sda2.jpg

April 4, 2005

Sitemeter Overheating

At the moment, SDA is recieving about 2,000 hits an hour - about 15 times
normal traffic for this time of day. But look at Captain Ed's stats:

ed.jpg

My logs show that the vast majority of my hits are from Canadian sources, including media and government servers (there are few on normal days). I suspect Ed's site is showing similar demographics. That means that a lot of Canadians are becoming aware of the information.

That raises difficult poltiical optics for a government considering prosecution of bloggers or news aggregators. How does one prosecute individual citizens for sending readers to the same information that politicians and media have been recieving via blackberry (elitist hypocrisy) - information that is deeply damaging to the governing party - without the appearance of abuse of power to protect your own political interests?

The traffic is causing some loading problems here and at Captain Quarters, who is anticipating more information - and another traffic surge - later today. Our host (this blog is also hosted in the US) is "clearing the decks" to smooth server problems. I'll second his recommendation of Hosting Matters as a blog host par excellence.

update - Welcome, MIchelle Malkin and Wizbang (as well as Instapundit readers who have been surfing in for the past couple of days).

As I wrote on Kevin's site - this is Canada's "Watergate", writ large - but in this case the blogosphere is playing the role of both "Deep Throat" and the Washington Post, and in the case of Canadian sites - doing so with the threat of legal action over our heads. Kudos too, to CTV News for naming Captain's Quarters on their broadcast last night. It is no small assist to have the nation's leading news broadcaster pushing the envelope along side us - especially NealeNews.com, who is going to need all the backup we can give him.

update 2 Colby weighs in and suggests now is the time for American bloggers to pour on the heat. I'll exerpt the juicy bit, but it's a good idea to read the whole thing for context.

Under the metaconstitutional Oakes test, any infringement of individual Charter liberties, such as a publication ban, must have a "rational connection" to the intended benefit and must be the most minimally restrictive measure that can bring about the benefit. The argument here is that if a ban doesn't work in practice--say, because American webloggers are all printing the mind-blowing stuff Canadian ones cannot--it can't meet Oakes. With due respect to the ban, which I consider myself to have observed herein, it would actively help free the hands of Canadian webloggers and reporters if our foreign cousins were to be aggressive about "publishing" the substance of the Brault testimony outside the reach of Canadian law.

Posted by Kate at April 4, 2005 12:39 PM
TrackBacks

Adscam, Canada, Censorship and the Gomery Enquiry. from Tim Worstall
This isn’t a story that’s had much play on this side of the Atlantic but as it’s about (probably) to cause a Candian election and if so, highly likely to bring down the Liberal minority govt. of Paul Martin, perhaps [Read More]

Tracked on April 4, 2005 2:34 PM

Traffic overload -- what does that imply? from Angry in the Great White North
The traffic over the last two days has been tremendous, and has implications about the spread of information and the pointlessness of the publication ban. [Read More]

Tracked on April 4, 2005 2:37 PM

Linking to the Captain Banned in Canada from UNCoRRELATED
Captain's Quarters, through its network of correspondants (some on the Gomery commission in Canada call them spies...), has pierced a publication ban on the testimony of three witnesses whose right to their own fair trials would be compromised by publi... [Read More]

Tracked on April 4, 2005 3:53 PM

Canada's Liberals Deep in Corruption (sound familiar?) from The (not so) Daily Me
This really stinks badly! Here's brief time-line: Gomery commission commissioned to probe Liberal corruption Publication ban issued Blogs: Silenced! Charged! Captain's Quarters (one of my favorite blogs) does an extensive write-up. CQ is down rig... [Read More]

Tracked on April 4, 2005 4:51 PM

Will Blogs Bring Down Canada's Government? from The Interocitor
The Liberal Party of Canada has a problem. Apparently the party apparatus has been looting Canada's treasury to support its electioneering for almost a decade, funneling money through dummy government contractors. Under the claim that they must protect... [Read More]

Tracked on April 4, 2005 5:19 PM

The Sticky Politicker AdScam Index from The Politicker
This will remain the top post for about a day or so. It links to all my posts on the AdScam scandal. Canadian Scams And Blog Bans Canadians Tune Out Scandal Welcoming CQ And Look Up Alliance Readers More On... [Read More]

Tracked on April 4, 2005 6:18 PM

Top Ten Categories: Media Bias. from WILLisms.com
A great list of media bias (via Ed Driscoll): 1. The Lie. 2. The memory hole. 3. Ventriloquist journalism. 4. Polls. 5. Buzzwords. 6. Coordination with the Democratic candidates. 7. The smear/personal attack/outrage. 8. Euphemisms. 9. False appearance ... [Read More]

Tracked on April 4, 2005 9:28 PM

Michelle Malken on "SOMETHING ROTTEN IN CANADA" from Hyscience
Imagine being susceptable to ending up in court for contempt just for linking or even passing out the address to Captain's Quarters! There's more wrong in Canada than just a corruption scandal. [Read More]

Tracked on April 4, 2005 10:46 PM

A CROSS-BORDER SCOOP from Peaktalk
Unless you've been living on another planet I guess most of you are now up to speed with the publication ban in Canada on a number of testimonies before a public inquiry into the misappropriation of public funds (the "Gomery... [Read More]

Tracked on April 5, 2005 12:15 AM

Gomery-Lanche from Outside The Beltway
OTB contributor Kate McMillan is experiencing a huge surge in Traffic at her own site, small dead animals, for her coverage of the Gomery affair, which she has dubbed "Canada's Watergate." We've had some ancilliary increase in traffic here, too. ... [Read More]

Tracked on April 5, 2005 10:24 AM

Gomery inquest from BrinkReview
Due to a publication ban, the majority of Canadians are not allowed to hear Jean Brault's testimony regarding Adscam, a political scandal that may doom the Liberal party's chances in the next election. In 1994, the Liberal government created a... [Read More]

Tracked on April 5, 2005 11:55 AM

U.S. Blogger Rattles Canada's Liberal Party from Outside The Beltway
The mainstream press is catching on to the story of Ed Morrissey's impact in breaking open the scandal that may kill Canada's Liberal Party. A Blog Written From Minneapolis Rattles Canada's Liberal Party (NYT) An American blogger has suddenly ... [Read More]

Tracked on April 7, 2005 11:00 AM

Comments

If this situation was going to continue I can offer mirror space if your Hosting firm wants to load balance, but if it's a short term spike, it will probably end before it's set up.

Posted by: rob at April 4, 2005 12:59 PM

I maintain that they cannot and will not prosecute. It has become too large and there are too many people involved.

The Liberal Party is hiding behind these Three Stooges, and is pretending that neither their government nor their Party, had anything to do with the whole Adscam scenario. Nonsense. It can be clearly shown that it was the Liberal Party that benefited. The Liberals are desperate to break this link between the Guys who Carried out the Work, and their own Party That Required the Work.
But, these guys will fight back against the Liberals...unless..they are bought off..

The publication ban - Liberals are using this ban to hide their own involvement.

They are going to try any and all legal means to shut down this inquiry and if not, to hide the proceedings.
You should keep a Weekly Public Log Book - How the Liberals are attempting to shut down the Inquiry.
So far - there've been two attempts to take out Gomery.

There's been the utter astonishment of all the key figures who know/saw/did nothing. Chretien's contempt for the court and his refusal to provide details. There's been Martin's Boy Scout innocence.

Then, there was the governmental 'criminal' investigation of these three - to divert causality to these three, rather than the Liberal party.

Now- the publication ban.

Then, they have moved into the court, to cross-examine the witnesses.

And the latest - trying to get the RCMP to investigate whether the Liberal Party was a Victim (Hah!!) of 'fraudulent activities'.

