The CBC -What to do

[Bonam]

I would take the position that people should choose that which they would like to support, and those destined to fail, are going to fail regardless of whether or not we place them on life support for an indetermined amount of time.

Great. When do I get the choice whether or not I want to support healthcare? I'm young and healthy at the moment and would prefer not to pay for it since I don't use it. Is the government giving me that choice? No.

That's the downside of a socialist society: you don't get to pick what gets paid for. Some stuff the government spends money on, you may use, other stuff, you may not give a crap about.

Personally I'd prefer if our taxes were far lower, most government programs and services didn't exist, and we could decide ourselves what we wanted to do with our money. Unfortunately, we aren't living in an Objectivist utopia, but in Canada. In Canada, the government taxes us to hell and uses that money to pay for whatever it wants, and that includes the arts.

At this point in my life, I'm more likely to visit a museum than a hospital, so if they are gonna take my money, I'd rather they spend some of it on that dull museum of yours and not throw all of it at the hospitals.

[ToadBrother]

That's the downside of a socialist society: you don't get to pick what gets paid for. Some stuff the government spends money on, you may use, other stuff, you may not give a crap about.

It's the downfall of human society. What you want is some sort of exclusion from the pact of mutual responsibility and reliance that dominates pretty much all the higher primates, and in particular the Great Apes. You love to give a smiling face to what fundamentally is your own greed and self-interest. But as much as you feel you owe society nothing, society still requires it of you. Don't like it, go become a mountain man or something. A few folks over the centuries have.

Edited May 5, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Bonam]

It's the downfall of human society. What you want is some sort of exclusion from the pact of mutual responsibility and reliance that dominates pretty much all the higher primates, and in particular the Great Apes.

We are humans, not apes. We have the greatest capability of abstract thought, which lets us think philosophically, among other things, and design our societies however we might wish. A collectivist society is certainly possible, and is the case in Canada and many other nations, and that is what I was saying in my last post. But being able to consider that other forms of society might be better, or at least possible, is part of being human.

You love to give a smiling face to what fundamentally is your own greed and self-interest.

Yes I am not ashamed of mentioning these virtues.

But as much as you feel you owe society nothing, society still requires it of you.

I indeed owe society nothing. What I owed I have already more than paid for in taxes. That society thinks it has the right to require something of me is a problem in how our society is designed. There is no supreme collective whose needs and rights are paramount over those of the individual. People make up our society, and it is the rights of each individual that are paramount. An ideology that believes that the individual exists only to carry out their duty to the state is, quite frankly, evil.

Our society acknowledges this. I could get up right now, stop doing what I do, and become a homeless bum, and society would require nothing of me. It does not force me into labour to repay my debt to it. Instead, society takes only from those that are able to produce wealth. Does someone who rises to a higher economic position automatically "owe" more to society? One's "debt" to society might be measured in how much services provided by that society they have consumed. Certainly those that spend their lives on welfare owe more of a debt to society, and yet it is the productive that pay. What they are paying is not a debt, it is a tax. There is a clear difference between the two, which you may want to familiarize yourself with.

Don't like it, go become a mountain man or something. A few folks over the centuries have.

I do enjoy the mountains, and spend most weekends out there.

Edited May 5, 2010 by Bonam

[Handsome Rob]

Great. When do I get the choice whether or not I want to support healthcare? I'm young and healthy at the moment and would prefer not to pay for it since I don't use it. Is the government giving me that choice? No.

That's the downside of a socialist society: you don't get to pick what gets paid for. Some stuff the government spends money on, you may use, other stuff, you may not give a crap about.

Personally I'd prefer if our taxes were far lower, most government programs and services didn't exist, and we could decide ourselves what we wanted to do with our money. Unfortunately, we aren't living in an Objectivist utopia, but in Canada. In Canada, the government taxes us to hell and uses that money to pay for whatever it wants, and that includes the arts.

At this point in my life, I'm more likely to visit a museum than a hospital, so if they are gonna take my money, I'd rather they spend some of it on that dull museum of yours and not throw all of it at the hospitals.

The difference in that position being, health care is something that every single canadian will at some point in their life, need. Same can be said for police, infrastructure, EMS, armed forces, to a certain extent things like EI. Things that reflect genuine gains in quality of life for everybody.

Paying tax for health care is like an RRSP, in the case of the populace that is to stupid to plan for ourselves, the government has to do it for us.

[Bonam]

The difference in that position being, health care is something that every single canadian will at some point in their life, need.

