I tried posting this over at Susan Delacourt’s blog, but for some reason it wouldn’t take, so here it is.

Objective reporting? Not quite. A few details missing.
H/T David Akin blog.
Here’s the list of speakers:

9:00 a.m. – President Barack Obama, United States
[bright & early, so of course there's a full house for the President of one of the most powerful nations]
President Doris Leuthard, Switzerland
[following Mr. Obama's speech, so still a full house ... and probably before a coffee break]
President Bingu wa Mutharika, Malawi

President, Laura Chinchilla Miranda, Costa Rica
President Mahinda Rajapaksa, Sri Lanka
President Abdullah Gül, Turkey
Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani, Qatar
[the emir was still speaking when I tuned in at about 12:15 pm]
President Mwai Kibaki, Kenya

President Emomalii Rahmon, Tajikistan
President Alan García Perez, Peru

President Viktor Yanukovych, Ukraine

Premier Wen Jiabao, China

Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Canada

Emir Hamad bin Khalifa Al Thani of Qatar was still speaking at 12.21 pm Montreal, so the PM, who was scheduled to begin his speech at 12:30 pm, was pushed back to around 2:00 pm, when all those delegates were probably still enjoying their yummy lunches. That may explain the empty hall.

A little context might have been useful. But Ms. Delacourt apparently prefers to sneer first, then wring her hands, and lecture us conservatives for lowering the level of political discourse.

Susan is vying for the role of cattiest and laziest journalist covering Ottawa and that’s a difficult achievement with the competition so steep.

This latest,good for the bottom of the bird cage piece, demonstrates so sadly what levels of laziness she will take her poorly researched but rarely challenged rants too.

From the reports that I heard that offered balance and followup research, the speeches were not flowing at their correct time and the PM ended up with the LUNCH TIME slot. Unfoseen, an unknown and certainly, inconvenient.
I can’t seem to find that anywhere in the ‘gossip girls’ sarcastic game of make it up as she goes along.

Someone seriously needs to grow up and get a real job or at least perform as though she is capable somewhat, of doing the one she does gets paid to do

Susan is on a mission……

Stephen, in my haste to post my comment , I quickly skimmed over your post.

Upon re-reading it, I noticed the order of speakers you give and my list from David Akin’s blog are slightly different.

On my (Akin’s) list the first speaker was Obama, THEN Switzerland’s president followed him. Regardless … the point is the same.

Uh huh, she and the company she keeps. Bloody frightening!

Just so I understand, you have taken from this blog post, that does not once mention the liberal party, and extrapolated it to mean:

a. Delacourt only posted this because of a “tip” from a liberal.
b. Delacourt only posted this because she is one of those nasty liberal media types.

This is as well supported as your “there are liberal MP’s who are not going to show up for the LGR vote” tweet.

I get it. Your role here is to offer tidbits to the base. Since you are a blogger you feel no need to be intellectually honest about what you are doing. But this post is nothing but “analysis” based on unfounded speculation.

And you know what? Had the tables been turned the National Post probably would have had the photos of Ignatieff speaking to an empty UN on the front page.

The weakness of your recent attacks really exposes the hole the CPC are in these days.

Just so I understand, you have taken from this blog post, that does not once mention the liberal party, and extrapolated it to mean:

a. Delacourt only posted this because of a “tip” from a liberal.
b. Delacourt only posted this because she is one of those nasty liberal media types.

This is as well supported as your “there are liberal MP’s who are not going to show up for the LGR vote” tweet.

I get it. Your role here is to offer tidbits to the base. Since you are a blogger you feel no need to be intellectually honest about what you are doing. But this post is nothing but “analysis” based on unfounded speculation.

And you know what? Had the tables been turned the National Post probably would have had the photos of Ignatieff speaking to an empty UN on the front page.

The weakness of your recent attacks really exposes the hole the CPC are in these days.

“Had the tables been turned the National Post probably would have had the photos of Ignatieff speaking to an empty UN on the front page. ”

“Probably” is a phantom word Gayle, when, if it hasn’t happened, the occurance doesn’t exist.

This is sloppy, catty journalism, exposed! Unresearched and no context and that is the point I have taken from Stephen’s post.

I agree it is sloppy, but our host’s analysis is worse.

As for my National Post comment – I stand behind it. You can pretend reality does not exist, but that does not mean the rest of us have to do so.

http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/09/united-states-of-america-general-debate-65th-session.html

check out 1:00:00 – 1:10:00… Switzerland then the US

OK, thanks, Stephen. I was going by Akin’s schedule, but according to this http://gadebate.un.org/ Obama did speak after the Swiss president.

Well Portugal loves Iffy,
they are showing a newspaper clip to all the voting countries,
of Iffy saying Canada doesn’t deserve a seat at the UN Sec C,
it’s part of their bid to win a seat.

