. Do we need to add "guest workers" into the mix? Canada needs to reform its Refugee system Jan.07/04 4. Neal, I can appreciate how frustrating it must be for your wife to see how disrespectfully some people treat Canadian citizenship and the process that's required, if you are one who always does "the right thing" in life.

Craig and Righturnonred, Good points, both of you, BUT I'm still against Bush's proposal. Bush is putting the cart before the horse and that's why I find his plan to be suspect-vote pandering-and doomed to be another amnesty disaster like Reagan's was. 1. Bush should strengthen the border FIRST to stop illegals from streaming in NOW...plans for the future are useless. Sealing the border NOW is essential if he's going to make his plan work. Also, he needs to send a message to Vincente Fox-no more!!!- and to his conservative constituency that this amnesty plan will be different than Reagan's disaster and this amnesty plan will be the last one. Otherwise, by the time Bush sets up his "registry" another couple of million of illegals will have slipped in. 2. Bush needs to get Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to change birth rite to citizenship BEFORE he starts talking "guest worker" program, otherwise the Hispanic "guest workers" will get the little woman pregnant and popping out an American baby within the 3 year guest worker plan and then there's no way to send the little Hispanic "family" back to Mexico with American bambino once the 3 years are up. The Democrats would be very resistent to this amendment, but it would put Congress to the test on whether each party is just pandering to the Hispanic voting bloc or whether they are sincere about "reforming" the immigration mess, while at the same time preserving the value of US citizenship. From what I've read, guest worker plans are very tricky to run and monitor for abuse. Germany and France are 2 notable examples of what can go wrong with guest worker plans. The Germans have a Turkish under class now, and France has its miltant Islamic worker class, and it ain't pretty, especially when there's a downturn in the economy and guest workers suddenly have no work.I think the Swiss are the only ones I've heard no complaints from, but then they make clocks run well. No of these countries allow for birth right citizenship like the US constitution does. 3. Vincente Fox and his gov't should be forced to make changes in his country BEFORE Bush accepts 10 Million Mexicans as potential dual citizens. Craig, you're right about human rights violations in Mexican society today. I've read that it is very elitist[racist sounds too harsh.] Craig, perhaps you know if this is true or not. I've read that in Mexico only Spanish Mexicans can hold gov't office, or be land owners, or get government jobs. The Indian-Mexicans are therefore excluded from enjoying proper citizenship benefits and that's why they flock to the US because there's more hope for them across the border?? If that's the case, then Bush needs to get changes in place in Mexico first, or the stream of Indian-Mexicans to the USA will always stay the same regardless of his guest worker plan. 4. Who will pick up the tab for medical insurance and education costs once these "guest workers" are registered? John and Janey Q. Citizen or the businesses? Fyi, hospitals in border states are going bankrupt due to Hispanic workers going to emergency departments for their every need. Vincente Fox has told ambulances in Mexico's border towns to take their patients to American hospitals. Will that high handed behaviour stop in the future? And will Mexican workers be attractive to hire once businesses need to pay school districts a tax levy for educating children of guest workers and when businesses have to pay workers comp and for health insurance not to mention decent wages by US standards? 4. If the INS cannot enforce the deportation of illegal aliens who are caught now - Malvo was one that comes to mind - why should Americans have any confidence that things will be better with a registry? If Bush can barely staff the Mexican and Canadian borders now, how will it be different in the future once the word gets out that there are all these perks available in America and amnesty is given every 15 years? 5. What is Mexico giving the US in return? a) Are there any Federales in Afghanistan or Iraq? NO. Are there plans for federales to be sent to help our GI's in the future? Did Vincente Fox even give verbal support to America? NO. In fact, Fox was a weasel like Chretien and the Mexican press published vile biased anti-American stories. Did Mexico open the gas/oil spigots to America to keep the price of fuel down during the war effort? NO. In fact, Fox made nice with Saudi Arabia to get the best price possible. Did Mexico vote to privatize its national oil company so Americans could become investors? NO. A few months ago, Mexico voted to reject any suggestion to privatize its oil industry. Yet in May, 2003, the House Committee on Int'l Relations passed a resolution that Bush and Fox needed to work out an oil for illegals package if amnesty was to be put on the table. Mexican immigrants send home an enormous amount of money from America but make use of alot of free health,educational, and welfare services. They are low cost to businesses but high maintenace to US taxpayers. Mexico should be giving back something to the US for this amnesty. The US takes care of Mexico's citizens because Mexico won't.Oil for illegals, Nat'l Review, Mark Krikorian, May 14/03. 6. Will giving amnesty to illegals give them and their militant activist organizations a voice so that they become an ongoing and costly legal thorn in the gov't's side and a drain on the taxpayers' wallet?LEFTIES FOR TERROR, New York Post, Jan.09/04 7. I think this plan is ill advised and I hate to say it, but I think George Bush is pandering for votes and devaluing US citizenship in the course of it. He basically wants "open borders" and with CBC urging Ottawa to consider a similar guest worker program-and we know how well immigration services work in Canada, I can see a huge playground being developed in the US and Canada for nefarious terrorist types who take jobs as dishwashers by day and by night...look out. Arabs enter US through Mexico illegally, Terrorists used past amnesty programs, WND, Dec.15/03

