Tory knives are out for the CBC

[fuji]

CTV, Global, Sun Media, Quebecor, Rogers, cnews, need I go on? There is no shortage of independently-owned media outlets available to provide Canadian news to Canadians.

None of those outlets come anywhere CLOSE to providing the level of coverage that the CBC does, and most of them only run their limited newsrooms to the extent that they are forced to by competition with the CBC.

To wit the outlets you named barely run newsrooms, never mind deep diving down into the issues the way the CBC does on a daily basis. Those guys pat themselves on the back if they run--weekly--the sort of in depth analysis/coverage that the CBC runs several times a day.

They are competitive with the CBC's headline news service and that's it. They have nothing doing when it gets down to the current events hourly shows, and the regional programming, especially wrt CBC radio.

 

[james t kirk]

You are incorrect. A nation without the ability to defend it self if necessary is waaay worse off and vulnerable than having one less broadcaster on the airwaves (and funded by tax dollars too without disclosing how they spend our money). What's funny is that people who complain about Harper taking a harder stance against the CBC would be up in arms and protesting if Harper proposed setting up a government network that was exempt from disclosing how it spent its money!

You missed my point.

My point is that a huge number of people in Canada would want to fund the CBC.

Their opinions cannot be discounted and they (their opinions as to funding the CBC) are just as valid as those who would advocate funding the military.

As taxpayers, we cannot pick our individual fundees of choice. We cannot say, "I don't want my tax dollars going to fund X (whatever X is)". For example, many Americans would say, "I don't want my tax dollars being used to fund abortions" That's not how it works.

Those whose opinion it is to defund the CBC are no more valid than those who would say we should defund the military.


Besides, Harper getting rid of the CBC would guarantee his obliteration in the next election.

Moviefan is a right wing blowhard on TERB who has it in for the CBC for some reason. He has started many threads advocating the demise of the CBC. I can only guess that his ex wife or ex GF works at the CBC (because he is so fucking obsessed with it).

 

[fuji]

You are incorrect. A nation without the ability to defend it self if necessary is waaay worse off and vulnerable than having one less broadcaster on the airwaves

You live in a fantasy world. In the real world Canada only has two neighbours, Russia and the USA. Even if we put 100% of our GDP into our military we would be unable to fend off an invasion by either of those countries.

It is absolutely farcical to talk about Canada defending itself militarily given our actual geopoltical context.

In the REAL world, as opposed to your bizarre alien fantasy world, Canada's security depends entirely on its political alliances with other nations. ENTIRELY. Plainly we have to have something to offer to persuade others to take an interest in our defense, but there is no reason to believe that we have to offer something of a *military* nature. Plainly we have many other things to offer, in terms of trade, resources, economic integration, that would result in our Southern neighbour coming to see defense of our nation as a strategic interest.

Actually if you REALLY think about it you will quickly realize that the Americans have a strategic interest in defending Canada no matter WHAT we offer. They LIKE having a few thousand km security buffer between their Northern border and their nearest geopolitical adversary, and they like that for their own reasons.(*)

So while your comment SOUNDS like it's intelligent on the surface, the moment you give it even a little thought it collapses into absurdity.




(*) If you think about it for another few seconds you will also understand why Canada has so much of an interest in promoting organizations like the UN, ICRC, ICJ, WTO, ICC, etc., in opposition to the US. While we get along great with the Americans, enhancing the clout and credibility of international talking clubs gives us a buffer against their intrusion into our affairs by forcing them to "play by the rules" in a way that we NEVER would be able to militarily. In the final analysis Canada's security depends almost entirely on global/international agreement, especially by the Americans and the Russians, that the resolution of diplomatic and political differences ought to be conducted through international institutions. We're safe so long as everyone plays "by the rules", and we cannot POSSIBLY be safe, no matter how much we spend on our military, if either our neighbours decide to stop playing by the rules.

 

[newguy27]

ah fuji, you cannot be serious in that there is only one thing to defend against, as you cite, the US or Russia attacking us. Please, let's not use silly examples. Of course, no country can defeat the military mights of those countries, except maybe China.

A military has various levels of engagement. How about a civilian Canadian ship being threatened in international waters? How about foreign vessels crossing through our waters? How about other countries setting up outposts in the Canadian artic? How about one of our embassies being overrun by armed bandits in a foreign country?

