Thursday, December 20, 2007
Who I want for U.S President
Seeing as I have American citizenship I have been paying close attention to the election coverage. For Democrats I would prefer that Hillary wins, because she has a lot of experience and her foreign policy stance is pretty balanced. Also Bill would be able to help her out a lot. Despite this, I think I'm probably going to vote for a Republican candidate, and I really hope that John McCain wins the primaries. Not only does his name sound like Bruce Willis' character from Die Hard, but he also is the best candidate. Firstly, he's a dedicated war hero having been a POW in Vietnam, so he knows first-hand the perils and sometimes necessity of war. He's in favor of the war in Iraq but he has a much better plan that any of the other candidates on how to make it a success. He is also a big defender of freedom because his was taken away for so many years (anti-torture). Mccain is also the most environmental of the Republican candidates, having been passionate about it for years. He has been a Senator for a very long time and knows how to play ball in Washington. Mccain is also a passionate believer in the state of Israel. He is a social conservative, and a supporter of free trade. The next president will have to deal will many issues that affect the peace and future of the world, and he knows what he's doing more than anybody else. It's time we pay this war hero some respect
Thursday, December 13, 2007
The Mitchell Report
With the release of the Mitchell Report which names steroid users in baseball, serious thinking needs to be done. This list included Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, possibly the greatest players of the last 10 years. Other notable players such as: Eric Gagne, Chuck Knoblauch, David Justice, Miguel Tejada, and Kevin Brown were on the list. Even current jays players Greg Zaun and Howie Clark were on the list. Now the question is what to do with these players. Should they be given immunity or be punished for their actions? What is the MLB going to do about their flawed steroid policy?
I personally think that all of these players should receive some sort of suspension, and be tested much more frequently than others. Baseball is no place for their to be cheaters ruining the game. Players such as Barry Bonds and even Roger Clemens should be banned from being in the hall of fame. The MLB should also test more frequently and by surprise, instead of alerting players when their tests are. Perhaps the MLB should also consider letting an independent agency conduct the tests. MLB cannot expect to let players cheat, and then expect the fans not to be disgusted. It's time that every player be put on a level playing field so fans don't need to be suspicious. The MLB might also need to hand out a healthy dose of **********************
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AtAZsxRrKjTT_Jt7PcxGTpDZxLsF?slug=ys-mitchellnames121307&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
names of cheating players
The whole report can be found on MLB.com
I personally think that all of these players should receive some sort of suspension, and be tested much more frequently than others. Baseball is no place for their to be cheaters ruining the game. Players such as Barry Bonds and even Roger Clemens should be banned from being in the hall of fame. The MLB should also test more frequently and by surprise, instead of alerting players when their tests are. Perhaps the MLB should also consider letting an independent agency conduct the tests. MLB cannot expect to let players cheat, and then expect the fans not to be disgusted. It's time that every player be put on a level playing field so fans don't need to be suspicious. The MLB might also need to hand out a healthy dose of **********************
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AtAZsxRrKjTT_Jt7PcxGTpDZxLsF?slug=ys-mitchellnames121307&prov=yhoo&type=lgns
names of cheating players
The whole report can be found on MLB.com
Thursday, December 6, 2007
Bah, Hanukkah
The article Bah, Hanukkah was written by Christopher Hitchens. In this article he basically slams the holiday of Chanukkah, which isn't much of a surprise as he has written a book called "God is not Great- How religion poisons everything." This anti-religious stance also makes him very much in favour of the War on Iraq although he is a social liberal. Any ways let's get back to the article.
Hitchens starts by saying that Chanukkah is, "to celebrate not the ignition of a light but the imposition of theocratic darkness." He says that the Seleucid empire had taken a hold in Israel and had started to wean people away from practicing Judaism. He of course doesn't mention that most Jews were being brutally forced to go through these changes, and couldn't practice Judaism if he wanted to. He then falsely says that the name Alexander is a Jewish name because Hellenism was so popular amongst the Jews. He says instead of celebrating the highly advanced Greeks, we celebrate the no good Maccabees who were just trying to spoil this enlightenment. He then says that maybe the Hellenists were a bit brutal, but the Jews also did terrible stuff amongst themselves after and during the war. He then said if we had just submitted to the Greeks, Christianity and Islam would have never been created, and we have brought all of our suffering onto ourselves because of this. I guess he prefers people practicing polytheism over monotheism. He then if the miracle happened it just shows that G-d loves extremists and religious thuggery.
