This Liberal-NDP Coalition is a betrayal. A betrayal to those who voted Liberal because they were too right for the NDP, but too left for the Conservatives. This coalition is essentially a slap in the face for the centrist Canadian.

This is also a slap in the face for the average Canadian, who didn’t vote for a Liberal-NDP coalition, they voted for one or the other not both. This is an attempt to enter 24 Sussex through the backdoor, a move that a majority of Canadians do not want. While most Canadians do want a coalition government, they don’t want Stephane Dion as Prime Minister, nor Jack Layton in Government. Both Jack Layton and Stephane Dion seeked PMship during the election and Canadians shut the door in their faces.

This coalition was not created for the benefit of the Canadian people, but for a few. Nor is it for the sake of the economy. It is essentially a power grab.

If they really wanted to make a change, they would wait for the government to introduce a budget, and include an amendment that includes a stimulus package.

I can only say one thing to these opposition conspirators: Shame.

In a recent economic update, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced that Federal political parties will no longer receive the $2 per vote funding. While this seems to be a tactic to weaken the opposition parties, and it may be, it is a responsible fiscal action by the Conservative Government. Yes, the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc could complain that it is a so call trampling on democracy, but I say, why should my hard earned tax dollars go to parties I don’t support? Clearly, it shouldn’t.

If political parties need the money, then they should go to their grassroots, to their supporters, and to corporations that share their ideals and ask them for money. Simple as that. If the Government is brought down and even if there is no election, it would still cost the taxpayers for the change in “management”. I say that we keep this government alive until 2012 when their term expires or before that if the economy recuperates.

The 2008 “sprint” for the Presidency in the United States has begun. Well kind of… The only major candidate that hasn’t been officially nominated yet is Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Anyways, the question on everyone’s mind is: Will Obama or will McCain win the election?

In my opinion, John McCain will win.

The main rationale for my choice is not due to my membership in the Ontario PC Party, or the fact that I support the federal Conservatives. Instead, my choice is based on a few things that I have seen from the McCain Campaign and from John McCain himself.

If you have been following McCain’s recent political career, he has been normally perceived as an underdog, the one not favoured to win. And yet, he often overcomes the odds. Exemples of such is the 2008 Republican Primary season. McCain actually started out at the bottom and his campaign was seen as “dead in the water” early on in the race to become the Republican Nominee. Now look where he is now: the Presumptive Nominee of the Republican Party for the President of the United States.

The style in which McCain speaks to the people is also a factor in why if I could vote in an American election I would vote for him.

McCain, although a bit slow compared to Obama, is good at giving straight forward and concise answers and statements, when taking about his positions, his policies, and his platform. He also knows how to connect with the people through his stories and his experiences. This was shown during his conversation with Pastor Rick Warren on the Saddleback Civil Forum.

McCain has also proved himself to be a leader in bi-partisan political collaboration. He has worked with many Democrat/Independent Democrat-caucusing senators on different legislations throughout his senate career, and has sometimes vote against party lines. As a result, he is known to have an “Independent-streak” and nicknamed by others as the “Maverick Republican Senator from Arizona”.

The leadership in bi-partisan political collaboration will allow a McCain Administration to be an effective presidency.

Another factor in why I made my choice and why McCain will win is due to the fact that he chose Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate.

So who is Gov. Sarah Palin? And how is she going to help McCain win the presidency:

1. She is a woman (obviously). A brillant tactic by McCain, in an attampt to woo any anti-Obama Hillary Dems out there. (Last I heard it was somewhere between 15% to 25% of the dems, I could be wrong on the figures though).
2. In Alaska (according to CTV, and possibly McCain), Palin is known as a corruption fighter, and known to stand up to powerful oil interests. This will give the message that a McCain Administration will clean up the corruption in Government and that his decisions will not influenced by big oil companies such as ExxonMobile.
3. In Alaska, she has an 80% approval rating.

And that is why, I predict that McCain will win the 2008 United States Presidential Election.

The Toronto City Council voted on July 14, 2008 to approve an environmental assessment in regards to a proposal to take down a part of the Gardiner Expressway, from the Don Valley Parkway to Jarvis.

Any proposal to take down the Gardiner Expressway is a bad and stupid idea.

What the mayor and the anti-Gardiner councillors doesn’t realize is that we are built as an auto city. As a North American city, it was expected that each city across this continent become an auto city.

I understand why the mayor and several councillors wish for this city to become a “Transit City” and why they wish to promote alternative modes of transportation, however, the massive and quick changes proposed by this group of people will hurt the city economically and environmentally.

Why would taking down the Gardiner hurt the city?

By taking down the section between the DVP and Jarvis, they are essentially removing the busiest part of the entire expressway. On a average workday (i.e. the weekdays), thousands upon thousands of vehicles are travelling on the Gardiner. During rush hour, traffic jams are a “natural” occurrence. This goes for the same section on Lakeshore Blvd, which is essentially the same road, but runs directly underneath the elevated expressway. Now wonder if both traffics are combined. The magnitude of such a traffic jam would be great, and vehicles would be stuck there longer than if both the Gardiner and Lakeshore were operational. The longer vehicles are suck in one place, the more idling there will be, and the more pollution and greenhouse gases there will be. As such, this will hurt the environment and reduce the air quality in Toronto and cause more smog.