1. KK, Great article. Whereas Howie Dean is a motor mouth loose cannon, Wes Clark is a self-centered arrogant buffoon. What a painful choice for the Democrats. 2. Here's an evaluation of Wes Clark by military folks who know him: Clark stirs criticism about integrity Jan.07/04 3. Btw, I'm not sure if others have seen this article but it appears that Canadians are sticking their noses into the presidential campaign...some of them have set up a fund raising web site for Wes Clark...Canadians love American military men, don't you know... Canada's Cash by Tony Blankley, Jan.07/04

KrustyKidd said: Very funny but here's an example of who might apply for a guest permit to do a construction job/jihad and what with the immigration department already admitting to losing track of 38,000 refugees who were to be deported, can you imagine them monitoring temporary guest workers to boot? Cdn. refugee helped in Los Angeles Airport bomb plot ,Globe&Mail Jan.08/04

Looks like it's buns up for Howard Dean. The Clintonestras are pulling out the stops to backstab Dean, so Wesley Clark can move ahead. I've got to hand it to Democrats...they have the art of dirty fighting down pat. NBC is airing snipits from 90 videotapes it acquired of Howard Dean yacking as a guest political pundit on the show"The Editor" from 1996-2002. Here are some nuggets of Howie talking about the the negatives of the Iowa caucas, a major flaw of Al Goresky, the virtues of Hamas running Palestine, praising George Bush as a moderate,etc. Too bad for George Bush, but I think these tapes will be Howie's ultimate undoing and will cause Bush to face off against Wes Clark and Hilary as VP mate. Old videotapes of Howard Dean pontificating on a TV show re-surface, Jan.08/04 ,MSNBC.com

How do you feel about this guest worker permit proposal? -Are there not enough able-bodied Canadians or new immigrants who have settled in Canada to fill jobs in the construction sector? -Does the Canadian gov't bureaucracy have a good track record for tracking immigrants? consider that 38,000 deportees are still AWOL in Canada. -Are the medical/education/welfare costs that may be incurred due to use by guest workers still make such a proposal worthwhile? Canada urged to follow U.S. moves on migrant permits CBC Jan.08/04

