Shwa

They are our great hockey rival and we want to play them as often as we can and we can't be doing that if other countries are beating them. Plus, they are more like us than any other country, family even. Support your extended family and cheer for the Yanks! (except when they play us, then boo and his until your heart's content.)

Most full brained people are going to consider their choices carefully. But lucky for Harper, he has the half-brained vote. And the half-witted vote too I see.

First a little Buffaloney from a disillusioned Buffalonian Donn Esmonde: Disillusioned by northern neighbors Then a rebuttal from Toronto Staronian, Cathal Kelly: Kelly: Canadian world junior fans criticized in Buffalo Seriously, the World Jr. Tournament was rescued by the Sea of Red, even in the USA games. Although any Canadian that cheers for the opposition against the Yanks (except when Canada is the opponent) is, in my books, a creep and should be stripped of their maple leaf emblazoned whatever. But thanks Buffalo. Maybe all those Canucks who hold Bills season's tickets should turn them in. Eh?

Da Bears. Second choice for me. Then any other team hugging The Great Lakes, including the Steelers who are an honourary Great Lakes team.

National ER stats meaning what? How many people are Early Risers? In other news, priorities: Blind woman's website victory to be appealed

Right here.

Well these statistics here seem to show that the more education you have the more employable you are - and top of the list is a university education. Employment rates, by educational attainment Not only more employable, but earn more income too: Average employment income...by education level So this data - at a glance - would contribute to a 'widely held view' that university education is desirable to get a job. In case the Smith/Johnson scenario doesn't work, go to the StatsCan tables. This could well be. The law doesn't say "institutionalized racism" is allowed. And since it has no traction - anywhere - as such, it is likely because it isn't. Now, if enough people got behind the idea that it is, presented their case to MP's like say, de-indexing old age pensions, then perhaps it might have traction. But even the MP's say nothing, because the idea that Employment Equity is "institutionalized racism" is a nothing idea.

The problem here is that anyone can - and they frequently do - make the claim that this or that form of justice is a perversion of some other form of justice that has more merit for a varity of reasons. And there is no quarrel with those sorts of opinions. What is indispitable is that justice - as a social construct - reflects the society in which in lives, regardless of any overthrow or radical change. Thus it is a current reflection of the wishes of that society and is therefore valid in form. All the rest is opinion, but when it comes to taking things into the court of law, your best bet is to believe that the current form of justice is the operational form. I'llleave the egalitarian concept for now and address the idea of private property. There has never been - in the entirety of human history - the full value you give to the concept of private property since there has never been a single person invested with total authority over any property to be considered "private." At best, any claim to such authority is tentative and tenuous as any form of force and always resitable in the long rung and into the current day. Because of this, claims that private property mean this or that are also tentative and tenuous since they do no reflect the force of the current society, which overwhelms all and considers its force to be "just." Now, this could be due to the fact that we are ultimately social animals, I am not sure. There are plenty of opinions about it. Secondly, the movement towards the collectivization of property certain makes sense with regard to a slide toward totalitarian governance and - in some cases - this has proven true. But not for all propery at all times. There appears to be a mitigating force - a justice - that prevents it from happening as a imperative. At best I would say these large social forces cycle between the two extremes and sometimes - but not necessarily all the time or predictably - touch on one extreme or another. And the reason I say these forces cycle is because there is no ultimate force over a long time that can compel it to remain. All empires eventually have ended or cycled through to something else. And the matter of belief is very important, but ultimately it is only a belief and not necessarily fact since any individual can be ruled out by a stronger, proximate group. Which is what history shows. The best any individual can get is a partial authority dependent on others along with a belief that they are this or that. All governments should have restrictions, but even applying those restrictions is 'social engineering.' You have to remember that the Magna Carta was an effort by the 'government' to restrict itself. Don't forget those scales of justice! Affirmative Action considers the potential contribution and this ethic is at it's heart. Capacity is about qualifications, which are also a significant part of its process.

Agreed, a little statistical sidebar that surprised me as well...

Clear as mud - did they 'ban' the groups because they were about homosexuality or because gay students might somehow be indentified by joining such groups? Halton Catholic School Board slammed for banning gay-straight student groups Perez Hilton, another American gawking at Canadian news? Oh, that wasn't a fair shot. Anyways, we have this from the board: Oh I get it, it is not "within the teachings of the Catholic Church" to out gay people. Or WTF are they really saying?

Well, they lag behind in accessibility as well, not to mention infrastructure. However, what you may determine as performance data, others - bureaucrats - might not. Here's the thing though, the information you are looking for - I believe - is already on the web if you want to go get it. Is there something in particular that isn't on the web that you have searched for, but couldn't locate?

While more about $90k income here from 2007: Study: High-income Canadians Income tables from 2006 It seems that those earning $70k or more are a pretty small percentage of the middle class, if they could even be considered that.

The Oshawa 'This Week' is part of an elite influencial group too - Torstar - but being a part of the group does not make it elite media like, say, the Toronto Star.

Ah, and here I thought you were talking about Freedom of Information Laws, but instead you are looking for post everything on the web laws. Priorities, priorities. They have to make their platform accessible first. Jodhan v. Canada (Attorney General) Not to mention updating the teleconnunications infrastructure. However, most of what you seek is available on the web already is it not? Departmental mandates, reports, budgets from Treasury Board, etc. Other than web based information, is there anything else you need?

World War I, World War II - the latter twice if you count the trouncing of Japan in the East as separate. Oh but wait, "the allies" ... Riiiiiight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_military_operations Have a read.

Yeah Starks - Ryan Grant who? Yeah Matthews and the Green Monsters!!! Bring the show the Atlanta!