Businesses, small and large, in the downtown area will also lose out if the Gardiner is taken down. As stated before, it would take people longer to get to work due to the possible and most probable massive traffic congestion. This will result in a later start in the work day, and as most offices close at 4-5, a short work day, and therefore, a loss in revenue. As such, removing the Gardiner will hurt the City’s economy.

Just this Saturday, my uncle and I watched the Saddleback Church forum on CNN, where Pastor Rick Warren, pastor of Saadleback Church in California, asked questions to the two presumtive Presidential nominees from the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

It was an interesting tv program as never in my life, have I seen a Church (and not a parachurch organization or a non-Church Christian organization) become so involved in politics, and on National Television (as in American National TV) as well.

It was also interesting as the questions asked weren’t those usually asked (both Obama and McCain were asked the same questions), i.e. “what’s your favourite sermon?” or “what was your favorite sunday school lesson?”, but “what is your greatest moral failure?”, “what is your position on/definition of marriage”, “what does your faith mean to you?”, or other questions about policies and other positions that they might have.

Watching this program, I was suprised as this wasn’t the usual preverted American political program where the moderator would be lobsided, completely bias, and just full of bs, but the style of questions and discussion was very close (with exception of the large audience) to how Steve Paiken hosts his show: unbiased, neutral, helpful commentary, questions and discussion.

Overall, I was very pleased how the program played out.

Now, to put the spotlight on the Candidates:

I found that Obama was here and there while he was answering questions from Rick Warren, but didn’t really connect with or focus on the audience, either in the Church auditorium or for those watching on television.

He was being his usual self: a very good orator, confident, and has good ideas.

Now, John McCain on the other hand, was being really straight forward, and the fact that he told stories, stories about his past, stories about his ordeal in Vietnam during his captivity, it help him connect with the people. As well, he focus more on and addressed the audience when the questions were being asked by Rick Warren, as opposed to Obama focusing on Warren.

In my opinion, although Obama did well and he did get his message across, McCain certainly “won” in the sense that he connected with the people and focused his attention on them.

And that was the key, in who came out of this forum as the better candidate.

(note: each candidate was asked the same set of Questions but Obama was “interviewed” first and McCain came on the stage as Obama was leaving)

If someone were to ask me if Canada and the United States should become one country, my answer would be “No”.

In my opinion, the idea of a North American Union is ill advised, and will not work. As well, such a union will be at our disadvantage.

A non-profit organization called “United North America” (definitely an American organization or a bunch of “Yankee-lovin’” Canadians – no offence) is “dedicated to the democratic unification of Canada and the United States of America into one nation, under the protections, freedoms and privileges of the United States Constitution.“

In my opinion, Canadians don’t need the “protections, freedoms, and privileges of the United States Constitution” and we definitely don’t need the so called “democratic unification” with the United States.

The four points that “United North America” uses in their arguments for a union between Canada and the United States (or as they put it in their website header: uniting our continent democratically by helping Canada’s provinces join the U.S.A) are:

1. Economics
2. Defense
3. Politics
4. History and Culture

Economics

If the economies of Canada and the United States were to combined into one economy, that economy would be the largest in the world. That is one of the arguments made by “United North America“. Although that may sound good, in the long run, it will be disastrous for the Canadian economy.

The United States national debt is over 9 trillion dollars (and growing), while the Canadian national debt is only 500 million dollars (and it’s going down each year). The Americans have made little to no attempt to pay down their debt, while the Federal Governments in Ottawa have been making regular payments to pay off the debt. If Canada were to form a union with the United States, wouldn’t we be also liable for 9 trillion dollars? Of course we would be! This amount of debt is unsustainable and is completely irresponsible on the part of the US Administrations past and present. The massive amount of debt will be one of the factors in the downfall and probably collapse of the American economy.

Even if a combined economy would be the largest in the world, the current situation with the American economy is not that great. Due to decisions that resulted in short term prosperity, the long term effect of those decisions are causing problems for the American people, such as job losses, lower USD value, and the rising prices of goods and services (i.e. stagflation)

“United North America” also makes the claim that tax cuts and lowing trade restrictions would increase the revenue of the Governments both here and across the border. As a Progressive Conservative, I agree that tax cuts are a good thing and that it would encourage people to spend money, thereby increasing Government revenue. However, tax cuts and lower trade restrictions are not always the key to economic success and increased Government revenue. There always needs to be a mix of tax cuts and increases to allow for Government spending on many of our essential programs and policies.

If one closely looks at the arguments that “United North America” make, one would be able to understand that the points made by “United North America” are only half the truth.

