Kitch

Well said. How much does the government actually influence the economy anyway? CAN a government be blamed for a recession or take credit for good economic times?

I enjoyed your post. You make a good point. Even if Maher is a less than perfect analyst, he still is bringing a point of view to the masses that few people can/will attempt AND be listened to... for a while at least. I couldn't quite pick out your definitions of the terms atheist and agnostic though. I understand (I think) what Dawkins means when he says he's both. An atheist 'believes' that there is no higher power just as theists believe that there is one. It has nothing to do with proof or evidence... just a belief. The word agnostic doesn't actually apply to this topic alone. When somebody is agnostic about something, they know that they can NEVER 'know' the truth. So Dawkins can believe but also know that it's nothing more than a belief. I did read The God Delusion though. He didn't reeeeallly claim that it was proof that there is no god. He said that there is 'almost certainly no god'. Which is different. He used examples to show that the likelihood of the existence of a god is not equal to the likelihood that one doesn't exist... and that's it. He says that it's far more likely that one doesn't exist. I guess you can't comment until after you see Religulous, but I'll ask now anyway... do you think that Americans will leave the theatre with the impression that 'America' is right for it's "war on terror" which is actually against islam because it is portrayed as dangerous while the other big book religions are portrayed as nothing more than silly? I mean, I know that there are some people who will believe that regardless and do want to kill all muslims, but... it just worries me to think that they could feel legitimized.

Has anyone seen this movie yet? I just watched it on Saturday and... well... I'm disappointed. I'm a self described level headed atheist, which is what I thought Bill Maher was as well. Unfortunately, I left the theatre feeling, let's say, uneasy. He did a decent job of making all religion look ridiculous, but he did a better job of demonizing Islam. He made christians and jews look silly and muslims like irrational killers. Is this what Americans really, REALLY think?

Thank you!

So shareholders DO have the power to impact corporate decisions... but it depends on what their interests are? Well, I suppose a merger wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing for people with money invested in a company, but you do understand why media consolidation is opposed by certain people, right?

So shareholders don't have the power to impact (significantly) decisions about mergers? So what can prevent media consolidation in the absence of regulation?

What about that forensic pathologist in Ontario that messed up a bunch of cases over the years? Before this came to light, would we not be able to say that many of the "criminals" he helped prosecution of are "guilty as can be"? I'm not giving an opinion on this platform... rather I'm commenting on your ignorant statement.

Do people REALLY think that the difference between liberals and conservatives is best reflected in the political parties that go by those names? Or even by past governments? Wow.

I won't deny that you make a very good point. I think it's an unfair generalization though (As, perhaps, some of my own might be). Just as there are degrees of conservativism, there are degrees of liberalism. Generally (if I can do so fairly), liberals at least attempt to take into consideration the views of each individual but understand that since we're all so different, there will be some give and take on behalf of every individual. The less than selfless liberal might decide that other, less representative individuals have to give more than they take. On the other hand, a conservative is, in my opinion, all take and no give (obvious generalization). I believe that the liberal doesn't necessarily believe that they are part of the majority... some might believe that they know what's best for the majority though. This almost makes a contradiction with regard to what I said about conservatives, but there is a distinction, although not clear and it will be disputed. Conservatives don't concern themselves with the majority. They want what's best for themselves and assume that what is best for themselves is also best for everyone else. The liberal wants what's best for society because, as I tried to explain, they understand that if society is well, hopefully we're all well. The problem is that sometimes there are some flawed ideas about what is best for society. I guess not all people have the capacity to understand that people are different and have different needs/desires. This is where there is another problem though... in Canada in particular. Would you disagree that people in different provinces have different needs/desires? Alberta seems to be vastly different from Nova Scotia. How can we govern these two regions under the same umbrella? I don't believe that we can do so effectively. Thus, while conservatives would (and do) try to tell people how to live, liberals try to appease everyone and that's just not possible with such diversity.