Incredible.

Posted by: ET at April 4, 2005 1:16 PM

Does your site being hosted in the US keep you safe from the Canadian information police?

Posted by: Jay at April 4, 2005 1:19 PM

CBC spins into action.
The federal LIBERAL PARTY has asked the RCMP to investigate whether the party was a
VICTIM of fraud in relation to the federal sponsorship scandal.

Posted by: Cal at April 4, 2005 1:34 PM

"Does your site being hosted in the US keep you safe from the Canadian information police?"

No. By virtue of the fact that the content was posted to the U.S. site from my computer here in Canada, the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of Canadian courts (so says my lawyer friend).

Posted by: Sean at April 4, 2005 2:02 PM

CBC spins into action.

Well, the CBC is practically wholly owned by the Liberal Party now. It's disgusting how openly they shill for the Libs these days, and it's high f'ing time the CP, NDP and Bloc get together to come up with a strategy to 'rescue' the CBC and give it back to the PEOPLE of Canada.

And another thing, at the last minute I decided not to post under my normal name because frankly I don't want to run the risk of being hauled off to prison by the Canadian thought police for talking about the Gomery commission. What a joke. We sit around and talk about the state of American press freedom when we can only dream of one day having a truly free press ourselves.

Posted by: Trapper Joe at April 4, 2005 2:11 PM

Sean/Kate - well, at least they can't shut the site down.

Posted by: Jay at April 4, 2005 2:49 PM

check out the domain figures for captain's quarters....

7% coming from a gc.ca domain... he's up to more than 164k visits TODAY...

http://www.sitemeter.com/default.asp?action=stats&site=s16captainsquarters&report=21

everyone in govt is reading captain's quarters... this is huge!!!!

on a side note, josh marshall if looking for the real guckert, as well as the proof "real soon now" about a crime involving valerie plame!

Posted by: hey at April 4, 2005 3:06 PM

By imposing the ban on publication of the goings on at the inquirey Justice Gomery has all but ensured that the truth will now come out.

I have to wonder whether he did this KNOWING it would cause the traditional press to dig deeper into this long drawn out affair so as to defend itself against accusations of being asleep at the switch while this all occured. Why didn't they know and report about this long ago?

It's so sad but not surprising to know that Canada has been governed through the selective application or denial of grants and subsidies from the taxpayers purse through schemes such as Adscam.

Thank God for bloggers! Great work folks.

Cabby Mike
Town of Paradise,
Canadian Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

Posted by: The Roadrunnercabby at April 4, 2005 3:10 PM
... it's high f'ing time the CP, NDP and Bloc get together to come up with a strategy to 'rescue' the CBC and give it back to the PEOPLE of Canada.

What you see with the CBC is what you get when a media outlet "belongs to the people." It's called state-owned media, and it's wrong. The CBC should be shut down.

Why is there no state-owned newspaper in Canada? Because it's patently obvious that a state-owned newspaper is a violation of democratic principles. The same applies to radio and television, but when these were new technologies it was not so obvious that they were like newspapers in that respect, so it was politically possible to have state-owned radio (and later television). Now that we know better, it's time to correct the mistake.

Posted by: Tedd McHenry at April 4, 2005 3:42 PM

I had no idea that the Canadians had "thought police." Hey for more information that you probably don't know about go to
http://acepilots.com/unscam/ and see what your Power Corp. has been up to. You really have some very devious people in Canada, you should be careful it looks as though 1984 is coming for you and you'll be behind concertina wire soon. Does the Government there make you take Soma for breakfast?

Posted by: Ron at April 4, 2005 3:49 PM

There's nothing like putting a ban on something to heat up interest in it...

Posted by: Dean at April 4, 2005 3:52 PM

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1845&ncid=737&e=1&u=/cpress/20050404/ca_pr_on_na/sponsorship_inquiry

It's all over Yahoo now so the Cap'n is off the hook. Captains Quarters can just point to this Yahoo AP story and say it was available in an open source so what's the difference?

Posted by: foreign devil at April 4, 2005 4:21 PM

For Americans posting this information, be careful.. Ottawa may send undercover agents to bore you to death...

Posted by: Otis Wildflower at April 4, 2005 4:21 PM

Ron:

Back in the 80s when all the Yuppies fell in love with saving the whales and recycling, a whole lot of stoopidity was countenanced, including 'language laws' so yes, we got 'thought police' and 'language police' in Quebec, while we were bending over double to be accommodating. Now we have to dump all that stuff and get back to basics and if Quebec doesn't like it--well they can SOD OFF!

Posted by: foreign devil at April 4, 2005 4:23 PM

Ah, the blogosphere, where the uninformed get their knickers in a twist on a daily basis.

Everybody who's been jumping up and down today about the allegedly supine CBC should ask themselves one pretty easy question: in which country are you more likely to encounter no-holds-barred media criticism of the government, Canada or the US?

(To our American friends: yes, in this country the media can still criticize the government without being accused of treason. Amazing, eh? So keep your sanctimony about freedom of speech to yourselves.)

Posted by: Herb at April 4, 2005 4:42 PM

Hwerb is probably Warren Kinsella by the way he talks.

So Herb, who's threatening jailtime over this? hmmmm...

CBC = socialist soma

Posted by: capt joe at April 4, 2005 4:51 PM

Herb,

As a Detroiter who knows the capital is in Ottawa and watches CBC on a regular basis I don't see where Peter Mansbridge delivers so much more criticism of the Canadian government than Peter Jennings does of the US government.

You are now transmuting the straw man that Democrats are being called "unpatriotic" or "treasonous" to include the press. I assume you are talking about the MSM and not Michael Moore, who is unpatriotic.

BTW where are you getting your info on the scandal?

Posted by: kennymac at April 4, 2005 5:11 PM

Capt. Joe, I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted, but I can assure you that I am not the self-promoting Mr. K.

As for who's threatening jail time: not the CBC, last time I looked. They report, you decide.

Posted by: herb at April 4, 2005 5:12 PM

"To our American friends: yes, in this country the media can still criticize the government without being accused of treason. Amazing, eh? So keep your sanctimony about freedom of speech to yourselves."

Who/what do you reference with this "accused of treason" comment, herbie?

Also, seems there's a lot of nervous Canadian bloggers worried about going in slam for having the nerve to criticize the liberal party in your government.

Your point (aside from the one on your head) again was?

Posted by: Idler at April 4, 2005 5:12 PM

Kenny and Idler: Oh, Coulter, Limbaugh, Savage....the usual suspects. But if you'll agree with me that they're dolts who are better ignored, then we can move on.

Idler, I was hoping by your name that you were one of the clever folks who used to hang out at the Idler magazine/pub on Davenport Rd., but apparently not, if you actually think anyone has to be afraid of going to jail for criticizing the Liberals. I don't see Stephen Harper or Gilles Duceppe quaking in their boots, do you?

Posted by: Herb at April 4, 2005 5:23 PM

I don't see Stephen Harper or Gilles Duceppe quaking in their boots, do you?

Are you kidding Herb, There not allowed to say a word, along with MSM and the bloggers. You don't call that dictatorship?

Oh... I get it.... it's only you raving moonbats that are allowed to talk.

For your info, they have far greater freedoms south of the border then we do here. Probably because they have a democracy...what a concept.

Posted by: rob at April 4, 2005 5:40 PM

Does anybody else notice how much like a banana republic Canada has become? Corrupt one-party misrule, censorship, thought police enforcing speech codes and -- to divert attention from national shortcomings -- a steady drumbeat of propaganda about how much more virtuous Canadians are than the crude, vulgar neighbor to the south. Sound a little like Cuba?

