Now on ScienceBlogs: HeartlandGate: Anti-Science Institute's Insider Reveals Secrets
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
Since Jefferson coined the phrase 'wall of separation between church and state' in 1802, a full 145 years before the Soviet provision was written, it is obviously incorrect to suggest that the Soviets pioneered the separation principle. If anything, the Soviets stole the concept from the United States. In any case, what the Soviet constitution said about religious freedom has no bearing on U.S. constitutional provisions. The Soviet document also guaranteed free speech (at least on paper), but no one has labeled freedom of expression a Communist idea.
Robert Boston, Why The Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of Church & State (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993), pp. 222-23.
« Episode XCIX: It's probably not lupus! | Main | A totally futile poll »
More articles by PZ Myers can be found on Freethoughtblogs at the new Pharyngula!
Category: Politics
Posted on: August 31, 2010 8:52 PM, by PZ Myers
Prime Minister Harper has come up with a bizarre goal: he thinks so highly of the US's Fox News that he wants to create a similar propaganda organ up North. Incredible — isn't Canada supposed to learn from our terrible mistakes?
Here's an idea: sign this petition. It can't hurt. But then, the plan was certifiably crazy from the beginning, so I don't know how much a cry of horror will help. Is there also a petition to have Harper committed anywhere?
PoliticsTrackBack URL for this entry: http://scienceblogs.com/mt/pings/146054
HTML commands: <i>italic</i>, <b>bold</b>, <a href="url">link</a>, <blockquote>quote</blockquote>
Comments
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkizC4OJEQODw9Rn2-9Ccz5-1lYymHaqFs
|
August 31, 2010 9:07 PM
No, but we had a write-in campaign to demand a referendum on whether one of his ministers, Stockwell Day, should be forced to change his first name to Doris.
The sad thing with this guy is that he has a minority of votes AND a minority in Parliament. And he's still managing to ram through all the right wing nonsense he can because the opposition is so pathetic and afraid of an election.
Greg (DTK)
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
August 31, 2010 9:07 PM
Doesn't look like Meriken can sign, but.. yeah, this needs to not be done.
Posted by: bunter88
|
August 31, 2010 9:08 PM
How on earth can any outsider see fox news as a good idea? we get it on satellite here in the uk and i watch it occasionally. At first i wasn't sure if it was serious, then i felt sorry for them, then it angered me. I was talking to an american guy i met in germany recently, he got incredibly pissed off when i mentioned fox news as an indicator to the cultural differences between the uk and the usa. how wide spread is the conservative right in america? he would have me believe it is a small minority...
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
August 31, 2010 9:08 PM
Is the good prime minister a commie? Fix News positively
was not an idea thought up by beaurocrats and politicians. It
simply was born to generate revenew. There was an audience for this kind of propaganda, and that was a niche that was nicely filled. The state trying to bring something like that into existence is very much in contrast with the "all things government are bad" Fox News ideology. Or else it wouldn't be called Fox News, it would be called PBS. Mr Harper should know better.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage
|
August 31, 2010 9:10 PM
In the petition the only choice for country is Canada. It looks like only Canadians can play.
Posted by: NosmoKing
|
August 31, 2010 9:12 PM
Here in Toronto, we already have Fox news north; it's called CFRB-AM. Harper is a Bush clone except that he is smart enough not to wear his religion on his sleeve.
Posted by: squealpiggy
|
August 31, 2010 9:26 PM
The biggest name on CFRB is John Moore. Hardly someone I'd describe as a right wing loony. Jim Richards is also on there, as is Tarek Fatah. You have the mild mannered John Tory (who is a Tory for the lulz) and the insane bastard Jerry "Things are much better in the USA" Agar but CFRB is a pretty decent mix of viewpoints with more liberal people than conservatives. Nothing like Faux News at all.
Incidentally I don't understand why anybody would favour signing a petition to stop a television channel from airing because its viewpoints differs from your own.
Posted by: FossilFishy
|
August 31, 2010 9:27 PM
Another reason to be glad I'm an ex-pat Canadian. I signed though, for the sake of my family and friends.
If anyone wants to sign up as a faux Canadian all you really need is a valid Canadian postal code.
Two examples would be V7P 2H6 and T6E 1Z8.
Posted by: Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
|
August 31, 2010 9:29 PM
Have you seen what Fox News has helped do to the national discourse in Merika?Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmiiaFY8JTt7Z5FJ9SJQlrrN-uxsCz_0yw
|
August 31, 2010 9:32 PM
I do remember seeing a petition to have Harper committed. It was a long while back and I no longer have the URL. Harper is a Dubya clone.
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmiiaFY8JTt7Z5FJ9SJQlrrN-uxsCz_0yw
|
August 31, 2010 9:43 PM
'Incidentally I don't understand why anybody would favour signing a petition to stop a television channel from airing because its viewpoints differs from your own.'
There's a huge difference between a news show that shows differing opinions and a propaganda machine. The last thing Harper needs to add to his arsenal of weapons against the Canadian people is a reliable means to brainwash the masses.
Posted by: Glenn G
|
August 31, 2010 9:46 PM
I have always hated Harper, but this past year he has been fuelling my rage from campfire to forest fire. He is a disgrace, and anyone who voted for his party should feel unending shame.
