The Shotgun Blog
Thursday, September 25, 2008
NOW!'s Susan G. Cole is on my left-wing “hit list”
Susan G. Cole is a wonderful woman with whom I debated this morning on AM640’s John Oakley Show -- Media and the Message. I just happen to completely disagree with her far-leftist views -- she is one to watch out for in Toronto.
When debating mainstream media (MSM) bias, especially their portrayal of me as a “gun-totin’ redneck” she actually defended the mainstream media’s skewing of facts, saying I was “whining,” and that I should have known better. Thank you Susan, as if I did not know the media was already biased! Nevertheless, the sheer fact that she defended the MSM pretense of being non-biased shows how far the left will go to influence peoples’ minds. At least NOW Magazine admits it advocates a certain view.
On the subject of arts funding, the enlightened socialist was able to claim how every Canadian supports the need of artists for taxpayer dollars. This is the left bully tactic -- to claim to be speaking for all Canadians, that “this” is what Canadians want, and anyone who disagrees is an extremist, un-Canadian, that should be shipped off to the U.S. She did that mighty vocally.
The “artists” decrying the tiny $45 million cut that the Harper government made are piggies at the trough of taxpayer dollars. These aren’t artists or entrepreneurs. When they receive government money to make “art”, they are employees of the state who are rewarded for filling out government paperwork. The real artists are the ones out there being inventive, to create something for public consumption and want to be rewarded in a free market.
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NOW!'s Susan G. Cole is on my left-wing “hit list”:
I think this woman, like all her kind, live in such an insulated artificial world that they honestly do not know any better. They only work with others from the chattering class, read the same things, listen to the same ideology and socialise with the same. So when they are exposed to the real world composed of people with common sense and capable of independent thought as opposed to group-think, they literally go into shock. Being unable to defend their ideology with rational argument, they resort to name calling and/or dishonesty in claiming to speak for all: all being all Canadians, all women or all of whatever identity group.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-09-25 12:20:23 PM
Alain: she's from Toronto. Nuff said.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-25 12:26:33 PM
is Toronto still part of Canada? I thought by now with Miller in charge they would have joined their comrades in Cuba
Posted by: x2para | 2008-09-25 12:38:13 PM
is Toronto still part of Canada? I thought by now with Miller in charge they would have joined their comrades in Cuba
Posted by: x2para | 25-Sep-08 12:38:13 PM
You're thinking of the Jane Finch area of Toronto which is trying to join Jamaica, or is it Jamaica trying to join Jane Finch? Regardless, most of Toronto's crime emanates from both places.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-25 12:52:18 PM
Nah, Castro would be afraid that they'd overthrow him.
I fail to see how she can be socialistic. Socialists are supposed to oppose privilege. She's defending it.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-25 12:52:52 PM
Trust me: not everyone in Toronto is a socialist. I'd say about 25-30% of the Toronto electorate is dispositionally conservative/libertarian.
With these numbers, it's hard to see how we can ever elect an MP or MPP. Moreover, there is a great deal of apathy within the ranks of fight-leaning voters who might vote Tory. The Grits and the Socialists have the entire thing wrapped up, so those (very few) people who do work outside of government, the arts, or the academy, are tempted to just "check out" of the political process.
Also, many of the people I know who are amenable to our arguments are from Liberal families who vote Liberal because that's just what "good Canadians" do. This is particularly the case of first- and second- generation Canadians.
Posted by: RightLaw | 2008-09-25 1:06:04 PM
sorry..."right-leaning" not "fight-leaning"(I'm working from by Blackberry)
Posted by: RightLaw | 2008-09-25 1:07:19 PM
Rightlaw is quite correct.
Doing the whole door knocking thing with a local candidate in Mississauga. At least 4 or 5 people a day will say they always vote Liberal, but without having an actual reason. They can't even give a basic policy distinction between the 2 parties. The whole "natural governing party" image is the only thing rescuing the Libs from a 3rd place showing nationally.
Maybe we should ask the Liberals to stop using the colour red.
As for NOW magazine.... I can't read it whenever there is an election going on, either here or in the States. It turns into nonsensical dribble.
Posted by: Glen | 2008-09-25 1:54:02 PM
Demographics is destiny. 54% of Catholics and 70% of vismins vote Liberal according to an analysis done by Andre Blais.
""Why Catholics vote Liberal is still largely a mystery, at least for me. I propose the creation of a special prize for the individual or team that solves the mystery," (Andre) Blais told political scientists from across Canada at the annual meeting of the Canadian Political Science Association in London, Ont., in June. (2005)
Blais has rigorously and carefully analysed voting patterns over the last 40 years and found beyond a statistical doubt that there is a significant "religious cleavage" in voting patterns outside of Quebec. On average, Catholics in Ontario and Atlantic Canada since 1965 have been 18 per cent more likely than non-Catholics to vote Liberal.
The Catholic tendency to vote Liberal in western Canada is a little less pronounced, but still significant with Prairie and British Columbia Catholics 12 per cent more likely to vote Liberal than the alternatives.
