Bob

My heart tells me that he should receive a very severe sentence, like the death penalty. Since we don't practise that in Canada, though, the amateur lawyer in me says that his sentence should be somewhat inspired by whatever similar cases we've had in the past. Since similar cases perhaps don't exist, precedents from cases as close as possible should be used as guides in the sentencing. Hopefully this guy gets puts away for a long time.

Sorry, you're just wrong. Of course development of the arts served a strong propaganda purpose in the Soviet Union, but that doesn't change the fact that many art forms thrived within the Soviet Union (sometimes connected to government support, and sometimes in spite of it). Of course there was always a strong hand from the oppressive regime to manage the messages that came from these outlets, but great arts were still developed. I know Michael Hardner didn't send out this red herring in a dishonest way, but the suggestion that the Soviet Union was utilitarian (it wasn't) and devoid of any cultural colour, and that my suggestions are distantly connected to this ultra-pragmatic approach (they aren't), is simply incorrect. Aside from the debate over perceived bias at the CBC, what about the debate over whether or not we need to subsidize media in this country? That's the discussion I'm engaging in this thread.

Forget about references, we know that the Soviet Union, despite all of its ills, did contribute to the development of world-class athletics, ballet, opera, classical music, and to a lesser extent film and pop music. I'm sure I'm missing many categories but this is what quickly comes to mind. What what's the difference between diversion of funds and prioritization of funds? I assume the two terms are pretty much synonymous in this context. Put another way, we need to prioritize needs in order to determine where to divert funds.

I guess I agree with the first part of your statement, but I wouldn't characterize their perceptions as losing "their way of life". Rather, they believe that violence is a correct response to grievances they perceive. I also know terrorism has come in flavours others then simply Islamic extremism. Still, I don't think the term 'terrorism' should be diluted to include every single act of violence or disobedience with just a shred of political ramifications. As far as I can tell, its mainstream usage applies to acts of violence carried out in whole or in part by somewhat organized groups, or is associated ideologically with these somewhat organized groups. I know, I should probably be more specific, but I'm not some literary or semantics expert.

Don't you see how this statement comes across as bigoted? You're grouping the entire Muslim world and the terrorists together with that statement. Unless you meant to suggest that this is how the establishment of a mosque in that exact spot and time would be interpreted by other prejudiced people. If you wanted to, you could interpret the establishment of a mosque as a statement against Islamic fundamentalism in several ways. I don't feel like elaborating right now, as I feel too tired to think creatively, but I'm sure if you use your imagination you can conceive of arguments supporting the future establishment of this mosque as a statement against Islamic terrorism.

I think it's pretty clear that this Rosemary Cain is prejudiced against Muslims. When she says "them", it's clear to me that she's grouping the terrorists and all Muslim into the same category of people. In other words, it's not just terrorists who executed the 9/11 attacks, but the entire Muslim world. So, we don't need to take this lady too seriously. I agree. If whatever Muslim association has the money and the desire to build a mosque, let them do it. America's a free country. I'm sure there are more than enough Muslims in NYC who with become patrons of this new mosque if it comes into being.

We're on the same page here. We've both ignored the most important distinction between these two groups, perhaps because it's so obvious. Even though it's very obvious, I'll mention it - we cannot compare the volume and viciousness of the atrocities committed by Islamic terrorism over the past several decades to that of right-wing/conservative/Christian extremists. Yes, there have been abortion clinic bombings and Oklahoma City and some other weird things like the Heaven's Gate and Waco massacres, but they pale in comparison to the endless list of attacks from Islamic fundamentalist groups. To Michael Hardner - it's just silly to compare these two groups and draw any serious parallels. I sure hope American and Canadian intelligence agencies have more human resources dedicated to combating Islamic terrorism than the other types of terrorism.

I'm not sure there are many similarities between domestic groups that "arm themselves against the government" and Islamic terrorist groups. The former seems to be a collection of groups that is big on gun culture and self-sufficiency with respect to defense, and the latter is a collection of groups that perceives Islam as being under attack by America and its allies and has, for decades, carried out various forms of terrorism killing many thousands of people around the world. Perhaps you can elaborate more on what the similarities are between these two groups?