He then goes on to talk about how dumb Christmas is, because it just takes pagan practices and puts them into the holiday. Of course some of these customs probably came from the beloved Greeks who he so widely lauds. The rest of this article continues in this manner, and he says when we look into the flames of the Menorah we should be saddened, as this is the first case of extremism winning over modernity.
Basically this article is very mean spirited and it is made even worse due to the lose facts that he uses. If you make up facts and talk in such a nasty tone you can either make your point very well or just disgust the reader. I'm going to go with the latter feeling
Here's the article
http://www.slate.com/id/2179045/
You can read my other blog from Tuesday if you want
Hitchens starts by saying that Chanukkah is, "to celebrate not the ignition of a light but the imposition of theocratic darkness." He says that the Seleucid empire had taken a hold in Israel and had started to wean people away from practicing Judaism. He of course doesn't mention that most Jews were being brutally forced to go through these changes, and couldn't practice Judaism if he wanted to. He then falsely says that the name Alexander is a Jewish name because Hellenism was so popular amongst the Jews. He says instead of celebrating the highly advanced Greeks, we celebrate the no good Maccabees who were just trying to spoil this enlightenment. He then says that maybe the Hellenists were a bit brutal, but the Jews also did terrible stuff amongst themselves after and during the war. He then said if we had just submitted to the Greeks, Christianity and Islam would have never been created, and we have brought all of our suffering onto ourselves because of this. I guess he prefers people practicing polytheism over monotheism. He then if the miracle happened it just shows that G-d loves extremists and religious thuggery.
He then goes on to talk about how dumb Christmas is, because it just takes pagan practices and puts them into the holiday. Of course some of these customs probably came from the beloved Greeks who he so widely lauds. The rest of this article continues in this manner, and he says when we look into the flames of the Menorah we should be saddened, as this is the first case of extremism winning over modernity.
Basically this article is very mean spirited and it is made even worse due to the lose facts that he uses. If you make up facts and talk in such a nasty tone you can either make your point very well or just disgust the reader. I'm going to go with the latter feeling
Here's the article
http://www.slate.com/id/2179045/
You can read my other blog from Tuesday if you want
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
News from Iran
In the last couple of days U.S intelligence has issues a new report stating that Iran stopped its nuclear program back in 2003 and probably hasn't started it up yet. In a lot of the articles I've been reading it's been pretty easy to find a lot of ironies in how people are reacting to the news. In recent Democratic Party debates some candidates had bashed Hill-Dawg for voting to classify th Revolutionary Guards as terrorists, and are using this new report to beef up their statements. But wait a second. Why are they listening to this new piece of intelligence, but were ignoring the past ones? It would seem to suggest that only reports that fir their political motivation have truth in them, and all other reports are lies. Unless these other candidates sincerely believed that Iran was making nukes before this report, and were willing to serve up Israel as an expenditure. And if these other candidates do believe in all intelligence documents, then surely they have seen the intelligence showing the Rev. guards have supplied terrorists in Iraq, but I guess they can probably say it's just war-mongering Bush up to his old tricks again. You at least have to respect Hillary for actually taking a stand on foreign policy, and not just blaming Bush for tricking them into going into Iraq.
Then today Israeli intelligence said that they have grave concerns about this new U.S intelligence. Frankly, I'm gonna take Israel's word over the U.S.A's. Also the report still said that Iran can make nukes between 2010-2015 so it's still a serious threat. This report also fails to mention all the rhetoric coming form Iran, their constant lying to the U.N, their supplying of terrorism. Even if this report is true th world can't suddenly say let's leave them alone. They are still the biggest threat facing the U.S.A and Israel, and we shouldn't let this report cloud our judgment.
Also the year 2003 potentially has some significance. This of course is the year that the Americans went into Iraq, and easily defeated Saddam and his army. Perhaps this show of military force did stop the Iranian missile program, as they were afraid of being invaded to.
I hope a new report comes out contradicting this one and see how some people in politics respond.
Then today Israeli intelligence said that they have grave concerns about this new U.S intelligence. Frankly, I'm gonna take Israel's word over the U.S.A's. Also the report still said that Iran can make nukes between 2010-2015 so it's still a serious threat. This report also fails to mention all the rhetoric coming form Iran, their constant lying to the U.N, their supplying of terrorism. Even if this report is true th world can't suddenly say let's leave them alone. They are still the biggest threat facing the U.S.A and Israel, and we shouldn't let this report cloud our judgment.