I am sure if you did a search of elite newspapers, the resultant list would be relatively small. Sure the Whig-Standard might be politically influential in Kingston and maybe some outlying areas, but hardly what we would call elite and definitely not nationally by any national standard. Central in what way? Editorially there are those dastardly wikipedians... (which begs the question, is the Colbert Report part of the media elite?) and I am sure there is an elite group among them controlling the content. I mean why do they not allow nonsense articles to provide an editorial counterbalance to the sensible view? Philosophical terrorists! Is there an editorial control gauge somewhere that provides a measurement for inclusion in the elite media? It might have been true at one time, but even most blogs now are unimportant and uninfluential 'cause anyone can make one. The problem is that viewing oneself as elite - even promoting oneself as elite - opens a can of worms in that anyone can make such pronouncements. Which appears to have happened. But at least with blogs, as opposed to the philosophical facism of the dreaded wikipedians, the nonsensical view is as valid as the sensible - from the perspective of the medium.

I dunno, I think there could be quite a few more teams and there is a TON of talent that never plays NFL that probably could. Why stop with contraction to 28 teams, which would make a marginal difference to the competitive level, why not reduce it down to 12? But then you would have another equally competitive league spring up, call it the American Football League. They put a team in Buffalo... If you look over the season records over the years, divisions come and go with respect to overall records in the league - unbalanced schedules, short season, etc. It all comes down to you pays your money, you takes your chances... however, they could re-aling the divisions a little, but I don't think that would fix the fact that a weak team, or even a team under .500 would be able to make the playoffs without some drastic team re-alignment and in competitive philosophy.

Of course, I was using the example figuratively to try and form a similar reference in reply to the other poster (and I am not sure why I would, but I did). In a similar way I use the concept of "money" which is itelf just another abstraction for value.

But the point is that the NY Times influences the Kingston Whig Standard and thus are elite, while the Whig-Standard - and a trillion other rags - are not. The print medium, or more specifically - the newspaper medium - is not "elite media" according to the definitions you supplied. But the Interactice Media Elite is Wikepedia and it's corporate cadre, not you, even as a participant. Of course there is a dependency, but all mediums have their dependencies. That still doesn't make them elite by nature or even you by association. Not all schools are elite and not all students that go to elite schools are themselves elite, even though a few might be. What ad-free, post-what-ever-you-want Facebook are you using? Post porn on your Facebook page and see how decentralized Facebook is. Facebook is an influencial node on the medium of the web and because it has the user base, also has the ability to influence millions. So you are going to get ads and you can't post porn. Social mores you see. See above. Beck and Will are tricky slopes. One could argue that they constitute 'elite media' by the nodes in which they use to get their message across. Not the medium they use, the node, like the NY Times. Either could make their case in the Whig-Standard, but unless there is a desire for it to be widely circulated, I doubt they would be political influencial, even in Kingston. Well, maybe in Kingston... Yes, agreed. Keyword - supposedly. And generally an attitude that is born out of self-reference. THe Whig-Standard can pronounce themselves as elite within the medium of newspapers, but they aren't. So the pronouncement of such is simply elitist.

Now we're talking. So I don't have a problem with tax money going towards infrastructure and facilities, etc. Sounds like they were all in collusion. Amateur sports - by far - is about kids and anyone else having fun. You know this of course. Ifyou are having fun without asking for someone elses money, well good for you.

Here is one: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/I-3.3/ However, once that money leaves your hands, it isn't yours anymore so you aren't actually paying for someone elses sports and hobbies, "we" are. Big difference.

Socratic? It's a fair question, to see if the government, which owns the facilities, are indirectly subsidizing themselves by paying themselves some money to maintain the facilities to which they own. Kind of like GM using their profits to maintain their factories and pay their employees. Socratic? Perhaps. But what discussion is entirely free of Socratic-ness?

It could be used that way, but it is still a confusing of terms when you use the plural to refer to a specific instance. And as a singular form - mass media - while inclusive of all nodes of a particular grouping - does not specifically refer to one of them. For example: This is a grouping of those nodes withing a medium that have something in common. Their 'eliteness' does not extend to the medium as a whole itself. So the NY Times might be a part of the 'elite' media, their being so does not make the newspaper medium an 'elite media' itself which is what it is appearing you are saying: I don't see any reference to "the web" as being defined as "the media elite" or even "elite media." The term generally applies to the medium specifically as similarl to press, radio or TV. However, special nodes of each medium can be grouped into "elite media" or any other cross-medium grouping. And there are instances of those nodes - Facebook, Twitter, 4Chan and reddit for example - that can be considered "elite media" since they "influence the political agenda of other mass media." ANd also, just because CNN has a website in one or more mediums does not disount it's influence in one or all the other mediums. For what purpose? It would have been more clear to say, "The elite media is a term used to describe those newspapers, radio stations, TV channels and other media that..." This is somewhat confusing. For one, where in your definitions does it say that for a node to be considered elite, that is has to be centralized? By your definition here, then none of the major networks would be elite media, nor national newspapers like the Globe and Mail. Facebook has an owner corporate cadre that make sweeping - and influencial decisions - about Facebook, social networking as a medium and popular opinion across other media. Memes have been around a long time for sure, but that doesn't negate their origin on the web as being somehow less, especially when they have influence and even political influence. I did read your full post and I am not sure how you arrived at MLW or yourself even as being "media elite." Elitist maybe, but not elite.

So then the government is subsidizing itself? (using msj's example above) "Liberals" or the government? And was that government municipal, provincial or federal? Although that would piss me off too regardless who did it. But I wouldn't be taking it out on the kids or other people that want to get out and play sports for fun.