Tweet about that Delacourt.
Portugal can have Iffy.

Well Portugal loves Iffy,
they are showing a newspaper clip to all the voting countries,
of Iffy saying Canada doesn’t deserve a seat at the UN Sec C,
it’s part of their bid to win a seat.

Tweet about that Delacourt.
Portugal can have Iffy.

“You can pretend reality does not exist, but that does not mean the rest of us have to do so. ”

I’m not pretending, Gayle, your suggestion simply hasn’t happened and so THAT is in fact, what doesn’t exist.

Imagining a non existent headline, for a non existent PM, at an event that has not (nor likely ever will) occurred and then to grasp from the air, the newspaper that will do the nasty, is a phantom occurrence. It hasn’t happened and that was my only point, Gayle.

That’s it, period.

“You can pretend reality does not exist, but that does not mean the rest of us have to do so. ”

I’m not pretending, Gayle, your suggestion simply hasn’t happened and so THAT is in fact, what doesn’t exist.

Imagining a non existent headline, for a non existent PM, at an event that has not (nor likely ever will) occurred and then to grasp from the air, the newspaper that will do the nasty, is a phantom occurrence. It hasn’t happened and that was my only point, Gayle.

That’s it, period.

Why would anyone assume Susan Delacourt would not try to belittle our PM? He is not a Liberal and therefore does no meet her approval.

Context is everything. Her employer does not support our PM and his success at home or abroad must be attacked at every opportunity. It was one of the only publications that endorsed the Liberal leader in 2008. Nothing has changed.

Why would a Canadian slam her Prime Minister while he is on the international stage?, bettie?

A little more context: Susan Delacourt’s brother John used to be Joe Volpe’s Press Secretary. ‘Nuff said.

The name “Susan” in the lamestream media and related seems to come with an inbuilt animus towards Prime Minister Harper and his CPC: Susan D., Susan Riley, Susan Smith, Susan Ormiston, and a few other sour susans whose names escape me at the moment.

Susan Delacourt is thoroughly steeped in the get-Harper mode and very little she reports about PMSH or the CPC can be trusted. She’s very much in the LPC camp.

bettie: ” … the Prime Minister makes me proud on the world stage. He is a statesman that appears to have the respect of other world leaders. ” Check!

Perhaps she’s busy writing another Liberal bio…..or brushing her hair, can’t take the time to do the grunt work to seek and present the facts free of manipulative spin. Photo shopping is just another tool in their arsenal.

Bottom line, why ANY Canadian would run down their own Country, their Prime Minister on the world stage is worthy of our utmost contempt.

Ignatieff and a few other clowns say Canada doesn’t deserve this seat at the UN should hang their heads in shame. Bob Rae got it right, this is not a partisan issue.

The Liberals are so desperate they’re going out of the country to attack the PM and in the process the Country. Shameful isn’t strong enough. How about traitors?

Perhaps she’s busy writing another Liberal bio…..or brushing her hair, can’t take the time to do the grunt work to seek and present the facts free of manipulative spin. Photo shopping is just another tool in their arsenal.

Bottom line, why ANY Canadian would run down their own Country, their Prime Minister on the world stage is worthy of our utmost contempt.

Ignatieff and a few other clowns say Canada doesn’t deserve this seat at the UN should hang their heads in shame. Bob Rae got it right, this is not a partisan issue.

The Liberals are so desperate they’re going out of the country to attack the PM and in the process the Country. Shameful isn’t strong enough. How about traitors?

The difference here sweet Gayle is that Stephen is a blogger – Susan actually has journalist credentials – well, she has a card, Ipresume; credentials are something you should earn through professionalism – something Susan evidentially lacks.

You forgot CBC , CTV G/M, T/S -ETC. They all answer to their boss —oops, I meant, bosses, who are the libs/ndp/bloc.
Ignatieff publicly said on television from abroad that he was disgusted with Canada – and now this. He is ashamed of canada and still he wants to be Canada’s PM.

CS, even OBAMA, bashed his own country; he accuse her(USA) of many things. The pattern runs the same in Canada with the Liberals.

there may have been a change in the schedule… but if you watch the video… you’ll see the order I present.

For a) I have declared this as a presumption.For b) this is your conclusion.Gayle, as for the LGR my tweet stated that a couple of Liberals were thinking of not showing and this is what they told hunting groups. This was true.What turned out to have happened was the whole Liberal caucus showed up. I never stated they wouldn’t… just that a few were seriously thinking of not showing. You cannot prove otherwise. I can only offer that I had heard this from a reliable source and that I still believe it was true.If it matters, if you ask some Liberals, and if they were being candid with you… they would tell you that indeed they did consider skipping. It doesn’t take much “analysis” to believe such a thing.I did not state: “Exclusive: 2 Liberals WILL NOT SHOW tomorrow for the vote”You could have taken that to the bank if I had used such language.

also, the target of my criticism is the Liberal theme. It is not Susan Delacourt. In fact, I consult her reporting/opinion first when I want to know what’s happening in the Liberal caucus.