Also the year 2003 potentially has some significance. This of course is the year that the Americans went into Iraq, and easily defeated Saddam and his army. Perhaps this show of military force did stop the Iranian missile program, as they were afraid of being invaded to.
I hope a new report comes out contradicting this one and see how some people in politics respond.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Tell Us The Truth Already!
2 Years after riots struck France, they once again have been reignited. All of the newspapers are saying that the forces behind these riots are "youths". This of course leads the reader to wonder who exactly these "youths" are, and I think it's about time that a newspaper came out and said who these "youths" really are. The so called "youths" are of course mostly made up of Muslim immigrants or children of immigrants, so why aren't newspapers willing to say this. Are they afraid of some sort of reprisal if they report the truth? Shouldn't the newspapers be calling it like it is and tell us who these "youths" are. Personally, I think that Europe has had a lax immigration process, and now they are reaping what they have sown. By calling the rioters "youths" they can keep on pretending that nothing is going on in their perfect country. They call the West Islamaphobic and portray themselves as friends of the Muslim world, but i don't see this happening over here. The mayor of the twon even went so far as to say that the rioting was, "not violence but an expression of rage." Sure whatever you say. Grow up already, start telling people the truth, and realize that you have made mistakes that can still be solved.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Affirmative Action
This whole discussion about affirmative action in class made me remember something i once read about a black conservative names Shelby Steele, and his views on it. Steele just wrote a book called "White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era", and in it he says that whites today have 'white guilt' from what they have done to blacks, and this is why affirmative action is here. In this book he bashes affirmative action, welfare to minorities, and other such programs. He says these policies make whites feel better about their past deeds, and makes them not seem racist, but at the same time these things ask nothing from blacks. He thinks that affirmative action is just an incentive for Blacks not to try hard, because they can try less and still succeed because of these programs. He says blacks now think that they have a lower bar than anybody else and they will only reach for that and not higher. He points out that SAT scores dropped among blacks from 1990 till 2000, and he says that this is a likely cause.
He says affirmative action makes blacks out to be second class citizens, because they are expected to do less than everybody else. He also says it makes blacks dependent on whites for them to be successful. Whites can now look down at blacks and think you are only here because i let you. He then starts to criticize liberals who promote these policies. He says that liberals can now say they have a clean slate because they are doing affirmative action programs. He says affirmative action actually promotes white supremacy, because these programs make us out to look smarter, and put minorities on a lesser level.
He says now that they civil rights movement is in serious trouble because Blacks need to say that they are weak and whites are strong to get anything. He says this will eventually stigmatize a whole generation of young blacks, who need to see their leaders constantly sell themselves out.
His critique of liberal policies then continue. He says that liberals take away the personal responsibility of blacks solely for political gain, and then they are able to say they have a higher moral authority than conservatives. He says that liberals claim the conservatives are racist because they don't believe in these programs. This he concludes is the way that liberals try to gain power in America. He says that subsequently if liberals abolished these programs they wouldn't be seen as compassionate, and thus lose their power base. The liberals form of power is to take over all personal choice so they can try to rectify the sins of the past. He says even now they are trying to portray the environment as a victim of past 'white atrocities' and they can once again claim a new moral high ground by trying to protect it.
He then criticizes George Bush for losing his pride when responding after Hurricane Katrina to the charges he didn't care about Black people. He said Bush clearly cares about blacks and the only reason he responds to this is because of his white guilt, and by speaking this would remedy his problem. He says this speech was not meant for the benefit of blacks but an attempt to not look racist in front of swing voters.
I don't agree with everything Steele has to say but he does bring up a lot of good points. In another article of his he says that the U.S is doing badly in Iraq because of this guilt. He says the army has to win a war but at the same time can't seem the least bit racially and culturally insensitive, or imperial in any way. He also says that the demonization of America by Europe is a way that Europe can get over their white guilt. They say that America is the new imperial devil, is racist, hates culture, and this helps their guilt. Overall he is a very interesting man and a lot of his articles are very interesting.
He says affirmative action makes blacks out to be second class citizens, because they are expected to do less than everybody else. He also says it makes blacks dependent on whites for them to be successful. Whites can now look down at blacks and think you are only here because i let you. He then starts to criticize liberals who promote these policies. He says that liberals can now say they have a clean slate because they are doing affirmative action programs. He says affirmative action actually promotes white supremacy, because these programs make us out to look smarter, and put minorities on a lesser level.