Since Catholics constitute 30 per cent of voters in Ontario and 40 per cent down east -- compared to just 20 per cent of voters in the western provinces -- the Liberal cushion among Catholic voters is enough to deliver the Liberals a stranglehold on those two regions. Liberals have won the largest number of votes cast in 15 of the last 19 federal elections in Canada.
In Ontario and Atlantic Canada since 1965 Liberals have averaged 43 per cent of the vote, compared to 33 or 34 per cent for the next most popular party. Subtract the Catholic vote from those totals and the Liberals would find themselves on the opposition benches more often."
The mass immigration of southern and eastern Europeans, post WWII and the subsequent mass immigration of vismins turn once Tory Protestant Toronto into a bastion of Liberal red.
Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-25 2:35:42 PM
" in the mid-60’s, an assistant to Lester B. Pearson, Tom Kent, allegedly was thought to have advised the Liberal leader on how to break-up the Progressive Conservative’s political grip on “Tory Toronto”. The solution was quite simple. Open up the immigration flood gates to non-traditional immigrants."
"It is well known that the [European] immigrants who came to Canada in the early 20th century after Laurier’s Liberal government adopted a wide-open immigration policy became loyal Liberal supporters, possibly as a show of gratitude for the ones who welcomed them in their new country. More than sixty years later, Pearson’s Liberal government did not seem to have forgotten this lesson when it relaxed its immigration policy: deputy minister of immigration Tom Kent was heard saying increased immigration would help break up “Tory Toronto”. For a generation, these hopes would prove not to be misplaced: a paper on the 2000 federal elections presented at the Biennial Meeting of the Association for Canadian Studies in the United States found that “70 percent of Canadians of non-European origin voted Liberal”. Another paper of the Association for Canadian Studies also noted that “during the 2000 federal election Liberal candidates tend to have exceeded 50% of the vote in those Ontario ridings where the immigrant population exceeded 20% of the riding and in Quebec where the non-francophone electorate exceeded 20%.”
Posted by: DJ | 2008-09-25 2:38:01 PM
Spot on, DJ. Being myself a member of one of the consistently Liberal voting minorities, it even amazes me. When I ask why, the typical response is that the Liberals are our friends. Then when I provide example after example of the contrary, they still refuse to change their minds while unable to provide any proof of their belief. I suspect the pattern is also typical of other groups you mentioned, and it does indeed remain a mystery.
Perhaps it has to do with the Liberal PR that they are the only supporters and friends of minorities. In fact I observe the same with the Democrats and minorities in the US. I recall watching a reporter interviewing people in Florida when Clinton was first running for president. Even though these people (most at least) expressed opinions which were in complete opposition to Clinton's platform when asked how they would vote, it was for Clinton. I was amazed.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-09-25 3:49:55 PM
When debating mainstream media (MSM) bias, especially their portrayal of me as a “gun-totin’ redneck” she actually defended the mainstream media’s skewing of facts, saying I was “whining,” and that I should have known better.
Posted by Chris Reid on September 25, 2008 in Media
I think it was Liz J who coined the term (for me anyway) " Cadillac Socialist." That's how I see Susan Cole. Insulated and unrealistic about life "on the ground".
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-25 6:46:57 PM
There may be a non-liberal element in Toronto, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that in Toronto party is second to geography. Toronto people will vote no matter what to keep their city on top. That is why they're so irresponsible and arrogant. That is why they're the only 'progressive' city in the world to practice racial segregation and Apartheid. Tragic.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-09-25 7:00:21 PM
I think you're a little off base in your view that Toronto votes for whomever will maintain the dominance of Toronto within Canada. The Liberals were in power in Ottawa for over 12 years and infrastructure spending (one of the few incontrovertably ligitimate functions of government) in Toronto was near-non-existent. In point of fact, the Liberals spent more effort shoring up the Maritimes and Quebec than they did Toronto. To the extent that Toronto voters "vote to keep others down" it would be in their support for policies that hobble other parts of the country (i.e., cut of their nose to spite.....)
Toronto voters vis-a-vis the Grits are the Canadian equivalent of African-Americans vis-a-vis the Democrats. They vote for their favorite party (who keeps them in line with scare stories re: the alternative), who in turn promptly ignores them following the election (excepting, of course, the public employees - the central actors in the politics of all modern democratic states).
Posted by: RightLaw | 2008-09-25 7:18:08 PM
That is why they're the only 'progressive' city in the world to practice racial segregation and Apartheid.
Posted by: Zebulon Punk | 25-Sep-08 7:00:21 PM
Bwahahahahaha. Take a walk through Inglewood, Watts or Compton sometime. Make sure your will is written up.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-25 7:24:12 PM
I think you're a little off base in your view that Toronto votes for whomever will maintain the dominance of Toronto within Canada.
Posted by: RightLaw | 25-Sep-08 7:18:08 PM
A little off base? The Punk wants to kill all the white people in Toronto and then burn the city down. I wouldn't call that off base but the rambling of a spaz. BTW he lives in Alabama.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-25 7:32:50 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.