fellowtraveller

Sure, why not? He could probably use the time off.

I'm not so sure that womens hockey is even really an international sport yet. Russia has 6 womens hockey teams in a country of 300 million. That is a problem for the sport overall. They could solve the 'running up the score' problem by simply having a coin toss decide home ice advantage. Thats what most sports do, the Super Bowl for example. How many people partcipate in biathlon in North America? The number is greater than zero, but not many more. Yet they hand out a basket of medals.....

You do not measure the objectivity of a news program by the biases of the callers.Of course you do. The attitude of the host, guests and callers = the bias. And callins are not exactly 'news' shows, they are more like random op-ed peices, a purported variety/range of opinion He is the moderator of the call in show. He is supposed to let his guests express their views. He is also supposed to challenge them about the other side of the issue, not just meekly blather on and address only one side. That is Murphys style, the Larry King School of Passive Journalism. So what? The fact that callers are center or left means nothing. I have had no problem getting on CBC call in shows to expression right wing perspectives so don't bother suggesting the CBC moderators screen out right wing view points. I didn't say that screening callers was the reason that right wing views weren't expressed on CBC- that is your insertion. Likely the reason you don't hear them is that few righties or even centrists are listening. Why? Because there is nothing on CBC for them. Biased, rememeber? I agree that bias in inevitable. However, public broadcast provides with a perspective that is different from private broadcasters. This increases the amount of information available to us all and benefits society. You have not explained though, why taxpayers in general should pay for any bias, from any perspective. Are you claiming that it is somehow the role of government to enable the left to speak, and to fund their propaganda exclusively? Would it not be more fair to send $800 million per year and establish a right wing TV and radio network? Or more sensibly and demcratically: to simply state that providing or preventing bias in broadcasting is simply not a role of government.However, public broadcasting needs public money and cannot be funded solely by private donations. You know that but don't really care because you want see a Canada where the only opinions you hear are those sanctioned commercial interests that only care about selling useless crap. Explain why it needs 'public money'? Why can't it be funded by public donations? Are you too cheap, and so selfish that you refuse to support it personally and insist that all taxpayers must do so?I hear diverging opinions every day on the Internet, on this very computer, and I do not ask that you contribute one penny to my news and entertainment sources. I don't see any 'sanctioned commercial interests selling crap ' here, do you? Yet you insist that I pay for your one-dimensional precious network, and challenge my vision of Canada for challenging your selfishness? How classically Liberal.

Rubbish. I want to put the CBC directly and completely in the hands of the people that love it greatly- people like you. You can have all the staff, all the equipment, and all the real estate for free, a gift from the taxpayers. All you have to do is put your money where your mouth is, and kick in a hundred or two hundred bucks a year directly to the CBC. Then you can have any kind of programming you like. I noticed you never answered my question on providing examples or right wing bias on CBC. Do you have any?

The morning and afternoon shows in Vancouver do a fairly good job of fairly representing left and right wing views. They had some over the top flattering coverage of Harper during the election. As it happens, the house and cross country check up are also fairly balanced. However, the national morning show 'the current' has a definite left wing bias. Enright on the Sunday edition is quite opinionated in the same way Don Cherry is opinionated. I cannot comment on the Vancouver local offerings, but the Edmonton local shows are wholly left. On rare occasions they bring on a guest like a Tory provincial or federal politician, but these shows are generally confrontational rather than informational. On phone in shows, the guests are almost always left and nearly all the callers support the guest. It is no acccident. Corss Country checkup is also left of center, on the few occasions when Rex Murphy is able to bumble his way through a 3 minute sentence and arrive at something coherent. He also throws complete softball questions at whichever guest he has on. The callers are also inevitably overwhelmingly lefties. The House has been openly antagonistic to the right, though Anthony Germain is better than the embarassment that was Jason Moscovitz. Michael Enright is close to being a hatemonger, his rants on the USA are Parrish-like in their gross stupidity. Is that it for examples? Really, not very good. Really though, the obvious bias is not the issue. It is pretty much impossible to not have political bias unless non-stop music is the only thing broadcast. It can't be fixed by adding right wing material, the regular loyalist listeners would start their own howl and the circle would begin again. Nope, the only way out is to cut the pursestrings, and let the many dedicated listeners and lovers simply pay for it themselves. They can easily direct the political bias, the programming and everything else to their hearts content. Problem solved.

Speaker , I challenge you to listen to CBC Radio for a week and come up with actual examples of right wing commentary. Identify a host or program that consistently presents equal time to the center and right of center. Take your time.

Interesting discussion but don't you overlook a very pertinent point that is present in Dingwalls case, and not in an ordinary termination. The money. Follow the money. This isn't about two weeks pay.