National Defence

“United North America” states that “North American air, space and sea are already under the aegis of NORAD, a permanent agreement binding the security of Canada and the United States together domestically“. Although that is true and that both countries do co-operate militarily on different levels and in different organizations, the Canadian military will never be integrated into any other force. Recent history shows that the Canadian Military, as well as the Canadian people, have worked hard to create a separate identity from Britain, and we would continue to maintain a separate identity from that of the United States. The actions and the policies of the Canadian Government have shown time and time again that we will not take orders from the United States. The Vietnam War and the Iraq War are both examples of where the Canadian Government has refused to send an expeditionary force and fight. The wars that Canadians have often chosen to fight in are situations where the need for liberation, peace, and/or order is required, or essential and urgent: The First and Second World Wars (Germans were the aggressors on the Western Front and Canada chose to fight to liberate those countries that were under the occupation of the German military); the Korean War (North Korea pursued an aggressive offensive against South Korea and plus it was a UN approve mission); the Persian Gulf War (Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait); and the War in Afghanistan (essential fulfilling our commitment as set out by Article 5 of the NATO Charter in response to 9/11, as well as helping the Afghan people with education, health care, and security).

A major reason why we do not need such a large military is because we haven’t pissed off anyone like the United States has. Canada has tended to straddle along the middle line in international affairs playing both the ally and the counter balance to the United States.

Politics

Westminster or Presidential-Congressional? Take your pick.

For myself, I would choose Westminster over Presidential-Congressional system any day.

When comparing the Canadian Cabinet with the American Cabinet, one can see that most of the members of the Canadian Cabinet are legislators and all, with exception of the senators (which is like one or two out of 20 to 30 cabinet members), are elected. Every member of the US Cabinet, with exception of the President and the Vice, are appointed. As a result, Canadians have more say in day-to-day affairs than the average American will ever have.

“United North America” makes the claim that Canada was “helpless” during the softwood lumber dispute. That claim is laughable as clearly Canada always came out of a fight with a deal in our favour. (i.e. the 5 billion dollars worth of tariffs was returned by the United States Government to Canadians)

“United North America” miscalculates how much the Canadian Monarchy actually plays in our politics and assumes that we would just accept republicanism just like that. The Monarchy is vital and well integrated part of our political system, as all legislation, law enforcement, diplomacy is carried out in the name of the Canada Monarchy.

In the end, we absolute don’t need a political union with the United States and we certainly don’t need to send Canadian congressmen to Washington DC.

History and Culture

Our history is not the same as the United States. We might shared some areas, but that is not the same as a “…shared history and culture…”.

Canada’s history begins with Cartier, Champlain, la Nouvelle France and our first nations. US History begins with the Puritans and the Mayflower.

The method in which each country became independent of Britain was also different. The United States gained their independence through warfare and bloodshed, while in Canada, we gain our independence through peace, negotiation, and loyalty to the Monarchy.

Canada is de jure bilingual with French and English as our official languages, while the US has no official language but English acts as one.

Our respective societies and our respective methods of dealing with the different ethnic cultures are different: The United State’s immigration attitude is often described as a “melting pot” while Canada is often described as a “mosaic”.

In my opinion, “United North America” is essentially pushing an old idea and an old ideology: Manifest Destiny. It is essentially another word for U.S. expansionism: The idea that the United States is destined to control all of North America. Well, understand this: We will never accept a union with the United States.

So, if you’re an Ontarian, you’d probably already feeling the effects of the downwards economic situation. There are two reason why Ontario is in such a hole: our reliance on the auto industries and oil products as our main form of energy.

The auto industry had once been the bread and butter of this province with the
signing of the Auto pact during the 60s. With the Auto Pact, Ontario began its dependence on building auto, parts, and other auto related products.

Like most North Americans, we believe that oil will be here forever, that we could sustain it for generations upon generations upon generations. And so, we do the most obvious thing: we focus our auto industry on pickup trucks, suvs, and those mega things we call Hummers. What we don’t or haven’t realized is that, even if we have a lot, the oil supply is strained. “Why?” someone might ask.

Well, there is only one reason: the Iraq War. Every time the big slumbering elephant to the south goes to war, materials essential to our economy begin to go to building up their armed forces to fight a costly and wasteful conflict.

If you look at it, when did oil prices go up? Right after the Americans decided to attack Iraq, and oust Saddam.

This goes the same for metals such as copper which is essential for both American ammunition/munition and the wires in homes and other buildings.

Guess who has the priority to use both materials? That’s right: The American armed forces.

Last time they had dibs on the copper was during the Vietnam War. That’s approximately the same time Government building codes to allow “aluminum wiring”. Aluminum, although is the next in line after copper as the most conductive metal, sucks when it comes to wiring and causes many problems in the long run as it oxidizes when the wires become loose (and they become loose pretty quickly)…

Anyways, back to the car/oil thing…

The problem with North America is that many North Americans cannot or don’t want to realize that the economies across the continent are showing signs of stagflation (Inflation accompanied by stagnant growth, unemployment and/or recession.). People aren’t buying pickup trucks, SUVs, and the Hummer due to rising oil prices and the fact that unemployment is going up. Even Euro and Asian car companies with their smaller vehicles (i.e. compacts) aren’t selling that well.