What conclusion did I jump to? I never said anything even remotely suggesting that there aren't good, decent, and pious Muslims out there. You are displaying a big part of the problem regarding political dialogue about issues that are strongly associated with particular cultural/ethnic/religious groups. If make a post about an Islamic fundamentalist (i.e. the recent Times Square bomb plot), suddenly I'm describing all Muslims with a negative brush? Come on, get serious.

It's inaccurate to describe the Soviet Union as utilitarian. They spent enough resources on development of the arts (and control of the media). Not even an inch of what I'm suggesting (prioritizing funding, at least in part, away from services of questionable necessity towards services of greater necessity) can be likened to any component of the Soviet Union. That does put things in perspective, I guess. Still, I'm certain there are many millions of dollars to be saved, or at least rerouted, in our government.

Just a quick observation - why are these bandits and rioters being given the label of "protesters"? They're going around killing people, destroying property, and looting. I've seen video images of them violently attacking law enforcement, and the law enforcement doesn't seem to be doing much to stop them. Severe circumstances call for severe reactions, does the Greek government seem afraid to take on these animals?

Fair enough, but I'm sure we can agree that there is a degree of overlap between the two concepts. I agree 100%. There's also people on the extreme fringes who misrepresent criticism that the rational among us have about phenomenons that have become strongly associated with particular minority groups are "racist" or "prejudice". There is a perfect example of this problem in this very thread - read JB Globe's response to my post. He misrepresents my statement that to the rational among us, the Major Nidal Hassan story early on was obviously an example of "home-grown" Islamic fundamentalism is an example of me describing all Muslims as terrorists. Many of the early facts, combined with but not entirely based on Major Nidal Hassan's ethnicity and background, painted a pretty clear picture of a religious extremist. Upon reviewing August1991's reply to my post, I'm afraid that my comments are again being misrepresented as a generalization of all Muslims. It's very frustrating that this happens when I've said nothing even remotely resembling a generalization of this massive group of people. I made a very common-sense statement, and I'm responded to with posts suggesting that I am prejudiced and stereotyping. My mistake, allow me to clarify - I meant to say a SIGNIFICANT and VOCAL group of Americans and American organization are anti-border security pro-open borders. If the government has no qualms about tightening border security, why has so little progress been achieved? It's not a complex issue like managing the economy where outcomes are difficult to anticipate. It's the exact opposite - patrol heavily, punish severely, and build effective barriers. Perhaps not cheap, but definitely not too complicated. I think it's the result of a little from column A, and a little from column B.

I think, if anything, the USA is a very bleeding-heart country. Look at how carefully many politicians, government employees, and the media walked on eggshells with the whole Major Nidal Hassan mass murderer. When the rational among us were strongly inclined to believe that this was an example of domestic Islamic terrorism as the story was breaking, I remember seeing people all over the news exercise absurd degrees of political correctness. I even remember Obama fumbling with this story by cracking some jokes as some Native American conference the day it occurred even AFTER he had heard of the events, before he went on to address the massacre. I remember media-types speculating that Hassan was suffering from PTSD, although he hadn't ever been deployed.... then there was speculation that he was suffering from indirect PTSD that he developed through his treatments of soldiers who availed themselves of his psychiatric treatment. It was an absurd display of widespread American fear or hesitation towards saying things that might be viewed as prejudiced towards Muslims by certain groups (i.e. ACLU, CAIR). The exact same bleeding-heart American mentality is evident with the whole issue of illegal immigration, where advocating tighter border security and enforcement is often labelled as "racist". Within a few days, it was revealed that this sense of political correctness could be viewed as a contributing factor in allowing this man to get to where he was (there were many warning signs of his extremist political/religious view that he displayed throughout his military education and career which were ignored). That's just one example of what I see as a widespread sense of extreme political correctness within the USA. I think the same degree of political correctness exists up here, also. So to the Americans in here - we Canadians also suffer from the mental disorder known as "political correctness"!

