Canada is in the midst of an election season. We are nearing the end of the campaign trail. I for one want this to be done and over with. Justin Trudeau has said the Conservatives have run the dirtiest campaign in history. That is based on disinformation. In terms of disinformation, maybe. But it isn't the dirtiest in history. If you want to talk about dirtiest, Kim Campbell used Jean Chretien's partial facial paralysis due to bell's palsy in a campaign or Stephen Harper and the robocall scandal for instance. Regardless of that, this season has had its share of insults, digging up stuff from the past such as black/brownface, ignoring things that they accuse others of doing that they also do, and accused of fearmongering, etc., etc..
With that being said, the question is if we have too much choice. Lots of countries have this problem. They have a lot of parties to choose from when it comes to voting. As well, lots of countries have a two-party system with the United States being the most notable. You could say Canada is two party system since the Conservatives and Liberals are the only parties that get voted in and form government. No other parties have been voted in. Although, the New Democratic Party (NDP) has been official opposition in the past.
For a part of Canada's history we have been a two-party system. But with the three-party system, such parties such as the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois has had some sort of influence. But the two-party system changed after the First World War. Unlike the United State's two-party where you can only vote for Democrats and Republicans, Canada's parliamentary democracy encourages a multi-party system. You will see that very much.
Canada has six that get talked about on the national stage with one being strictly in Quebec. There is the Liberals, the Conservatives, the NDP, the Green Party, the Bloc Quebecois, and the newest party which is the People's Party of Canada (PPC). It is stupid for the Bloc to be running considering they don't want Quebec to be apart of Canada. It is a vastly different culture than the rest of Canada.
If you do research, you'll find the fringe parties such as the Rhinoceros Party (which is meant to not be taken seriously per se), the Christian Heritage Party (a big claim is they are only pro life party), Progressive Canadian Party (PC Party, they're number of candidates have shrunk to single digits since being founded in 2004), the Marijuana Party (founded in 2000, number of candidates have shrunk to single digits, and their ideology is pointless since marijuana is legal now), and other parties you can look up. They don't run the full number of candidates. Even if they did, they wouldn't get any seats.
The fringe parties are one thing, but looking strictly at the main national parties, we have way too much choice. Add in the fringe parties that run in various ridings, that means even more choice. I get that Canada is multi-party system, but when is enough enough?
The Green Party only gets one seat because of Elizabeth May and that wasn't until the last couple of elections. Since being founded in the 80s, they've never won any seats until now. But they now have two seats since Paul Manly won a by-election on May 6 in the Nanaimo—Ladysmith riding in British Columbia. Since the Bloc is a Quebec only separatist party, common sense dictates they get seats in Quebec. Just as a side note, growing up when they had a referendum, I was against them separating. I was a kid and didn't know any better. The PPC won't get any seats outside of founder and leader Maxime Bernier. But I also won't be surprised if, on the off chance, he doesn't get voted in.
You could also look at from the position of more choice is great and it could potentially mean less seats for the major parties. That's great in theory, but no fringe party has ever had a candidate elected yet people still vote for them even if it means only getting a handful of votes. Stranger things have happened. A fringe party could have a candidate voted in. Who am I kidding? That wouldn't happen.
We need to stop being so divided and do what is right for the country. Yes, we will still say this leader or that leader is not a good choice for Prime Minister. If you know me, you will know that I am anti-Andrew Scheer and don't want him voted in. Some even are scared for the future of Canada if Scheer is voted in. I for one hope Scheer isn't voted in thus a new leader of the Conservatives would be necessary.
Justin Trudeau has said the Conservatives have a good chance of getting voted in. That's doesn't sound like confidence. Is he scared of losing? He shouldn't focus on that. He should focus on remaining Prime Minister.
Regardless if you think there is too much choice or not enough, get out
there and vote. Even though I feel you shouldn't vote for the Conservatives, get out there and vote. The future of this country depends on it. Don't vote and regret who you voted for later. Don't be that person. I hope you have looked at the platforms and are making the informed choice. Two days away, the future of the country is in our hands. Do what is right.
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Politics. Show all posts
Saturday, October 19, 2019
Friday, October 04, 2019
Blackface/Brownface - Get Over It
By now you have heard of and or seen the pictures relating to blackface/brownface in regards to Justin Trudeau. It has people divided. Why? It is pointless. This stuff happened around 20 years ago. But that doesn't matter. They don't bother to look into the backstory. But that doesn't matter. They'd rather have uninformed rage and ignorance because they want something to hate and judge him for.
People are putting him under a microscope and judging him under the current times. They are not thinking about the times all this took place happened. People involved during those times didn't see it as wrong based on the context of why Trudeau was doing it. People are failing to see that it wasn't done in a racist and insensitive manner. Why should that matter to them? They don't care. They are using it as an excuse to lynch mob him.
When it comes to the backstory, people need to do research. They need to realize that it actually wasn't what they are making it out to be. All they shout is "racist," "insensitive," "hurtful," etc.. It was none of these things. They don't want to admit that. They are instantly shocked and appalled. Context is always a good thing.
Let's take a look at the various photos and backstories.
This first one was taken when he was in high school. This was at least 30 years. It was a talent show where he was doing he was doing his rendition of the song "Banana Boat (Day-O)." People dress the part for stuff all the time, but wouldn't lynch mob them.
This second picture was taken an Arabian-themed party at West Point Grey Academy where he taught. This is back in 2001. It is going 20 years ago. Just because he was one of the few if not the only one to paint his face doesn't mean it was done in an insensitive manner. Again, people do this all the time without people batting an eye or getting lynch mobbed.
This final picture is a screenshot from Facebook. It gives the backstory behind the blackface video. He was working with a rafting company and this was at an event in support of this female team. I guess supporting a female rafting team who got no support from the government to go to a race in Africa while their male counterparts did is something we should ignore. Let's not focus on the positive, but turn it into a negative. I doubt Harry Belafonte knows about this. If he does, I doubt he cares with some more pressing issues in the world that need to be addressed.
People have turned everything in this "controversy" into a negative. They are seeing these things for something it isn't. It's almost as if they are obsessed with making up some false narrative so they can use it against him as an excuse to not focus on the issues. Let's face it, it is not secret that a good portion of Canadian can't stand Justin Trudeau. Hell, some even loath and hate him. They use this to smear him and as a reason to not vote for him. Really? They complain he hasn't done anything for this country, but can't specifically say what he has done wrong. All they care about is pushing this narrative of Justin Trudeau being the worst Prime Minister. They think anything dug up on him will further that narrative. That's not this works. You base how he is as Prime Minister on what he has actually done for the country and what he said he would and never delivered. But let's not do that either.
People are quick to be outraged. Uninformed and ignorantly outraged. But it is mainly white Canadians that are mainly outraged. Sure there are those who are an ethnic minority that are outraged, but a good portion are willing to forgive or don't even care. That doesn't mean all people that are considered ethnic minorities aren't outraged or shocked.
Dr. Myrna Lashley, former director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation was sensationalistic with her comments. In an article on CBC.ca I read, she said the following:
This wasn't done as a joke. It was all in good fun, but some people, especially her, don't want to see it that way.
When asked about blackface, she said the following:
That's your prerogative to not like them. But to say it hurt people is quite ignorant. It did not hurt anybody. He wasn't directing it towards anybody. They were for events not for a racist and hurtful purpose. There was no malicious intent. But she and probably others don't want to believe that.
