Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Where Are The Mass Marches? | Main | More desperate lies »

Tuesday, June 07, 2005

Garrison Mentality At The CBC

This morning the Fraser Institute quantifies the obvious;

[A]nti-American bias at the CBC is the consequence of a "garrison mentality" that has systematically informed the broadcaster's coverage of the US. Garrison mentality was a term coined by Canadian literary critic, Northrop Frye. He used it to describe a uniquely Canadian tendency reflected in our early literature, a tendency, as he put it, to "huddle together, stiffening our meager cultural defenses and projecting all our hostilities outward."

[...]

To gauge the extent of anti-American sentiment on CBC, one year's coverage of the Corporation's flagship news program, The National, for 2002 was examined. The authors chose 2002 because it followed the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, but was prior to the US invasion of Iraq.

In total there were 2,383 statements inside the 225 stories that referred to America or the United States on CBC in 2002. As with most news coverage, the largest number of statements was neutral; they constituted 49.1 percent of the attention. Thirty-four percent of the attention to America or the United States was negative, over double the 15.4 percent positive descriptors. Only 1.6 percent of the statements were considered ambiguous.

The main issue, constituting 27 percent of the coverage, was relations between Canada and the United States. Within this category 41 percent of statements were neutral. Of the remainder, statements were over twice as likely to be negative as positive regarding Canada/US relations (39 percent versus 18.9 percent).

Terrorism was the second most-often cited issue area where CBC mentioned America, at 10.8 percent. Here the negative comments overwhelmed positive evaluations by a 9-to-1 margin (37.6 percent and 3.1 percent, respectively).

Neutral statements, however, constituted 58.1 percent of the total coverage, which somewhat restored balance inso ar as even a factual report on terrorist activity is usually seen to be a negative reflection on terrorism.

The third most mentioned American issue on CBC in 2002 was build-up to the war in Iraq. At 10.5 percent, this topic was covered almost as extensively as terrorism, which received 10.8 percent of the CBC's attention. The negative evaluations of the American policy in Iraq were only slightly lower than on terrorism, comprising an 8-in-10 negative-to-positive ratio, compared to 9 in
10 for terrorism.

In total, despite the relative short period of time after the 9/11 attacks, the CBC's opinion statements of America during 2002 were overwhelmingly critical of American policy, American actions, and American purposes.


Posted by Kate McMillan on June 7, 2005 in Media | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d8347dc9a369e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Garrison Mentality At The CBC:

Comments

I think an important question to ask of this study is what they deemed to be a negative statement? Something tells me the truth isn't always a happy go lucky story.
"Marines killed 60 insurgents", is that a positive or negative statement about America?

How do you sell a story about Gitmo as a positive story? It is unacceptable for us as Canadians, so how does that not become a negative news story here?
Britain, an ally in the Iraq war has condemned Gitmo as well.

We are their neighbors. It is our job to report and be critical of their actions. I'd say the CBC stories reflect the attitude of the public and not the other way around.
There is a difference between anti-American and anti-Bush and co.

Perhaps if "America" didn't have so many fingers in so many dirty pies we could say something nice for a change.

Don't shoot the messenger.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-07 8:49:21 AM


Hand me the gravol - Gamblog's weaving has got me woozy:

"I think an important question to ask of this study is what they deemed to be a negative statement"

translation: there is no bias

"How do you sell a story about Gitmo as a positive story? It is unacceptable for us as Canadians, so how does that not become a negative news story here?"

translation: there is bias, but it's unavoidable

"We are their neighbors. It is our job to report and be critical of their actions."

translation: there is bias, but it's our "job" to be biased.

"I'd say the CBC stories reflect the attitude of the public and not the other way around."

translation: too impolite to print.

"Perhaps if "America" didn't have so many fingers in so many dirty pies we could say something nice for a change."

translation: two wrongs make a right.

"Don't shoot the messenger." [ed - Actually, I think we should let them die with dignity by cutting off their food and water]

translation: there is no bias.

I'm going to lie down now.

Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-06-07 9:18:26 AM


Hey Gamblog, you never learned to call a spade a spade? I suppose Canada is a hot bed of racial bigotry but all this anti Americanism is total hyperbole?

Well as a Canadian growing up with an American Parent and, later, an American wife, I am totally sensative to the insurmountable jabs, cheap shots and plain ugly comments that I and my American side of the family has endured most of our lives here in Kanada. The thing that hurt the most was getting these shots from people you had considered friends.It's like people here are hard wired to seek some synthetic supriority through dehumanizing Americans.

Scholars can call it a "garrison mentality" in an attempt to tart up this unseemly underbelly of the Canadian character, but I call it what it is: a multi generational spitefulness that comes from some neurotic national insecurity.

The CBC is openly Anti American ( possibly not as bad as some MSM). I make a destinction between criticizing US policy and openly mocking the US and it's citizens as Comrade Mercer, and other CBC scolding churls of the neurotic nanny state.

Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-06-07 9:19:35 AM


gamblog said:
"We are their neighbors. It is our job to report and be critical of their actions"

This capsulates the unworldly hubris needed to adopt US bigotry as a rationalized "higher moral effort".

Step back a pace or two Gamlog and ask yourself exact WHO appoint us the moral critics of the US...or even their moral superior? What exactly places you or the other Yankee scolders in the position to act as America's moral concience?

