Why am I forced to pay for this social liberalism agenda?

[scribblet]

[

No matter what anyone argues on here, and these are rather intellectual arguments, the bottom line is the insidious break up of Canada as a country and control by those who promote the very obvious fact that a prominant group of Americans believe that Canada belongs to them and not as a free country.

Boy, now I've heard everything, please provide a source and some backup for the above statement, and just who are these prominent Americans who believe 'Canada belongs to them"? Puleease tell me. Which Americans want Quebec to separate, I'm interested.

As for the CBC, we don't need a state run/controlled media outlet, there are umpteen other newspapers all willing to question and scrutinize. No lack of media scrutinization here.

[Montgomery Burns]

Speaker:

As anyone whose head isn't on fire can see the CBC does display a varied set of viewpoints depending on who is working on any given show, at any particular time.

Varied set of viewpoints? I suggest you douse your head because it is on fire. It is extremely rare to even see a conservative on the CBC and most of their "investigative" shows are merely America-bashing fests.

And for about the 10th time on this thread....the CBC gets its butt kicked in the ratings by Global and CTV. It seems that Canadians aren't watching CBC and its "Canadian values".

[wellandboy]

The bottom line is a government whether democratic or dictatorship needs to have one CBC type station to question what is going on. An example of control is the Bush goverments cuts to PBS, and its putting a very right wing person in control of its finances.

The assumption rather than a "bottom line" fact that any government should have a state run broadcaster is absurd. In the case of dictatorships in coup d'etat 101, one of the first order of business is to seize the broadcast media to control the message to the public. That's what dictatorships do. I can only conclude from your logic, that democracies like Canada should have a media vehicle such as the CBC to control the message to the Canadian public? Your further assertion that this role is to question what's going on is a contradiction from what you've previously said.

In your reference to the so-called right wing person appointed to CPB(Corporation for Public Broadcasting) she states the following regarding the Congressional cut-backs:

In a statement, CPB President and CEO Patricia Harrison said: "We understand the hard choices facing the administration, Congress and the nation as hurricane reconstruction, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue and entitlement spending takes up a growing share of federal dollars. We are, nevertheless, disappointed. We believe greater investments in public broadcasting, a trusted source of information and essential educational services, create stronger connections to community. We will increase our efforts to engage Congress and build appreciation and respect for the inherent value of public broadcasting to our civil society, our children's education, and our nation's security."

The president's budget states: "To ensure federal funding provides the greatest benefit, CPB, in consultation with public broadcasting licensees, will continue to explore more effective means for targeting resources to areas of most need."

Doesn't sound like Ms. Harrison is supporting the budgets cuts to me. In her role as CPB prez she cannot lobby Congress directly under U.S. law but has been extremely proactive in soliciting alternative sources of funding such as viewers and private foundations. My household has supported and will increase our support for WNED in Buffalo, as we are big fans and live 20 miles away.

On this thread we've heard the arguments for and against CBC, but I'll tell you what the bottom line is when it comes to directly paying for CBC services. As the old farmer said- why buy the cow when you can the milk for free. It seems that some Canadians support CBC as long as those who don't support it, have to pay for it. I don't have a problem in paying my share for services to help my fellow Canadians, I just want the option whether or not I pay my share of $1 billion for the non-essential CBC.

[Montgomery Burns]

Again, for the 3rd or 4th time, why am I forced to pay for something I disagree with?

MB, you pay for paving roads on which trucks drive to deliver newspapers/magazines you disagree with. Is that wrong?

Civilized society organizes itself to achieve its goals in the easiest, least cost way.

MB, you'd have society choose another, moral (according to you) way to achieve its ends.

Since you pay taxes to build roads, should you have the right to forbid transport of pork on a road because, as you note, you disagree with the consumption of pork? Should all roads be private? What criteria should we use for government intervention?

-----

OMG, the Left and the Right is clueless about why the State exists, and why we have government.

I don't have a choice when it comes to roads. I have many choices when it comes to TV--except for HBO (banned in Canada).

Choice.

[speaker]

Unfortunately I have to agree with Margrace, There only seems to be the one explanation left. Logic and reason are ignored in the discussion, valid points are ignored and the re-iteration of invalid arguments, like ratings are trotted out. Who could this shadowy American threat consist of, could be the government itself with a perversion of the theory of Manifest Destiny ringing in their empty heads.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and some of us have given up on ever seeing it.

[wellandboy]

Unfortunately I have to agree with Margrace, There only seems to be the one explanation left. Logic and reason are ignored in the discussion, valid points are ignored and the re-iteration of invalid arguments, like ratings are trotted out. Who could this shadowy American threat consist of, could be the government itself with a perversion of the theory of Manifest Destiny ringing in their empty heads.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and some of us have given up on ever seeing it.