The images weren’t photoshopped. I checked the PM’s speech too. Just as reported.

However, proper context wasn’t reported.

The images weren’t photoshopped. I checked the PM’s speech too. Just as reported.

However, proper context wasn’t reported.

On a related topic …

I’ve heard some journalists like Terry Milewski sneer that this is only the second time the PM has addressed the UN General Assembly, suggesting that other PMs have addressed the GA regularly.

That prompted me to try to find out how often other PMs had done so in the recent past.
Well, what I could find is the following:
Pierre Elliott Trudeau:
http://tinyurl.com/27r24kw
Sorry, could not find anything matching Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Brian Mulroney:
http://tinyurl.com/2fd7odk
Sorry, could not find anything matching Brian Mulroney

That honestly surprises me. Maybe my search was not effective.

Jean Chretien: 5 speeches
http://tinyurl.com/24xq2cg

Paul Martin: 8 speeches, 2 for Paul Martin Jr. the rest for Paul Martin Sr.
http://tinyurl.com/2fldlyl (my browser suddenly quit here; see note below)

Stephen Harper: 1 speech (in 2006;the two delivered this week are not yet online)
http://tinyurl.com/24k7duz

So, Mr. Milewski should check his facts. The only PM who appears to have addressed the GA annually is Paul Martin Jr. Jean Chretien was in power for 10 years, and addressed the GA only 5 times, if my research is accurate.

Note: If you want to access those web pages, please be advised your browser may suddenly quit on you. Mine did just that, and I got this message when I tried to go back to those web pages:
Official Document System of the United Nations
Système de diffusion électronique des documents de l’ONU
NO AUTHORIZATION
In case you use personal firewall, please adjust the privacy settings for this web site.

Yes Bec. Something that has not happened has not happened. Hence the use of the term “probably”.

Sigh…

Yes AG. That would be why I distinguished between bloggers and journalists. I was criticizing Taylor for this post, as a blogger. If you ever wonder why bloggers are not taken as seriously as journalists, posts like this one would be why.

Since I already agreed this was sloppy journalism, I trust I do not need to do so on every post?

Yes AG. That would be why I distinguished between bloggers and journalists. I was criticizing Taylor for this post, as a blogger. If you ever wonder why bloggers are not taken as seriously as journalists, posts like this one would be why.

Since I already agreed this was sloppy journalism, I trust I do not need to do so on every post?

Speaking of which, did you photoshop that “meme” onto an LPC template?

Speaking of which, did you photoshop that “meme” onto an LPC template?

I remember watching Paul Martin waving his arms while he talked to an empty hall at the UN a few years ago. Don’t think JC got a large audience either.
We don’t get that seat, cancel all donations to said organization and pull out our membership. We don’t deserve to be their, iggy said so.

I remember watching Paul Martin waving his arms while he talked to an empty hall at the UN a few years ago. Don’t think JC got a large audience either.
We don’t get that seat, cancel all donations to said organization and pull out our membership. We don’t deserve to be their, iggy said so.

Milewski really has no credibility left, like Delacourt they have a problem getting the facts before going into their anti-Harper, anti-Conservatives diatribes. Of course not getting the facts suits their purpose, the truth doesn’t fit in with their agenda. I’m sick of them. Lucky for them their employers are on the same page or they’d be fired for incompetence. I do realize we pay the bill for CBC spouters but we have no say in the hiring and firing department.

Milewski really has no credibility left, like Delacourt they have a problem getting the facts before going into their anti-Harper, anti-Conservatives diatribes. Of course not getting the facts suits their purpose, the truth doesn’t fit in with their agenda. I’m sick of them. Lucky for them their employers are on the same page or they’d be fired for incompetence. I do realize we pay the bill for CBC spouters but we have no say in the hiring and firing department.

a) you said it was a presumption that these photos came from a tipster. My point is that it is utterly and completely baseless. You are making it up and working on that premise. That weakens your position. In fact, as a political journalist it is far more likely Delacourt was following this story all by herself, without the aid of a liberal party member.

b) no. This is what you want people to believe. You clearly know your audience.

Your tweet was based on what someone told you. The only fact is that you were told something. Unless you were in the room when a liberal MP said something, you cannot claim what he said as a fact.

Here are the actual facts: The LPC said months ago that the caucus had reached a compromise, and as a result of that compromise they would all vote in support of Holland’s motion. Ignatieff said he would whip the vote and that each and every MP would be there and vote in support of the motion. He said that months ago – and that is exactly what happened.