Posted by: Jerry at April 4, 2005 5:43 PM

Re the CBC

The CBC doesn't really support the Liberals - their hearts are truly with the NDP, but they figurethe Libs are the best that they'll get for now.

To our American friends - imagine if PBS got to sell advertising AND received a huge federal subsidy, and used that money to acquire the rights to all the best NFL games and the Olympics etc. And then hired the entire staff of Air America. Welcome to the CBC.

Posted by: holdfast at April 4, 2005 5:46 PM

Herb:

Being criticized for what you say, even being called a traitor by some overexcitable types, is not the same as having your right to free speech removed. Do you understand the difference? You, like so many today, seem to think the the right to free speech means the right to say whatever you want without being criticized, or, God forbid, called names.

Down here in benighted cowboyland, we are facing the question whether our campaign finance "reform" laws will allow our Federal Election Commission to target bloggers who link to campaign sites on their websites. This is precisely what is happening in your country right now.

And save the tired condescension to the blogosphere, reducing it to a forum for the "uninformed. If that's all you think goes on there, you just show your own ignorance.

Posted by: freetotem at April 4, 2005 6:12 PM

"As for who's threatening jail time: not the CBC, last time I looked. They report, you decide."

Isn't the current point is that they aren't reporting?

Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at April 4, 2005 6:22 PM

Gaahh!


Isn't the current point that they aren't reporting?

Cursed electronic editing!

Posted by: PersonFromPorlock at April 4, 2005 6:26 PM

Rob,

You don't seem to have much of a capacity for making distinctions. They can say whatever they want about Martin. They can say he's the worst prime minister since R.B. Bennett if they want. They can say he's an ex-Stalinist thug. (Oh wait, that's Duceppe.) They just can't breach the publication ban.

We can argue about whether the ban was correctly imposed, or whether publication bans are a good thing in general. (I'm against them, except for the statutory ones in the Criminal Code and the YCJA -- you do approve of those, I hope...?).

What I'm against, and what I'm doing my best to dispel here, is the silly and uninformed idea that the publication ban itself is some sort of nefarious plot by the Liberals. It was requested by Brault; it was imposed by Gomery. Neither of them are Martin toadies. Rule number one, as always, is: get your freakin' facts straight.

Freetotem: if the only way you can make your point is by calling someone a "moonbat," it says more about you than me. However, as a courtesy, I will pretend you didn't argue like a five-year-old and address your point.

As I said above, the publication ban is a red herring here. It exists by operation of Canadian law. Courts impose dozens of publication bans every single day in criminal matters and nobody ever complains about it -- not even the right-wingers -- because they know that pub. bans serve a purpose in the criminal law: they preserve the accused's right to a fair trial, and that's a good thing, because it helps us to know that when we've locked someone up, we've given them a fair chance to exonerate themselves. Again, the courts have often gone too far in imposing publication bans, and when they do, there's always a huge hue and cry (the Homolka plea bargain, the Airbus case; you're familiar with those, I'm sure). We've got lots of freedom of speech here; we complain more than anybody in the world, and our politicians have the scars to prove it.

Here's what I believe; Chretien ran a sleazy -- and maybe, probably, worse -- government and the sponsorship scandal was the sleaziest part of it. Martin has tried to walk a balancing act for a year because he wants to distance himself from the scandal (which he wasn't part of) but he can't shanghai his own party in the process. (Warren Kinsella keeps accusing him of doing exactly that.) The recent events have given him the opportunity he needs to finally pull off the gloves against Chretien, as I posted here last night. Today's events have confirmed that view.

The real issue is the scandal itself, not the publication ban. You guys are all stuck in the forest, bumping into trees.

Posted by: Herb at April 4, 2005 6:43 PM

Sorry, I just realized it was Rob who threw around the moonbat term. My apologies, freetotem.

Posted by: Herb at April 4, 2005 6:44 PM

For the dimwits here who can't tell the difference:

It was an independent judge who ordered a publication ban, not the government. I have no doubt the government argued in favor of the ban, but it was not their decision.

Like most things, that I can understand the simpleminded here can not comprehend, what we have in this case is a judge who had to balance off competing rights: The rights of the accused to a fair trial (if charges are layed) vs. the rights of the public to obtain information. The judge decided the rights of the potentially accused should come first. Of course, it is easy to disagree with the decision of the judge, but a complicated decision like that being made by an independent judge is hardly the stuff of a 'banana republic'.

Regarding the CBC, anybody who thinks it is a mouthpiece for the federal government should give it a listen sometime. It is an excellent independent news service. Far superior to pretty much anything in the U.S, yet alone the laughable Fox News.

For any Americans with a superiority complex here, I would simply ask this: where is your independent inquiry into the Halliburton/Bechtel scandals regarding the Iraqi war overspending. Oh wait, there is none, and none of the braindead Bush supporters seem to mind at all.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 6:50 PM

It isnt the liberal government that issued the temporary publication ban, it was Justice Gomery, the judge responsible for finding out who was responsible for this scandal. He didn't issue it to protect the liberals, but to ensure that any information released by a select few of those he was inquiring would not be released to the public (i stress - temporarily) as so not to taint a future jury pool that may be selected to try those responsible. It's a little something known as a fair trial. The information will be made public, officially, when it is properly compiled and charges are laid. We don't have "thought police" up here, our university profesors aren't taken from their classes for expressing a view that may differ from our government's, and the CBC is no more an official mouthpiece for our government than the FOX network is for yours (which, unfortunately, doesnt say much about either).

Posted by: Derek at April 4, 2005 6:56 PM

Herb, you missed the point.

This was played out to be a PUBLIC inquiry then pulled back. This is different from a criminal prosecution. Due to the publication ban it has now given the libranos an excuse to call in the RCMP and claim they were violated thus becoming the victom.

This is a classic librano tactic and if you believe martin is innocent fine, but the complete organization has been corrupted and is not salvagable and must be replaced.

Posted by: rob at April 4, 2005 6:59 PM

Herb:

If you'll check my post, I didn't call you or anyone else any names. I asked you whether you could distinguish between the right to free speech and the right to speak free of criticism or name calling. The reason I asked that question was because your original post admonished us Yanks to keep our freedom of speech concerns to ourselves because some call our nedia here "treasonous. From a later post, I surmise you mean the likes of Ann Coulter and Michael Savage. So let me see if I get your rationale argument straight: no U.S. citizen should express an unfavorable opinion about the state of the free press in Canada because Ann Coulter and Michael Savage have extreme opinions about our own press? If so, then I still ask the question you never answered: can you tell the difference private citizens criticizing the press, however shrilly, and the government making it illegal?

You don't seem to be able to distinguish between someone asking you a rationale question and namecalling, either.

Posted by: Freetotem at April 4, 2005 7:01 PM

Herb,
Who are you trying to kid regarding press freedom in the US? Yourself? Other Canadians? Europeans? Who? The New York Times regularly, and with gusto criticizes the govt of the US. The three big networks have something like 20 times the audience of Fox News and I think that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between their positions on say, to choose a random topic, the war in Iraq and that of the CBC, or even Le Monde. You are the one who seems ill-informed here.

As for your point about publication bans, do you really think that the ban is the issue that has everybody fired up? Don't you think that it is far more reasonable to assume that it is the corruption, scandal on scandal, that is driving the numbers? Talk about missing the forest while bumping into the trees? And the left says us right wingers have no sense of irony.

Posted by: moptop at April 4, 2005 7:01 PM

OK, Herb, saw your later retraction, so I also retract my crack about your conflating namecalling and criticsm. I still ask the one about conflating criticism of free speech with government restriction of free speech.

