Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watdcsu!brewster
From: brewster@watdcsu.UUCP
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Free trade, Canadian culture, $$
Message-ID: <3058@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Feb-87 21:41:22 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.3058
Posted: Wed Feb 25 21:41:22 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Feb-87 02:42:03 EST
References: <191@fornax.uucp> <3047@watdcsu.UUCP> <636@watcgl.UUCP>
Distribution: can
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 91


>From: pptanner@watcgl.UUCP (Peter P. Tanner)

>You miss the whole point of the CBC.  If one has any goal for the
>culture you live in, the education level of the general
>population, their ability to make decisions, both personally for
>themselves and jointly for the nation, you might well want to
>have a television and radio service that presents its programs
>for a reason other than selling toothpaste.  

	This goal for the CBC seems to place it fairly close to being a
	propraganda machine.  Presumably it is responsible for providing the
	ability to make the "right" decisions for the nation, and for
	providing the "real" definition of Canadian culture.  

	The point I was trying to make is that there is no way currently to
	evaluate the performance of the CBC.  How well does it do at providing
	the objectives you mention ?  How do you measure its performance ?

	One common method for evaluating performance is monetarily and in this
	evaluation CBC is a failure.  If you don't like this evaluation then
	feel free to suggest an alternate evaluation method, since I don't
	think anyone proposes we provide 1 billion + every year to a company
	without some sort of minimal guarantee of performance.

>I would gladly pay my share of the CBC subsidy just for their
>radio service.  Its quality is exceptional, and its role of
>informing people is well carried out.  

	But suppose you happen to be in the minority.  Suppose that of all
	Canadian taxpayers only 10,000 support current expenditures by the
	CBC.  If this hypothetical situation were true why should the
	remaining 15,000,000 taxpayers support your habit ?  

>I am sorry that there are those in the country that would rather
>have everything run solely for the purpose of making money.

	Note that I am not among those who think everything should be run for
	the purpose of making money.  I am among those who think that we
	should be very careful about which enterprises we are going to support
	as public institutions.   I think that an institution that has the
	broad and poorly defined goal of "supporting Canadian culture" and
	also sucks up 1 billion per year should be EXAMINED very closely.

	I am also among those who feel that the Canadian standard of living is
	being artificially propped up by deficit financing of public
	institutions.    1986 was a banner year for the Canadian economy,
	they're not going to come much better than that, and yet the deficit
	was still astronomical (>30 billion and higher than predicted).
	I have yet to here anyone, not even the most conservative, kill all
	public institutions, type of politician propose that we can balance our
	budget inside of ten years.  With the current total deficit over 200
	billion and estimates of 500 billion before 2000, we have a big
	problem. (and if thats not an understatement I don't know what is).
	
	Sooner or later this bubble will burst.   And when it does it will
	have been the 60's generation of leaders who led us into the financial
	mess and also enjoyed the benefits of their financial irresponsibility
	(one benefit being CBC radio virtually everywhere, anytime, and often
	in two languages, almost independent of demand).

	I am from the FIRST generation that is going to have to START to pay 
	for this boondoggle, and excuse me for being forward, but if you don't 
	want to pay for your pleasures or at least attempt to run institutions 
	in a responsible manner then I'm going to start to complain;  and
	since its my future income that you are spending now I think I have
	not only the right, but the responsibility to complain fairly loudly.

	Disclaimer : "you" above is the general you and not meant 
	to refer to peter specifically.

>The basis of democracy
>is that the general population has the right to elect its leaders
>who then make decisions as they see fit.  If we do not like the
>set of decisions they make, we throw them out.  Nowhere in our
>system is there the notion that we have any right, as an
>electorate, to make decisions on the individual issues of the
>day.  

	I disagree.  We elect leaders who have the duty to represent the views
	of their constituency in parliament.   We don't have rights to vote on
	the day to day issues before parliament, but our representatives look
	after presenting our views for us.   It is a very dangerous, and also
	a very lazy and irresponsible approach to democracy, to say "ok guys,
	you got five years, go do whatever you want.  I'll look at the results
	in five years and if ya did good you're in again. "

						   Try not  to become  a  man
UUCP  : {decvax|ihnp4}!watmath!watdcsu!brewster    of success but rather  try
Else  : Dave Brewer, (519) 886-6657                to  become a  man of value.
                                                         Albert Einstein