Posted by: Newfie
|
August 31, 2010 9:50 PM
Much ado about nothing, me thinks.
http://rabble.ca/news/2010/08/how-fox-north-became-harper%E2%80%99s-priority
Posted by: vancityskeptic.com
|
August 31, 2010 9:51 PM
I don't mind admitting the truth: In the beginning, I didn't mind Harper. And if I had have been the type to vote (and I'm not, believing that all the political parties in Canada are basically the same.. it isn't like the US where there are such severe differences between the parties, I truly believe we're in the exact same position no matter who leads -- well I -did- believe it, anyway), I probably would have voted for him, because I didn't enjoy the alternatives.
But as time has gone on, he has gained by ire over, and over, and over again.
Doesn't mean I intend to give old Iggy any support though.
Fox News Canada? Yeah that's the last straw for me. No fucking way.
Your time in office is up in my book, Mr. Harper.
Posted by: Mark F
|
August 31, 2010 9:53 PM
I think the biggest piece of the opposition to this station is that Harper and his cronies are trying to make it part of the basic cable package, everyone gets it and also has to pay for it.
The CRTC has indicated that it will be allowed as a specialty station, one that you have to subscribe to before any of your money goes to it. That is acceptable to me.
There is another possibility for Harper. Many people in government who have tried to stand in his way have been fired, resigned or been otherwise displaced. This could happen to the head of the CRTC.
Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter
|
August 31, 2010 10:03 PM
Moved to the US 15 years ago. I have been sorely disappointed at the people I left in charge
- travelling creation museums?
- a religious right wing nut as PM? OK, Progressive Conservative - maybe even Reform (is that still around??) - I can take but not right-wing religious
- and lousy builders (we watch Holmes on Homes)
- now a maple flavored Faux News??!!
Come on, canucks. If you don't get your shit together, I may have to come back & straighten y'all out!
Posted by: Newfie
|
August 31, 2010 10:05 PM
... and we have more than two parties hackin' oot the idears... send me a local wine instead.
Posted by: Robster
|
August 31, 2010 10:07 PM
What is it with prime ministers? The Athiest PM in Australia, who's job is currently on hold due an unresolved election two weeks ago(?) has announced that with her party's return to power (that's an 'if', that the govt. will enhance the High School Chaplain campaign. She wants to shovel another $220,000,000 into it and spread their superstitious nonsense further, the fundies are no doubt praising their prick of a gawd.. Hey, we need some new roads and stuff, not religious idiots given carte blanch in our high Schools. Now there's news of this Canadian twit. Is there something in the water perhaps that Canberra & Ottawa share?
Posted by: Glenn G
|
August 31, 2010 10:09 PM
@18: Being an atheist does not magically make you sane.
Posted by: wanderinweeta
|
August 31, 2010 10:12 PM
Mark F #15:
"Could happen"? It's almost a certainty. I give him a week.
(I signed the petition a couple of hours ago,when it had 17,000 signatures. It's just under 22,000 now.)
Posted by: DC
|
August 31, 2010 10:21 PM
Before Stephen Harper there was a guy running for Prime Minister by the name of Stockwell Day. One day, Stockwell went on TV and told us that he thought the earth was 6000 years old. After that his chances of winning were... well.. none. (At least not with Ontario or Quebec.)
He was still elected though, just not as Prime Minister. And Stockwell is a part of the same political party as Mr. Harper. The Canadian Conservatives for the most part have a hard on for American conservative politics, and would love it if were were just like YOU. (They said as much in many of their speeches.)
Unfortunately, the left in Canada are still waiting for a good leader. Michael Ignatieff of the Liberals is our answer to John Kerry. Elizabeth May of the Green Party is a joke. And the NDP (New Democratic Party) who are farther left than would be possible in the US of A, are not electable as a mainstream party.
(Without the NDP or their antecedent, the CCF - Canadian Commonwealth Federation - we wouldn't have Health Care as we do in Canada.)
The people who live on farms vote for the Conservatives. Ontario and Quebec makes the final decision. And Quebec has more people because of their Catholic history. When the pope says you can't use birth control, some families end up with as many as 16 children, all of whom grow up to become voters. (I think they've outgrown the pope over there, now though.)
Posted by: museumknitter
|
August 31, 2010 10:21 PM
"Vanityskeptic" (how very apt) #14:
Totally empty rhetoric unless you do step up and vote. Everything looks the same to the apathetic. Since we do not vote directly for our Prime Minister you can't vote for "Iggy" unless you live in his riding. So next time we get a chance, get off your duff, research the candidates in your riding and vote. I don't even care for whom or which party if you just make the effort and stop whining about that which you are not willing to change.
Posted by: Adamvs Maximvs
|
August 31, 2010 10:24 PM
I signed, but realistically, I can't see this ever happening in Canada, not because we have no wing-nut stultified morons, but simply because there are a lot of steps to getting a channel like he's proposing (if it's federally funded like the link seems to imply).
