Shwa

But this can be re-written: Prisoners rights are, under the current arrangement, separate, and different. They lack some rights that others have and they enjoy some that others don't. It is, in reality, a justice of a sort.

I'll bite. (counterpoint) In what way - through the Constitution - are people "not equal" and does this affect other sectors of society that deal with inequalities?

Not all legal Hispanic immigrants would be in support of illegal Hispanic immigrants, at least not publically, of course. But I am sure there is some sympathy there. Aztlan perhaps? Maybe Arizona is prime homeland real estate.

How so?

The problem is that Atleo isn't calling for the abolishment of the Indian Act and then that's that, dust our hands. So be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.

Who holds the debt? Do you have the tables on that?

And you don't think it is from Parliament with respect to some projects, to the senior officers and bureaucrats in crown corporations and departments, even right down the members of project teams or the recipients or targets of the projected benefits?

But Wild Bill, I never said or implied that eminent domain was illogical. So what was your point again?

This from a guy who spent time doing math on a fantasy trillion dollars to make his point about the possibility of a fantasy revolution in Canada. How was the $1 trillion arrived at again? Do you remember? How did you arrive at $1 trillion dollars being an applicable number to base your math upon? Like I said: daft. And a bit of a sucker too. Oh, nice dodge arty, why don't YOU explain how YOU'RE "supposed" to appraise a $1 trillion dollar Trust? Remember - and try and stay with me on this one - the trillion dollar figure is YOUR focus, not mine and not really even C.R's. When it is pointed out to you that the conclusion from your fantasy is more fantasy then all the ad hominem starts. From page 2: Your need for ad hominem is so great, you didn't even bother with the other figures mentioned. So where is the math and revolution now Mr. Roarke? Nah. You're lazy, inexpert and more interested in superficial appeal than any sort of real depth of discussion. Thus glib one-liners is appropriate since this is the limit to what you can understand.

Right. Another fabulous opinion from the imaginary baker who confuses the cake with the recipe. No matter, words have no meaning.

Now you are just be daft: Not only are you being daft you are showing a severely limited comprehension of valuation. Fantasy fixations do that I guess.

It was my reading of their "prevailing opinion." I didn't mean to imply they "claim." Of course when I say "news" I am referring to the reporting of events that lead to conditions for propaganda to perpetuate. In a smaller way I suppose sports, arts and entertainment have their propaganda value (i.e. as diversionary according to retired NY Times editor Max Frankel), but not so much as the seemingly foreign policy related case studies in chapters 2-6 which is my focus since this might be an insight into liberal/left vs conservative/right claims of media bias. When I say "governments" and also meaning the bureaucracy, justice organs, military, police and other public organs including offices of international concerns such as NATO. Now, no doubt, Exxon-Mobile or, say, Microsoft have international interests, but I am not sure how they would be a source for, or have an immediate concern or influence about the KGB plot on the Pope, the use of the word 'genocide' when reporting foreign conflicts or the fact or Guatemalan trade unions. The primary source filtering agent for this information, that eventually appears as news, would be the US government. Would it be fair to say that before you get to the point of effective (or wanting effective) propaganda, there would be a bias toward a particular view or goal and that, while operating in that propaganda mode, that bias would still be inherent? I don't want to downplay the significance of the large corporations (which come and go), their relationship to the government or the principle of bureaucratic affinity, but wouldn't you say that "the manipulation by economic interests for financial benefit" would also be a driving factor for US foreign policy or a keen government view or goal? No, when I ask, "supposing this is true" we pass from Herman and Chomsky and get to bloodyminded. (ok, ok, I cited the book title later on, but that was for something different) Are we good so far?

And why do you think that would be the case?

I understand logic fine; there is no "either." You are all alone in ignoring context. C.R makes an assertion about $1 trillion in "...a trust for leases and small surrenders..." A claim about "trust for leases" is not the same thing as a land claim or a claim for settlement in dollars. But you immediately proceed with an appeal to ridicule and an appeal to popularity without asking how or why this figure of trillion was arrived at. So how is that reasonable exactly? Where's the logic of simply proceeding from an assertion to ridicule and grandstanding? I think a more reasonable person would have queried about that figure and how it was derived to try and determine if that figure is reasonable or the result of reasonable and logical calculations. So we went from $1 trillion in "...a trust for leases and small surrenders..." to all of Southern Ontario where 10 million people would be kicked off their land. How specious a line of reasoning is that? Especially since you do not know how the $1 trillion dollar figure was arrived at or what "...a trust for leases and small surrenders" actually means. The only argument you have is a repeated appeal to fantasy about a silent-majority-people-power revolution. No, what actually happened is you jumped into an ad hominem attack based on fallacious appeals to popular opinion. My question was wholly relevant to see if you understand that land claims are legitimate and who determines value. Because your say in the matter of "scale" is completely meaningless. In fact, you have no say, and admit no concern, in how that value is determined; and, apaprently, you lack the power to do anything about it. That is the only "scale" that needs concern you. You can fantasize all you want about your all-powerful silent majority revolution, the Constitution and legal limits of the Crown, but that is more to pity than to scorn. This is an illegitimate (aka "illogical" or "unreasonable") line of questioning because you have no proof any settlement discussed would be "lopsided" or "impoverish" anyone. This is a make-believe condition you have invented to appeal to popular opinion because your ability to be reasonable is blocked. If you want to ask questions about fantasy, I prefer discussing Barbarella. I stand by this remark.