People are putting him under a microscope and judging him under the current times. They are not thinking about the times all this took place happened. People involved during those times didn't see it as wrong based on the context of why Trudeau was doing it. People are failing to see that it wasn't done in a racist and insensitive manner. Why should that matter to them? They don't care. They are using it as an excuse to lynch mob him.
When it comes to the backstory, people need to do research. They need to realize that it actually wasn't what they are making it out to be. All they shout is "racist," "insensitive," "hurtful," etc.. It was none of these things. They don't want to admit that. They are instantly shocked and appalled. Context is always a good thing.
Let's take a look at the various photos and backstories.
This first one was taken when he was in high school. This was at least 30 years. It was a talent show where he was doing he was doing his rendition of the song "Banana Boat (Day-O)." People dress the part for stuff all the time, but wouldn't lynch mob them.
This second picture was taken an Arabian-themed party at West Point Grey Academy where he taught. This is back in 2001. It is going 20 years ago. Just because he was one of the few if not the only one to paint his face doesn't mean it was done in an insensitive manner. Again, people do this all the time without people batting an eye or getting lynch mobbed.
This final picture is a screenshot from Facebook. It gives the backstory behind the blackface video. He was working with a rafting company and this was at an event in support of this female team. I guess supporting a female rafting team who got no support from the government to go to a race in Africa while their male counterparts did is something we should ignore. Let's not focus on the positive, but turn it into a negative. I doubt Harry Belafonte knows about this. If he does, I doubt he cares with some more pressing issues in the world that need to be addressed.
People have turned everything in this "controversy" into a negative. They are seeing these things for something it isn't. It's almost as if they are obsessed with making up some false narrative so they can use it against him as an excuse to not focus on the issues. Let's face it, it is not secret that a good portion of Canadian can't stand Justin Trudeau. Hell, some even loath and hate him. They use this to smear him and as a reason to not vote for him. Really? They complain he hasn't done anything for this country, but can't specifically say what he has done wrong. All they care about is pushing this narrative of Justin Trudeau being the worst Prime Minister. They think anything dug up on him will further that narrative. That's not this works. You base how he is as Prime Minister on what he has actually done for the country and what he said he would and never delivered. But let's not do that either.
People are quick to be outraged. Uninformed and ignorantly outraged. But it is mainly white Canadians that are mainly outraged. Sure there are those who are an ethnic minority that are outraged, but a good portion are willing to forgive or don't even care. That doesn't mean all people that are considered ethnic minorities aren't outraged or shocked.
Dr. Myrna Lashley, former director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation was sensationalistic with her comments. In an article on CBC.ca I read, she said the following:
"People hear racist jokes all the time. How many times do people stand up and say: 'Don't tell me that joke,' — or walk away?"
This wasn't done as a joke. It was all in good fun, but some people, especially her, don't want to see it that way.
When asked about blackface, she said the following:
"I hate them.It was a stupid thing to do, and it hurt a lot of people. I know the man. I met him — he's not a racist. He's trying to bring people together."
That's your prerogative to not like them. But to say it hurt people is quite ignorant. It did not hurt anybody. He wasn't directing it towards anybody. They were for events not for a racist and hurtful purpose. There was no malicious intent. But she and probably others don't want to believe that.
"People laugh at these jokes, even if they are directed against them.
If they don't, people will say, 'What's wrong with you? You have a chip on your shoulder.'"
She kept coming back to talking about jokes. They weren't done as jokes. Why is she so fixated on that? Having fun and joking around doesn't equate to having a chip on your shoulder. At least in these instances anyways. For her to say such a thing is ignorant.
She also said that people are saying he doesn't have to apologize. I am in that camp. Even though he has apologized, there are people that won't accept it. They are looking for any reason to vilify and crucify Trudeau. So much so that people would rather talk about blackface/brownface than the issues. Quebec, which has a racist history, for the most part are not or were not focused on blackface/brownface. It wasn't in francophone newspapers for instance. They had other things in the news that were taking up headlines. That's saying something considering they have a history of blackface in the province. Some people in Quebec said it was a "lack of judgement."
She also said that people are saying he doesn't have to apologize. I am in that camp. Even though he has apologized, there are people that won't accept it. They are looking for any reason to vilify and crucify Trudeau. So much so that people would rather talk about blackface/brownface than the issues. Quebec, which has a racist history, for the most part are not or were not focused on blackface/brownface. It wasn't in francophone newspapers for instance. They had other things in the news that were taking up headlines. That's saying something considering they have a history of blackface in the province. Some people in Quebec said it was a "lack of judgement."
I've seen articles where there have been been polls. One poll conducted online, forgot by who, stated that around 45 percent of Canadians didn't care about blackface. So, you're saying that 16.65 million Canadians don't care? Not even close. Around 1900 people participated in this poll. That means 855 people don't care. You can't base the opinions of everybody on very low number of people who participated in this poll. In fact, I can say for certain that nobody I know knew about this poll let alone participated in it.
Here is something I don't get. Insights West conducted two polls in British Columbia. The results showed that 52 percent of the participants see blackface as a serious issue. Fair enough, but oddly the percentage went up two percent in regards to voting for the Liberals. How does that work when giving that 52 percent see this as a serious issue? I don't get it. Regardless of what polls are showing, people won't let this die and focus on the issues.
Howard Levitt penned an article recently and gave two examples of people who didn't disclose things or they lied to perspective employees. They both got fired for those reasons. Levitt is saying that if these people can fired for those things, can't Trudeau get fired for such things like blackface/brownface? That's not really the same thing. He never lied about anything nor was he being investigated for something at the time he became leader of the Liberal Party and became Prime Minister. That's where the power of voting comes in. You can vote him out. That could be seen a "firing" him.
As Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi said, he didn't think Trudeau was being "actively racist." He also goes on to say, "we have to ask ourselves why enough people in 2001 thought that was okay." Again, it wasn't done in a racist manner. He dressed up for an event. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around? People didn't see it as racist because it was costume party and it wasn't taken seriously. Don't get me started on the headline. I can't even. In another article, he says there is something more threatening than blackface. That is very true. You can read of what he says.
We have ignored things like Quebec's Bill 21 aka the secularism law until the last couple of days or so. It basically states people in the public sector in positions of authority such as teachers and police officers can't wear hijabs, yarmulkes, etc.. What in the blue hell? Any levelheaded person would not be okay with this. Going on three months since it passed and it hasn't been focused because of this stupid blackface/brownface. Shows where are out focus is. It is good that it is going to be made an federal election issue and people such as Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi is calling for a ground swell against this bill. Hopefully the demonstrations and rallies in Quebec that are to be taking place gets their voices heard.
I am sick of people digging up stuff on people they feel can be used against someone during election time. Some people, including a person I know, even went as far as to say cry "cultural appropriation" just because Trudeau dressed in the cultural clothing of India on his last trip there. Being respectful in that regard is "cultural appropriation?" You are a reaching a bit much if you think so. It's not like he was trying to act Indian. People take everything and turn it into a negative. I can't wait for this election to be over. We need to stop finding reasons to hate people and blanket them as a bad person. Focus on the issues or do you like focusing on stupid shit that creates needless drama and bullshit? Whatever the reason, you need to give your head a shake. It is good we seemingly moved on from this. But will the issues be focused on? Hopefully.