Looking in the same direction, unions and their members just aren’t getting it. For instance, the recent strike due to the closure of the GM Truck plant in Oshawa. Those people want it open. So does everyone else. However the reality is that GM is doing the right thing by closing that plant as clearly the gas guzzling part of the auto industry is not only bleeding consumers’ wallets to death, but also killing the companies that made them. If GM continues to make trucks, not only will those who make trucks will lose their jobs, but also those who work on other types of vehicles.

That’s why I don’t understand why McGuinty and his Ontario Liberal government would be investing in the
auto industry when clearly it is dying.

And what’s up with the “training programs”? What, train them for jobs to work in provinces like Alberta, Nova Scotia, or even Newfoundland? Like, come on.

Seriously, we have become a have-not province, and McGuinty is letting Ontario bleed to death. If this continues, sooner or later Windsor and Oshawa are going to be the next Flint, Michigan.

This is why at the next elections in October 2011, Ontario should dump McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals and elect John Tory and the Ontario Progressive Conservatives as the next Government of Ontario.

This past year, the world has been watching the People’s Republic of China as the 2008 Beijing Olympics are approaching. As this is the case, certain people around the world have attempted to “bring to light” the People’s Republic of China’s alleged “horrible” human rights record to the World. One particular issue that comes to mind is the recent uprising in Tibet and the surrounding provinces of Qinghai, Sichuan, and Gansu.

Although both the Tibet government-in-exile and the Government of the People’s Republic of China have both made claims, no one outside that particular region of China knows what exactly has taken place there. This is due to the fact that the PRC Government has decided to maintain its traditional policy of censorship and to ensure that all foreign journalists are kept out of the volatile area.

As the 2008 Beijing Olympics approach, certain people have decided to demonstrate either for or against the 2008 Beijing Olympic and/or the fact that Tibet is part of the People’s Republic of China (or as some people POVs would state, occupied by the People Liberation Army).

Over the last month or so, I’ve been watching “news reports” from different sources in the Western World (BBC, CBC, CNN, CTV, GlobalTV, The Toronto Star, The Globe and Mail, The National Post, The Guardian (UK), etc.) and all I can really say is that their reports are extremely biased against the People’s Republic of China. Our Governments here in the West are biased. Our Media is biased. The whole damn population is biased. Lopsided. Unbalanced.

Although I usually trust the media, that I’ve mentioned above, to attempt to maintain a non-biased view and diction in their news reports, in this case, the Western Media has NOT maintain that non-biased view and has NOT maintain that non-biased diction that they are expected, to a degree, obligated to use.

The problem with the Western World is that we always believe that we are the greatest, the superior, the almighty. As a result, our views of the interaction between different cultures, different peoples, and different states is biased, lopsided, and is a POV that has been created out of ignorance and the lack of understanding of the situation in a political and historical context.

Speaking of the Western World belief that we are the most “civilized, superior” culture, look at the picture below. This is a photo of a Tibetan supporter, right, arguing with a Chinese supporter at a rally for the PRC’s Olympic torch at the Ferry Plaza in San Francisco on April 9:

Who looks more “civilized“? Who? Is it the the person of the “Western World” on the right who supports the Tibet Independence? Or is the person on the left who supports the PRC?

That is for you to decide.

A major headline or phrase that has been repeated in the Western Media is “Military Crackdowns in Tibet“. Let me ask you:

Is the People Liberation Army in Tibet?

Yes.

Is this any different than a possible United States military presence in Hawaii, in Porto Rico, or in Alaska? Is this any different than a United Kingdom military presence in Scotland, Wales, or Northern Ireland?

No.

Is the PLA conducting any possible crackdowns in Tibet?

No.

Then who is dealing with the uprising and the rioters in Tibet? Guess?

The obvious answer is the Police. Images that had been released and that were coming from the region clearly showed that it was not the military that dealt with the rioters, and the protesters. The Government officers were clearly people who wore riot gear and marked with the words “POLICE”.

This is no different than when police in the Western World deals with riots and protests.

And what right does the people, the Governments, and the media of the Western World have to say that another culture’s and another state’s definition of what Human Rights is wrong? Or how one state or culture uses its definition to create its policies? None at all. As outsiders, we do not have that right. Unless we are citizens of that state, unless we are immersed in and have thoroughly analyzed and studied the socio-political culture of that state and unless we understand the history of that state and its predecessors, we have absolutely no right to state that they are wrong and that they have a “horrible” Human Rights record because our definition of what Human Rights are differs from those of other parts of the World.

The People of Taiwan and the surrounding islands have spoken.

On March 22, the Kuomintang of China fully regained power of the Republic of China government after 8 years of mismanagement and scandals under President Chen Shui-bian and his Democratic Progressive Party.

Under A-bian, as Chen’s supporter call him, Taiwan has lost its status as an economic power in the Pacific Rim. His presidency only focused on pissing off the Beijing government and not the economic problems that Taiwan has had since his rise as President of the Republic of China and the rise of the economy and markets of the People’s Republic of China.