A more arrogant and detached attitude is inconceivable.

If you want to be America's moral concience...move there, hold a stake in their gains or losses and VOTE your concience.....but preaching/moralizing to the US from the comfort of national economic and military security the US is largely responsible for is a level of hypocrisy that borders on insanity.

Posted by: WLMackenzie redux | 2005-06-07 9:28:16 AM


Gamblog says “Perhaps if "America" didn't have so many fingers in so many dirty pies we could say something nice for a change.”

Perhaps if the rest of the world was prepared to chip in and roll their sleeves up in the dirty, corrupt Third World; then America wouldn’t be the only one making the inevitable mistakes trying to clean up the mess. Had a look at Kosovo lately? South Africa? All those “dirty pies” where even blessed by the presence of the high priests at the UN, yet remain dirty; why is that?

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-06-07 9:34:54 AM


I love it! 'Perhaps if America didn't have so many fingers in so many dirty pies, we could say something nice for a change".

Wow! What a perfect example of smug, self-righteous, condescending, ignorant Canadian pomposity!

Just listen to the moral superiority, the self-satisfied arrogance of self-defined purity.

Hey, Gamblog - check out Canada's dirty fingers: check out Oil-for-Fraud, Inco-in-Peru, check out our deals with the Chinese; check out our signing Kyoto and increasing pollution; check out our alliances with France in Iraq. Check out our turning our backs on helping the Iraqis, the Sudanese - and anyone else. Check out the utterly and completely corrupt state of Canadian politics, the laundering of taxpayers' money, the bribes, the deals, the lack of accountability, the utter lack of consultation with the people. Check out the tsunami money that has never been sent to Sri Lanka. Check out the propaganda fed to - you.

Check out the FACT that the Afghan people voted in their own democratic gov't; that the Iraqi people voted in their own democratic gov't. That's all due to ONE nation. America. Check out the fact that Syria withdrew from Lebanon, that Lebanon is electing its gov't; check out that Saudi Arabia is trembling into democracy. All due to ONE nation. America.
And - their allies. UK, Australia, Poland, Spain, Italy, Japan......and nowhere do we see Canada.

Here's a quote from a speech:
"No one is fit to be a master and no one deserves to be a slave'.

Hmm. Who said that? I'll tell you something - it wasn't a Canadian. No way.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-07 9:38:36 AM


Today's indignation brought to you by the fair and balanced and unbiased Fraser Institute...

(chuckle, snort...)

Nice try boys...

And ET, Canada may not be as pure as the driven snow, but that fact doesn't absolve The Bush Administration of their far worse offenses.

Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-06-07 9:47:11 AM


Gamblog wrote:

"How do you sell a story about Gitmo as a positive story? It is unacceptable for us as Canadians, so how does that not become a negative news story here?"

Ahh, the moral purity of Canadians. Sitting in their almost-at-the-top-of-the-world northern heights, viewing with a benign and wise eye, the follies and impurities of the rest of the world grovelling at its feet.

'..unacceptable to us as Canadians'... Yes indeed, there is something in the genetic or social composition of Canadians that makes them, yes, morally superior to others.

Canadians..don't do bad things. Ever. Why on earth do we have police? We Canadians don't do anything, ever, wrong. Why do we have courts and prisons? We Canadians are morally pure...

We don't do bad things. Never. Not in Somalia. Nowhere. Why is that? Ahh yes, we are morally superior, and those 'dirty Americans' - they are indeed inferior in every way.

We Canadians, according to Gamblog, have a duty, (who gave us this duty, is it inherent in our citizenship?)to instruct Americans in The Right Way.

We also have, according to him, the moral authority, to critique them and, gently, of course, explain to them the folly of their ways. Why do we have this duty? Well, because we are better than they are.

As others have pointed out, unlike the Americans, who take responsibility and move in to help others in the world, bringing with this help their inevitable human errors, we Canadians do - guess what? We do NOTHING. But preach. And moralize. And insist we are morally superior.

I am always astonished, and infuriated, by this ignorant and arrogant attitude of Canadians.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-07 9:56:39 AM


ET don’t worry- this too will pass. The Liberals are so power hungry they will soon dump their loser Paul Martin. In the wings are Frank McKenna and Michael Ignatieff – both of whom are trying to tell Canadians not to be so smug. Their message isn’t much different then ours. So the self-righteous will soon have to all move over with smilin’ Jack to hear their own gospel.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-06-07 9:58:10 AM


A Hermit wrote - 'the far worse offenses of the Bush Administration'.

Ah yes - another example of moral superiority. Bringing democracy to the Afghanistans and Iraqis. Freeing these people of repressive dictatorships. Freeing the women from being stone to death, from being set up as ONLY sexual objects, owned by their fathers or husbands, forbidden to be anything other than this sexual object - forbidden to learn, to mingle with others.
Yes indeed, the Bush Administration - starting democracy in the ME..in Lebanon, in Syria, in Saudi Arabia.
The Bush Administration - the immediate and first response to the tsunami crisis.

Yes indeed, these are far worse offenses than those of Canada...which doesn't lift a finger to help anyone free themselves of repression, of dictatorship (indeed, aligns with those dictators!), does zilch to help people in need.

