Exactly a week ago, I had my first taste of local politics (as well as my first taste of gelato), live. It was at the last place you’d expect a heathen Atheist such as myself being: a Church.

Me, my supervisor (who is also the Christian Service Animator for the school which I attend), and my friend Chris went to a local Church, where several Ontarian MPPs (Members of Provincial Parliament) and many locals were present. Me and Chris were definitely the youngest people there, as we were surrounded by lots of elders, as well as the local university’s radio host who put the program on radio (who has Multiple Sclerosis) and a lawyer as the host of that day’s public forum. The reason why we were all there was to discuss poverty reduction, specifically within Ontario. Though there was a lot to be said about poverty reduction, there was one thing that stayed with me during the entire “production”; per se: the lack of professionalism.

Tatum Wilson, an MPP in Hamilton on the side of the Liberals, was a very brave man. He was that afternoon’s representative of the biggest target of the NDP (New Democratic Party) MPP’s, and he knew that he’d be, but he still attended. As the NDP MPPs Andrea and Paul “The Man In The Middle” (I can’t remember their last names), as I had called him before knowing his name, were discussing strategies on poverty reduction alongside Tatum, they focused more on attacking Liberals rather than discussing what their party has to offer the province on how to reduce poverty. Tatum was left to fend for himself each time, but he did so with class. It all too well reminded me of a time when I got a letter from the NDP party of Ontario, and how they kept attacking our current Premier, Dalton McGuinty. I actually counted, and the amount of times they attacked Dalton within just a few short paragraph amounted to about 6 times.

A strong benefit of being part of the event and not one of the people watching it in front of the TV set or listening to it on the radio was feeling the whole tense atmosphere. There was fire during the question sessions, especially when a man asking a question right before Chris did was making quite cliché statements that were just meant to piss Paul off. You could imagine the look on Chris’ face as he asked his questions after said man and made his idealistic and admirable yet somewhat naïve statements on homelessness and poverty in general. He was received with much applause and a “hear, hear!” from a man in the audience. Then came my question, but that wasn’t so significant, so I’ll skim right through.

After the whole production (okay, a little before it ended), I went to the Pilgrim Room and ate some food. They had delicious tea, coffee, donuts, cookies, you name it! Apart from the food, however, I had a really good time talking to the elders at some of the tables. It was really nice for me to have conversations on politics with people who actually cared for once, unlike my peers at school. I learned about all of the groups they’ve started within the city regarding different global issues such as poverty, homelessness, war, and the like. They all had so many personal experiences regarding the issues from their lives.

Someone who intrigued me very much at the Church was a man named Joseph, who had a very touching story. Joseph was a man who underwent poverty (according to him, not only physically, but spiritually and socially) after his business in England went down. He put 90,000 pounds into that business (approximately $200,000CDN according to him), only to lose it all during a stock market crisis. Worse came to worse, and he claimed his only salvation by coming to Canada to try to find work and stability. He did not find work, and was forced to go on ODSP, which provided him very little of his basic human needs. This was his story that led him there, to be involved in poverty reduction.

After this experience, I learned that there is nothing like politics living itself out right in front of your very own eyes. See it for yourself, live it for yourself. If you’re going to see your country’s future blossom, live it, don’t watch it on TV. If you’re going to see your country’s future destroyed, the same applies. There is nothing like the atmosphere of reality living itself in front of you as opposed to the reality that others are leading you to believe, because it doesn’t give you the same feeling. Tell me your stories of reality unfolding itself in surprising ways.

Bush's medicare cuts delayed

(RE: "Bush's Newly-Proposed Budget Plan That Contains Medicare Cuts")

That's right, they've been delayed. That's the good news. The bad news is, now you have to wait until July 1st to see if the plans will be terminated entirely. Thanks to all the petitioners and those who have signed petitions. You've made the delay possible. No, that wasn't sarcasm, either.