Not true. Someone may be born out in the countryside without access to medical professionals, live for some period of time, and then die in some sudden event such as a car crash, for example. They will then never have made use of our health care system. Maybe they will have visited a family doctor a couple times and gotten a few vaccines or something, but a medical system far far smaller than ours could have still provided those services. An extreme example, perhaps, but possible. Additionally, many people will never require the expensive equipment that you think more hospital funding should be used to purchase. Many people die never having needed an MRI scan in their lives. The fact is that most definitely not every Canadian's life will be improved if we increase healthcare funding, it will only noticeably improve the lives of those that are on waiting lists for certain procedures or who have conditions that require the frequent use of advanced diagnostics, which is a small minority.

Same can be said for police, infrastructure, EMS, armed forces, to a certain extent things like EI. Things that reflect genuine gains in quality of life for everybody.

If you think society should pay for these things, why not others? Why do you get to define what is a good idea to pay for, and what is not? Some people may prefer having their local art gallery open all the time and constantly adding new pieces, rather than the government repaving some highway to some place they never go, for example. It is all a matter of priorities, and some people value art.

Again, in a socialist state, the government pays for all these things, and most people will have some services that they use and others that they think are a waste. It is the nature of the beast.

Paying tax for health care is like an RRSP, in the case of the populace that is to stupid to plan for ourselves, the government has to do it for us.

And what about those of us that aren't so stupid?

Edited May 5, 2010 by Bonam

[August1991]

hmmmm.

Giggle.

Kate would be an interesting choice. I don't actually know whether she would be a good broadcaster, I've only familiar with her in textual form...

Radio involves voice, and I fear that the CBC would turn her into another drone.

I think my point is that the CBC should not be afraid to reflect the broad spectrum of Canadian society. The CBC should be as broad as the English Canadian Internet world.

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?

The CBC/SRC (French CBC) costs about $1 billion per year or about $35 for each Canadian. I think that's a good deal. For me, I get French and English radio without advertising. That's worth $35.

I strongly object however to the fact that the English CBC radio is boring, and doesn't ask what I often think. Instead, it is one track. I know what they are going to say before they say it.

---

Who the heck is Kory Torynecke?

Edited May 5, 2010 by August1991

[Handsome Rob]

Not true. Someone may be born out in the countryside without access to medical professionals, live for some period of time, and then die in some sudden event such as a car crash, for example. They will then never have made use of our health care system. Maybe they will have visited a family doctor a couple times and gotten a few vaccines or something, but a medical system far far smaller than ours could have still provided those services. An extreme example, perhaps, but possible. Additionally, many people will never require the expensive equipment that you think more hospital funding should be used to purchase. Many people die never having needed an MRI scan in their lives. The fact is that most definitely not every Canadian's life will be improved if we increase healthcare funding, it will only noticeably improve the lives of those that are on waiting lists for certain procedures or who have conditions that require the frequent use of advanced diagnostics, which is a small minority.

Well for one thing, they're born in a hospital 999/1000 times, probably higher, on top of which they get the benefit of a healthy and well off workforce.

If you think society should pay for these things, why not others? Why do you get to define what is a good idea to pay for, and what is not? Some people may prefer having their local art gallery open all the time and constantly adding new pieces, rather than the government repaving some highway to some place they never go, for example. It is all a matter of priorities, and some people value art.

It's not what I think, it's the difference between things that every single tax payer uses, and things that people choose to use or not. By that logic, why does the government not own all the sports franchises? Government owned restaurants? Movie theatres? They could play state films. Heck, why not just go communist?

Again, in a socialist state, the government pays for all these things, and most people will have some services that they use and others that they think are a waste. It is the nature of the beast.

I'd call Canada more hybrid than socialist, it's capitalism that brings home the bacon, always will be.

[bloodyminded]

We are humans, not apes.

Humans are apes. By definition.

Yes I am not ashamed of mentioning these virtues.

That they are "virtues" is a questionable premise, since these virtues are, in general, more pronounced in the other more complicated life forms, aside from insects and a few others. If greed and self-interest are virtues, then human beings are weaker than most animals.

But ok, I can anticipate the defense of greed and self-interest, and I don't find the arguments wholly without merit.

What I find without merit--because it is a stupid argument made by stupid people--is that greed and self-interest are the supreme, best of human virtues.

At least we must recognize that there are other virtues, some of which actively compete against greed and self-interest.

I indeed owe society nothing. What I owed I have already more than paid for in taxes.

You have some sort of index or table that measures this?