So it is clear your tweet was baseless. Your suggestion that the MPs would say something different is also baseless. The FACTS are that what Ignatieff said would happen happened.

May I point out as well that suggesting I cannot prove a negative is not up to your usual standard of debate. No one can prove a negative Stephen.

I photoshopped this whole blog. It’s my design. Thank you for noticing.

The red Liberal box has no official meaning. It’s my way of using a red highlighter.

I photoshopped this whole blog. It’s my design. Thank you for noticing.

The red Liberal box has no official meaning. It’s my way of using a red highlighter.

Forgive me, I have trouble trusting many of the regulars in the media…..I put nothing past them.

I sincerely hope that “goodbye Gayle” means foe-evah.

I sincerely hope that “goodbye Gayle” means foe-evah.

… guess there wasn’t anything momentous happening at a Tim Horton’s that day.

… guess there wasn’t anything momentous happening at a Tim Horton’s that day.

Of course not getting the facts suits their purpose, the truth doesn’t fit in with their agenda. I’m sick of them. Lucky for them their employers are on the same page or they’d be fired for incompetence.

( giggle, snort) This whole ‘media is biased’ thing.

Also loving the flailing inconsistency between ‘purpose’ and ‘incompetence’. I’m confused – are they faithfully executing the ‘agenda’ laid out by their evil masters, or are they simply incompetent journalists? Both suggestions are breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded, but your arguments might gain a whiff of plausibility if there was some some base level of consistency. Just sayin’.

I’ll settle on the ‘agenda’ — not necessarily set from on high.

I believe journalists can certainly think for themselves, they can make their own choices as to how to cover an event, what kind of slant to give it, whether they use emotionally charged or emotionally neutral language … yup, I think it’s a question of their own personal agenda, although in some cases their bosses may encourage them along an … ummm, how shall I put it? … an ideological line.

As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”, I’m sorry your powers of observation and critical thinking have been clouded by your own partisanship. There’s that ideology again coming to the fore.

I’ll settle on the ‘agenda’ — not necessarily set from on high.

I believe journalists can certainly think for themselves, they can make their own choices as to how to cover an event, what kind of slant to give it, whether they use emotionally charged or emotionally neutral language … yup, I think it’s a question of their own personal agenda, although in some cases their bosses may encourage them along an … ummm, how shall I put it? … an ideological line.

As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”, I’m sorry your powers of observation and critical thinking have been clouded by your own partisanship. There’s that ideology again coming to the fore.

“Giggle, snort” all you wish. Are you sure you aren’t Gayle in drag? I sense a dose of condescension with your over the top reaction to a mere opinion.

“Giggle, snort” all you wish. Are you sure you aren’t Gayle in drag? I sense a dose of condescension with your over the top reaction to a mere opinion.

You of course realize that Stephen’s piece is based on a BLOG, which is pretty much by definition a place for expressing one’s opinion? although in some cases their bosses may encourage them along an … ummm, how shall I put it? … an ideological line. Everybody knows that most major newspapers, particularly when they are one of many competing in a big market, have an editorial stance. Take … Toronto. We have the Star (arguably Liberal-ish), the Nat’l Post (cognac conservatives with portfolios), duh Sun (Conservative for people who can’t spell conservative), and the Globe and Mail (which I would argue is pretty centrist). So, explain to me how this translates to “Librul media”?(I accept that hatred for the CBC is a given for CPC members. It’s how you recognise each other)As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”, I’m sorry your powers of observation and critical thinking have been clouded by your own partisanship. There’s that ideology again coming to the fore.Sorrry about your poor comprehension. I said that this employer’s ‘agenda’ thing and charge of incompetence are unfounded.

You don’t have a lot of info with which to conclude who/what exactly I’m for (… and I like it that way). So calling ME a partisan/lackey/syncophant is somewhat lame. Unless you’re taking trolling lessons from CanadianDense.

You of course realize that Stephen’s piece is based on a BLOG, which is pretty much by definition a place for expressing one’s opinion? although in some cases their bosses may encourage them along an … ummm, how shall I put it? … an ideological line. Everybody knows that most major newspapers, particularly when they are one of many competing in a big market, have an editorial stance. Take … Toronto. We have the Star (arguably Liberal-ish), the Nat’l Post (cognac conservatives with portfolios), duh Sun (Conservative for people who can’t spell conservative), and the Globe and Mail (which I would argue is pretty centrist). So, explain to me how this translates to “Librul media”?(I accept that hatred for the CBC is a given for CPC members. It’s how you recognise each other)As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”, I’m sorry your powers of observation and critical thinking have been clouded by your own partisanship. There’s that ideology again coming to the fore.Sorrry about your poor comprehension. I said that this employer’s ‘agenda’ thing and charge of incompetence are unfounded.