With the election of President-elect Ma Ying-jeou and his running mate, Vice President-elect Vincent Siew, the Government will be an effective one as the Kuomintang now hold both the Legislative Yuan (Taiwan’s legislative body) and the Presidency.With a majority of 85 seats of 113, Ma Ying-jeou will be able to pass the reforms and laws he had promised during his campaign; focusing on the recovery of the island’s once vibrant economy.

As a result of this election, the people of the Taiwan strait, as well as the entire East Asian region, will sleep better tonight knowing that Beijing is happy and the threat of a People’s Liberation Army strike is now improbable with the Kuomintang back in the Captain’s seat.

As a full time undergraduate student at the University of Toronto, I am automatically a member of the U.T.S.U. (University of Toronto Students’ Union). As such, I receive emails and notices concerning issues, events, and of course, protests (even if they are organized by other student groups).

I received an email a week ago from my college’s student council informing students of a protest organized by a student group called AlwaysQuestion. This demonstration that AlwaysQuestion was organizing was to protest, as they alleged, a proposed increase of the residence fee by 20% at New College, which would be about an increase of at least $1000.

As a commuter, naturally, one could assume that this is not a issue for me as I do not live on residence and therefore the increase of the residence fee does not affect myself or my finances. However, as a student of the University of Toronto, the issues of my fellow students are to a certain extent my issues. I am always intrigued about different political socio-economic issues at the University and across Toronto and Ontario.

Anyways, I received an email in the evening of the 19th of March informing me that the protest was going to be held tomorrow afternoon.

I assumed that this protest was going to be a legal, peaceful demonstration just outside New College and outside Simcoe Hall. Man…was I wrong….

At 4:08pm on the 20th, I received an email stating this:

Hello Everyone,

I am writing this memo to inform you that we (the students) have occupied Simcoe Hall and refuse to leave until our demands are met.

our demands are as following:

1. immediate meeting with david naylor

2. removal of the motion to increase the new college residence fees be completely removed from the agenda

3. 15 minutes presentation at the UAB meeting on Tuesday March 25th. Here we will be presenting on the injustices of tuition fees ad the necessity of a fully accessible education

Sisters ad Brothers we need your support and solidarity as this increase will greatly hinder students access to affordable housing and will inevitably create a barrier preventing many individuals from accessing higher education.

What this meant was that this group was now was clearly illegal. New College Student Council President sent an email at 5:18pm withdrawing support from the activist group AlwaysQuestion and previous knowledge of their actions:

Dear New College:

Today at 1:00 pm EST, the activist group AlwaysQuestion staged a protest march at the University of Toronto to raise awareness about an increase in residence fees for New College students. As the AlwaysQuestion organizers kicked off their speech, the focal point of the rally changed dramatically from protesting the fee increase to other un-related issues.

In February, AlwaysQuestion approached the New College Student Council (NCSC) to seek an endorsement for their cause. Council voted in favour of a motion to support AlwaysQuestion’s campaign in which this increase in residence fees would set a precedent. It was for this reason and this reason only that NCSC supported this march. At no time did AlwaysQuestion indicate that the rally would include a sit-in at Simcoe Hall and make other demands that are un-related to the New College student community. In no way, form or fashion did AlwaysQuestion elicit NCSC endorsement for any other issues.

The NCSC would like to categorically state that due to the group’s misrepresentation of their purpose, Council disavows all ties to this organisation.

Furthermore, we withdraw our support for any and all actions and demands made by AlwaysQuestion.

New College Student Council (NCSC) 2007-2008

The following day, I received an email from AlwaysQuestion, linking it to a YouTube video of Police Officers removing protesters from Simcoe Hall:

After watching the video, I concluded that (1) the Police had every right to remove the protesters as they were technically trespassing on Private Property; (2) the Police did not at any time use brutal force to remove the protester, and used only acceptable and necessary force to remove them; (3) the protesters were only there to cause problems, they did something illegal, and they were completely irresponsible.

Do you know where most of the police overtime budget goes?

To the poverty protests. To the “lower our tuition” protests. To almost every single protest that the activist groups organize.

If there weren’t so many of these protests, the City would not have to allocate so much money to the police overtime budget and could redirect that cash to something more useful such as shelters, fixing our roads, and better services.

In my opinion, AlwaysQuestion does not represent the student population at the University of Toronto. AlwaysQuestion is a group that has shown itself to be irresponsible and are always willing to disregard the rule of law.

I ask you, Can we, as students of the University of Toronto, condone this type of behaviour from our fellow students?

NO.

I ask you, Should we, as students of the University of Toronto, condone this type of behaviour from our fellow students?

NO.

As a student of the University of Toronto, I am ashamed of the fact that my fellow students would be so irresponsible and were willing to disregard the rule of law. As future leaders of the world, we should be responsible people, and we should always follow the rule of law.

If you truly wished to lower our tuition and the other fees, then work with the government, work with the administration, work with the system, because working against the system, will get you no where.