Here is something I don't get. Insights West conducted two polls in British Columbia. The results showed that 52 percent of the participants see blackface as a serious issue. Fair enough, but oddly the percentage went up two percent in regards to voting for the Liberals. How does that work when giving that 52 percent see this as a serious issue? I don't get it. Regardless of what polls are showing, people won't let this die and focus on the issues.
Howard Levitt penned an article recently and gave two examples of people who didn't disclose things or they lied to perspective employees. They both got fired for those reasons. Levitt is saying that if these people can fired for those things, can't Trudeau get fired for such things like blackface/brownface? That's not really the same thing. He never lied about anything nor was he being investigated for something at the time he became leader of the Liberal Party and became Prime Minister. That's where the power of voting comes in. You can vote him out. That could be seen a "firing" him.
As Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi said, he didn't think Trudeau was being "actively racist." He also goes on to say, "we have to ask ourselves why enough people in 2001 thought that was okay." Again, it wasn't done in a racist manner. He dressed up for an event. Why is that so hard to wrap your head around? People didn't see it as racist because it was costume party and it wasn't taken seriously. Don't get me started on the headline. I can't even. In another article, he says there is something more threatening than blackface. That is very true. You can read of what he says.
We have ignored things like Quebec's Bill 21 aka the secularism law until the last couple of days or so. It basically states people in the public sector in positions of authority such as teachers and police officers can't wear hijabs, yarmulkes, etc.. What in the blue hell? Any levelheaded person would not be okay with this. Going on three months since it passed and it hasn't been focused because of this stupid blackface/brownface. Shows where are out focus is. It is good that it is going to be made an federal election issue and people such as Calgary mayor Naheed Nenshi is calling for a ground swell against this bill. Hopefully the demonstrations and rallies in Quebec that are to be taking place gets their voices heard.
I am sick of people digging up stuff on people they feel can be used against someone during election time. Some people, including a person I know, even went as far as to say cry "cultural appropriation" just because Trudeau dressed in the cultural clothing of India on his last trip there. Being respectful in that regard is "cultural appropriation?" You are a reaching a bit much if you think so. It's not like he was trying to act Indian. People take everything and turn it into a negative. I can't wait for this election to be over. We need to stop finding reasons to hate people and blanket them as a bad person. Focus on the issues or do you like focusing on stupid shit that creates needless drama and bullshit? Whatever the reason, you need to give your head a shake. It is good we seemingly moved on from this. But will the issues be focused on? Hopefully.
Friday, February 02, 2018
"In All of Us Command" - The Revert of the Canadian National Anthem
Nearly eights ago, I talked about changing a line in the Canadian national anthem. You can see the post here. I was against the idea because I saw no point. As well I thought Stephen Harper was wasting taxpayers money studying the idea. According to some research, I mistakenly attributed it to Harper, but it was then Governor General Michaëlle Jean who announced a plan in her speech from the throne to have Parliament review the “original gender-neutral wording of the national anthem.”
While doing some research, I found out that the original French version has always remained gender neutral. It was written and released over 130 years ago in 1880 by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier and and composer Calixa Lavallée and originally entitled "Chant National." Even the versions by Thomas B. Richardson, Mercy E. Powell McCulloch; Wilfred Campbell, Augustus Bridle, and Ewing Buchan; Robert Stanley Weir, and the other versions written were all gender-neutral.
The version by Weir; a lawyer, recorder, and later a judge wrote his version in 1908. It was written to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Quebec City. In 1913, 1914, and 1916; changes were made to the song. Nobody knows why it was changed to a non-gender neutral version as there is no evidence. I came across an editorial published on National Post's website in 2016 and penned by Robert Cushman. You can see it here. Cushman breaks down the "in all thy sons command" line of the anthem. He theorizes that Weir made the revision to be with the times.
Thinking about it, why would you need to change it? Theories aside, was there a point to doing so? We'll never know as again, there is no evidence to why the change was made.
Even though Weir's version became the official anthem in 1980 as it was widely sung as the main anthem. After 1939, it became one of the two defacto anthems alongside "God Save the Queen." It was done so because it was sung in French Canada and the music was heard everywhere else that was English in Canada.
Why has it taken over 110 years to change it back? But why did it take at 35-40 years for discussion on the discriminatory aspects to start taking place? According to what I've researched, this discussion came about in the 1950s. Basically we've had this discussion for at least 60 years.
When Jean announced the review on March 3rd, the public sentiment, myself included, was strongly against changing it back, that two days later they dropped it. Ironically, my post was two days later. My ignorance attributed the proposed review to Harper. I usually try to be thorough and correct with my information. But even I have moments of slipping up. Looking back, I feel bad for her.
It has been said that things can change over time. It is true as I'm okay with the change. Reverting back to the original words is not such a bad thing. People have been trying for decades to get it changed back. Many politicians have tried to introduce similar bills in the past with no such luck. But with a lot of things, people complain. Senator Denise Batters is one of them. Here is her tweet with said complaining.
Why does there need to be any discussion? If you actually look at the original words of any versions including Weir's unrevised original version, you'd know it is gender-neutral. French Canada, Quebec specifically, is the butt of a lot jokes, but they got this right. Yes, I again admit I was against changing it the last time it was brought up. People can change their stance over time. That's exactly what I did. If you don't like that's it has been reverted back than too bad.
I get that it will take time to get used to as singing "in all thy sons command" is out of habit. But if Weir's version that became the official anthem in 1980 wasn't revised than we wouldn't have had at least 60 years of discussions. This post wouldn't exist. But the fact is it was.
If you are bitching about parliamentary procedure not happening. Get over it. If you're bitching about the fact it's been reverted. Get over it. Think about this. The gender-neutral versions were written during a time when laws were limiting for women. Revising Weir's gender-neutral version to be gender-specific could be seen as a step back. Reverting could be seen as the only way to continue to progress forward.
While doing some research, I found out that the original French version has always remained gender neutral. It was written and released over 130 years ago in 1880 by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier and and composer Calixa Lavallée and originally entitled "Chant National." Even the versions by Thomas B. Richardson, Mercy E. Powell McCulloch; Wilfred Campbell, Augustus Bridle, and Ewing Buchan; Robert Stanley Weir, and the other versions written were all gender-neutral.
The version by Weir; a lawyer, recorder, and later a judge wrote his version in 1908. It was written to commemorate the 300th anniversary of Quebec City. In 1913, 1914, and 1916; changes were made to the song. Nobody knows why it was changed to a non-gender neutral version as there is no evidence. I came across an editorial published on National Post's website in 2016 and penned by Robert Cushman. You can see it here. Cushman breaks down the "in all thy sons command" line of the anthem. He theorizes that Weir made the revision to be with the times.
Thinking about it, why would you need to change it? Theories aside, was there a point to doing so? We'll never know as again, there is no evidence to why the change was made.
Even though Weir's version became the official anthem in 1980 as it was widely sung as the main anthem. After 1939, it became one of the two defacto anthems alongside "God Save the Queen." It was done so because it was sung in French Canada and the music was heard everywhere else that was English in Canada.
Why has it taken over 110 years to change it back? But why did it take at 35-40 years for discussion on the discriminatory aspects to start taking place? According to what I've researched, this discussion came about in the 1950s. Basically we've had this discussion for at least 60 years.