Are you saying that the elimination of the CBC is part of a nefarious plot on the part of the United States to erode our so-called institutions, in order to undermine Canada as a sovereign entity, through Manifest Destiny?

When logic fails, there's always fear.

BTW in addition to supporting PBS, my household supports TV Ontario through contributions.

[speaker]

I'm not big on conspiracies, that suggests secretiveness. Some of the Americans on here are quite open about it. I'm willing to look at other options, Have any?

[wellandboy]

I'm not big on conspiracies, that suggests secretiveness. Some of the Americans on here are quite open about it. I'm willing to look at other options, Have any?

What Americans on here? Do you mean this forum? I've read the opinions of many Canadians with a very few Americans. Anyway, do you actually think that whether or not the CBC exists it would protect Canadian sovereignty. What is really behind the pro CBC support is that any attack on it is seen by some as unpatriotic. When Canadians like me question the CBC, it's defenders immediately wrap themselves in the Canadian flag feigning a higher purpose to justify their cause. Captain Canada, Paul Martin tried to pull that bullsh*t off and it didn't really work for him. It's just another means of blunting meaningful discourse in a democracy.

[Big Blue Machine]

If the CBC stopped making such awful material, then there wouldn't be a problem.

[Canuck E Stan]

If the CBC stopped making such awful material, then there wouldn't be a problem.

How can you say that.

Everyone wants to see another rendition of Trudeau with another look-alike actor.

Everyone needs to see Mansbridge the Winnipeg Airport announcer giving his two cents worth from someplace outside Canada.

More investment in every corner of the media circus to try to improve the audience numbers.

CBC....Canadian But Crappy.

The network in the centre of the universe(Toronto) for those who are there, and those who wiish they were there.

[Riverwind]

I don't have a choice when it comes to roads. I have many choices when it comes to TV--except for HBO (banned in Canada).

Monty, you can choose to direct your tax dollars to useless adventures in Afganistan. I choose to direct my tax dollars to the CBC. Problem solved. I don't have to pay for military projects that I don't support and you don't have to pay for a public broadcaster.

[August1991]

I don't have a choice when it comes to roads. I have many choices when it comes to TV--except for HBO (banned in Canada).

Choice.

The choice, or its lack, is not the deciding factor in whether the government should get involved. When you drive down a road, you can choose from several lanes. You can usually choose among different roads going to a destination.

The essential problem is that it costs nothing for another driver to use an uncongested road and so the price of its use should be zero. But no private provider could turn a profit with a price of zero, and so no private provider would build the road. Yet, drivers would happily pay for its use - if we could get them to reveal honestly their desire for a road.

Monty, you can choose to direct your tax dollars to useless adventures in Afganistan. I choose to direct my tax dollars to the CBC. Problem solved. I don't have to pay for military projects that I don't support and you don't have to pay for a public broadcaster.

If someone could invent a mechanism to get people to reveal their honest feelings about Afghan adventures or the CBC then the whole problem would be solved.

Unfortunately, until someone invents such a mechanism, I am free to criticize our army (while benefitting from its activities) and slag the CBC (while secretly watching it from time to time).

But Sparhawk's comparison is apt. The CBC, the army and a streetlight all share the similar feature that they can provide a benefit to one more person at zero cost.

MB, if you are against government funding of the CBC, you should logically be against government funding of the military.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear August1991,

You are truly an enigma.

The CBC, the army and a streetlight all share the similar feature that they can provide a benefit to one more person at zero cost.

Not exactly true, but close. It depends on what each of these are expected to do, and the cost will vary (and each could cost zero).

MB, if you are against government funding of the CBC, you should logically be against government funding of the military.

August, does your 'moral compass' vacillate or oscillate?

[Montgomery Burns]

I don't have a choice when it comes to roads. I have many choices when it comes to TV--except for HBO (banned in Canada).

Monty, you can choose to direct your tax dollars to useless adventures in Afganistan. I choose to direct my tax dollars to the CBC. Problem solved. I don't have to pay for military projects that I don't support and you don't have to pay for a public broadcaster.

I see. Overthrowing a regime that harbored terrorists is useless.

O-kay.

So what is the sense of having a military then?

Should the military be disbanded and the taxpayer pay for more CBC ball-waxing videos?

[Montgomery Burns]

August1991:

But Sparhawk's comparison is apt. The CBC, the army and a streetlight all share the similar feature that they can provide a benefit to one more person at zero cost.

MB, if you are against government funding of the CBC, you should logically be against government funding of the military.