Until then, I have one word to say to AlwayQuestion: Shame.

Granted, the CBC has shown to have slight bias to one side or the other when it deals with certain subjects and topic of a political nature. And yes, there are sometimes slight misrepresentations in its news stories. But one important thing is that, a large majority of the time, I can trust it to be trying to ride the centre road of neutrality. (or in Rick Mercer’s case, he takes comical, satirical shots at everyone and not just one group).

Anyways, I was going through the old CBC fifth estate episodes and I came across this: http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/sticksandstones.html – an episode called “Sticks and Stones”.

“Sticks and Stones” is a fifth estate investigative report/documentary on the Post-9/11 American Media and its takeover by the so-called “conservatives” in the United States. (Please note that our brand of Conservatism in Canada is different from the United States brand of “conservatism“).

After watching the entire 42:30 documentary, my reaction was “…wtf…” (please pardon my language). The reason for this type of reaction:

1. Ann Coulter. Nothing really needs to be said after that. As a person who graduated Cum laude from Cornell University – an Ivy League school, it’s pretty sad that she clearly did not know that Canada was never involved the Vietnam war and it never intervened in the conflict in support of the American position. Yes, there were Canadians in Vietnam, not as Canadian Soldiers or part of the Canadian Armed Forces, but as “American” Soldiers. If we were in the war, we wouldn’t have accepted all those draft dodgers. She acts like stubborn, tantrum making child, where she believes that every word out of her mouth and refuses to listen to other people and other views, even when she is clearly wrong. And if she can’t prove the other views are wrong, she insults the people who hold those views.
2. Bill O’Reilly. From what I’ve seen watching his show and watching the CBC’s the fifth estate episode “Sticks and Stones”, all I can say is that the impression that he gave me is that he is a jerk who makes up things as he goes along. His boycott of the French goods: phony baloney and total bullshit. According to the United States Census Bureau – Foreign Trade Division [1], trade actually went up during O’Reilly’s “boycott” (In thousands of USDs: 2003 = 29,219,280; 2004 = 31,605,739; 2005 = 33,842,058 2006 = 37,039,632; 2007 = 41,588,986). And his so called boycott of Canadian goods and services: again total bullshit. As each other’s largest trading partners, our economies depend on each other, and therefore a boycott is unrealistic and implausible, as such an action will be a suicide pill for the United States economy. Essentially, it’s “if you try to take us down, we’ll take you down with us” and due to the nature of the Canadian and United States economies and the agreements that bound them so tightly together, “we” will succeed in pulling down the United States economy into the fire with “us” if “we” are pushed in first. You know really makes him such a jerk? The fact that he insults people, and telling to shut up when the other side is trying to have an intelligent conversation and debate with the man.

In my opinion, American television and news networks are way too bias and and there is no standard to guarantee the neutrality and the accuracy of their programs. What these American television and news networks should do is look at Canadian television shows such as the Agenda with Steve Paiken, where the panelists are experts in their fields, the host is neutral, discussion is fair and the show is informative, not some propaganda tool for an ideology. When the Agenda brings up a topic, they bringing commentators that know the subject first hand and/or academics. If the topic was about Pakistan and Afghanistan, the show would have people who lived in the region and have studied the situation in the region, or even experts and academics such as international relations and studies professor Janice Stein. Or if the topic was about women in politics, again, they would bring in experts such as academics and women actually elected or running for office.

In my opinion, the American news media needs to reform: to rid themselves of these lopsided, overly bias self proclaimed experts and adopt a more neutral, fair, and balanced stance and present the news as is and not use it as some sort of ideological propaganda tool.

As a Progressive Conservative, I am glad that my fellow party members have decided to keep John Tory as our leader. Yes, he lost the 2007 election to McGuinty’s Liberals and yes, he brought the faith-based school issue to the campaign, but we have to remember this: not everyone wins an election the first time.

Mike Harris didn’t. Stephen Harper didn’t. Jean Charest didn’t. Gordon Campbell didn’t. Bob Rae didn’t. Even Dalton McGuinty didn’t win an election the first time.

I realize that there are many of my fellow party members who are still against John Tory’s leadership, but the subject needs to be dropped, and the entire party needs to move on.

We need to present a united front in order to win in 2011 or else a divided party equals a third Liberal victory.

and we all know that is something we all don’t want.