Posted by: Freetotem at April 4, 2005 7:03 PM

Haliburton! Ha, so you guys are just like our liberals. They yell "Haliburton" every time they get put on the defensive. Used to be "Enron!" The reason we respond to these 'taunts' with "Moonbat", is that there is no substance behind slogan charges like "Haliburton", only paranoid suspicion on the part of the accuser. So Moonbat or Barking Moonbat, seems about right in this case.

Posted by: moptop at April 4, 2005 7:09 PM

Adam T:

The inquiries into Halliburton overcharging showed overcharging on fuel costs by a subcontractor, which netted no additional profits to Halliburton. But perhaps that is not the result you wanted, therefore the inquiry was no doubt illegitimate? Because you and Michael Moore know what's really going on, right? Those of us who disagree with you are "braindead." Those of us who aren't evil, that is. But it isn't brain dead to continue to promulgate childish conspiracy theories.

CBC may be "independent" of direct government control, but do you think it is objective and unbiased?

Posted by: freetotem at April 4, 2005 7:17 PM

If a Canadian falls in the woods and there's no American around to blame, does he exist ?

Posted by: mau mau at April 4, 2005 7:38 PM

Hey, this American "cuz" is glad to hear the Canadian "hits" are soaring....just wait till more get FOX NEWS....then watch the numbers fly.

The Truth shall set you free.

Posted by: Maggie at April 4, 2005 7:47 PM

It's very easy to say there was no scandal regarding Haliburton/Bechtel because there was no inquiry.

There were very serious questions regarding the no bid contracts and a huge amount of allegations regarding overcharging (far more than just the one incident you referenced).

Here in Canada, Paul Martin could have done the same thing as George Bush and the Republicans in Congress; refused to hold an investigation and proclaimed he was 'clean' because nothing was found. Of course, if nobody looks, you are bound to look clean.

BTW, the latest evidence shows Michael Moore was correct when he said that Saudis were allowed out of the U.S before the no flying restrictions were lifted, so, at a minimum he is far more honest than your Liar in Chief. However, I am well aware that American Conservatives never let the facts get in the way of an argument, so I'm sure none of that will matter to you.

Of course, when it comes to scandals involving a person you support, you don't care about the scandals. Shows how ethical you really are.

Freetotem,
CBC television certainly has journalists who dislike the Conservative Party (Neil MacDonald and a couple others), but it isn't exactly friendly to the Liberals either. They recently did an investigation into the criminal charges filed against a former deputy minister of Indian Affairs and asked the Minister a number of very tough questions. Nor are they sycophants to Liberal supported institutions: Terrence McKenna did a very tough piece on the U.N oil for food scandal.

I would defy anybody who says CBC Radio isn't evenhanded. The 6 PM major news is always critical of the government. Anthony Germaine's program, The House, is similarily equally critical of the Liberals.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 7:52 PM

Oh good lord... CBC? The same CBC that has been virtually silent on the Canadian Oil-For-Food connections, on Desmarais and Power Corporation's ties to top Canadian government officials, yet finds time to produce "news magazine" programing (Fifth Estate) featuring the conspiracy theories about 9-11 and how the Joooooooooos and Bushitlerhalliburton shot down the towers?

Our national broadcaster is stacked with a board of Liberal donating patronage appointments. They throw us a bone once in a while, in the pretense of balance. The rest of it is unadulterated propoganda.

Posted by: Kate at April 4, 2005 8:14 PM

I don't normally watch the 5th Estate, but I saw that program. The only points they had in reference to the "Joooooooooooooos" shooting down the towers, was to show that a lot of the people making the conspiracy theories:
1.weren't very credible
2.had obvious ulterior motives

To suggest that the 5th Estate in any way promoted theories that suggested the "Joooooos" shot down the towers would be dishonest.

It is well known that Power Corp is a major player politically to both major parties (probably more to the Liberals, but they also had connections to the Mulroney government). I'm sure they could do more, but the fact that they haven't done a program on exactly what you want them to hardly proves the CBC is whatever you claim they are.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 8:23 PM

Freetotem,

The posts are flying pretty quickly here, so this in response to yours at 7:01.

I have no objection to Americans criticizing our media, or anything else about our country. For one thing, nobody can beat Canadians when it comes to criticizing our government; for another thing, I damn well don't want to give up my right to criticize the US government, so turnabout is only fair.

What I do object to is criticism that is wilfully blind to the facts (whether it comes from Canadians or Americans). So let's parse out what's been going on here with a view to getting clear on what the facts really are. (Don't worry, I'm not going to break the law and get the host in trouble.)

1) We have a government scandal, that appears to be getting worse with every day of Gomery testimony.

2) We have a publication ban on a few days of that inquiry (which, as you may or may not know, has been going on for months already), but they happen to be the few days with (apparently) the most "explosive" testimony.

Some people -- especially in the US, unfortunately, where this whole story is brand-new -- have been putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5, namely that the Martin government is engaged in some sort of nefarious cover-up to keep the odious facts from coming to light.

As Adam T has posted very articulately, the publication has nothing to do with the Martin government. It was imposed by an independent judge, with the aim of protecting the pending criminal trial of the current witness -- with the aim, in other words, of ensuring that if he really is a bad guy, he won't go scot-free just because the trial is hopelessly tainted by a maelstrom of prejudicial pretrial publicity.

Canadian law allows for this, in a range of circumstances. You may argue that that's a bad thing, and I mostly agree. But it's a completely distinct issue from the scandal itself, or how the media reports on it.

And that gets me back to your original question. Our media have actually been reporting on the scandal pretty damn well. It's never been off the front pages since the day it broke. It has completely hamstrung the Martin government, and it probably would have led to Martin's defeat last summer if the Conservatives hadn't been so inept and unsavory themselves.

And that's why I made my original crack about the US media -- because our media here is always on the government's case, day in and day out, and you and I both know that's simply not true in the US these days. Somebody up the thread mentioned the NY Times. First of all, it's not even accurate; Judith Miller was one of the biggest cheerleaders on the Iraq war. But secondly, it's the exception that proves the rule; the NYT is big, rich and powerful, and it can get away with doing what it wants. The other independent, critical voices are fewer and farther between all the time, and subject to constant assaults on their patriotism, just because they won't step into line behind the monolithic herd.

I love America and lived there for a long time, but I don't recognize the America I loved in a country where you can shut up anyone who criticizes the government just by questioning their patriotism. Luckily, you can't do that here, yet.

Posted by: Herb at April 4, 2005 8:31 PM

Adam T. is exactly right that anyone who isn't up to speed on the supposed power and influence of the Demarais family in this country is someone who has been wilfully obtuse. For crying out loud, I've been hearing about it since about 1970, and it was mentioned in numerous news stories about the Chretien/Martin changeover. Mark Steyn is not exactly an investigative journalist in this regard (or any other, ha ha).

By the way, their connections are pretty good in the Conservative Party too (through the mulroney wing, which -- don't kid yourselves -- is still pretty powerful). So don't, y'know, get your hopes up or anything.

Posted by: herb at April 4, 2005 8:38 PM

I'm sorry, Adam T, but there was an inquiry about Halliburton overcharging. It just didn't come up with the answer you wanted. Halliburton, by the way, has been running about a 1% profit on its Iraqi operations, so it isn't exactly raking in the huge, illegitimate war profiteering loot.

The "no bid contract" award has been used by Bush critics who can't be bothered to focus on important criticisms to imply unfair dealing because Dick Cheney used to be the CEO there. But no-bid contracts are the rule in that sort of business. There are 3, maybe 4 firms in the world who can undertake the kind of work Halliburton is doing in Iraq. Halliburton is one. Bechtel and Fluor are two others. These firms actually do bid, in advance, for the right to provide "no-bid" work, on an exigent basis, when the need arises when there will be no time for the government bidding process, as it did in Iraq. It isn't completely "no-bid." Halliburton was awarded this no-bid status for Iraq by...the Clinton administration. Perhaps Michael Moore should investigate that one.

