Shwa

"You can't just keep giving me new links to investigate forever..." Yes he can. There are no rules in place here for that is there? Besides, you can't catch a fish if your line isn't in the water. (Except flying fish which can travel some 200 meters across the water in the air to escape their predators. Saw this on a documentary last night. Fascinating. But I digress...) I think Lictor is a fisher of men with his "lure-id" type topics and commentary. He will gather you in and then show you the error of your ways. Your "sins" as it were. I wouldn't be surprised if he was a fundamentalist Christian with the little fish bumper sticker trying to hasten The End Times by playing the role of the Anti-Christ. But it is just a role, nothing more.

"...rather than a male-on-female crime?" Melanie, thank you for bringing in this context. I was kind of wondering if it would come up. My D-I-L works for a womens shelter. We have such shelters because of 'hate crimes.' How often do we hear that some woman was beat up, threatened or raped by a former spouse? Maybe the media has an anti-woman bias as well?

Kimmy: "I don't see that the criticism is unfair or undeserved." Perhaps "unfair" and "undeserved" are not the right words. There must always be a watchful eye on the mass media and that includes the right to criticize. However, I think we owe it to ourselves and the media to understand the context of how they present their stories - and that context is much more than mere cold statistics, personal anecdotes or leading questions. If we lose sight of the context we are only arguing for the sake of bluster and nothing is gained.

"...so many folks in here of the right opinion on this issue." The "right opinion." That is so funny! Thank you! But seriously folks... {with apologies to our fine Border Services personnel who made our trip across the border on Saturday very pleasant.} So this guy comes across the border with some suspicious behavior that red flags him. I would let him in. Long enough to put the tabs on him, investigate his circumstances, trace his bank accounts, maybe tap his line a couple of times. He might be a great source of information and the last thing you want to do is get rid of a dupe that can actually help you in the covert world of counter terrorism? Right? Naw. He seems suspicious. He might be plotting something. Get rid of him because I'm scare. Sheesh.

"If they are willing to step it up to include throwing eggs, then they must accept the counter from authorities...once you break the law, then it's game on" Agreed. Protesting, slogans, fist pumping - yes; egg throwing - no - you get swept away. Gotchya!

Well, there is value in entertainment after all.

"...they should of been swept off the streets and nothing said in the media...." Yikes! Army Guy, your tagline says "Canadian Freedoms Rock." Is not the ability to publicly protest one of those freedoms or do you have a limited list you are working from?

"You never commented on my compelling argument?" No because you didn't answer my question which is: why did the government step in and provide that safety net? Hint: it is a really easy question to answer.

"pretty much everything that "jesus" did in the bible can be re-done by science or trickery." So are you saying that Jesus was a scientist?

"I don't recall that the media made race an issue during that incident." No, they didn't make it an issue, they just reported on it. Is it your position that the Canadian media needs to make race an issue in reporting to avoid a double standard? "I think the newsworthiness of a given event is determined by specific circumstances, but if race is an aspect of that story, the sensibilities with which race is addressed are very different depending whether the attacker is white or non-white." I see that you do. How interesting. Just kidding! We are getting somewhere now... "(Shouldn't that be counterbalanced by the fact that there are just 1/5 as many potential black attackers?)" Nope. Doesn't matter how many potential black perpetrators there are, they are still out-numbered 5 to 1. If you want insight into the odds, then factor in which skin colour is more likely to have the economic resources desired by the criminals. Not all robberies, assaults, break-ins or murders are about race. Very few are. If you want to "counter-balance by the fact" go back to the US homicide stat tables from a previous post which show the vast majority of homicides committed against one skin colour are likely to come from a perpetrator with the same skin colour. Now, do you think the story behind a white person murdering another white person is about race? How about a black person killing another black person? Is that about race? No, of course not. "Personally, I disagree. I don't think profit explains it. I don't think non-white violence against whites is so commonplace that it's just not newsworthy." But it is newsworthy, just not by the same factor you wish to subscribe to the sample stories. Others have answered this aspect of your query with solid competence. However, when a white person commits a crime against a black person - especially when the crime is committed against a poor black person, the story is more compelling to a readership because of all the social factors pointed out previously. Compelling stories sell the news. Etc. Kimmy, it appears to me that you have an expectation of 'equality' when it comes to news reporting and this presumes a level playing field where all the factors are equal. But when it comes to racial issues there are no level playing fields and likely never will be for a very long time. Not in our lifetime. You cannot comment about double-standards while ignoring the complexity of values that are input into an already imbalanced set of social circumstances. Well, you can comment, but that really doesn't do anything for your position. Seriously, I am betting that should those circumstances be discussed you would find our positions are more similar and grey than simply black & white. If you want a very insightful take on the modern US media read 'Manufactured Consent' and it might fill in some of those values for you. While the focus of this book is on the US media reporting bias towards foreign "news" the same principles apply to domestic reporting as well. And of course the Canadian media is quite different, but structured the same way overall.