When Jean announced the review on March 3rd, the public sentiment, myself included, was strongly against changing it back, that two days later they dropped it. Ironically, my post was two days later. My ignorance attributed the proposed review to Harper. I usually try to be thorough and correct with my information. But even I have moments of slipping up. Looking back, I feel bad for her.
It has been said that things can change over time. It is true as I'm okay with the change. Reverting back to the original words is not such a bad thing. People have been trying for decades to get it changed back. Many politicians have tried to introduce similar bills in the past with no such luck. But with a lot of things, people complain. Senator Denise Batters is one of them. Here is her tweet with said complaining.
Here is an awesome response to her that I couldn't have said better myself.Shameful, anti-democratic behaviour by #Trudeau-appointed senators, including #SenCA Speaker, as they shut down legitimate debate in Chamber— Sen. Denise Batters (@denisebatters) January 31, 2018
Dear Senator Batters; Our anthem has been through many changes over the years. This change takes us to a version that doesn't put men over women. A simple change. Objecting to legitimate procedures as anti-democratic when you yourself weren't elected is very funny.— Timothy Anderson (@AndersonBooz) February 1, 2018
Why does there need to be any discussion? If you actually look at the original words of any versions including Weir's unrevised original version, you'd know it is gender-neutral. French Canada, Quebec specifically, is the butt of a lot jokes, but they got this right. Yes, I again admit I was against changing it the last time it was brought up. People can change their stance over time. That's exactly what I did. If you don't like that's it has been reverted back than too bad.
I get that it will take time to get used to as singing "in all thy sons command" is out of habit. But if Weir's version that became the official anthem in 1980 wasn't revised than we wouldn't have had at least 60 years of discussions. This post wouldn't exist. But the fact is it was.
If you are bitching about parliamentary procedure not happening. Get over it. If you're bitching about the fact it's been reverted. Get over it. Think about this. The gender-neutral versions were written during a time when laws were limiting for women. Revising Weir's gender-neutral version to be gender-specific could be seen as a step back. Reverting could be seen as the only way to continue to progress forward.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Are People Buying Into the Fear Mongering?
The Paris attacks has dominated headlines, more so than the attacks on
Beirut. That doesn't mean that the motives behind them are different.
ISIS has taken credit for both attacks. Now that this heightened alert
is happening all over the world, not that it is a bad thing, we need to
not let these events run our everyday lives. That's what these militant
groups want. They are want us to be fearful of our everyday lives.
They want use to do our everyday tasks with a certain sense of fear and
trepidation.
It is has gotten to the point, whether they believe it or not, that some people are saying that blocking refugees from entering any country could drive them closer to ISIS and other such militant groups. I don't necessarily believe that. We need to have some proof that this sort of thing happens. But on a segment of episode of CBC Radio's "180," Syrian-American political researcher Nader Atassi has said specifically this. That seems like another case of fear mongering. Why would they want to join up with a militant group when they want to somewhere better and away from that? Doesn't make much sense.
It has gotten so out of hand that, Saskatchewan premiere Brad Wall is calling on newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to suspend fast tracking 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada by the end of year. This happening wasn't as big of an issue until the Beirut and Paris attacks happened. Now people are full of fear and trepidation like something is going to happen. I'm not saying the Wall is wrong, but he is not totally thinking rationally. It's gotten to the point that a number of American Republican govenors are blocking Syrian refugees from resettling in their state even if it is only temporary. One is presidential candidate. Bobby Jindal can be seen as a hypocrite for not wanting refugees to resettle in Louisiana. Jindal is of Indian descent as his parents imigrated from India.
It would be interesting to know if Wall and Jindal can prove if any of the refugees pose a real credible threat. Yesterday on Facebook, the Ecomomist posted the following:
If you do the math, you will see that an average of roughly 53,500 refugees per year were resettled in North America. Yet when Prime Minister Trudeau wants to resettle a mere 25,000; we lose our minds. No I'm not saying that fast tracking is the answer. But if those 750,000 did nothing to cause use harm, than what are the odds that these 25,000 will? Sure if you break it down per month, it doesn't come up to that many per million. In the United States is came up to a smaller number per month. Even if you break it down for Canada, it still comes up to a small amount per month.
These mililtant groups want us to live in fear and trepidation. That's why blocking refugees from Syria has become hot topic. I give credit to those premiers (if there are any) and those govenors who will let refugees into their provinces and states. If we give in a close our borders out of fear, than our world will be completely governed by fear and we will be afraid to live our lives. I don't want to live my life in fear and trepidation. I don't think you want to either.
It is has gotten to the point, whether they believe it or not, that some people are saying that blocking refugees from entering any country could drive them closer to ISIS and other such militant groups. I don't necessarily believe that. We need to have some proof that this sort of thing happens. But on a segment of episode of CBC Radio's "180," Syrian-American political researcher Nader Atassi has said specifically this. That seems like another case of fear mongering. Why would they want to join up with a militant group when they want to somewhere better and away from that? Doesn't make much sense.
It has gotten so out of hand that, Saskatchewan premiere Brad Wall is calling on newly elected Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to suspend fast tracking 25,000 Syrian refugees into Canada by the end of year. This happening wasn't as big of an issue until the Beirut and Paris attacks happened. Now people are full of fear and trepidation like something is going to happen. I'm not saying the Wall is wrong, but he is not totally thinking rationally. It's gotten to the point that a number of American Republican govenors are blocking Syrian refugees from resettling in their state even if it is only temporary. One is presidential candidate. Bobby Jindal can be seen as a hypocrite for not wanting refugees to resettle in Louisiana. Jindal is of Indian descent as his parents imigrated from India.
It would be interesting to know if Wall and Jindal can prove if any of the refugees pose a real credible threat. Yesterday on Facebook, the Ecomomist posted the following:
 |
| Source: The Economist |
These mililtant groups want us to live in fear and trepidation. That's why blocking refugees from Syria has become hot topic. I give credit to those premiers (if there are any) and those govenors who will let refugees into their provinces and states. If we give in a close our borders out of fear, than our world will be completely governed by fear and we will be afraid to live our lives. I don't want to live my life in fear and trepidation. I don't think you want to either.
Saturday, November 14, 2015
The Attack on Paris
The attack on Paris and other such attacks on places around the world are becoming increasingly common. I don't know what the motive is behind this. But what I do know is that France has a high Muslim population. That is not to say that all the Muslins in France wanted to do the attacks. It is the radical/extremist Muslims of the world that want to do this. It is unfortunate that Paris was the target for these attacks.
No matter where you went whether it be out for evening to have a good time, to friends place, to work, stay at home, or online; the tragic events that occured were being talked about. They are still being talked about. Rightfully it should be talked about. It is being talked about to not make people fearful. Sure there are people who fear it could happen in their own backyards. Sure that is a scary notion, but we need not let those people who do such things be fear mongers and scare innocent civilians into not wanting to live out their normal day-to-day lives.
When United States President Barack Obama addressed the media one thing he said stood out. He said:
He was right when he said that. Stuff like this is happening all over the world all the time. It is happening in places you wouldn't expect. Domestic terrorism is an all too real thing. You don't want to have to admit it to yourself, but it is happening. People gunning down people in schools can be seen as a form of domestic terrorism. It is scary. The people of Paris if not all of France fear for their future. I get that, but if they find a way to be strong in the face of this, they could be probably find some semblance of normalcy in there lives. Sure it might take awhile, but I believe it will happen.
