Evening Star

Yeah, sorry, I just don't agree that Canadian society is especially lawless or crime-ridden, certainly not to the point that vigilantism is justifiable at all.

Quite agree with August and Smallc on the basis of the info in this one article. The shopkeeper has been arrested, not convicted, right? I can see cause for that.

Using Google, I can't even find a link that shows Clinton's endorsement of anyone in a Canadian election, btw.

If that was the 2008 election, I'm guessing it might have been because there was not so much demand at the time for Bush's opinion anywhere, including Canada. Do you think an endorsement from Bush would have helped the CPC?? (Actually, if the CBC really did have a Liberal bias, they might have requested that Bush appear and endorse Harper!) And I certainly don't think Clinton's policies or stances were terribly left-wing, or even especially Liberal, by Canadian standards. Did Moore have a film out at the time? That might explain why there was an interest in his view. When P. J. O'Rourke had a book out in 2007, he was a guest on The Hour and was treated very respectfully by George Strombolopoulos. The CBC did have e.g. Claire Hoy co-hosting a Newsworld programme for years.

Does a loan from a Crown Corporation count as ('socialist'?) interference? I don't know what I think of this particular loan but I'm curious about your statement.

Actually, I'm not sure I follow that last bit, Michael. Surely one issue is that less-skilled manufacturing jobs are migrating (and perhaps should migrate) from Canada. It does seem reasonable for us to focus on developing a more educated, skilled, knowledge-oriented population base for the workforce. Why should we not want to attract "immigrants who make a lot of money"?

Adding to bloodyminded's post, Herman and Chomsky don't simply make nebulous claims that the media has a 'right-wing' or 'conservative' bias. They specifically argue that it is slanted in favour of the interests of multinational corporations and to some extent the US political/military establishment, especially in terms of its coverage of US foreign policy. In fact, they point out that it can work just as well in favour of Democrats as well as Republicans, insofar as both parties have strong corporate ties. But, as dre noted, people point out this slant in Fox's reporting and commentary because there is not even a pretence of impartiality. The network seems to actively engage in political activity. A number of prominent Republicans are openly on the Fox payroll. When you cannot say the same about the CBC, it becomes necessary to actually demonstrate that there is a clear political bias in its coverage or its activities. It is not enough to say "It is clearly not as right-wing as Fox. Therefore, it is left-wing." (Unless this is what you meant and you were being ironic. I wasn't sure.) One could just as easily ask "Would you say the New Internationalist or Z Magazine are left-wing? Whatever you use as a comparison is probably right-wing?" I don't see at all how gutb's examples demonstrate a leftist spin. India is an emerging superpower, the second-most populous country in the world, the most populous democracy, a Commonwealth country, and the ancestral home of a large number of Canadians. Why should a documentary about India not be of interest to Canadians? And how does it reflect a leftist agenda? If anything, India's rise is freqently touted as a success story of free-market principles and corporate opportunity. I'm not sure where you're coming from with the bird flu thing at all, sorry.

They are large and graphic: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/gap.html

Yeah, I do not agree that people have a right to not be offended. That said, I'm rethinking my position slightly. It does make sense that at e.g. in the university building where I work, people can only put up posters on designated poster boards. If we were to take freedom of expression to an absolute extreme, I could conceivably see it resulting in Coke and Pepsi ads covering university walls and crowding out all other messages. I would probably favour regulating that a little bit. NB Punked: The research and training that goes on at universities is, in part, what leads to innovations and improvements in things like health care and provision of social services.

As a social democrat, do you not agree that public institutions, e.g. public broadcasters, can and should operate outside political interference yet remain public? And that universities should be more heavily publicly funded and made more accessible?

I think universities should be public property and the group should not be censored. I also think they're nutters though. Michael Coren and Claire Hoy (both pro-life) schooled Stephanie Gray on the meaning of "genocide" in the second clip here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xV5hiWcMy20 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UB5e8LBtUY&NR=1

I don't even get what the 'Liberal (or liberal?) bias' of the CBC is supposed to be. Their coverage of e.g. the sponsorship scandal was extremely thorough and in-depth. The CBC was my main source of information on that issue, in fact, which turned me hard against the Martin Liberals in that election. Their coverage of the civil rights violations and miscommunications in the handling of G20 protests, which did much to sour me on McGuinty's Liberals, was also extremely thorough and damning. I just did searches on "Ignatieff" and "Harper" on the CBC website and I certainly don't see much to suggest that the coverage of Ignatieff is more favourable. As for me being liberal/left but not Liberal, that's probably true but it just makes the allegation against the CBC even vaguer. I don't feel that much ideological kinship with the people who sent us into combat in Afghanistan, slashed federal funding for health and education, did little to oppose the occupation of East Timor, and completed the privatization of Petro-Canada. If the CBC is in fact their mouthpiece, then it's not really working as the mouthpiece for the views I stand for. What does it actually mean to say that the CBC has a liberal or left bias? If you were claiming that it had a bias against US foreign policy or against big business interests etc, that would at least be a comprehensible claim that could be evaluated. The argument that the CBC will tend to favour the party who is more likely to continue funding the CBC is no more credible in and of itself than the argument that commercial media will tend to favour the long-term interests of corporations who own and fund them (and that consequently public broadcasters provide a useful balance). While M.Dancer has raised some valid criticisms of his arguments, Chomsky has at least provided extensively argued and thoroughly support examples of cases where commercial media framed issues in ways that worked in the favour of US foreign policy interests (and ultimately corporate interests), e.g. the relative lack of coverage of the genocide in East Timor compared to the coverage of the genocide in Cambodia.