1- To start it, IIRC it would need a parlimentary vote on a bill proposing the new channel. I can't see the other parties joining with the PC minority to make a channel that is essentially serve as their PR division. Unless they really sweeten the pot for the Bloc on this (but I can't see what would be enough).
2- If it's passed in Parliament it still has to be regulated/permitted by the CRTC I would imagine. As the current head is against it, it seems unlikely unless he retires or steps down as I don't think the CRTC head is a politically appointed position (Uses the Fed Gov Employee panel method probably)
3- If it did pass, and the CRTC was all in, I suspect there would be aspects of it needing to be brought before the supreme court for major conflict of interests. Might be legally killed quite quickly.
I'm not saying it absolutely, can't happen 100%, it just seems as likely as a Canadian Moon Landing. I suspect it was more Harper saying things on Fox to try and get money and support from Newscorp and it's rabid fantards. He's been known to say some odd things on US stations.
Oh well, I didn't vote Conservative before, nor will this help. I used to live in Peter Goldring's riding, and if you don't know him, he's the anti-gay do-nothing moron MP who is a prime example of why we should have MP term limits.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
August 31, 2010 10:24 PM
@Mark F #15:
Don't forget 'or died'.
Posted by: Utakata
|
August 31, 2010 10:26 PM
squealpiggy @ 7 wrote:
"Incidentally I don't understand why anybody would favour signing a petition to stop a television channel from airing because its viewpoints differs from your own."
...accept there are viewpoints and there are well funded viewpoints. The latter becomes dominent, squeezing out all other desenting voices. Giving the illusion that their's the only opinion that matters.
I am in no way advocating a petition against that. I am merely pointing out that the cards will be stacked in their favour. And this scares the concerned consumer in wanting to sign a petition against them.
We also have hate laws in this country, giving persons who want to sign a petition against them a precedent to do so if the channel in question is found to be advocating intolerant and hate based views.
Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM, CR
|
August 31, 2010 10:27 PM
Hell, I'm all for it!
It's the perfect place for Mabuze to get a job (unless he's overqualified), and then he'll have marginally less time (whatever time they use to actually research their stories) to cut-and-paste death threats!
Posted by: Glenn G
|
August 31, 2010 10:33 PM
@21:
The only reason the NDP are not electable is because of attitudes like YOURS. Here is how to make the NDP the official opposition or government leader: vote for the NDP and convince your friends to vote NDP. Not that hard.
Posted by: DC
|
August 31, 2010 10:35 PM
Cities traditionally vote more liberally in both countries. That's where the educated people live. No one has to guess as to how Seattle, Portland, Vancouver, Chicago, Montreal, Toronto, NYC etc. vote.
Rural communities, with the exception of Atlantic provinces, traditionally vote conservative. People in the maritimes' usually vote extreme left because they have needed help to survive. (Or at least they did before they found Oil. Let's hope BP isn't there.)
British Columbia has Vancouver to vote Liberal. But the rest of the province along with Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba are mainly voting Conservative.
Ontario is traditionally a Liberal voting block, and without their support we wouldn't have Harper as a Prime Minister. Quebec still votes for a separatist party, but is also crucial for Harper's continued existence.
I really don't want Iggy as Prime Minister either. Maybe Justin Trudeau will step up. For a while there, it seemed like he had his father's tongue.
Posted by: DC
|
August 31, 2010 10:42 PM
@27:
If convincing people to vote how you want them to weren't hard, more of us would be politicians.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
August 31, 2010 10:46 PM
I'm very curious about the Ignatieff haters. Granted, he's not perfect (what politician is?), but surely he'd make a much better PM than Harper? Ever since he came on the scene there's been a kind of seething bigotry aimed at the guy, but he seems fairly decent to me. Intelligent, has voiced many times his support of knowledge and science and reality, has a great resumé having been a professor at Harvard, a journalist for the BBC, and a Booker-nominated novelist, cares about the country more than he cares about being in power for its own sake, willing to listen to his caucus and seems friendly & accessible enough to the press and the people. So please, please help me understand why he can't catch a break when the alternative is so vile?
Posted by: Glenn G
|
August 31, 2010 10:47 PM
@30: I don't know why other people don't want to vote for him, but for me it is because he is not Left enough.
It may have something to do with the fact that he hasn't lived in Canada for a long time though.
Posted by: museumknitter
|
August 31, 2010 10:52 PM
Ibus3 #30 I agree, and I think it's a combination of two factors: Canadians don't appreciate people who make it big in the US only to come back and be perceived as flashing their success. Ignatieff suffers from the coincidence of timing with the Conrad Black trial in that regard.
And teh righties don like peeple who use big werds.
Posted by: Adamvs Maximvs
|
August 31, 2010 10:53 PM
@21: Too bad the ND of today are definitely not the NDs of the Tommy Douglas days. I like their social agenda, there are just so many nutballs in their party and everytime I watch the election debates Jack Layton disappoints me terribly (I was surprised how well Duceppe performed each time, considering the Bloc isn't exactly a party of wide-vision)
@28: I'm very concerned with Justin Trudeau. A lot of the people I heard declaring their support for him were doing so primarily because of his last name. They knew nothing of his politics or agendas. The last thing we need in Canada is big name political dynasties starting up (after all, look how well it worked in the Bush clan.....)