This was the dumbest idea the TDSB has ever came up with. (ok, ok, there are others but stay with me here…) I’m not saying that the trustees are stupid, it’s just I believe that they haven’t thought this through and they seem to have not realize the consequences that may occur from this decision.This issue, in my opinion, is somewhat related to an issue that had arisen during the 2007 Ontario general election: the question was “Should we or should we not provide public funding for faith based schools?”. Obviously the issue are different in the sense that the religious schools are already there and they are private. However, the underlying and overall consequences, and the possible solutions are very similar.What the TDSB is doing is they are essentially separating one group from the vast majority of people in Toronto.This brings up the question “what are the possible consequences of this decision made by the TDSB?“. Well I believe this might happen:

• This will create two “classes” of students in Toronto, in other words, segregation
• Other groups will begin to demand to have their own publicly funded school

This is one thing that, as Torontonians and Canadians, we should be ashamed of. The establishment of this school is against all we believe in:

• Multiculturalism
• Diversity

I understand that the African-Caribbean Canadian community is worried about the large number of their youth dropping out of school, but this is not the answer to the problem.The best solution is for the Government of Ontario to reform the system, put more resources into the public education system, revise the curriculum to include more courses and lessons on different languages, cultures and faiths, provide more money for more qualified teachers and teaching assistants, and provide more after school programs across this city and the province.I hope that the trustees and TDSB board reconsider their position and vote against establishing this school because a single culture focused school is not the way to go.

The results of the 2008 Legislative Yuan elections were both surprising, yet predictable. From the beginning, it was already known that the Democratic Progressive party was it was in big political trouble. On January 12, 2007, it failed to capture its goal of 50 seat, instead it only won 27 seats in the LY; which is about 16.1% less than what it had before the election. In addition to that, it lost all its pan-green coalition partners in the legislature, leaving it as the sole pro-independence party left in the LY. This election was also a surprise to the Kuomintang. They had expected to win 71 of 113 seats, however, instead of wining just the 71 they hoped for, the KMT gain a total of 81 seat. Along with the KMT’s pan-blue coalition partners, it won a total of 85 seats or 75.2% of the 113 seats in LY; a supermajority. The DPP’s loss can be accounted for by two factors:

• the rising popularity of the Kuomintang’s presidential candidate, Ma Ying-jeou
• and the people’s dissatisfaction with ROC President Chen Shui-bian’s DPP administration due to the fact that Chen focused most of his time and the state’s resources on (1) pissing off the mainland with his independence policies, (2) trying to get UN to admit the state into membership as Taiwan, instead of trying to reviving the economy and strengthening it so that it could compete in the world market/economy.

The Kuomintang played well when it focused its campaign on the economy instead of the reunification question. This strategy can be shown in these advertisement:

Although the purpose of these advertisements were to promote the Ma-Siew Kuomintang presidential ticket, both of them were published and aired before and during the Legislative Yuan elections. The message given in these advertisements was that “The DPP has failed the people and has neglected the state’s economy. To survive, Taiwan must rebuilt its economy and compete in the world market. A vote for the Kuomintang is a vote for Taiwan”.

Looking at the results, it looks like the people of Taiwan have spoken and said that “we’ve had enough of this DPP inaction to fix our economy”. Although anything could happen, it looks like the recent victory has given a lot of momentum to Ma Ying-jeou’s bid to become the next president of the Republic of China. And my prediction is that he will indeed win and bring back stability to Taiwan’s economy and to the cross-Strait relations with the Mainland.

Well, it’s about two week til the leadership review at the Ontario PC Party convention in London. The question on every Progressive Conservative’s mind is “Should we keep John Tory as our leader or dump him for a new one?”.

This need for a review stems from the disappointing election results last October. The problems that I saw with the PC campaign was:

• the introduction of the religious school question — to implement them somehow into the public system — which the Liberal (crafty people they are) used it to say that John Tory and PC Party were looking out for private interests instead of public one
• People feared that a John Tory government was going to reintroduce the “Common Sense Revolution” ideals (which everyone knew it was a disaster for the province) and the fact that several party members (on live television and at public events) said that John Tory “was going to bring back ‘common sense’ back to government in Ontario, which although was said with good intention and was not meant to refer to the “revolution” but people took it as if they were mentioning the policies of the Harris Government of 1995-2002
• There were not enough positive ads: all people saw, or believed that all they saw, were negative attack ads

Although the Ontario PC Party lost the election, and there are many things (policies, campaign strategies, etc) that need to be changed to attain victory in 2011, dumping John Tory is not one of them. Removing John Tory from the leadership will hurt the party and decrease our chances to win the next election in 2011. Here are the reason why we should keep John Tory as leader:

• He helped to wipe out the party’s huge debt in less than 4 years
• He helped to increase the party membership
• He ran several very successful businesses over the years and was accountable for all his actions as the head of those companies.
• He helped to revitalize the Canadian Football League and brought stability and growth to the league
• He is a good leader as he listens to the opinions and concerns of each and every Ontarian and his own party members and takes them into account when making a decision
• As he has brought integrity and accountability to his roles as CEO of a company and as leader of the PC Party, he will bring those to the Premier’s Office

So instead of dumping John Tory and creating an costly leadership race, the party should concentrate and focus on the next election and how we are going to significantly increase our chances of victory in 2011. A few things that I believe will help us reach that goal:

• Run positive political campaign ads/PPBs
• Show what we can do, instead of what the Liberals didn’t do or did wrong
• Present our accomplishments as a party — our tract record of progress, moving the province forward, and improving the lives of Ontarians — and show them how we can build on those to revitalize our province and continue to move forward.

