Morgan

Here's a CBC list and holdings [circa 2002 ]of the big hitters-an amazingly short list. Read the text for the holdings, I'll just list the owners: Media Ownership. 1. Bell Globemedia 2. CanWest Global 3. G.T.C. Transcontinental Group 4. Shaw Communications Inc. 5. Quebecor 6. Rogers Communications

It's not just the cost factor that I object to re: CBC. It's that state run media flies in the face of democracy, of intellectual freedom. Totalitarian regimes have used state run media to "control" the masses by controlling the "message" and CBC serves the very same function.

Hardner, Is increasing the minimum wage a good thing for the "little man?" It's good political posturing that's for sure because you fell for it line and sinker but many economists including Dr. Walter Williams feel that " the minimum wage law discriminates against low-skilled people. "So how can that be representing the interests of the little guy? The Walter Williams Interview Sept.11, 2001 Btw, Craig is right on about the donors to the DNC and the Republicans. In fact I read a research article with those very findings a couple of months ago. If I have time I'll try to find the url link.

Why would you expect this federal government, which is the LPOC, to change media ownership when the current situation works in their favour? The media owners are all Liberals. Conrad Black was the only conservative and now he has sold all his Cdn. holdings to CanWest and the Asper Family. Duh. Not to forget that the CBC is also left wing, so the LPOC has a pretty comfy situation media support wise. If you want the concentration of media ownership changed, vote PC/CA. The CRTC oversees media ownership. The CRTC members are appointed at the sole discretion of the PM. Change the PM, then you change the CRTC, and presto you have enormous leverage in changing regulations re:media ownership. Journalists question concentration of Cdn. media ownership Nov.10/03.

Hardner said: What are you talking about? America is not left socially. American elites are left socially, per the usual suspects in the ACLU and in the Supreme Court. Those 2 power elites are re-shaping America in their own demented image by undermining the constitution.Those 2 groups have less in common with average Americans than the Man in the Moon does. America has one of the highest rates of religious affiliation. Recent polls show that the majority of Americans do not support same sex marriage, want illegal immigrants deported, do not support affirmative action. Does that sound "left" to you? As for Americans being fiscal conservatives, what a laugh. George Bush is spending like a drunken sailor and no one says "boo." Get your eyes checked. Your vision is impaired.

Maplesyrup said: Maybe you are right, maplesyrup. Perhaps, Karl Rove has convinced Bush that he has something to gain[Hispanic votes] and nothing to lose[conservatives will vote for him because he is less alienating than the Democrat candidate]. BUT, I think Bush is underestimating the emotional feelings that the subject of illegal immigration illicits from Americans, which crosses party lines. I'll remind you again. What tipped the scales in the push to recall Gray Davis, ex-Governor of California, was when he announced that he would issue drivers licenses to illegal aliens. After that, the recall gained momentum overnight. And at the exit polls on election day, even registered Democrats said they voted to recall Davis because of the drivers license for illegal immigrants issue. What I think may happen is that Republicans will stay home and not vote at all to protest the Republican Party pandering to minority groups, thereby giving the Presidency to the Democrats. Bush is having airlines and airline passengers stand on their heads in the name of border security and then in the very same week of big talk about "security" Bush turns around and gives Vincente Fox the keys to the USA. And as for the Hispanic vote that Bush and Rove are courting...the Hispanic bloc will vote Democrat as they have done in the past. I've been a big booster of George Bush because I think he is a great wartime President, but I am very disappointed with his immigration "reform" plan. If I were a US citizen, I would not vote for George Bush in 2004 if he manages to push amnesty through Congress. As President he should be enforcing existing laws. He should not be throwing up his hands and saying, oh what the heck.

maplesyrup said: Huh? Support that comment, please. PC's under the leadership of Red Tory, Joe Clark, were similar to the Liberals, under Jean Chretien. But I very much doubt that people saw the Republicans, lead by George Bush, having any similarity to the Democrats, led by Alcoresky.

Hardner, It's not because of their breaking rules or because of their unsupported opinions in public forums that conservations had to turn to talk radio and news blogging as you imply. And I might remind you that it's left wing icons like NYT, BBC, LAT, CNN that have been "caught" for lying and omission of fact.To my knowledge conservative leaning media like Washington Times and WSJ and FOX News have not been exposed for lying. There were no credible objective neutral forums that existed prior to the emergence of talk radio and news blogging. Conservatives sought out and in some cases created these avenues in desperation not because they were bounced out of public forums for uncivilized behaviour. Duh. Even universitiy campuses, specifically the Humanities departments, discouraged honest political discourse that diverged from the left wing politically correct party line. Ironic , wouldn't you say, that an environment that claims to be the bastion of intellectual freedom had morphed into the exact opposite.