That's an illogical comparison. Streetlights and the military don't mock me and my values.

Btw, your $2.50 per month/$30 year numbers are wrong. There are about 17 million taxpayers paying $1 billion/yr towards the CBC--about $60/yr per taxpayer.

And I find it interesting that you and Sparhawk find nothing wrong about the Liberal Party appointing CBCers to Governor General--a blatant conflict of interest. How can you trust someone from CBC to critically report on the Liberal Party--which would cost them their chance at the cushy Governor General job with its major perks and expense account?

[Riverwind]

I see. Overthrowing a regime that harbored terrorists is useless.

You may have bought into the 'war on terror' propaganda but I don't see it as a high priority - if fact I see it as counter productive. But that is okay. If you think it is worth fighting then you can rest assured your tax dollars are being used to pay for it. Meanwhile, my tax dollars will pay for things that I think are important: information radio programming that does not cater to the intellect of a 13 year boy.

My point is not to suggest that the govt should choose between military spending and the CBC. I just want to point how arrogant it is for you to assume that every tax dollar has to be spent on programs that you approve of. This is a diverse country and government should meet the needs of different people. This means that it should spend money on questionable military adventures because it makes people like you feel safer. It also should spend money on public broadcasting because a lot of Canadians believe public broadcasting is important.

[Montgomery Burns]

I see. Overthrowing a regime that harbored terrorists is useless.

You may have bought into the 'war on terror' propaganda but I don't see it as a high priority - if fact I see it as counter productive. But that is okay. If you think it is worth fighting then you can rest assured your tax dollars are being used to pay for it. Meanwhile, my tax dollars will pay for things that I think are important: information radio programming that does not cater to the intellect of a 13 year boy.

My point is not to suggest that the govt should choose between military spending and the CBC. I just want to point how arrogant it is for you to assume that every tax dollar has to be spent on programs that you approve of. This is a diverse country and government should meet the needs of different people. This means that it should spend money on questionable military adventures because it makes people like you feel safer. It also should spend money on public broadcasting because a lot of Canadians believe public broadcasting is important.

Wow! I'm speechless!

War on terror propaganda....

I guess there are no Islamonazis killing ppl in the Mid East, Africa, Asia, and Europe.

Better to spend the money on a state-run Soviet-style TV channel that gets its ass whipped week after week, month after month, and year after year by Canada's 2 private stations.

I guess it is true: Liberalism is a mental disorder.

How pompous of you to think that with a choice of hundreds of TV channels out there, I should be forced to pay for a channel that mocks conservatives, mocks Catholics, says that PM Stephen Harper is the devil, promotes ball-waxing, graffiti, getting meathooks in your back, etc--to teenage Canadian children...

[August1991]

Dear August1991,

You are truly an enigma.

The CBC, the army and a streetlight all share the similar feature that they can provide a benefit to one more person at zero cost.

Not exactly true, but close. It depends on what each of these are expected to do, and the cost will vary (and each could cost zero).

MB, if you are against government funding of the CBC, you should logically be against government funding of the military.

August, does your 'moral compass' vacillate or oscillate?

Do you mean prevaricate?

TheloniousMonk, it's not a question of moral compass. I just meant that if we only had private police forces (and private armies), we'd have fewer of them than people would really want to have. I'm saying that if MB thinks a government army is a good idea, then MB should also think that government support of cultural activities such as the CBC and broadcasting is also a good idea.

This was the idea behind my comparison of a streetlight and potatoes.

How pompous of you to think that with a choice of hundreds of TV channels out there, I should be forced to pay for a channel that mocks conservatives, mocks Catholics, says that PM Stephen Harper is the devil, promotes ball-waxing, graffiti, getting meathooks in your back, etc--to teenage Canadian children...

Well, by your logic, you are forced to pay for garbage collectors who will never collect your garbage, roads you will never drive on, education of people you will never meet (and who will become richer than you through that education).

But MB, I've got a slightly different question. How much would you pay to stop the CBC?

[Riverwind]

I guess there are no Islamonazis killing ppl in the Mid East, Africa, Asia, and Europe.

They killing people in their own countries which, frankly speaking, is not a problem that the Canadian taxpayer should be paying to fix. There is no economic rational for these foriegn interventions but there may be a patriotic one.

Better to spend the money on a state-run Soviet-style TV channel that gets its ass whipped week after week, month after month, and year after year by Canada's 2 private stations.

Private stations that, for the most part, simply re-broadcast drivel created by US networks. People who care about the information programming that belongs on a public broadcaster generally do not sit in front of the TV for 6 hours a day. This means that CBC ratings compared to private broadcasters do not really mean that much. What is important is the number of people watching or listening to the content provided by the network at least some of the time.