I understand, what I'm questioning is the wisdom of the degree to which we currently fund both. I don't know, but why is this important? Perhaps. But let me think small, for a moment. I remember reading a few years back that an MRI machine costs about $1 million. I can't recall the cost of operating it 24/7, but let's assume that's it's about a $1 million annual cost to maintain its operations. Considering the billions we spend on more trivial objectives such as heritage/culture, media/arts, Aboriginal affairs, we can have a tangible improvement in healthcare with some serious analysis of how we're spending our money. There are many examples of massive waste we can identify at all levels of government, whether it's the gun registry, Ontario's e-health fraud, or Ottawa's loss with its Simpsons-esque monorail story (the Siemens blunder). The negative impact of the quality of life of many Canadians, in the narrow sphere of healthcare alone, can be measured by various criteria from these scandals. For example, how many hip surgeries could have been performed with these dollars, and how much could we have reduced the average wait-time for such a procedure with the money lost. We can then of course use a similar analysis to compare the utility of spending money on Trailer Park Boys and the utility of spending money on more medical specialists. I'm not convinced that the money spent on arts/media is so negligible. But hey, I'm just assuming here without having done the necessary homework.

I understand, but let me reiterate that I'm not advocating total defunding of media and arts. Still, it's hard for me to swallow someone waiting a long time for a medical procedure (a diagnosis which my identify a time-sensitive health problem, for example) when that wait-time could be reduced by taking money from more trivial objectives.

It isn't a a false dilemma, because the funding of both objectives comes from the same finite source of funds. Just as you make choices with your money regarding what to spend it on (and what NOT to spend it on), so do all levels of government. I also think it's interesting that you're equating public funds being spent on media and the arts to "heritage". Perhaps that's true in some ways (maybe a CBC documentary on Canadian history), but it's also untrue in many more ways (subsidies spent on CBC news). There's no other way to examine this. I also never said that public financial support had to be absolute towards one objective or the other. What I suggested, which I don't think is controversial, is that some public services are more important than others. That doesn't mean we need to drop all public financial support towards broad public interests in favour of other broad public interests, rather we should trim and transfer where necessary. Perhaps we can spend LESS on media and arts and MORE on healthcare. Perhaps, I myself am unsure. I'm also unsure what the profile of this country is. Since this country is so heavily composed of immigrants, it seems to me that it's understandable why so many Canadians have some sense of detachment from Canadian history. For example, "it wasn't MY ancestors that fought on Vimy Ridge". I think it's natural for people to have a stronger sense of connection with history that their family was directly affected by, and given Canada's high level of immigrants (and of course the children of immigrants and so on...) it just seems to fit that Canadian identity is more broadly based on shared values and less on a shared sense of history. I'm also unsure that public subsidization of media and arts substantially reinforces the Canadian profile (whatever that may be). I think I'm somewhat going off on a tangent, so I'll stop there.

I'm aware of this, but let's not forget that the source of all these funds remains the same - the Canadian taxpayer. I don't know if you watch Curb Your Enthusiasm, but there's an episode where Larry lends $10 000 to his friend on the understanding that his friend had an urgent need for the money. Larry later finds out that this friend is organizing a celebration with a guest comedian (Richard Lewis, who is Larry's close friend) being paid $10 000 for appearing and performing. When Larry confronts this friend about the lavish party and expensive guest comedian, his friend tells him, "Oh, I didn't use THAT ten thousand dollars you lend me for the party, I used THAT ten thousand dollars for something else." Even worse, Larry is uninvited from the party by this friend because of Larry's separation from his wife, because this friend of Larry's wants to avoid the likely awkwardness at the party from having Larry and his wife under the same roof. :-) My point is that we shouldn't be afraid to rank the importance of various social services regardless of what level of government provisions these services. So, although the CBC can be viewed as a federally-run service, and health care and largely being provincially-run, it's all the same money. How can we as Canadians justify spending on less-important needs such as subsidizing Trailer Park Boys when there aren't enough MRIs across the country to give us reasonable wait times? The "different level of government" comment doesn't make those of us who recognize this problem feel any better about it.