More legislated "compassion" coming to your wallets as of yesterday, to the tune of an estimated $1.5 Billion annually, so you realize of course the final annual tab will be closer to $2 Billion. Perhaps I'm just an incorrigible hard hearted redneck, but I don't see the need for tax supported compassionate care leave...or perhaps this is a shrewd LPOC idea to mask the lack of hospital beds and medical staff to care for very sick...maybe now lay people are being drafted to provide bedside care because socialized medicine is only good for healthy people???Call me cynical but calling this a new employment insurance program seems like a bit of a misnomer... Family leave program to cost $1.5B annually, compassionate care Nat'l Post, Jan.07/04 I love the last quote...the silly servants, masters of tax money waste themselves, acknowledge the huge potential for abuse of this program right from the get go but they've got all the angles covered, rest assured.

1. Do you believe that Bush's amnesty proposal for illegal aliens is just pre-election rhetoric/empty promises because he knows there would be alot of resistence to getting amnesty passed by Congress. Bush immigration reform, policy or just politics? Washington Times, Jan.06/04 2. Ironically enough, in one of the states Bush wants to win over in the 2004 election, there is a resurgence of interest in getting Proposition 187 on the ballet again, which was passed by 60% of Californians before but which was never implemented because Gray Davis refused to fight a court challenge of the proposition. Proposition 187 was passed to prohibit illegal aliens being able to access free welfare, medical, and higher education services. Some claim that the costs of supporting the vast numbers of illegal aliens in California is one of the contributing causes of the budget mess the state is currently facing.Cheap lettuce is not a bargain when your taxes have to pay for health care and social and educational services for the worker and his multiple family members. Pro immigration groups say illegal immigrants "pay taxes" but they cannot/will not provide hard statistics to support that claim. If you've already committed a felony by breaking immigration law, why on earth would you suddenly become a model citizen and pay income tax? Duh. Proposition 187 resuscitated in California?Houston Chronicle Jan.06/04

Hardner said: What's that supposed to mean?

maplesyrup, You don't understand why dental care was excluded from universal health care in Canada???? Universal"body care" [and thank you for pointing out that the mouth is part of the human body] COSTS MONEY and that every time the LPOC "give" yet another "entitlement" to the masses, the taxpayers get burdened with yet another tax and a watered down system of professional care. In case you have not noticed, the current health care system is dysfunctional. Why add yet another stress factor[dental coverage]? Since when are root canals and caps a "human right" that others should pay for? Romanow's plan is nothing more than the same old, same old liberal approach to problems which is a) throw more tax money at it and add more of a bureaucracy to be a "check and balance" to the problem. End effect is making the problem worse...you feed the "black hole" of government waste with more tax money and you add more civil servants to the trough. If folks like you saw the current medicare problem as something more than an intellectual exercise that mean spirited conservatives are engaged in on planet Pluto and more as something that's really unsustainable in here and now Canada, then you would not be in such a rush to add to the existing mess. Fyi, as of June, 2003, 43% of Australians have private medical insurance so Australia's system is not "universal" health care. There are public taxpayer supported hospitals and there are private hospitals supported by private insurance. There are doctors who bill the government directly[bulk billing] and there are doctors who charge a fee for service. If you have private insurance, you are covered. If you don't, then you pay out of pocket and submit the paperwork to the government for reimbursement, but only 75% of the bill is covered. As well, PM Howard may be introducing co-payments for all Australians in the near future who use the public medicare system. Like Canada, Australia has a shortage of PHYSICIANS in the public health system because doctors don't want to be treated like postal workers and so many like to work within the private system instead. So all you universal health care promoters are coming up against a major problem of your own creation...NO PHYSICIANS...you can have as free and egalitarian a health care system as you want, but if you have no doctors to deliver the care, who will do it? Kofi Annan? Last I heard, Australia's 30 year old medicare system is at a crossroads and that the gov't is also thinking of implementing a $500/$1000 deductible for all citizens accessing the public health care system. Like all socialized medicine countries, Australia has a problem of abuse/overuse of the public system because people think health care is free. With a deductible in place, the Howard government is hoping there will be a disincentive against citizens abusing the system holus bolus. So I think you should get a better handle on the big picture of Australia's medical care system, before you promote one item you like to have super imposed on the Canadian failing system.

