07.17.2012 09:23 AM

The media who applaud this are the same media who’d attack if it ever actually happened

103 Comments

  1. Kelly says:

    One stat he threw out struck me…infant mortality. Canada has slumped almost as badly. Your baby now has a better chance of surviving if you have it in Cuba and Andora. Ireland, as well. I’m not making this up. This is from the CIA. Canada ranks 40th now — not 7th like we used to. Welcome to Jason Kenney’s Canada.

    • Dave Breukelaar says:

      I fully agree that Jason Kenney is a thug, but how is he responsible for this slump in infant mortality?

      • Kelly says:

        He’s not personally responsible obviously but he embodies the thinking, worldview and policy orientation that leads to these sorts of deadly outcomes. Wait til a refugee dies under his watch because someone didn’t get their heart meds. Would the college drop out know-nothing be directly responsible then? Time will tell.

      • Tim Sullivan says:

        Well, no one is saying he is responsible for the killings, but, where was he during those deaths?

        Too soon?

    • The Doctor says:

      That’s funny, Kelly — when I look up infant mortality rankings, I don’t come across the same results as you:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate

      In this ranking, Canada is 24th, Cuba 33rd.

      I’m not making this up.

      And BTW Andorra is not some 3rd world backwater — I’ve been there. It’s quite a lovely place, perched on the Pyrennes between France and Spain.

  2. Dan says:

    You’re right. Bill Mahar makes the same point all the time and he’s ignored 80% of the time and attacked the other 20%.

    http://youtu.be/T8UqdPKbpWM

    Plus he’s a comedian. No “serious” journalist would dare say this.

    Imagine during the health care debate they actually compared the American health care system to other systems via COST and BENEFIT.

    Nope, that’s not big media’s job.

    And now Harper wants to follow them off a cliff.

  3. Dude Love says:

    What was more interesting in the video is the minute people see or hear something shocking, out come the smartphones to record every moment adding to the ephemeral nature of events and media.

  4. Mark McLaughlin says:

    Since you brought up Jason Kenny, are you making the inference that this current government’s immigration policies have something to do with infant mortality rates?

    I’d be interesting to know the rates across demographics but you provide only some cryptic back hand without context. I would suspect that Kenny and his policies have nothing to do with it. The territories are the only places with rates moving notably in the wrong direction which would suggest the problem largely in the aboriginal community. The healthy affluent population is having fewer and fewer babies these days too, multiplying the impact the poor rural population has.

    There was also a study done by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and half a dozen universities that discovered a wide range in reporting standards for this ranking system. Some countries don’t even count early premature deliveries where we do. Adjust based on a common standard and our ranking improves dramatically.

    Lies, damned lies and statistics as they say.

    Actually taking the time to learn something might hurt your attempts at idiodic drive by smears though, so feel free to carry on doing as you do. The rest of us will discount your opinions accordingly.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Mark…you can’t talk sense to a Liberal.

      They only want to SOUND like they give a damn…..and your facts and statistics are raining on their self-righteous parade.

      They don’t seem to understand that knowing what the problem actually is…..is the first step in fixing it. If the cause of a problem makes a Liberal feel bad…they ignore it, and find someone else to blame.

      • que sera sera says:

        “Mark…you can’t talk sense to a Liberal.”

        Which pretty much explains JamesHalifax daily dose of nonsense on this Liberal website.

        Funny how all these “unofficial spokespeople” can never see their own reflection when they hold up a mirror.

        • JamesHalifax says:

          It’s only nonsense to you Que sera sera….because you lack the mental capacity to comprehend.

          As for the mirror….nope, sorry. I only use it to shave, though I’m sure you spend a lot of time standing in front of one trying to convince yourself that you are a caring and compassionate liberal. After all…for a Liberal…appearence is everything.

          • Jason King says:

            “After all…for a Liberal…appearence is everything.”

            Oh of course. This explains everything.

            Good thing Harper fired all those communications and PR staff as well as those stylists and image consultants. Seeing as he’s not a liberal he obviously doesnt care about appearance.

            Sometimes James I wonder if you are the greatest Liberal satirist never known because some of the stuff you say is incredibly funny. And the irony of a man making consistently uniformed statements than decrying others for their perceived inferior intelligence.

            If you are a comedian then well played sir. If not, well then school was obviously wasted on you.

