I've decided to remove my 8000-word rant about fascism that was briefly featured on my blog.  This was done for a couple of reasons:

• I am not really fascist.  I thought about it and I realize that I am not really fascist.  There are fundamental principles of fascism that I disagree with, namely, the concept of ethnic superiority, and the channelling of the collective conscious towards destructive emotions such as hate.
• I only called myself fascist in order to get attention but I think it might just attract the wrong kind of attention.  Our country supposedly has free speech but you can't say whatever you want if you want to get a security clearance (in order to work for a government job - I don't particularily want to work for the government but it's good work experience and it's the biggest employer in my Metro area) or if you don't want to be placed on a "No-Fly" list.  I don't think what I am saying is radical enough to merit such action but I fear people might misinterpret me or just miss the point.
• Most people would probably miss the point, anyway.  I'll remind y'all anyway.  I defined myself as "fascist" as an act of defiance against the mainstream that will blindly assume that there is absolutely no good in an entire political ideology because of the evils of its past adherants.  This type of narrow-minded ignorance is a result of the same type of conformist thinking that causes people to passively accept the status quo as "the way things are done" rather to think of or propose new, innovative ways of doing things.  Basically, this is a wake-up call to remind y'all to "think outside the box"!  I did.

Don't worry.  I still kept a copy of my rant.  I just decided to no longer have it published on my blog.  Leave a comment or send me an e-mail if you wish to receive  copy in Word or pdf format. 

Keep trucking!

~ Jonas "THE STEAMROLLER" Graham, esq., B.A., U.E.

Nobody TPs my lawn and gets away with it!

Mom tracks tissue suspects with store records, surveillance tape, database

    You go girl!

Try this quiz made from sample questions from Citizenship and Immigration Services:

Could you pass the U.S. citizenship test? - Being an American - MSNBC.com

 

I got 90%!  Boo-yeah!!!!  Land of the free and home of the brave: here I come!

The Fourth is coming up so I thought this might be of interest:

'Spangled Banner' hard to sing? Naw…

Ahead of July 4, many Americans will be hearing, or even singing, our national anthem. But are they doing it right? Perhaps we should try changing the key, suggests NBC's George Lewis.

CHANGING THE KEY?!!!!!

That would be Unamerican! Any TRUE American that loves America would learn to sing the Star-Spangled banner and sing it WELL! Perhaps it is a little difficult but so is fighting for your country. Y'all owe it to your brave men and women in Afghanistan and Iraq and all those who fought for your freedom throughout your glorious history!

Besides, it's a good way to sort out the best from the rest: i.e. to separate the good singers from that bad ones (for American Idol purposes) and the Patriotic Freedom-loving Americans from the America-hating Terrorists!

Sure, Oh Canada might be easy to sing but that's because we're cowards!

Anyway, I tried it myself and I could sing the American National anthem in a way that would make the founding fathers proud, so it can't be that difficult (or maybe I'm just that good...) Anyway, check out the following videos of 2 beautiful young ladies singing the most beautiful song, beautifully.

ONE

TWO

Now, here are the words:

O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Learn to sing it. Memorize the words (like I did). And sing it well. Anything less... is un-American!

However, Québec is kind of silly for defining itself simply in terms of language. There used to be a lot more to Québec culture than simply the fact that it was French. For one thing, it also used to be Catholic. The fact that many modern Québecois ignore this important aspect of their heritage is just plain sad and makes Québec less special.

But, in any case, the fact is, one can clearly see a distinguishable difference in the language shows that Canada is not an English and French nation. It is an English nation plus Québec. Seriously, the fact that Canada defines itself as an English and French nation is a joke to me. Quit mooching of our culture! I think one of the major reasons that Canada is so reluctant to let us go is that without Québec, there is nothing special about Canada. Up to World War II (I think), Canadians didn't really have a national identity. They simply saw themselves as loyal subjects of the British crown living in the colonies (or something like that). As Canada started to get more independance from Britain, they realized that they would have to create some sort of identity for themselves, something that sets them apart from other nations, something that makes Canada special. Today, Canada has solved that by defining itself as a bilingual, multicultural nation. Now without Québec, Canada can no longer claim to be a bilingual nation. It can still claim to be a multicultural nation which gives us an edge over many European countries. But we're not that much more welcoming than our neighbors in the U.S. I say that if Québec were to separate, Canada should open up to immigration even more, since that would be the only thing that still makes them special.