But if he's intelligent, articulate, sane and most importantly; competent, all the luck in the world to him.
I was surprised to learn Ignatieff is a author of several books, and while that doesn't mean too much in itself, it's hopefully a sign that he has a functioning brain. His tongue and charisma seem hopelessly broken however.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 31, 2010 10:55 PM
Incidentally I don't understand why anybody would favour signing a petition to stop a television channel from airing because its viewpoints differs from your own.
then this might interest you:
Why Americans Believe Obama is a Muslim
Posted by: speedweasel
|
August 31, 2010 10:59 PM
Explain to me again how an online petition is any more meaningful than an online poll?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 31, 2010 11:07 PM
Explain to me again how an online petition is any more meaningful than an online poll?
most of them require some sort of independent verification, for one.
duplication is easy enough to remove.
sure, it can be crashed, just like any other petition though.
so, the answer is...
slightly more meaningful.
that help?
Posted by: DC
|
August 31, 2010 11:10 PM
@30:
When there were clear human rights abuses in Toronto for the G20 riots, he said nothing. And then when it came time to get on a tour bus a week later, he was all about human rights.
Years previous, when the Iraq war was being launched he was all for it. Even when 70% of the Canadian populations was against it. Luckily he didn't lead the Liberal Party at the time. Otherwise we might have been caught up in that mess.
@33:
I couldn't agree more on Tommy Douglas. Tommy was a great man. I wish I had known him. I feel the same way about the current NDP. I hope Layton beats Cancer. But I don't think he has what it takes to stand up to Harper. I might be wrong.
Justin's father was someone who did things his way and gave you the middle finger and told you to fuck off (sometimes with those exact words) if you didn't like it. But he was very well spoken. And Justin is too, as we both agree.
http://www.viddler.com/explore/SpeakersSpot/videos/146/
I also agree with you about our lack of a need of Political Dynasties.
Posted by: VLJ
|
August 31, 2010 11:10 PM
On the positive side, we do have a channel to lodge complaints if "Fox News North" outright lies. I don't believe there is the same recourse in the USA as most of what Glenn Beck says about Canada is patently false (as is a lot of what he says) though he is not challenged legally. He'd be off the air by now I'd bet given all the non-truths that spew from his mouth.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
August 31, 2010 11:18 PM
@ Glenn #31
Yes, he's not left enough for me either. But I'd rather have him as PM and have smaller complaints about how he's not leaning left enough (& presumably have him listen at least somewhat to the lefties in the party), than have the nightmare that is Stephen Harper tear the country apart bit by bit. I mean there's no way that a Lib gov't under Ignatieff would ignore climate change, scrap the long form census, give the finger to Africa, and set back the advances of feminism by a couple of decades all while running up a deficit to spend cash on fighter jets and photo ops. It's rather like people are willing for all that to happen just so they can say they "don't like Iggy (said with an obligatory sneer).
As for him "not living in Canada long enough"? What difference does that make? For every negative that entails, there's a corresponding positive.
@ museumknitter #32
He didn't really "make it big" in the US. He was a uni prof (no offence intended, PZed ;-). If anything he "made it big" in the UK. As what? A journalist and writer. That's why he's unelectable? Really? Is his crime that he went abroad & had some success? That's worse than having a Harper government?
The Conrad Black comparison is interesting. I've found the amount of vitriol levelled at him almost as perplexing. (Though lots of people like to hate the rich and arrogant, so it's a tad more understandable.)
Oh, and I get why Harper and his lackeys and followers don't like the man. Way too smart for them. It's not their antagonism that's puzzling to me.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 31, 2010 11:23 PM
The last thing we need in Canada is big name political dynasties starting up
Glad I'm not a Kennedy
Posted by: ckitching
|
August 31, 2010 11:25 PM
I live well outside of the province of Quebec, but I'd almost like to vote for the Bloc. Their policies are relatively sane, and usually reasonable. The rest seem to be "pie in the sky" promises and painfully transparent pandering ("vote for us -- we'll give you tax cuts!").The separatists are the voice of reason these days... This is sad...
Posted by: museumknitter
|
August 31, 2010 11:25 PM
Ibis3, I was talking about perceptions, not facts. The Harper machine tells people that these are reasons not to like or respect him, but that doesn't mean I agree.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
August 31, 2010 11:27 PM
Yes, he's not left enough for me either. But I'd rather have him as PM and have smaller complaints about how he's not leaning left enough (& presumably have him listen at least somewhat to the lefties in the party), than have the nightmare that is Stephen Harper tear the country apart bit by bit.
wow. sounds like Kerry V Bush.
er, vote Kerry?
Posted by: Adamvs Maximvs
|
August 31, 2010 11:29 PM
Re DC
Yeah, Douglas and Trudeau were well before my time as well, but I admire them both. My favorite Trudeau line is still the one about "There's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation". Didn't realize Layton had cancer, that's too bad. While I don't think he'd cut it as PM, he did always try to help Canada stay to the left, and I'll appreciate that.