          • Tim Sullivan says:

            I don’t understand this post, JamesHalifax. Que sera sera has not demonstrated any real mental incapacity here or at other times, so what do you mean, other than making an ad hominem (which, of course, is not any kind of reasonable, intelligent argument at all, an ad hominem).

            Also, what does “for a Liberal … appearence [sic] is everything” mean? What does this mean in any meaningful, non-ad hominem way? Are we critical that politicians are concerned about their image? Their reputations? Are Liberals particularly concerned more than other politicians of other parties? Is this a thing, or just something said in retort without thinking? I like to think I’m an observer of politics, and I don’t know this to be a thing.

            I do know that Harper has tried to rebrand the government “the Harper Government”, has erected pictures of himself (and removed all others) in the government lobby of the House, and kicked out kids from his rallies, but is the Liberal politician MORESO than others concerned with appearance?

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Jason, the liberal in front of a mirror wasn’t in reference to their physical appearance…but I think you knew that.

            It was the liberals (actually, the NDP is worse, but we’re discussing LIberals here) who liked to proclaim their latest feel good projects, knowing full well it wouldn’t address the real issue…but it made them feel (sound) good.

            ie. Gun registry, kelowna, Kyoto..etc..etc….

            When the Libs get their act together….then I may consider changing back to my old party…until then, no way.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Tim, though I defend the Conservative policies I agree with, I also denounce those in which I disagree with.

            Read my other post with regards to Liberals and the mirror……I wasn’t discussing physical appearance, as much as I was discussing the “progressive” tendency to want to appear compassionate and kind in the eyes’ of others…without actually taking any concrete action to actually be compassionate and kind. Frankly, the LIbrals can no longer tell the two apart.

            For the record…here’s what I have problems with the Conservatives:
            – I believe in equal marriage. All Canadians have the inherent right to love and be with whomever they choose as long as they are both consenting adults.
            – I think we should legalize marijuana…but tax the hell out of it and have the same TV spots informing folks of the risks involved.
            – Internet laws…..I’m glad the bill to snoop on internet use has apparently died.
            – abortion – I’m pro-choice, but so are many Conservative MP’s, just as many Liberal MP’s are opposed to it.

            There are more cases….but you get my drift. I’m a fiscal conservative, socially Liberal. (a classic Liberal, not the phoney ones we see remaining in the backbenches)

            As for using the “Harper Government”…I suspect that will only last as long as Harper is popular, which is why the NDP is attacking Harper the man, not the prime minister.

          • Tim Sullivan says:

            Of course, you realize JamesHalifax, your response makes no sense is is a propos of nothing discussed to that point.

          • JamesHalifax says:

            I don’t need a reason or permission to post anything…..if you don’t want to read it…feel free.

          • que sera sera says:

            “I don’t need a reason to post anything”.

            ====================

            Obviously.

    • Robbie says:

      We are just passing out of the single biggest 5 year (2006-2011) birth cohort since the tail end of the Baby Boom (1957-1961) 50 years ago. Lots of kids under 10 in my neighbourhood.

  5. Tim Sullivan says:

    You only get this kind of answer from someone who has critical-thinking skills. If we are out with the education, we can be out with this kind of non-compliant, unpatriotic, Far Left, UnAmerican attitude.

    http://thediplomat.com/the-editor/2012/07/12/texas-to-ban-critical-thinking-skills/

    • frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

      Your post made me think of this George Carlin rant……http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q

      • smelter rat says:

        I miss George.

        • frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

          Moi aussi……but the American people most of all, Im sure……

        • JamesHalifax says:

          I agree……George Carlin was well ahead of his time.

          I especially loved his, “You always need a place for your stuff” schtick….
          too funny.

          Oh..or the “7 words you can’t say)

          Of course, the fat dude who was a former preacher was also excellent….can’t remember his name offhand.

          • frmr disgruntled Con now Happy Lib says:

            Sam Kinison…..one of my favs also……have you ever seen/heard his version of “Are you lonesome tonight?”……hes actually got a damn fine voice…..

          • JamesHalifax says:

            Sam Kinison…that’s him.

            And yes, he had a good voice, and he could project it. All that practice preaching and collecting from little old ladies.

            I think he hated religion by the time he died…or at least the version he was forced to espouse as a youngster.

          • Kevin says:

            You’re right about G Carlin. I liked pretty much everything he did. His last appearance here at the NAC, though, one of his topics was suicide. Now, there are some things you just can’t make a comedy routine out of, and that’s definitely one of them. We gave him an ovation at the end of his show, but I’m sure that for most people, it was in appreciation for his body of work, not his choice of material that one time.