Excellent post, righturnonred. Hardner said: Because Rush offered a frank opinion about McNabb's ability that poked fun at the media elite's PC bias, the left went crazy. McNabb himself did not raise a ruckass which is rather telling. In fact I recalling reading maybe in a sports magazine that McNabb said he was thankful for Rush's comments, because up until then he was just cruising and afterwards he got energized and played the rest of the season really well. I think the "fault" if you will lies with the people who responded with the "consequences" not Rush. Their politically correct biases and icons are so fragile that they could not tolerate criticism without having an emotional rage response. Rush is an opinionated talk show host. He was hired to bring that persona to the job. He did just that but the PC thinkers could not handle opinion that poked holes in their pseudo neutrality. As for breaking the law, while that's true, his drug habit was related to a chronic medical condition. I don't know if you realize this but Rush Limbaugh had unsuccessful back surgery for herniated discs that left him in constant pain. After the surgery he became addicted to pain killers. Obviously he was reluctant to try back surgery a second time so he just continued taking more and more pain killers[patients develop a tolerance real fast], especially for OxyContin, which Rush was taking. In fact, Newsweek did a story in its April 09, 2001 issue about how most of the residents of an entire town in Kentucky[Hazard] got addicted to OxyContin. Control of chronic pain is a controversial issue in the USA and Canada, too. For example, cancer patients are not given adequate pain control medication for fear the patients might become addicted. How stupid. Similarly, chronic pain is a huge problem in America. I've read estimates from the medical establishment that there are anywhere from 30 million to 50 million US residents who'd be classified as suffering from chronic pain and many are not getting proper medications to "mask" the pain because of this fear of addiction. Rush is a good example. Although he became "addicted" to OxyContin, it allowed him to be a productive human being. There are millions of chronic pain patients who miss work or go to work and do a bad job because they are pre-occupied by their physical pain. Society loses and individuals lose because of this peculiar mindset that considers medications metaphorically as "drugs." I don't think that's right. Rush admits to having broken the law due to his prescription painkiller shopping, but I'd hardly consider him a menace to society like drug addicts or pushers are. In fact, it's unusual for prosecutors to seek jail time for this sort of thing. I think the left wingers and media elite pushed this "criminal" thing because they wanted to have Rush discredited. I believe that this character assassination ploy was mean spirited and it shows that bleeding heart liberals are not such compassionate people after all as they like to project themselves to be. Rush is respected by conservatives because his preserverence and courage in weathering for a number of years all sorts of disparaging"red neck" labels from the left made it possible for talk radio to blossom into the political power it is today. Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingram, Barbara Simpson, Michael Medved all have to thank Rush. As do conservative voters across the USA. Before Rush, there was nowhere for ordinary conservative voters to turn to to have their opinions heard and responded to. The media elite put out a certain message and they sure were not allowing for too much "diversity of opinion" as feedback, but for the occasional printing of a Letter to the Editor. Politicians, conservative and liberal, had forgotten that they were in office for the people. Unless you got active in the party, your opinion was not valued. But talk radio changed all that. Voters could call in and have their opinions heard by other voters 3000 miles away. And more importantly, they found out that they were not alone. Politics is an emotional subject. Before Rush came on the scene, conservatives were robbed of the opportunity to speak frankly about political issues. They were robbed of hearing the other side of news. Conservatives were becoming increasingly alienated from the political process, which is not good for a country. I'd rather read or listen to opinionated regular citizens than I would Peter Jennings or Dan Rather. The latter's brains are mummified.Talk radio together with news bloggers are a good balance to the bias of traditional media and emotional/intellectual distance of politicians who seem to forget to whom they are responsible.

maplesyrup, Oh puhleaze...keep politics out of the bedroom? kind of old and unoriginal, don't you think? Regarding your comments about going off on tangents and your opinion about why the conservatives rarely get elected... listen up... conservatives did not get elected in recent memory because Red Tories made it difficult for the voters to see any difference between Chretien and Joe Clark, and since Chretien wasn't such a pompous fool as Clark, they voted Chretien...that's the reason...the phoney conservative Clark personally contributed to the Chretien LPOC dynasty. Maybe instead of a knee jerk response you might have read the post I was responding to: The Globe and Mail reporter was looking at superficial details about Stronach as a candidate and I merely responded. And yes, people who are serious about character in a leader would consider flagrant adultery as a bad sign, not to mention stupid. That you don't care about moral values does not mean you should automatically think other people put a similar low value on character in leadership.