So I hope the party will support John Tory and vote to keep him as our leader. Because together with John Tory we can reach our goal of victory in 2011 and bring progress to Ontario.

$480 compared to $768…not bad…

That was my first thought when I was told about the Toronto Transit Commission’s proposal to replace the VIP Metropasses with a new University Pass, or U-Pass. For me, it was a good deal as I rely on TTC almost everyday, and seeing that it would save me about $30 to $40 each month, I was all for it.

This was when I decided to go to the U-Pass town hall meeting to see what the TTC has to offer the students of Toronto. At this meeting, Mayor David Miller, TTC Chair Adam Giambrone, and two other TTC/City Officials made their presentation, and to be honest, I was impress by the research and surveys they’ve done.

The problem was this: no opt-out options.

This clearly bothered some people at the meeting. Questions started to be asked, questions such as: “Why would I need to spend money on something I don’t need as I live on/near campus?” or “I’m a student who simply cannot afford to spend an extra $60 a month, why should I be forced to buy it?”

A typical BS response was given: “We want you to have one of these passes, so it will become your passport to Toronto. I guarantee that you will use it.”

Clearly, they did not answer the question or the concerns of the students as well as the question of student debt and student poverty. This shows the hypocrisy of the New Democratic Party and its members on City Council (Mayor Miller was a former high profile NDPer and TTC Chair Giambrone was the former federal NDP president), they may believe that they speak for the people and they might believe that they’re here to improve the lives of all Torontonians, but all they’ve done is nothing while wasting thousands of tax dollars that the residents of Toronto have worked for on themselves and on “things for their offices” (aka an expensive camera, which could have been bought at a cheaper price…although recently, City Council has been doing its part to spend less tax dollars ([1])….not that well though ([2]).) and not directing that money to help those who need it.

Anyways, I’m all for the U-Pass, but without a opt-out option, I don’t know if the rest of the student population will support it in a referendum, especially if the questions of student debt and student poverty arise.

After reading “DOES RACE MATTER? (a new article from BETnews, published November 30, 2007)“, one can only feel enraged and upset at the fact that there is so much disregard for what Dr. King stood for. How can a group, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, which usually advocates equality amongst all people no matter what their background is, advocating against someone of a different ethnicity other than African American? Just because the artist is not American, nor is he from an African American background, does not make it right to discriminate against him. Out of the own mouth of the Atlanta-based artist Gilbert Young, who is against the fact that a Chinese artist has been given the job to create a sculpture to honour Dr. King, Dr. King was fighting “against racism in this country [the United States]“. How can an organization dedicated to fight racism, be advocating racism?

Quoting Gilbert Young again: “I do not think that anyone outside of my immediate community [the African American community] should have been looked at first. We need a Black artist to interpret Dr. King and a Black name at the base of the monument, because he died for us.”

This statement just puts it over the top. Dr. King may have been African American, the main focus of the civil rights movement was to give liberty, freedom and rights to African Americans, but that was not what Dr. King was about. He was about ensuring the rights of all people, no matter what the colour of their skin is, no matter what their racial or ethnic background is. He did not only die for the African American community, he fought and died for the rights of all people, for the equally amongst communities and groups.

This sort of behaviour from groups such as National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and individuals such as Gilbert Young undermine what Dr. King fought and died for, undermining what he stood for. If the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People cannot except that a man from a different ethnicity or from a different culture other than African American, then their existence is meaningless, and do not deserved to be called National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, but the National Association for the Advancement of One Group of People.

For rejecting someone of a different culture and ethnicity and thereby rejecting their core values, I say to the NAACP:

Shame.

Abortion is an issue that often appears in Canadian politics.

What is abortion? Well, The American Heritage Science Dictionary defines it as “Induced termination of pregnancy, involving destruction of the embryo or fetus.” In other words, the destruction of life before it has a chance.

As you can see, my position is that abortion is wrong and it is something that I personally feel should not be allowed. Someone could say “what right does a man have to say about a woman’s right to choose what she wants to do with her body?” Well here my answer: As a human being and as a Canadian, I have every right to have my opinions and my views, just like every woman, or man, has the right to their own opinions and views and to choose what he/she wants to do with his/her body. But does having that right, make it right? My view is that you can have those rights, but it doesn’t make it right.

Here how I see abortion: I see it as taking away and killing a life. And I believe that it is wrong.

That is why I am also against capital punishment.

People might ask, “How is capital punishment related to abortion?”

When most people look at both issues, they do not see the connection. However, looking closely at the issues, you will be able to see it.

Well what is capital punishment? The compact Oxford Dictionary defines it as “the legally authorized killing of someone as punishment for a crime.”. As a tory, I am in supporter of harsher punishments for those who commit violent crimes, however, I do not believe in taking a life just to punish some for a crime, because taking a life will not bring back a life.

It all boils down to the question of “Which do you believe is more important: the sanctity of life or the quality of life?”

If your answer is sanctity of life, then you should be against abortion and against capital punishment.

However, if your answer is quality of life, then you know what the answer is. And there is no middle road.