Talking to a friend of mine tonight about these attacks and we talked about how not every Muslim is radical or an extremist. I've worked with Muslims and they wouldn't hurt anybody. They wouldn't attempt to harm anybody. They are nice people. But it's the extremists the give them a bad name. He also said that he gets messages from people on Facebook from places like India and whatnot because of his YouTube videos and he said they are geniunely nice people. So don't be like professional wrestling personality Tammy Lynn Sytch formerly known as Sunny in the WWF who said:
I'll leave you with a status I posted on Facebook (both personal and fanpage), Twitter, Tumblr, and Google Plus.
Here are some hashtags you can use #PrayforParis #PeaceforParis #JeSuisParis
Peace be with France during this time.
No matter where you went whether it be out for evening to have a good time, to friends place, to work, stay at home, or online; the tragic events that occured were being talked about. They are still being talked about. Rightfully it should be talked about. It is being talked about to not make people fearful. Sure there are people who fear it could happen in their own backyards. Sure that is a scary notion, but we need not let those people who do such things be fear mongers and scare innocent civilians into not wanting to live out their normal day-to-day lives.
When United States President Barack Obama addressed the media one thing he said stood out. He said:
"This is not an attack on Paris. This is not an attack France. This is an attack on humanity."
He was right when he said that. Stuff like this is happening all over the world all the time. It is happening in places you wouldn't expect. Domestic terrorism is an all too real thing. You don't want to have to admit it to yourself, but it is happening. People gunning down people in schools can be seen as a form of domestic terrorism. It is scary. The people of Paris if not all of France fear for their future. I get that, but if they find a way to be strong in the face of this, they could be probably find some semblance of normalcy in there lives. Sure it might take awhile, but I believe it will happen.
Talking to a friend of mine tonight about these attacks and we talked about how not every Muslim is radical or an extremist. I've worked with Muslims and they wouldn't hurt anybody. They wouldn't attempt to harm anybody. They are nice people. But it's the extremists the give them a bad name. He also said that he gets messages from people on Facebook from places like India and whatnot because of his YouTube videos and he said they are geniunely nice people. So don't be like professional wrestling personality Tammy Lynn Sytch formerly known as Sunny in the WWF who said:
"What I think the world needs is another holocaust, but this time for the Islams of the world... The ones who really should be extinguished. HAIL TRUMP!"This was said on her Facebook page. What a sick thing to want. You can't blame all Muslims based on the actions of small percentage of people who profess to practice this religion. Why do people have to be so fucked in the head?
I'll leave you with a status I posted on Facebook (both personal and fanpage), Twitter, Tumblr, and Google Plus.
"The Paris attacks shows how scary this world is. If a developed country such as France is not immune from such attacks, just think it can happen here. Just don't let that stop you from living your life. As scary as it is, life does ultimately go on."Don't become so fearful that you can't live your life. You need to keep on keeping on even if it is tough.
Here are some hashtags you can use #PrayforParis #PeaceforParis #JeSuisParis
Peace be with France during this time.
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
2015 Federal Election
What I have been wondering is the percentages of key demographics are. Demographics such as first time voters, Native voters, 20-something
voters, senior voters, and immigrant voters. I guess we might not ever know.
Even though this is my second time voting in a federal election, it feels good to vote. A couple of friends voted for the first. One who has never voted and the second probably because she wasn't old enough. The older friend now has realized that her voice, opinion, and vote did matter.
Regardless of how you voted, you should have went to the polls voting on the issues rather than based on the party or just to get Stephen Harper out of office. The latter two is just a lazy way to vote.
People are bitching about the result because, even though they wanted Stephen Harper out, they didn't want Justin Trudeau in. In the 2011 federal election, we had the chance to vote in something different, but didn't. With the Liberals once again back in power, this isn't the change they wanted. But it looks like they are willing to Truedeau more of a chance than Tom Mulcair and the NDP because people can't separate the socialism on a provincial and national level. If it wasn't for socialism, we as Canadians wouldn't have universal healthcare. Do you really want to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars on a doctors visit.
People are not willing to give socialism a chance nationally because of how it has done on the provincial level. In some ways I get that. But you can't base how well socialism will do nationally based on how it has shit the bed in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, etc.. For all you know, it might actually work better than you expected.For now, respect the decision of your fellow Canadians. In 2019, you'll be able to once again make your vote count. If you want don't liberals in office once again, make the informed choice and vote for another party. But if history has taught us anything, we can't vote in any other party aside from Liberal or Conservative. We are not a two tier party system like the United States. We have that option to vote for more than just two parties. We should learn to use it. But I don't know when we will get it. Till than, here is to voting Liberal or or Conservative in power.
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Getting Rid of the Penny Part 2
In 2008 I posted about the Canadian federal government wanting to get rid of the penny which you can read here. Well, in the budget handed down by the Canadian federal government recently, one of the things they said they want to do is that they are getting rid of the penny. By the end of the year, the penny will be taken out of circulation. Back in 2008, it was rumored that was happening. It looks like it finally happening. Also back in 2008, it was said that the penny is losing value. Is that still the case?
It take 1.5 cents to produce a penny. But for some odd reason, the higher the coin amount, the cheaper it is to produce it. You would think it's the other way around, but it's not. In terms of saving money for the government, it makes sense to take the penny out of circulation. In a 2010 article by CBC Business, it talks about various countries pennies and they get by without it. Then senator Irvin Gerstein said it costs to keep the penny, but it would also costs to eliminate it.
The Senate has recommended to get rid of the penny. Which is what they will do at the end of the year. According a 2010 article by Maclean's, the penny has been called outdated and since it's inception, it's been seen as worthless and flimsy compared to the sterling that was issued for years prior to the penny's 1858 debut.
I'm on the fence about the penny. I don't neither like it or hate it. I heard a person say one time that it's useful. But like it's been said, it's no longer useful. If the penny was never useful, than why couldn't they have killed it and continued using the previous currency? That would seem like the most logical thing to do. But for the people who hate the penny, I guess they can rejoice in some roundabout way. The penny is on it's way out and I guess we will use it while we can. How do you feel about it. Like I said, I'm on the fence ala I'm indifferent.
It take 1.5 cents to produce a penny. But for some odd reason, the higher the coin amount, the cheaper it is to produce it. You would think it's the other way around, but it's not. In terms of saving money for the government, it makes sense to take the penny out of circulation. In a 2010 article by CBC Business, it talks about various countries pennies and they get by without it. Then senator Irvin Gerstein said it costs to keep the penny, but it would also costs to eliminate it.
“By some estimates, the production and use of the penny represents hundreds of millions of dollars every year in direct costs to taxpayers and lost productivity," Senator Irving Gerstein said in a statement, adding "there would be costs associated with eliminating the penny, as well.”Back in 2007, 62 percent of businesses were in favour of getting rid of the penny. That means they will have to round to the nearest nickel. Australia and New Zealand have had no issues in doing so and they haven't had a penny since the 90s. But will this work for Canada? Apparently it will.
The Senate has recommended to get rid of the penny. Which is what they will do at the end of the year. According a 2010 article by Maclean's, the penny has been called outdated and since it's inception, it's been seen as worthless and flimsy compared to the sterling that was issued for years prior to the penny's 1858 debut.