The US is not "supporting" the Saudis. It buys oil from the Saudis like Europe and China do. The USA had troops stationed in Saudi Arabia to protect the Saudi oilfields from invasion from a certain wack job in Iraq, but the US has withdrawn many of its troops from Saudi Arabia recently and will probably not have US troops there at all in the near future. You still don't get it. The US did not need to invade Iraq for oil. The US could have bought as much as it wanted from Saddam. It had been buying a small portion from Iraq already. It could have just upped the amount it wanted. Saddam was not reluctant to sell the US oil. Actually the US has scaled back its dependence on Saudi Arabia since 1991 which was a high point in dependence. Since then, as Krusty said, the US became more careful about becoming dependent on ME oil, so it spread its business to sources closer to home. The US now imports double the Saudi oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. But the biggest source country of oil for Americans is the USA. Bet you didn't realize that, did you? You have no evidence that the US needed Iraqi oil do you. Face it. The left is on the wrong side of the Iraq War and this is the only myth they can promote. The so called bleeding hearts are P.O.'d that it's a Republican President who removed a psychopathic dictator, while their President lobbed bombs at an aspirin factory and went back to "business as usual." Here's what the Left supported...more ineffectual inspections while Saddam brutalized his people, best symbolized by Scott Ritter, inspector turned peacenik: per Mark Steyn,"Don't leave Saddam Trial to the Jet Set"Jan.04/04.The US went into Iraq to remove Saddam because he was like a bomb waiting to explode. After 9/11, the US could not take anymore chances. Terrorists were coming out of the ME and they needed to take the war to the terrorists' backyard.The US also needed to get a "footprint" in the ME as a preventative measure against terrorism in the future. The US also hoped an liberated Iraq might have a domino effect in the ME. The dictatorships might become more benign and the Arab people would get more from their leaders and have less "hate" in their hearts. Are these nefarious goals? The world will benefit from the US going into Iraq. Especially the EU because they are desperate for ME oil and wacky dictators like Saddam are bad to do business with long term.

Stronach was rumoured to have been Slick Willy Clinton's paramour, so conservative she is not, in the true sense of the word. Also according to the Star, she gave MacKay the most $ for the first PC leadership race...bad sign. Stronach is a Red Tory Trojan horse. I think she would be a foolish choice for the party. Why would she add "credibility" to the leadership race? If she had an affair with a married man, I don't think that speaks highly of her character.

udawg, What are you talking about? I said that the liberals' favourite mantra is that the Iraq War is all about oil. Neocons are not saying that because it is not true.

Personally, I think President Bush is taking a big gamble on "immigration reform" plans. Basically what he's calling for is another "amnesty" program. It did not work under Reagan and it won't work under Bush. If President Bush is doing this to appease Hispanic voters, please, someone give the man a calculator. Hispanics typically vote for Democrats. Republicans capture only 30% of the Hispanic vote and that's only after Hispanics live in the USA for a long time. George Bush may end up being one of the last Republican Presidents. His conservative base will feel as though the rug has been pulled out from under them. Illegal immigration is a real hot button issue in America. Illegal immigrants are bankrupting southern states. Their cheap labour is way outbalanced by the costs associated with states providing health care, welfare, and education to illegals. What's the point of posturing stricter border controls and then turning around and opening your borders to every Tom, Dick, and Harry? Gray Davis ultimately de-railed himself even with Democrat voters when he wanted to give illegal aliens driviers license ID's. Do you think this will hurt Bush or will conservative voters forgive and forget come election time?Amnesty Trapdoor, John O'Sullivan, Nat'l Review, Jan.06/04 Bush to Propose Immigration Law Changes, AP Newswire, Jan.06/04

udwag, ME oil for America means alot to liberals not to neo-cons. It's only liberals who chant this mantra though it does not make sense. America gets most of its oil from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Niger. Saudi Arabia is its only ME supplier. You say that you're not sure if the US invaded Iraq for oil, but you're rather self revealing when you say: One more time...repeat after me...the US was well supplied with oil. It has its own syupply that it could rachet up if it so desired. The US does not need Iraqi oil.

Recent example of BBC bias...have you folks heard the news? Halliburton was exonerated of the charge of over charging for delivering fuel from Kuwait to Iraq? Here's a terse report about the case. Not a good day for BBC.Better read it quick. It may be archived in short order... along with the corrections to the exaggerated Iraqi museum looting story and the correction to Gilligan's piece alleging Dr. David Kelley said PM Blair sexed up the Iraq report...hee, hee Halliburton off overcharging hook Jan.06/04

KrustyKidd said: KK, according to some folks, France is pretty evil for what it's done with the hijab. Who would have thought?Iranians condemn France over hijab, Al Jazeera, Jan.04/04 But I guess the Yemeni terrorists misunderstood Ayat Jannati's comments that all that was necessary for France to flip over was a loud roar. He didn't mean a plane crash...