'Far worse offenses' indeed. You know, America couldn't have the state of political corruption that we have, now, in Canada. It would be impossible because of their checks and balances. But, to you - America is worse. Unreal.

I'm in favour of democracy. That's not found in Canada. It is a basic policy of The Bush Administration.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-07 10:04:41 AM


Now lets have a study that checks fair coverage of the Conservative party. Everyone knows the CBC is biased against the US, pretty much all of Canada resents them. Now lets see if the majority of things said by CBC about Conservatives is neutral.

Posted by: ld | 2005-06-07 10:37:18 AM


"We are their neighbors. It is our job to report and be critical of their actions"

No, it's not our job.

Posted by: Kate | 2005-06-07 11:04:49 AM


Right, Kate. And notice what happens in Canada if the Americans 'report on Canada' or 'report and criticize'.

The MSM screams bloody murder; outrage at 'how dare those Americans tell us, a sovereign nation, what to do'.

But, to the Gamblog type, it is 'our job to report and be critical of their actions'

The smug moral hypocrisy..is beyond me.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-07 11:18:57 AM


They liberate. We smugly criticize. They're a country run by grown-ups, we a country run by children. They have a balance between left and right, we have leftist extremists holding sway.
They practice diversity. We preach it- but the reality is no conservatives need apply.

Go ET!

Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-06-07 11:51:46 AM


The topic of this post was CBC's anti-Americanism.
Everyone seems to have taken my comments and applied there own bias.
Let's step back for a minute and see what it was that I suggested? I thought we should examine what defined a negative statement about America. Is it anti-Americanism or is it anti-Bush?
I've never said for a second that I hate the citizens of the USA and nor have the CBC. There are jerks there same as there are jerks here.

Am I so smug and self-righteous because I question the existence of Guantanamo Bay? In case you haven't noticed most of America's allies have done the same. I suppose you'd be perfectly happy to be an inmate there? Detained with no charge for years in an open-air cell.
I am not going to agree with people that think America can do no harm. I advise you to be a little more critical and objective in your thinking.

Canada is not infallible we have our problems and we need to deal with them. America have their problems and living next door to them we are free to comment and so are they...or else I thought we both lived in free countries.
I am not America's moral compass nor do I influence their decisions, but I am certainly allowed to comment as a citizen of this planet.

We are supposed to be critical of our governments it is our duty in a democracy. If the US wishes to be the bastion of democracy and freedom then they can certainly take the criticism. It isn't all unfounded, they are not perfect and neither are we.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-07 12:01:56 PM


They are fighting a war on our behalf. The war was declared in 1996 by our mutual enemy. If they lose this war we will all suffer. In this light criticism should be fair, mature and restrained rather than petty and partisan.

The "mishandling" of the Koran is a concern but the "mishandling" of heads is of bigger concern.

Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-06-07 12:10:00 PM


No, Gamblog, that's not the point.

You said 'it is unacceptable for us as Canadians'. What is it about 'us as Canadians' that makes it unacceptable? Are we morally different from the Americans? Was it acceptable to them as Americans? Remember - they are the ones who investigated and charged those responsible. Your insertion of 'us as Canadians' is a clear statement that there is something unique to Canadians which makes it 'unacceptable', whereas, for Americans, it 'is'a reality (and therefore accepted). This is a clear statement that we Canadians are morally superior to the Americans. That's outrageous.
That's why people have reacted to your post - it's clear assumption of moral superiority to the Americans.

You said 'It is our job to report and be critical of their actions'. Really? Who made it our job? Did they? No.

Did we? On the basis of what? What is it that would justify Canadians having the right, the duty, to report on and be critical of Americans?Our moral superiority to them? Remember, you have claimed this in your post by your phrases 'it is unacceptable to us as Canadians'. This sets up a situation where 'being Canadian' means that we can view an action done by the Americans as 'unacceptable', implying that it is acceptable to them. You are the one claiming moral superiority.

Is it our duty because we are neighbours? Why? And remember, that would mean that they have every right - and the duty - to report on and critize Canada.
But- If/when they do - Canada erupts in fury, denouncing 'those Americans' intruding on our 'sovereign rights'. How dare they comment on our desire to make marijuana legal, to make SSM legal, to tighten up our borders, to tighten up our defense...how dare they. We are sovereign; who do they think they are..etc,etc.

No one reacted with bias to your comments; they reacted to YOUR comments for what they were - smug, condescending, morally superior.

You question the existence of Guantanamo Bay? What would your solution be to dealing with non-military people who engage in terrorist activities? Well?

Being an inmate in a jail is not supposed to be a happy experience. What leads you to conclude that it ought to be?
Being engaged in terrorist activities does have, and ought to have, reactions from the civilians affected by those terrorist agendas.

You are the one who needs to be more critical and objective.
You are the one who wrote: 'Perhaps if America didn't have so many fingers in so many dirty pies we could say something nice for a change'. You wrote that. No-one else did. Now, if that's not anti-American - then, what is?

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-07 12:26:58 PM


That Gitmo exists at all should be a positive statement. Prisoners were taken, they were not killed. They were handed a Koran not their heads. Also, agree with Gamblog that there’s probably room for improvement there. But if my kid were in Iraq, I’d want those guys in Gitmo to be out of action and providing as much info as possible to save my kid’s life. That’s how an American thinks about this and the CBC can’t grasp that point. That’s because Canada has been on sidelines; it has no empathy.