Why the outskirts? The only difference between the poor and middle class nowadays is the size of the container and the quality of the crap. I know people that live in 2500 sq foot houses that shop at WalMart. Surely that is a sign...

"Perhaps the Indians of the Americas could've learned some lessons from the Africans about counter-colonialism." Dead Indians don't learn many lessons. Well, likely not the kind that mattered when it came to colonialism. You have to remember that before there was any form of a real European power base in North America, most Indians had been wiped out by disease. It was only this void that allowed a strong European foothold in the colonies. However, modern Indians in Canada have section 25 of the Charter to counteract any active colonialism nowadays. Darn. Now we both digressed!

Very interesting article - that Christianity ended the Cold War peacefully. I agree with M. Dancer about the role of Poland. "Without Christianity the cold war would not have ended peacefully. Across the East, churches and religious organisations brought together workers, students and intellectuals. Under totalitarian rule, church services and religious festivals often provided the last bastion of freedom and resistance." - Adrian Pabst To have a Church you need to be able to associate freely - to congregrate if you will. I can see freedom of association as being a very powerful force against totalitarianism. Lech Walesa was a devout Roman Catholic according to Wiki. However, Lech also organized - or was a ring leader - in the Gdansk shipyard strikes in 1980 that led to a trade union - another form of freedom association. I think the trade unions - principly Solidarnosc - as heralding the end of the Cold War and hastening the end of Soviet communism. The trade unions could (and likely did) bring together workers, students and intellectuals. Probably moreso than the Church. So Pabst's second paragraph could also read: Without the trade unions the cold war would not have ended peacefully. Across the East, unions and labour organisations brought together workers, students and intellectuals. Under totalitarian rule, labour union gahterings and labour protests often provided the last bastion of freedom and resistance. This would be a better fit with what I remember of those times. ps - I think the Cold War started at the Yalta Conference in 1945 when Stalin agreed to have free elections in Poland after the war. Churchill was not amused...

"Culture by its very definition..." Then how do you determine who is right or who is wrong or, put better, which culture is better and which culture is worse?

"As I mentioned in my response to Michael, I think the media sees benefit in reporting white-on-nonwhite violence, but sees risk in reportin nonwhite-on-white violence." Dog bites man all the time. It's not news because it isn't a rare occurance. If you want all crimes reported, I think "the media" does a pretty good job even though they do not necessarily identify the skin colour of the victims. Often they will simply report the skin colour of the perpetrator as a factor of description. (the example I supplied was a joke BTW). However, in reporting the description of the perpetrator, they usually do not care if the perp is black or white ot "asian." However, I highly doubt there is any reluctance on behalf of the media if we use the Jane Creba case as an example. This is the Canadian ethic. The US is a little different isn't it? We have a population that is in minority by a factor of 5 to 1. This minority population was highly suppressed up until fairly recently (and some would say even still, but that is beside the point). In fact, the suppression tactics is some parts of the US ranged from discrimination, segregation to plain brutish violence. Lynchings, shootings, murders and so on. Surely you are familiar with this aspect of US history... The fact is that it would not be a rare occurance for black to commit crime against a white person because there are 5 times as many white persons to be victims. However, it is rare - and this is borne out by the statistics - that there would be white violence against black - the man bites dog scenario. And this, coupled with the history surrounding the treatment of black people by the majority white elite in recent times and the efforts of the white majority to remove racism as much as possible has led to a sensitivity that compels news folk to take a closer, and sometimes more careful, look. I mean, do men still bite dogs nowaways? What's up with that? So you can't blame them. "Is it your position that the media's job is to decide what merits coverage based on its potential to effect social change?" Read 'Manufactured Consent' by Herman and Chomsky. My position is similar to theirs in that a simple view of the news industry leads to simplistic conclusions. But I will say that I believe that a primary factor in what the media decides is newsworthy has more to do with profit than social change. And, of course, it isn't all that profitable to report that a dog bit a man...

"If you wish to dispute the idea that there's a double standard in how white-on-nonwhite vs nonwhite-on-white incidents are covered by the media, I'll be more than happy to engage that topic. Have at it, if you wish." ::And why is that exactly? Is it a case of dog bites man versus man bites dog as the test of news worthiness? Or is it something to do with proportions of population and the recent history of black folk in America?:: Hmmmm.... are you going to attempt to answer my questions or are you going to dodge a little longer? In the meantime, here is an interesting little story: http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/crime/article/139672 Notice the detailed description of the perpetrators. But, I digress...