And earlier I thought you were arguing against taxpayer funding for politically slanted media outlets. Now you want two of them? Why stop there, as though political views can be so easily slotted into two categories? Surely we should at least have a taxpayer-funded social democratic network and a Quebec separatist network, and perhaps also an environmentalist network, a Marxist-Leninist network, an anarcho-syndicalist network, a libertarian network, ...

In post 255, dre said Then in post 256, you quoted dre's last sentence: which clearly referred to the actions listed in his or her previous sentence, and you replied I can only assume that you were suggesting that the CBC is guilty of those same actions. How else can that post be interpreted?

Heh, I wonder what the National Post editorial board would think of the suggestion that their paper should be nationalized and turned into a taxpayer-funded Crown corporation! (I'm guessing your definition of "centrist" differs from mine, M. Dancer.)

I asked Saipan when the CBC has done the specific things he or she suggested it had done (endorsing and funding candidates, organizing rallies, etc). Instead of answering the question and providing examples, Saipan replied by saying that 'liberals' disagree with him or her, which explains everything clear as day. He or she then added the non sequitur "Why don't we have taxpayer-funded National Post TV???" How is it equally nonsensical for Nicky to point out that the National Post has a clear editorial slant and ask for examples of a similar slant in the CBC? I'm not a Liberal, by the way.

Come on, when has the CBC done these things?:

Also, note that I am not commenting on whether British rule was an improvement over the Mughal or princely rulers who preceded the British.

I think we can safely agree that the US and Canada are generally better places to live than India and that the problems Argus lists are genuine problems. I never denied these things. However, all those problems were also there under British rule and afaik they were all worse at that time. It was post-independence India that officially outlawed the caste system and instituted affirmative action policies to attempt to combat it, not the British. (Again, I'm not saying that the problem has been eradicated. I am saying that some progress has been made since independence.) The country was in a thoroughly miserable state at the time that the British left and it has made real progress in almost every area, not least of all in the area of "feeding its people", as I have demonstrated with my cites concerning famines in India. Regardless of whether the famine situation was worse prior to the arrival of the British, the situation has been demonstrably improved since independence - which cannot be said of every former colony btw. (And while the British did develop some valuable infrastructure, it is also clear that in some cases, their policies contributed to famine.) Therefore, I think this is blatantly wrong: India has made serious concrete efforts throughout its independent history to tackle this problem, beyond what the British did afaict. These are examples of efforts from early in Indian history, even from its socialist phase (and I think you actually agreed that things have gotten even better in India's capitalist phase): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jawaharlal_Nehru#Economic_policies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution_in_India http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/lead/x6170e/x6170e2z.htm Some of these do appear problematic with the ecological knowledge we have today but they were certainly not a case of ignoring hunger or asking the rest of the world for help. They actually worked. I do not deny that there still are many people living in squalor. What I am disputing is the idea that there is something intrinsically flawed about 'Indian culture' (a problematic concept in and of itself, considering the wide range of cultures within the country) relative to British culture that has led to the country declining after independence (and that consequently we should be concerned about importing that culture). That's all. I'll also note that it is more difficult to govern and achieve progress in an impoverished and overpopulated country (that started out impoverished when independence was granted) than it is in a country like the US or Canada. I would question this, actually. I'm not sure that the American two-party system, with its level of campaign financing, is actually that much more responsive to the population than India's multiparty system. Actually, the life of a close family member suggests that this mobility certainly is possible in India. (It is possible that the odds are worse though.) At least we agree here. (This is different from what you said right at first, mind you.) Ultimately, I simply have not seen evidence to suggest that immigration from India has caused Canadian culture to become more inefficient, corrupt, bigoted, violent, or fanatical. I do think that it has had many positive qualities.

On another board, someone argued that the NB PCs are, if anything, a little left of the NB Liberals.

We can speculate about what might or might not happen. It seems reasonable to me to expect that when people have safer legal alternatives available, there will be less demand for "a drug addicted streetwalker with aids". This might provide more incentive for said streetwalker to seek shelters and detoxes. Or it might not. We'll see. However, I have to assume that there are some prostitutes out there who are neither working for escort agencies nor HIV-positive drug addicts. (I could be wrong since I don't have much experience in the field.) And presumably they would benefit (or they wouldn't have been fighting this legal case in the first place). Either way, I don't see how the existing prohibitions are helping these women. And while prostitution does objectify women, I think the point is that prohibiting or severely restricting it legally has not prevented it. Pornography objectifies women too but I don't see many people calling for it to be made illegal. Pop music videos objectify women too, for that matter.

How does that quote illustrate that this ruling will do nothing to help women? Because one prostitute doesn't want to be identified and registered? Sidenote: Prostitution surely isn't literally the world's oldest profession, right? Hunting had to come first?

None of my arguments had to do with the emotional value of independence, btw.

These were your words, Wild Bill: It seems pretty clear to me that you were stating that India has declined since independence, based on the criteria that matter to you, and that it is not a culture you can respect while British culture is a culture you can respect since they were able to get the trains running on time. The only significant accomplishment with which you credited post-independence India was the acquisition of nuclear weapons. I don't see how I was putting words in your mouth. It also seems that you were ultimately suggesting that we should be concerned about immigration from a country such as India because it could lead to the importation of that culture, which is less worthy of respect.

xpost!