Bush's Newly-Proposed Budget Plan That Contains Medicare Cuts

President Bush plans (work in progress) on proposing a bill to Congress that will become part of his budget plan to reduce large costs and federal spending if he can get Congress to accept his initiative. Bush believes there is unnecessary spending in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, yet he still wants to follow through with a 3 trillion dollar spending request. Bush's primary reason for saving on public health care is to create a surplus in the economy's long run, but his plan to cut health care spending will create still even higher deficits in the coming years. I see some fairly good intentions and possibly positive effects of his budget plan. He is trying to address the issue of unnecessary spending, but what Bush views as "unnecessary", I see as misdirected and inefficient in the context of the health care program's funding and how money is appropriated within the system. I strongly believe that Bush's spending cuts should have been more directed at the insurance companies rather than focused on taking money away from Medicaid (for low-income families), nursing homes, home care agencies, and ambulances. Bush's decision to propose this bill (or rather, more clearly, to advocate for this bill) that will cut off money for health insurance programs only reinstates how weak our economy has become relative to previous years and how costly it will be to maintain this current health care system in this fledgling economy.

What especially saddens me is that it takes money away from teaching programs for prospective nurses and doctors who want to be involved in internships before becoming a full-time professional. This takes away even more potential medical specialists from the American workforce, when these highly-qualified people are already in such high demand.

As you may guess, with Democratic majorities in the House and Senate, this is a very unpopular cut, but the Bush administration saw that about one-fourth of federal spending was on Medicare and Medicaid. They decided to diminish costs instead of reapportioning the funds, and avoided reducing costs that would, even in the slightest, have impact on the economy. I am relieved that Bush chose to decrease spending on the War in Iraq, and that the bill was created so that new regulations assigned to the two health insurance programs could be heavily revised by Congress.

In the end, this discussion will most likely not even matter. This bill will be dead before it is even discussed on the floor or put up for a vote. ;) Whad'ya think?

The Roaming Buffalo

Meet Buffalo Brown, "a proud native son of the USA accepting the hospitality of Canada; a Nam Vet who is a capitalist, socialistic, Libertarian" who also describes himself as an Atheist and hedonist. He's the 2nd interviewee on ATWKS' interviews with me. Below, his answers are formatted in italics, and my questions in bold.

What state did you formerly live in the USA? How was your transition from said place to Manitoba, Quebec?
When did you become an Atheist, and why? Why did you realize yourself as a "hedonist"?

Please tell us about some of your experiences in Vietnam, seeing as you're a 'nam vet.

In your blogger profile, you wrote "above all else I value freedom. Freedom is a delicate flower that is difficult to cultivate and so very easy to destroy." Can you expand on this, regarding how you've seen freedom being cultivated and destroyed relevant to something that heavily impacted you?

You asked a few tough questions there, young lady.
1) My last state-side home was in Missouri - Kansas City to be exact. I have lived ever where from California to Massachusetts.
2) The transition to Manitoba is far from complete. I can only tell you that the summers are too short and the winters too long and cold. I hate cold.
3) The journey from believer to Atheist took a number of years to travel. After years of studying religion and philosophy, after years of thinking about what I had read, I found it impossible to believe in a deity. It wasn't a choice. One doesn't choose to believe or disbelieve.
4) I believe that life is about living. We truly live by experiencing all life has to offer - the pleasures, the pains, the sorrow, the joys, the work, the learning. That is the GP-rated version. 5) Vietnam was a life-altering experience. It was endless hours of hard work, lonliness and boredom juxtaposed with periods of mind numbing, adrenalin-charged danger. It is something that stays with you forever.
6) Unfortunately I don't see freedom being cultivated. I see it only being taken away. I believe very strongly that every adult should be free to do exactly what they want to do as long as it does not physically interfere with someone else enjoying those same freedoms.

Missouri sounds familiar. If you could describe it in 1 word, apart from home, what would it be and why?

I don't think of Missouri as home. I've lived in far too many places to consider any one of as my home.

Well I was asking you, sir, if you could describe Missouri in one word and why, hah.

I am well aware of that, ma'am. How do you describe the ever changing beauty of the Ozark Hills in one word? Have you ever sat on a bluff over looking the convergence of two very different rivers, one clear, shallow and fast moving and the other deep, slow and muddy, while a full summer moon casts its magic? How does one describe the beauty, the aromas, the kiss of a night breeze and the sounds of night creatures moving through the woods in one word. How does one adequately describe love with one word and one word only?