At any rate, you would not have had the money to be taxed were it not for the society of which you're a part. Let's not let the "individualism" and "bootstraps" myths define us entirely...because it would be factually, objectively inaccurate.

Edited May 7, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Bryan]

And their programming, for the most part, sucks just as bad. W5 is just a more sensationalistic version of the Fifth Estate.

Frankly, other than CBC's news coverage, most Canadian programming is just plain gawdawful.

CBC's news coverage is the MOST godawful thing on TV.

[Smallc]

CBC's news coverage is the MOST godawful thing on TV.

I wouldn't say that. I would say that Global is the worst.

[Bryan]

I wouldn't say that. I would say that Global is the worst.

Global is the least bad of the three. I'd take their news over CBC or CTV any day.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Bryan

[Smallc]

Global is the least bad of the three. I'd take their news over CBC or CTV any day.

Global is terrible. All it is is sensationalism peppered with a few facts. It's the Fox News of Canada, without the hard right wing slant.

[Handsome Rob]

Pretty much all televised news sucks everywhere.

[Michael Hardner]

Like Rob, I can`t stand network news. I don`t understand how any regular MLW poster could stand it - the stories are told in the simplest terms possible - and so slow !

And as to why one news anchor is better than another - that`s something I never understood. They`re basically readers, so picking one over another is a choice of suit, looks and voice.

[Smallc]

And as to why one news anchor is better than another - that`s something I never understood. They`re basically readers, so picking one over another is a choice of suit, looks and voice.

They aren't just readers anymore. They haven't been for years. That have a great deal of input into stories. Anyway, I'm not sure what you expect a story to be with only a total of 1/2 hour available...and viewers with the attention span of ferrets.

[Michael Hardner]

They aren't just readers anymore. They haven't been for years. That have a great deal of input into stories. Anyway, I'm not sure what you expect a story to be with only a total of 1/2 hour available...and viewers with the attention span of ferrets.

Ok, I didn`t realize that. But then, as producers or editors or whatever how can you tell the results of their work in that capacity as opposed to what other producers and content managers do ? It makes sense to evaluate the program as a whole, but still doesn`t make sense to rate one anchor - essentially the reader in the broadcast - over another.

[Smallc]

It makes sense to evaluate the program as a whole, but still doesn`t make sense to rate one anchor - essentially the reader in the broadcast - over another.

To you it doesn't. I don't want a reader that sucks at reading or a broadcast that provides me with no information.

Edited May 9, 2010 by Smallc

[Michael Hardner]

To you it doesn't. I don't want a reader that sucks at reading or a broadcast that provides me with no information.

`sucks at reading` is a subjective evaluation though. Nobody who anchors a network news telecast as their career `sucks at reading`. So to say one or another is a good anchor is akin to saying McDonalds burgers are good and Burger King`s are bad.

That said, I realize that Mansbridge does a little freestyle interviewing of panelists, although I find those pieces insufferably stupid.

[Smallc]

`sucks at reading` is a subjective evaluation though.

Well of course it is. In that regard I was only stating my personal preference.

[Michael Hardner]

Well of course it is. In that regard I was only stating my personal preference.

All right then - out of curiosity what makes one like Mansbridge more than Robertson ? Certainly he has the hair advantage as he doesn't need his own hair colour artist as Lloyd does.

[Smallc]

I like Lloyd Robertson more. It has something to do with the voice, and the presentation style. I like Tom Clark even more.

[Borg]

So, I have a few suggestions, or solutions.

One, give/sell French CBC to the Quebec government and let it run the operation. (This would mean the end of French CBC coast-to-coast.) Privatize the English CBC.

Toss the french stuff to kebec and let them run with it?

Sell the rest of cbc and lets move on - a huge waste of money overall

Excellent suggestions that will never happen - the rest of the media would scream like stuck pigs.

The bloq would chime in big time.

Albertans would be required to give kebec even more money to keep the feds happy.

Borg

Edited May 9, 2010 by Borg

[Smallc]

Toss the french stuff to kebec and let them run with it?

Yes, let's forget that over half a million french speaking people live in Ontario and New Brunswick alone.

[Bob]

The Soviet Union was all about being utilitarian, and they produced a very ugly society.

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.

Considering that it generates economic activity including tourism and the like, it's really not very much at all. The entire budget is $280 B in expenditures, I think, which makes this a fraction of 1%.

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.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

I don't imagine there are good references for the amount of money spent on the arts in the USSR, spent on urban beautification and the like.

This is what made me think you were talking about diversion of funds, rather than prioritization:

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.