Subject: Time for a new party?
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1995 04:57:31 GMT
Newsgroups: ont.general

It's become *really* depressing hearing the blather from all three of
the current political parties leading up to the provincial election
which must be held relatively soon.

On the issues I believe are critical in this election -- education,
photo radar (and highways in general), public transit, public service
bloat and overspending -- I can't find comfort in *any* of the existing
parties. The NDP is simply hopeless, the PCs have crafted their
campaign after a bunch of Rush Limbaugh books, and the Liberals have
become downright slimey in their ability to shift with the wind
and offer people whatever they ask for (unless they're gay).

It's come to the point where I'm toying with the idea of running -- if
only to have my say in all-candidates meetings, to hold the other
candidates *all* up to the ridicule they deserve. Maybe it's time to
stop merely complaining about what I don't like, and put my views to
the public.

Has anyone out there had similar ideas? Do any of you hate *all* the
current choices as much as I do? If you do, and share my basic ideals
that:

- The education system needs an enema (at least an overhaul, possibly
  consider a voucher system). Parents must be put back in control as
  the ultimate guiders of their childrens' future. Money should not be
  a barrier to our more gifted post-secondary students, but maybe we
  simply have too many spots (and maybe too many universities) open.

- The government does not exist to protect people from their own greed
  or stupidity -- much savings can be realized from adopting this
  philosophy within the civil service. People and companies must be
  more responsible for their own actions.

- The government owes the public an environment in which jobs and small
  businesses are easier to create -- but it does not directly owe jobs to
  anyone.

- The government owes the public an environment where culture of any
  heritage can thrive and bigotry of any kind is not tolerated --
  but the government does not owe any individual group or person the
  means to create or preserve culture of any kind.

- No photo radar, unequivically. Put video cameras in unmarked cars to
  rationally enforce the entire range of HTA prohibitions.

If there are others of like minds, there is significant ability to
attract media attention to these beliefs by forming a party, and
thrashing out more details together. Money will be tight, though
it's possible there may be contributions from others who are pissed
off at the traditional parties.

Please e-mail if interested.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
                A happy traveller on the information sidewalk

Xref: utcsri ont.general:24278
Newsgroups: ont.general
Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!fonorola!infoshare!whome!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: which 10,000 jobs are going?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 1995 06:45:24 GMT
Lines: 128

In article <[email-masked]>, Wayne Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Evan Leibovitch ([email-masked]) wrote:

>: The rational is simple. There is too much bloat.

>	Obviously an expert on the subject, you tell us where the bloat 
>is and I'll show you a person who won't be losing his job.

The bloat is a government which funds special interest groups
which compromise the democratic process.

It's bloat that foists a CRTC that has gone beyond mere issues of
national content, to dictate what kinds of materials the public should
be exposed to.

It's multicultural funding, which has all the problems, errors and
dependency cycles of our aboriginal policies -- but without the treaties.

>: Of course not. But keeping the high numbers now present is also not
>: sensible at all. So give the choice of greater sensibility, my choice
>: is for the one that costs the taxpayers less.
>
>	It's fine to cost the taxpayers less but you better understand 
>what is going to go, what service to the people is going to be cut.

Sure. Lay it on me. The mood that I feel from my conversations is that
the public is ready for a decrease in regulations to accompany the
decrease in spending. Sounds like a reasonable balance.

>: For whatever reasons, I believe the public's sense of justice in this
>: context is balanced by the overwhelming desire to cut costs, and sort
>: out the aftermath later...

>Not a sensible business approach, many companies have gone 
>bankrupt with this kind of approach.  Imaging Ford laying off all of it's 
>line staff and keeping all of it's foremen, who's going to do the work?

Maybe it'll get contracted out -- as IMO much of the government grunge
work should be. Let there be some competition -- for once.

>: Why do you think the public cares? They just want to see reduced
>: spending; only the special interest groups care about individual
>: departments as sacred cows.

>	You should be concerned, don't think that public service 
>employees all sit around desks all day.

Not necessarily. But I do believe that much of the work they do simply
doesn't need to be done. Certainly the government has a role, but I
believe that most people believe our society is over-regulated.

Not only that, but it's safe to say that there's a public perception
that civil servants are privvy to labour contracts and priviledges that
the private sector can't even dream about. Such perceptions are enforced
by stories such as the recent one about Chretien's desire to shelve a
policy by which a laid off worker is guaranteed pay until other work is
found for them.

>We guard the borders,

Depends on context. Drugs flow freely while gay literature gets siezed.
I'd trash any department and iny andividual in charge of determining
what people are allowed to read or see. Sorry, but this is one Canadian
who thinks his borders are over-guarded, at least in this respect.

At the same time, we were too chicken to to the right thing in response
to cigarette smuggling, and erect customs checkpoints at entrances from
certain native reserves.

>guard the prisoners

An experiment with private-sector-run prisons in the US appears to be
succeeding. We should be watching...

>inspect the meat and produce you put on your table,

I'll grant you that one...

>control the aircraft that fly in your local airport,

yeah, airports created and funded by federal government boneheads who
dreamed up boondoggles like Mirabel and Hamilton International while
starving facilities at Toronto and Vancouver --- appeasing politicians
rather than serving the travelling public.

In Hamilton, our tax dollars continue to pour into what is essentially
a staging point for Purolator and UPS. Scrap it or let the couriers
pay its way.

>conduct research medical and scientific,

Shouldn't the universities be doing that instead? Sounds like
redundancy to me.

>provide policing,

Mostly done at a local and provincial level. The RCMP provides service
in areas too lazy to organize it themselves.

>inspect road, air and seagoing crafts,

You mentioned aircraft inspection twice -- it must be really important
to you. I agree there are many areas where government standards and
regulations are of value, but there are many which are not.