As for the silly Moore Bin Laden family fairy tale that still apparently captivates the imaginations of credulous Moore acolytes, it was Richard Clarke, noted critic of the Bush administration, who gave the order to allow the family members to leave the country, not Bush. Clarke himself has been very clear about that. And it is not true, as Moore alleged, that they were allowed to leave while U.S. airspace was closed to other aircraft. This has been well proven for over a year now. It's a myth, like most of Moore's work. Let it go and focus on real criticisms. On the other hand, maybe Clarke's savage criticism of Bush was just a clever cover for the Bin Laden caper. Of course, Bush is too stupid to come up with such a plan, so it must have been that omnipotent evil genius, Karl Rove.

I can't argue the CBC evenhandedness point, since I have seen little of its programs. From what I hear, it is about as evenhanded as BBC or our PBS, but that could be wrong. Then again, cpompared to Michael Moore, it probably seems quite evenhanded.

Posted by: Freetotem at April 4, 2005 8:49 PM

1.There has never been an investigation into Halliburton/Bechtel.

2.Documents were released a few days ago that show Michael Moore was correct that the Saudis did get out while the no fly order was still in operation.

Unlike you, posting B.S regarding Haliburton without backing it up, I provide a link:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=2&u=/afp/usattackssaudis

"The Saudis' chartered flights -- arranged in the days after the September 11, 2001 terror attacks when most aircraft were still grounded -- long have been a topic of allegations related to close family ties and associates of US President George W. Bush (news - web sites) and the Saudi royal family. "

By the way, as an accounant myself, I'm well aware of ways companies can shift expenses around. I'd want to look at the books myself before trusting Haliburton that they made only a 1% profit.

Regarding the no bid contracts, I've heard completely the opposite, that other companies were outraged with the no bid contracts awarded Haliburton. Maybe it was all for show on their part, I have no idea. But, I've never seen any investigation into any of this.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 9:05 PM

Accountant. I'm a Certified Management Accountant.


RE: "These firms actually do bid, in advance, for the right to provide "no-bid" work, on an exigent basis, when the need arises when there will be no time for the government bidding process, as it did in Iraq. It isn't completely "no-bid." Halliburton was awarded this no-bid status for Iraq by...the Clinton administration. Perhaps Michael Moore should investigate that one."

Of course there was no war againt Iraq when Clinton was President, so whatever they were bidding on would have been entirely different than any post war Iraqi contracts.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 9:09 PM

Herb:

Aside from the extreme examples you gave above (Coulter, et al,) there are many "conservative" citizens of the U.S. who notice that the New York Times, AP, UPI, LA Times, Washington Post (though somewhat less so than the others), ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, Time, Newsweek, and on and on, have focused their Iraq coverage almost exclusively on facts and on opinions that make the Bush administration look bad. This is not news, it is opinion, and what is wrong with it is that it claims to be news. This is still the case, even though the "insurgency" has had its back broken and although none of the disasters predicted and "reported" by the biased media have come true. They won't show a video of Al Zarqawi hacking the head off of Nick Berg, as he screams and gurgles his life away, because it might be too inflammatory. But they will show nothing but photos of Abu Ghraib prisoners with panties on their heads for weeks and months on end, knowing precisely how inflammatory that will be, as just one example. This is slanted presentation, and it is always slanted in one direction.

Although it is legally incorrect to call this "treason," the purpose behind it is to deliberately harm the efforts of the U.S. by presenting a very one-sided view of what is happening. That is why people criticize it, and that is why some who are more angered by it use emotional terms like "treason." But you will note it doesn't stop any of these media entities from continuing to do what they have done all along. So the claim by you and others that decrying biased coverage is tantamount to censorship is not only technically incorrect (because censorship is committed by the government, not media critics,) it also is not supported by the most cursory empirical observation of what the left-wing press continues to do.

You may be perfectly right about your points about the Canadian government, the judge in this case, and the press coverage, but my quarrel with you was that you said us Yanks can't criticize you Canadians because we don't have a free press either. And your Exhibit "A" was that some people criticize our press here. That is not a valid argument.

Posted by: freetotem at April 4, 2005 9:10 PM

Adam, you're not paying attention. Richard Clarke, a noted critic of Bush and his post-9/11 policies -- was the person who let the Saudis go. In fact, Moore happily cited Clarke as a critic of Bush but for some reason left out the part about Clarke's role with the Saudis.

Case closed.

Posted by: chip at April 4, 2005 9:17 PM

Herb, the public debate in the US is fierce, both in terms of the media and the public debate. In Canada? I saw what passed for public debate in Canada on Iraq, and surprise... it was all about ME. I am privileged to get the CBC in both broadcast and print through the net. It's socialist hogwash. I used to participate on the CBC message board forum until the communists decided to shut it down. Take a look at the "Sound Offs" the minders at the NP decide to expose to public participation -- rediculous stuff compared to the real news. Tell me the story about Power Corp oh pristine and brilliant one.

Posted by: Tom Penn at April 4, 2005 9:18 PM

OK, Adam T., I give up. The war in Iraq was conceived in order to enrich Halliburton, steal the oil fields (although gas prices don't seem to have played that one out, but never mind,) and the Bush family is in cahoots with the Bin Ladens. I stand corrected. It says the flights "were arranged" when other flights were grounded, not that they were made during the government enforced grounding, but never mind. We all know Bush and Osama were in cahoots so that Halliburton could be enriched in Iraq.

Posted by: freetotem at April 4, 2005 9:19 PM

>Regarding the CBC, anybody who thinks it is a mouthpiece for the federal government should give it a listen sometime. It is an excellent independent news service.

The CBC isn't a Liberal mouthpiece, but it only appears to be an excellent independent news service to those travelling in the Liberal's frame of reference.

Posted by: lrC at April 4, 2005 9:25 PM

A."This is still the case, even though the "insurgency" has had its back broken and although none of the disasters predicted and "reported" by the biased media have come true."

1.The insurgency has slowed down since the election, but I'd hardly say it's accurate to say it's had 'its back broken"

2.1,500 dead American soldiers, up to 20,000 injured and up to 100,000 dead Iraqi civilians isnt' a disaster?

B.Congratulations, freetotem, you've just observed that the media tends to focus on negative news. Now, how you'll prove that this is in some way a conspiracy by the media to make the war effort unpopular when they have been focusing on negative news ever since they 'came into existance' is beyond me.

I don't disagree that the media focusing on the negative presents a distorted picture, however, that far from means that I support a media that cheerleads the war effort, as you would obviously like.

Beyond that, both the New York Times and the Washington Post did appologize for their cheerleading of war supporters prior to the war. That they refound their backbone to complain about the completely incompetent post war effort of the Bush maladministration is to their credit.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 9:26 PM

Wait a second. I believe no one ever said that the American media was free to criticize the American government without being immune to criticism itself. All that criticism comes from fellow citizens of the US.

You can say whatever you like about the government or the current policies, but if in their minds the public thinks you tiresome, your ratings will fall, circulation will drop, and you will be critized.

Free Speech is a double-edged sword.

Posted by: Paul at April 4, 2005 9:27 PM

"OK, Adam T., I give up. The war in Iraq was conceived in order to enrich Halliburton, steal the oil fields (although gas prices don't seem to have played that one out, but never mind,) and the Bush family is in cahoots with the Bin Ladens. I stand corrected. It says the flights "were arranged" when other flights were grounded, not that they were made during the government enforced grounding, but never mind. We all know Bush and Osama were in cahoots so that Halliburton could be enriched in Iraq."