You don’t have a lot of info with which to conclude who/what exactly I’m for (… and I like it that way). So calling ME a partisan/lackey/syncophant is somewhat lame. Unless you’re taking trolling lessons from CanadianDense.

You of course realize that Stephen’s piece is based on a BLOG, which is pretty much by definition a place for expressing one’s opinion? although in some cases their bosses may encourage them along an … ummm, how shall I put it? … an ideological line. Everybody knows that most major newspapers, particularly when they are one of many competing in a big market, have an editorial stance. Take … Toronto. We have the Star (arguably Liberal-ish), the Nat’l Post (cognac conservatives with portfolios), duh Sun (Conservative for people who can’t spell conservative), and the Globe and Mail (which I would argue is pretty centrist). So, explain to me how this translates to “Librul media”?(I accept that hatred for the CBC is a given for CPC members. It’s how you recognise each other)As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”, I’m sorry your powers of observation and critical thinking have been clouded by your own partisanship. There’s that ideology again coming to the fore.Sorrry about your poor comprehension. I said that this employer’s ‘agenda’ thing and charge of incompetence are unfounded.

You don’t have a lot of info with which to conclude who/what exactly I’m for (… and I like it that way). So calling ME a partisan/lackey/syncophant is somewhat lame. Unless you’re taking trolling lessons from CanadianDense.

You wrote this:

Of course not getting the facts suits their purpose, the truth doesn’t fit in with their agenda. I’m sick of them. Lucky for them their employers are on the same page or they’d be fired for incompetence.

And I mocked it. So, hell yeah… more than a dose…

I already know you’re smarter than that. So why do you keep parroting such nonsense? God knows there’s more than enough REAL ammo to fire at all the political parties.

“You of course realize that Stephen’s piece is based on a BLOG … “
And you DO realize that readers of a blog, be it written by a professional journalist or a dilettante, have a right to react to a blog post in whichever way they choose? Some may view the post negatively, others positively. Are you the arbiter of how they should react?

“Everybody knows that most major newspapers … have an editorial stance.”
Aren’t you essentially acknowledging that what I said is true? That there are journalists and media with a particular agenda or bias? So what’s your beef?

“I accept that hatred for the CBC is a given for CPC members. It’s how you recognise each other.”
And I recognize progressives by the condescension they show towards people who dare have a different POV than their own. Just because we taxpayers pay for it doesn’t mean we have to like it. But I’ll let you in on a little secret: I watch CBC on a regular basis.

“Sorrry about your poor comprehension.”
Ah! the classic progressive line. So original. Another sure way to recognize progressives: they always claim to possess comprehension skills superior to those of their interlocutors.

“So calling ME a partisan/lackey/syncophant is somewhat lame. Unless you’re taking trolling lessons from CanadianDense.”
More evidence of a progressive mind:
• putting words in my mouth, ascribing words to me I never used, like lackey/syncophant [sic]
• resorting to name-calling: CanadianDense
• bristling at the mere thought of being called a “Librul” [sic] — which I did not do, BTW
• refusing to admit to being partisan.
If you aren’t partisan, why do you grace us with your presence, arguing with conservatives here? C’mon, there’s no shame in admitting to being partisan. Try it, you’ll like it!

Stephen, I’m getting this message when I try to post a comment at the previous thread “Candice Hoeppner interview.”

bad JSON: {“method”: “postComment.onFailure”, “params”: [{“message”: “Get thee some captcha”, “code”: “captcha-required”, “succeeded”: false, “request”: {“post”: {“message”:

In the Librano$, the Dippers, and the Blocheads (please allow me a little fun, Stephen!), we have the Disloyal Opposition and in the Canadian media, with all the Susans, the Don Newmans, the Jim Travers, Craig Olivers, Jane Tabers, et al., we have the Unelected Opposition.

It’s a miracle that Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his CPC are still governing and doing such a GR-8 job! Now, PMSH has a new and very capable Chief of Staff in Nigel Wright. Despite the Disloyal and the Unelected Opposition, the CPC are moving forward and I am very proud of them.

‘Tis indeed a miracle we are witnessing with this Prime Minister, getting the job done, keeping his cool, it is amazing.

Your first paragraph… sorry, you lost me. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make there.

Re -media bias: the point I’m trying to make there is that the papers (and the rest of Cdn media) pretty much cover the political spectrum, yet posters routinely accuse the media, as a whole, of being Liberal-biased. It’s really lame.

Re “Sorrry about your poor comprehension.” – not condescension; correction. You said:
As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”…

… I didn’t say that. There’s enough in my posts to criticize without making stuff up.

Re: “calling ME a partisan/lackey/syncophant”

ah. I see you don’t like being misquoted, either. You are correct, you haven’t included the other two… but others have, so, being a public post, I thought I’d try to address those as well.

