Moonlight Graham

Good luck with that.

TV news media now is a bit damned for the format it is: quick, visual, and competing many other channels. Anyone relying on TV news for their news will be info deficient. The strength of TV news is the video footage it brings of coverage of events unfolding, as well as things like interviews, press conferences etc. You still couldn't cover the day of 9/11 on the internet like you could on CNN or NBC etc. But for real depth of info you have always needed to rely on print/text media, ie: newspapers or internet sites etc. Thankfully the internet is a very text-friendly medium. It's also free of so many restraints of TV broadcasting and (theoretically) allows billions of voices to be heard. The internet is Michael's media revolution. Great post Michael.

This reminds me of FOX News. Millions of viewers lap that programming up, not because it presents objective facts, but because it reinforces their own preconceived notions of what is real and what is not. And let me tell you, i've seen those on the left drink their own liberal kool-aid too. But on the right it seems far more bizarre and downright scary.

And the six heirs help keep them that way by employing many of the lowest 30% with Walmart wages and crap benefits. But dang do I like those savings!

I think only in the last couple of decades have some Arabs/Palestinians been able to accept the prospect of a 2-state solution. Many still don't of course. This is what has shot them in the foot many times in the past and left them with less land now than they would have, ie: if they accepted and tried to work out a deal on the Peel Plan or 1947 UN partition plan. But Israel wasn't game for those either, and they've benefited from it in terms of land grabs.

Just went to the store to buy some milk and came back having bought six 50" TV's and I don't know why or even who i'm going to give them to. In fact I barely even remember buying them.

First of all, who is "we"? You don't speak for a bloc, you speak for yourself on this subject. You, me, nor anyone, should ever take unacceptable behaviour by government as acceptable, no matter how many of them have done it in the past. A bunch of bologna. You put up with it, even defend it, because your "team" is in power so you don't mind it as much. I'm quite certain you wouldn't be saying "oh well, it's ok, everyone does it" to scandals if the Liberals or NDP were in power and doing it. That's the problem with citizens thinking on partisan lines. People start defending, or ignoring, nonsense just because it's their "team" doing it. All parties and governments lie to us, they must all be held to account with vigilance.

But Harper has been more controlling than his immediate predecessors in many ways, and it certainly did not start with the recent CPC majority.

Found this also disturbing from a Globe & Mail article on the topic:

Nothing new for the Harper gov really.

jbg, I don't agree with most of the points in your OP, and your main assertion: I don't think "self-flagellation" is the right term. There would be a chunk of that for sure, but most of all nowadays there would be people asking questions. Why did this happen? What should our response be? Could we have prevented it? Should we go to war? If so, what does that mean, and what will it look like, and how much will it cost in blood and treasure? These are VERY important questions to ask, and I'm glad societies ask them more these days, and citizens are more vigilant & critical about what is likely the most important decision any government will make: going to war. You make it seem like a quick reactionary military response by the US is somehow sentimentally noble, and the same with your natural father enlisting in the military 3 days later (whom I assume did so voluntarily?). With all due respect to your father, if I enlisted in a war I would darn well take a bit of time to read up and know exactly the war is about, why it happened, if it's worth it, if i'm just being played as just another expendable political pawn in some stupid game etc. Questioning government actions, especially in times of war, is in the national interest. The rah-rah-rah "let's go to war!!!" macho bullcrap belongs at football games, not in decisions of war & peace. With the US being attacked by another state? I doubt it. Humiliated as in like Abu Ghraid? I would hope so. If it were done on US troops, I highly doubt that.

I was just jesting, but yes these things exist. As do people from businesses who get paid to go onto popular message boards or customer review sites and sing fake praises of products etc. The story was picked up from the AP though, so who knows.

Alec Baldwin was mentioned about 11 times. It's almost like they are trying to market Alec Balwdin.

If most of this is free, or at least a good chunk of it, then cool. If I have to pay it's useless since I already have cable plus don't want to waste bandwidth. I don't have Netflix but it is popular on Xbox Live and a convenient idea, but most of the other stuff, like Facebook and Twitter, is just fluff I don't use. Why don't they just include a freaking internet browser so I can just surf the web (i'm sure it has everything to do with media control and $$$). Even the Wii has web browsing.

So you are celebrating the fact you don't celebrate?

They'll still get bullied, just maybe not quite as much.

Wow look at all you old spunkers.

Doesn't bother me. I won't use it, so I just ignore it.

These blocs need to be formed in order for these individual countries to gain power over other powerful countries and blocs. Look how powerful the EU can be, given it combined has a higher GDP than the US. Strategic blocs are especially important for developing countries/regions without much political/economic power like Africa & L.A. Just wait, some nut job will think this is some NWO conspiracy toward one-world government when it is really just a clear maneuver of international power relations.

The gov/cabinet/Tory MP's reducing some of their own sweet wages/benefits would be a nice gesture indeed. Lead by example, and put your money where your mouth is. Of course this will never happen! Revenues may slip if a bunch of these PS workers can't find new jobs or their incomes in their new jobs aren't as high as with the gov (likely!), but the savings of not having to pay the salaries and benefits of these people will more than make up for it. That's why they are doing! They aren't going to do it so they'll need to print money, since the debt/deficit is the entire reason why they are making the cuts in the 1st place.

That 1.2 billion doesn't necessarily mean 1.2 in profit or revenue for Suncor, it says in partnership with the Syrian gov. Also, according to wikipedia, Suncor "specializes in production of synthetic crude from oil sands" as well as doing other things like offshore drilling. It owns Sunoco/Petro-Canada gas stations. Also, "Suncor ranks number 159 in the Forbes Global 2000 list". In 2009, revenue was 26 billion, and assets 66 billion. Point: if they lose all Syrian business they almost certainly won't go bankrupt, though some loss of jobs would likely occur. Even if you'd be right, Baird is still lying.

Suncor, a Calgary-based Canadian oil/energy company, has been spared from recent Canadian sanctions against Syria by the Harper gov. Baird explains why: Does he expect anyone to really believe that for one second? It must take some kind of person to lie as politicians do, I wonder how these people actually do so day-in, day-out and live with themselves. Looks like Suncor has friends in high places.

But you can't just act on what political leaders say. Hitler is one case. How many bazillion times have politicians said one thing and done another? They are professional liars. Ahmadinejad could very well be making these comments for domestic political gains as much as anything. We don't know. Iran's threats should not be taken lightly by any means, nor should we blow them out of proportion (which has been done bigtime) and overreact.

Iranian leadership clearly doesn't like Israel. In fact, i'm sure they do wish they could blow them away with a nuke. But is this wishful rhetoric or a sign of intent? Iran still hasn't specifically threatened them with nukes, as you claimed. Also, even if they did threaten them it is much different to actually go through with it, considering much of Iran would be destroyed via nuke retaliations from Israel. Do the Ayatollah's and Ahmadinejad want to go down as the ones who destroyed Israel, while at the same time being the worst Iranian leaders ever (given that they would be all but destroyed in retaliation)?

I know some idiots with PhDs haha