Darwin
Friends of Darwin
MisfitBloggers

Categories

He loves and she loves

Just Causes


  • Support_denmark

  • Marykay_1

Password required

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

« I was here before you | Main | The means enable the ends justify the means? »

July 19, 2004

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I agree, the Leftist get all up in arms when people talk about Creation. They start yelling Darwin, survival of the fittest. But when you talk capitalism, which may be Darwin's best look see, Darwinism works, they get all up in arms about that, socialism is better, the Government(Creator) is the one who should be in charge.

Quite funny and ironic if you ask me, which you didn't.

Thanks for stopping by, James. 'Love your observation that capitalism may be Darwin's best look see.

The Faux Fox News Conspiracy (blogwhore alert). Alternative title: Why don't right whingers ever check out the facts before they begin spewing?

It's not Darwin, it's Spencer. Darwin dealt with biological, Herbert Spencer with cultural evolution, which by comparison, progresses with the speed of thought. Adaptive ideas, e.g. capitalism, shoulder aside the maladaptive, e.g. Communism. Consider how rapidly butt-naked savages start using steel axes to cut their trees and heads and firearms to shoot their monkeys. And to buy the tools and guns, you need money, and to get the money, you need industry and commerce. If you can't or won't adapt, well, you'll just have to make room for those who will.
Free institutions allow man to create wealth, wealth buys better and better tools, including tools such as carrier battle groups and amphibious task forces to protect the free institutions. It works for us.

Maybe, Robert McClelland, just maybe, you should take your own advice. If you'll read the article Sisu references above, you'll find that it's stated that Fox was given permission to broadcast in Canada as long as thirty-five percent of their content was about Canada. And that Fox News refused.

Now it's arguable whether that's a reasonable request or not; I don't hink it is. But more to the point here, I doubt that Al-Jazeera is required to broadcast 35% canadian content as a precondition to being heard in Canada.

Perhaps us right-wingers should have our facts as straight as, say, Maureen O'Dowd or Joe Wilson? Noam Chomsky? Howard Zinn? Robert Scheer? Michael Moore, perhaps, McClelland?

Lou, perhaps, on a biological side, Lamarck might be a more accurate analogy to Spencer's thought? Nevertheless, Stephenson's point remains true. It's not the person but the general idea: large-scale "improvement" via small-scale adjustments made by countless actors vs. macro "improvements" by an elite. Swap God for Government, genes for memes and you get the idea.

IMO, the CTRC's dream of a Fox News Channel with 35% Canadian content falls in the "be careful what you ask for" category. Give Canada's citizens a couple of years of Fox-style coverage of Canadian corruption... well, who knows what might happen!

it's stated that Fox was given permission to broadcast in Canada as long as thirty-five percent of their content was about Canada.

So what? That doesn't mean that O'Reilly will be forced to devote 35% of his show to talking about Canada. All this means is that 8 hours of the feed being shown in Canada has to be about Canada. That's easy to accomplish with the technology and Canadian conservative media that are already available.

But more to the point here, I doubt that Al-Jazeera is required to broadcast 35% canadian content as a precondition to being heard in Canada.

Their conditions were worse. In order for a cable provider to carry al Jazeera, they have to ensure that no hate speech is being broadcast on the feed into Canada.

But this is a strawman argument anyways. The fact is that there is no conspiracy to block Fox News from being carried by cable providers in Canada. That is just a bunch of wingnuttery born out of the victim mentality of the right whingers.

Perhaps us right-wingers should have our facts as straight as

someone who actually got his facts from the CRTC rulings concerning Fox News broadcasting in Canada instead of his [expletive deleted].

I love how unfailingly polite left-wingers are. It's as if they realized that the way to persuade other people isn't by insulting them and calling them names.

So now I'm confused. Fox has to have 35% CDN content but Al Jazeera doesn't?

Three more weeks until I move away from the People's Repulic of Canada and back to the USA!

No, Fox news doesn't, actually. Fox News Canada had to have 35% Canadian content, but those were older laws. Fox News wanted to use the new laws, that don't require that, to get on the air, but that would compete unfairly with the existing Fox News Canada. It appears to just be an administration snafu, that's all. Soon, Fox news will be on the air in Canada, no worries.

It was interesting that CNN is grandfathered in the law and thus is exempt from the 35% requirement. Seems only fair that if you are going to require it from one US competitor, you should change the law to require it from all of them.

We felt less than reassured by your phrase "no worries," Mr. Kerry. A little Googling indicates that Fox News' CRTC application is in the process of receiving comments, public notice having been posted to their web site on Friday July 9 2004: http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:dzw0rUu09g0J:www.proudtobecanadian.ca/threads/showflat.php%3FCat%3D%26Number%3D805+Fox+News+Canada&hl=en

Also, to date, "Fox News Canada" exists only on paper, and Fox News is listed as the non-Canadian partner of said Fox News Canada.

OK, so, are you going to make Robert Mc look like an idiot and post a retraction/update for Canada? Please?

Sir, you must provide more accurate, precisely written and referenced material if you expect to persuade the skeptical.

The Faux Fox News link from Robert contains the actual CRTC articles this is about.

Instapundit has pointed this out:
http://vancouverscrum.blogspot.com/2003_03_23_vancouverscrum_archive.html#91641565

I must say that the UK could use better news programs. I was in Scotland on 9/11 and quickly shifted to London. I have to say that the quality of the news was remarkably bad. In the first day or two, the newspapers had giant front page headlines "50,000 dead". I couldn't get quality news on TV - my hotel only had Sky News - no BBC or CNN. Coverage was truly terrible. For example, when Bush was about to tour ground zero, they were maintaining constant coverage on his arrival, which was delayed for quite a while. The anchor actually said something like "I hope he gets here soon because I've run out of things to say". I felt cut off, hungry for any reliable news source. So daily, I trekked to a hotel with CNN on the lobby bar TV and called my sister in Seattle daily to get accurate news. I finally made it back to the US almost a week after 9/11 and could have cried with relief at the multi-channel access I had to reliable and high quality news shows.

Additionally, I've spent a great deal of time in Canada and find the TV news coverage to be adequate (yes, I watch CNN there) but the print media to be truly terrible.

Yup, it's true. Fox can broadcast all it wants to. To all the people who have digital TVs and who want to pay a subscription fee. I'm certain that any fool can make a reasonable profit selling subscription TV to the hundreds of Canadians who have bought these new TVs. So anybody whining about overregulation, or rediculous roadblocks is obviously just grinding a partisan axe. Right?

The comments to this entry are closed.

The Cold Turkey Cookbook

Look to the animals

  • looktotheanimals

Kudos

Blog powered by Typepad