  6. JamesHalifax says:

    Hey, Warren…on another note. Do you want to give Dalton McGinty a call and tell him he can stop spending billions on windfarms no one by lizzie May and David suzuki want? If it’s hard to convince them they have been duped…show him this.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/07/ipcc_admits_its_past_reports_were_junk.html

    Oh..and while you’re at it….tell Kirsty Duncan that Nobel called…they want the prize back.

  7. WDM says:

    A few things I’d like to see changed in terms of how politics is covered by the media:

    1. Don’t allow the party to decide who they send for an interview. If any party, whether it be Conservative, Liberal or NDP send on someone who has a history of refusing to answer the question, tell them their services aren’t needed.

    2. Less focus on silly inside Ottawa issues. On a 2 hour show, have 6 20 minute blocks to really analyze an issue, story or piece of legislation.

    3. Do a better job of restricting the use of anonymous sources.

    4. Completely end MP panels.

    Some will say the lack of partisan sniping may decrease interest in the show, but my view is that anyone willing to sit down and watch two hours of political coverage will take the in-depth policy analysis as well.

    • Philip says:

      Right on the money. Points 3 and 4, in particular, would go a long way to improve how reporters and producers present their stories to us. You are right about the appetite out there for a serious 2 hour look at Canadian politics, I’m not sure if we will ever see it but I do live in hope.

      • JamesHalifax says:

        WDM….I have to agree. There is nothing more irritating than watching a bunch of partisan MP’s being interviewed on the CBC, and the CBC treating it as news as opposed to simple talking points they have all rehearsed. it’s pathetic.

        If Evan solomon wants an opinion…on public opinion…then he should walk the streets and ask severerly normal Canadians what they think. True, you’ll find a great many who don’t pay attention, or give silly ill-informed answers, but still, seeing how ill-informed the average Canadian is about politics is in and of itself also very informative.

    • Tim Sullivan says:

      Ottawa South MP David McGuinty has wised-up to some of these media tactics. He refuses when asked to do panels now. When he does something, he will avoid certain panelists. He sees that the media thrive on, dwell on, and require conflict.

      If you ask him, he will tell you that his constituents have commented to him more favourably about him since he’s shunned the MP panels. He sticks around the riding (not so hard being in Ottawa). He had one of the biggest pluralities of the Liberals in the last election.

      If airlines advertised like politicians, no one would fly.

  8. JamesHalifax says:

    Ottawacon….the only role the Government can play right now is funding, and working with the Chief’s. Unfortunately, the feds can’t take the time to go to the reserve and try and teach mother’s or mother’s to be that drinking, smoking, or taking drugs while pregnant is a bad idea.

    I think chretien tried to address the problem in 1968….and he was pilloried for it as being some kind of meddler, or of trying to assimilate first nations folks. The Government cannot help anyone unless they want to be helped, and simply throwing money at the problem isn’t going to do it.

    On the news last night, it was shown how an innu chief on a poor reserve paid himself $1,000,000 salary, begging the question, how does paying yourself far more than your worth…help the poor on the reserve. I’m sure most of that money would have been better spent elsewhere. Same with Attiwaspikat. The chief was doing fine as were her fellow councillers and elders….but many of her people were living in shacks.

  9. Anne Peterson says:

    Some people should get out more or read more or something. Drive through Denmark and there is a windmill at the back of every farm and lots of other places. Not technology that should be shelved just because some people are dinosaurs. If wind energy had as much financial help from the feds as the oil industry McGuinty’s ideas would be a go-ahead.

    • JamesHalifax says:

      Anne…if you’re such a fan.

      Ask one to be put in your back yard.

      Just remember to clean up the dead birds each day….you don’t want to stink up the place.

      Oh….and pay six times as much for electric power than it actually costs.

      • Michael says:

        James I am wondering why the federal Conservative government is assisting the manufacturers of wind turbines?

        Surely Harper has access to the same data you do? Can’t he see all that is wrong with wind turbines?

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Michael, I have no idea why the Government is helping with wind turbines ( I wasn’t aware the Feds were very involved) but I’m sure it has to do with spreading around the largesse…..ala “Action Plan”..which I never agreed with).

          Every place Wind turbines or farms have been tried has been both a financial and real fiasco. Dalton McGinty libs are the worst offenders….

          Once government subsidies are gone…wind turbine manufacturers go belly up. We’re just stuck with the ugly view and the bill.

