Shwa

Exactly. But in the case of the Geoscience Data Repository, one man's ho-hum is another's clue to diamonds, gold, silver, oil... I guess it is a matter of definitions. Yes and how do you propose they publish the material for the legislative documentation on fisheries from 1920-1950? Is there a magic scanner than will convert this stuff to XML or something?

Ehhh, I dunno Nicky: I have heard some pretty good denunciation of "elites" and "intellectuals" from the Liberals and NDP, heck even the elites and intellectuals do pretty good denouncing one another given the platform. I think what we see here is some good old fashion politicking and not much more. It appears they are trying to shoot the rapids with a minority government, being between the rocks and a hard places:

It has nothing to do with my personal perception of superiority of Europe, but yours: As soon as the heights of European culture are raised, the second guessing begins and there is the well known retreat into the exhaltation of the commoner as hero. But why is that? I am surprised, for all the oggling our "way" in "equal measure" you do, that no one has asked you about that stuff. And the irony of serge de Nimes is not lost on me. A second rate French fabric...

But useless to whom or, rather, how was "useless" defined? I think that one of the problems facing government and citizens is that there is a mismatch between definition of particular datasets. Thus the citizen might want to see dataset A, which is something they understand to mean, and the gov gives them dataset A based on their own internal definitions which do not correspond to what the citizen believes dataset A should contain. We have a data match - a common defintiion - for weather data for instance; even to a degree mapping and GPS datasets are beginning to synch up (even though some of the software to display them are big $$$). Which is another problem - system incompatibility. Then there is volume. For instance, when was the last time you were at public archives to review - for example - legislative documentation on fisheries from 1920-1950? Dealing with accession numbers, box references, indexing schemata, surly records clerks...

The cynical approach would be a limited implementation - adequate to shut up most people in order to ignore the critics of a limited release. But any implementation would have to be limited for the first while anyway, especially if it part of a comprehensive approach of which it is only a component.

The federal government has built roads on speculation of use before, based on business plans of potential need. I recall years ago that employment centres began to offer services on-line long before internet access for households was commonplace. In fact, it was more of a 'widespread phenomenon' and most people accessed unemployment insurance services through in-person or telephone. UI offices had 'kiosks' where the public could access these services along with in-person or telephone. However they encouraged clients to use the kiosks or internet, if they had it at home. So, using this as the guiding philosophy, I believe that the government should go ahead and make at least rudimentary forms of open government accessible to their citizens even though it might only be a 'widespread phenomenon' and not quite the household concept we wish it was. In fact, with the concept of 'Service Canada' or Post Offices, the government already has the means to deliver open government on a national scale. And while "Canada" might not be too excited about open government, it will take political will to make this happen. So which party will have the balls?

jbg, did you ever see that episode of the Simpsons where Homer, wanting to teach Bart a lesson about the dangers of trying to jump the Springfield Gorge on his skateboard, accidently does it for him with the usual humourous results? Your post sort of reminds me of that - you know, the kind of leap that Homer did: We shouldn't paint a few extra characters on TTC signage because, you know, it will turn Canada in to a hellhole.

So then - as a "history/poli nut" - what do you make of the national identity assertions made by Ralston-Saul in Reflections of a Siamese Twin? Are you the type of person who seeks out the coat-check room in a theatre in the winter, or do you carry your winter coat with you into the theatre?

Whether there is more/less opportunity is completely irrelevant, but I understand your logic. However, the fact remains - and has been a consistent fact for as long as the phenomenon has existed - that Canadians have filled a void in American pop culture. Who knows, perhaps making it more palatable to the Canadian - or European - market. So maybe is it simple business acumen. Like what? Mom and apple pie? Perhaps in the narrow fictional context of American pop culture, but there is no real argument. We have been kicking around not-British and not-French for much, much longer. But still, an outside reference to our identity which, as your continual focus on "not American" nicely proves. The problem is that you are limited to only seeing the not-American aspect and haven't been exposed to the not-British/not-French to any degree where it is apparent or modifying. But then again - with such a self-referencing mode of thinking - how could you be expected to see things any other way. So you are forgiven. A fawlty reference that towers over everything. A Fawlty Tower reference perhaps? Everyone at the Rover would agree. No, I am not referring to the characteristics of greatness nor, had you been open-minded towards the idea that your model might be a titch inadequate - which it is - any sort of worship of Europe on my behalf. And if you believe that American culture is somehow reduced by its self-referential national myths, your wheels have come off the track. Consistent references to American entities would be expected - don't you think - for a people that are accustomed to be able to discern the world around them? Thus we wouldn't exclude acronyms like HRH or M5 is such examples. I accept that Americans - generally - don't really need to prove what they believe and are more than adept at deriving their beliefs from very well crafted stories about a particular topic that interests them. de Tocqueville found this vulgar, I find it entirely fascinating and almost non-existant in Canada on a national level. And this is a prime example of my previous point BC. But the appearance of irony isn't lost on me how, through your consistent - and sometimes needy - comparisons between the US and Canada, I can't help but notice that you seem to spend quite a bit of time standing on guard for thee.

And we have Canadians filling "a void" in American pop culture is the point you are missing. And we have had these folks doing it for as long as American pop culture has been around. That's right. And all they are getting is... wait for it... fiction. It has indeed been kicked around and punted into the rubbish heap long ago. What do you think? Nope. The point here is that you are "stuck in America's gravity" and "broader global relationships" is something intrinsically relevant. The Dead Parrot Sketch should have taught you - or your neighbours - that. No one has said Americans have not made their mark, but their greatness is always measured against others and usually Europeans. Wait, that has a familiar ring to it. No, because it is fiction first, truth second. Columbus, a second rate Spaniard, but an American hero for discovering America. No I haven't. Americans excel greatly in aspects of production and distribution and have many stories to prove it. But again, your only reference is to the reality as devised by that narrative of "how the US came to be and expanded across the continent" because absolutely no one else was involved. The doctrine of Manifest Destiny ensured that viewpoint to this day.