I'm on the fence about the penny. I don't neither like it or hate it. I heard a person say one time that it's useful. But like it's been said, it's no longer useful. If the penny was never useful, than why couldn't they have killed it and continued using the previous currency? That would seem like the most logical thing to do. But for the people who hate the penny, I guess they can rejoice in some roundabout way. The penny is on it's way out and I guess we will use it while we can. How do you feel about it. Like I said, I'm on the fence ala I'm indifferent.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
The Saskatchewan NDP Is Not Getting My Vote
Saskatchewan has a provincial election coming up. It's basically between the Saskatchewan Party and the New Democratic Party. But certain people running for MLA as an NDP candidate don't even use party colours on their billboard. Instead they are using Saskatchewan Party colours. Also, they are not even acknowledging Dwain Lingenfelter, the leader of the NDP, in their literature. How sad is that?
Are they are not wanting to have it known that are running for a party that is in such disarray? If that's the case, than why don't they run for a party that they can be proud to run for. I wouldn't run for the Saskatchewan NDP either or at least acknowledge I was. With the stupid shit they are doing and the unions having their hands up their ass like puppets. I would be embarrassed to run for them. The NDP needs to get back in order and show their candidates and people in general they are a party worth running for. But unfortunately that hasn't happened.
Until they can actually do something worth while in office (that is if they can get back in office anytime soon), than I'm not voting for them. If you look at the NDP history over the past 20 years, you can see they reduced the population by driving people elsewhere, not reducing the provincial debt, not making wages on par with other provinces, etc.. With the Saskatchewan Party, they have reduced the debt, increased population, increased jobs, etc..
So you can clearly see that no matter how much they try to spin it, they will not get my vote. Like I said, they have to prove they are worthy of it and with Dwain Lingenfelter as leader, that's not going to happen. He will be the first NDP leader to not get elected as premiere. That is if he doesn't get elected before he retires.
Are they are not wanting to have it known that are running for a party that is in such disarray? If that's the case, than why don't they run for a party that they can be proud to run for. I wouldn't run for the Saskatchewan NDP either or at least acknowledge I was. With the stupid shit they are doing and the unions having their hands up their ass like puppets. I would be embarrassed to run for them. The NDP needs to get back in order and show their candidates and people in general they are a party worth running for. But unfortunately that hasn't happened.
Until they can actually do something worth while in office (that is if they can get back in office anytime soon), than I'm not voting for them. If you look at the NDP history over the past 20 years, you can see they reduced the population by driving people elsewhere, not reducing the provincial debt, not making wages on par with other provinces, etc.. With the Saskatchewan Party, they have reduced the debt, increased population, increased jobs, etc..
So you can clearly see that no matter how much they try to spin it, they will not get my vote. Like I said, they have to prove they are worthy of it and with Dwain Lingenfelter as leader, that's not going to happen. He will be the first NDP leader to not get elected as premiere. That is if he doesn't get elected before he retires.
Tuesday, August 23, 2011
R.I.P. Jack Layton
The man, the myth, the mustache, Jack Layton died yesterday after a bought with a second type of cancer. He took the national New Democratic Party to heights never seen before. Going from civic politics in Toronto to national NDP leader without ever being elected nationally is a pretty huge accomplishment.
It's too bad that he will not be able to see this all through. No matter what you think of him, you have to agree he was very respected. He was passionate about what believed and he could make people want to vote for him not the NDP as a whole. Sure people said that his platform might cost money, but he was passionate about helping people.
You can't deny his character and the person he is. You don't have to like him, but you at least have to respect what he did. Not only politically, but Layton as a person. I respect what he accomplished politically and him as a person. He seemed so personable. The stories you hear make him seem down to earth. Canada lost one of it's greats. To further back this is the fact that they are giving Layton a state funeral which is this Saturday. Usually state funerals are reserved for prime ministers, governor generals, and cabinet ministers who died in office.
R.I.P. Jack Layton!
It's too bad that he will not be able to see this all through. No matter what you think of him, you have to agree he was very respected. He was passionate about what believed and he could make people want to vote for him not the NDP as a whole. Sure people said that his platform might cost money, but he was passionate about helping people.
You can't deny his character and the person he is. You don't have to like him, but you at least have to respect what he did. Not only politically, but Layton as a person. I respect what he accomplished politically and him as a person. He seemed so personable. The stories you hear make him seem down to earth. Canada lost one of it's greats. To further back this is the fact that they are giving Layton a state funeral which is this Saturday. Usually state funerals are reserved for prime ministers, governor generals, and cabinet ministers who died in office.
R.I.P. Jack Layton!
Wednesday, August 03, 2011
Nycole Turmel: The Interim NDP Leader
Nycole Turmel, if you live in Canada and have been paying attention to the news than you would have heard that name over the last number of days and weeks.
She was appointed by NDP leader Jack Layton as the interim leader because Layton is dealing with another form of cancer which hasn't been revealed. She is coming under fire for being a former card carrying member of the Bloc Quebecois. But she only got a card for the Bloc Quebecois is because she supported a friend. A question asked is why did she keep sending the annual renewal fee? Apparently she agreed with some of the policies of the Bloc Quebecois. From a non-Quebecer's standpoint the Block Quebecois have been criticized with being a separatist party. But unless you've really looked into the Bloc, than you would come to the conclusion that they are a separatist group. Has anyone even bothered to think that maybe she just kept sending in the annual fee without even thinking about it.
Now she is coming under fire for being a card carrying member of Quebec solidaire. They are an extremist separatist party in Quebec. That is all we really know. But looking into Quebec solidaire, they have a socialist, green politics, alter-globalization, and feminist ideologies aside from their extreme separatist ideologies. But people are only focusing on that.
Unless Turmel is expressly states separatist sentiments, than why are we getting bent out of shape? We need not lose site of what Jack Layton is doing. If Layton has confidence in her than we should give her a chance. If she starts doing stuff that seemingly goes against what Layton wants than there is reason to worry and make a big deal. But until such time let her do the job she was appointed. Layton made inroads in Quebec and boosted his stature in the province. So it's probably a just strategic move to increase his presence there.
When he comes back, Turmel will be back as an MP. So this is just hopefully short term.
She was appointed by NDP leader Jack Layton as the interim leader because Layton is dealing with another form of cancer which hasn't been revealed. She is coming under fire for being a former card carrying member of the Bloc Quebecois. But she only got a card for the Bloc Quebecois is because she supported a friend. A question asked is why did she keep sending the annual renewal fee? Apparently she agreed with some of the policies of the Bloc Quebecois. From a non-Quebecer's standpoint the Block Quebecois have been criticized with being a separatist party. But unless you've really looked into the Bloc, than you would come to the conclusion that they are a separatist group. Has anyone even bothered to think that maybe she just kept sending in the annual fee without even thinking about it.
Now she is coming under fire for being a card carrying member of Quebec solidaire. They are an extremist separatist party in Quebec. That is all we really know. But looking into Quebec solidaire, they have a socialist, green politics, alter-globalization, and feminist ideologies aside from their extreme separatist ideologies. But people are only focusing on that.
Unless Turmel is expressly states separatist sentiments, than why are we getting bent out of shape? We need not lose site of what Jack Layton is doing. If Layton has confidence in her than we should give her a chance. If she starts doing stuff that seemingly goes against what Layton wants than there is reason to worry and make a big deal. But until such time let her do the job she was appointed. Layton made inroads in Quebec and boosted his stature in the province. So it's probably a just strategic move to increase his presence there.
