Skip to main content

What's wrong with this picture?

Like any blog that is trying to establish itself, NWW has been seeking out well placed links, in an effort to get people to come and have a look. That means I've been adding myself to blog rings and directories, among other things. One of the major blog directories in Canada appears to be Blogs Canada. It's a useful site and they did give me the little "thumbs up" symbol when they listed me under What's New. But what is wrong with this picture? You guessed it. Under Politics, they have two categories - Politics General and Politics Right. Why are they separating right leaning blogs from the others? That's ok, but why not call the other category Politics Left? As it is, the directory structure suggests that there are "normal political views" and then there are those, ugh, right wing people. I'm not going to honour the modern Canadian tradition and ask for a CRTC review or anything like that. Blogs Canada can set themselves up however they like. But I wonder if we ought to tell them we think it makes them look mighty partial. How about it? Especially everyone flying under the Red Ensign? Any ideas or opinions? ********* PS. Flea kindly points out that Blogs Canada does have a Politics Left section. The dirty rats. It turns out that their table runs left to right and not top to bottom as I had supposed. D-oh!

Comments

Anonymous said…
I just wrote a follow-up post, followed the Blogs Canada link and... oops! There is a Politics Left section (to the, uhh, left of Politics Right on the list). Perhaps they spotted your post? :)
9/14/2004 08:54:00 pm
Anonymous said…
I forgot to sign myself... Flea!
9/14/2004 08:55:00 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect
Post a Comment
Read more

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you
Post a Comment
Read more

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi
Post a Comment
Read more