fellowtraveller

Satellite radio doesn't really replace regular AM/FM. It has no local content, news, weather or local talk shows. It is not useless though, unless you dislike music in any genre.

Are you the type of person who believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible too? Nobody was arguing for an actual increase of the minimum wage to $40 or $100 per hour, just poking a little fun at the OP. I'll try to remember to insert a [sarcasm] font next time.

Have any of you actually heard satellite radio? Digital quality music, in a vast array of choices, almost all without any commercials. It can be received almost anywhere.

August 1991, perhaps we are getting closer to an answer here. And government must prioritize the very lengthy list of services that some citizens demand. At present , the federal government has allocated some considerable funds to a public broadcasting service. At present, relatively few Candians watch or listen to the network.A couple of questions first, one question really. In 2006, what do you see as the purpose of the CBC? What does it do today that serves Canadians, all Canadians? What social policy goal is met by the CBC? For ease of discussion, lets restrict it to English language service.

I'd like to see this gratuitous, sexist comment withdrawn. It's not that is does a disservice to the smart and capable Ambrose, or denigrates Ablonczy, but implies that women in general are appointed simply for the optics. Withdraw, sir!

For the last time, the quality of programming is not relevant to the discussion. If you like it so much, why then are you unwilling to pay directly for it? Why do so few Canadians tune in? Hmmmm??? No it isn't , other than the wires, studios, transmitters are like a wi-fi. The physical network of CBC radio and TV is in no way unique and hasn't been in Canada for decades. I agree that we urgently need to define the role of government at every level, and apply that to the CBC. The only way that the CBC may somehow magically be free from political interference is to also be free of government funding. Then the only political interference it will have to concern itself with will come from its own Board of Directors. The comparison to the SC is flat out silly. The CBC provides news and entertainment, easily available from hundreds of sources. It no longer serves to unite Canadians huddled in their sod huts on the Prairies, listening to Foster Hewitt through the raging blizzard outside. How can you equate a news/entertainment provider with the role of the SC? It seems we are somewhat stuck with that nemesis of productivity , the inclination to hang onto things that the world has passed by, that are no longer required. How many times have we seen that in government organization charts, or in very large corporations for that matter. We simply do not need the CBC as an 'institution' any more. It serves to drive us apart now, not bring us together. Time for a change.

Aren't knights part of a feudal system? And $9.25 for minimum wage? Wouldn't $40/hour be more fair? Business wouldn't mind paying this.

Will Alberta become another Newfoundland, when the Cod ran out. Short sighted greed, is that all we want? Nope, when the oil runs out we'll start on the methane gas deposits, then the thousand year supply of coal, then the uranium and diamonds........ Coal will run out around the same time as oil. If your machines that run on oil no longer work. Pick up that shovel and start diggin my friend. Coal will run out with the oil? No, it won't. source Machines run fine on electricity. Coal can be used to make electricity. I like electricity. This is like a conversation with Homer Simpson. Alberta is watching a pilot project in the US that features a zero-emissions coalfueled generating station. The greenhouse gases have a future being pumped back into the ground to extract low pressure, big value coalbed methane. The future looks rosy.

An excellent proposal and way overdue. For the first time, Canadians will have some real sense, in advance, of the people forming the highest Court.

Will Alberta become another Newfoundland, when the Cod ran out. Short sighted greed, is that all we want? Nope, when the oil runs out we'll start on the methane gas deposits, then the thousand year supply of coal, then the uranium and diamonds........

Here is another vote for Winnipeg. I used to go there often on business, and found it a pleasant and friendly place. My only criticisms are the voracious mosquitos and the occasional extreme weather. On the other end of the spectrum, there is Regina........ blahhh.

Alberta regained control of its resources (a right already enjoyed by the rest of Olde Canada) in the 1930s, through the vigourous lobbying of AB Premier Brownlee, an unsung hero in Alberta. a Western hero. His nickname was not 'The Duke".