Re: Ibis
I totally agree regarding the argument 'Ignatieff hasn't lived in Canada enough" That's such a poor argument, usually followed by the 'he must not love Canada' (which is right up there on the 'Obama is a nazi' level logic). I really wish he'd get a better campaign team and become more skilled at getting his message across, but I think he'll end up gaining little to no seats in the next election (though I don't think they'll lose many) and the Libs will hopefully have a better candidate next time around.
Night my fellow godless canucks :D
Posted by: Teshi
|
August 31, 2010 11:42 PM
Sigh.
The political situation in Canada is a problem. The majority of the country votes liberal. This vote is split three or four ways between weak and/or issue-specific parties, depending on which province you live in. The conservative side, a minority, all votes for the one party. It's genius, and it sucks because it means that the most right wing political voices in the county get the say.
It's been far too long like this. I wish the Liberals would get back into the ring. They really are a terrible political party at the moment. Sleepy, somehow.
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
August 31, 2010 11:44 PM
@37
Meh. Not that I entirely condone all of the actions of police, some unwarranted arrests where people were kept for a couple of days are not equivalent to keeping a child soldier in Gitmo for years (Omar Khadr anyone?). That whole G20 situation comes back onto Harper's government for putting the stupid thing in the heart of downtown Toronto (& of course the Black Bloc assholes who decided smashing up mom&pop stores and burning cars paid for by taxpayers is legitimate protest of what? who the hell knows).
Frankly, I think the media (and the opposition parties) dropped the ball on that whole thing because they were focused on the rioters and arrests. They never made any hay of the fact that the security to turn Toronto into a police state for a weekend cost more than the money we pledged for maternal health over the next 5 years (and don't get me started on access to abortion).
A. Not likely. He had that opinion as a private citizen, not as a political leader that has to answer to constituents and party. And to actually implement policy.
B. He has since changed his mind about it.
C. He saw the atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein close up and was highly influenced by his own emotions over that.
D. He bought into the WMD lie, which, presumably he may not have done having had the access to information a PM does.
Posted by: ckitching
|
August 31, 2010 11:56 PM
To be perfectly honest, Harper scares me less than the rest of his party. Harper seems like a cynical career politician who will say whatever is necessary to remain in power. While this makes him somewhat dangerous, if he were a true ideologue (as many of his party members are), he would be inflicting far more damage.
Harper was ridiculed by pundits and comedians for years as being stiff and uptight. Then Iggy became the leader of the Liberals, and Harper started seeming personable in comparison. Whenever Iggy opened his mouth, he seemed to have this uncanny ability to stuff one or both feet into it.
To the person who suggested that propaganda would change Canadians' view on universal health care: You should keep in mind that we've been subjected to this for decades now. For as long as I can remember, there have been nearly endless stories about how Medicare is broken, how the the waiting lists are extreme, hallway medicine, bed shortages, brain drain of talented physicians heading south to greener pastures, and how it's bankrupting the nation. Despite all of this, the vast majority of Canadians still greatly prefer it to the alternatives, and politicians that express support for two-tier or U.S.-style health care don't get very far (except maybe in Alberta, where voting Tory seems to override all other concerns). The reason why is simple -- we can see how badly the U.S. system works.
Posted by: Utakata
|
August 31, 2010 11:58 PM
Hypatia's Daughter @ 16 wrote:
"- a religious right wing nut as PM? OK, Progressive Conservative - maybe even Reform (is that still around??) - I can take but not right-wing religious"
A breif lay person's history of the Reform Party and The Conservative Party (incase your wondering why they recently dropped "Progressive" from their name currently):
The Reform Party made several attempts to rebrand themselvs in an effort a) unite the Canadian right and b) appeal to other populaces outside of Alberta. Their incarnations where in order as follows: Canadian Conservaticve Reform Alliance Party (CCRAP), Canandian Alliance (after they found CCRAP acronym had some PR issues, but had some internal strife over leadership under YEC Stockwell Day) and now currently The Conservative Party (after they manage to swallow the Progressive Conservatives in a bit of a back stabbing coup.)
So yes, The Reform Party in it's current incarnation are running our country I'm afraid. And because their name is now the same as the orginal John A. Macdonald's party (our country's founding Prime Minsister), our media has refused to acknowledge they're still the party of Preston Manning and his band of redneck yahoos. Thus giving them more legitimacy than they really deserve. The PC's still exist in small pockets and on provincial levels, but they're non-existent in the Lower House where most it counts.
I hope this clears things up for you a bit.
Posted by: Glenn G
|
September 1, 2010 12:04 AM
I think we can all agree that we need proportional representation though, right?
Posted by: Ibis3, féministe avec un titre française de fantaisie
|
September 1, 2010 12:06 AM
@ museumknitter #42
Yeah, I get that this is the HarperCons' propaganda line. I'm trying to figure out why progressives themselves are buying into it (or if they have their own actual, rational reasons to prefer Harper over Ignatieff -- cos for now, that's the choice we have).
G'night Pharyngulistas. I gotta go sleepies now. But in the meantime, we need your help even more with this one: the mandatory long form census (read: fact-based decision-making) is under attack Please write about it in blogs & comments. We need more external pressure.
An editorial in Nature about it (subscription required or pay per view).