Are you saying that we should go begging to other countries to keep bailing us out? Right. I am quit sure you'd have a problem with US troops and helicopters traveling into Canada to conduct operations under their own military command as well.

Maybe you should give it a little thought before your responses turn into absurdity.

 

[fuji]

So now you are back-pedaling away from the notion that Canada needs to defend itself, to much more minor engagements, like a civilian Canadian ship being threatened in international waters. Odds that this would happen in the vicinity of any Canadian naval presence? Near zero, but OK. Maybe we need a coast guard, and some heavily armed police. That is a hell of a long way from spending billions upon billions on some idiotic fantasy that we are ever going to be able to defend ourselves versus any of the nations that might actually threaten us.

We could cut our military budget to 1/4 of what it is today and we would still be able to afford a coast guard, a presence in the arctic, and so on.

We would lose the ability to invade other countries. For example, we could buy much cheaper 3rd generation jets to assert our presence in the North, but without the expensive stealth/strike capability that is only really useful for flying over places like Libya. Our presence in the North is good enough if we can force the Russians to decide that they would have to shoot us down to be there. We aren't going to win an air war against Russia. We succeed when we make it an issue at all--and for that we don't need to be able to win, we just need to be there.

Are you saying that we should go begging to other countries to keep bailing us out?

We don't have any choice about that. As I said, we could spend our entire GDP on our military, and we would still need to beg other countries to bail us out. You live in some sort of fantasy world if you see it differently. Canada cannot defeat either of the nations that border us no matter how much money we spend on our military. Period.

Our only viable strategy is to ally with one against the other. We've chosen to ally with the USA. We'll stick with that.

 

[sleazure]

The Harper Conservatives aren't Tories.

The Progressive Conservative party expired under Kim Campbell and Peter MacKay.

What passes for a Conservative Party now is just the Canadian Alliance party, rebranded.

 

[Possum Trot]

Only on terb could a discussion about an underwatched publically funded broadcaster turn into a discusion on the military and jet fighters...lol. Priceless.

Like it was a choice between jets and Coronation Street or perhaps Country Calendar.

 

[groggy]

(*) If you think about it for another few seconds you will also understand why Canada has so much of an interest in promoting organizations like the UN, ICRC, ICJ, WTO, ICC, etc., in opposition to the US. While we get along great with the Americans, enhancing the clout and credibility of international talking clubs gives us a buffer against their intrusion into our affairs by forcing them to "play by the rules" in a way that we NEVER would be able to militarily. In the final analysis Canada's security depends almost entirely on global/international agreement, especially by the Americans and the Russians, that the resolution of diplomatic and political differences ought to be conducted through international institutions. We're safe so long as everyone plays "by the rules", and we cannot POSSIBLY be safe, no matter how much we spend on our military, if either our neighbours decide to stop playing by the rules.

Ah, then you must be just as shocked and angry as I am after John Baird's latest speech at the UN.

 

[blackrock13]

I feel the same way about Military spending in Canada. Complete and utter waste of money and by eliminating it, we could elminate the entire debt in no time flat and or lower taxes.

So you have your opinion and I have mine.

You are no more correct than I am.

Name one country that even comes close to the size of Canada that doesn't have a military. I'll help, none. The 10(?) that were held up as successfully demilitarize in another thread are about the size of Lake Ontario. You really pulled that oner out of a dark warm place. tell the people who were saved in Resolute that the military are a waste of time. Or try in Manitoba or The Eastern Townships. I suspect they will differ in their opinion.

 

[red]

Perhaps, but I do have concerns with the CBC - as a public broadcaster stonewalling access to information requests - including those made by Information Commissioner Suzanne Legault. Outside of journalist sources and certain creative issues, I don't see how they have the CBC can really try to deny access, particularly under the Accountability Act. And quite frankly, knowing what I do about the way it operates, I want to see the books opened. This is not a Rob Ford thing, there IS massive waste at the CBC.

the ones they are stonewalling are info requests by competitors trying to get information to compete against the cbc.

 

[Brill]

I think it's a weirdo trying to get more information about Rex Murphy's dog.

 

[groggy]

I think it's a weirdo trying to get more information about Rex Murphy's dog.

There was something in the Globe about Sun TV alone filing 400 requests.