As for Québec, I think people worry to much about separation. If done properly, separation would not affect Canada all that much nor would it devastate Québec. Of course, I don't advocate complete sovereignty. I just advocate a solution that would make both parties happy and allow Québec to carve out its own national identity on the world stage without significantly harming Québec residents and without compromising peace and stability. Here's a few ideas about how I would go about accomplishing this:

• First of all, Québec would have to come up with a plan like this before asking Québecers to vote for separation. Feel free to use my plan, if y'all wish. Otherwise, there's no telling what there going to do. I think I would be more likely to vote "Oui" in a referendum if I knew exactly what I'm saying "Oui" to! Of course, Canada might ask Québec to make concessions with regards to its original plan. Once they reach an agreement, Québecers would vote again as to whether or not they accept. Sort of like labour negociations. Also, Québec should take its time. There is no sense rushing this. Québec has been part of confederation for almost 140 years. There is no need to rush and de-stabilize everything. Québec should allow transition time so everyone can adjust to the new situation and set everything up properly and work out the kinks.
• Québec would be recognised by Canada as a distinct "nation". Québec would have its own seat in the U.N. general assembly and various subcommitees. Québec would set its own policies with regards to diplomacy and stuff. However, Québec would NOT have its own military. The Canadian military would defend Québec. Québec citizens would be allowed to participate in the Canadian army but not subject to conscription unless Québec or a province or territory bordering Québec (Ontario, Nunavut, Newfoundland and Labrador or New Brunswick) gets attacked. Québec would also not be able to participate in the UN security council.
• Québec would also set its own policies with regards to national trade. However, it would have to agree to absolute free trade with Canada. Québec would not be able to impose any law which restricts or impedes free, open trade with Canada. Québec would also be a member of NAFTA and use the Canadian Dollar.
• Likewise, Québec would also have to allow free movement of people between Québec and Canada. There would be no customs, just like in Europe. However, police on both sides could set up occasional, temporary roadblocks to crack down on certain things that are crimes in that country but not in the other. For example, if Québec were to legalize marijuana but not Canada, Canada could occasionally set up roadblocks near the border looking for people coming in with weed. Canadian citizens would be able to become permanent residents of Québec (and vice-versa) and they would automatically have the right to work there. They would also be able to receive services from the government of Québec (like health care and education) according to the same terms as before separation (one must spend 183 days in Québec, methinks). Portability of health care (for example, the ability for Québec residents to see an Ontarian doctor and vice -versa) would have to be negociated between Québec and the individual provinces in question, it would not be imposed on Québec by the Canada Health Act.
• Since French is an integral part of Québec's culture, Québec may require a French-language test for immigrants in order to obtain citizenship and thus, voting rights. This requirement would be waived for people (including Anglophones) born in Québec at any time or registered as official residents of Québec or who have parents registered as official residents of Québec at the time of separation. If Québec choses to require such a test, it would be required of all immigrants who wish to become Citizens even if they come from a French-speaking country. One should treat all applicants equally. This test may not be too difficult as the Supreme Court of Canada would be able to invalidate it if it is seen as unfairly discriminating against people who speak French as a second language. The fact that applicants from French-speaking countries would also have to write the test would also discourage Québec from making the test too difficult because if they make it too difficult, even these people would not be able to pass.
• Canada might also chose to require an English language test. I would reccomend against it, though. Canada defining itself as an English nation does not make it special and this serves as a barrier to the multi-cultural immigration that Canada craves. Canada should be like the U.S. and simply not have an official language (although they can leave this up to the provinces) and if the majority of Canadians ends up speaking Mandarin, well, so be it... Canada should speak the language of its people - NOT the other way around. Québec would handle its own immigration policy, although there would be no sense in being any more strict than Canada since one could always just immigrate to Canada and then move to Québec.
• Québec students would also be required to learn English as a second language and pass a test designed by the government of Canada. I don't think a separate Québec would stop requiring its students to learn English as a Second Language, but if it did, this could be seen as Québec trying to impede free trade with Canada.
• Québec would have to allow infrastructure (such as roads, wires, pipelines, etc.) connecting provinces to its east with provinces and territories to its west. If Québec also uses this infrastructure, it would contribute towards its cost at an amount agreed upon by both parties.
• Québec would only have to provide services to its citizens in French although it may chose to provide some services in English the way Ontario choses to provide some services in French. However, there is no point in having English schools in Québec.
• Canadian parliamentary debate would be conducted in whatever language MPs or Senators want to speak in, there would be no translation. Québec would have no MPs or Senators in Canada's parliament. Québec Citizens would elect 3 delegates who would represent them in parliament. They would have no voting right except in matters concerning Québec in which case they would have voting power in proportion to Québec's share of the combined population of Québec and Canada and each delegate's share of this voting bloc would be in proportion to the votes they received. Votes for other candidates would be redistributed equally among them. For example, if Candidate A receives 45% of the vote, Candidate B receives 30%, Candidate C receives 20% and all other candidates receive 5% between them and Québec's population is equal to one quarter of the combined population of Québec and Canada and there are 240 Canadian MPs, Candidate A would hold 28 votes, Candidate B would hold 19 votes and candidate C would hold 13 votes out of 300 in Canadian parliament when it comes to matters concerning Québec.
• Québec would have to abide by a Charter of Rights that is approved by the Government of Canada. It doesn't have to be the Canadian Charter of Rights. The current Québec Charter of Rights is fine. They would just have to abide by it. Laws can be challenged on the basis of violating the Québec Charter of Rights in front of the Supreme Court of Canada.
• There would be a dispute resolution process for dealing with disputes between Québec and Canada. There would be an arbitration board consisting of members from Québec, Canada and other neutral parties such as the UK, the UN and the US.
• Québec would remain loyal to the British crown as long as the British Crown requires it. The british crown would appoint a "governor" of Québec who would be required to speak English and French.
• Other provinces would be able to have varying degrees of freedom anywhere between the freedom they currently enjoy and the freedom that Québec would enjoy if the government of Canada, the government of the province and the people of the province accept.
• Major changes to Québec's constitution would have to be approved by the government of Canada. Minor changes such as switching to a proportional voting system, electing a president and stuff would not.
• Québec would not be allowed to seriously persecute its own citizens (including les maudits Anglais!). For example, it can require businesses to operate in French and not provide services to citizens in English but it can't fine or jail people for speaking English in public. It also cannot persecute people for showing patriotism to Canada since it still would be part of a "Canadian federation".
• Québec would honour Canadian intellectual property, return Canadian convicts back to Canada, etc. (and vice-versa).
• Québec citizens would be able to work for the government of Canada and vice-versa.
• Québec would pay Canada for shared services according to a formula agreed upon by both parties. For example, if it was 50% in proportion to Québec's population and 50% in proportion to Québec's economy, and Québec had a quarter of Canada's population and 20% of its GDP, Québec would be responsable for 22,5% of Canada's defense budget.
• Other than that, Québec would decide everything for itself.

