The Shotgun Blog
Monday, May 02, 2005
Shock and surprise: Looks like we're gearing up for another round of anti-Conservative Party bias at The Globe and Mail this election.
Headline on a Page One story today: "Tory MPs question need for snap vote."
Except if you read the story, you learn that only one MP questioned it -- Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound MP Larry Miller.
And when they called Miller for reaction, guess what he was doing? Riding his ATV, of course! What a coincidence.
Reached yesterday while riding his all-terrain vehicle, Mr. Miller struck a note more in tune with his party, insisting that the Liberals have lost the right to govern and must go. But he continued to suggest there's no rush.
"I think we should wait a little bit here," Mr. Miller said.
How perfect of The Globe to remind its readers of the fact that Tories spend their Sundays racing around in the dirt in their hickmobiles.
Someone should go to court arguing the Liberals be required to count the value of Globe stories toward their election advertising expenses.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not again:
Many readers do not go beyond the headlines.
So what does the headline in the Globe & Mail signify?
Nothing new here folks . . they are pimping for the Libs.
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2005-05-02 11:46:12 AM
I'm not pimping for the Globe, here, but if anyone has read more than a single headline from the Globe this week (or any other week), there is no way you can reasonably claim that they are pimping for the Liberals. The Globe has been slamming the Liberals harder even than the Post, especially this week.
The Post had a rather tame response to the NDP-Liberal deal, but the Globe tore a strip off of them in at two articles, two columns and one editorial all in the same day.
The fact that the Globe staff doesn't think much of Harper or of the far-right readers of the Western Standard, does not make them left or Liberal supporters. In fact, if anything, the Globe coverage this week over the last several months reveals the Globe far from the left. The coverage actually makes them moderate, balanced journalists. What a novel concept. Something the ultra-right - "it's a black and white world only" types like Joe Molnar and Adam Daifallah - simple never can seem to understand.
This is symptomatic of the overriding problem with the far-right. In their bizarre world, you are either "with us or agin us" on absolutely every point and issue. Anything in any media that is not unquestioned support for whatever their cause seems to be, is cause for attack. It is even more bizarre trying to swallow this US-imported hyperbole into the Canadian context.
Posted by: TB | 2005-05-02 12:35:10 PM
TB reverts to ye olde Aunty-Americanism in his last sentence knowing that the reader tends to remember the last point made in a polemic. How clever. TB reverts to patriotism.
"The last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism". Dr. Johnson (1709-84). Ambrose Bierce begged to differ: He said it was the first refuge of a scoundrel.
TB is an Aunty-Canadian lefty moonbat. TB is Aunty-Canadian.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-05-02 12:51:22 PM
Sigh. Another right-wingnut demonstrates the limitations of its cognitive abilities.
The species is an interesting one. It attempts to feed off of nutrients that it’s American cousins find in more abundance where so much of political nature is framed in either left or right, with us or ag’n us. Perhaps as a result it is quite colourblind (or should I say colorblind) and cannot distinguish hues of colour but sees only black or white.
But be careful approaching this rare species. When attempting dialog with it, it has a tendency to lash out with meaningless epithets about left-wing conspiracies and MSM (that’s conservative for “every media is part of a vast left-wing conspiracy”). Do not attempt logic with this species: you will only waste your breath. The Canadian right-wingnut responds to logic by either regurgitation of theory swallowed whole from the US or, as the MAZ2 subset of the species demonstrates above, will spit out insults.
Unfortunately, the Canadian right-wingnut is truly ill-suited for the variety of Canadian politics and does not seem to be able to adapt a home-grown variety of its particular culture or philosophy. Nearly deaf with limited ability to hear cogent argument, it prefers to wander in the harsh, drier habitats of Canadian political wilderness. It’s deafness prevents it from hearing anything but its own arguments and it usually gets splattered during election season.
Posted by: TB | 2005-05-02 1:53:05 PM
Hey TB, when you put the three letters, i,t,and s together to form the the possesive 'its', there is no apostrophe between the t and s. That is only done when you form the contraction 'it's' from the two words 'it' and 'is'.