You rant about choice. But the fact is the private networks do not provide the choice in programming that a significant number of people want to have. More importantly, there is no way a public broadcaster in Canada could survive on private donations alone. This means that you are really demanding that choices be taken away from other people when you call for the elimination of gov't funded public broadcasting. At the core that is my argument: public broadcasting increases the amount of choices available in the marketplace.

[geoffrey]

They killing people in their own countries which, frankly speaking, is not a problem that the Canadian taxpayer should be paying to fix. There is no economic rational for these foriegn interventions but there may be a patriotic one.

Come on Sparhawk, we should just sit by while people die at the hands of these despotic regimes? What gives you a bigger right to freedom than them?

Private stations that, for the most part, simply re-broadcast drivel created by US networks. People who care about the information programming that belongs on a public broadcaster generally do not sit in front of the TV for 6 hours a day. This means that CBC ratings compared to private broadcasters do not really mean that much. What is important is the number of people watching or listening to the content provided by the network at least some of the time.

You rant about choice. But the fact is the private networks do not provide the choice in programming that a significant number of people want to have. More importantly, there is no way a public broadcaster in Canada could survive on private donations alone. This means that you are really demanding that choices be taken away from other people when you call for the elimination of gov't funded public broadcasting. At the core that is my argument: public broadcasting increases the amount of choices available in the marketplace.

Agreed, no chance CBC could survive commerical free on donations. Canadian's don't donate much to anything, why would TV be different. We can definitely scratch this from the list of ideas.

But heres the catch. Smaller viewer audiences support independant TV througout Canada. Why can't a larger audience support the CBC without government support?!

[Riverwind]

Come on Sparhawk, we should just sit by while people die at the hands of these despotic regimes? What gives you a bigger right to freedom than them?

You are making a moral/patriotic argument which has as much merit as the moral/patriotic argument for a govt supported public broadcaster.

But heres the catch. Smaller viewer audiences support independant TV througout Canada. Why can't a larger audience support the CBC without government support?!

From the TVO annual report:

2004 Revenues ($000’s)

Government grants and funding (note 11) 60,176

Self-generated revenue (note 12) 14,819

Amortization of deferred capital contributions (note 10) 2,361

Deferral of pension charges (note 5) 0

Capital revenue and renewal fund, net 0

Total 77,356

In other words, 78% of TVOs funding comes from govt grants. I suspect similar ratios exist for all other member 'supported' broadcasters in Canada.

[Hydraboss]

So, the belief of one side is that it is perfectly permissible for the gov't to support the CBC with a billion dollars a year (rough figure) because there is a certain amount of viewership that believes that what is being broadcast is worthy and valuable.

I am not going to get into what is good and what is bad programming, as that is solely a matter of preference. I will, however, pose this:

I want to start a public broadcast network in Canada, and I want one billion a year from the gov't. I will broadcast in both english and french, and I will include two radio stations as well (bilingual of course).

It will be dedicated to the open broadcast of lesbian sex acts. The "best" and most explicit programming will be shown at 3:45pm local time across the country. I have no doubt that it will command viewership numbers that should easily surpass even the private broadcasters, but that doesn't matter because there is a "significant segment" of the Canadian public that will want this funding for a public network.

No one has a problem with this, do they?

[speaker]

geez, I thought you weren't going to get into whats good and bad programming.

Will you also do movie reviews, music shows, business reports, political (non-biased of course) stories, weather, farm news, sports, international news and international broadcasting, science updates, health reports, local and global cultural, comedy, tragedy, and let's not forget the news, 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Other than the explicit sex stuff you might have a shot.

[Hydraboss]

geez, I thought you weren't going to get into whats good and bad programming.

Will you also do movie reviews, music shows, business reports, political (non-biased of course) stories, weather, farm news, sports, international news and international broadcasting, science updates, health reports, local and global cultural, comedy, tragedy, and let's not forget the news, 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Other than the explicit sex stuff you might have a shot.

Speaker, answer the question. Do you still support public broadcasting dollars or not. You may not like the content, but (theoretically) there is a segment of the population that wants this programming, and it cannot survive on private donations. Will you fight the gov't financial support JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT THE CONTENT?

[speaker]

NO.

If all the other criteria I mentioned are in place I would not fight the subsidies to your HBC, (HydraBoss Corp.) However I think that I might just go through normal channels, my MP, the CRTC, and of course the HBC public relations department, to ensure that you have a little more intelligent programming and more appropriate scheduling for what you would be allowed to put on the air in Canada., or internationally.,