VIVE LE QUÉBEC LIBRE!

TAMPA, Fla. - A federal judge, miffed at the inability of opposing attorneys to agree on even the slightest details of a lawsuit, ordered them to settle their latest dispute with a game of “rock, paper, scissors.”

Judge orders 'rock, paper, scissors' - Peculiar Postings - MSNBC.com

MDR!

• Bloc: I don't know.  I don't believe in sovereignty as much as I used to.  Especially since in the short-term it will have negative economic effects and I don't want my parents to suffer.  Plus, 'twas a bloc MP who introduced the Euthanasia bill.  "Here's a parting gift Canada: go kill yourselves!"  Furthermore the combination of nationalism and socialism disturbs me.  And I don't trust Quebec nationalists who study at Canada's University!
  
• Conservatives: I consider myself a 'small c' conservative but the conservative party with its narrow-thinking has really disappointed me.  They are now pro-choice (in order to appeal to moderates I suppose) and they are against marijuana legalization even after right-wing think tanks show that it would be a good idea.  They've really sold out.  But I'm not going to go on and on about how the conservatives have disappointed me because I already did.  See my last post.
• Greens.  I believe in sustainable development and stuff but to revolve practically everything around the environment is kinda ridiculous.  Other parties have policies designed to protect the environment too as well as many other things.  They do have some good ideas, like the idea that the government should spend  more money preventing illness in the first place by reducing pollution, encouraging healthy eating, active living, etc. rather than just deal with it after people are ill.  Hey.  They might even save money!  Well, I hope the other parties steal this idea.  But I can't vote for the greens cause I believe I shouldn't vote for a minor party unless it really matches my beliefs MUCH better than the other parties.  But alas, for the greens: no.
• Liberals.  They have held on to this riding for 114 years!  And you know what they say: a good Liberal is a good satanist!  My MP is lame.  He never really does anything.  Plus I don't like a lot of Liberal policies like handing out money to business.  I am right wing but shucks!  I think business can take care of itself.  Plus, I'm sick of them being so damn liberal.  Like gay marriage, abortion (they don't restrict it AT ALL - there should at least be some restrictions like in the US and they FORCE all the provinces to fund it by medicare even though healthcare is a provincial responsability and abortion is more of a cosmetic issue anyway), then they say they're going to decriminalize marijuana (a policy I support) but they never get around to it.  They are liberal in all the wrong ways.  Plus, they never stop with their corruption.  The sponsorship scandal wasn't that bad in  my opinion but there's always something with the liberals.  They're always sooo corrupt.  They are soooo arrogant!
• Marxist-leninists.  Hmmmm....   no.
• NDP.  Now I never thought I'd see the day when I'd vote NDP but since I'm disappointed with all the other parties and disappointed with the NDP the least, that's how I'm voting.  Why am I less disappointed with the NDP?  First of all, Jack Layton has plenty of experience and so does my candidate.  Although the NDP is pro-choice, so are all the candidates so that eliminates that disadvantage.  Plus, my mother pointed out that as the health care system is strapped for cash, there might be increasing pressure to reccomend that a pregnant woman should have an abortion rather than deliver her baby, since it is cheaper.  So, the NDP by investing more in health care might reduce abortions!  Plus, with more money invested in health care, more lives can be saved.  Also, the NDP wants to make a light rail system going from west-gatineau to ottawa.  As a regular user of mass transit, I strongly support this idea.  I think public transpo is the way to go for the future.  I also like how the NDP supports helping people out.  We need to take care of the poor, in Canada and abroad and take care of families as they desperately need help and I get the impression that the liberals couldn't care less about families.  And their public daycare plan would not benefit us as we already have that in Quebec.  Furthermore, the NDP is in favour of legalizing marijuana and Jack Layton has an awesome moustache!