The inspection processes, under government control, have become
political footballs. A drug-approval mechanism not subject to
agenda-twisting would have by now OKd the French abortion pill,
and saved many women from emotional torture and doctors from
verbal and physical threats. Under political control, such
regulations fail to serve the real goal of purely determining
suitability and safety, and fall prey to political pressure.

Perhaps the time has come to take such tasks out of the hands of
the politicians.

>Now do you care where the cuts are to be made??????

You have successfully made a point that there are some government
services that are valuable. You have not addressed my point, which is
that not all services are so valuable, and many should be prepared to
fall.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
                A happy traveller on the information sidewalk

Xref: utcsri can.general:45504 soc.culture.canada:62434 tor.general:20355
Newsgroups: can.general,soc.culture.canada,tor.general
Path: utcsri!info.physics.utoronto.ca!utzoo!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: CTV is against Multiculturalism
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 1995 10:45:29 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Kamala-Jean Gopie <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Himi's words were obviously written with emotion and maybe his
>emotions got the better of him, but his ideas are essentially
>correct.

Ah, yes, the white-Jewish conspiracy. Does the quandry of how to deal
with "Jews of colour" give you migranes too?

>There are people who believe that newer citizen's culture
>should be destroyed and a new Canadian should be reborn.

State *anywhere* where you have read, on the Internet or elsewhere,
where anyone has expressed this intention. Even the least tolerant views
I have heard in Canada (with which I strongly disagree) suggest that
immigrant culture maintain secondary standing to a greater "Canadian"
culture. None that I have heard call for the destruction of anything.

>They use the power of the institutions of this country,
>whether they be the media or government to quash peoples beliefs.

Your beliefs can only be quashed if you allow them to be. Everyone in
every society has the dilemma of individuality versus conformity.
The individuality route is *always* more difficult, often strewn with
animosity, ignorance and stress.

Through the history of this country, countless scores of immigrants have
had to endure the pressures and systemic suppression (if not oppression)
of the existing majority. Long before Asians and West Indians had to
endure this pressure, it was experienced by Irish and Germans and Poles
and Ukranians and Jews and French, and most recently Italians and
Portugese. There were bigotry and quotas and calls to go back where they
came from and so on...

The main differemce between then and now is that back then the minority
immigrants had to (and did!) resist the bigotry and pressures through
*their own efforts*. If they wanted to teach their own culture or build
community centres, it came out of their own pockets. If they were to
rise above the discrimination, they were to do it through their own
sweat; if the jobs weren't there, they started their own businesses. If
existing institutions didn't acommodate them, they created their own
institutions. And through the generations, each group has settled into
its own level of comfort, its own particular balance of cultural survival
versus assimilation.

We now have human rights legistlation that gives the immigrants of today
a freedom from oppression that the immigrants of 50 years ago never had.
It's illegal for our institutions to discriminate the way they used to.
But while such legislation prevents abuse of minorities, it does not
guarantee them anything more than an even break.

What they do with that even break is up to them. There is no guarantee
that all must succeed at it; under a market economy, nobody is promised
prosperity.

>The purpose of Multiculturalism was to protect
>new citizens from these pernicious influences, to help
>new citizens preserve their identities in a hostile
>environment.

Or maybe it was offered to help provide a transition, a kinder way
to let immigrants acclimatize, and make their own choices regarding
what level of assimilation they are willing to accept. The choice may
be made to maintain a cultural distinction; while the majority should
not restrict that choice, neither has it any obligation to shoulder
the costs of that choice.

>Older cultures here already have the infrastructure and
>financial resources to ensure their continued survival,
>something the newer cultures here don't have access to
>and therefore must be provided by society.

And once upon a time, every "older" culture was a "newer" culture,
that had to work and sweat and pay for that infrastructure.

Immigrants owe nothing to the survival of mainstream culture, if it
demonstrates no relevance. Witness the decline of the monarchist influence
in the past decades, a decline which clearly preceeds the current patterns
of immigration.

But on the other hand, the mainstream owes nothing to the minorities
except fairness of opportunity. The freedom to succeed *must* be
accompanied by the freedom to fail; and the failure cannot be blamed
on others.

>In Canada's educational system, students are indoctrinated
>into white paternalistic culture.

The "culture" of today's public schools has been commandered by
special interest groups, such that it feels the need to include "Black
History Month" as if "black history" somehow has more importance than
that of any other ethnic group in this country.

From my vantage point, in my public school system, students are
indoctrinated according to whims of the special interest groups
of the day, the likes of which are hardly dominated by white males
any more.

>Those who don't fit
>that mould have their cultures and beliefs stripped from
>them leaving them without direction.

You cannot be made to feel inferior without your consent. Society
owes nobody any direction, lest it be accused of putting even greater
pressure on minorities to conform.

>Reinforcement of
>their cultures from those same institutions that have
>historically stripped them of it, is necessary to have
>a peaceful and progressive society.

This statement has absolutely no validity, through either
logic or historical reality. It is a conclusion invented
to jusitify incorrect premises.

Reinforcement of your culture comes from *you*, no matter who you are.
Society has an obligation to reduce or eliminate any artificial
obstacles put in your way by the intolerant; but it has no obligation
to subsidize your personal life choices by providing you media, role
models, institutions or any other resources.

If nobody chooses to practice a culture, no matter how much it is
artificially propped up, it will die. If people are determined to practise
a culture despite all the repression heaped upon it by the mainstream, it
cannot die.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri tor.general:20699
Newsgroups: tor.general
Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!fonorola!infoshare!whome!druid!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: ENERGY 108 (where some old CFNYers have gone)
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:28:28 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 38

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Jeff Bamford <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In article <[email-masked]>,
>>PS. Which channels offer the most frequent traffic reports and radar 
>>locations?

>Clearly, that would be "680 News" with "Traffic and weather together 
>every ten minutes on the ones".