He says now that they civil rights movement is in serious trouble because Blacks need to say that they are weak and whites are strong to get anything. He says this will eventually stigmatize a whole generation of young blacks, who need to see their leaders constantly sell themselves out.
His critique of liberal policies then continue. He says that liberals take away the personal responsibility of blacks solely for political gain, and then they are able to say they have a higher moral authority than conservatives. He says that liberals claim the conservatives are racist because they don't believe in these programs. This he concludes is the way that liberals try to gain power in America. He says that subsequently if liberals abolished these programs they wouldn't be seen as compassionate, and thus lose their power base. The liberals form of power is to take over all personal choice so they can try to rectify the sins of the past. He says even now they are trying to portray the environment as a victim of past 'white atrocities' and they can once again claim a new moral high ground by trying to protect it.
He then criticizes George Bush for losing his pride when responding after Hurricane Katrina to the charges he didn't care about Black people. He said Bush clearly cares about blacks and the only reason he responds to this is because of his white guilt, and by speaking this would remedy his problem. He says this speech was not meant for the benefit of blacks but an attempt to not look racist in front of swing voters.
I don't agree with everything Steele has to say but he does bring up a lot of good points. In another article of his he says that the U.S is doing badly in Iraq because of this guilt. He says the army has to win a war but at the same time can't seem the least bit racially and culturally insensitive, or imperial in any way. He also says that the demonization of America by Europe is a way that Europe can get over their white guilt. They say that America is the new imperial devil, is racist, hates culture, and this helps their guilt. Overall he is a very interesting man and a lot of his articles are very interesting.
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Canada finally stands up at the UN
The UN Human Rights council in the past few days had a few items on their agenda. Of course being the UN, most of the items addressed had to do with Israel and how it is the source of all the worlds evil. The UN Human Rights council comprises of 47 members, including Canada, and over half the citizens in these member countries have little or no freedoms. These moral authorities proposed to make Israel's "atrocities" a permanent item on their agenda, and the only voice that opposed this was Canada. The custom dictates that you must have an unanimous vote for these issues to go through, but of course since it deals with Israel these rules can be ignored. The council also has taken away actual observers of human rights violations in such countries as Cuba and Belarus, and now they will more easily be able to break human rights codes.
It is obvious to see that the UN is perhaps the most corrupt institution in the world. When the voices on the Human Rights council are actually the ones breaking human rights so severely you know there's a problem. Instead of trying to stop the genocide in Darfur, the situation in Burma, and many other things, they instead only focus on Israel.
The only good thing that came out of this vote was that Canada refused to vote for this anti-Semitic agreement. After years of voting with the majority, Canada has finally taken a stand. I'm proud that our country refuses to agree to these biased motions, and in my opinion all countries with any moral fiber should pack up and leave the UN.
It is obvious to see that the UN is perhaps the most corrupt institution in the world. When the voices on the Human Rights council are actually the ones breaking human rights so severely you know there's a problem. Instead of trying to stop the genocide in Darfur, the situation in Burma, and many other things, they instead only focus on Israel.
The only good thing that came out of this vote was that Canada refused to vote for this anti-Semitic agreement. After years of voting with the majority, Canada has finally taken a stand. I'm proud that our country refuses to agree to these biased motions, and in my opinion all countries with any moral fiber should pack up and leave the UN.
Monday, October 29, 2007
What's up with Condy?
What's going on in Condoleeza Rice's head? It seems that in the past couple of weeks she disagrees with seemingly everybody else in the higher echelons of the government. First Dick Cheney and George Bush say that under no circumstances should Iran get a nuclear weapon. Since the attack on Syria they have very good reason to be even more suspicious of Iran and its nuclear program, but Rice disagrees. She thinks that the government needs to take a soft approach on Iran, and ask the U.N for sanctions. If it was April i would check to see if its April Fools Day, but since its October i don't know what to think. I'm sure she's privy to lots of information that would make her want to take a tough line on Iran, but instead she wants to commit to the weaker agenda.
Not to mention that she's pushing for a new peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis at the Annapolis peace conference. She wants to push for final-status agreements between Abbas and Olmert, though even a toddler could see that this is one of the most idiotic plans concocted in the last few years. Not only does it go against Bush's road map proposal, and many other words he has said in public, it seems to serve no American interests. How does Condy see a weaker Israel and a win for terrorism as good for U.S interests. Abbas doesn't even own half of the country, and probably in 5 years Hamas will take over the West Bank and then they'll have the state???