If a choice is given to resign - resignation is not voluntary - its that simple. The test is: would a reasonable person believe that Dinwall would resign from a government post? A person can allege that they resigned from their job ... for a reason that some changes occur - thats a breech, in this case a person becomes entitled to damages for constructive dismissal. I don't think the government would have won. Huh??? A choice is given to resign - it is not voluntary - what does that mean??? If you're implying that Dingwall was given a choice to resign or be fired - he certainly had that choice, not an uncommon one on termination anywhere. He knew that if he was fired, he'd get compensation as per his contract. if he quit, he wouldn't. He would have to prove that he resigned under duress, something that has never been mentioned, but more importantly soemthing he knew would cost him a half milion bucks. All he had to do to get the money was allow himself to be fired.

But private networks do have the onus of delivering the news that the customer wants to hear. This comes out of the profit motive. A public network should have the onus of delivering information for the public good. Of course, you can and should argue what that means, and whether the CBC is doing that. I think having a public broadcaster provides a good balance, but the CBC needs more divergent views. Any large organization has a challenge to remain dynamic as time goes on, and the CBC - like so many other similar organizations - isn't really doing this. Untrue that private networks deliver the news the public wants to hear. I don't want to hear about suicide bombers or terrorist attacks from any source really, but there it is - the same story on every network, private and public. Perhaps you are referring to opinion pieces....? I'd welcome any kind of balanced or diverging opinion pieces on CBC, but have long ago given up..... Instead , we continue to get hateful loons like Micheal Enright spewing opinions disguised as facts, shows filled only with guests with leftist agendas. Really, it s embarassing.

Bingo. So who says no one listens to them. A lot of my family do I know. But I will speak for myself. I never listen to the A channels except to hear the 6 o'clock news because it is the only local one we can get. Star choice ya know. The violent shows on this station are unbelievable. I never listen to Global or CTV because they have nothing but crap on them. I cannot believe the awful stuff that comes out of the US. The only American stations I like are sometimes CNN, especially when they showed America for what she is when the poor people of New Orleans were left to die, the other one is PBS although Bush is trying his best to destroy that. SCN and TVO are excellent stations Yes I know there are a lot of money hungry people out there who would like to shut CBC up the same as Mr Bush. But poor misguided me will work to keep the last bastion of Canadian unity we have. Read this thread, then tell me about the 'national unity' fostered by CBC. The opposite is true. Like Mr. Bush? Please tell us your theory on how Mr. Bush wants to shut down the CBC.

Sorry but this is not true. If you live far in the boonies, out in the bush - you do not routinely receive any TV or local radio signals. Due to atmospheric skip in Central Yukon, I could often pick up Gulf Coast stations from 300 miles away better than I got local CBC AM. CBC does have better coverage than any other station/network but it is far from comprehensive. Many remote or northern communities have local stations, nearly all piped in/rebroadcast and/or selected some FM stations via satellite. Many places have Internet connections, often broadband. Nearly all have satellite TV, either direct link or rebroadcast. In 1935 it was not myth that people were huddled around the stove in their sod huts listening to CBC. But not any more. Nearly everybody that wants it, nearly everywhere - has multiple options for news and entertainment other than CBC. The CBC was once an effective vehicle for binding us together. Today it tends to drive us apart. Do we really need even more wedges?

Tell me, if the NDP were elected as government, would they wish their programs into existence, or legislate them?

Of course they are, it is a basic plank of social democracy. You can learn more about it here

Damn. Succinct. Concise. But damn cold. Support for the NDP can be best explained by one term. Feel-goodism. 1) Too many people have been programmed that when they have something they should be guilty that there are those that don't. They're taught that we live in a zero-sum economy wherein you have to take from others to do better for yourself. 2) Too many people believe that by redistributing wealth in a Robin-Hood-esque 'take from the rich and give to the poor' manner will solve all society's ills. 3) Too many people have been fooled into believing that the government can provide for us better than we can do for ourselves. Jeez, I was just kidding.... sort of. Really though, the NDP represent the ideology of quite a few Canadians. So be it. And it isn't 'feel-goodism' IMO. It's based on that old canard that we are created equal, and if we are not, we can be legislated equal. Neither is true.

There is actually no need to 'do' anything about the NDP. The attraction to their policies is biological, caused by a recessive gene. Darwin was right, it will take care of itself.

The NDP will have to fight much harder this time around to maintain a place in the media. They cannot afford to really play hardball. Although they gained a few seats, their popular vote increased by only 2% despite the truck-sized opening left by the Liberals. This will not have escaped their notice. It is more likely that the NDP know they are going to be on the losing end of the daycare saga, and are pre-empting their defeat with some firebrand empty posturing. It gets them on the evening news for a few seconds.

Although I disagree with almost every policy the NDP puts on the table I accept that a significant minority of Canadians do agree with NDP polices (probably close to 25% if you include left leaning Liberals and Bloquists). The last time I checked we live in a democracy so the only way to 'get rid of' the NDP is to provide a compelling alternative vision. Provding a compelling alternative is the biggest challenge facing Harper today - my biggest concern is he is not up to the task. You've mentioned this 'compelling alternative' a few times during the campaign and since. Alternative to what? The Liberals?