Strange news coming out of the ME. Is this terrorist's claim credible? The group promises an attack against Air France because France outlawed the Islamic headscarf in public schools... Yemeni terrorist claims his group caused Egyptian airliner crash Jan.05/03 Albawaba.com

What support do you have for your theory that the Iraq War was about the US wanting to possess Iraq's oil? Last I heard the US taxpayers are ponying up $80 Billion for re-construction costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Therefore the Iraq War does not sound like a very "lucrative" venture to me for American taxpayers. Last I heard the US is wanting Iraq to own the oilfields to pay for their future and have ongoing "dividends" coming to each Iraqi family like what's happening for Alaskans. Last I heard the French and the Russians did not want Saddam deposed because of oil. They even signed contracts with Saddam to access Iraq's oil. Ever heard of Totalfinaelf, Hardner? It signed a contract with Saddam shortly before the war. It's the 4th largest oil company in the world, and the Paul Desmarais and his 2 sons[one of whom is Jean Chretien's son-in-law]are the largest individual stockholders in that FRENCH oil company. In fact, last I heard Totalfinaelf was still whining and weasling to have its Saddam signed oil contracts honoured by the temporary Iraqi government. Get a clue. France and Germany's economies desperately need oil from Iraq. And Russia needed oil as payback for the debts Saddam owed for weapons he bought from them. The US had as much oil as it needs. Since 1973, oil refineries built in Venuzuela, Mexico, Nigeria make things very comfy for the USA, not to metion the great supply in Alberta. And you also forget the USA's own oil generating potential. But for the tree hugging Democrats, the USA would be drilling for more oil in Alaska and off the coast of California. For the time being, this potential is off limits due to partisan politics, but the oil is there for the taking. But if for some unforseen reason, the USA ever desperately needed Iraq's oil, why not just pay for it ? What makes you think waging a war and re-construction is cheaper than just paying Saddam the money? My comment about Canada was said tongue-in-cheek, Hardner. I didn't realize you needed to have humour explained to you. Speaking of jokes, Hardner, you're pretty good yourself: But setting aside humour, Alberta is alot handier to the US for oil than Iraq. And at the rate Western alienation is going, IMO, Alberta would be immensely better off leaving Canada and hitching its future to the USA, either as a state for a protectorate like Costa Rica. Calgarians have alot more in common with Americans than they do with Quebecers, Newfoundlanders, or Torontonians. Face it. Plus the USA would treat Alberta a lot more fairly than Ottawa does. This re-distribution of wealth crap that Chrtien has saddled Alberta with is not a short term measure. Alberta will have the albatross of Quebec and the other have not provinces on its back indefinitely.Not too mention that EEE senate will forever remain a dream, never a reality. But tell me, Hardner, what evidence do you have that the US wants to take over Iraq's oil? P.S. Communist China-is projected to be the world's biggest oil guzzler of the near future. Oops,did I say China...not the USA? And let's see, China was one of the UN Security Council nations to vote against the war in Iraq. China has also signed oil contracts with Saddam.

Who is Barbara Yaffe? . maplesyrup said: Let's be clear. It's maplesyrup and the esteemed ex-CBC'er/ ex-Carlton U. journalism graduate Barbara Jaffe, not Canadians at large, who have doubts and different perspectives about Kyoto, free trade, gay marriage blah, blah, blah Layton benefiting from a George Bush backlash? Huh? Ms. Jaffe has it all wrong. As I said before, Layton will benefit from a LPOC backlash due to the expose of various scandals involving the corrupt Chretien apparatchik. Though socialists love the idea of re-distribution of wealth, they're not particularly crazy about elected officials re-distributing wealth into their own pockets. Socialist voters want part of the action, too. From a socialist's perspective, it's not just George Radwanski who should be dining on $25 hamburgers, if you know what I mean.

Indeed, IMO, Paul Martin has good reason to worry about the NDP splitting the left wing vote, which would be a great help to conservatives in ridings where the race is close. The Liberals have become increasingly more socialist over the years, and if you're a "re-distribution of wealth/special interest" left winger, heck why not vote for the real goods[NDP] instead of the copycat version[Liberals] whose faces are old news anyways. Come on, Paul Martin, what new energy, vitality does that re-cycled Chretien tire have to offer the bleeding hearts? Nader and Perot functioned as "spoilers" and Layton's NDP could end up taking a similar role. Quebec will always lean left wing overall, so what's one seat loss for the PC's? Big deal.They may make it up in Ontario when Liberals and NDP's split the vote and allow for PC/CA candidates to end up winning those ridings. I say: "Go NDP!" Strong NDP candidates can be the best thing that the PC/CA Party can hope for.