It looks like Condy is trying to pull a Bill Clinton, meaning that you try to save your legacy by making peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Just because you have done a bad job in your position Condy, it doesn't mean you should screw up a whole country, and your own country's interests. The Palestinians are not Blacks in the South during the Civil Rights movement, so stop making that comparison. I would suggest holding a conference on Iran's genocidal leader instead of holding one that serves nobody's interest, except for Islamo-Fascists.
Not to mention that she's pushing for a new peace deal between the Palestinians and the Israelis at the Annapolis peace conference. She wants to push for final-status agreements between Abbas and Olmert, though even a toddler could see that this is one of the most idiotic plans concocted in the last few years. Not only does it go against Bush's road map proposal, and many other words he has said in public, it seems to serve no American interests. How does Condy see a weaker Israel and a win for terrorism as good for U.S interests. Abbas doesn't even own half of the country, and probably in 5 years Hamas will take over the West Bank and then they'll have the state???
It looks like Condy is trying to pull a Bill Clinton, meaning that you try to save your legacy by making peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Just because you have done a bad job in your position Condy, it doesn't mean you should screw up a whole country, and your own country's interests. The Palestinians are not Blacks in the South during the Civil Rights movement, so stop making that comparison. I would suggest holding a conference on Iran's genocidal leader instead of holding one that serves nobody's interest, except for Islamo-Fascists.
Monday, October 22, 2007
The Nobel Committee sure knows how to pick them
A few days after presenting Doris Lessing the Nobel prize for literature for her, "skepticism, fire and visionary power." , the seemingly harmless 86 year old, had very harsh words for some. Firstly Lessing had to say this about 9/11,"Many people died, two prominent buildings fell, but it was neither as terrible nor as extraordinary as they think. They're a very naive people, or they pretend to be," Ouch that hurts. She goes on to say that 9/11 wasn't as bad as IRA attacks that plagued England for man years. She then serves up a few choice words for former P.M Ton Blair, ""Many of us hated Tony Blair, I think he has been a disaster for Britain and we have suffered him for many years. I said it when he was elected: This man is a little showman who is going to cause us problems and he did." Lessing then continues with her America bashing by attacking "Dubya" ,"As for Bush, he's a world calamity.Everyone is tired of this man. Either he is stupid or he is very clever, although you have to remember he is a member of a social class which has profited from wars." Don't get me wrong now. Lessing also has some things to say about Iran, "I hate Iran, I hate the Iranian government, it's a cruel and evil government.Look what happened to its president in New York, they called him evil and cruel in Columbia University. Marvelous! They should have said more to him! Nobody criticizes him, because of oil."
I just have a few questions for the Nobel committee.
Where do they get these people? Don't they do some sort of background check before they hand out these awards?
Maybe next year the Nobel committee will do some research before they hand out awards to people who make very controversial statements, and will hand out awards to decent people who deserve it.
Thanks to Yahoo News
I just have a few questions for the Nobel committee.
Where do they get these people? Don't they do some sort of background check before they hand out these awards?
Maybe next year the Nobel committee will do some research before they hand out awards to people who make very controversial statements, and will hand out awards to decent people who deserve it.
Thanks to Yahoo News
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Family Day
Fresh off his election day win Dalton says that he will provide a holiday for Ontarians in February so families can spend a day together. Although his idea seems heartwarming, economists predict the day will cost between 500 million to 2 billion dollars in lost money. I seem to remember that Tory's faith based funding plan would only cost 400 million. I guess though that spending one day with your family in February is more important to Dalton McGuinty than providing 53000 students with funding.
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Nobel Peace Prize- A Joke
With the news that Al Gore has just won the nobel peace prize one should take a look back at some of the past winners and Al Gore himself.
2007-Al Gore- how does an inconvenient truth have anything to do with promoting peace?
2005-Mohamed El Baradei- the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency for trying to stop all nucler development for non peaceful reasons. He sure is doing a great job with Iran.
2002- Jimmy Carter- I didn't know promoting anti-semitic sentiment helps peace?
2001-U.N+Kofi Annan- see Jimmy Carter
1993-Yasser Arafat-see Jimmy Carter+U.N
Shimon Peres- trading away Israel apparently is a peaceful endeavor for him
It seems to me that today the Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely jack and has become a political prize(mainly for extreme left wing ideologues), and doesn't actually find the person who best promotes peace in the world.
2007-Al Gore- how does an inconvenient truth have anything to do with promoting peace?