Sorry Drea. The law is the law. Oh-oh, not so fast!!! Here is an excerpt from the Alberta Act of 1905 which specifically retains control of all resources -including oil- with the Federal Government! "21. All Crown lands, mines and minerals and royalties incident thereto, and the interest of the Crown in the waters within the province under The North-west Irrigation Act, 1898, shall continue to be vested in the Crown and administered by the Government of Canada for the purposes of Canada, subject to the provisions of any Act of the Parliament of Canada with respect to road allowances and roads or trails in force immediately before the coming into force of this Act, which shall apply to the said province with the substitution therein of the said province for the North-west Territories. " source But that isn't the end of the story......plucky Alberta gets back all the oil later! Of course, this is a right that Olde Canada enjoyed from Day One.....

This applies to very, very very few people. This argument may have been slightly valid as recently as the 80s, but not any more. People without cable in both urban and rural areas have the same TV and radio reception as always on the airwaves, and would typically receive 3-4 network channels, inclduing English CBC and probably French CBC. For the North, virtually all communities now have individual acess to satellite, or frequently communities have a system that rebroadcasts to the whole community with the same channels enjoyed everyhwere - scores of channels. Nobody is watching or listening to CBC there either, even though CBC radio/TV used to be the only show in town. Just like their southern cousins, Northerners left the MotherCorp in droves when given the opportunity. Some Northern communities also have community radio broadcasting in the local language.

That seems pretty obvious. He'll offer all the provinces, not just Quebec, increased autonomy. Or rather, he will provide them with his interpretation of the roles and responsibilities described in the Constitution. There will be no problem selling that to the West. Quebec and Alberta want the same thing. A free hand in their economies and cultures. A caucus that became publicly restive over the Emerson appointment is also a group likely to react negatively to a preoccupation with the Quebec file. Elements of this group once ran campaign ads openly questioning the legacy of prime ministers from the province. To some Western rural MP's, the West getting in must be pretty thin gruel. It remains to be seen if this "let's put Quebec in it's place" crowd remains silent and under control. You are grossly overestimating Western antipathy to Quebec, and unrest against Harper - after two weeks in office. Wishing does not make it so.

Sorry mate, but I'm throwing the flag on that one. Calgary has very very little in the way of native trees and greenery. MOst of what you see is planted. The river valleys are flat and brown, except of course during flood season. The River Valley in Edmonton is gorgeous, and the rest of the city has plenty of trees and parks. No contest, visually.

You're young and new to this game, so here is a life lesson for free: nearly everything is easier when you have money. Looks like you knew that already, just thought I'd reinforce it! You sound like just the type of adventurous, open sort who will thrive in Alberta. Welcome. Your first assignment after you arrive is to forget all the BS you've read about Alberta in the Globe and Mail. Discover the truth for yourself.

My point is if you are a person you does not particularly care about Canadian content in programming then you will never understand the value of an institution like the CBC. I am sure you have encountered people who think that the Canadian military should just be disbanded because we face no real military threat. At one level they have a point, the only country that is likely to invade Canada is the US so why should we spend billions every year on a force? What such people forgot is there is a cultural value to maintaining a military that can participate in international events. You argument against the Canadian programming is no different than saying we should get rid of the military because we don't need it. That said, the one useful proposal that has come out of this discussion is the suggestion that Canadian content could be ensured on TV by funding private networks directly. I think this would be a workable solution only if the private networks are required to carry a minimum number of hours of primetime canadian programming (excluding news and sports) per week. The last I heard was the private networks are absolutely opposed to such regulations. That means the direct funding of private networks would not work in the long run. Your first sentence presupposes that a publicly funded CBC is somehow necessary to preserve CanCon. Why do you think that? CanCon is a CRTC program, not a CBC initiative. A privatised, or more accurately, a subscriber driven CBC could still produce CanCon, in fact would be required to do so just as other Canadian networks do. Your second para is a strawman. I have made no such argument. What it boils down to is this: what is the role of our government? I would agree that a military presence is a vewry necessary thing, not for its 'cultural value' , but for the traditional defence of the nation role. The military also could have many other purposes: peacekeeping, natural disaster crisis intervention, fortiegn aid etc. I do not belive that the government has any role remaining in providing news and entertainment, which is all that CBC now does, and does poorly and at great expense. I don't know what you mean in your third para. Aren't all Canadian TV networks and radio stations required NOW to have CanCon, required by the CRTC? Nothing would change in that regard with a change to privatization of CBC television and a switch to subscritption for CBC radio.