Maybe it’s like SSM, one tends to be a bit more sympathetic to it if one has friends that are gay or a kid that is gay.

But the bottom line is: Are we, the Western world, at war against Islamofascism or not?
Until we agree on that, there’s no point in even discussing Gitmo.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-06-07 12:37:07 PM


Why attempt to fisk Gamblog?


He/she/it is both tendentious, tedious, and trite; and always trong.

trong, n

Klingon for tendentious, tedious, trite.

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-07 12:47:58 PM


June 07, 2005

INDEED: Eugene Volokh points to this story with the jokey headline "Blame Canada:"

The 17-year-old Bucks County boy charged with having bomb-making equipment in his bedroom and threatening to blow up his school is a Canadian who hates Americans, prosecutors say.

Obvious headline. On the other hand, the CBC, according to a just-released Fraser Institute study, is engaged in what sounds a lot like paranoid hate speech:

The CBC’s television news coverage of the United States is consistently marked by emotional criticism, rather than a rational consideration of US policy based on Canadian national interests, according to The Canadian released today by The Fraser Institute.

This anti-American bias at the CBC is the consequence of a “garrison mentality” that has systematically informed the broadcaster’s coverage of the US. Garrison mentality was a term coined by Canadian literary critic, Northrop Frye. He used it to describe a uniquely Canadian tendency reflected in our early literature, a tendency, as he put it, to “huddle together, stiffening our meager cultural defenses and projecting all our hostilities outward.”

One hopes that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation will review its stance before any more innocent schoolchildren are threatened. . .

instapundit.com

Posted by: maz2 | 2005-06-07 1:02:39 PM


Has anyone actually read the Fraser report?

How can anyone take seriously a report that classifies the friendly fire deaths of Canucks in the Stan as 'accidental'.

"Canada's advice to fighter pilots" is that when you see unidentifiable ground fire that is of no conceivable threat to you or any other pilot in a fluid combat zone at night, mark it, report it and wait for orders.

The pilots' bosses had a better way of identifying tracer fire: call the AWACS plane, who had better maps. AWACS could also call ground control, and check with their maps. The inquiries found that on average from identification of a possible target to communication back to the pilots using this procedure took an average of five minutes. In this particular case it took just 157 seconds. But as one can see from the transcript below, "Psycho" Schmidt only gave his controllers 90 seconds, before deciding to act regardless."

No doubt one of the negative reports by the CBC. Murder is never pretty.

Posted by: DJ | 2005-06-07 1:34:36 PM


ET, if we made no judgments or comments on the actions of other countries then I guess Iraq would never have happened. We in the democratic world are free to hold our allied democracies to account. They don't have to listen, but it is our job to make sure democracy includes a free exchange of ideas. Pointers from one friend to another.

You can replace Canadians with human beings if you would like, but noting our geography I believe we do live in Canada. It doesn't make us any more superior just colder.

As for what to do with "terrorists", locking them up in their own countries is a start or leaving them in Afghanistan. There they can be tried for any crimes they have committed. Why send them to Cuba, why not afford them the rights we would like to spread around the globe? Justice, lawyers, fair trials, give the evidence against them would be a start.

Why is my perception that American foreign policy might be up to no good a blast against the citizens of the US? Are American citizens anti-American too? Baffling. Are you anti-Canadian because you don't like what our government is up to?

Please stop twisting my words to suit your arguments and preconceived notions.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-07 1:36:22 PM


If the government owned CBC was an investment house it would have to disclose its position in the Liberal stock it was recommending.
The CBC’s disclosure position is:
-Its Board of Directors is full of Liberals
-It favours big government policies versus small government because it runs on a deficit
-It has a mandate to make us all feel Canadian. Since we are so diverse and spread out there is no way to define a Canadian, ergo it uses anti-US propaganda.

Therefore the last thing the CBC wants in power is the CPC, all it’s behavior will be directed in such a way as to see that does not happen.
That’s why I don’t ever watch the CBC even though I have to pay for it.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-06-07 2:05:58 PM


The stats are based on watching 19 broadcasts. Both the authors contributed to write Hidden Agendas: How Journalists Influence the News.

They were looking for statements they could interpret as negative.

I'm sorry, but I don't think I trust the motives behind this report.

Give me an unbiased source and we can actually have a rational discussion about the CBC and quality of other sources of news.

I will start tonight taking my own stats on the CBC.

Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-06-07 2:06:33 PM


ET, I fully supported our involvement in Afghanistan; I'm upset that Bush turned his attention away from that justified, dedfensive conflict to wage an unwarranted, expensive, destructive and counterproductive war in Iraq, while allowing the Taliban and the the drug running warlords to rebuild their power bases in Afghanistan. I'd love to have seen a real effort at rebuilding there...

As for Gitmo, our government's hands aren't clean; just ask Maher Arar. But it's the US that has made it permissible to even discuss the utility of torture, while shipping innocent men like Arar off to places like Syria to be beaten, starved and abused and sending guns and aid to evil bastards like the Stalinist dictator of Uzbekistan.