Funny how your comparison of liberal and conservative approaches to EDUCATION is about as legitimate as claiming that the Leafs haven't won a Stanley Cup since 1967 because the Liberal party was in power for the majority of the time. Funny how you also seem to have a sensationalist view of school security issues. Walk through some schools instead of flipping through them on your TV and trusting the media who are selling viewers. Read my last post to see why that's true.

Hahaha. No, definitely not. You are absolutely entitled to challenge my OPINION, and thank you for doing it. You brought up a very important and interesting point. Well, as a teacher myself, I do have insight into this topic. First, please do not use the media as a serious source of information regarding how a classroom looks/works. It's very misleading in a number of ways but the most troubling is that it views the 'teacher' as being a constant. We're people... lots of us are liberal minded and lots conservative. We approach the class from very different perspectives and thus in terms of classroom management, we have very different ways of dealing with misbehaviour. I won't deny that students today are a lot more bold and can be more disrespectful than I remember from my days as a student. There are too many factors contributing to this, I think, to simply blame sappy liberal ideology (I'll try to list the ones that I BELIEVE are important). First, I don't believe that parents spend enough time with their children these days. People have to work late/multiple jobs and when they are home are probably too tired to enjoy some time with their kid(s). And you know what? I didn't really believe that this was a contributing factor but after actually seeing the difference in the attitude of kids that come from families that spend a lot of time together and those that don't... the distinction is clear. Parents, particularly in Ontario, have had a shift in attitude toward teachers. Before, we were the 'experts' and were trusted to do our 'job'. However, parents are more likely to believe that their kids are infallible today and that if there is a problem with a student that it's the teacher's fault. That very well may be the case, but it's not fair that SOME parents have this general attitude, and it doesn't serve their kids any good to allow them to grow up believing that they are 1. always right and 2. that they will always have some one coming to save the day when there is trouble. Principals, unless they're exceptional, are ineffective today (it seems). Since teachers went on strike in the 90s, the Ontario government (I think it was them) made it so that principals are no longer members of the same union as teachers. Now in schools, disciplinary action is not a contiguous process. Teachers, as they should be, are expected to handle all problems on their own... to a point. We have a responsibility to the WHOLE class, so if one student continues to misbehave and is a distraction to everyone else, we are encouraged to seek the help of administration. However, many, many, many times these students are slapped on the wrist and sent back to class. The reason? Principals don't want heat from parents. Parents, in recent years, have brought numerous empty lawsuits against schools which cost school boards a LOT of money... and I mean a LOT. Because principals are no longer protected by our union, they do what they can to 'keep up appearances' at their schools, so as to not bring attention from school board brass. In the end, we have principals who are unable to/too scared to discipline students and this trickles down into a decrease in credibility for teachers, leading to even further lack of respect by students. Liberal approaches are not to blame... entirely. Some teachers simply cannot manage a classroom without being harsh disciplinarians. THESE teachers are often the ones who get the worst reactions out of students. I've seen it happen. Teachers try to strongly discipline the kids and the kids 1. know that the teacher can't REALLY do anything of any real consequence and 2. think it's fun/funny to get into yelling matches with students. What are we going to do? Allow corporal punishment? On the other hand, teachers who KNOW that students will misbehave at times are less likely to have these sorts of conflicts. They prevent them in a number of ways... they don't pretend to be the ultimate authority, they treat the kids like human beings (and it may be surprising, but that respect is almost always reciprocated), they 'know' their students and thus avoid situations with certain kids that lead to problems... however that may be done. As I said above, a liberal teacher understands that the entire class will benefit if everyone is well and if everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed... which DOESN'T necessarily mean equal treatment. Whereas the conservative teacher is the ultimate authority and tries to police students into order.