When he comes back, Turmel will be back as an MP. So this is just hopefully short term.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Laying The Votedown!
I laid the votedown this past Monday. It is the first time I voted. I am one of those people that feels that you should vote based on who would do the better job and not based on a particular party. You can like a particular party all you want, but if that particular party is not going to do the best job, than does it make sense to vote for them? No! But a lot of people don't vote that way. It would be in their best interest to look at the issues each party stands for, than make a decision based on what appeals to you. You would think that most people do that. But unfortunately they don't.
I'll come out and say that I voted for the NDP. A big factor in why I voted for them is that they have a good stance on helping families. I've received criticism for this and that's fine. But one thing I've criticized Jack Layton for is his cap and trade idea which would add ten cents a litre at the pumps. Gas is expensive as it is.
Let explain why I like his stance on helping families. It is because there a lot of families struggling to get by. Some families work hard and don't have a lot of disposable income to save. 41 percent of our money goes to the government to pay various things. Sure I get that there are people who like to abuse welfare by staying on it their whole life and not even attempt to find a job. Welfare never runs out unlike other things like unemployment. If your source of money never runs out, than why incentive is there to look for work? My mom has said that people apply for jobs after being on welfare for years and find out working isn't always easy, so they quit their job and go back on welfare. Like it's been told to me, that if you are an able body, you should be working and I totally agree with that. Having people on welfare puts on a strain on taxpayers. It also doesn't make you a productive member of society. Sure I've had times in my life where I wasn't a productive member of society and I hated it.
Stephen Harper's $100 cheques were sent out in place of all the other programs he cut funding too or stopped. $100 a month is not going to help people with the of raising a child. What does Harper expect that everything will instantly become cheaper and everything will work itself out? $100 a month will not pay for childcare while the mother goes out and works. Nine times out of ten the women ends up staying home with the children because those $100 checks will force them too because it doesn't do much. But childcare is just one part of it. Raising a child isn't cheap, but if you take away or under fund the programs people need even though they are trying to provide for themselves and their child would be doing families or single parents a big disservice. There are many items in terms of helping people, especially families, that Jack Layton has a stance on that appealed to me which in turn is why I voted for him.
On Facebook, on my friends had a status up and it generated a number of responses. But a person I know brought up a bit of a far fetched thing where he asked if we should we give these people a new house. I wouldn't go that far. But you need to keep programs running smoothly in place and even improve some of them so they are their when families or yourself need them. That encompasses a lot of things. Not just for the families.
The one thing I don't like that I mentioned is his cap and trade idea because it adds ten cents a litre at the pumps. Maybe I don't really understand it. I've noticed if you don't understand something you hate and bash it. Maybe it's the fact that I don't understand it which is why I don't like it. Will this idea eventually reduce gas prices? Decide for yourself if it's a good idea.
Jack Layton explains the cap and trade from NOW Magazine on Vimeo.
I still may need to know more about it to make a firm decision on whether I truly like or dislike it. The first impressions were that it would raise gas price upon hearing about this. But if it in the end reduces the price of gas, than I'm all for it.
In any event, I voted for the first time and probably will vote in the 2015 national election. As you can tell, I focused on two issues with the NDP and if Jack Layton can somehow draft a way to show the people how cap and trade will help us at the pumps, than he could get more votes next time around. I would just like to see it's benefits.
I'll come out and say that I voted for the NDP. A big factor in why I voted for them is that they have a good stance on helping families. I've received criticism for this and that's fine. But one thing I've criticized Jack Layton for is his cap and trade idea which would add ten cents a litre at the pumps. Gas is expensive as it is.
Let explain why I like his stance on helping families. It is because there a lot of families struggling to get by. Some families work hard and don't have a lot of disposable income to save. 41 percent of our money goes to the government to pay various things. Sure I get that there are people who like to abuse welfare by staying on it their whole life and not even attempt to find a job. Welfare never runs out unlike other things like unemployment. If your source of money never runs out, than why incentive is there to look for work? My mom has said that people apply for jobs after being on welfare for years and find out working isn't always easy, so they quit their job and go back on welfare. Like it's been told to me, that if you are an able body, you should be working and I totally agree with that. Having people on welfare puts on a strain on taxpayers. It also doesn't make you a productive member of society. Sure I've had times in my life where I wasn't a productive member of society and I hated it.
Stephen Harper's $100 cheques were sent out in place of all the other programs he cut funding too or stopped. $100 a month is not going to help people with the of raising a child. What does Harper expect that everything will instantly become cheaper and everything will work itself out? $100 a month will not pay for childcare while the mother goes out and works. Nine times out of ten the women ends up staying home with the children because those $100 checks will force them too because it doesn't do much. But childcare is just one part of it. Raising a child isn't cheap, but if you take away or under fund the programs people need even though they are trying to provide for themselves and their child would be doing families or single parents a big disservice. There are many items in terms of helping people, especially families, that Jack Layton has a stance on that appealed to me which in turn is why I voted for him.
On Facebook, on my friends had a status up and it generated a number of responses. But a person I know brought up a bit of a far fetched thing where he asked if we should we give these people a new house. I wouldn't go that far. But you need to keep programs running smoothly in place and even improve some of them so they are their when families or yourself need them. That encompasses a lot of things. Not just for the families.
The one thing I don't like that I mentioned is his cap and trade idea because it adds ten cents a litre at the pumps. Maybe I don't really understand it. I've noticed if you don't understand something you hate and bash it. Maybe it's the fact that I don't understand it which is why I don't like it. Will this idea eventually reduce gas prices? Decide for yourself if it's a good idea.
Jack Layton explains the cap and trade from NOW Magazine on Vimeo.
I still may need to know more about it to make a firm decision on whether I truly like or dislike it. The first impressions were that it would raise gas price upon hearing about this. But if it in the end reduces the price of gas, than I'm all for it.
In any event, I voted for the first time and probably will vote in the 2015 national election. As you can tell, I focused on two issues with the NDP and if Jack Layton can somehow draft a way to show the people how cap and trade will help us at the pumps, than he could get more votes next time around. I would just like to see it's benefits.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Tales The Fish: Is It Our Duty To Vote?
Mr. C.C. returns with an issue and a question many people face during election time or post election time even. Is it our duty to vote? Some say yes while others say no. Here is what Mr. C.C. has to say about voting. He will also attempt to see if it means anything to vote.
Hey yo and welcome to a post Canada Votes 2008 edition of Tales From The Fish. I am your favorite none voting columnist Mr. C.C.. Days after the voting all in Canada has concluded and the ballots are being tallied, I will talk about voting and what will to see if it means anything. So mark you ballot with an X or a check mark and lets get to voting.
Dictionary.com defines voting as (in democratic terms): the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc..
That is what people did in Canada on October 14th, 2008. Canadians headed to the polls to elect a new government. Now, I bet you are asking yourself if I voted. No I didn't vote. The only reason being is I didn't know where to vote. I guess that I could have made the effort to find out where to vote. But is it really our duty to vote?
Some people would say yes, but other would say no. For some and yes I have said this that we don't know who to vote for. In the last federal election here in Canada, I had no idea who to vote for. But that wasn't the case this time around for me. Another reason I hear people say is because they think that their votes won't make a difference. A third reason is your classic "I don't care." Finally, all politicians are the same.