Pointing out these are bad things deosn't mean I'm blind to the sins of my own government, and it doesn't make one "anti-American". I am pro-America; the America that used to stand for liberty and individual rights. I am anti-torture, anti-tyrrany, anti-war without cause, anti-lying to the people. Are you for those things? I doubt it. So why are you defending them?

Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-06-07 2:10:24 PM


It's woth noting that even according to the oh-so-unbiased Fraser Institue, about half the CBC reports they logged were "neutral". COnsidering the nature of the news uindustry (ie "if it bleeds, it leads") it shouldn't be surprising that of the remaining half more stories were negative.

Wonder if anyone's going to count how often the CBC does "negative" mentions of Paul Martin lately? Make sure to include that liberally biased Andrew Coyne's commentaries on The National...

Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-06-07 2:21:34 PM


"Give me an unbiased source and we can actually have a rational discussion about the CBC and quality of other sources of news."

When Peter Desbarats reviewed the Cooper book, Sins of Omission, he essentially argued that "CBC Bias" wasn't a "CBC bias" but rather a bias of Canadian journalism. And the argument stopped there.

" The question that Cooper's study fails to answer is how much of this CBC bias is simply a reflection of journalistic and cultural attitudes that cut across media organizations."
http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwpress/jrls/cjc/BackIssues/20.2/reviews.html

If Desbarats was unable or unwilling to addresss allegations of bias, whether of cbc in isolation or canadian journalists collectively, shouldn't the next step taken be to expose, then ferret out the bias in the broader press?

Why not start at the schooling level? Not in the same way that other groups, like feminists take over entire departments and run opponents out, but actually start with a real review on the balance of a j-school faculty and legitimate diversity of ideas or lack thereof.

What about an attempt to entice individuals other than left leaners and radicals into journalism schools and campus reporting? Or exposing campus editors who act as arbiters and limit genuine free expression of conservative thought?

Posted by: Ceebyjeeby | 2005-06-07 2:22:59 PM


DJ- the friendly fire deaths in Afghanistan were accidental. The pilots were not Canadians but Americans. They were not engaged, as were the Canadians, in 'war-games' but in a real war. They were not informed, by the Canadians, that the Canadians were there. The US pilots thought they were being attacked. OK?

Just try calling it murder. Intent? Agenda? Your anti-Americanism is running you blindly.

My god, Gamblog, your arguments are completely specious and vapid! Unbelievable.

1) You state - if 'we make no judgments or comments on other countries..then, Iraq would never have happened'. I am presuming you mean the liberation of Iraq by the American coalition? Who is 'we'? Canadians? We contributed nothing but enmity to that liberation. We certainly didn't make it happen.

2) Now, since 'we in the democratic world' (my god, the pomposity of your verbiage!!)...must hold our allied democracies to account". How utterly patronizing. Do you realize what you just said? Your sentence says that WE hold THEM to account, which implies that WE hold the standards by which their actions are judged. YOU are behaving as the JUDGE...holding THEM, the person in the dock, to account. What arrogance.

What should you be saying? We are free to research, analyze and debate their actions and they are free to do the same with us. But Canada doesn't permit the latter. Canada violently rejects research, analysis and criticism of any kind. Dissent is not welcomed in Canada. Remember the Liberal ads; if you have any view other than that of the Liberal Party, you are 'un-Canadian'. A country that rejects dissent, is not a free country.

Canada doesn't research, analyze and debate American policies; it actually knows very little about the reasons for American actions.. All it does is judge. Get the difference?

3) You already made your judgment: you said that "Perhaps if "America" didn't have so many fingers in so many dirty pies we could say something nice for a change".
That's a judgment. What are your standards by which you came to this conclusion? And what are these 'dirty pies'? Be specific.

4) "Pointers from one friend to another'. How condescending, how smug. Maybe they don't need pointers. Don't you realize what you are doing? You are assuming superior knowledge and judgment on the part of Canadians..and, with our superior knowledge, morals, etc...we will provide these weaker beings with 'pointers'. How patronizing.

5) What a clever suggestion about terrorists!!! Locking them up in their own countries! Brilliant!
Oh - Who will run the prisons? Hmmm? Corruptible friends of the prisoners? So, if they are from Iran - lock them up in Iran. If they are from Syria - lock them up in Syria. THINK!!! Does the US have any prisons in these 'their own countries'? Does it have the legitimate right to go in, and set up a prison in Syria, in Lebanon, in Iran, in Pakistan..and run it???? THINK!
Your other suggestion - leave them in Afghanistan. Equally brilliant. Leave them..how? To set up another terrorist attack??
Why Afghanistan? And again - does the US have a prison there?

Why Cuba? Because the US OWNS a portion of that island..and that's where the prison is. Why on an island? And why in America rather than in the Middle East? To prevent other terrorists from accessing that island and freeing the prisoners. Get it?

6)What rights? What rights are you talking about? They are not in the military, therefore, they don't have the rights of a soldier. They are criminals; individuals who kill civilians, whose agenda is to, as they openly state, kill all infidels. That's pretty basic; they've made their agenda clear.
Rights? They have their human rights.

7) You don't provide any evidence whatsoever, not a shred of evidence, that 'American foreign policy might be up to no good'. No evidence. Another of your judgment calls, made without a hearing, without any evidence, without any data. (Hmmm...Guantanamo tactics?)
There's plenty of evidence that Amercian foreign policy is up to a lot of good. So- what's your evidence?