Well, there are broad terms you can use, but I sort of get ya. I tell you, if I had to describe my current town in 1 word, it would be quite hard, and not for positive reasons. *laughs*

One word descriptions are very limiting as the image that is conjured in the mind of the reader is often quite different from what the writer meant.

You're still getting adjusted to Manitoba, eh? What do you think of the culture and the people of Manitoba? How does it differ from that of your other homes, such as Missouri?

I don't judge all of Manitoba based on my observations of this small section where we live. It is a heavily Mennonite area. I have not been able to engage any of them in conversation. I get the impression that if you're not Mennonite you are not only an outsider, but for all intents and purposes you don't exist. I have never lived anywhere that I could not get people to talk to me.

What are some other things about Manitoba that really turn you off? And no, not in a sexual way. Though I highly doubt that a city would be able to sexually turn anyone on sexually, unless you were sadistic... sorry, I got caught in the moment there. Also, do you have anything good to say about Manitoba? Because if you do, do tell us.

This part of Manitoba is a very peaceful place. The threat level is virtually zero. I am not uncomfortable with leaving the house unlocked. I feel no need to have a pistol within easy reach. (I sent it home before I crossed the border. A good thing since they searched our saddlebags when we crossed.)
The medical system here seems to work fairly well. The cleanliness of the environment blows me away.
Other than the cold of winter and the lack of social contact it isn't a bad place.

What was the most significant piece that you've read which helped you build a strong lead toward Atheism?

It would have to be the Bible - specifically the King James version of the Bible.

Why was it specifically the King James version that impacted you in a negative manner?

That was the version of the bible we used. The outcome would have been the same if I had read a Catholic bible or any of the newer translations they offer now days.

I'll say, you've got some very interesting views on life. Must be the "with age comes wisdom factor." Hah, you must be OLD. Errr..... okay, let's get back to the questions.

Yes, I'm old. By your standards I'm ancient.

The wisdom factor that is supposed to come with age is highly overrated. More often than not that much vaunted wisdom translates into the knowledge that doing something you really want to do is going to hurt like hell.

So, in short, 'nam was like many moments of boredom, with intervals of life-threatening danger in between?

Yeah, kind of/sort of, but not exactly. It was what it was. It isn't something I'm terribly comfortable talking about.

Okay, if talking about 'nam makes you this uncomfortable, some things must have shocked you horribly. I promise not to talk about 'nam again in this interview.

There are things about the Nam that do cause an emotional reaction when I think or talk about them. More importantly, unless a person has been to war they have a tendancy to judge based on their particular sense of reality which has been cultivated by their culture, the movies they watch and the books or texts they read. A couple of years ago I was listening to an extremely liberal talk show down home. The moderator, one of those I'm so damned smart folk, was making statements about combat and the military that were absolutely wrong. I called in and told her a truth. (No, I didn't get ugly or smart.) She cut me off and told her listeners that I need to check into a mental ward. Her words to me aren't the issue. I told her an absolute truth. Her reality made her dismiss it without thought.
That's life though. Everyone judges through the filters of their own existence. More often than not their existences are extremely narrow.

Referring to your "Nam experience".... That's really true. For example, most people who were denying the Armenian genocide of 1915 didn't look at the obvious effects of the incident. Some who even recognized the situation took it for nothing.
That's a very common thing. The writers of history rarely lived it, have only second and third hand knowledge of it, and filter it through the supposed reality of their experience. No two people see something the same way. Ask any cop that questions witnesses to an accident or a crime.

That last thing you said about being able to be free without restricting anyone else's freedom reminds me of something my brother said about freedom of health. He made a comparison of fat people to smokers. He said that fat people are an endangerment to society, so why are they more socially acceptable than smokers? I would've said that it's because one person's weight doesn't affect anyone else's health, and smoking affects other people's health, but there has been some evidence that fat people, because of their high influential power within their kids at a young age, make their kids imitate their bad eating habits. How do you feel about all this?

Well, I'm fat and I smoke and, though admitedly biased, I think your brother is wrong for a lot of reasons. Check this out.

Of course parents influence their children. Peers influence peers. Entertainment icons influence fans. Poverty breeds improper nutrition and poor eating habits. Ignorance breeds poor eating habits. Two job families breed poor eating habits. Junk food and candy company advertising promotes poor eating habits. There is a lot more that I could say about both weight and smoking. It is all pretty futile though. It seems to be an unfortunate truth that there is a concentrated effort to engineer society into a place where individuality, free thought and simple freedom doesn't exist. It makes me almost happy that I am no longer young.