I would expect that someone who obviously has a love of flowery prose would be able to grasp this basic rule of grammar.
Posted by: Juan | 2005-05-02 2:34:19 PM
I think this would be fair if the Globe treated other MPs comparably. e.g.
"Liberal Foreign Affairs Minister Pierre Pettigrew, reached while waiting for his manicure in a chic Montreal salon, said that the Government's soft oiplomacy with Iran was working
"NDP Leader Jack layton, reached while watering his organic roof top garden at his subsidized housing coop, said that he represented the interests of ordinary working Canadians."
Posted by: Joe McCartney | 2005-05-02 3:05:10 PM
Thanks Joe McCartney for reminding us what this thread was about.
As for TB: it's plain to this casual observer that you are not interested in serious discussion or debate. You threw out (up?) your own ant-right rhetoric before you could finish your first comment.
Your tactic is obvious. You're goading merely for its own sake.
Posted by: Jack | 2005-05-02 3:21:48 PM
Jack: partly true, the rabid left and rabid right are fun (and easy) to goad and provoke. But sarcasm aside, I am interested in this species of politics that is so far outside of the mainstream across all regions of Canada. You want a little bit more of a debate, well...
None of the responses to my point have really addressed it. (Note to MAZ2: the true last refuge of the scoundrel is pithy insult in place of cogent argument.) I am honestly puzzled by a lot of the US ultra-right, but I have learned to understand where they are coming from even while disagreeing with them, including their take on MSM. But I am puzzled by the Canadian ultra-right, as represented in these pages, and their seeming wholesale adoption of the US ultra-right rhetoric. There seems to me not to be any home-grown right-wing philosophy in the way that Canadian socialists like the NDP or their precursor CCP have developed an approach to government and society that is very different than that of socialists in the US or Europe. No less realistic or practical, but home-grown.
By way of a prime example, I often hear the Canadian ultra-right spew out about the left wing MSM. In the US, there is so much media that it is easy to point to a few papers and a few TV personalities and paint the whole group of them red. But does that apply here? Obviously, the CBC is tilted left. I think Harper is a poor excuse for a leader, but you can’t help but notice how Mansbridge seems out to get him in interviews, cutting off his answers. But the Canadian media landscape is not as broad as the US so it is easier to point to the fallacy of the argument here. Is CTV so biased with journalists like Craig Oliver and Mike Duffy who can’t let pass any opportunity to jump on the Natural Governing Party? Is Global where prior national anchor is now running for the Conservative Party? (Name me two Liberals who have come from the media rank and file!) Look at Calgary: two right-wing slanted papers. Same in Edmonton. Look at Toronto with its four dailies: the Star is ugly in its blatant leftward slant; but the Sun and the National Post are just as far to the right as the Star is to the left. In a land where, until very recently, Lord Conrad Black owned, what, over 50% of the dailies across every province, can we really say there is a general liberal slant? So the argument breaks down.
The biggest reason the US-important MSM is bad theory doesn’t fly here, is that the US has a history of partisan papers that is different then ours, and try to define themselves by their loyalty to a particular party. If you trace the history, say, of the Globe in provincial and federal elections, you will find that you can’t predict which side it will take in an election. In the US, you almost always know with each paper. Even with the Toronto Star, with all of its left-leaning, it is only barely partisan. In fact, I often find Canadian media to be rather bland because they go so out of their way to avoid partisanship.
Canadians as a whole do not view the world in the kind of black and white that Americans do (pardon the generalizations to my American friends). That kind of with us or ag’n us attititude that some Americans love and all ultra-right love, just kind of falls flat here. That is why our media is different, why we are different. For the conservatives to have any success in this country, politically or culturally, they will need to develop a home-grown version and I just don’t see that developing yet.
Posted by: TB | 2005-05-02 4:05:10 PM
TB is the soul of brevity; curt, succinct,a tad, just a tad tedious; no wit; bloviation.
