It is fascinating, and somewhat disturbing, to watch ideological zealots drive debates, using disingenuous talking points to initiate, then pass off conversation to more reputable inquiry. Take the debates about the CBC and the tar sands, and you'll find careful manipulation, worthy arguments about transparency and human rights pimped out to provide cover for true motivations. A seed is planted, under dubious rationales, then picked up in a wider sense, by those who's arguments are honest in desires.
Here's the bottom line for me, people like Ezra Levant don't GENUINELY care about human rights in the Middle East, it is only an argument of convenience, when really it's all about hating environmentalists, thinking global warming is a "scam", wanting nothing to interfere with oil extraction. That is the GENESIS, that is the true inspiration, which then finds other arguments to push that agenda. The government then adopts the language, it's a talking point, it provides them philosophical cover. Others then chime in, as there is a legitimate discussion to be had, but the whole conversation is driven, hatched from a disingenuous source.
Conservatives HATE the CBC, that is a fact, that is your starting point. Forget this nonsense about transparency, again this is just an argument of CONVENIENCE to MASK true intent. I suspect part of the CBC's resistance to all the information requests is a simple recognition that the pursues are on a jihad, not some noble pursuit surrounding openness and accountability. Again, however, those who do truly believe in these ideals- myself included for that matter- chime in, giving legitimacy to a thrust which is TRANSPARENT itself.
Should we debate the CBC? Absolutely. Should we discuss the pros and cons of the oil sands, no censoring, full disclosure? Absolutely. That said, what I find troubling "healthy debate" seems to find its origin from highly biased, ideological driven, entirely charlatan in nature sources. The champions of human rights, PLEASE. Just about openness and respect for taxpayers, OH PLEASE. Those with functioning fore brains understand, but what is truly unnerving, how minor noise machines receive disproportionate attention, moving marginal arguments to mainstream discussions.
Last week, both the CBC and CTV had excellent discussions on the CBC, encompassing different points of view, intellectual and productive. I have no problem with this "coverage", however it is revealing that this "debate" only occurs because of the INITIAL onslaught from the outside the mainstream ideologues, they DROVE the debate and brought it to center stage. The same chronology is true of ethical oil. Almost commendable in one sense, how a small cadre of ideologues can bastardize certain legitimate lines of inquiry for their own purpose and in so doing manufacture a truly national discussion. Perhaps it would be easier to digest if I believed for ONE nanosecond that the original proponents actually gave a rats ass about Saudi women or the public's need for transparency. I don't, nor to most outside observers, so that acknowledgement, in and of itself, deserves serious reflection, otherwise we are at the mercy of loud propagandists, astroturfers and disingenuous players.