I don't have a fancy story to express my opinion on the difference... but I'll try an analogy using teachers! A conservative teacher believes that students ought to behave while a liberal teacher understands that sometimes kids will misbehave. The approach of the conservative teacher is to punish students when they act inappropriately (the teacher being the ultimate judge of what is/isn't inappropriate), while the approach of the liberal teacher is to proactively avoid circumstances that lead to student misbehaviour by creating a classroom culture that is (an honest attempt at being) harmonious. In other words, the conservative has a strong belief about how the world works and will react to anything that threatens to upset that. The liberal, conversely, knows that the world is full of people... each with their own mind... and so doesn't try to control the world. Rather, they simply try to... create a societal framework that lends itself to a harmonious society. Given the exact same information, reasonable people reach very different conclusions. It seems to me that this is something intolerable to conservatives. If people don't reach the same conclusions then they're obviously unreasonable, unintelligent or ignorant. A conservative world seems to be so isolated. "I" work hard for "my" money and "I" don't want to share it with people who didn't earn it. Fair enough. But, "you" don't live in this world by yourself. We interact with people for... everything! We're social beings. To put it in selfish terms, "I" benefit from a society that works well and in which everyone is well. So rather than saying conservatives are selfish and liberals are not... which is not true... you can say that each has a different approach to getting what they want out of society. Let's say you own a house on a nice street. Your next door neighbour, for some reason, does not maintain their house. This (in selfish terms) could decrease the value of your house. So, you have three options if you care to prevent this: 1. Contribute to the maintenance of your neighbour's house (money, labour, etc.). 2. Move. 3. Complain to somebody, maybe the neighbour, until the neighbour conforms to your ways. 2 doesn't seem like it would be a popular option. 1 = liberal, 3 = conservative. Mind you, 1. leads to the potential problem of those who tend to take advantage and 3. leads to potential conflict. I guess liberals and conservatives differ in terms of the poison that they pick!

Thank you for correcting me. Would shareholders not have to possess a certain proportion of stocks in order to be eligible to vote on such things? Even if they don't, would a shareholder not vote for whatever will increase the value of their shares? Even if it's a short term gain? Maybe that's a dumb question... Do investment decisions really play a role in competition between companies though? (This is not an area of expertise for me... I'm not trying to prove a point, I'm actually trying to learn about this... if it helps me support my argument, that's an added bonus!)

Oh definitely! I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any oversight to prevent that. But what kind of "proof" of address can be provided at a polling station that doesn't indicate a fixed address? Some sort of proof would have to be an official document/card. That would be difficult to obtain without a fixed address. So... I don't know what to say. Maybe the system makes it difficult for homeless people to vote rather than not allowing them. But how can we hinder the rights of some people for the purpose of keeping an eye on dishonest ones?

Nothing? I really would like to hear how competition works between media companies.

That's good then, I guess. But what about people who don't regularly stay in shelters? It really is good to hear that there are things in place to help homeless people exercise their right to vote, but does anybody know if there is any law that explicitly or implicitly makes homelessness illegal? Allowing people to use a shelter as their address is a help, but that effort in itself is not an indication that homeless people are all 'allowed' to vote.

Regular citizens as shareholders don't typically make decisions for a company... if you mean by buying/selling stocks... no explanation is given as to why stocks are sold, so a company doesn't necessarily have the info needed to realize that people don't like consolidation. Competition bureau = regulation... not a free market

Well, I'll try to say what I think I know about what other people want... I feel very arrogant for doing that but, none the less: People in different regions of the country rely on different industries to earn a living. Forestry might be big in Ontario and BC but not so much in Saskatchewan, for example. There are many more examples of course. Also, people seem to have different societal values in different regions. Come to down town Toronto and you'll find some of the most liberal (not the party) people in North America, whereas I believe people in cities in Alberta are quite a bit more conservative. People in Quebec have concerns about the French language, people in Vancouver have concerns about drugs on the streets, people in the GTA (generally) want tighter gun control while people in Northern Ontario and the West don't. There seems to be concentrations of people with similar societal values separated geographically. It doesn't make sense to create a legal system that applies to people who have different values if they're not totally integrated... which we're not.