Thanks for the interview, Buffalo!

My pleasure, Flora. Thanks for asking.

Bush's Nominee for new ambassador to Armenia has Publicly Denied the Genocide

I found this on ArmenianGenocide.Com, and thought that it was really important to share - ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE AN ARMENIAN IN CALIFORNIA. Also, please forward this to everyone on your email list, whether you're Armenian or not.

Kharpert wrote this on the forums:

If you are an Armenian living in California, you should make two phone calls this week! If we get enough calls in, we will stop the approval of a known Genocide-denier as America's representative in Yerevan.

Call Senator Boxer's office at (202) 224-3553 as well as Senator Feinstein's office (202) 224-3841 and simply ask their foreign policy assistants to make sure they take the LEAD in blocking the nomination of Richard Hoagland as the next U.S. Ambassador to Armenia.

Call right now - and then pass this message along to your family and friends.

Please make calls too whether you're Armenian or not.

For more info, click here.

WCC trip cancelled

The supervisor has been swamped with stress lately, so the Woodland Cultural Centre trip is off. Heck, the whole Caledonia ordeal is off our schedule. However, she's told me that there's an upcoming Palistinean conference in Toronto concerning the Palistinean-Israeli conflict that we're going to check out. As you may know, my role is to do as much research as I can 'til the day of the event on the conflict itself. Historical emphasis is strong in this. What I need you to do is reommend me some information sources on the conflict.

Thanks!

Yours truly,

Aftermath at the Woodland Cultural Centre

On Saturday, January 26th, Aftermath is heading toward its first event in Caledonia, Ontario at the Woodland Cultural Centre. I don't remember who we're getting a tour from at the museum, but she's supposedly a famous Native activist who was against the Native side in the land claims dispute in Caledonia. To learn more about the dispute, click here to see CBC's (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) timeline of the issue. We're getting an interview with said Native, and if things go right, I'll post it here. When I remember the lady's name, I'll be sure to tell you all.

So to sum up, this is what we're doing: getting a tour on Native history, an interview with said lady, an interview with the opposing side, and questions for the citizens of Caledonia (hopefully). We're going to see where it all connects and stick to our premise of objectivity.

Also, please recommend us some important events within Ontario to attend to, or at least near Ontario. But I doubt we'll be getting out of the province, anyhow.

Modern-day segregation in Toronto

As I was eating my favourite cereal this morning in the kitchen with my TV in front of me, I saw a really strange news report on Breakfast Television, a Toronto-based morning news show. Guess what that report was about? "Black-focused schools." Basically, a sugar-coated name for modern-day segregation. Some verses from an article in the Toronto Star, to introduce you to the incident:

Toronto trustees will meet privately Monday night to discuss four approaches to improving the academic performance of black youth.

Among the possibilities contained in a report on the issue are a black-focused alternative school in the northwest end of the city or starting black-focused programs in three existing schools.

How ironic is this? Black people fought for the right to go to the same schools as white people... and now a decision is being made to make schools like this? Separating black people from everyone else is not the approach to take. It seems too "pre-Civil Rights-esque."

The report says an Africentric, or black-focused, school would be "open to all students, which uses the sources of knowledge and experiences of peoples of African descent as an integral feature of the teaching and learning environment."

"Africentric"? I'm not sorry: this is Canada! Making a Canadian school based with African education is not the way to go. In Canada, you should be learning from Canadian sources if the Canadian people are funding such a school, which obviously, they are, since Dalton McGuinty (premier of Ontario, Canada) left the decision up to Toronto's school board to make such a "black-focused" school and "black-focused" programs.

My question to you is simple: should the Canadian people pay money from their own pockets to fund "black-focused" schools?

Labour dispute causes 90 Canadians to be stranded in Argentina

In The Toronto Star's website, an article just popped up about 90 Canadians being stranded in Argentina. Apparently there was a labour dispute that caused cancelled flights, creating riots, and that was what resulted in the situation. Here's the article, and here's my favourite little part:

After two weeks of vacation, Normand Robert and his wife had checked in their
bags Saturday evening when trouble erupted.