Just repeating an advertising slogan doesn't make it clear. During rush
hour, many stations offer repports at least every 10 minutes. The
station I listen to the most, Y95 in Hamilton, does reports every 10
minutes but generally doesn't cover much east of the 427. Even the
all-sports station, FAN 590, has frequent traffic/radar reports --
it would surprise me greatly if other news-oriented stations such as
CFRB or CBC-AM weren't as frequent too.

Maybe the question isn't "which is the most frequent" but rather,
"which is the most accurate"? Which stations rely only on police
reports? Which have access to planes or helicopters? Which have deals
with cellular companies which allows people to call for free from
their cars? Which are still reporting tie-ups and radar locations long
after they've gone?

I fondly remember an assignment during my former life as a journalist,
that saw me at Island Airport at 4:00 am one morning, ready to spend a half
day with CFTR/CHFI traffic reporter Darryl Dahmer. Frankly, I don't know
how he did it, piloting *and* checking for traffic *and* having to reply
to cues from two stations with *very* different personalities (he did
clever smalltalk when on-air with CFTR, serious and by-the-book when
speaking on CHFI). The guy was incredible -- those other wimps like
Henry Shannon and Dini Petty didn't have to pilot.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri can.general:46351 soc.culture.canada:63361 tor.general:20814
Newsgroups: tor.general,soc.culture.canada,can.general
Path: utcsri!info.physics.utoronto.ca!utzoo!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Racist Vision?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 1995 05:42:40 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Steve Howie <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Evan Leibovitch ([email-masked]) wrote:

>: >If Britain keeps taking third world people who become assimilated, the
>: >British will no longer be of British stock.

>: To some of us, having visited Britain on many occasions and seen the
>: current state of those of British stock, this is a Good Thing.

>That's pretty rich coming from a colonial, pal.

If the shoe fits...

>: [ Bagnall said: ]
>: >I mean, the are always lots of Africans. They are in no danger of becoming
>: >a scarce people.  Japan allows NO ONE other than Japanese to immigrate to
>: >Japan. Why? Self preservation. Britain has like a 10% minority or something.

>: Welcome to the aftermath of the British creating colonies all over the
>: world. They've inflicetd themselves on the peoples of the world for
>: centuries, now it's payback time.

>: >I'd be a little pissed off if I were a Brit. (I am actually British
>: >Canadian, and I'm a bit pissed off.)

>: You're also an ignorant racist, so be pissed off all you want.
>  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Now now, Evan, before you start frothing at the mouth

No frothing. I've been around the net for a few years, and I'm usually
not too quick to use the 'r' word, lest it get overused and lose any
real meaning. But here it suits the situation quite fine.

> - just exactly how did you come to this conclusion?

a) What kind of crap is "there will always lots of Africans"? Besides
   making no sense, it makes the very false (and racist) assumption
   that all Africans have a single eternal culture.

b) The infatuation with "stock" is itself racist, in that it implies
   that there's some inherant benefit to a pure bloodline. Hell,
   Since even the Royal Family has had to go looking off the islands
   for breeding material from time to time, the idea of "stock" having
   any value at all is merely a euphamism for racial purity, and
   it's also crap.

c) During the glory days of the Empire, Brits had no qualms about
   contaminating the racial purity of their conquered and treatied
   lands. In many new countries they damned well overran the original
   inhabitants, and certainly had no qualms cross-breeding with the
   locals. Now the tables are turned and Brits are pissed off with
   a measly 10% non-Brit-stock mix; too f**king bad. If it was OK
   for Brits to mix into the colonies, it's OK for the colinials to
   mix into Britain.

d) "Countries in and around Africa are in the dumps.  Countries around
    East Asia and Western Europe do the best. I do not find it too
    repulsive to say that, yes, genetics has a lot to do with this."

    How is this *not* racist? How is "in the dumps" and "do the best"
    not a judgement totally based on racially-based values? I guess it
    depends on what you value; if it's the World Cup winner, the team
    that "did the best" came from neither East Asia nor Western Europe.
    (Oops, maybe I shouldn't talk soccer around Brits, they tend to get
    a tad violent on the subject...) Last I checked, both World Wars
    were primarily waged by countries from Western Europe and East Asia.
    I don't know if the desire to wage war is a value I cherish.

    Of course, the last line that claims a genetic link to these values
    takes the argument right off the deep end, with no hard data to back
    it up.

You asked how I came to the conclusion, there's my answer.

> [I] feel the exact same way. I am the *last* person you'd describe
> as "racist". 

These two sentences are contradictory. If you agree with Bagnall you
share his racist viewpoints, no matter what you call yourself. If
you parrot his unsubstantiated claims of genetic inferiority, then
I certainly would describe you (or at least some of your beliefs) as
racist, no matter how you brand yourself.

Next you'll be telling us what some of your best friends are.

Merely being Brit is no great source of pride when it comes to racial
tolerance. Let us not forget that Archie Bunker was based on a British
telly character. In the modern day, the National Front makes Canadian
racist groups look minor league by comparison -- and it has even elected
people! While African countries like South Africa and Zimbabwe seek
paths to greater tolerance, Western Europe has become a breeding ground
for the intolerant through the NF and its counterparts throughout the EU.
Apparently some of that influence has spread here too...

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri misc.transport.urban-transit:13898 tor.general:20967
Newsgroups: misc.transport.urban-transit,tor.general
Path: utcsri!info.physics.utoronto.ca!utzoo!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Spadina Extension to York U and SRT extension to Sheppard
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 1995 19:40:31 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario

In article <[email-masked]>, Val Dodge <[email-masked]> wrote:

>[email-masked] (PISCHKE  DAVID) wrote:

>I'm not a transit expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I
>think that the TTC has grown too big and too important to be
>controlled by the petty politicians of Metro and Toronto. I think it
>should be given a wider mandate, perhaps through integration with GO
>and amalgamation with other municipal transit agencies, to better
>service the Greater Toronto Area.