CanadianDense has laboured long and hard to earn my disrespect. Don’t go undoing all his/her hard work.

The partisan/lackey/syncophant thing. I get that alot – as if I’m some sort of paid Liberal operative. It’s flattering, but far from the truth. The only person here, who we know with certainty is employed by a political party, is Mr Taylor. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, and I’m very interested in his perspective.

Why I don’t consider myself a partisan:
- I don’t ignore the mistakes or misdeeds of parties I may sympathise with.
- I don’t uncritically celebrate every win of “my side”, no matter how dirty or pointless
- I really don’t have a solid party allegiance at this point. I am certainly more centrist than the CPC (which puts me to the left of y’all)
- I loathe ignorance, spin and lies, and when people blow smoke up each other’s backsides

There. That should give everyone enough to bash me with, without the lackey stuff.

Your reply to Gabby here of has a tone of condescension and arrogance.

Calling another commenter “CanadianDense” as a smart ass play on his moniker belies any attempt you may have to pose as a civil debater.

Your reply also brings to mind a song that goes : “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when your perfect in every way”. Familiar with that one Kenn2?

Kenn2 writes: “Your first paragraph… sorry, you lost me. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make there.”
• You apparently forgot you wrote this in reply to my previous comment: “You of course realize that Stephen’s piece is based on a BLOG …”

Kenn2 writes: “Re -media bias: … posters routinely accuse the media, as a whole, of being Liberal-biased. It’s really lame.”
• I haven’t come across any definitive studies on the political leanings of the Canadian media, but similar studies in the US have shown that the media generally does tend leftwards. Personally, I tend to judge individual reporters/columnists/pundits rather than news organizations. This particular blog post (the one by Susan Delacourt) was regrettably nothing more than snide sneering commentary.

Kenn2 writes: “Re “Sorrry about your poor comprehension.” – not condescension; correction. You said:
As for the complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”…
… I didn’t say that. There’s enough in my posts to criticize without making stuff up. “
• Ahem … please check your reply to Liz J, where you said: “are they [media/journalists] faithfully executing the ‘agenda’ laid out by their evil masters, or are they simply incompetent journalists? Both suggestions are breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded, but your arguments might gain a whiff of plausibility if there was some some base level of consistency.”

Kenn2 writes: “ah. I see you don’t like being misquoted, either.”
• Misquoted? You and I differ on the meaning of misquote. To misquote someone is to jumble the original meaning and/or words of a speaker. For example [from Wiki]:
« “Show me a young Conservative and I’ll show you someone with no heart. Show me an old Liberal and I’ll show you someone with no brains.”
– Often attributed to Winston Churchill, The phrase originated with Francois Guisot (1787-1874): “Not to be a republican at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.” It was revived by French Premier Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): “Not to be a socialist at twenty is proof of want of heart; to be one at thirty is proof of want of head.” »

So, Kenn2, attributing the words “lackey/syncophant” to me is not “misquoting” me, it is invention, to use a polite word. And if you bother to re-read the comments made by others here, I don’t see anyone else using those terms except you.

Kenn2 writes: “The partisan/lackey/syncophant thing. I get that alot – as if I’m some sort of paid Liberal operative. … “
• If it’s any consolation, the same accusation has often been levelled at me, accusing me of being paid to “spread the PMO’s talking points.”

And as far as Stephen Taylor is concerned, I haven’t seen, nor would I presume to ask to see, whether he’s remunerated by the Conservative Party. That is an assumption on your part.
It may surprise you, but some people actually do things out of conviction rather than out of personal gain, monetary or otherwise.

Kenn2 writes: “Why I don’t consider myself a partisan: …”
• Funny, my perception of you is not of a tabula rasa. I interpret your “non-alignment” as an anti-Harper stance … which is, of course, your prerogative. But fear not, I’m not on a proselytizing mission here.

Kenn2 writes: “That should give everyone enough to bash me with, without the lackey stuff.”
• You’re not playing the victim card, I hope!

You could maybe refute my arguments, then, but you yourself would rather get into name-calling too.

…S’ok. I’m getting used to it.

The horse is truly dead. I too want to stop whipping it.I’ll just try these:And if you bother to re-read the comments made by others here, I don’t see anyone else using those terms except you.What, are you NEW? I get called that alot (also shill, hack etc)… especially by my friend CD.Re our host Stephen – don’t be naive. He works at the Manning Centre. That hotbed of socialism….Oh, and are they [media/journalists] faithfully executing the ‘agenda’ laid out by their evil masters, or are they simply incompetent journalists? Both suggestions are breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded.…is not the same as complaints of media bias being “breathtakingly ridiculous and unfounded”I’m surprised it’s taking 3 tries to get that across.As long as Harper continues to run an opaque, micromanaged government, and continues to sow dissent among Canadians (census, LGR, ‘urban elites’)… I will be anti-Harper. If he ever gets around to implementing the openness and accountability that he’s promised every election… I would have to reconsider my opinion.