Posted by: maz2 | 2005-05-02 4:33:37 PM
Fair point, MAZ2, but I see you still can't quite come up with a response. And I am actually curious about this.
Short enough for you?
Posted by: TB | 2005-05-02 4:43:53 PM
"Canadians as a whole do not view the world in the kind of black and white"
And what planet are you from again? You obviously live a very sheltered life if you think your middle of the road. Based on your ramblings you slant left, and are anti-conservative. The typical response of the left is to spew out paragraphs of senseless sentences because they can't make a point.
Posted by: rob | 2005-05-02 4:49:18 PM
TB- I think there are a number of problems with your argument.
First, of course, is your axiom about 'US-imported hyperbole'. What does this mean?
Second, is your focus on the US 'ultra-right'. I'm not sure that you have, as you say, 'learned to understand where they are coming from'. That sounds extremely condescending and arrogant. Where are they coming from? Have you learned to understand 'where other perspectives are coming from'?
Third, your hostile metaphors are focused around the US. Why? You define a Canadian 'right wingnut' as speaking within 'theory swallowed whole from the US'. Would you provide some examples and explain why a political theory has to differ from country to country. How can it do so - and why should it?
Fourth - you state that 'Canadian socialists like the NDP...." have developed an approach to gov't and society that is very different than that of socialists in the US or Europe'? Really? Please explain.
On a minor point, you state that 'socialism'..is 'realistic and practical'. I strongly disagree. It is utopian, in the tradition of Hegel, with all the problems of a historicist idealism.
Fifth- you state that 'Canadians as a whole do not view the world in the kind of black and white that Americans do". I wonder why. Is it genetic? The Third Reich certainly considered that peoples differ genetically, and the Al Qaeda feel the same.
Do you think that it's because Canadians are not required to make decisions in the world? After all, if you analyze the functional meaning of 'black and white' - what this refers to, is the property of Making A Decision. A decision Must be made. Do I turn right or turn left? That's black and white! Do we move in and remove the Taliban from power? Do we allow dictators to murder their people? Do we allow N. Korea to develop nuclear arms?
You see, Canada is a non-entity on the international scene; it has dissolved as such, over the past 40 years. No country in the world requires any decision-making by Canadians. The situation is very different for Americans. They ARE required to make decisions, hard decisions. They are required to step into serious situations all over the world - and deal with them. Remember the problem in Liberia? Those people there weren't calling out - "When is the UN coming to help, when is the UN coming?" Of course not; they know that's useless. They certainly weren't asking: "When are the Canadians coming'!!! No- they were saying, over and over: "When are the Americans coming, when are the Americans coming".
So- TB, Canadians aren't 'nicer' or 'kinder' or any of the other leftist nonsense that you seem to be implying. It's not genetic. It's not cultural. It's a matter of responsiblity. Canadians aren't responsible - for anything or anyone.
Our economy? Sorry - we don't even have to make serious decisions on that. We can manufacture anything - and the US will consume it. We don't have to, like the Australians and just about every other country, have to develop products that are competitive on the world market. Nope. We just ship whatever we make...to the US. Neat. No need for hard decisions. So, we can muddle along in our fuzzy world, because our economy is guaranteed, our security is guaranteed by our southern neighbour...and we can inform ourselves and everyone else, how morally superior we are. Because, we don't make decisions...we don't have to decide between the black choice and the white choice. No-one gives a damn.
Finally - why do you insult people with different views from yours? Why do you call people names? Strange - you define maz2 as a 'right' who 'spits out insults'. But aren't you doing that also?
No, Canadians are not 'different'. We are all members of ONE species on this planet. We are the way we are, because we have no international responsibilities. None. And because our economy requires no thought, innovation, or decision-making on our part. That's where we are coming from. The land of not being responsible.
Harper is trying to change that - and move us from the cradle of socialism to taking charge of ourselves. Can we grow up and do it?