I hate China. But before y'all start thinking of me as a major bigot, I have to point out that I like Chinese people. Chinese guys are some of the friendliest people I know and Chinese girls are sooooooo hot! But I have a problem with the PRC.

The PRC has been in the news quite a bit recently including threatening Taiwan to cry uncle despite the fact that Taiwan is a free country with ethnically the same people as China but DOUDLE the GDP per cap, which is rather evenly distributed, despite Taiwan being capitalist! And what does China have to gain by taking full control over taiwan except for knowing they've made 20 million more people miserable?!

Also there is animosity between them and Japan. Apparently, a new history textbook for Japanese students "glossed over" the abuses the Japanese did to the Chinese during WW2. Perhaps Japan is wrong but what about the abuses that the PRC has commited (Such as Mao's massacre known as the "great leap forward" and continues to commit till this day and Chinese textbooks and other propaganda "Glossing over it". Apparently China is using this as a political game to get sympathy from the international community in order to exert pressure on Japan to withdrawl forces from Taiwan and stuff... Who would of thunk it? But Japan has re-made itself into a peaceful country and it has even gotten over the US A-bombing it 50 years ago... So, China: get over it and don't judge lest ye be oh so judged!

The PRC was established as a communist country by Mao Tse-Tung, who our parent's generation (esp. Canadians) tend to sympathize with. This may explain part of the reason our joke of a country. Today, it has abandoned most of its former Marxist ideology, so now it is really capitalist in a way. But it keeps the worst of both worlds by combining capitalism with the evil repression typical of communist countries. Clearly, China has moved into a new stage but its not the compulsion-free utopia that Marx had envisioned! Nor is it a free society like ours!

China practises the death penalty A LOT. I read an article about a year ago about how the PRC was celebrating UN International Anti-Drug day by executing hundreds of drug-dealers some of them just small-timers. Executing them! UN spokespeople were just like "Uhhh... This isn't exactly what we had in mind..." It also sometimes enforces its "one child" policy thru compulsory abortion and infanticide (although this not officially but they have quotas and doctors are put under so much pressure to enforce them... so, you know...) So, China is litteraly PRO-DEATH.

Also, China represses political dissent and censors the media (Including the internet). In fact, I am privilidge to have the right to write this in my blog. In the PRC, I prolly wouldn't be able to write this and they would spy on me and possibly track me down and arrest me, as opposed to here where people criticise our government all the time. Even the Far East Economic Review which is kinda like the Economist for Asia but focused mainly on Business is only available in the SARs (Hong Kong and maybe Macao) but not in the rest of the PRC. Police arbitrarily crack down on free speach. For example, you could say something one week and get away with it, and then think its cool so you keep on saying things along that line until you get arrested for it. "But I thought we were cool homie" "We are not homies." You see, it's risky. It's hard to tell whether you are inside the lines or not.

For example, Falun Gong was accepted for years (people in the party even praised it for being a good way for staying fit or something) until they stopped accepting it and arrested people who practised it. I think it was because some people used it in a peaceful protest. I'd like to compare this to a social movement that I'm rather familiar with. The pro-life movement is a rebelious force that goes against the status quo and sometimes it has certain events such as 'hike for life' and 'bowl for life' where people, respectively, go hiking and bowling in order to raise money and support for the movement. Imagine if the government banned hiking and bowling... That is how ridiculous it is. And lest we forget Tianamen Square.