"There were only two
security guards, people were yelling, there were fights," Robert told Montreal
La Presse.

"It was incredible."

Why can't we all share Rob's attitude?

Anyway, good luck to my Canadian brethren who are stranded out there tonight. It must be scary and... well, just plain weird.

Ciao!

Live! From Washington

Gah! Alright. Now I actually have a little time to talk to you guys on ATWKS! Let me first just say that I was really interested in Flora's story and what is going on in her life right now because, although I understand there are perhaps a lot of differences between her situation and my situation, they are sort of similar. At least I can understand what she is going through in terms of almost having to start over in life, which can be kind of refreshing in a way if we were to stand back and look at the positives. However, I don't know if she might find my comparison insulting. but don't Flora! I wish you the best with your new independence! As for me, well, again, I do not like to talk so much about me, but life has been a little crazy as of late and I would also like to share my story, if that is okay with all of you. Right now, as I am typing this out, I am sitting in my new bedroom, in my new home, in my new city, practically a world away from Los Angeles, California, which I miss so dearly (I have to remind myself to edit my profile). School is going great. I am already making new friends and connections. I obviously had to join Model UN (I left the club at my old school as President and of course they already have a president for my new school's Model UN). I also joined their debate team, which I also participated in at my old school. I have to say how different the east coast is from the west. Maybe that is just me obsessing over the particulars and me missing my hometown, but it truly has been an entirely different experience. I am going around town with my new friends, who were happy to show me around. Anyways, I cannot fully express how it has been so far, other than allowing myself to use the words "exciting" and "hectic". As I left the Clinton campaign in California (she was there the other day and I had just missed her), I signed up as a high school volunteer for her campaign based in Washington. I have been working hard in that regard and the director there even allowed me to form a high school organization so that we could make our own brochures and host our own parties (how nerdy that sounds), and I am helping with the formation of the delegation, especially coming from Annapolis.

I would like to address something in this post that has been coming up between my new classmates and I. Do not get the wrong impression of me. I do like to talk about things other than politics. It is not my sole interest and it does not occupy the majority of my thinking. Because the presidential elections are coming up, I have been focusing a lot of my attention towards it, but I hope that, in light of the event that Bush will no longer be in office next year, people will not forget about the issues that face the international community and our nation or the prospects that this new president has to deal with. I will refrain from talking at length about the media hype and Barack Obama (in whatever I say, I never attack Obama) or all the recent criticisms of Hillary. I will however address her ties to a former president, as we all know who that is. I know that I am sick and tired of hearing all the things there is to hear about it, but I have been confronted with having to make a response to this "proposed" problem, even though I do not see any problem as it stands in the reality of who she is, what she has done publicly, and what she will do....publicly.

It is an old debate; the entire ordeal with having a former president back in the White House and how this is being used to help Clinton win the nomination and so forth (and I believe it only shows how people interested in politics only become preoccupied with "politics" and nothing more):

Bill Clinton had a relatively low profile in his wife's campaign (and I still believe that, however, some would disagree), but as the race in Iowa and New Hampshire primaries began to get a little more competitive and "neck-and-neck" , Bill Clinton began to play a larger role in promoting her message and speaking up to her defense. Mr. Clinton now plays a part in Hillary Clinton's controversial motif of "change" as it was alledgedly Obama's word and slogan....yadda, yadda, yadda, but we all know that experience will not be enough to win her the nomination. Frankly, I am tired of the change vs. experience argument. But, let me be critical about my own candiate:

Throughout Clinton's campaign so far, Hillary's team has been hesitant for Bill to enter on her behalf primarily because they believe Bill Clinton represents the hope of the past and the new message of Clinton's campaign is experience for "change". While they want to focus on experience, there is a disconcerting undertone, especially among the youth, about an almost aristocratic, elite group of politicians sustaining power in the past two decades (and I have a retort to that, but this is not the place) and Hillary would be carrying on that tradition. Therefore, it is ironic that Hillary is singing the high praises for something new when she seems so attached to an older time when there was a different political and cultural atmosphere. Bill Clinton has seemed to muddle the emphasis of Hillary's message and as he becomes more vocal, his acute weaknesses become evident. Contemporaries seem to notice Bill Clinton's spontaniety and impulsiveness when it comes to addressing the press.