Agreed. Some of the regional authorties have already been doing this on
a limited bilateral basis. There is now transfer-sharing between
Mississauga, Brampton, Vaughan (and I believe, Richmond Hill) and a
limited amount of inter-jurisdictional routes (like the Highway 7 route
that is served jointly by Vaughan and Brampton Transit).

But this is a pittance.

A couple of observations that I don't think have been mentioned...

a) Before going to a single mega-commission, why not just reduce the
   number of transit companies we have now? While Metro Toronto has a
   single authority, each city on the outskirts runs its own. Why do we
   have Mississauga and Brampton Transits when there should be only one for
   all of Peel? Ditto for York Region (which is even further fragmented by
   at least four municipal authorities), Halton and Durham.

b) With all the hoopla surrounding the York U and Scarborough lines,
   we're losing track of any semblence of long-term planning. Ever since
   the Spadina subway was put in to appease those upset by the killing of
   the Spadina Expressway, transit "planning" has been a parade of
   one-shot solutions -- extensions to York, 'stubs' on Sheppard and
   Eglinton, premium service routes, etc.

   Hell, even when I was a student at York (where, as student council VP
   in 1979, I organized a petition that led to the creation of the York
   U route from Wilson), we were studying schemes that offered some
   sensible planning.

   Whatever happened to the proposasls for:

   - A cross-town route from the Scarborough City Centre to the airport,
     using LRT stock on inexpensive Hydro rights-of-way?

   - The Queen Street line that was going to service Exhibition Place
     and curve northwards to the Beaches and maybe as far north as
     Thorncliffe Park? To this day there is an unused platform under the
     Queen/Yonge Station where visionaries saw the need.

   There's no direction, no vision. I suspect the new TTC chair has even
   less.

c) Even the York and Scarborough lines are half-assed patchworks,
   they're just an extension to the idea that everyone in Toronto
   wants to go to Union Station and back (an idea only emphasized
   by GO Transit). Is that the case anymore?

>That's not necessarily to say that the province should take over, but
>that it's time to realize that the TTC has an impact beyond Metro. I'd
>like to see a subway to York, but Metro won't go for it because, in
>addition to other reasons, it would supposedly most benefit non-Metro
>residents.

If *real* traffic patterns really matters to anyone on a GTA basis the
York line would be shelved; in its place, the subway would be extended
from Kipling to Square One, from Finch to Richmond Hill and the LRT from
Scarborough City Centre north to Markham. The "York line" IMO would be 
no more than an LRT line that continued north to serve Woodbridge and
maybe Brampton.

What has the TTC been doing? Building express rail lines on that
really-high-volume Harbourfront line, and tearing up Spadina to
bring streetcars back there.

Yeah, that'll bring ridership back. Not! What were they smoking?

>As long as the TTC's masters continue to think only south
>of an imaginary line drawn the length of Steeles, public transit in
>the GTA will slowly decay.

Given recent work they've done, outside of that insignificant and stupid
extension of the Spadina line to Sheppard, in my eyes that line was
drawn at Eglinton.

>Maybe it's time to create a super-regional transit body out of the
>TTC, the Mississauga, Vaughn, and Markham transit agencies, and GO,
>which will answer initially to the province, and then to an elected
>GTA council. That is assuming, of course, that the GTA gets its act
>together which is rather doubtful unless it's forcefully amalgamated
>like Metro was in the '50s.

Just watch out; GO has been one of the worst culprits, by insisting that
all roads lead to Union. They need to make better use of the railway
lines through the city, and give more thought to commuters who don't
need to go to or from Toronto (Oakville to Richmond Hill, for example).

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
       Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri bc.general:15774 can.general:46815 can.politics:70226
Newsgroups: can.politics,bc.general,can.general
Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!uunet!fonorola!infoshare!whome!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: More immigrants! (more isn't better)...
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 1995 16:58:17 GMT
References: <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 106

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Karen Gordon <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In a previous posting, Melvin Klassen ([email-masked]) writes:

>> Excerpt from an editorial in the Victoria "Times-Colonist", 
>> Monday, March 6, 1995, titled:
>> 
>>       "Why charge those who invigorate us?":
>> [...]

>"Invigorate"?  "don't overuse"?
>What is that?  Someone practicing for politics?  What exactly do these terms
>mean?

Duh, Karen. Gotta dictionary?

If you have a point to make, make it.

>IN IMMIGRATION, MORE ISN'T BETTER    (letter from a reader)

Ah, yes. Respond to a reprint of an editorial with a reprint of a letter
to the editor. Is this a new style of "pass the buck" debating?

>The idea that seems to pervade the thinking of our immigration department
>- that bigger is better and that quantity is more important than quality -
>is outmoded.  This is 1995, not 1955.  The actual costs of population
>growth, regardless of the source, are astronomical.

>For example, let us examine the Lower Mainland and Fraser Valley.  As a 
>result of population growth,

Has it occurred to you that population growth is not *all* a result of
immigration? Some of this, esepcially in BC, is from people coming in
from other provinces.

>we are facing more traffic-flow problems, 
>more controversial zoning decisions, more sewage and water-supply problems,
>more garbage and landfill problems, more crowded schools and hospitals, 
>more air and water pollution, more pressure on our parks and recreational
>facilities,

All offset by more more car licenses, more people paying school taxes,
municipal taxes, water taxes, sales taxes, etc.

>Yes, the problems are all solvable, but given the present taxpayer's mood,
>it is highly unlikely that it is going to happen, other than on a piece-
>meal basis.

Well, then that's a matter of "the taxpayer" getting out of this mood
and opening their eyes, isn't it.

>As Mr. Campbell points out, our present immigration policies conveniently
>ignore the costs associated with immigration.

Recently addressed by the head tax.