Of course, I never said any such thing. Typical of most Conservatives that they can only think in terms of 'you're with me, or against me'.

So, according to Freetotem, either the war was conducted completely open and above board, or it was solely done for the benefit of major corporations. I don't suppose you could open your mind a little to conclude that it might have actually been somewhere in between.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 9:33 PM

"steal the oil fields (although gas prices don't seem to have played that one out, but never mind,)"

This is a good example of two things:
1.Lumping together every conspiracy theory. I.E, anybody who criticized the Bush admin must believe every conspiracy theory againt it. I have no doubt that part of the reason for the war was to secure oil supplies for the U.S, but I also never doubted for a second that they would also be placed back into the hands of the Iraqi people.

2.The false argument that just because something failed, it must mean that it was not attempted. That oil prices are as high as they are only proves that the attempt to 'steal' the Iraqi oil fields (which I've already said I don't believe the U.S government attempted to do) was a failure, not that they didn't try to do it. Given how incompetent we've seen the Bush admin is on most of its implementation of policy, it wouldn't surprise me that if they did make an attempt to steal the oilfields, that they would fail to do it.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 9:43 PM

Tom, I enjoyed your points about the level of debate in the US media, but it's difficult for me to take a post seriously when it devolves into ranting about socialists and communists. Gimme a break. That's the kind of talk that makes people all around the world laugh at the American right. (But why did you leave out fellow travellers and fifth columnists?)

Posted by: Herb at April 4, 2005 9:47 PM

[They won't show a video of Al Zarqawi hacking the head off of Nick Berg, as he screams and gurgles his life away, because it might be too inflammatory. But they will show nothing but photos of Abu Ghraib prisoners with panties on their heads for weeks and months on end, knowing precisely how inflammatory that will be...]

Al Zarqawi never pretended to be acting within the law, let alone within the bounds of what, to 99% of the world, might be considered "humane" treatment of prisoners.

Broadcasting Berg's brutal murder to American's is Al Zarqawi's wildest wet dream, and it would only serve to disrespect Berg and his family. Besides, the only people interested in seeing it, are sado-masochists or screwed-up pimply-faced teenagers.

Showing Americans what their own soldiers (and by extension, their government) are doing to prisoners of war (who are protected by international laws that our ancestors died to create), and contrary to what their government told them was happening, is good investigative journalism. We needed to see this happening, because those who only watch FoxNews would prefer to keep their heads buried deep in the oil-soaked sands of the Iraq "our men" freed from the "terrorists".

And they wonder why Americans are so universally hated.

Posted by: Jonathon M at April 4, 2005 9:57 PM

"The CBC isn't a Liberal mouthpiece, but it only appears to be an excellent independent news service to those travelling in the Liberal's frame of reference."

That could be true. Of course, on most issues up to 70% of Canadians take the big L Liberal position (note that I said 'on most issues'), so a media that reflects prevailing Canadian thought isn't much of a surprise..

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 10:13 PM

"That oil prices are as high as they are only proves that the attempt to 'steal' the Iraqi oil fields (which I've already said I don't believe the U.S government attempted to do) was a failure, not that they didn't try to do it."

Well I'm glad you don't believe that little lie Adam, but man was that one hell of a logical fallacy you just employed...and in the defence of an ad hoc rationalization no less.

Anyway, this whole mess just illustrates the curse that anti-Americanism plays on societies that are addicted to it. Any failure or threat to national pride is automatically met with the sneering rationalization "yeah well in the US...", thus allowing the failures to fester and remain repressed out of resentment. The fact that most of the "facts" given out about the US are false anyway just makes the problem worse.

Anyone who seriously holds the position that media outlets in the US cannot or will not criticize the government is a complete idiot and lives in a dream world of denial and resentment...two things that seem to be all the rage lately.

Posted by: Jason at April 4, 2005 10:14 PM

1."Well I'm glad you don't believe that little lie Adam, but man was that one hell of a logical fallacy you just employed...and in the defence of an ad hoc rationalization no less"

Actually it was logic 101.

2."Anyway, this whole mess just illustrates the curse that anti-Americanism plays on societies that are addicted to it. Any failure or threat to national pride is automatically met with the sneering rationalization "yeah well in the US...", "

I can only comment on my own actions. I don't think I've ever said "yeah, well in the U.S" in response to something that is a Canadian issue. It fit in this case because there were a bunch of ignorant, smug Americans at the top of this thread spouting off on the failures of the Canadian government and media.

In regards to the failures of the Canadian government, I think pointing out the incompetency and corruption of the Bush Admin is completely fair response.

In regards to the media, I didn't comment on the U.S media at all, I merely pointed out the innacuracies in the facts of the posters regarding the nature of the publication ban.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 10:21 PM

Well that's nice but I was only addressing you in the first paragraph. As for the "smug Americans", I can't speak for them, though I am well aware that any and every scandal in the US is reported by foreign journalists like missionaries spreading the good word.

Oh and this was lovely:

"I don't think I've ever said "yeah, well in the U.S" in response to something that is a Canadian issue."

"In regards to the failures of the Canadian government, I think pointing out the incompetency and corruption of the Bush Admin is completely fair response."

Posted by: Jason at April 4, 2005 10:28 PM

"In regards to the failures of the Canadian government, I think pointing out the incompetency and corruption of the Bush Admin is completely fair response."

Had I wanted to be redundent I would have written:

"In regards to the failures of the Canadian government poined out by abunch of ignorant, smug Americans at the top of this thread , I think pointing out the incompetency and corruption of the Bush Admin is completely fair response."

That I was responding to the comments of those Americans was already mentioned in the above parapgraph.

Given that, pointing out that Americans have nothing to be smug about when it comes to government is a completely appropriate reply.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 10:34 PM

I think the "smugness", or whatever it is, has little to do with the actual scandal and much to do with the anti-liberal supression of free speech that enshrouds it...goes rather well with the new Canadian heresy law making criticism of homosexuality a crime no?

In that regard Canada, or any other country, has nothing on which to lecture the United States about. The plain fact is that the US has the strongest free speech policy in the world and even the much ballyhooed "Patriot Act" is nothing when compared to anti-terrorism laws in other European countries.

Posted by: Jason at April 4, 2005 10:46 PM

1.The 'supression of free speech' has been discussed above.
As Conservative commentator Norman Spector said (paraphrasing) "if the judge didn't want the media to report, he should have had the testimony delivered in private".

Holding something in-camera is an effective way to keep the media out without raising the specter of "supression of free speech".

2."the new Canadian heresy law making criticism of homosexuality a crime"

I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 10:57 PM

Re: 100,000 dead...

Anyone who uses figures obtained through a phone/door survey (ie. the Lancet farce) to propogate their view of reality is an idiot.

There are at least two other credible outfits collecting REAL data on the number of dead in Iraq, and they would piss themselves laughing if they beleived they could get away with the asanine numbers Lancet threw out there. Iraq Body count uses - get this - ACTUAL reports of deaths. In fact they use, for the most part, the same methods that every other country uses.

Again, only an idiot would repeat that 100,000 have died because a survey stated that it might be possible that between 8 and 192 thousand have died, maybe.

Actually, only a LAZY idiot would be making those claims, because it doesn't take much of an effort to read the study. And even less to figure out why credible news outlets won't go anywhere near that number.

Idiot.

Posted by: david at April 4, 2005 11:08 PM

David,

I read the Lancet report. Like I said above, I'm an accountant and I know how to read numbers. I seriously doubt you read the report but instead you probably merely listened to the Rush Dimbaugh and Faux News stories of the reports and, like a good little dittohead, memorized what they had to say.