2005-Mohamed El Baradei- the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency for trying to stop all nucler development for non peaceful reasons. He sure is doing a great job with Iran.
2002- Jimmy Carter- I didn't know promoting anti-semitic sentiment helps peace?
2001-U.N+Kofi Annan- see Jimmy Carter
1993-Yasser Arafat-see Jimmy Carter+U.N
Shimon Peres- trading away Israel apparently is a peaceful endeavor for him
It seems to me that today the Nobel Peace Prize means absolutely jack and has become a political prize(mainly for extreme left wing ideologues), and doesn't actually find the person who best promotes peace in the world.
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Free Speech
In the aftermath of Ahmadinejad speaking at Columbia University it is interesting to see Stanford University's response to Donald Rumsfeld being invited to become part of a campus think tank. Thousands of protesters have decried this appointment and have started a petition to rescind this offer. The petitioners state that Rumsfeld should not be allowed on the the think tank because,"We view the appointment as fundamentally incompatible with the ethical values of truthfulness, tolerance, disinterested inquiry, respect for national and international laws, and care for the opinions, property and lives of others to which Stanford is inalienably committed." Others have stated that Rumsfeld is a war criminal and should not get this appointment. These people are of course talking about the former U.S secretary of defence who patriotically served his country, although his policies might be controversial. I'm sure that many of these same protesters were fighting for Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia, but then show disdain for a former secretary of defence. I personally am speechless at the hypocrisy of these people and wonder what freedom of speech and academic freedom even mean any more.
Thanks to CNN
Thanks to CNN
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
In defence of faith based funding
1) Everybody says that if all children go to public school together they'll all be tolerant of one another. To all who say this I wonder what their reactions are to the gang violence and racial tension seen at public school taking the forms of stabbings and shootings. Sir Dalton the great himself went to a "segregated" school and look how dandy his life turned out. Another thing to consider is that anyone can go to catholic school so there is diversity in that system, and john torys plan would only help 3% of kids going to school.
2)Others suggest that this plan would funnel away money from the school system, but this isn't necessarily all that correct. Its not as if JT is coming to my house and giving my parents a 16000 dollar check and taking it away from my neighbour. The school system already supports so many students its not as if adding 50000 extra ones will take away that much money. Also you can raise money for it to ensure that other parts of the education system dont suffer.
3) "if school is faith based then kids will learn creationism" All of were taught creationism at Hebrew school yet 99% of the kids at our school believe in the theory of evolution.
4) School also wont be able to teach hate literature because there will be inspectors making sure that students and teachers follow the curriculum. These schools that do this now cant get caught because the gov. cant do anything to them.
Personally i don't see how so many left wingers can call for multiculturalism and freedom of speech and tolerance and then say that religion is stupid, if the bible is taught to students then the world will go to hell, if muslims have their own schools they'll become terrorist and kill us all. Is not funding these diverse religious views tolerance and stifling them oppression?
2)Others suggest that this plan would funnel away money from the school system, but this isn't necessarily all that correct. Its not as if JT is coming to my house and giving my parents a 16000 dollar check and taking it away from my neighbour. The school system already supports so many students its not as if adding 50000 extra ones will take away that much money. Also you can raise money for it to ensure that other parts of the education system dont suffer.
3) "if school is faith based then kids will learn creationism" All of were taught creationism at Hebrew school yet 99% of the kids at our school believe in the theory of evolution.
4) School also wont be able to teach hate literature because there will be inspectors making sure that students and teachers follow the curriculum. These schools that do this now cant get caught because the gov. cant do anything to them.
Personally i don't see how so many left wingers can call for multiculturalism and freedom of speech and tolerance and then say that religion is stupid, if the bible is taught to students then the world will go to hell, if muslims have their own schools they'll become terrorist and kill us all. Is not funding these diverse religious views tolerance and stifling them oppression?
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Quebec Bye-Elections
The Liberals suffered a stunning loss yesterday in 3 bye-elections, but especially in the Liberal stronghold of Outremont. The Liberal candidate had alienated many members of his riding by his controversial remarks about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This and a popular NDP candidate led to this crushing defeat. I personally am thrilled about the Liberals downfall in such an imporntant battleground, and seems to suggest that the Conservative party has momentum in Quebec coming into the next election. This is not only a blow to the Liberal party, but is also a reflection of how the public views Stephan Dion and his leadership abilities. If Dion doesn't step up his game he might follow the John Turner route.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)