>Yes, the costly appeal/
>deportation process has come under pressure, but how many of the other 
>costs are conveniently hidden?  An example would be the fact that more
>than half the English-as-a-second-language students now in Lower Mainland
>schools were born in Canada.  This represents a continuing cost of past
>immigration policies.

If you (or the reader you quote) had a clue about ESL courses, you'd
know that they're neither designed for, nor delivered to,
post-first-generation students. I've spoken to ESL teachers -- have you?

>Do we really need more people to support a demographic trend in which our
>population is aging and our birth rate falling?  This is the line the 
>immigration department's academics feed us.  

Of course, the reader (and Karen) conveniently refuse to answer the
question, let alone challenge the "academics'" answer.

>Is it not more prudent to ensure that our youth have viable employment
>opportunities first and that the economic prospects of the First Nations
>people take priority?

Heh. How convenient to drag native issues into it -- we've been screwing
around with that issue long before the immigration was as open as
today.

>I am not saying slam the door shut - genuine refugees should be continued
>to be welcomed as should those who can augment our workforce.  The present
>system does not do that and needs to be re-thought.

But this letter does not address that so far. It is merely a blind plea for
zero-population growth. What's the link?

>In going through this process, we should take a serious look at our basic
>values.  We must look at the social and environmental costs of population
>growth and remember that quality of life is more important than quantity.

Quantity? We're still one of the smallest nations in the world,
population wise, with one of the biggest land masses. We have half
the population of Britain, whose entire land mass can probably fit
into the Lower Mainland.

In other words, more baseless whining.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
        Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri alt.censorship:42656 alt.current-events.net-abuse:23917 can.infohighway:5513 comp.org.eff.talk:48665 news.admin.misc:35013 tor.general:21711
Newsgroups: alt.current-events.net-abuse,alt.censorship,news.admin.misc,comp.org.eff.talk,tor.general,can.infohighway
Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.mcgill.ca!hookup!swrinde!gatech!newsjunkie.ans.net!fonorola!infoshare!whome!druid!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Scientology's illegal cancellations, War With The Cult
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 05:03:46 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 199

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Chris Lewis <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In article <[email-masked]>, Evan Leibovitch <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>I've come to the conclusion myself that the Cancelmoose is a Bad Thing,
>>mainly because of this double standard. It should be considered a gross
>>violation of netiquette to cancel anyone's postings that aren't your own.

>>Cancelmoose operates on no such mutual consent. While it may be accepted,
>>maybe even welcomed, at many sites, Cancelmoose postings do not pick and
>>choose those sites which welcome their presence. If I wish not to implement
>>the Usenet world as Cancelmoose sees it, I have no ability to veto its
>>actions on my own site.

>There is mutual consent Evan. The Moose has been in operation for quite
>a while, and aside from Hayes, Allisat and Boursy, and the spammers themselves
>and now you, there's remarkably _little_ disagreement. Consent doesn't
>have to be explicit.  Even in law.

Does that fact make it morally right? How do you feel so justified in
doing this to sites without asking permission? Maybe it's *legal*, but
is that really the yardstick you want to use here? You have the
technical ability to implement Cancelmoose on a per-request basis
(those who want it, ask for it), yet you seem to prefer giving it to
everyone whether they asked for it or not. The only action that needs
to be taken is by those who want to turn it off.

Do you not see what's wrong with this?

>As an example, say, while mowing my lawn, I thought it would be a good
>idea to mow yours too, and did so without asking.  And each time I did so,
>we waved to each other, and occasionally we chatted.  And not _once_
>did you complain.  You'd have a real problem establishing that there
>is no consent Evan.

Bad example. I don't know when Cancelmoose postings arrive here to do
their good deeds.

If, once I become aware of these "good deeds" and wish them to stop, and
I e-mail Cancelmoose and ask him/her/it to stop inflicting his/her/its
actions on my site, will the Moose comply? Oops, I forgot; Cancelmoose is
an anonymous being and I *can't* even ask it to stop.

Sorry, your analogy doesn't fit. There is no consent, explicit *or* implied.
I do not want Cancelmoose postings inflicting policy at my site. The
responsibility for restricting these postings rests not with my site
or my upstream feed, but with the source. These are not regular
postings, they are forged cancellations.

>>Maybe we should consider a way to identify Cancelmoose cancel postings
>>such that one can implement local policy on whether to honour Cancelmoose
>>cancellation advisories, just e-mail the info to the sysadmin, or ignore
>>the Moose totally. Sort of like the current feature in Cnews which can be
>>tailored to (for instance) only accept newgroup messages from David Lawrence.

>In INN, control.ctl permits only David Lawrence to rmgroup groups in the
>big 7.  Where is the consent Evan?

The consent is explicitly in that 'policy' file. You consent to
accepting the control messages from tale but nobody else. Looks fairly
explicit to me. You have the ability to allow *no* outside source to
create new groups, to receive the newgroup information by e-mail as advice,
but to restrict the actual action to you. That option is not available
with the Cancelmoose.

>Ahem.  If you decide that you don't want spam cancellations, all you need
>to is have your feed insert an alias of "cyberspam" in your feed entry.
>Voila.  No more standard "despam" cancellations.  If you were running INN,
>and applied the "shun" patch I posted, you could alias out cyberspam in your
>own sys file.

"If you were running INN....". Wonderful. So the ability to filter out
anti-spam messages lies in implementation-specific methods. Someone
without INN may be screwed. How thoughtful. And what do we do about the
*next* anonymous entity that chooses to forge cancelations, under a
different name?

Shouldn't the default action be to ignore Moose postings, and require
explicit action to accept them? Maybe what I'm harping on is a significant
change in the default actions, with people having to seek out the methods
to go back to the status quo. You know, those bad old days when people
were responsible for killing their *own* postings?