 

[red]

Name one country that even comes close to the size of Canada that doesn't have a military. I'll help, none. The 10(?) that were held up as successfully demilitarize in another thread are about the size of Lake Ontario. You really pulled that oner out of a dark warm place. tell the people who were saved in Resolute that the military are a waste of time. Or try in Manitoba or The Eastern Townships. I suspect they will differ in their opinion.

those are good examples, but none of them required new jets.

 

[fuji]

Like it was a choice between jets and Coronation Street or perhaps Country Calendar.

Coronation Street is a bad example as it's foreign content. But yes, at some level, it literally is a choice between jets and domestic public broadcasting. In fact, cancelling just one jet pays for a hell of a lot of the CBC.

 

[fuji]

Name one country that even comes close to the size of Canada that doesn't have a military.

Name one country that is in Canada's geopolitical security context. There is only one, Canada.

What other country has only two neighbours, both of which are super-powers, and one of which is a close cultural cousin, with any other potential adversary multiple thousands of kilometers away?

Canada's military can and should be much smaller than other similar countries because Canada's geopolitical situation is remarkably different than, say, Denmark or Australia's.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

While I agree with you, I apply that thinking to the ENTIRE government, and you have to admit that the Harper government has been the least accountable, and most hostile towards FOI requests, of any government we have ever seen. So it is a bit rich that one of their talking points is CBC stonewalling these requests when they themselves are the worst offenders!

It's a little bit of "do what I say, not as I do", which just comes off as intensely hypocritical for the tories.

I understand that and I agree that ALL branches of government and government agencies should have transparency and accountability - the G8/G20 spending is a perfect (semi-) current example of this. I just happen to know that the CBC (in Toronto; the local/regional folks are mostly threadbare) is grossly bloated and filled with some terrible abusers of public funds and would like to see a few of those types called to task.

I am all for the CBC - I watch it more than any other Canadian network by far. But that doesn't mean it can't improve on almost every level.

 

[Captain Fantastic]

the ones they are stonewalling are info requests by competitors trying to get information to compete against the cbc.

As I said, outside of journalistic sources and certain creative issues - and as a publicly-funded entity - all is fair game. The CBC is perfectly capable of letting the government know - and hence, the public - WHAT is being asked for that the CBC finds unreasonable. We can then decide.

People act surprised that this is how this right-wing government is acting. But we knew that jets, prisons and the demonization of all things "left" were going to be on the agenda once the CPC had a majority mandate. We're fcuked for at least four years.

 

[blackrock13]

those are good examples, but none of them required new jets.

We certainly don't need a single engine 5th generation fighter to do what needs to be done. It clear from what the Harpies say, by sticking to stating only the total cost of the whole program that they know we won't get all the fighters is a fact of life that the cost per fighter will be higher than talked about now. They simply refuse to say anything else than the 'progra' will cost $9 Billion. A homogenous fighter force of single engine fighter is just lunacy. That was the big reason for choosing CF-18 over others back when. Now that major factor apparently mean little in this purchase.

 

[blackrock13]

those are good examples, but none of them required new jets.

Who said they needed jets for those. It was simply a question what the military does for Canada. One of the biggest problems in the military is their procurements; Helicopter that don't do anything exceptionally well, Use subs that no one else wanted and have worked almpost from day one and not more jet than we need to do a job. The jets are needed to cover the expenses of this country. I don't know how much time you've spent in the far flung corners of our country, but the vast expanse of of our northern border and land mass, along with that of the US, topped with the coastlines (one of the longest in the world) requires air support and fighting capabilities. I believe fighter jets were involved in the rescue of 2 hunters and their guides on a ice flow a couple of years ago. They were able to cover far more area than the traditional SAR Buffalo and Hercules aircraft and cut down the retrieval time amazingly because of that, as those aircraft were sent to the spot instead of doing a standard grid search.

The Canadian Air Force does more than fly the Government brass around.

 

[red]

As I said, outside of journalistic sources and certain creative issues - and as a publicly-funded entity - all is fair game. The CBC is perfectly capable of letting the government know - and hence, the public - WHAT is being asked for that the CBC finds unreasonable. We can then decide.

People act surprised that this is how this right-wing government is acting. But we knew that jets, prisons and the demonization of all things "left" were going to be on the agenda once the CPC had a majority mandate. We're fcuked for at least four years.

harper said during the campaign that the cbc funding would not be reduced.