      • Pat says:

        Also, bird deaths from turbines are considerably lower than both cars and cats. Should we all stop driving? Should we stop having domesticated cats? How many birds are killed by pollution from coal-fired plants?

        • JamesHalifax says:

          Pat, simply because some factors already kill wildlife, is not justification for adding more.

          Frankly, the Wind turbines kill more “valuable” birds, as in hawks, eagles, and other raptors, but it also kills thousands of night flying bats, as the air pressure around the blades of the turbine is much lower when they are moving, and bats caught near that low pressure area are actually dying. (they blow up…like a deep sea diver coming up too fast).

          Just walk around the base of a wind turbine and look at the dead critters. Not a pretty sight.

          • AmandaM says:

            Yeah, that’s not actually true. Wind turbines across Ontario killed only 6 birds last year.

  10. Brian says:

    “The media who applaud this are the same media who’d attack if it ever actually happened”

    And, the same corporate media that sat back, and is still sitting back allowing it to happen. Rather than inform with factual reporting they’d prefer to print divisive drivel on their front page like the inconsequential opinions about women’s dress code from a lone Muslim street cleric in Toronto, or filling space in their tabloid with sport scores and pictures of girls in bikinis. It didn’t have to be like this.

  11. Liam says:

    That one speech is so emblematic of The Newsroom as a whole – passionate-but-preachy, rough-but-almost-endearing-but-not-quite (plus too reliant on stats and nearing uncomfortable in it’s attitudes towards women, but I digress).

    What I’m most fascinated with is tracing how Sorkin got to that speech from this one: http://t.co/lWe7dvji.

    Is he in danger of pulling a full Mamet and writing a book giving un-ironic shout-outs to Glenn Beck? I mean, he even borrows his own ‘reaching-for-the-stars’ motif, but where in WW it was something the characters genuinely believed was attainable vs. in Newsroom where it’s a sad elegy for times he clearly now sees as long past.

  12. Steve T says:

    Great commentary about the current state of things… but the nostalgia about the country that “was the greatest” just sounds like the usual romantacism of history. Many of the things that Jeff Bridges waxes nostalgic about either (a) didn’t actually happen, or (b) weren’t nearly that cut-and-dried. However, we love to summarize and selectively-quote history, as it suits us. This has led to us forgetting a number of important lessons in history. This is true for everything from the Nazis (they didn’t just spring up from a magic well of evil – they were slowly created due to conditions in Germany since WW1) to vaccination (they aren’t a sinister plot of pharmaceutical companies – they prevent horrific diseases that killed thousands of children every year) to dozens of other examples.

    So, while it is nice to critique the current state of things, it is also dangerous to long for the days of yore. In many cases, they were pretty sucky too, for other reasons.

  13. Bil H says:

    anyone find it ironic that part of this 3 1/2 minutes condemns defining yourself by who you vote for, and the first 8 of 10 commentors underneath the link basically do just that (on both sides)?

    guess this video wasn’t as powerful as i thought it was.

  14. The Doctor says:

    By the way, this assertion that Canada’s infant mortality rate has somehow disastrously gotten worse under Harper doesn’t seem to be backed up in a big way by the sources I checked out. It seems the rate did have one rise in one year, 2007-8, but has fallen in every other year:

    http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ca&v=29

  15. The Doctor says:

    I found this discussion of Canada’s infant mortality rate (especially in a peer comparison context) from the Conference Board to be informative and refreshingly non-partisan:

    http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/health/infant-mortality-rate.aspx

    Again, room for improvement, things to feel good and bad about, but no particular evidence of some material worsening of the situation upon Harper becoming PM.

  16. que sera sera says:

    JamesHalifax July 17/12 12:30 pm: “…you can’t talk sense to a Liberal.”

    JamesHalifax busy proving it daily on warrenkinsella.com with keyboard smear jobs presented as “known facts” and sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations presented as “truth”.

    Bigot.

  17. que sera sera says:

    JamesHalifax July 17/12 12:30 pm: “…you can’t talk sense to a Liberal.”

    JamesHalifax busy spewing nonsense daily on warrenkinsella.com with keyboard smear jobs presented as “known facts” and sweeping unsubstantiated generalizations presented as “truth”.

    Bigot.

  18. que sera sera says:

    Can someone please direct me to the warrenkinsella.com website?