"Dead on right.....Canada has no real identity like the Americans we are just a mish mash of this and that and any culture we may have had has been hijacked by other cultures!" So Wulf42 let me ask you, are you familiar with Louis Lafontaine and Robert Baldwin? Do you know where the Battle of Lundy's Lane was fought? Have you ever read Marshall McLuhan, Margaret Atwood or John Ralston-Saul? When was the last time you looked at an AJ Casson? Have you ever been to a powwow, a maple syrup run or to the Parliament in Ottawa? Have you ever had a good swig of screech, froze at a football or hockey game or watched the National on the CBC? And on and on I could go... My point is this: if you surrender to your own jaded opinion so easily then you deserve to be hijacked. We are a complex people, but we are not incomprehensible. We have our own myths, our own form of patriotism, our own shames and triumphs. It's all right there, but if you choose to ignore it, you have no one to blame but yourself. However, I suspect you are young and will, one day, come to understand and appreciate our Canadian identity. Maybe even embrace it. Take the time to have a good honest look, you won't be disappointed to be a Canadian.

"and will probably just deflect, insult or play the discounting game..." Or maybe he will recall the white truck driver - Reg Denny - that was dragged out of his truck and beaten by a group of black men. All of it was filmed. All of it was a news story of "monstrous proportions." "a discrepancy with these rates?" So lets do some math... Black on White violent crime: 1,916,380 White on Black Crime: 362,784 That roughly works out to be a 5 to 1 ratio. Population: 74% White - 14% Black That roughly works out to be a 5 to 1 ratio. Hmmmm... now isn't that interesting...

"90% of violent interracial crime in the US is black vs white" Which can also be stated as 90% of interracial crime in the US is white vs black. Which accounts for some 12% of homicides overall; that is nothing compared to the 44.6% white on white or 42.2% black on black homicide (2005) as listed in your link. Almost 87% of homicides were intra-racial. What is your point again? So you didn't answer my question, nor attempt to build any sort of rational base for citing a "double standard," nor did you expand on the LA Riots in a coherent way. You lose 3 points. Here is an interesting story from the Ottawa Sun: http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/11/09/11687281.html

"double standard" + "be a news story of monster proportions" And why is that exactly? Is it a case of dog bites man versus man bites dog as the test of news worthiness? Or is it something to do with proportions of population and the recent history of black folk in America? If I recall correctly, the LA Riots of 1992 was a story of "monster proportions." Do you remember those riots and the monster proportional news that preceeded them? You say there is a double standard, but don't bother with the reasons - if such a standard actually exists - why that is. Surely you are not accepting things at face value?

"or more importantly providing a substitute for the moral and ethical lessons of the Bible is far more difficult. I defy anyone here to do that." Based on this statement, I am going to choose the "otherwise an idiot" designation. Sorry. Every single religion and culture on this planet throughout all time and history has provided 'moral and ethical lessons' to their populace. There is no need to "substitute for" but colonialism, emperialism and nationalism imposed Biblical based views on indigenous populations at great peril and loss in the past two centuries. If you can't see this, then you are as blind as any radical Islamist. Secondly, the Old Testament hasn't been added to in quite sometime and is therefore a record of a time in antiquity. To associate a record from a limited period of the great past with current events while conveniently ignoring the thousands of intervening years is dishonest, disingenuous and deceiving. If you want to really get into recorded oral history according to the Bible, why not bring up the New Testament and see who the villians are in those stories? No? I didn't think so...

"You should choose your words more carefully." Why should I choose my words more carefully? https://www.adbusters.org/files/media/flash/hope_and_memory/timeline.swf There is a big difference between the radical, violent, fundamentalist version of communism and the more social oriented communist preachings, especially in Western countries. But all communists were/are painted with the same brush at one time. The point being - as charter.rights pointed out, that Islam could be the face of the new enemy. Not only as a focus for all those billions and billions of military-industrial spending, but heck, it sells alot of movie tickets and newspapers too! Keeps millions employed and paying taxes, etc. Perhaps the unsaid reason we are still in Afghanistan is to have a military foothold in a volatile region in which we can launch surgical strikes against fundamentalist Islamic regimes that harbour unfriendlies, terrorists, threaten oil supplies and whose stated goal is to dominate the world and threaten freedom and democracy. Doesn't that sounds somewhat familiar? Or has someone already said this on these boards? Just asking...

"i can give you dozens of reasons to stay, but thier mine, and you won't like them..." It doesn't matter if I will like them or not, it matters if they can stand as valid or rational. Remember, I am your typical Canuck on the issue so give me your reasons, I'll at least give you a listen...

"held firm for at least one more generation to teach the punks a lesson" Geez, isn't that the same attitude that gave rise to Nazi Germany in the first place? You know, the Treaty of Versailles and the enormous reparation payments and everything. Or is that a lesson of history worth ignoring?

"Before the existence of government run social safety nets people had to look after themselves and the community was very important to each individuals welfare. They all helped each other." So then if we had this form of Community Utopia, why did the government step in and provide that safety net? Any idea how we ended up with a government run social safety net?