Tell me, what name did I call you?

Tell me, what name did I call you?

Tell me, what name did I call you?

What do you define as name calling?

condescension and arrogance. ?

Your reply also brings to mind a song that goes : “Oh Lord it’s hard to be humble when your perfect in every way”. Familiar with that one Kenn2?

Close enough? or am I being hypersensitive?

“What, are you NEW? I get called that alot (also shill, hack etc)… especially by my friend CD.”
• I’m a frequent visitor here, but you’ll forgive me if I don’t hang on your every word or every discussion that involves you. You’re beginning to sound whiny.

“Re our host Stephen – don’t be naive. He works at the Manning Centre.”
• When did the Manning Centre merge with the Conservative Party?

“…is not the same as …”
• You’re right. The two statements are not THE SAME, they are EQUIVALENT.

“I’m surprised it’s taking 3 tries to get that across.”
• There’s that condescension rising to the fore again, suggesting my reading comprehension is not up to par. Yawn. I’ve heard it before. Like water off a duck’s back.

“As long as Harper continues to run an opaque, micromanaged government, … I will be anti-Harper.”
• And that’s what this whole thing has been about all along, your anti-Harper-itis.
You’ll have to nurse that virus on your own.

Giddy up!

“Hypersensitive”? I wouldn’t know, don’t care, get over yourself, that might be a place to start.

It’s been my experience those who dish it out can’t take it themselves with the result the threads get hijacked by nonsense that has nothing to do with the subject .

Cheerio Kenn2, enjoy your day.

Stephen! Sorry to be a nag … but we need another couple of issues to chew on! There’s lots happening out there, for instance, The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform …

Whoops! I should have left a link to an article on The Centre for Immigration Policy Reform …

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-centre-seeks-review-of-canadas-immigration-policy/article1729389/

What’s new in the zoo and elsewhere?

Yes. Lots to discuss there.

(The Centre’s myth page… hoo boy. They’re answering myths with myths. But you knew I’d say that.)

Stephen! Are you on holiday?

Bon voyage!

OK, let’s deal with just MYTH #2:

“With an aging population and lower fertility rates, Canada needs high levels of immigration to provide the workers and tax base required to support social services for retirees.

“The facts:

“While it is true Canadians are living longer and having fewer babies, research shows that immigration has almost no impact on offsetting the costs of an aging population. …”

They’ve got that right. Our recent immigrants (what I call “new” immigrants as opposed to “old” immigrants who came to Canada to assimilate and make their, and all Canadians’, lives better) are costing us a mint, especially when they “go on” lawfare to kick our butts because they have no intention of becoming Canadians but intend to bring their country of origin’s battles and prejudices to Canada.

These “new” immigrants aren’t helping us at all. They’re creating problems that are costing the average, hard-working Canadian a ton.

NO THANKS.

It’s a historical fact that every citizen, even new citizens from the next-to-last wave of immigration, think that they’re the last of the “good” ones and those “new” immigrants are no-goodniks.Can you find actual stats on that site to back up the centre’s assertions? I couldn’t. I know this: there aren’t sufficient data to conclude that the most recent wave of immigrants are or will be “worse” contributors than the last batch…because the newbies just haven’t been here long enough. Ultimately, to maintain economic growth, new people gotta come from somewhere. Wombs, or immigration. No other choice.(I really have no issues with reexamining our criteria, and even deciding that we can’t handle as many during a recession, but that Centre is just an extension of the Fraser Institute, and they have more than immigration in their sights)Ok my turnMYTH #4:Canada needs large numbers of immigrants because it will face massive shortages of skilled labour in the coming decades.The facts:There will be no such shortages if more Canadians acquire the needed skills, which can be accomplished if wages, government policies and other conditions encourage them to do so and the jobs are not filled by immigrants. With a few exceptions—such as the present and temporary shortage of medical workers—Canada has both the human resources and educational infrastructure to meet our skilled labour needs. What a load of crap. The right has NO intention of making any of the above happen. They won’t raise the minimum wage to something realistic, they won’t fund the universities and colleges any better, and they haven’t provided near enough retraining opportunities for those laid-off in the downturn, even counting the stimulus money and other recession bandaids.This is a derail in this thread. Maybe Mr Taylor will start a new topic so we can get properly worked up.