I still think any country's residents have a legitimate basis for wanting immigrants to their country to be able to communicate in the country's primary language(s). I don't know what the immigration process is like in the USA, but assuming that immigration is handled at the federal level, I'll further assume that there are some basic language standards in English that most immigrants must fulfill in order to be accepts (perhaps there are exceptions to refugees or those who are sponsored). I know in Canada, at the provincial and municipal levels, there is some flexibility and adaptation to the language environment. I know you can take the written portion of the driving exam in Ontario in quite a few languages, as an example. I'm also sure there are many municipal and provincial services available in Cantonese and Mandarin in Vancouver. As far as commerce goes, there is certainly a culture of flexibility here. I've seen large Canadian business (banks, for example) offering services in several languages. It's inaccurate to suggest that Canada is too archaic in our business with respect to language. Given our French/English-bilingualism fiascoes, though, it's understandable to think that we're a bit messed up up here.

Maybe humour doesn't always carry over well in discussion forums, but assuming you're NOT joking - do you seriously think that America's absence of an official language makes concerns of Americans regarding the ability of immigrants (legal and otherwise) to communicate in English unimportant? In other words, does the legitimacy of the desires of Americans to have immigrants to their country be able to communicate in English depend on the existence of official language laws? Where does common sense fit into this equation?

I'm not sure where you're getting that information from. Can you be more specific about how you're measuring respect? Are you talking about airtime in the media or something along those lines? Those who sell lots of books? There are so many critics out there of so many policies from countries of the Western world all over the media from all slices of life. Are you contesting the claims from some Muslim critics of components of their culture/religion that the mainstream is of their communities is falling short in several ways with respect to reigning in fundamentalism and radicalism, as well as undesirable values regarding intolerance of difference(s) as well as improper gender roles? You seem to be suggesting that there is widespread criticism of certain trends within the Islamic culture among those belonging to the culture/religion, but that they are ignored due to some sort of systemic censorship within our media? I disagree. First of all, Irshad Manji isn't some sort of media-whore. She definitely isn't regularly on the mass media circuit. There are others like her, though, that do the not-so-popular circuit of giving lectures and participating in debates. What establishment are you talking about? Please be more specific. I've read very little about him, so I can't comment much on it. Still, in contemporary times, there are plenty of well-known critics of the West who get plenty of airtime from all streams of society. You seem to be suggesting that these critics are somehow shut out by "the establishment". Who's ignoring him? You've lost me. Mentioning some Afghani MP? What has she got to do with anything we're talking about here? I'm not sure what Manji's "alliance" with the AEI (please be more specific) has anything to do with her credibility. If you've got a beef with her arguments or opinions, then address them specifically. I suspect that you don't know much about where Manji does stand, perhaps that's why you're attacking her "alliance" with the AEI rather than specifically addressing her opinions? Who's "we"? I think I'm beginning to regret replying to you...

Alright, I understand. Do you think Canadian media and arts need government in order to succeed or become popular? If a media or arts product requires government support in order to be financially viable, doesn't that suggest that Canadians aren't interested? Can't we Canadians be left to decide for ourselves what media and arts we want to consume, without taxing us to support those products that most of us are uninterested in? I'm not convinced that just because a media or arts product is "produced in Canada and has something to do with Canada" makes it worthy of our tax dollars. Especially when considering that far more important needs are not as fulfilled as many of us think they should be, i.e. our health care system.

Sarah Palin's "death panel" comments are a perfect example of the bullshit rhetoric that we all-too-often see from the media and policians (I guess Sarah Palin qualifies as a quasi-politician, now...).