And yet here you are, now staring down the face of your solid definition of "logic" and finding it completely skewered because you removed it from context. So tell me moonbox, how exactly is the fact that the government can expropriate your real property without your consent and hand it over to a First Nation as part of a land claims settlement - logical? Truly the ball is in your side of the court with this one. I asked a similar question earlier and you answered with the "fact" of "revolution." Now who is bringing in the hilarity to this thread? The guy that thinks he can predict the course of the beast just because he resides in its belly? Do you understand that analogy moonbox? So, setting the so called 'trolling' aside, why don't you enlighten us all here with how it is possible for you to predict the outcome of a course of events that are explicitly tied down to your fantasy? You know, the fantasy about unreasonable land claims and such. Tell us how the people will revolt, there will be a revolution, the Crown will be voted out, etc. And then, once you have finished your little explanation, show us how this is all 'logical' in retrospect. I will then use that as an opportunity to re-iterate how some psychos and sociopaths also think their fantastical thinking was "logic" until the medication and social conditioning kicked in. But please, do me the honour...

Google only has the preview. But luckily I have a copy and can share the final passage from page 264, paragraph XVII 'Interactions with Indians and Whites' from the 1977 edition: I think for one of Canada's "greatest early scientists" he was a titch off the mark.

No, I am the same as bloodyminded and WIP and then on Thursdays, I am smallc. Now that you mention it, I do see the similarities between you and lictard. I mean, fair is fair right?

In a nutshell, Jenness said that the Indians were a dying race. But, thankfully, he put it more eloquently in his book, The Indians of Canada. Since he was the expert is expertise helped form the 'logic' of Indian Affairs policy.

Seeing how many times he has crapped in it, one would think he would be looking for another place to sleep.

C.R has attempted to correct himself and what did he have to say? Do you recall? I am just saying that it could be a typo or it could be some sort of derivation of meaning taken from the fact that legislation has no power without an act and such action is usually the result of contemporary interpretation. Or some other meaning - he will have to clarify. Which takes us back to do-oh-oh-oh... no, wait, it takes us back to something like Diamond Jenness and his effect on contemporary Indian affairs policy from the 30's to the 80's. You are familiar with this yes? Because up until the 70's his 'logic' reigned supreme and was rarely questioned in the context of public policy regardless of political stripe.

Not as hilarious as the guy who wipes out a family because to him it was the 'logical' thing to do. History is full of such 'logic' from kings to criminals to the mentally disturbed. We only see such 'logic' as 'delusion' in hindsight, but to the person doing the acts, those acts - even despited feelings of guilt, remorse, fear or anger - might think they are being perfectly logical given the circumstances. Go over your neat little synonym list and see how this applies. So it could be a simply typo where C.R should have written: There. I fixed it for you.

And if we refer to Manufactured Consent we find the prevailing opinion from Herman & Chomsky points to "the government," as producer of most of the "news," as being the controlling factor in media content bias. And if you want to report on a national order, I am thinking that the Federal government is the kingpin. Supposing this is true for the US media. Then for what purpose would the propaganda serve a Democratic administration, especially following a Republican administration that was perceived in many circles to be somewhat cynical with regard to media manipulation? For one, I think there is a line in US media that Canadians - vastly liberal in outlook, are simply not familiar or comfortable with. So sure, the reporting of the fictional bias has an honest aspect, but there is propaganda as there is advertising, and each the focus of 'products' (or 'outcome'). (i.e. the full title of Herman ^ Chomsky's book is: Manufactured Consent, the Political Economy of the Mass Media) It has said here before, their 'liberal' is more akin to our 'conservative' for a large part. So I can see why a Democratic administration would want to keep the fictional bias alive as they have as much invested in the control of perspective as the Republicans do for more or less the same reasons. Two interesting questions follow from your's and, generally, BC's comments: to what effect does this media bias have on Canadians, esp. those who use US sources as their primary "world" content and is there a way out of this model without being preceived as skewed toward one political bias or another?

Riiiiight...

LOFL!

No, you imagined it. But again, your response: predictable. At least you are consistent, that should count for something. Now go bake us a real cake!