Plus, they need to have permission to move, to travel, etc. And it doesn't really have much in terms of democracy and the mockeries of elections they do have are limited to selecting between the Communist Party and 8 other parties approved by the Communist party.

Oh, and you might think that the anti-Japan protests are a sign that China is allowing civil liberties but this is such a front. The chinese allow protests as long as they are in line with the evil goals of the party. For example, it's really the government of China thats against Japan but they are making an exception to their usual policy of repressing protest in order to make a point. This would be like Canada repressing every-other protest except anti-Bush ones. This would not send the message that Canada is a free country that allows these types of protests, just that Canada is anti-Bush. In this case, the people are just pawns in China's game, pawns who have a propagandized view about Japan (I bet Chinese texts exagerate Japan's war crimes) and who have pent-up anger they need to release on something. Say, this is JUST LIKE the 2 Minutes Hate in 1984! And speaking of 1984, the repression in China is now less of a means and more like an end in itself just like in Oceania. Imagine a boot stomping on a face for all eternity...

I don't know much about property rights in China so I'm not going to say much about it but I think they are still keeping up some of their marxist traditions with regards to that, and intellectual property rights are rarely enforced so brand rip-offs run rampant.

So I have just shown that the PRC is an enemy of life and liberty and to a certain extent property rights and how can you pursue happiness in a society with all these abuses. This clearly demonstrates that China runs against our ideology. They are like a mirror opposite to the self-evident truths that we, as Americans, should value. We should HATE them! But we don't. The west is "putting up" with these day-to-day atrocities in a way that smells strongly of appeasement to me... Except this time, we're not trying to ensure peace in our time, but instead we are doing it to satisfy our greed for all those products made in China that are oh so cheap. Thats right: it's our capitalist greed that fuels an evil communist country.

I'm not saying that capitalism is wrong, but I'm saying it's a system. It's a system of interaction where everyone must play by the rules. For example, don't steal, pay people who work for you, etc. And we are not just capitalist, we are free people. This is our system: we have a free market and a free people and the government plays Robin Hood and steals a bit (OK, perhaps a lot) of our money to use for the collective good. This is the way the free world works and for the most part, it's fair and it works! And just like any fair game of Monopoly, we should exclude people who don't play by the rules!

So, I'm advocating that America, Europe, Japan and the rest of the free world boycott China, at least a little bit, or impose heavy tariffs or something to punish them! I would say we should give them a military slap-in-the-face but the PRC is Nuclear so that's kinda iffy... (wtf? How did we let them get the bomb?!)

By the way, Nostradamus seems to have predicted that during the 2008 Olympics, "something that we thought was dead will live again" or something like that. It's no surprise that the 2008 games will be in Beijing. And I say they will eerily resemble those of Munich 1936 (remember how I said that the policies of the west towards China resemble appeasement). Heed my warning: Be afraid, be VERY afraid...

In conclusion, China: Fuck off!

Congratulations to Ottawa mayor Bob Chiarelli and his city council that
was recently re-elected!

I am, of course, a centrist and I find the policies of Bob Chiarelli,
the mayor of Ottawa, (the federal Capital of Canada, to which my hometown,
Gatineau, is a suburb to), best represent my political leanings.

The city of Ottawa offers many parks with awesome equipment and summer
activities for kids. It encourages art and culture by offering subsidies,
the Bluesfest, the Festivale de la Francophonie, etc. In this age of obesity,
it encourages healthy living by boasting bike paths, sports facilities
(arenas, basketball courts, etc.). It promotes education with an asomely
awesome library network and it encourages business with its marketing
campaigns (isn't it a great time to be part of a great city) and economic
policies (capitalist, of course). It is not officially bilingual but it
offers many services to its francophone population.

It boasts an awesome transportation network: OC Transpo busses conveniently
run everywhere, all the time. The Transitway (a network of long busses,
elaborate bus stations and bus-only highways) is a great inexpensive alternative
to a subway system and the 0-train offers really fast service between
a few key areas of the city.