Posted by: ET | 2005-05-02 5:23:41 PM
And if you think the Calgary Herald, or the Edmonton Journal are right wing newspapers you arent from this planet. I wish. The National Post used to be a right wing newspaper but not any more. Its now wishy washy.
Posted by: MikeP | 2005-05-02 6:00:04 PM
And Maz2 criticized me for rambling on without humour or sense.
I would like to respond to ET's comments, but, frankly, I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. But I think he proves my points. The ultra-right have a difficult time distinguishing between the myriad of options to the left of them. Thus comes all these jibes at my being left-wing simply because I am critical of the ultra-right elite. The fact that I refer my critiques to the ultra-right and not just simply to all on the right, might be an indication of where I stand on other issues. Or it might not, but you wouldn’t know because, having dared to criticize, I must therefore be assumed to be a socialist. Welcome to nascent McCarthyism. Welcome to the Counter-Reformation.
I’ll address one basic point though (and for MAZ2's sake, I'll keep it brief): why does a Canadian conservative ideology have to be different and homegrown? Well, I guess it doesn’t… unless the aim is to actually change society and government. We have a vastly different history than the US with our non-revolutionary separation from the British, with Quebec, with slavery, with industrialism, with the two world wars, with our churches, with equal rights for women. It is not being hostile to US-imported hyperbole when I say it can’t simply be imported here as though every US answer would work the same here; I am simply stating what should be obvious as our different electoral results over the last several decades indicates.
By the way, what I said about socialism was that Canadian home-grown socialism a la NDP was no less realistic or practical; i.e. neither one is realistic or practical. Pay attention ET. Socialism doesn’t work or create a better society any more than stripping government of all powers ever has or ever will.
Posted by: TB | 2005-05-02 7:10:53 PM
TB- beginning your post by saying that you have 'absolutely no idea' what I was talking about is a 'flight-tactic'. It's a tactic used to run from having to be accountable for your own argument. I asked you a number of questions. They were quite specific and, I think, reasonably clear. Why not answer them?
You state: "The ultra-right have a difficult time distinguishing between the myriad of options to the left of them"
This is a conclusion. Please provide the evidence that leads you to this conclusion. Provide some evidence about this 'difficult time'; provide some examples of this 'myriad of options'.
You see, it's easy to preach, if all you are doing is providing a litany of conclusions - without the evidence to validate those conclusions.
You state that it is 'assumed' that you are a socialist. Nowhere in my post, do I refer to your political allegiance; in fact, I only refer to you, when I critique your actions of personally bad-mouthing/insulting individuals. Why do you do this? What's the reason for you to say 'welcome to McCarthyism'. To whom are you referring and why are you insulting them? I'm sticking to the issues and have no interest in such ad hominem tactics.
You haven't addressed my concerns about: the hard reality of decision-making. That's an important issue. You made many, many references to 'black and white' as a factor defining the Canadian identity, the Canadian media etc. I suggested that it had to do, instead, with the necessity for decision-making, which requires choices, and when I commented on its nature and asked you some questions - you have nothing to say. Why not? It's a fairly basic logical and scientific analytic frame - Is this X or Y; it can't be both; I have to decide.
Then you do attempt to answer my query about 'why does Canadian socialism have to be different'. I consider your answer invalid. You state that it has to be different if its aim is 'to actually change society and government". That's not a logical or empirically valid answer, for there is no reason to conclude that a SIMILAR socialism would not also 'change society and government'.
Then, you list a number of issues, and state that they are 'vastly different' from the US. Again, you present us with a set of conclusions with no evidence. How are these issues 'vastly different'? How, for example, is industrialism different? How are our churches different? Equal rights for women?
You are quite right; we remained a colony of Britain, but, what was the result? Oh- and can you explain why we did not have a revolution? No, it isn't due to our 'mild natures' as a people (careful of the Genetic Fallacy); there are valid reasons - but they have to do with economics and with population demographics.