These days when I have a look in some of the admin groups, I find all
these admins bowing down to the Cancelmoose as if it were sent from
Heaven itself. Well, that's very nice for all of you -- until someone
does roughly the same thing but for different reasons. Thus the
introduction of the Scientology angle, and Allisat's perfectly correct
allegation of a double standard.

>>In any event, IMO there are far worse actions on the net than spamming.
>>Compared to the flame wars, truly nasty computer religion arguments,
>>bigotry and intolerance evident in so many groups, I myself have come
>>to the conclusion is that spamming is but a drop in the bucket.

>You wouldn't say that if you had your spool area blown out by the netcom
>alt.2600 spammer who generated somewhere near 25,000 articles and cancels.
>Not to mention the email bombing.

Chris didn't read what I wrote. I don't disagree at all with the rights
and intentions of admins to act on spams in any way they see fit; but let
them do it *on their own machines*! Make available software that allows
admins to do their own local spam-seek-and-destroy routines as they wish;
my objection is to methods to accomplish this that silently enforce this
*policy* on every admin who doesn't explicitly turn it off. Many don't
even know that it's happening.

I always understood that there were only two proper uses of the cancel
control message -- to kill one's own postings, and to kill postings
which were clearly forgeries (like a moderator killing a posting that
forged his approval). To change the allowable use of the cancel message
to kill "unacceptable" posts, even if I agree with the nature of the
unacceptability, is a leap in philosophy I believe is being made foolishly.

You're right, I waded into this after (I'm sure) many months of typical
Usenet hand-wringing on the subject has come and gone. I'm sure there
are all sort of little nuances that all of us are supposed to know,
but I guess some of us just tire of all that hand-wringing and choose
to read the newsgroups in which we actually find value-for-time-spent.

The larger issue at hand, is the very basic change of a Usenet control
function, in order to offer a band-aid fix to a politically-incorrect
bahavior.

>>Unlike Bob, I haven't engaged in legalities. I merely don't think that
>>the Usenet world opening its arms to an anonymous cancellation-forgery
>>service can possibly be a Good Thing -- even though the results of its
>>actions *at this time* make many people feel warm and fuzzy.

>Unfortunately, Evan, you seem to display even less understanding of what
>is really happening, such as knowing about the cyberspam/cancel. conventions,
>as Allisat.

So let's RTFM -- where are these "conventions" so faithfully documented?

I archive every FAQ that makes it to *.answers. Not a one contains the term
cyberspam. Furthermore, there is no reference to "spam" in the most current
C News documentation.

The only reference to the Cancelmoose is in an "Advertisers Blacklist"
FAQ (which is, I note, *not* one of the standard "Usenet" FAQ files).
And even that obscure FAQ doesn't tell how to cancel the moose, it just
points to a (non-archived!) FAQ that's located in someone's http file.
So I guess non-Internet UUCP-connected Usenet sites need to employ a
psychic -- or a sage old-timer who knows The Truth -- to figure this out.

My "lack of understanding" may extend to my unwillingness to wade around
in the muck that most net.policy discussions have devolved to. It is very
nice that so many of you feel the need to have a way to deal with nasty
posts like spams -- I agree with the need to do something about them.
I am *not* in agreement with the tactic taken, one that removes
responsibility from the individual site admin and puts it into the hand
of some faceless authority that has no accountability to those whose sites
it affects. Perhaps it is only fitting that such a paean to authority
and attack on individual responsibility should be invented in Canada :-(.

Well, if I haven't seen The Light yet, too bad. Maybe my distance from the
issue has allowed me to see it from a different perspective, as something
whose short-term perceived benefit has some truly smelly long-term
side-effects. Want to write my opinions off as ignorance? I can't stop
you, but that doesn't hide the stink.

Cancellation policy, like policies to deal with newgroup, rmgroup and
sendsys messages, should be implemented locally using available tools. If
the moose can be automated to broadcast cancellations, it can be automated
at individual sites to implement *local* anti-spam policy -- just as
archiving, map unpacking, expiry, censorship and other policies are done
locally now. It should be tunable on a site-per-site level -- what one
considers acceptable may not be the threshold for everyone. This is the
way policy has been done since day one, and it sort-of saddens me that
people are so quick to let arbitrary policy implementations float around
the net like so many viri.

At very least, Cancelmoose should be a subscription service like a
mailing list -- you should have to explicitly ask for it to get it.
Making the moose the default action of the net, while requiring reading
obscure and non-universally-accessable documents just to turn it off, is
not only on very thin ethical ground, it's downright arrogant in a real
we-know-what's-good-for-you style. It's regrettable that the condescention
seething through Chris' reply is such a good example of this arrogance.

Trying to get me to understand the so-called logic of situation, rather than
a patronizing you-don't-know-what-you're-talking-about lecture, would have
served as a far better response to my original points. If it's been done to
death in the newsgroup, then an e-mail reply would have done wonders.
Instead, little more than ad homina is supposed to suffice. Sigh.

As for the point about everyone liking the Cancelmoose except the spammers,
Allisat and me, I never had much faith in the lemming style of debate.
Being the only one to take a stand against a mob mentality doesn't
automatically make one wrong. In the meantime, the ethical rationale
behind the Cancelmoose still eludes; I have a hard time believing it
exists at all.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
        Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri can.general:48559 tor.general:22958
Path: utcsri!utnut!utgpu!attcan!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: tor.general,can.general
Subject: Re: Harbourfront Closing?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: 5 Apr 95 13:40:22 GMT
References: <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 53

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Mark Jones <[email-masked]> wrote:

>Any thoughts on the demise of the Harbourfront Centre?

[ can.general added to the newsgroups, because this really is a national
issue. The *federal* government has announced a >30% cut this year in 
the money it has paid to Toronto's Harbourfront Centre, and a total
elimination of the grant next year. As a result, the Harbourfront
board has decided to close operations in Septermber amidst
considerable amounts of hand-wringing and teeth-gnashing. ]

It was actually funny listening to John Sewell yesterday on As It
Happens, whining about Toronto's loss being everyone's loss, that
the feds have an anti-city bias, and that we all have some kind of
obligation to keep kicking in money.