Posted by: AlisonS
|
September 1, 2010 2:38 AM
#47 I disagree about Harpie not being ideologically driven, even though I would agree about the cynical part. I had the misfortune to be sitting in the members' gallery when he made his maiden speech to Parliament as the new leader of the ReformaTories. He worships at the foot of the the American right and the speech outlined this clearly. Many of his not-for-prime-time speeches to private groups make his intentions abundantly clear.
I don't get the antipathy to Iggy. He is infinitely more human than Harpie and I, for one, find him to be a much more appealing individual. Although he is a bit more centrist than I would like, he is intelligent, thoughtful and approachable.
The issue with Faux News North is that they want the public to be forced to pay for it. If it were subscriber only, as the CRTC wants, that would be marginally acceptable. We already have a heavily right-leaning media (Global, CTV and all the Asper rags) which provide a heavy dose of other opinions, do Canadians really need a propaganda-filled TV channel? The answer is no, but the ReformaTories do.
Posted by: rippingrich
|
September 1, 2010 2:39 AM
But but, let us not forget that the only other reasonable option is the fucking wing-nut leader of our liberal party that goes by Iggy.
The guy slithers like a slug and is as whinny as a cat in heat.
He can't put together a lunch menu never mind a national action plan. I don't much like Harper unfortunately he is the lesser of the two evils.
Having Iggy as prime minister would be much worse.
Why Can't we go back to the good old days when it was considered heroic to shoot lousy leaders?
Oh and about the long form census...
Quite your fucking whining and fear mongering the world is not going to end just because we did not force people to fill out a long form.
jesus fucking christ enough already.
Posted by: Artful Bodger
|
September 1, 2010 3:51 AM
For what its worth I'm a Yank and I just signed it. I left the country blank. We need a "We are Americans and we are begging you to not follow our example" petition. There is a difference between free media and propaganda -- especially if the taxpayer subsidizes it.
One of the reasons I moved up here to Seattle from the heart of the Bible Belt was that Canada was just a short trip up the road. The 2008 election made me pause in my northward gaze but it looks like I will be resuming it. If Obama declines to run again for the 2012 election and our Taliban win I will be applying for asylum the next day.
Posted by: Scented Nectar
|
September 1, 2010 4:31 AM
Ibis3 wrote:
The info demanded in the long forms, even in the short ones, goes beyond what a census should be, which is a population count of citizens. It should be totally optional whether I want to tell them if I happen to have sex with anyone living here, eg, whether I am room mates or common law. If I am gay or bi, then I am legally required to out myself if I do have sex with another person of the same address.Other questions that should be optional, are things like what I do in my spare time and my religion, etc. I almost wish it was still mandatory, so that I could once again refuse and dare them to take me to court. They wimped out last time when a neighbour hired temp by them to collect the info (you can trust your neighbours though, because they PROMISED Census Canada they'd be discreet) just filled in whatever she felt like, by the sounds of her attempts to get the info over the phone and at the door.
If they really need my Social Insurance Number and income details for anything, they can ask the tax people for it. They are not getting it from me. The tax people will get my income info as they should, but the census will only get a citizen count out of me.
I really would like to see what would happen if they took someone to court who was refusing to sign on paper exposing details of their sex life and religious views.
I refuse to even fill out the short versions because of the question regarding one's relationship to others living there. It's none of their business. If there is any need, like to collect info to improve society like people say, fine, they can do optional surveys, they don't need to force it.
Back to Harper, it looks like he wants to promote Faux entertainment, but is against the arts:
Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmoYFnyTIVCa94myyA_qwNPDWZgbdFBnzY
|
September 1, 2010 4:45 AM
PZed, this is most unfair.
Canadians get a thread all to themselves to blather on about their boring politics, but the Aussies don't get anything.
Why don't we get to bloviate about *our* boring politics? In fact, our politics has just moved from the boring to the faintly interesting.
We're being repressed!
Zackoz
Posted by: Scented Nectar
|
September 1, 2010 5:15 AM
Sorry to dwell off topic, but the census really gets me going! And there's still a year to go until the next one. :)
Here's a site with excellent 'minimum cooperation' ideas designed for the last census in 2006. http://www.countmeout.ca/ Their reasons for disliking the census are a bit different than my own, but their ideas regarding legal methods of minimal cooperation are priceless.
Posted by: McCthulhu is taking ∞ to eat all the pi
|
September 1, 2010 5:31 AM
It's a bit of a hassle being a Canadian and stuck in Southern California and wanting to participate in elections back home. I sat on my hands during the last one because of it. Next go 'round though, I'm hoping that I and few hundred thousand others* completely turf this tardsniffing weasel zealot (or zealout, whichever you prefer). Whether it's the disappearing act in Copenhagen, the turfing of funding for programs in Africa that allow abortions, dropping science funding for programs that aren't 'conservative friendly' or this Fux News shite, Harper is a grade-A A-hole and I wouldn't want to be guilty of not participating in trying not to remove him from office. The stupidity of Bush II was catching...if only the anti-vaxers hadn't had so much sway, we could have had shots for it.