The intensity of his involvement was due to his belief that the primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire were a critical factor to winning the nomination and he still exudes a competitive spirit that he has not shown since his early campaigning days. Bill Clinton appeared on the Charlies Rose show making statements that allowed for consternation, such as saying that he was clearly against the war from the very beginning, which goes against the facts of his true stance back in early 2003. He also voiced that his wife is receiving unfair, harsh criticism, while Obama is being somewhat praised and his high-minded rhetoric being catered to (and I totally agree, but this does not mean I do not like Obama any less for this observation).

Personally, I am ecstatic that Bill Clinton is taking part more in Hillary's campaign, but I would not want it to be an impediment on her independent image and nature. Realistically, Hillary will always be attached to her husband to some degree and while I believe he was a great president, I do not think it is a good idea that Hillary depend so much on his presidency as she has done several times, but which I am sure are slight mess-ups she is learning from. The people do not want to hear so much about how sucessful her husband's administration was, even though she did play a minor role in it all. Morever, it will only bring the downsides and the failures of the past along with it. As president (IF), she will need Bill, but more as her private support system rather than major political aide and mentor.

I understand I am not being too perceptive and I know this has been touched upon, but it has been nagging me for the past two days and I just need to talk about it. Seriously, all this talk of campaigning and "politicking" is sickening. If you guys could just imagine the heaviness of politics that is brewing in all the presidential campaigns, you would get a headache too. I cannot wait until the media can again focus on the issues. I am "tired" (my favorite word in this post) of the focus on the actual political process and the not-so-reputable side of it all. If only there was a way to solve the world's problems without the need for "politics;" such an ugly word (it always has been). The blows and attacks from either side, even subtle attacks are being made, which I believe are far worse than more blatant ones.

Anyways, I am holding together on my side. I only hope you are doing well on your side.

The Malaysian Ethnic Formula: A Summary

Malaysia, which relies heavily on foreigners for menial work, has frozen the
recruitment of workers from India, an official said Tuesday, in a move
apparently linked to unrest among the country's ethnic Indian citizens.

About 140,000 Indian migrants work in Malaysia, constituting the third
largest group of foreign workers.

Malaysia had barred employers from recruiting any more Bangladeshi workers in October following problems sparked by labor agents who leave the migrants stranded on arrival. There are some 200,000 Bangladeshi workers now in Malaysia.

The Home Ministry official said Indian workers who are already in the country will be allowed to stay until their permits expire, but they will not be renewed.

Summary: loyalty doesn't pay in Malaysia, especially if you're Indian or Bangladeshi.

He said the ban is related to recent unrest among the country's minority ethnic
Indians, who are demanding racial equality in the Muslim majority country.

In November, about 20,000 ethnic Indians, most of whom are Hindus,
demonstrated on the streets, complaining of discrimination, in a rare and
open challenge to the government.

Subsequently, the government arrested the top five leaders of the group that organized the protest, the Hindu Rights Action Force. They are currently being held under a law that allows indefinite detention without trial.

Summary: Malaysian Muslims > Hindus and Indians. More-so with Hindu Indians. Don't agree with the Malaysian government? Prepare to get sodomized in jail (don't drop the soap!)

Source of quotes: Malaysia Bans Indian Recruitment

Upon Where I Stand Amid Alterations Of My World

I have a few days to complete several projects and menial assignments for the California caucuses on the Clinton campaign, and then I am moving, perhaps not permanently, to my new home in Washington, where I might end up in the thralls of “it” all. It is never comforting to be uplifted from your roots and forced to start afresh, especially when something you are pretty much passionate about takes a temporary backseat to the establishment of a new life. And perhaps if you could understand my position, then you could understand why I will take the liberties of merely rambling in this post as there is a lot I need to get out of my system. I took a few political ideology surveys, and I encourage you to do the same thing to get an indication of which candidate you might choose to support or vote for in the next presidential elections.