The report itself said that its methodology in tracking the numbers left a lot of ground for doubt as to the precise numbers. They also explained that the 'actual reports of death' grossly underestimated the likely real number. Hence, they chose a number inbetween the reported number and the highest estimate. 100,000 may be too high, but it likely isn't wildly off, especially not to this date, given that the report is several months old.

Posted by: Adam T at April 4, 2005 11:19 PM

I caught The National(newscast on CBC) tonight and the lead story was Paul Martin addressing Parliament and explaining that not all Liberals are bad...that was followed by video of a blogger that could not be identified.. and the statement that the information is out there but we can't tell you. What? Damn good reporting! My arse!

That segued into a story about Willie Picton and the need to maintain media suppression to ensure a fair jury "even though that has not been proven" according to the reporter.


It all had the feeling of a parent talking to a child about Santa.

Posted by: kennymac at April 4, 2005 11:28 PM

Actually, idiot, I don't watch Limbaugh and do not subscribe to Fox.

Neither do I admit that the source I quote may leave "a lot of ground for doubt as to the precise numbers" and STILL shill for it. I also wouldn't be caught dead uttering a blatantly illogical sentence such as - "They also explained that the 'actual reports of death' grossly underestimated the likely real number."
( the ACTUALL number underestimates the LIKELY number?)

Idiot.

Posted by: david at April 4, 2005 11:29 PM

Adam, now I call you CMA bs. I work as a statistician and the methodology in that paper stinks to high heaven.

Fred Kaplan is no Fox Alumni (no matter how many hits of acid you take) and here is his take.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/

The only reason it got past peer review was for its innate political position. No serious scholar would seriously reference it.

So after that statement, I went back and see you actually believe Michael Moore.

Well, ok, sure, whatever you say (eyes raised and rolling)

You should put away that anti-american prism that you seem to view everything with. It does you no credit to shill for a half baked idealogy.

Posted by: john jackson at April 4, 2005 11:29 PM

"I honestly have no idea what you are talking about."

That's probably because you spend your time revelling in American politics and railing against the "culture of fear" in the US rather than paying attention to any disturbing trends in your own country.

Posted by: Jason at April 4, 2005 11:38 PM

In case you missed the relevant quote from the lancet paper

"We estimate there were 98,000 extra deaths (95% CI 8000-194 000) during the post-war period."

As Fred says, "It means that the authors are 95 percent confident that the war-caused deaths totaled some number between 8,000 and 194,000. (The number cited in plain language98,000is roughly at the halfway point in this absurdly vast range.)

This isn't an estimate. It's a dart board."

Posted by: john jackson at April 4, 2005 11:40 PM

Adam,

The Lancet report was a piece of trash and you being an accountant should know it was a GUESS. It was used to beat down Bush just before the election. This link is the actual verified numbers from one of your left wing sites.

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

No put your accountant brain on and do the calculations.

Posted by: rob at April 4, 2005 11:46 PM

Oh, and Adam, the CBC is Librano sponsered piece of left wing trash as well. I should know, I live here.... nuff said..

Posted by: rob at April 4, 2005 11:47 PM

So it's settled. Round to Adam T.

Posted by: Herb at April 5, 2005 12:08 AM

The Lancet report is the best estimate given for the actual number of Iraqis that died as a result of the war. That it would range greatly is not a surprise given that we are talking about a war.

Fred Kaplan's piece largely defended the methodology of the report.

Given that I'm allegedly a shill for Michael Moore, I find it funny that I'm being criticized by a number of brain dead dittoheads who don't even seem to care that they are putting forward their own ridiculous conspiracy theory (that the Lancet report was published just to bash Bush) without one piece of evidence to back it up.

Rob, as was well explained in the Lancet report, the verified number of killed grossly underreports the real numbers of Iraqis who died as a result of the war. I can understand why you feel a need to do this. When you support a President who lied to start a war, and then pretends to support a 'culture of life', you need to make the number of deaths as small as possible so as not to make yourself uncomfortable.

David, I am aware you don't watch Dimbaugh. Like the brain dead dittohead you are, you listen to him religiously.
Jason, I'm aware of what's going on in Canada. The reason I have no idea what you are talking about is because there is no piece of legislation that exists that does what you say.

Posted by: Adam T at April 5, 2005 12:14 AM

Jason, I should add to the above, I'm aware Faux News reported on something that claimed Canada had made it illegal to criticize homosexuals, or something to that effect. I forget the details, but I remember at the time, the report was riddled with innacuracies and maybe even the odd out and out lie.

Posted by: Adam T at April 5, 2005 12:18 AM

You refuse to accept the numbers even when there put in front of your face?...hmmm ...did you also ask yourself what percentage of those were civilians, being that there ARMY doesn't have the GUTS to wear a uniform.

Your totally displaying the typical narrow mind of the Left wing and refuse to accept the facts.

The Lancet report doesn't even rate to be used as toilet paper.

Glad you don't do accounting for my business, I would be rich on paper and flat broke...

Posted by: rob at April 5, 2005 12:19 AM

Rob, that is wrong on all accounts. I fully accept the numbers of those verified dead.

I also fully understand that those numbers do not take an awful lot of other people who died as a result of the war into account.

Again, I seriously doubt you would make such a pathetic attempt to attack the credibility of a piece of research out of some sort of academic pique. The only reason I can think of for your anger is the fact that the likely real estimates of death puts into disrepute the war effort.

John, by the way, I never actually did say that I believed Michael Moore. I merely made two points:
1.That he seems to have been proven correct on his assertion that the Saudis in the U.S were flown out before the no fly order was lifted.
2.That he is more honest than George W. Bush. That's not a very high bar.

Posted by: Adam T at April 5, 2005 12:35 AM

You would like the majority of the population to take the word of academics that are quite frankly stupid when it comes to real life, and fed the left wing trash at the universities by Ward Churchill and the likes. I don't even want to get into the CDN ones, theres to many.

I think not, mainstream CDN's are smarter then that, and by the sounds of your posts, were you've been spoon fed a wack of trash, you fall into the same catagory. A liberal attitude with tunnel vision.

So enjoy Lancet and Moore while you can, most people have already seen the lies and corruption generated from this academic attitude. Our own Government is probably the best example going.

Your use your piece of paper as an excuse not to face reality. What a typical waste...

Posted by: rob at April 5, 2005 12:49 AM

Rob, Mainstream Canadians are certainly smarter than you, judging by the fact that upwards of 70% of them usually vote for left leaning parties.

Posted by: Adam T at April 5, 2005 1:29 AM

Herb wrote:

I love America and lived there for a long time, but I don't recognize the America I loved in a country where you can shut up anyone who criticizes the government just by questioning their patriotism. Luckily, you can't do that here, yet.

Herb, the Canadian equivalent to the American charge of being "unpatriotic" is to charge someone with being "Americanized" or supporing "American-style" ideas. As a tactic for shutting down debate it's easily the equal of the American tactic.

Posted by: Tedd McHenry at April 5, 2005 2:02 AM

To show how smart the C.B.C.is on the 5am radio news on saturday the news broadcaster said there were 40 million Canadian Cathlics in Canada..I think a Liberal told him that. There may even be more than that. Not bad for our population of about 33Milion population...Joe

Posted by: Joe Warman at April 5, 2005 2:50 AM

Adam

I don't know what the hell Faux News is but I never watch TV. Several people have been prosecuted for making anti-homosexuality remarks under several different laws, the most sweeping of with was bill C-250.

Posted by: Jason at April 5, 2005 3:15 AM

"The Lancet report is the best estimate given for the actual number of Iraqis that died as a result of the war."

Anybody who would start out a comment like that is obviously somebody not worth paying attention to.

BTW, check out the recent stats on CQ, four times Kate's pic. Kind of sad in a way because it makes his earlier hits look so pathetic (on a relative basis).