*If the Canadian contingent in the LA basin was considered a Canadian city, it would be something like the 4th or 5th largest city in Canada, by population. I'm only here because my wife wants to be, I can't imagine what the draw was for the others...it sucks! Pollution and ants. That's all you need to know.
Posted by: squealpiggy
|
September 1, 2010 8:02 AM
I've had plenty of good reasons for signing a petition to prevent a Canadian version of faux news but none of them are good enough to convince me that using the courts to silence an avenue of free speech is a good idea.
Canada has things pretty good from the perspective of politics, social justice, economics etc. I can say this as a British ex pat living over here. The bulk of Canadian "the sky is falling" panic tends to stem from the mortal fear of all Canadians: To be like the Americans!
Posted by: Epinephrine
|
September 1, 2010 8:02 AM
Proportional representation is needed in Canada. We'll likely not see majority governments anyway until we can consolidate the left leaning parties (though this is nominal, the liberals are hardly "left").
As it is, more than half of Canadians vote for someone left of Harper and his conservative cronies, but we end up with Harper (shudder). I think proportional representation is the only way forward; I don't want to have to vote for the liberals to have a shot at displacing Harper, because I find them a poor option (heck, I don't like party voting systems in the first place).
Posted by: Shala
|
September 1, 2010 8:10 AM
Canadian politics are so much less...insane than American politics, so it's a lot less clear cut on who it's obvious to vote for.
I usually go between NDP and conservative, and vote Progressive Conservative provincially.
Trudeau was PM before my time but sounded amazing.
Posted by: squealpiggy
|
September 1, 2010 8:31 AM
Shala is right. The Federal Conservatives are far less insane than their US counterparts in the Repubs and so you're left with a situation in which a fairly frequent change in government is a good idea.
All parties are fairly centrist in Canada (same goes for the UK more or less) so you're not losing much to change your vote. Which is how it should be. Nobody should realistically stick with the same party for their entire lives as situations and personnel change.
Posted by: ffrancis
|
September 1, 2010 11:13 AM
Umm, DC (#28), unless your comment that "people in the maritimes usually vote extreme left" was intended as a joke, I assume you have never either lived here or even paid any attention to the politics of the region.
Posted by: Mingr
|
September 1, 2010 11:14 AM
I've been lurking for a while & I love yah, PZ, but this is bullshit.
This proposal has nothing to do with Harper, and its not even a government decision. Its a commercial venture and, unlike the US, by and large communications policy decisions are made by professional bureaucrats who are required to be non-partisan (though senior ones have often been party hacks). Government makes policy, of course, and most Canadian communications and media policy is crap, but not because of politcal bias.
So, Harper may or may not like the idea of a Fox channel, but most of the stuff Fox does would get probably get their license pulled if they were Canadian. Whether or not Harper has a view of this business if he interfered, one way or another, all hell would break loose and it would be a major political scandal.
I don't bother watching any US news channels because, while Fox may be the worst, the others are little better. I doubt many Canadians will subscribe to this new channel or even watch it if it were free.
Regardless, if I wanted to ban TV I found repulsive, I'd start with all the religious broadcasts and work my way down the list.
Americans, no matter how well intentioned, might consider being agitated about things that are more important than a proposed specialty news channel in a country they know little or nothing about.
Like, you might start protesting the annual slaughter of tens of thousands of people who represent no threat to you, rather than being jingoists.
Just saying.
Hope your health is improving, PZ.
Posted by: rjjago
|
September 1, 2010 1:28 PM
It doesn't take a lot of research to see that the entire story is kind of a bit crap.
The station isn't funded by the government as some commenters seem to assume and as Soros' organization seems to be implying. The CRTC head isn't being pushed out the door - there's one source on that story, and it's from a partisan journalist known for hyperbole.
This type of station isn't anything new in Canada, the same corporation behind it already owns a French-language version (LCN), and has been running it for years without turning French Canadians into a foaming mob of tea-partiers.
Finally, the petition itself is absurd. The CRTC already made its decision months ago to deny the station a 'must carry' license. So the only thing in question is whether it'll get a digital license - those things are pretty much automatic - for gods' sake, the real Fox News already has one of those licenses in Canada. Once it has a digital license it just has to negotiate with the cable companies to get them to carry the station. Seeing as the owner of the station also owns cable companies - I'm thinking those negotiations might be pretty straight forward.
And anyhow, even without that digital license, the station already has a broadcast station in Canada's largest media market and can change the format at will.
Posted by: Dhorvath, OM
|
September 1, 2010 2:08 PM
I am Canadian and I could care less about the impact of a Fu-news station as my experience has always been that my fellow Canadians don't care about politics anyways. I object to the PM being involved because we already have a state run media outlet that soaks up tax dollars, why on Earth do we need another. If this is to be a private concern then the PM shouldn't be involved until he is no longer in office.
Posted by: Ted Wood
|
September 1, 2010 2:38 PM
"isn't Canada supposed to learn from our terrible mistakes?"
From my observatations Canada makes the same mistakes as the U.S., just 5-10 years later.
Posted by: George W.
|
September 1, 2010 3:25 PM
@#63
I hardly think this issue is bullshit. For a bit more context, read this article from the Globe and Mail. Little Stevie wants to change the career bureaucrats in order to get his pet network. So this is definitely about Stephen Harper.