The 0-Train, one of Chiarelli's best projects, is an especially awesome
idea. Currently, it runs from Bayview (nowhereland) but it goes to Carling,
an awesome area near little Italy and my Church, Confederation heights
(near Billings Bridge shopping centre, government buildings, the Canada
Post HQ, high-tech companies, and a lovely little residential area called
Moonie's Bay), Carleton University (it has over 20 000 students: this
is a major stop) and it ends at Greenboro (South Keys shopping centre:
loads of stores and gateway to the south end). All this is done in less
than 15 minutes, which is amazing timing for public transpo because this
would take at least 10 minutes by car, on a good day. Trains come every
7,5 minutes because, although the 0-train has only one track, it splits
into two at Carleton so the trains can go around each-other. I've taken
the 0-Train a couple of times. It's great, I love it. Bob Chiarelli has
many plans to expand the network and improve the 0-train. My favorites
include expanding the current line north to the Rideau Centre (an awesome
shopping centre, that's right downtown and serves as a gateway to Ottawa
for people coming from Gatineau, like me), extending it south to the Airport.
(imagine going directly by train from the Rideau Centre to the Airport
for a small price), making the trains environment-friendly by running
on electricity, and a huge new east-west line, running all the way from
Orleans to Kanata. Wow! He is also considering making it a two-track system,
but this is not necessary because the trains can just keep going around
each-other like at Carleton. The 0-train serves Gatineau residents like
me because it allows us to got around Ottawa better when we go there.
It has a European fare system: you do not have to show your ticket, when
you board the train but ticket inspectors come every once in a while.
I've never been inspected; they should increase inspections in order to
get more money. It was created without help from the Ontario Provincial
or Federal governments, unlike most other non-bus transpo projects in
Canada. T-ne provincial and federal governments should contribute more
money for future expansions. The O-Train is essential for dealing with
traffic problems due to Ottawa’s amazing growth.

Within 20 years, Ottawa will grow from its current population of 800
000 to over 1,2 Million.

Ottawa, although it is a great city, has had its share of problems.
Certain councilors such as Jan Harder, have said racist comments and a
Neo-Nazi has run for mayor and I condemn this type of attitude, but all
in all, Ottawa is a friendly town. Furthermore, Ottawa has had some crime
problems. This is simply a case of Ottawa needing more cops. The cops
they do have do an awesome job, both serving and protecting. Mayor Chiarelli:
work on this before next election!

Also, last election was almost a close call, and
it showed that Kilrea, who is, very simply, a jerk (not the Neo-Nazi,
though) gave Bob Chiarelli a run for his money. Chiarelli should face
him, head on, and debate him during next election.

Chiarelli is running a deficit to finance his recent projects, just like
any true Keynesian. This did not have to happen. He offered to raise taxes,
but most residents said no. I would have supported a raise in taxes. Ottawa
is doing a great job; it can do an even better job with more money!

In conclusion, keep up the good work, Ottawa!

Although most people were against the municipal fusions imposed by the
government of Québec, I supported it. For example, Montréal just makes sense: One island - one City!

My hometown Gatineau also makes sense. I live in the west-end: the former
city of Aylmer.

People say that we should keep our independent Aylmer identity. What
identity? We were just a suburb of Ottawa before, and we still are now,
but we've banded together with other suburbs in order to get a stronger
voice.

There is development going on everywhere. So? Development is good: more
people, more potential friends, etc. People are too threatened by change.
Who cares about unused woods? It’s really ugly in the winter time
anyway, so we might as well replace it with houses. The Ottawa-Gatineau area is growing by leaps and bounds, We must accept that we are part of it.

I admit that it is not working out very well, but this is not because
of the mergers but because of our incompetent Ducharme administration.
I'm sure that if Bob Chiarelli was our mayor, Gatineau would be just super!

I also concede that Angers, Masson and Buckingham do not belong. They
are too rural and too far away from the downtown. They should separate
from Gatineau and join the MRC des Collines de l'Outaousis.

Some people think that the solution to our disagreements in Gatineau
is decentralization. This is, of course, complete rhetoric. Currently,
we have service centres: one in each former municipality (the former city
halls) where you can get a building permit and such, but you still have
to go downtown to pay a fine. Screw that! We go to Ottawa for business
all the time, anyway, so we can go to Hull easily. I suggest we centralize
further rather than the exact opposite. We should get more police stations
and libraries and such all over Gatineau but administrative services should
simply be centralized. I do agree that it is hard for people in Masson,
Angers and Buckingham to get downtown, but like I said, they should separate.

In conclusion, have faith in Gatineau. It is an awesome suburb.

For More information about Gatineau (Ville.Gatineau.qc.ca)

The “Charte de la Langue Française”, also referred
to as Bill 101, is an initiative designed to promote and protect Québec
language and culture.

It states that signs and advertising in Quebec must be primarily in French,
that people must be able to be served in French, that new immigrant children
must go to French schools and that children whose parents went to school
in French must go to French schools.