Posted by: Jay at April 5, 2005 7:01 AM

Your right Jay, He is just spewing out randem statments picked up on MSM, specifically CBC if that tells you anything, and refuses to investigate the other side to get an informed opinion.

No further response required to a closed mind, when the facts were presented throughout the thread and not accepted.

Posted by: rob at April 5, 2005 7:29 AM

I notice a lot of Fox bashing above. Apparently a lot of Canadians think most Americans sit slack-jawed before the tube soaking up right wing agit-prop delivered in the guise of the news. This is the sort of smugness that got Democrats chin-deep in manure and threatens to condemn them to permanent minority status. Fox developed in response to the almost total left wing bias found on the major networks, as it is on the CBC. A fine example, you might say, of the free market at work.

Posted by: Jerry at April 5, 2005 8:01 AM

Adam T.

Oh really, where does Fred Kaplan's statement of "The same is true of the Lancet article: It's a useless study; something went terribly wrong with the sampling."

and where he says, "The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartimeand this flaw suggests that, within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale."

For those who did not get that last. The most reliable number is at the end of the scale and that scale has a confidence interval of (95% CI 8000-194,000). So basically the real number is around 8000 and NOT 100,000.

Adam, adam, adam, tsk tsk. You are an accountant. Please don't do my taxes. I don't want to share my ail cell with one of the libranos. ;)

He does not support the methodology at at all. So now, I am totally convinced that you are purposefully dishonest. You are certainly in good company with Moore.

For the rest of you, read http://slate.msn.com/id/2108887/ where this "study" is taken completely apart.

So who should you trust for numbers? Fred points the way, "There is one group out there counting civilian casualties in a way that's tangible, specific, and very usefula team of mainly British researchers, led by Hamit Dardagan and John Sloboda, called Iraq Body Count. " at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Adam T., Since you are not interested in honesty there is no further purpose in debating you on this.

later unless it is to taunt you again. ;)

Posted by: john jackson at April 5, 2005 10:27 AM

Last time I was there, the careful analysis by Iraqibodycount (who is pretty much anti-Iraq war but at least they seem to be honest) was between 15000 and 18000.

That means with Saddam's daily murder rate (most common number I've seen is 700) the Iraqis were ahead after only 4 weeks of the war.

American bombs and bullets are somehow more evil than Saddam's woodchippers? Tell that to the Iraqis.

Posted by: Jay at April 5, 2005 12:04 PM

The availability of information with the Gomery publication ban, by bloggers, is the best thing happened to Canada since sliced bread.

Hopefully, this uncapable corruption will awaken the average Canadians eyes from their slumber of consumerism to see how they been manipulated by false images and practised rhetoric for decades now.

Logically it will signal change and the Liberal Party will go the way of the previous dinasaur, the Conservative Party, whose equally corrupt and above-the-law mentality caused its demise too.

Now it is time to put the whole Canadian political scene under a microscope--learn from our past errors and reform our entire parlimentarian system: a voted senate, equal representation, MP's and party delegates that historically reside in their respective ridings, accountability for election promises.

Posted by: jamie at April 5, 2005 12:37 PM

Ted: The difference is that it's pretty horrifying to be accused of treason, whereas if someone told me that I had "Americanized" ideas, I'd just shrug. There aren't a whole lot of home-grown ideas anyway, and you have to get your ideas somewhere.

More seriously, I'm assuming what you mean is that it's possible to shut down debate in Canada by accusing your opponent of having an "American" agenda. The Libs tried to do that a bit last summer, but I don't think it works on its own, since most Canadians just aren't that hostile to the USA as a general proposition.

It's different if you can attach it to some sort of specific policy ("an American-style agenda on health care"); but in that case it's just shorthand for one particular thing about America that most Canadians dislike. No politician would get very far by accusing an opponent of having an "American-style" agenda on, oh, tort reform for example. (American-style tort reform in Canada would mean damage awards here would suddenly start getting a lot bigger. In fact, maybe Bush should start campaigning for a "Canadian-style" tort system, to make tort reform sound all friendly and unassuming.)

Posted by: Herb at April 5, 2005 3:52 PM

John, Purposefully dishonest sounds like a good description of the Bush regime, which I'm sure you wholeheartedly support, despite your phony concern about honesty.

Fred Kaplan is entitled to his opinions. He is not God, and just because he says something does not make it gospel.

Beyond that, the fact of the matter, is that anybody reading his article in an honest manner would come away with the conclusion that he agrees with much of the methadology of the study, despite what he claims.

In terms of playing fun with numbers. You say that it's towards the lower end of 8,000 compared to 100,000, but the actual interval is between 8,000 and 192,000. So, even if it is toward the lower end, it could well be between 50,000 and 75,000. There is absolutely no basis from either the Lancet study of from Mr. Kaplan's analysis that the lower number to pick is anywhere near as low as 8,000.

Now, I realize you didn't write this John, but it is interesting to compare this : "That means with Saddam's daily murder rate (most common number I've seen is 700) the Iraqis were ahead after only 4 weeks of the war." to the way the right wing loons have pathetically attempted to take apart the Lancet study.

Where does that 700 figure come from? Nobody questions that figure, yet it could just as easily be picked out of a hat. Why not? Because it's not in the right wing nut interest to attempt to pick apart a number they are happy with.

Posted by: Adam T at April 5, 2005 3:59 PM

One personal point. CMA's generally don't do taxes. We work in budgeting and internal auditing. As part of that, I've also studied a great deal of probabality and statistics. And, we also learn a great deal about the variables involved in counting and in arriving at figures.

Posted by: Adam T at April 5, 2005 4:02 PM

"The study, though, does have a fundamental flaw that has nothing to do with the limits imposed by wartimeand this flaw suggests that, within the study's wide range of possible casualty estimates, the real number tends more toward the lower end of the scale."

He is referring to the fact that the Lancet study chose an area as part of the sample that he says was damaged far more than most other areas in Iraq and so skews the sample. Yet, if you read a little further down, he also qualifies his point on that quite considerably.

Once he does that, then any honest reader would conclude that the Lancet study is a reasonable attempt at arriving at a figure. I agreed with his assessment that the 100,000 figure was probably high at the time, and felt that 50,000-75,000 was a more accurate number. However, given that the study is now several months old, it would not surprise me if the actual figure is indeed now getting closer to 100,000.

Posted by: Adam T at April 5, 2005 4:15 PM

"I agreed with his assessment that the 100,000 figure was probably high at the time, and felt that 50,000-75,000 was a more accurate number. However, given that the study is now several months old, it would not surprise me if the actual figure is indeed now getting closer to 100,000."

You felt that 50,000 - 75,000 was a more accurate number? Based on what...the number of victims you treated at your Baghdad hospital? And you were able to determine from their medical records with some degree of certainity that all of them were civilians rather than "insurgents" or Iraqi soldiers? And you could tell by the bullets you extracted from their bodies that they were killed by US soldiers rather than terrorists?

What's that? You are a Canadian CPA and not an Iraqi doctor? Well then, pardon me for saying so, but your opinion on the civilian death toll dosen't mean shit as any figures you give have no measure of reference other than your own preconceptions and biases.

The inference from this should be obvious.

Posted by: Jason at April 5, 2005 6:54 PM

Jason, please don't be a bigger dipshit than you normally are.

Obviously based on my assessment of reading the Lancent study and the critique of it.

Posted by: Adam T at April 5, 2005 7:30 PM

Hey, it was in Ottawa that the RCMP raided a newspaper office and a reporter's home, hauling off computers and notes. This never happened in the U.S. even in the hottest days of Watergate. Canada is becoming like Iran.

Posted by: Polymath at April 5, 2005 7:46 PM
Site
Meter