8) How can you separate American policy from American citizens? America is a democracy. Its administration is not some alienated Rulers in the Sky, floating around out of contact 30,000 feet up. The American administration is totally and completely ELECTED. Unlike ours in Canada. Its foreign policy and its actions, are debated and voted on - in Congress. That Congress is an elected one.

So, your view that American people are alienated from and have no power over their administration is completely false. That IS the case in Canada, but not in the US.

9) I'm not twisting your words. I cut and paste them..and point out that they ARE YOUR WORDS. You are accountable for them. You don't like being called to account.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-07 2:30:15 PM


Gamblog: I'm interested to see the results of your personal research into the CBC.
If the Fraser Institute really did begin their research with the intention of finding anti-American bias, they probably would have chose The Hour or CBC Radio's The Current to analyse for content. I find the National is overall the most unbiased of CBC's programming, along with As it Happens on Radio One.
The Current has exibited the most blatant bias quite consistently.
I suggest you keep your eyes and ears open not only for anti-American bias, but also anti-capitalist and anti-Conservative Pary of Canada bias. Although you don't need to do much research into a public broadcaster to realize that their raison d'etre exists apart from Capitalist and so-called Conservative values.

Posted by: Charlote | 2005-06-07 2:33:22 PM


"I'm upset that Bush turned his attention away from that justified, dedfensive conflict to wage an unwarranted, expensive, destructive and counterproductive war in Iraq, while allowing the Taliban and the the drug running warlords to rebuild their power bases in Afghanistan" A Hermit

Hermit,

Get out more often, mingle and become more enlightened.

You've accurately quoted Richard Clarke -Democatic Party partisan talking points but fortunately your fellow citizens elected a party with more forward looking and courageous leadership.

The U.S. is capable of routing the Taliban in Af (which has been done) and taking the war to:
1. the place where the enforcement of the NFZ- to protect the Kurds and Shias -was stated by bin laden to be the first ground in his declaration of war against the U.S.
2. the place where the rulers of the state cheered 9/11
3. where Z fled before the liberation of Iraq began
4. where a mid-east strongman, sponsor of terrosism and defier of U.N. ceasefire resolutions needed to be made a lesson of
5. where there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe WMD were stored and
6. the best place to employ the forward looking stategy of enabling the citizens of a mid-east Muslim country to establish a democracy and thus end in 5 years a war that might otherwise take 20 years.

And now that you're there and winning - and noting that your party voted to go there -you have to be dim or nuts not to wholeheartedly support the campaign to a succcessful conclusion. I have not the slightest doubt that the so-called insurgency is fueled by the erroneous view that they (the Isalmofascists) can still win this war by winning it in the United States. We are our own worst enemies.

Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-06-07 2:57:23 PM


Gamblog: "We are their neighbors. It is our job to report and be critical of their actions."

I am "Gamblog"'s neighbour. It is my job to report on his assinine staements and report what an asshole he is.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-07 3:02:44 PM


I don't see what's the big deal about Camp X-Ray anyway.

It's not like these low-lifes have been forced to have sex-change operations and then dumped in some Taliban hell-hole in Eastern Pakistan.

Hmmm... Not a bad idea.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-07 3:04:57 PM


Re: "The CBC has a mandate to make us all feel Canadian."

Exactly.

It's like those Quebec schools that charge Ottawa a fee for flying the Canuckistan flag -- and the government actually pays!

No offence, but isn't this a bit of a joke country if it has to constantly resort to such ridiculous measures in order to promote "unity"?

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-07 3:08:51 PM


Such a febrile bias. War games are war. Even the Yanks do it and did it at Tarnak farms.

"CPO Matthew Bourgeois was killed and another SEAL wounded by an enemy mine on March 28, 2002 during breaching training at Tarnak Farms near Kandahar."

http://www.specwarnet.com/americas/SEALs.htm

Only Psycho knows what the intent or agenda was. We can speculate. However, it matters not. Psycho was not under attack. He was immune. He blatantly disregarded the rules of engagement established precisely to prevent ffc. No matter how much you huff and puff, ET, it's murder.

And thus any report that discounts outright that position, is maybe good for one thing; wiping your ass.

Posted by: DJ | 2005-06-07 3:10:18 PM


No, DJ. Wargames are not war. War has an agenda; an attack against a declared enemy. Wargames has a different agenda; a pretense attack. Don't conflate the two. In a real war, it has dangerous results.

A game is a game; reality is not a game.

Casualities in wargames are not murder. Would you please provide the exact statute that states that they are?

When casualities happen in the US and the UK and other countries during wargames - these countries don't go beserk and accuse each and everyone of vicious and foul - murder. Only Canada does that.

How dare you call an officer of the US airforce a 'psycho'. What gives you the right to make such a judgment? The reality is: the US airforce was involved in real war, not wargames. There was an enemy force involved.
The Canadians were involved in wargames. Not real war. There was NO enemy force involved in their war games. They did not inform the Americans of their wargames; and therefore, the US pilot had no way of knowing that they were 'just Canadians with their wargames' rather than enemy fire.