Is it still around? And it isn't bitching, it's just my small contribution to your political re-education. A self-criticism session will be scheduled for you soon... oh wait, you are a leftie CBC lover so you know the drill.....

I went to school in Alberta and there was no pledge at any level. They did play O Canada over the intercom every day in grade school, we were encouraged to sing but nobody did. More recently, my son had a teacher who obliged them to say the Lords Prayer every day. That lasted about 3 weeks, until we discovered it and put an abrupt end to it.

Station rankings are the most meaningless statistics imaginable. The difference in marketshare between 1st and 20th place could be 1 percent but you would not know it from the rankings.CBC Radio pulls in between 10% and 15% of the rasio listening audience across the country which is a respectable share for any radio station given how fragmented the market is. The top ranked station in any market will rarely have more than 15-20% share. What? Station rankings are very important in the industry, they base their advertising rates on them, and advertisers want to be on the more popular stations. It does not change the reality that CBC radio still finishes 11 th and 14th. That sucks no matter what kind of gloss you put on it. And CBC is more than a station, it is a network and the only one that has massive, coast to coast to coast coverage and broadcasting, access to far more resources than any of the commercial stations - and it still draws only 10%. 10% in that subsidized and dominant position isn't admirable, it is pathetic. Consider that 90% of Canadians would rather listen to heavily commercial crap than to the CBC. You could then argue that the audience sucks when the reality is that they'd rather listen to anything BUT the CBC. Nobody is listening. All are paying. Are we switching to TV now?And Edmonton is a small market compared to the usual top three.

We've just seen a graphic example of how well that policy works: France on fire. They are struggling with the conflicting notions that they traditionally hate and fear all foreigners including immigrants, and knowing they need them to improve their economy. I hope we can steal some of their markets while they try to figure it out.

I didn't leave it out for convenience, I left it out because it doesn't give the full picture, as evidenced by your attempt. You looked at only one matrix on that website, and got even that one wrong. The summer 2005 matrix you cite actually has an "other" category that lists "including" (implying there may be more) 8 stations. Therefore, for the summer and fall of 2005 CBC one is ELEVENTH OUT OF TWENTY THREE STATIONS listed on the matrix. CBC 2 is 14th out of 23. Let's look at the rest of the time period matrixes: For the spring of 2005 CBC one is NINTH OUT OF TWENTY-TWO STATIONS. CBC two was 13th. For the fall of 2004 CBC one is NINTH OUT OF TWENTY-ONE STATIONS. CBC two was 12th. Here's a good one: For the summer of 2004 CBC one and two are NINTH AND TENTH OUT OF TWENTY-ONE STATIONS. I could go on, but I've corrected you and that's enough. Given that the lockout was in the late summer/early fall of 2005, I'd say they are doing pretty good in a Western city there. Thanks for making my point. The CBC rates way, way down even in the tiny markets like Edmonton. The did finish 1th out of the fifteen that were ranked. The rest of the stations were of so little consequence they were lumped together, and CBC barely finished ahead of the. One of the stations of no consequence was also CBC, the French station. Nobody is listening. Next time, post the link if you don't want to get caught with your nose growing.

No, that is not my point, it apears to be yours. Your childhood reminiscences are not the norm. My father supported three kids in a middle class grind, like everybody else in the neighbourhood. He was fortunate enough to be buying a very modest home in a very modest neighbourhood, and many of his peers rented those very modest homes. He didn't have a car for many years, and always spent hours tinkering on the beaters he did get. The problems exists alright, but it isn't a lack of universal day care. The problem is the attitude that dependence on government to support your lifestyle choices, for your voluntary actions, is somehow desireable and even laudable. You are also equating a lack of material possessions with poverty, which is insulting to the truly poor. The declining birth rate is irrelevant, easily replaced with immigration. Even better, replaced with people with energy and the determination not to be leeches on others. There is absolutely zero need for govt to 'help create daycare spaces', the private sector will respond to supply and demand if and only if the govt keeps out of it, for once.

Yes, and thank you for reminding us.

Sorry, I don't follow your reasoning here. I'm not suggesting that women or families or couples have children or not have children. I am suggesting that if they choose to have children, and because they are nominally adults, citizens should also understand that they have some difficult choices to make. They may not be able to own a large home, or own a home at all. They may not have two fancy cars, or any car at all. Both of their careers may well be adversely affected. Those are all choices and potential consequences of having children, and there is nothing whatsoever new or recent in that reality. What is 'new' is the expectation that all those lovely material things in life are some sort of entitlement, and that government involvement is required to make them happen. It's another manifestation of the rampant selfishness we have taught ourselves, the willingness to assign blame and responsibility to anybody but ourselves. I don't want the government in my bedroom, or in my nursery.