The media seems to perpetuate this gap in understanding, by propping up a proponent against an opponent for a 5-minute talking point segment. I've noticed that the opponents often make misleading statements suggesting that Latinos/Hispanics are going to start experiencing widespread harassment by the police (an understandable concern, although manageable through precedents) and an unsympathetic proponent who simply rails against illegal immigration without addressing the concerns of the opponents. Why not simply invite a few rational folk, perhaps legal experts, to address the merits and possible shortcomings of the law (I did see Avery Friedman and Richard Herman discuss this law briefly on CNN this morning with Fredricka Whitfield). Here's an interesting side note, when I watched Jan Brewer in an interview, she said at least twice that illegal immigration brings in terrorism. How can you sell the merits of this new law without expressing any understanding towards the reservations of Latinos/Hispanics and then even using hyperbolic statements such as suggesting that terrorists named Miguel and Pedro are coming in through Mexico?! We all know illegal immigration is a big problem, draining the economy in several ways. Why didn't Jan Brewer focus on the facts regarding the problems of illegal immigration rather than trying to scare people by talking about terrorism (which I saw as a semi-reference to 9/11, which qualifies as most Americans' initial thoughts of terrorism)? I think I'm rambling, so I'll stop there.

I don't think we're going to agree on this. I don't see a strong argument being made in favour of financial support towards the CBC (or media and arts, in general) grounded in territorial sovereignty in the far North. These issues are just too removed from one another. Do you mean any industry or specifically the media and/or arts industries? I don't think our proximity to the USA is necessarily a disadvantage to Canada with respect to producing media and/or arts products. Of course it can be in several ways, but at the same time it can be an outlet for Canadians to gain broad recognition. I'm sure both of us can list off several famous Canadians who made it big via Hollywood and other American media and arts hubs - from Jim Carrey to Ali Velshi to Shania Twain. I never said defining Canadian culture had to be specific or a "defined mould", if anything I thought I was clear in acknowledging the subjective and often ambiguous nature of such a concept. I'm ok with that. I was wondering if you could elaborate on what you meant by "...there isn't much Canadian about Sirius" - what qualifies something on the radio (or other media and/or arts outlets) as being Canadian? You said that the quantity of Canadian content is relevant when disagreeing with M.Dancer, and I'd like you to explain this further if you can. What makes radio content (as an example) Canadian?

I'm surprised this topic hasn't yet been discussed in this forum. For those of us who are watching American news, this story is getting a lot of attention these days. Here's a link to the bill. From the bill - FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. I think the language "lawful contact" has since been been amended to something else. I can't remember or find the new language, but I think now the language is more specific regarding the circumstances under which someone in Arizona can be asked to provide proof of legal presence in the USA. I think it now specifies that during a lawful stop or detention that state and local law enforcement can request proof of legal presence in the USA from whomever is being stopped or detained. Regarding the controversy in the news, I entirely understand why certain groups of people like Latinos/Hispanics might be wary of this new law, as many might suspect that it will lead to unpleasant encounters with law enforcement. I think Jan Brewer (I saw an interview with her on CNN the other day) and other proponents of this bill have done little to nothing to acknowledge and understand reservations that many people (primarily Latinos/Hispanics), and assuage their concerns by reminding them that racial profiling is still illegal at the federal level and that law enforcement will not be going around harassing certain visible minorities. I think the government and proponents of this bill have failed miserably in addressing the reservations with compassion and empathy, and instead went into full-blown defensive mode, which probably perpetuated the political gap between what they're trying to sell (the utility of SB 1070) and those they're trying to sell it to (Arizonans who are opposed to it for both valid and invalid reasons). On the other hand, the opponents of this bill (the demonstrations/protests) seem to do little to nothing to acknowledge that there is a serious problem of illegal immigration in Arizona and other Mexico/USA border states. The Federal Government has done very little to address this problem. So, states like Arizona need to take matter into their own hands, for example with the passing of SB 1070 in Arizona. The loudest of the opponents of this bill unfairly describe it as racist/Nazi-esque (do I even need to explain why these comparisons are absurd?), and seem to be the type of people that want a stateless and borderless world without any laws whatsoever. Hopefully I'm not alone in thinking that this bill is a good idea, but the communications department of the Arizona Governor needs some serious help in selling its goods.