    I appear to have accidentally wandered into the JamesHalifax dawn-to-dusk self-referencing, infinitely looping (infinitely loopy), smear job monologue.

    • Warren says:

      James, can you cool it a bit? It’s the quality of one’s argument. Not the quantity.

      • JamesHalifax says:

        Then how do you explain Que sera sera and a few others’?

        But sure….I don’t mean to keep you that busy.

        • Tim Sullivan says:

          Que sera sera is a piker compared to JamesHalifax. JamesHalifax has over 30 posts here (no count yet on how many make any rational argument).

          It gets tedious, JamesHalifax, to read shallow, unsupported commentary and then to have ad hominems used to defend said shallow, unsupported commentary.

  19. JamesHalifax says:

    Tom, I disagree on many issues with the Conservatives, but Harper has already shown he’s not going to mess with marriage, he’s not going to mess with abortion, but he’s also not going to stop MP’s from voting their conscience.

    He’s also not going to force Canada into a recession by trying to follow the ridiculous Kyoto protocol, the Kelowna accord, and he’s not going to capitulate in his stance on Israel, and many other things I agree with him on.
    Lastly, and more importantly….I don’t think Harper is the kind of politician who can be corrupted, or do I think he’s the kind of PM who would allow his MP’s to get away with trying to rip off the taxpayers. Harper won’t be calling banks and asking for favours, and he won’t be influenced by the criminal behaviour of Quebec politics.

    I don’t have to agree with everything to support the party, and as I wrote here many times before, once the Liberals get their act together (and get rid of ANY MP who was in government when the sponsorship was going down) I may be convinced to rejoin them. Until then, I’m sticking with the controlling, yet uncorruptable Harper.

    No matter what people here may feel about Harper, they need to ask themselves; Do you think Harper would use his position to enrich himself? Then ask the same of the Liberals. (of today)

    Oh…and I can’t vote for them until they get rid of sleazy folks like Dennis codderre, and dipshits like Kirsty Duncan.

  20. JamesHalifax says:

    Sorry Terenence…but you have it all backwards. You are aware, that Paul Martin simply lifted the policies from the REFORM party to get rid of the deficit correct? If not, consider yourself informed. And…who do you think wrote the REFORM policy, Terry. It was a young MP from Calgary…who just happens to be the Prime Minister today. Oh..and Harper is also the guy who wrote the Clarity Act, though he didn’t call it that, it was simpy what Stephane Dion ended up with after taking Harpers list of points and re-writing them in Liberal-ese.
    I’m glad you admit Harper isn’t corruptible, that’s why I voted for his Party. As for Vic Toews, Anders, Oda…and others’ I agree with you. If any of them had been my MP’s in the riding in which I live, they wouldn’t have gotten my vote. You can also throw in Cheryl Gallant with that pile. (can’t stand that women). If it makes you feel better Terry, I will vote Liberal if the choice is between a Liberal and the NDP. I may not be fond of today’s Liberals, but I could never withhold a vote if doing so meant the NDP were ever given charge of the public purse.

  21. JamesHalifax says:

    Yep…reply button still wonky.

  22. Tim Sullivan says:

    As for the corruptibility of Harper, no man is above that. Maybe Harper could show us who financed his leadership. It might give us some insight into his zealous promotion of the tar sands and his haste to investigate the health ramifications of wind turbines.

    Let’s see a hands-off investigation into foreigners campaigning for Conservatives and get to the bottom of the stuffed ballots in Etobicoke, the Gulf Islands voting sham, the false calls into Cotler’s riding and whatever happened in Kitchener/Waterloo, Guleph and dozens of other places regarding voter supression.

    We already know about the illicit in the In-and-Out scam.

  23. JamesHalifax says:

    Sorry Ted H….reply button is still wonky.

    As for the cut in GST, I think Harper knew full well the effect it would have. I think it was planned on several fronts.

    1. It was politically popular.
    2. Any party campaigning on raising it again will see attack ads galore.
    3. I actually agree, it does contribute to a structural deficit, but after Harper and his party finish making the cuts they have planned…it will not be structural.
    4. The reason to take a big chunk of revenue off the table was not to benefit harper….it was to hinder any future government that wanted to enact any sweeping National programs such as national childcare, Kyoto, Kelowna..etc..etc….

    Any party that campaigns on that type of platform, will have to explain to the electorate where the money will come from. The only answer of course, is raising taxes.

    Pretty good strategy if you ask me. (if we forego the (temporary) structural deficit it created)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*