Again, without having answered my question about what you mean by 'US imported hyperbole' - you repeat the term. What does it mean? Give an example! Give an example of how it is used here! Who is importing it and using it here? Provide some examples! Otherwise, you are 'guilty' of indulging in sophistry, of what Aristotle called 'idle chatter'.
And what 'the heck' do our different electoral results show? What's your point???? Again, you make the same argumentative error. You provide conclusions without a shred of evidence, and yet, you expect the reader to accept them. Why?
You stated: "Canadian socialists like the NDP or their precursor CCP have developed an approach to government and society that is very different than that of socialists in the US or Europe. No less realistic or practical, but home-grown."
I critiqued that with my comment that socialism is utopian, not realistic or practical. You then replied that
"what I said about socialism was that Canadian home-grown socialism a la NDP was no less realistic or practical; i.e. neither one is realistic or practical."
That's a rather tortured interpretation. My interpretation was that you were saying that Canadian socialism was no less realistic/practical than non-Canadian. That implies that the non-Canadian modes ARE realistic and practical, and that the Canadian mode is 'no less realistic/practical' than those..just 'home-grown'.
So, I don't buy the pompous 'Pay attention ET' stance.
By the way - don't move into an Either-Or Fallacy... "Socialism doesn’t work or create a better society any more than stripping government of all powers ever has or ever will."
That's an Either-Or Fallacy.
Socialism moves all powers to a centralist gov't. BUT - Who has an agenda of stripping gov't of all powers??????? Only Anarchists. I'm not sure if there are many in Canada. What's your point??
Posted by: ET | 2005-05-02 8:28:01 PM
Sound like Mr. Daifallah is the one who is uncomfortable with the idea of an alleged conservative out offroading it on the weekend. Which of course is the reason why Conservatives won't act like conservatives -- cuz the fancy lads who form the Eastern Tory Elite are to effing squeamish to deal. For the record, I recall a stat from the late 90s that indicated ONTARIO is well known as the per capita leader in off-road vehicle use in this country. So chill, AD.
Posted by: JC | 2005-05-02 10:42:50 PM
"This is symptomatic of the overriding problem with the far-right. In their bizarre world, you are either "with us or agin us" on absolutely every point and issue. Anything in any media that is not unquestioned support for whatever their cause seems to be, is cause for attack. It is even more bizarre trying to swallow this US-imported hyperbole into the Canadian context."
Hey, TB, we're just playing by your side's rules, to whit: "we're victims of systemic (pick one of the following) racism/sexism/homophobia/media bias". Isn't that chapter one in the "progressive" playbook - figure out how how all your failures and foibles are someone else's fault and you are, therefore, "marginalized" and then dedicate the rest of your life to complaining about it. Here's a timely example:
Replace the words "far-right" in the above quote with "natives", "visible minorities", "feminists", "gays" or any other victim-group-flavour-of-the month (seem to recall last month it was the Lieberals) and see if the meaning changes. You're right, TB, it is a "bizarre world" but it's of your making, not ours.
Posted by: firewalls 'r us | 2005-05-03 11:11:22 AM
Oh no! Adam Daifallah? What are you doing posting on this baffling site? What has happened to you? You used to be a PC.
Okay enough being baffled, I'm convinced you are just cozying up to who ever you find will give you an advantage. When you get to the top you will come back to your senses, right? It is the only thing that let's me sleep at night. I mean kissing everyone’s ass is the only way to the top.
You may need to change your strategy; the whole left wing media bias thing can only take you so far in this country.
To all concerned:
There is a left leaning media bias because we live in a left leaning country where people drive ATVs no matter what their party’s colours.
Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-05-30 11:44:03 AM
"I would like to respond to ET's comments, but, frankly, I have absolutely no idea what he is talking about. But I think he proves my points. The ultra-right have a difficult time distinguishing between the myriad of options to the left of them."
Demonstrates how the chattering class in Canada has devolved into a pair of red plastic wind up chattering joke teeth usually dropped onto a bar for a good round of laughs by all.
Posted by: richfisher | 2005-05-30 3:28:31 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.