kimmy

Arrests made. update: the mainstream media might not know much about this, but someone at at Babble posted this: "Most people involved in social justice issues in the Ottawa-Gatineau area will likely know one, if not all, of these activists from their years of involvement in labour struggles, First Nations solidarity, anti-poverty organizing, international solidarity movements, and more." See, Toadbrother? Not anarchists. Leftists. -k

Judge Thomas Braidwood released his report today. And just hours later, BC's attorney general named a special prosecutor to re-examine the possibility of laying charges against the four officers who killed Dziekanski. There will also be a civilian body to investigate police misconduct allegations in BC. Highlights of the report: -Braidwood rejects the officers' claims that they believed they were under attack. -Braidwood believes the officers made deliberate representations to justify their actions. -Braidwood doubts their claims that they didn't discuss the incident before talking to investigators, but stopped short of alleging they conspired to fabricate their story. Personally, I am very thankful for the work Judge Braidwood has done. I am glad the RCMP were not allowed to sweep this under the rug. -k

Everybody has always known that BP was going to pay. Paying dividends with the bill for this catastrophe about to hit the balance sheets would be utterly ridiculous. It would also be among the stupidest public relations moves in history. They can cooperate, or they can end up in legal Ragnarok. If they're not a company in a year, it won't be because of anything Obama said. It'll be because clever accountants and lawyers have figured out a way to collapse the company in a way that evades legal responsibility while still keeping the assets in the hands of the shareholders. Again, the possibility of BP using bankruptcy laws to evade paying the bill for this disaster is something that people were talking about practically since day 1. -k

Pensioners invested their money in stocks of a publicly traded company? And the shares took a hit? WAAAAAAHHH! Does anybody seriously think the share price has fallen because Obama said mean things about BP? The share price has fallen-- and everybody knows this and has been saying since long before Obama started talking tough-- because everybody has recognized for a long time that the aftermath of this disaster was going to be a devastating, and possibly fatal, financial blow to BP. -k

I'm repelled by you all the time, Oleg! -k

So ... 2 stars? -k

He-- and his ideas-- sound like something out of a cartoon. "Zach Wamp" sounds like he should be conspiring with Boss Hogg to steal the Duke boys' moonshine. -k

Biden is a clueless mook. Barack probably has to ask his advisors every week why some greasy-looking old white dude is hanging around his office. "That's the vice president, sir." "Y'all kidding me, right?" -k

"Zach Wamp", huh? -k

That's a really good point. Lictor, for example, posts almost exclusively about one topic, and it's clearly a topic that's very interesting to him, but I doubt that anybody sees that as a redeeming trait. There are a few posters on this forum who are so predictably one-note that I no longer bother reading their opinions. There are quite a few threads on the forum that I just don't bother opening, because I know full-well that they're going to suck. My mind might change later on if I see people I consider bright are posting in that thread, or if it generates a lot of posts in a hurry. We've got a guy who only comes here to start threads about Liberal Party of Canada press releases. We've got people who make native activism threads all over the forum. There's others. I don't read their threads. I'm interested in discussions, not talking points, and happily there are still lots of people here who can participate in an interesting debate. The Harper government's support for Israel and the results of this poll aren't in any conflict. It's likely that a goodly chunk of the 56% of Canadians who "view Israel negatively" are people who'd never ever vote for Harper regardless of his position on Israel. It's also likely that among those 56% of Canadians who "view Israel negatively" is a fair number who might have negative feelings about what Israel is doing w.r.t. settlements and walls and so on, but are still adamantly in favor of Israel's right to exist, to defend itself, and to take extraordinary security measures in the face of the threats against it. Of that 56%, it's doubtful how many have very strong opinions on the issue, and how negatively they view Israel is not clarified at all. It is also quite possible that among those 56% of Canadians who "view Israel negatively", a fair number of them would "view Hamas et al even more negatively" if they were asked. I doubt the Harper government's support for Israel will convince the rabid pinko screaming lefties of Canada to give Israel another look. -k

All your definitions specify "legislators". This decision is made by the CRTC, not by legislators. This high-profile guy is engaged in this high-profile venture that the Liberals and NDP and rival media outlets are all aware of, and somehow the only two people in the country who recognize this startling breach of the rules are "Topaz" and "Ms. Dogfood"? Come on. If there was anything to this, people way more informed than yourselves (no offense) would be all over it. -k