No, it's not murder. Murder is 'the crime of unlawfully killing someone usually with malice aforethought'.
The facts are- the Canadians are responsible. They didn't inform the Americans of their wargames. There was no malice whatsoever. That happens to be a requirement of the definition of murder.
However, I suspect that malice is in your anti-Americanism..and you are the one supplying it.


Posted by: ET | 2005-06-07 3:26:30 PM


"Sour note marks D-Day: Deputy mayor introduces O Canada and nothing happens"

Toronto Sun, June 7

By ROB GRANATSTEIN, CITY HALL BUREAU

THE D-DAY ceremony at City Hall turned into embarrassment and anger after no one brought the audio tape of O Canada.

Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone introduced the anthem at the noon-time gathering of veterans, honour guards and onlookers in Nathan Phillips Square.

The music didn't play. The tape of the national anthem wasn't at the ceremony.

Pantalone stumbled his way through singing the first couple of lines of the anthem a couple of times before stopping.

Finally he called up city protocol officer Nancy MacSween, and with the help of a few vocal people in the crowd they completed the song.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-07 3:26:52 PM


Maybe Canayjins should spend more time worrying about Canuckistan than they do yapping about the awful, scary Yanquis.

And in Toronto, of all places? The very belly of the beast!

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-07 3:29:22 PM


They were probably too ambarrassed to sing those incredibly insensitive, anachronistic, sexist and theistic sentiments that unfortunately still permeate the Canuckistan anthem.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-07 3:32:53 PM


As your American neighbor, I feel it is my responsibility to offer Canada constructive criticism so that you can use your foibles as an opportunity for constructive improvement.

I don't want to nitpick, but you know, your Liberal goverenment is a racketeering enterprise in partnership with an organized crime syndicate. I don't want to try to exacerbate what in actual fact is a small matter, but the FBI flipped a capo in the Bonanno crime family, and he was insensitive enough to point out that Alphonso Gagliano is a made member of 'La Cosa Nostra'.

He has proven contacts to Don Vito Ruzzio, who ran organized street crime in Montreal, Toronto, and other cities (and has been implicated in a mob hit on several Bonanno associates), and to the Contrera-Caruana crime family. This, of course, is all a fairly delicate matter and by no means is intended to suggest that Canada has problems.

The kickback scheme between the Liberal government and businessmen is now well known (and of course the threats). I would be the last to suggest that these revelations in any way impugn the fine political class in Canada or Canada's impressive government.

The fact that in the midst of this Canadian Senators are not elected, and there is no mechanism for low population areas of Canada to have political power is hardly worth mentioning. The fact that this situation causes a number of Canadians to actively try to figure out how to separate from the confederation is merely one of those dismissable factors that would not engage the mind of a serious person.

The bilingual requirement that effectively shuts out a huge part of the population of Canada from full involvement in political participation is merely one of those things that increases the charm that an American sees when observing your country.

Some people whose minds are not capable of nuance might wonder how a people in the situation I describe would have the audacity to feel comfortable freely criticizing another country, however I understand how short-sighted that view actually is.

Oh incidentally, I personally object to Americans who feel cheeky enough to point out that the RCMP is underfunded and apparently has insuffient autonomy with which to deal with matters I wrote of earlier in this post. Well, frankly, a country that requires a lot of law enforcement is probably a country whose citizens have some tendency to misbehave, and that certainly would not include Canadians.

Posted by: Greg outside Dallas | 2005-06-07 5:00:55 PM


Greg,

Just thank God you were born in a strong and free country, and keep on moving past this northern train wreck.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-07 5:07:18 PM


Perfect, Greg. But you are too subtle; Canadians are a lot ruder than you are; they fling terms around like 'murderous', 'liar', 'illegal' in their description of the USA and Bush.

I recall some time ago, when K. Newman, the key reporter on Global TV's National News informed viewers that Global had done a poll that showed that 'the majority of Canadians considered that the US was a 'rogue nation' and that 'Bush was 'evil'.

I was furious, absolutely furious. I wrote the station, (and the CRTC) informing that that this was 'hate-mongering'. Did they really know the meaning of 'rogue nation'? Didn't they realize that the term 'evil' is subjective? How could they apply either definition to the USA? On what grounds?

Furthermore, there is no way that a survey could have respondents come up with those terms (rogue nation, evil) on their own. It would never happen. Those terms HAD to be in the questions; therefore, the respondents were being led by the questionnaire to give those answers.

I got timid responses from CTV - but - I did get responses. The CRTC was useless, sending me an irrelevant form letter effectively saying that it was beyond their mandate. For a while, the viciousness against the USA seemed to stop. I no longer watch it..so, can't comment now.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-07 5:54:46 PM


Kevin Newman also deserves a prize for one of the sleaziest "news" story intros ever.

Prior to the Iraq War II, after the discovery of Iraqi cruise missiles:

"Well, it looks like Bush has finally found a trigger for his itchy finger!"

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-07 7:01:29 PM


ET, as always, even in full view of the facts you remain invincibly ignorant. You just make things up.