Bullfeathers.

With all the complaining about how the government should stop publicly
funding multicuturalism (a concept with which I mainly agree), there
has been few complaints against the big fed subsidies to "mainstream"
culture as well. To them I say:

You want to listen to poets from around the world come to Toronto to
read their works? Fine: but *you* pay the cost of bringing them in.

Montreal's jazz, humour and other festivals need little if any fed
money to make them work; meny other cultural festivals get by with no
government money at all; let Toronto hold its own.

I applaud the federal cut in Harbourfront's grant. It should never have
been a federal government project in the first place. If Toronto wants
a great shrine to elitist art, let Torontonians pay for it. (I note that
more-local levels of government are hardly rushing to fill the void left
by the fed cuts.) The assertion that Toronto cultural endeavours benefit
the whole country is just more reason for the rest of the country to
resent Toronto.

Better still, let the elitist art lovers pay for their hobby; maybe
then the value of such art will then change to reflect the real demand,
rather than the artificial one assigned by the elite.

I can sorta justify fed monies spent to date as an attempt at a catalyst;
but rather than use the last few years to get local sponsorship,
Harbourfront's board was content to be dependent on fed money. In other
words, the Harbourfront Highbrows have been on federal welfare from day
one, and I for one am glad to see this dependant welfare bum cut off.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
        Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri can.general:48514 can.infohighway:6091 ont.general:26335
Newsgroups: ont.general,can.general,can.infohighway
Path: utcsri!utnut!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!newsjunkie.ans.net!fonorola!infoshare!whome!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Kids and the Internet, again
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Apr 1995 21:26:11 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 61

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Stephen King <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In article <[email-masked]>, Val Dodge <[email-masked]> wrote:

>>In article <[email-masked]>,

>>> My own view is that parents and educators should censor the net for the 
>>> young and tender.  That means restricting access at their end, not 
>>> affecting access as our end.

>>Sure, but that involves just too much common sense to work. I mean,

>That's a copout. I agree that there should be some control over what the
>young are able to see. I don't know how this can be implemented, but just
>because it makes sense doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to get it done.

Well, I'm trying my own case study.

After some soul searching, repeated requests and a lot of discussions
with my wife, I've allowed my two kids (10 and 12) onto Usenet.

I created their .newsrc files by hand, and had *long* discussions with
them before letting them on. They must read any newsgroup for two months
before even thinking of posting there (replies *or* followups), and I
have urged them to think before speaking.

Today I asked my son (the 10-year-old) not to send a message he was
composing in elm. He was pretty infuriated with what some other kid
was saying in can.schoolnet.chat.something-or-other, and had started
up elm in order to answer that kid with a (what looked to be pretty good
for a 10-year-old) e-mail flame. I explained to him the uselessness of
starting up an e-mail argument, and convinced him the value of ignoring
trolls rather than feeding them.

(Sigh, maybe I can have him around sometimes to remind me of my advice :-)

Over time I have told them about the net, and that there is a lot of
awful stuff there, and they have promised me that they won't try to
subscribe to other groups without asking me first. They've also promised
not to post or e-mail, for a while at least, before letting me know and
see what they're doing. My kids have not yet given me reason to mistrust
them, so their promises hold value to me.

So far the priviledge has not been abused, they have spent their time
lurking and getting a handle on the way the net works. So far I think
they're acting better than the average adult AOL user, but then I'm
biased.

To date my kids have made penpals, written to (and been answered by!)
programs on YTV, and they will probably be using WWW to help with their
next school project (how do you reference a Web page in a Grade 6
biobliography?) To date I am quite pleased with their involvement.

(PS: If anyone out there has a 10-year-old son or a 12-year-old
daughter who wants a penpal by e-mail, just let me know.)

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
        Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri can.general:48639 tor.general:23031
Newsgroups: tor.general,can.general
Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!alberta!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news.bc.net!sunserver.insinc.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!fonorola!infoshare!whome!druid!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Harbourfront Closing?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 13:11:18 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 52

In article <[email-masked]>, William Denton <[email-masked]> wrote:

>"Elitist art lovers?"  "Dependant welfare bums?"

>From the cover story in the Globe and Mail, 4 April 1995:

No elitists at the Globe, eh? :-)

>"Harbourfront hosts 4,000 events a year - fron the International Festival 
>of Authors to concerts for children - which attract three million 
>people.  It is a major tourist attraction that, according to a 1993 study 
>by Peat Marwick Stevenson Kellogg, returns $126.6-million to the regional 
>economy and pays governments $24-million in taxes."

>That's a lot of elitists - and those damn children! they're the worst
>snobs of the bunch.

It's *really* pathetic when the whiners trot out the "SAVE THE
CHILDREN" arguments -- and I've heard it absolutely every time people
try to justify the waste of money on Harbourfront. Most of us can
raise our kids quite well, with fertile imaginations and constructive
activities, *without* Harbourfront, thank you.

But just in case it matters to you, why don't you find out just how much
of the federal handouts are spent on kids' programs. My guess is it's
not a big piece of the pie compared to art shows, poetry, threatre and
dance that coundn't support itself for an hour without taxpayer handouts.

Singling out kids' programs, does make for a more emotional plea,
but it does not work on parents who already know the alternatives.
There are thousands of childrens' programs run all across the country,
and most of them don't need federal handouts to work. As a parent, I have
made use of many locally available programs that don't require subsidy
from Albertans and Nova Scotians.

>$126 million pumped back into the economy is a nice 
>return on on a total of $17 million in investments, though, eh? 