Try not to maybe give somewhat of an iffy opinion. One way or another. Google not working for you? Yes, because what the universe needs is yet another blog about the goings on in Toronto.

No. Nor do I think there are a billion goat-herders in the world. It might be a popular occupation, but not that popular. And really, all you did with your previous comment was easily refute your own ridiculous premise. Come on Argus, even I expect more from you that that.

LOL! So did I! Ah the blurry summer evenings at the Towne Cinema (?) in Ottawa in the early 80's: The Kids Are Alright, followed by Quadrophenia followed by Pink Floyd Live at Pompeii. The air was so pungent, my eyes would burn. Whenever I could feel my eyes that is.

Man o' man Bonam, did someone take the sting out of the WASP? I think there is a little blue pill for that. But... providing signage in the language of the majority of clients makes sense, at least for the new people until they have acculturated, which they inevitably will. Making it easier for your clients to access your services - and spend their money - makes sense doesn't it?

Come on Argus, really? A billion people to come to Canada? Let me correct it for you:

Show me how using only designates from one's own party - that is sitting in a minority government situation - is "in tune with Canadians." Then explain how Bob Rae has anything to do with this topic. Both answers should be - at the very least - interesting.

And when the whip comes along to get committee "approval," who is going to speak the truth? This seems like a make-work project for a bunch of the less-talented party hacks. A junior-junior ministerial position until scandal sends one minister packing and the queue moves forward one. Seriously, it appears that the CPC is trying to put in the instruments of a majority and seem bigger than they really are. If they were "building democracy" one would think that they would be inclusive of all parties in such objective sounding committees. Right, so lets make up committees comprised of MP's from a minority government and call it "...more in touch with the reality..."

Not quite little buddy. For one, "equal measure" would require an equal frame of reference which is different enough between Canadians and Americans to render your prognostication error prone. Secondly, in your "American pop culture" reference you are ignoring the contributions of the Canadian sensibility in that culture, which have occurred in film and television since the beginning including production, direction, writing and acting. Eg. without Lorne Michaels and his exposure to a different sensibility of humour, there would have been no Saturday Night Live. If I type "The Dead Parrot Sketch" do you "know exactly what I mean" and own it with equal measure? Beyond that, how many people in your neighbourhood would? Meh, other than self-referential iconography, what have American-centric films given the world and who would understand them? Errol Flynn as English folk hero Robin Hood? I admit BC, you are one of the more interesting posters and I have a good idea as to why you stick around here and derive so much fun. And I am all for it. But when you post stuff like this your point starts to head south, so to speak and you begin to lose credibility. We all know that it is only recently that America has stopped using Europe as their "foil" in many aspects of culture, but it still exists in other aspects, especially art, haute couture, physics and math even. I am sure a detailed survey would show more American covetness over European things. And why is that - has that ever been asked of you even on this forum? Why America will never have a Rembrandt, a Mozart, a Spinoza or even an Oppenheimer? Sure there are great works of American art and science, but everyone knows they can only achieve second rate - you know? Even Canadians are aware of that. The problem, with placing oneself second to European (or Chineses - give it a few decades) culture, is that one's national myth does not penetrate deep enough to render outside references in a particular field as irrelevant and cannot be subsumed into 'American' culture. And what I mean by this is that the American National Myth - where it is most useful - doesn't make any outside references and, where it does, they are secondary references. Jean Laffitte for instance - a second rate Frenchman, but an American hero for sure. Because the American National Myth is such an exercise in meaning-by-self-reference, it is, by definition, a work of fiction. So when Canadians use America as a "foil" guess what we are referring to? Canada's National Myth must - and always does - refer to entities outside itself. Why do you think many Canadians consider our "history" boring compared to American history? Because in works of fiction, the license for drama is greatly increased and the effects of that dramatization only increase the worth of the story for nationalist - and entertainment - value. (And I will say it again, there is no people on the earth that like to have fun (and be entertained) as much as Americans. That to me is the greatest gift Americans have given the world, that is second to none throughout all history to date.) That is not to say that Canada has not attempted, during one phase or another, to construct a self-referencing national myth, but it almost always meets with failure because of the multi-cultural nature of our beginnings. Not just English, but French and Aboriginal. Those entities - Britian, France or the Indians could never be fully subsumed in a wholly 'Canadian' myth-narrative. General Brock was a hero, but he was (and still is) foremost a Brit. Tecumseh was still an Indian and Les Voltigeurs were fighting for a "Canada" much different that they could have ever imagined at Chateauguay.

And in the spirit of clarity, DogOnPorch doesn't have an "apparent love for Fox news" since he was simply making it up. Or, as another couple of posters have suggested, has a less than stellar comprehension of English:

Did you read that on the little FOX news headline flash bar too?

Another headline - excellent!

Nice headline!

Done. Brainslug comfortably adjusted. So let's get back to the question I asked: I think that for someone, who can only discuss the issue in the most superficial of terms, would be an ideal candidate for the sensationalized 'news' surrounding the topic of Islam. You know, as long as it has a headline you are as informed as you need to be right? Then it only becomes a matter of what news source headlines you choose to scan, like those little headline flashes on FOX news channel or something.

What is that "critical mass" do you know? Is it 5 people, 50, 50,000, 500,000? What is it?

Are you sure about that? It seems that from your viewpoint expressed thus far, you are the exact type of person most news agencies - and their advertisers - would be pandering to.