Hardner said: Ms. Chiason mis-used the term "liberal" in her summary. But your interpretation of her mis-use is just as inappropriate. See my response to you in the Cdn. discussion thread about media. Bill Thorsell WAS editor and chief from 1989 to 1999. Using support of Free Trade as an example of a Tory partisanship is not a great example. My mother-in-law, sweet but demented in her political beliefs, is a staunch Liberal and she has been active in the LPOC for years. However, she is a big fan of Free Trade to this day. The Thomson family sold a good percentage of its ownership stake in G&M and other assets to Bell Globalmedia. Ivan Fecan is President and CEO of Bell Globalmedia. Fecan used to be head of CBC TV in the 1990's. Now that fact makes it very likely that Fecan is a left winger through and through otherwise he could not make it to the top of CBC. That Chomsky who's a radical anarchist thinks the NYT is not left enough hardly supports your argument. Chomsky would not identify NYT as "left" unless it pursued a Pravda-like posture in news coverage. Get real. Of course the Democrats support universal health care. Righturnonred addressed that matter well. As for Woodward being Republican. Where did you read that? As for studies showing how journalists vote: Also, Slate does a poll Nov.13/00.

Hardner, I'll grant you that the original McGill survey did not identify any particular political bias of the owners, be it liberal or conservative. Ms. Chiason misused the word"liberal" in her summary of the results in PubZone. But I don't think your spin on "liberal" makes sense either. That the G&M journalists are less likely than other journalists to recognize that convergence is a negative factor does not make them "open minded." It means they are more likely than every other journalist in Canada to tow the corporate line. In fact, if you looked at their responses in the other columns, they are 7% more likely than the National Post journalists to say it's okay for the owners to impose their values on news coverage. The G&M journalists are not that different from National Post in the across the board replies on admitting that owners influence news content, how they report the news, or how they seek out the news. So it's not as though there no ownership influence in the G&M...rather it's that the G&M journalists don't see it as a problem that their bosses also own TV in addition to their newspaper...which is somewhat "thick" in my books. 2. Because Ms. Chiason misused the word "liberal", I have found 2 other articles that point to the G&M's left leaning bias. Maybe the G&M was conservative at one time, like the NYT was at one time, but in recent years, both appear to have adopted a left lean bias. Black sells National Post, which he established as a counter balance to the left leaning G&M . AND Wikipedia Encyclopedia's overview of G&M Maybe the influence of the President and CEO of Bell Globe Media, Ivan Fecan,accounts for this left lean in the G&M? Fecan used to run CBC TV in the 1990's so perhaps he brought his CBC-acquired political philosophy with him to Bell Globalmedia? Who knows?Ken Thomson has steadily been re-directing his energies to the US specialty publishing market and perhaps this situation has also contributed to a new "attitude" in the G&M.

Of course I mean politics. The whole article referred to owner's standpoints, owner's point of view, owner's views and interests. Just because Thomson is a billionaire does not mean he is not a liberal. Look at Paul Martin, Bill Gates, Maurice Strong. Maybe you think the GM is Tory blue but the people in the newspaper industry do not agree. If you haven't noticed the left wing bias in the Globe and Mail's news coverage, it's because you share the same political persuation.

Canadian journalists say Globe and Mail is very left leaning. Read the survey published in PubZone which I posted under the Cdn. ownership of media thread. Just because the Globe and Mail is owned by a billionaire does not mean its bias will not be left. Ever hear of the phrase "noblesse oblige?" As for the NYT, since the new owner has taken over the NYT , its leanings are very left indeed. Arthur [Pinch]Sulzberger, Jr. is the new man at the top. Arthur is the grandson of the man who built up the NYT's fine reputation in 1950's,whereas Pinch is tearing it down. In fact, an attorney/author by the name of Bob Kohn just published a non-fiction book entitled "Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted". Pretty straight forward, I would say.

Wrong on both counts. Globe and Mail is perceived to be very Liberal by Cdn. journalists who speak from experience. And let me remind you that Rogers media owns Macleans magazine and if that's not a Liberal propaganda machine, I don't know what is. "Survey: Greater Concentration of Newspaper Ownership Decreases Quality and Credibility of Newspapers" by Gail Chiasson, Feb 14, 2003, PubZone.com