"The Coalition Investigation Board found by clear and convincing evidence that the cause of the friendly fire incident on 17 April 2002 was the failure of [Major Harry Schmidt], the 170th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron Weapons Officer and the incident flight wingman, to exercise appropriate flight discipline. This resulted in a violation of the rules of
engagement and the inappropriate use of lethal force. Under the circumstances, Major [Harry Schmidt] acted with reckless disregard for the foreseeable consequences of his actions,
thereby endangering friendly forces in the Kandahar area."

War games, conducted in theatre, by your beloved Yankee brethren are not part of war? What nonsense. The unlawful killing of humans during war (whether with malice or not) is not murder? Stop, dear sir, before you look an absolute buffoon.

3rd PPCLI only gaming in Afghanistan...the stench is malodourous..."A world-record killing shot by a Canadian sniper detachment in Afghanistan..."

www.snipercountry.com/ Articles/KillingShot_2430Metres.asp

Psycho was the handle given him by his colleagues. Not 'Maverick' nor 'Topgun' but 'Psycho'.

AWACS knew within 157 seconds that 'Psycho' had murdered friendlies. In under three minutes AWACS knew the Canucks were there. Funny that, considering PPCLI had not informed anyone.

Murder
"The taking of another person's life, without legal justification or provocation." Malice of forethought is pre-meditated murder.

ET, I never took you for stupid...obviously I was wrong.

Posted by: DJ | 2005-06-07 11:29:41 PM


You know...sitting out here in the beautifull mountains of Alberta...I am continually amazed at the level to which our National Media has so filled Upper/Lower Canada (read Ontario/Quebec), with so much Anti-american drivel..of course this has been helped along with Don vito Chretien who could not come out of his mole hole 9/11 for 3 days and then to effectively let Americans know that...well Gee, we're sorry but you know it really is your own fault. This followed by the most impressive comments of Marylyn Parrish and the almost invisible actions of Mr. Dithers.

I would be curious to know how those in Upper/Lower Canada would react if said aircraft plunged into the Skydome or the CN tower and it took the US administration 3 days to comment and then in effect blame us Canadians.??

I personally am sick and tired of the smugness and total hypocritical attitudes taken by those that support those actions by our Cdn Politicians and the supportiveness of these attitudes one sees/hears in the CBC.

And People wonder why the West wants out..??damned straight. When some pin head comes out with a statement that "All Canadians" are against whatever...don't include us in Alberta. I am ashamed to be associated with thinking like that.

Vive La Ouest Libre...believe it.

rgds,

stk

Posted by: steak2k1 | 2005-06-07 11:33:06 PM


DJ- your definition of 'murder' is actually the definition of 'manslaughter'. Murder requires specific intent by one person against another specific person.

It wasn't the Americans who were conducting war-games; it was the Canadians. And, they didn't inform the Americans. What did they expect? I presume, since your view is that All Americans are evil and All Canadians are good, that your view is that there was no fault whatsoever on the Canadian side.

I maintain that the commission's report was an appeasement to the Canadians. Friendly fire deaths have happened in all wars - to all sides - and it's only the Canadians who have set up such a fury. Friendly fire deaths are not murder; they are accidents.

Posted by: ET | 2005-06-08 7:11:50 AM


The destruction of the CBC should be a top priority for Harper. It's what I call a "first-day thing". On the very first day, the CBC will be totally destroyed. Its staff fired, its facilities empited out, and its real estate demolished. No mercy for these fascists who said the Nazis were the heros of WWII. It has no objectivity whatsoever, getting its orders directly from the government.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-08 8:33:08 AM


Sometimes even Scott makes makes mostly sensible arguments, just like a broken clock is right twice a day.

Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-06-08 9:05:14 AM


"of course this has been helped along with Don vito Chretien who could not come out of his mole hole 9/11 for 3 days and then to effectively let Americans know that"

Check out the September 29, 2001 edition of the Toronto Sun. The headline was how the Sun refuted Chretien's claim that the NYC Mayor's office refused permission for him to visit. Pathetic, worthless man. 2nd Worst Canadian PM ever, second only to Pierre the Terrible.

I would be curious to know how those in Upper/Lower Canada would react if said aircraft plunged into the Skydome or the CN tower and it took the US administration 3 days to comment and then in effect blame us Canadians.??

Hmm, how about if they crashed a plane into the CN Tower, then the top fell into the Skydome.

I was in Tronna on 9/11 and people there were happy that NYC and DC were attacked. If those rich bastards were attacked, I'd cheer. Serves them right for their arrogance and stupidity.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-08 7:05:39 PM


"of course this has been helped along with Don vito Chretien who could not come out of his mole hole 9/11 for 3 days and then to effectively let Americans know that"

Check out the September 29, 2001 edition of the Toronto Sun. The headline was how the Sun refuted Chretien's claim that the NYC Mayor's office refused permission for him to visit. Pathetic, worthless man. 2nd Worst Canadian PM ever, second only to Pierre the Terrible.

"I would be curious to know how those in Upper/Lower Canada would react if said aircraft plunged into the Skydome or the CN tower and it took the US administration 3 days to comment and then in effect blame us Canadians.??"

Hmm, how about if they crashed a plane into the CN Tower, then the top fell into the Skydome.

I was in Tronna on 9/11 and people there were happy that NYC and DC were attacked. If those rich bastards were attacked, I'd cheer. Serves them right for their arrogance and stupidity.

Posted by: Scott | 2005-06-08 7:06:09 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.