It is hated by many English people in Québec. However, I support
this legislation for many reasons.

First of all, Québec is a French "nation" or province
or whatever you like to call it. 80% of the population speaks French.
It should be natural that they should be served in their own language.
If I was an Italian living in Italy, I would certainly like to be served
in Italian and I would accept if the government forced businesses to serve
me in Italian.

This can be extended to signs, etc. French musty be on the sign so French
people can be served and since it is Québec’s official language,
it must not be an afterthought. One language has to come first. They cannot
be equal. For example: French - English. The French comes first. The dominant
language might as well be French.

Furthermore, immigrants should learn the language of the country. Hispanic
Americans do not go to Spanish schools.

As for other children, Québec, if it could, would get everyone
to go to French schools. It is a French state. However, the Canadian charter
of rights prevents this, so people whose parents are English can go to
English schools.

It is not so bad. Vive, le Québec!

I do not support the war on Iraq. Saddam Hussein is a bad man and I congratulate
President Bush for finally capturing him. However, this war cost too much
money, too many lives, both American and Iraqi and it could have been
avoided. President Hussein offered to destroy his weapons of mass destruction
and negotiate peacefully with the USA. He did destroy his Weapons of Mass
Destruction and thus there were none when the Americans came to conquer
Iraq. Moreover, they cannot justify the war even with oil money because
they would have to repair the infrastructure in order to harvest the oil,
meaning they would make very little profit, not nearly enough to cover
the huge cost to American taxpayers.

Everybody did want Saddam captured or killed. He finally was, but very
inefficiently!

I would consider myself as a conservative.  Labels are convenient for grouping sets of opinions together and as a shortcut to defining a person: imagine having to explain your position on every issue if someone axes you where you stand on the political spectrum.  Furthermore, you can meet friends who share your interests by looking for the label that applies to the collection of opinions.  For example, I joined the Young Conservative club at Ottawa U.  Although, some of my best friends are lefties and we've been able to get beyond the fact that we disagree on just about everything but they're awesomely awesome people!  Of course, I'm always right and they're always wrong.  J/K!  :p

However,  conservative that is a label that defines my set of views but it certainly does not dictate what views I have. I.e. I'm conservative cause I believe in certain things, I don't believe in certain things because I'm conservative.

This is one thing that often bugs me about lefties: they often have very similar points of view. They seem to just follow the traditional left-wing dogma although they should evaluate things on a case by case basis not like: "I'm against property rights therefore I'm left wing. I'm left-wing, therefore I'm pro-choice!" Which is kinda retarded cos the pro-choice view requires that women have property rights over their bodies!

I don't agree with every traditional right-wing view either. For example, I am against Marijuana prohibition. George W. would prolly slap my face. Like I said, people should consider things on a case by case basis and THEN see if they're more liberal or conservative.

 I am not necessarily for Bush. I was against the war in Iraq and still am because I knew it would not really help make Iraq "free", I knew there were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and it costed too much money and lives. Basically, it was not worth it!

However, many Canadians seem to ignore the fact that Sen. Kerry voted FOR the war in Iraq and if I remind them of that, their response is generally "well, he was a victim of false information put out by Bush's CIA saying that there were indeed WMD in Iraq." Oh please! Who honestly believed that that was the real reason for the war?! Plus, the fact that he now turns around and acts like he is all against the war! WTF?!! Be consistant, if you change your mind between your term as senator and the Campaign, then how can we trust you not to change your mind between the campaign and your term as senator!

Also, I am against abortion (and yes, I am Catholic). Kerry's hypocrisy here is just outstanding. He can just pretend not to be Catholic for the sake of this campaign but no! Instead he has to provoke every Catholic in the country by reminding people that he is Catholic in the middle of a pro-choice speach. Think! Check! Catholics believe that abortion is the same as murder. So, if someone who is pro-choice says they are Catholic (that is they believe in the doctrines of the Catholic Church) then they are saying to other Catholics that he supports murder and rubbing it in their face! Is he trying to LOSE the Catholic vote?!! There are other issues, even for Catholics so even if he was pro-choice, he could win their vote with other issues but he has to **** them off! Bush passed the partial-birth abortion ban act, the no child left behind act and other bills to help children born and unborn!

Also, sure it may seem that Bush has screwed up with regards to economic and social policy, but how do we know Kerry won't screw up just as bad. He seems to have no clear ideas as to what he will do? What IS your plan, Sen. Kerry?!! Huh?!! What?!!
Well, sometimes he says what he plans to do but then he contradicts himself the next week! There is no way to tell where he stands! He dodges questions about what he will actually do by turning it around and just attacking Bush! But what about YOU, Kerry?!! What about YOU?!!
We do know that Kerry would have also gone to war in Iraq and he would have probably spent more money by making it an environmentally-friendly war or something! Plus, Kerry has a lot of crazy left-wing ideas but they won't really help the poor or anything - they're just stupid! (e.g. He is against free trade and stuff.)

