Savant

Savant

44p

65 comments posted · 1 followers · following 0

387 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Shaking up the news world · 1 reply · -2 points

I'm the one who laughs at those who try and suggest there is no bias in the media. Ask the public what they think and you get a different picture...

94% say the media tends to sensationalize stories
80% think that media outlets favour a specific party over others
56% say reporters have been biased during the 2008 federal campaign
51% say the media rarely reports on issues important to them
50% say the media has properly explained the platforms for each contending party

(Angus-Reid, Oct 12, 2008, 1006 polled, +/-3.1% MOE)

Yeah, keep on spinning the non-biased media stuff, the rest of us will be looking to this new channel to see if they can deliver on their promise to provide the 'straight goods'.

392 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Mind the gap? I bet Pe... · 1 reply · +5 points

First, Ignatieff has no better a personality than Harper does. Next, the Liberals have been trying to throw everying and anything at the Tories in the hope that something might 'stick'. Problem with that is that the voters get tired of that very fast. The 'fear mongering' only works for so long before people tune it out. Lastly, the Liberals need to give the voters a reason to vote Liberal and *not* just reasons not to vote Conservative.

400 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Harper’s hard right ... · 1 reply · +1 points

Actually, what's funny is that both the Liberals and Conservatives have changed more AFTER the election than before. Neither party changed simply to get votes and then changed back. If anything, that's part of the flaw in the article. It suggests that the Tories have swung hard to the right, when in fact they have swung to the middle. A recent Ekos poll confirmed this in the eyes of the voters as well. The Liberals have swung to the left, and a poll found that many of the 'religious' voters (like Liberal Catholics) are no longer voting Liberal because of it.

However the 'hard right' are none too happy with Harper because the Tories haven't done things like ban gay marriage or ban abortion, and they are spending cash like crazy. And people say the Tories are swinging hard right? Sorry, but nothing backs that up.

400 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Harper’s hard right ... · 2 replies · 0 points

The rising tide of conservativism in Canada is a natural result of those who find out that the Conservatives aren't the boogeymen that the Liberals (and others) make them out to be. I have found it fascinating how while Canadians have slowly moved towards being more accepting of conservatism, the Conservatives have moved slowly away from the 'hard right' to become more accepting of 'moderate' or 'progressive' conservatism. While one cannot deny the roots of the current Conservative party, the reality is that the party you see today is nothing like the Reform party we saw in the past.

While the liberal media is having fits over these latest polls (showing conservatism on the rise) the fact remains that as much as columnists try and paint Conservatives as 'evil', sooner or later the public will realise that such remarks hold no weight.

You can only 'cry wolf' so many times before the public tunes it out.

400 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Harper’s hard right ... · 7 replies · +5 points

I think the suggestion in the article that the Conservatives have pushed the Liberals off 'center' is flawed. Many Liberal MPs have themselves noted that the party has swung itself to the left, and this has revealed a number of divisions within the party. What's worse is that the Liberal party - which used to be the party for Catholics - has lost much of the support of those 'religious minded' individuals. As a Catholic myself, and former Liberal supporter, I can attest to this.

The Conservatives could have hung out on the right, but they were wise to push towards the center. When you consider that the vast majority of Canadians see themselves as centrists, then it pays to position yourself in the center of the political spectrum.

410 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Parliament: who needs it? · 2 replies · +2 points

Some parliament session statistics...

While some people are suggesting this last session or parliament was abbreviated, reality would suggest otherwise. Of the 144 sessions of parliament since 1867, this session ranks as number 117. A whopping 116 (~80%) were shorter than the last session. If you want to talk short, 42 of the sessions were less than 100 days long. Heck, a full 88 (~60%) of the sessions were less than HALF as long (169 days) as the last session. (Here's some trivia - 3 of the sessions were less than a week long!)

In terms of actual sitting days, the result is very similar. The last session ranked as 111th out of 144, leaving only 32 sessions that had more sitting days.

So have we been getting ripped off all these years with short sessions? Should we thank Harper for bringing this to our attention?

410 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - Parliament: who needs it? · 1 reply · +3 points

Are people only realizing this now? Parliament has always been about the leaders, no matter which party was in power. Does anyone think it was any different with the Liberals? We could have an election tomorrow, put the Liberals in power and we would be no further along than we are now.

How many people watch question period and wonder how the public can tolerate the poor behaviour from ALL sides in the house? The bottom line is that the average Canadian doesn't want to be bothered with politics. They just want the government to do its thing and keep the country running. It's the parties that try and hijack parliament with their competing ideologies on ALL sides.

I hate to break it to people, but if anyone thinks it would be different with another party in power they are dreaming. Like it or hate it, this is how our parliament functions - short of rewriting the constitution.

410 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The real issue · 1 reply · +1 points

I think you're missing my point though. The fact that Chretien did it before doesn't make it right for Harper to do the same thing. My point is that the 'outrage' back then was partisan in nature, just as it is now.

Do people honestly think that if the parties were reversed, and the circumstances identical, that the same people would be complaining? That's not point here. It's not about the leaders, it's about the partisans who are crying crocodile tears when they know full well had the shoe been on the other foot they would be defending the Liberals for the exact same thing.

I think this is why so many people don't want an election right now is since they know that they will get the same partisan politics regardless of the party they vote for.

410 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The real issue · 0 replies · +2 points

But you don't think Chretien was the first to utilize prorogation as a tool to 'turn down the heat' now do you? I don't have a list of all the prorogations at hand, but I don't think it is irresponsible to suggest that if one looked through them all we would find plenty of other examples where this 'parliamentary proceedure' was used to benefit the sitting government in some manner.

As for that there were no 'comment pages' when Chretien did it, why should that matter? Does 'outrage' need to be attached to a particular social medium?

In the end it's all partisan politics at its finest. It doesn't matter what side one is on to see that this would have played out completely differently had the parties in power been reversed.

410 weeks ago @ Macleans.ca - The real issue · 3 replies · +2 points

Yeah and Chretien prorogued to avoid accountability for adscam. I would suggest that both are in the same 'ball park' as far as accountability goes, and while there was the usual partisan howls of 'outrage' from the Tories when Chretien did it, you didn't see the kind of public annoyance then - lest those dastardly Conservatives sweep to power. (which happened anyway)

Like I said, this is all about partisan politics, and if it was Chretien still in power we would not be seeing the same outrage from these people who purport to be 'offended' by the actions of Harper.

Let's be clear here. I never said that I approve of this prorogation. I simply suggested that the bulk of the 'outrage' is crocodile tears being shed by partisans who would be silent had the Liberals been in power. What's more, I think the Liberals would be fools if they *didn't* try and capitalize on this, since if the tables were turned I know the Tories would.