Why would I go and pay to see Chris Evert play Martina Navratilova if, with minimal effort, I can always find a local junior or senior men's competition with much more talent ... and it's free. Very good point. The women's national team trains competitively against male midget hockey players (midget being the level, not the size of people...). IMO, there is a simple reason that womens sports overall are far less popular than mens. Sports are activities to determine who is bigger, faster, stronger... and women aren't any of those things overall. First I think it is higher, faster, stronger it has nothing to do with bigger - a Freudian slip I imagine, sizing everyone Women I believe still suffer from their Cinderella complex and men by far outperform the females. However, the women will continue in the direction of the spirit of sports and close the gap of being fast, but you have to admit that the women are no where near the economics equivalent of men maybe thats what is meant by bigger. I simply wish to cheer our women athletes on - way to go folks - even when you didn't make it to the top - be proud that you give it your best. But the topic I commented on was 'why are womens sports less popular?" Not 'let's cheerlead for the ladies". I'm a sports nut, and I will watch just about anything. The 'bigger' was a slip, I did mean higher - no need to obsess on this. If I'm given the choice of watching hockey played by men or by women, I'll take the men every time. It's not that I'm mysogynist, but that the men are so much better, so much more talented. And that is why women will never catch up economically. Sports is about competion, and women just cannot compete and will never compete when 'higher, faster, stronger' is involved. It is less interesting to watch somebody compete in a 'relative' way: 'these are the greatest women players in the world' is to me much less compelling than 'these are the greatest players in the world'. I guess that the networks and viewers agree, sports like basketball and golf, with their own pro leagues, are still far behind the men in revenue.

That seems pretty obvious. He'll offer all the provinces, not just Quebec, increased autonomy. Or rather, he will provide them with his interpretation of the roles and responsibilities described in the Constitution. There will be no problem selling that to the West.

The NDP increased their popular vote by just 2% in the January 23 election. 2% despite the enormous opportunity handed to them on a plate. Thats all we need to know about them , really. They'll have faded by the next election, they no longer solely hold the balance of power and the media will largely lose interest.

Every photo of Harper and Charest holding hands and smiling must ruin Duceppes day. He'll never get closer in his life to an independent Quebec as he did in November 2005.

Why would I go and pay to see Chris Evert play Martina Navratilova if, with minimal effort, I can always find a local junior or senior men's competition with much more talent ... and it's free. Very good point. The women's national team trains competitively against male midget hockey players (midget being the level, not the size of people...). IMO, there is a simple reason that womens sports overall are far less popular than mens. Sports are activities to determine who is bigger, faster, stronger... and women aren't any of those things overall.

Yeah, the Canadian military scares schoolchidren and chipmunks world wide. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. Perhaps you should re-examine your position, and those inconsistencies will be explicable.

Nope. I do mind paying for it, and so do many other Canadians. I'd like you to explain why you feel that it is a role of government to provide news and entertainment. Please explain why there is any need for government involvement, never mind this balancing act of bias you also feel is necessary as a corollary? I don't care about the bias really, I simply don't want to be obliged to pay for your preferred news and entertainment. I still pay big for the CBC even if I do not turn on a TV or radio, or own one. It has nothing to do with the advertising you mention. You love it, you pay for it. When you do that, you can develop whatever you want in the way of 'Canadian culture'. Do you think you can do any worse than the horrifically expensive and complte crap the CBC is known for? Let's start a campaign to free up Canadian purses from the money grubbing swine that insist on playing this crap at us. I agree absolutely. Send your signed complaints immediately to those money grubbing swine: the Board of Directors of the CBC. Let's get rid of them.