Population certainly does matter. But more importantly, mergers happen under government protection??? So what would prevent mergers from happening in a totally free market? The public has no say in the case of mergers.

Population of Canada - ~30 000 000 Population of USA - ~300 000 000 Also, the number of large, populated urban centres in the US is quite a bit bigger than in Canada. So, 5 media companies for a population of 300 000 000 in many urban centres is not even close to being proportional to 3 media companies in a population of 30 000 000. If you look at those numbers, you would expect the US to have 30 media corporations or even more based on the number of cities... based on the US population being 10x that of Canada's. There is LESS competition in the US.

I don't think your point deviates from the scope of the discussion at all. On the contrary it IS the main point of the discussion. Even when you say you want your politicians to be inspirational... that's not leadership either, nor is it guidance. On top of that, it's a single perspective of what the government ought to be. My tone might sound confrontational, but it's not. How can I refute you for your wants? What I'm trying to say is that leadership from a politician is a ridiculous concept. NONE of us need to follow our politicians. I'd even say that we don't need them as guides. The function of government, at it's most basic level, is to determine what is legal and what is illegal... and what to do with tax revenue. Of what relevance is that to a typical citizen's life? (In terms of guidance/leadership). We elect politicians that we think will create/keep laws that we agree with. But how many people in Canada actually agree or are even close to agreement on ALL laws? Think of Alberta as compared to Ontario? Edmonton compared to Toronto! We don't have the same needs/desires. All that I can do is vote for a politician that I think will support a societal framework that I like and will (for lack of a better word) force those who don't agree to live by it. I guess I have two points. Leadership 'capabilities' of a politician are irrelevant and that Canada is far too big and diverse for a lot of people to be truly happy with any government.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does the term "big 5" not refer to the 'relevant' American media companies? Where is this competition? How CAN new players come into the game? They'd undoubtedly have to be the creation of large corporations because of how much money it takes... there will be no Mom and Pop TV channels. And who's to say that the 'relevant' companies won't buy up all the new players anyway? What's to stop them? And please humour me and tell me how competition would look between media companies if we deregulate further or completely.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but media concentration is even worse in the states! Rupert Murdoch owns a whole LOT of newspapers and television stations. Ted Turner, I believe, owns(ed) a whole lot of them too. Relative to the population size of the U.S., there are very few people that have controlling interest in the majority of media outlets. Where's the competition? Please explain to me how competition to own media outlets occurs anyway... I just can't see it happening. Let's say two companies own ALL TV stations, and the majority of people get their 'news' from these stations. Do you think that either of them would broadcast anything that hinted at the possibility of a problem with this consolidation? The ONLY way, that I can think of, that people could protest/create competition is by going to other forms of media such as the internet. How could an alternative TV station come to be? If they report on certain information, such as the negative effects of some pharmaceutical, then they wouldn't be able to get advertising dollars from MANY companies (which are the REAL customers of media... outlets sell viewers... us... to advertisers).

Seriously!! I've read some articles this summer, though, that discuss the culture/mentality created (presumably) by making homelessness illegal. There are stories in the U.S. of teenagers assaulting homeless people in their sleep, sometimes killing them, but not really being punished... and sometimes it's not teenagers. I do believe that it is actually illegal to be homeless, or at the very least the laws that exist make it difficult to be so. This ends up in a culture in which these people are treated as less than human. Now, whether or not people should be "allowed" to be homeless is another discussion, but either way they do NOT deserve to be treated as less than human and thus deserve EVERY right that we have as citizens, including the right to vote!

But what kind of leadership do 'we' need? I can't think of a thing that I could/would look to the Prime Minister to find out how to do/what to do. I understand what you're saying and agree with the distinction between guidance and management, but is guidance what we want from a politician? I contend that we don't. Most of us know what we want out of a government, even if we don't know how to articulate it or are disinterested in trying to (not really fair of me to presume to know that... I know). Therefore, the discussion of leadership in this election is nothing more than a distraction... maybe it's intentional, maybe not. But it's a distraction none the less.