Seriously. I didn't know where to put this, but I thought one of travel, leisure, or sports would probably be closest. The puppy is safe, happily. -k

I think she knows very well what happened in 1948 and in 1967. -k

Are the vuvazelas really any worse than those stupid "thundersticks" that dumb-ass football fans used to pack around? Surely they're no more annoying than Euro soccer fans whistling continuously during matches. And they can't possibly be more annoying than Vancouver Canucks fans... dressing up in green leotards, shining laser-pointers in the opposing goalie's face, making Ric Flair "whooo!" noises at random... -k

The use of Katrina footage is an appeal to emotion, not logic. Hear hear! Bring on the truth! Let us give fair hearing to all ideas, no matter how challenging or upsetting they might be! Unless... ...unless they're upsetting to you. Earlier you asked" "as long as the information in the documentary on any of those subjects are accurate, what the hell is the problem?" ...but now your view is "but there might be negative effects if people had that information, whether it's accurate or not." Clearly you're in favor of people having access to information that supports views you approve of, and opposed to people having access to information that supports views you disagree with. Radical Imams exist too, but you don't want that documentary on TV because people might form stereotypes. That's what I keep saying. -k

As I said, I don't think applying for a broadcasting license counts as lobbying. But if you think otherwise, contact the RCMP and your MP and write to the CBC and tell them what you've discovered. Let us know what happens. -k

Indeed. "They" are trying to "gayify" the young people through "indoctrination". When I was in school, it was just Ms Sonnenberg, the basketball coach who was always a little too eager to help me with my free-throws. But soon, it's gonna be mandatory for everybody. Starting in kindergarten. It's true. -k

She'll be fine. I'm sure she'll be back banning records in no time. -k

So what's the difference between "differences of opinion" and "disunity" and when does one become the other? -k

No, although we're working on demolishing a house... So a reasonable guy might be flipping channels and suddenly sees a Bill O'Reilly or Keith Olbermann editorial, and suddenly-- PAFF!! --he's polarized? Suddenly he's not reasonable anymore, suddenly he has an unexplainable compulsion to go around shouting "YOU, SIR! YOU, SIR!" or attend Tea Party rallies, and loses any interest in looking at things rationally? I have a different theory. Perhaps if that happens, the guy wasn't actually very reasonable or rational to start with. Maybe the only reason he wasn't already "polarized" is because he was too apathetic or uninformed to have a strong view about anything. It seems to me that the only way to prevent people like that from becoming "polarized" is to make sure they never learn anything at all. -k

I'm still hoping that those who are worried that this could cause "polarization" can tell me what they're actually afraid is going to happen. What does "polarization" actually mean? Is "polarization" what happens when people form opinions about a topic? -k

I think it's generally understood that we're talking about a range of views that Canada's left are comfortable with, not Havana's leftists. -k

did I err? What you wrote is... But there's already massive polarization in Canada, and it must have been caused by something other than broadcasters providing biased politics-based entertainment, because as you keep pointing out we don't have that here. Preventing a new news channel on the grounds that it could be "polarizing" would be closing the gate after the horses have left. I'm also unclear as to what this "polarization" actually means. Does it mean people have strong and differing opinions? If so, isn't that actually kind of a good thing? Does polarizaton mean that instead of saying "yeah, ok, whatever," they make placards and attend marches and rallies? Is "polarization" just the opposite of apathy? Perhaps this "polarization" people are so worried about is actually just the result of people with differing political views frustrated that the conventional political system doesn't provide adequate means for them to express themselves. -k

You don't really think that a right-wing news outlet *creates* polarization, do you? Canadians are *already* polarized. Read the comments section of a CBC or National Post website. Or visit blogs and forums. That polarization is already there. For the record, I think the problem with the CBC (all branches) is primarily of omission. (they'll give you Michael Moore and Avi Lewis and Anna Maria Tremonti, but no corresponding opposing views). Sure, they're swell. All I'm asking is why can I watch Michael Moore but not Undercover Mosque? -k

I just find it odd that people who are so up in arms against a possible right-leaning broadcaster seem perfectly accepting of CBC NW. It makes me think that it's not bias they hate... it's biases they don't agree with. What about 'em? They rebranded? And I missed it?? -k