I was going to start looking for updates on the slaughter of the Armanious family in New Jersey, but Michelle Malkin has already taken care of it. She makes some pointed observations in her link-rich post;
The brutal murders of the Armanious family, whose members were devout and outspoken Coptic Christians from Egypt, are getting scant MSM attention. The stories that do get published have a P.C., "can't we all just get along?" bias:"Killing of family shatters religious harmony," reads one headline. What about the family that was shattered?
"Jersey City slayings spur new wave of anti-Muslim bias," reads another headline. Yet, the anti- Christian bias that may reportedly be at the center of the slayings has been downplayed in favor of other motives and, some argue, whitewashed.
I'd like to know why this has received zero coverage by Canadian media.
What's that you say? Oh. It's just a local story.
As opposed to the "Canadian interests" served by the coverage of the Scott Peterson case?
Re: Lack of Canadian press interest.
I'll have you know that the Canadian main stream media is just as capable of being as myopic and sensationalistic and politically biased as any American media outlet. Not really proud of that, as it goes, but there you are.
Right on Kate... MSM in Canada would never cover anything that's going to make anything related to other races a problem... they might be perceived as being .... uh ... pro American ... think that's how it goes... gets kind of confusing when it involves one religion
There was also very little coverage in Canada of the van Gogh assassination, which I thought was a major story of international interest. For a country that keeps preaching that multiculturalism is the highest ideal we can aspire to, our MSM has very little interest in its workings in other countries. Can't have people finding out that multiculturalism has been a failure everywhere else it's been tried, now can we?
The lack of coverage is not understandable only if you are under the illusion that democracy is the Canadian form of government. Actually, a new system has been instituted by the liberal party.
Minlobocracy has as its basis the servicing of minorities and lobby groups. Decades ago the liberals discovered the irrestible political power of "block voting", when they observed that many of the ethnic minorities voted as one voice at election time. They rightly identified this fact as one of the great political opportunities of a mulitcultural nation.
All it would take to grarantee perpetual re-election was to pander to, and never, never neglect or offend ethnic minorities and lobby groups of all kinds.
This went as far as enshrining rediculous "first among equals" type rhetoric in the national charter of rights and freedoms.
Naturally, the rest of the population would have diverse political leanings due to factors of geographical diversity, yet a certain percent of this set would undoubtedly always vote liberal.
The master strategic formula goes like this:
ethnic minorities + lobby groups + natural percentage of the remaining population = power without end, amen.
However, creation and maintenance of minlobocracy requires much "tail waging the dog" legislation, and enshrinement of defacto inequality in the charter of rights and freedoms.
No problem! The liberals have the media technology and influence.
Still, extreme care must always be taken to avoid even the slightest of offenses to any of the groups and their block votes, lest the liberal minlobocracy fall faster than an ordinary canadian's equal rights.
It's no mystery why the odious violence of Islamic extremists is not covered by the canadian press.
The islamic ethnic minority is one of the most productive block voting groups (both political and financial)the liberal minlobocracy has ever had the good fortune to recruit.
Good post rebtor!
Whether it adds up to "power without end" depends on how long the Liberals can herd all those cats together.
Russia seems to exist as a stable but rather unhappy pseudo-democratic oligarchy because its population is fairly homogeneous and is easily whipped up into xenophobia by reminding them of Napoleon, Hitler, Truman, etc. But in Canada the very image of the country is a fractured populace who are trained to view the other blocs as impediments to their wealth, security, morality, etc. and to vote accordingly. Occasional bleatings about Yankee imperialism and Islamic extremists aside, the most noticeable feature of the political landscape is that one's enemies are always identified as being somewhere inside the palisade.
If there were strong limits on government powers and strong protections for individual rights then the federation could probably weather this phase of political opportunism and people would grumble a little then get back to work. But when a single party and a single government inserts itself into every aspect of its citizens' lives (from foreign trade to city buses to marriage and childrearing), it's impossible for anyone to get back to work, because no matter where they turn, there is a Liberal from Ottawa taking money with one hand, giving it back with the other hand, occasionally kicking them with steel-toed boots, and the whole time using the people's assembly of parliament to laugh in their faces.
It seems to me that the political system is built on unhappiness and envy, and the cheques are being written more and more grudgingly by a smaller and smaller group of people. It'll come to an end in one of two ways: either Stephen Harper will get elected with a strong majority and he'll start taking apart the federal government, or else one of the wealthier provinces will get so steamed that they put through a clear referendum. Perhaps the remaining bits of Canada will go their own ways, or perhaps they will put their heads together and write a new constitution - hopefully one that resembles the US constitution more than the EU.
As to wondering why the MSM has such a large blind spot to the rising tensions: the title "main stream" implies that they and their audience are moving together in the same direction.