Kerry is not up to the job! He has proved that as senator. For example, Kerry a lefty liberal likes to tell people about increasing funding for Medical care but one time, the senate was voting on THAT issue (By the way, at the U of O, issue is pronounced with a soft S like in snake not the proper way: ish-you) and Sen. Kerry didn't show up! You gotta work on your follow through, there, Johnny boy!

Kerry is no better than Bush! The only thing I don't like about Bush is the war in Iraq! The only thing I don't like about Kerry is umm... EVERYTHING!!!

In conclusion, I am NOT part of the 99% of Canadians for Kerry. Kerry can go **** himself!

It seems nowadays that politics is divided between conservatives and so-called progressives.  Conservatives want things to stay the same, progressives want them to change.  But, both sides seem to hate "reactionaries" who want things to go back to the way they were. 

But, to make a generalized value-judgement on any of these terms is simply fallacious.  You've got to look at the individual opinion regardless of whether that's what they're doing now, what they did in the past or what they haven't done yet. 

For example...

• If you're pro-choice, you're CONSERVATIVE.  This is the status quo in Canada.
• If you're for the legaliztion of marijuana, you're REACTIONARY. It used to be legal.
• If you are for free trade, you're PROGRESSIVE.  This is a relatively new idea and as of yet, its not fully in place!

So, as you can see, things aren't always as they seem and you shouldn't judge an opinion based on whether it's past, present or future but on the merits of the idea itself. 

Of course, when you think about it, this makes it harder to label someone as conservative, progressive or reactionary.  For example, I am pro-life (Reactionary), pro-legalization (Reactionary), I believe in balanced capitalism (conservative) and free trade (progressive).  So, i am a little bit of everything, I guess.  OK, so perhaps a little more reactionary. 

But, do I want things to go back to the "good old days"? No.  There were no times when politics were perfect.  I mean, in the 19th century, marijuana may have been legal but abortion was not yet criminalized and of course, we all know the horrors of the industrial revolution...  Basically, all I can say is that I want some things to go back to the way they were before, some things to stay the same and some things to change.

Maybe by now you're thinking: isn't the usual distinction: liberal vs. conservative.  Yes, kinda.  But "liberal" and "conservative" are not antonyms.  Liberal means that things should be allowed.  Conservative means you want things to stay the same but what if things are to liberal, then you'd want to make things less liberal but you can't call yourself a conservative. 

I mean not EVERYTHING goes.  Take abortion for example, I think that it should be banned.  Thats not liberal  but not conservative either.  So this isn't the right word.  I guess authoritarian  would be a better word, but that's got a bad connotation, but it shouldn't. 

Which brings me to another point.  We should have a "free" society but that doesn't mean that it should be anything goes.  There are still things that are right and wrong.  Now it's difficult to argue ethics because we often feel that something is wrong, we don't know it. 

For example, "killing someone is wrong" but that's not an absolute value because what about war killing in a just war, self-defense killing, etc.  It's not an absolute value.  But even if you limit yourself to saying "Murder is wrong", why are you so sure?  Try to argue that rationally.  "Well.  You're interfering with the person's right to live."  Well, who said that anybody has the right to live? 

Anyway...  My point is that you cannot draw an ought from an is and although there is just one "truth" there are different right and wrongs for different people.  However, this doesn't mean: "Everybody has their own concept of right and wrong and you can't impose your ethics on others."  This is also fallacious because you're saying that there is no universal "right and wrong" but it is universally wrong to impose your ethics on others.  It is self-refuting.  That can't be universally wrong because there is no such thing as universally right or wrong. 

The way I see it: maybe everyone has their own ideas of right and wrong, but if I can, I will impose my view on others.  For example, if you see someone strangling someone else on the street and the person doing it doesn't believe it's wrong, you shouldn't just let him do it!  You believe it's wrong and if you can, you should try to stop him!  And the British in India used to say: "We respect your custom of Sari (burning widows along with their dead husbands) but you've got to respect OUR custom of hanging murderers!"  Well said!

My point is there are things that are seen as wrong to many people, and there's nothing wrong about them electing a government that will prevent people other people from doing these things rather than leaving the choice up to each individual.  So "freedom" isn't ALWAYS a good thing.  You should first ask yourself: Freedom to do what?