That money doesn't come from nowhere, nor does it just disappear into
thin air without Harbourfront around. If not spent at/supporting
Harbourfront, it'll be spent elsewhere in support of other worthwhile
events. And the government will collect its tax money whether from
Harbourfront or elsewhere.

>It works.  It's nice.  Let's leave it alone.  

Then YOU pay for it.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
        Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri tor.arts:1356 tor.general:23165
Newsgroups: tor.arts,tor.general
Path: utcsri!utnut!nott!bcarh189.bnr.ca!bcarh8ac.bnr.ca!bnr.co.uk!pipex!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!in1.uu.net!fonorola!infoshare!whome!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Harbourfront Centre Closing
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 9 Apr 1995 19:27:32 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 22

In article <[email-masked]>, Mark Freedman <[email-masked]> wrote:

>   A casino is really a half-measure. They could turn Harbourfront into a
>legal drug-and-prostitution zone, collect their "piece of da action," and
>pay off the debt in two years :-(

Gawd, that thought could give someone nightmares;
- A new government department, Opiates Canada
- Hookers all members of CUPE
- Affirmative Action measures in place to ensure that preference is
  given to junkies and johns who are members of visible minorities
- Ratings for Rita MacNeil will double
- Sleazy rooms-by-the-hour hotel required by hookers goes way over budget
- Revenue Canada brochures inserted in bags of crack
- Civil servants skim drugs off the top, providing the best service of
  any government agency
- Audiences at poetry readings will do The Wave

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
        Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri alt.journalism:17087 alt.journalism.print:214 alt.news-media:16533 can.general:50603 ont.general:27813
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.print,can.general,ont.general
Path: utcsri!newsflash.concordia.ca!news.mcgill.ca!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utzoo!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Is the Canadian News media credible?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 May 1995 02:32:47 GMT
References: <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 28

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Jordan Green <[email-masked]> wrote:

>*        The News Media: Are They Credible and Relevant?         *

No.

>*                PANEL DISCUSSION - PUBLIC FORUM                 *

There. I've just saved you all a wasted evening. Now go have some fun.

>  Jordan H. Green                               [email-masked]
>  Freelance Journalist                            [email-masked]
>  Toronto, Canada                            [email-masked]
>            A proud member of the Canadian Association of Journalists.

Evan Leibovitch, Ryerson Journalism Grad,
and proud to not be part of that shitty business anymore.

Get your news from Frank and Croc.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
        Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics

Xref: utcsri alt.journalism:17366 alt.journalism.print:223 alt.news-media:16665 can.general:51360 ont.general:28443
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.journalism,alt.journalism.print,can.general,ont.general
Path: utcsri!utnut!cs.utexas.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!hookup!remus.wat.hookup.net!metrics.com!noc.tor.hookup.net!ve3ied!problem!telly!evan
From: [email-masked] (Evan Leibovitch)
Subject: Re: Is the Canadian News media credible?
Message-ID: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 May 1995 14:44:04 GMT
References: <[email-masked]> <[email-masked]>
Organization: Sound Software Ltd., Brampton, Ontario
Lines: 73

In article <[email-masked]>,
	Kent Bulmer  <[email-masked]> wrote:

>In article <[email-masked]> Evan Leibovitch,
>[email-masked] writes:

>>No.

>Pretty flat answers from everyone on this topic. Does anyone have
>anything to support why they don't believe the Canadian media is credible?

I have my Ryerson graduate journalism degree, and a number of years writing
experience (including having written for all three Toronto dailies)
on which to base my one-word answer. Maybe it's flat, but it sticks.

I got into journalism because, at its philosophical heart, journalism
is being paid to be curious. In journalism school this philosophy is,
more or less, expanded upon. But in the real world, the philosophy is
blown away and the free market takes over.

Every publishing body has a political agenda; in Britain the newspapers
don't try to hide it, most are clearly partisan and they make no bones
about it.  This approach is far more honest than the subtler agendae of
North American media who pretend to be unbiased but hardly are.

Newspapers choose to target audiences by political slant, the same way
that radio stations choose to target audiences by going Top 40 or country.
Subscribers and viewers of news are not the actual consumer of the media,
they are the *product* that the media deliver to their advertisers.

The result of this, is that a current scan of the media would reveal
that the OJ Simpson trial is the world's most socially significant
development of the mid-90s. Canada is about to undergo a similar
Bernardo media feeding-frenzy, as if the trial of one sicko is going to
have any lasting effects outside of the creation of some new "celebrities"
and material for stand-up comedians.

The public feed on useless trivia, and the media obliges in large doses.
Business news so often means reading out stock exchange values and
exchange rates, as if most of us non-speculators give a flying fig
about what happened to the or Dow Jones or TSE index yesterday.

The Ontario election provides even more fodder to illustrate this. The
major leaders all have their entourages of cameramen and scribes, hanging
on every word, looking for the offhand quote or mistaken comment that
will be used to crucify them and flush a carefully-crafted manifesto
down the electoral toilet. Meanwhile, not one media outlet has bothered
with the vital but glamourless task of simply listing the parties' (and
individual representatives') voting records. We use more newsprint listing
baseball box scores, than we do showing (without comment) how our elected
representatives perform (supposedly on our behalf).

Is the media obsession with useless trivia a cause or effect? Does it
matter anymore?

The agendae of the various publishers come into play when choosing
exactly *which* trivia to play up at any given time.

The CBC, PBS and NPR are a little better because their agenda is not
commercially-driven; I'd say that I get much of my day-to-day news from
snippets of Newsworld, As It Happens and MacNeil/Lehrer.

But even the CBC often degenerates into a parade of whiners, those who
want the government to protect them or fund them or nurture them; not
very different from the CBC's own financially-inspired agenda.

I could go on but I have other things to do. Hope this answer is less
flat for you.

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
        Novell Unix Master Reseller / [email-masked] / (905) 452-0504
       Those to my right are extremists; those to my left are heretics