It’s a historical fact that every citizen, even new citizens from the next-to-last wave of immigration, think that they’re the last of the “good” ones and those “new” immigrants are no-goodniks.Can you find actual stats on that site to back up the centre’s assertions? I couldn’t. I know this: there aren’t sufficient data to conclude that the most recent wave of immigrants are or will be “worse” contributors than the last batch…because the newbies just haven’t been here long enough. Ultimately, to maintain economic growth, new people gotta come from somewhere. Wombs, or immigration. No other choice.(I really have no issues with reexamining our criteria, and even deciding that we can’t handle as many during a recession, but that Centre is just an extension of the Fraser Institute, and they have more than immigration in their sights)Ok my turnMYTH #4:Canada needs large numbers of immigrants because it will face massive shortages of skilled labour in the coming decades.The facts:There will be no such shortages if more Canadians acquire the needed skills, which can be accomplished if wages, government policies and other conditions encourage them to do so and the jobs are not filled by immigrants. With a few exceptions—such as the present and temporary shortage of medical workers—Canada has both the human resources and educational infrastructure to meet our skilled labour needs. What a load of crap. The right has NO intention of making any of the above happen. They won’t raise the minimum wage to something realistic, they won’t fund the universities and colleges any better, and they haven’t provided near enough retraining opportunities for those laid-off in the downturn, even counting the stimulus money and other recession bandaids.This is a derail in this thread. Maybe Mr Taylor will start a new topic so we can get properly worked up.

” … there aren’t sufficient data to conclude that the most recent wave of immigrants are or will be “worse” contributors than the last batch…because the newbies just haven’t been here long enough. ”

When I talk about “new” I mean in the last 20 years or so. I don’t remember “old” waves of immigrants from, say, Italy, Portugal, or China, making plans to blow up downtown Toronto and the Parliament buildings in Ottawa, or to behead the prime minister. I’d say we have a pretty good idea of who the “no-goodniks” are — and I suspect that folks at the Centre for Immigration Policy Reform want to address some of these “new” problems posed by “new” immigrants who don’t exactly seem to have the safety, health, and welfare of Canadians uppermost on their agenda.

That’s a pretty wide brush you paint with.

(and still, no data)

“No data” is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

What data do you need? Check out the court records of these guys’ trials.

Use your God-given faculties: sight, hearing, your brain. They should provide “data” enough.

This scoundrel wants to know how a handful of nuts equates to painting all immigrants in the last 20 years as bad for Canada.

(So you don’t like people who are “different”… ok, we get it. Not quite a sound basis for determining immigration policy, though)

Knock it off, Ken. Nowhere and at no time did I say I “don’t like folks who are different,” nor did I imply that “all immigrants in the last 20 years [are] bad for Canada.” I certainly did imply, however, that some immigrants in the last 20 years have harmed our national security and the only prudent thing for Canada to do, at this point, is to analyze our immigration policies and to try and screen more diligently those who are allowed to emigrate to Canada, based on their prior political activity and affiliations. If they are known to belong to, or are connected to, a terrorist group, Canada is under no obligation to allow either them or their family members into Canada.

This view is neither intolerant nor bigoted, as you suggest. It is simply prudent.

Knock it off, Ken. Nowhere and at no time did I say I “don’t like folks who are different,” nor did I imply that “all immigrants in the last 20 years [are] bad for Canada.” I certainly did imply, however, that some immigrants in the last 20 years have harmed our national security and the only prudent thing for Canada to do, at this point, is to analyze our immigration policies and to try and screen more diligently those who are allowed to emigrate to Canada, based on their prior political activity and affiliations. If they are known to belong to, or are connected to, a terrorist group, Canada is under no obligation to allow either them or their family members into Canada.

This view is neither intolerant nor bigoted, as you suggest. It is simply prudent.

For all who are concerned about this country or those who are yelling about the need for more immigrants there’s new book by Lowell Green to bring some reality to the subject of where we are and where we’re headed. It’s called: “Mayday, Mayday. Curb Immigration. Stop Multiculturalism Or It’s The End Of The Canada We Know.” Go to lowellgreen.com for info.

Now that you’ve walked it back a bit, your view makes more sense.

What’s your take on my assessment of Myth #4?

kenn2, sometimes you’re slow …

My comment of 9 hours ago is my assessment of myth #4.

However, scoundrel that you are, here’s some data courtesy of maz2 @ SDA and BLY:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2010/10/03/15568906.html

http://www.bluelikeyou.com/2010/10/03/lawrence-martin-admits-he-is-biased/#comment-91772

My comment of 9 hours ago is my assessment of myth #4.

… Ok. I must be really slow then. Nothing about that response seems to address myth #4.

bluelikeyou… ack! what an echo-chamber.

The Liberals are basking in Canada’s defeat in achieving a seat on the UN Security council. Makes me wonder if the Liberals are not for Canada, who are they for? They cetainly did everything they could to undermine us.
In our family we keep domestic politics at home where they beong. Shame.