I will expand on the common excuses.
1. I Don't Know Who To Vote For:
I do get that people don't know who to vote for. But if you truly look at the issues each candidate is putting forth and study them, than you would have a better understanding and can then make a better judgement on who to vote for. Unfortunatly people don't vote on who will do the best job. They vote based on their favorite political party. I probably would do the same thing, but I don't have a favorite political party. But what I do know is that I am not a fan of the Conservatives in Canada, but if they had the right platform, than never say never in terms of voting for them.
2. My Votes Won't Make A Difference
You say your votes won't make a difference. But think about this way, what if you vote means the difference between the person you want to vote being elected or not being elected. I read this blog by Vannessa Gate entitled "Lame Reasons Not To Vote In The Election" and she made a good point that if everybody who said their vote doesn't count voted than it would make a difference. I couldn't agree more. It would be mind boggling the numbers of votes that would be cast. Than you couldn't complain that the person you voted for didn't win. It would be the fact that the others didn't vote for the same person. Or you couldn't complain that the person wanted to vote for didn't win. One vote can mean the difference between a person winning or losing as I said.
3. "I Don't Care"
A classic response to being asked if you are voting is "I don't care." Again Vanessa Gates brings up another good point that I agree with. She says that if you don't vote, than don't complain. Those words can't be any truer. People complain about taxes, arts and culture, healthcare, amature sports funding, etc., yet they won't bother to exercise their right to vote. But than again as a culture we do tend to complain. But voting is a way to be proactive even if they think their vote doesn't mean a thing.
4. All Politicians Are The Same
Yeah.... NO! If you followed the election than you would know that not all politicians are a like. Sure some politicians have similar ideas and views doesn't mean all do. For instance, Stephen Harper has a different view on arts and culture than say NDP leader Jack Layton. Just take a look on where those two men stand on that issue and you will know that they have differing views. That again goes back to the first point and that you need to study the issues and make an informed decision
There are people who are so against voting because they think it is a farse and they will go as far to give your proof as to their reasoning. For them, some people may think it is a conspiracy. But for just your average voter, you are giving up your a way to make a small difference even if you don't think your will vote will do any good. I guess for the next federal and provincial election I should get out there and vote. Make sure you get out there and smackdown your vote or you maybe kicking yourself afterwards if the person you wanted didn't win. As I have said one vote can mean the difference between winning and losing an election. This is one of those voices we have and we should unite and vote because we can change to course of history. You don't want someone like Stephen Harper in office again which unfortunatley happened.
In the end voting can be seen as important. But nobody can force you to vote. Just think about those points and see that you are being just too lazy to vote. Than again most people that don't can be considered lazy. After all this election 58 per cent voters turn out. Even lower than the election in 2004 I believe. Sadly I am one of the voters who didn't vote. The highest voter turn out was in 1958 when 70 per cent of the people who turned out to vote. If we made it 100 per cent of the people who voted, who knows what would happen. The more people vote, the more able we are to change the course of a countries future. If you don't vote than you don't care about your countries future yet you would rather sponge off them when need be. That is sad but true and this happens not just in Canada, but all over the world. Wether you mark your ballot with a X or check mark, just get out there and vote.
Hey yo and welcome to a post Canada Votes 2008 edition of Tales From The Fish. I am your favorite none voting columnist Mr. C.C.. Days after the voting all in Canada has concluded and the ballots are being tallied, I will talk about voting and what will to see if it means anything. So mark you ballot with an X or a check mark and lets get to voting.
Dictionary.com defines voting as (in democratic terms): the means by which such expression is made, as a ballot, ticket, etc..
That is what people did in Canada on October 14th, 2008. Canadians headed to the polls to elect a new government. Now, I bet you are asking yourself if I voted. No I didn't vote. The only reason being is I didn't know where to vote. I guess that I could have made the effort to find out where to vote. But is it really our duty to vote?
Some people would say yes, but other would say no. For some and yes I have said this that we don't know who to vote for. In the last federal election here in Canada, I had no idea who to vote for. But that wasn't the case this time around for me. Another reason I hear people say is because they think that their votes won't make a difference. A third reason is your classic "I don't care." Finally, all politicians are the same.
I will expand on the common excuses.
1. I Don't Know Who To Vote For:
I do get that people don't know who to vote for. But if you truly look at the issues each candidate is putting forth and study them, than you would have a better understanding and can then make a better judgement on who to vote for. Unfortunatly people don't vote on who will do the best job. They vote based on their favorite political party. I probably would do the same thing, but I don't have a favorite political party. But what I do know is that I am not a fan of the Conservatives in Canada, but if they had the right platform, than never say never in terms of voting for them.
2. My Votes Won't Make A Difference
You say your votes won't make a difference. But think about this way, what if you vote means the difference between the person you want to vote being elected or not being elected. I read this blog by Vannessa Gate entitled "Lame Reasons Not To Vote In The Election" and she made a good point that if everybody who said their vote doesn't count voted than it would make a difference. I couldn't agree more. It would be mind boggling the numbers of votes that would be cast. Than you couldn't complain that the person you voted for didn't win. It would be the fact that the others didn't vote for the same person. Or you couldn't complain that the person wanted to vote for didn't win. One vote can mean the difference between a person winning or losing as I said.
3. "I Don't Care"
A classic response to being asked if you are voting is "I don't care." Again Vanessa Gates brings up another good point that I agree with. She says that if you don't vote, than don't complain. Those words can't be any truer. People complain about taxes, arts and culture, healthcare, amature sports funding, etc., yet they won't bother to exercise their right to vote. But than again as a culture we do tend to complain. But voting is a way to be proactive even if they think their vote doesn't mean a thing.
4. All Politicians Are The Same
Yeah.... NO! If you followed the election than you would know that not all politicians are a like. Sure some politicians have similar ideas and views doesn't mean all do. For instance, Stephen Harper has a different view on arts and culture than say NDP leader Jack Layton. Just take a look on where those two men stand on that issue and you will know that they have differing views. That again goes back to the first point and that you need to study the issues and make an informed decision
There are people who are so against voting because they think it is a farse and they will go as far to give your proof as to their reasoning. For them, some people may think it is a conspiracy. But for just your average voter, you are giving up your a way to make a small difference even if you don't think your will vote will do any good. I guess for the next federal and provincial election I should get out there and vote. Make sure you get out there and smackdown your vote or you maybe kicking yourself afterwards if the person you wanted didn't win. As I have said one vote can mean the difference between winning and losing an election. This is one of those voices we have and we should unite and vote because we can change to course of history. You don't want someone like Stephen Harper in office again which unfortunatley happened.
In the end voting can be seen as important. But nobody can force you to vote. Just think about those points and see that you are being just too lazy to vote. Than again most people that don't can be considered lazy. After all this election 58 per cent voters turn out. Even lower than the election in 2004 I believe. Sadly I am one of the voters who didn't vote. The highest voter turn out was in 1958 when 70 per cent of the people who turned out to vote. If we made it 100 per cent of the people who voted, who knows what would happen. The more people vote, the more able we are to change the course of a countries future. If you don't vote than you don't care about your countries future yet you would rather sponge off them when need be. That is sad but true and this happens not just in Canada, but all over the world. Wether you mark your ballot with a X or check mark, just get out there and vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)