As to the questions about Iggy's electability, he is most certainly not a skilled politician. Americans can picture John Kerry with a third of the charisma and your pretty much there. Good policy only goes so far in politics.
Posted by: Mingr
|
September 1, 2010 5:02 PM
@#67
Seriously.
The employee of one media conglomerate draws some innuendo about backroom deals between the PM and two other media conglomerates.
So, Finklestein, a Liberal hack, might be replaced by a Conservative hack, and its all because of the wishes of a Quebec based media conglomerate.
Yeah, thats Harper, always concerned about Eastern Canada.
Personally, I hold the CRTC (which has mostly been run by Liberal hacks), responsible for the fiasco that is Canadian broadcast media. I doubt Conservative hacks can/could/would do any better or worse.
Regardless of who is in charge, there is no legal or policy basis upon which to deny them the right to do so.
In other words, even if 30 million Canucks actually signed this stupid petition, they'd have a legal right to do what they want. And they will.
Posted by: George W.
|
September 1, 2010 5:35 PM
I don't doubt that we are getting Fox News North. I was pointing out that you are wrong to think that this is a decision being made solely by bureaucrats.
I just find your complacency a bit off-putting. The petition may not stop Fox News North from hitting the airwaves, but it certainly might make Harper accountable for his hand in it.
My issue is with a Category 1 designation, as well as with the potential for FNN to become part of my basic cable package.
At the end of the day this is not the only reason to be distrustful of Little Stevie and his party. It is just one of a plethora of good reasons.
Posted by: timgueguen
|
September 1, 2010 6:15 PM
Frankly the viability of a Fox News style Canadian network is questionable. Just look at the history of the National Post newspaper, which was Conrad Black's attempt at creating something like the Washington Times(minus the Moonie taint) as a right wing counter to the Toronto Globe and Mail. It didn't do well financially under Black, and didn't do any better when Izzy Asper's Canwest group bought it.
Posted by: Mingr
|
September 1, 2010 8:46 PM
#69
I don't Harper him either - its just got nothing to do with him.
Get the story straight - Harper is supposed to be responsible because Finkelstein - a Liberal hack - may be replaced by a Conservative hack. But Finkelstein already 'approved' the channel as he was required to do under the existing legislation.
You see if either Finkelstein or whoever replaces him were to decide otherwise, it would be against the rules. If, for some strange reason, the bureaucrats decided X and Finkelstein decided Y, then bureaucrats would leak his expense accounts or something like that, and he'd be gone as a result of a scandal.
So the whole thing is a tempest in a teapot - don't watch it, boycott the advertisers, and so on. Thats what I'll do. But the petition is, well, bullshit.
Posted by: sharl
|
September 1, 2010 11:06 PM
Dear Canadarians Who Are Eligible to Vote:
I hope you will all put aside any negative feelings you may have regarding Mr. Ignatieff, and support him in any efforts he should make to achieve higher office. I ask this, not with any knowledge or conviction that he will serve your nation's interests well. I ask this for purposes that would, I hope, best serve my own personal entertainment interests. Specifically, I wish to read more posts about Mr. Ignatieff from David Rees, such as this (2005 HuffPo) and especially this (2007 HuffPo) ['tears of a clown' indeed].
Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I hope I can look forward to your assistance.
Best Regards,
Sharl,
somewhere south of Canadaria
Posted by: P_Smith
|
September 2, 2010 12:47 AM
If I haven't said it before, I'm Canadian, and one of the best things about the CBC is that it is unaccountable to politicians and political parties. It's not perfect and sometimes doesn't go far enough, but the only threat that political whores can make against the CBC are budget cuts, so it doesn't censor itself to please people.
Canada does not need a FAUX Noise. The US needs a CBC, BBC, ABC (Australia) or Deutsche-Welle (Germany). NPR and PBS pale in comparison to any of them when it comes to objectivity and independence. Isn't it ironic that the country which preaches free speech the loudest doesn't have a TV or radio broadcaster of its own?
Posted by: areyoulistening
|
September 2, 2010 2:13 AM
#16
Reform is, thankfully, gone...well, mostly. It got merged with the old Progressive Conservatives into what is now the Conservative Party - which was an amazingly good thing because Reform had virtually no controls to keep out the crazies. Fox North is nothing in comparison to what would have happened had Reform been able to get more than marginal support outside of Alberta...well, unless you consider openly homophobic and in some cases racist statements by party members, some of which may or may not have been considered party line at some point, to be better than Fox North.
Posted by: mutuelle
|
September 30, 2010 5:29 AM
Signing a petition is the only solution and does this really brings a positive results?Are there any other alternatives?proportional representation is definitely needed in Canada.
Posted by: monado
|
October 5, 2010 10:24 PM
Update: Fox News North FAIL:
Petitions can work.
Posted by: monado
|
October 8, 2010 11:17 AM
Further update: Now, the host of the petition, Avaaz.org, is being threatened with a lawsuit, on what grounds I don't know. You can read about it, and donate, here: "Stand up to Crony-media moguls."