There will always be divisions in politics that seem to take away the promise of consensus and progression. People let political labels and stereotypes turn the complexity of their understanding into an oversimplification, and there is a prevalent hesitation to agree with, or even understand, the opposing party on an array of issues; a fear of straying away from the comfortable nests people establish on one side of the spectrum. Although, a significant percentage of Americans are moderate, and view the issues not through the eyes of a staunch Republican or Democrat, but as individuals rising above partisan politics to convey their beliefs according to each topic of importance. I am a person who refrains from generalizing my political ideology, but for practicality’s sake, I cannot seem to get around broadening my scope to get a clear sense of my collective beliefs, which does not mean I avoid all the apparent contradictions or nuances in my thinking. I always knew I was generally liberal on social issues, but it came as a surprise that surveys continuously pointed to the notion that I am more conservative on economic and foreign policy. I was consistently taught to help those who could not help themselves, and to always talk things out rather than resort to physical might, which are rather liberal ideas if applied to the function of government. However, as I arrived at an understanding of my beliefs, I realized that for each of my personal convictions I also have slight oppositions or exceptions to my original claims; a balancing act, which makes me more or less a moderate with libertarian leanings.

I believe that all the problems and conflict this nation confronts has an answer, the possibility of resolution, and as The Beatles once said, “when the broken hearted people living in this world agree, there will be an answer”. I believe that everyone should try and find middle ground at day’s end, and this conviction in the power of compromise is reflected in my beliefs. I am pro-choice. I am not pro-abortion. I am for educating young women, and helping them make responsible choices whatever that choice may mean to them in the context of their own circumstances. I advocate offering women alternative opportunities and options so that they are not compelled to easily resort to abortion. I would never personally get an abortion, and I do not believe that women should decide to abort their child, except if the mother’s life is in danger, but the liberties of others takes precedent over my personal beliefs. The issue is whether to make abortion legal or illegal on the national level, and I believe that if abortion is made illegal, it would not stop women from having abortions, and would force desperate mothers to get unsafe, back-alley abortions where they put their own lives in danger. If we made abortion illegal, we would also assume to make less of a priority to confront all the societal issues that getting an abortion entails such as teenage pregnancy, and rape, which ultimately leads to the issue of crime and the lack of safety in communities for increasingly vulnerable women. Making abortion legal will encourage people of various fields to confront these societal issues that go hand-in-hand with abortion, and may even incite doctors and physicians to improve medicine and technology to keep the mother’s life safe and healthy during pregnancy and labor, as well as that of the child’s safety, so that a woman does not find an answer in abortion. Keeping abortion legal on the national level also means new national responsibilities. We would have to implement more restrictions such as not allowing abortions after a certain trimester of pregnancy. My stance on abortion clearly illustrates that I do not completely side with either political party or present a cohesive political identification. My approach toward the issues held firm when I was not satisfied with any one choice presented in the surveys, and wanted to choose multiple choices or edit certain parts of a choice so that it aligned better with my own beliefs.

All the incongruities in my belief system get muddled together, and it shows in my surveys if looked at in its entirety. I am a moderate and a gradual Libertarian, with liberal and conservative ways of thinking. One survey specifically states I am “moderate” and that I should consider the Libertarian Party, and another survey was more concise, showing in big red letters that I am a “Libertarian”. I am more conservative economically because I generally agree that people are responsible for their own socioeconomic conditions, but I also believe that America does not perfectly offer equal opportunities, especially in education. I do not advocate equal success, but the chance to succeed and get ahead, which allows for competition, and the incentive to push harder for progress. I am for universal health care and government programs to help the poor and homeless even if it means that the government must raise taxes, but only with certain reservations. I believe the government should work towards reversing dependency on welfare and funded programs because when the people rely too much on government help it has both negative affects on the government and the person’s own life (with the exception of health care). Welfare and other government programs should not be the end solution to the problems a citizen faces and its sole purpose should be to encourage people to move forward and give them the tools to take personal responsibility in order to succeed. The conservative in me is also convinced that government regulation in businesses and corporations should be kept at an absolute minimum, but if there are abuses and violations of laws, then the government has the obligation to intervene. Sometimes, there are unhealthy relationships between those who actually advocate restricted government involvement in business (Bush administration), and large corporations. They should be entirely independent of each other partly because they may find ways to work together without the interests of the people in mind.

The surveys helped me understand that I really did have these notions about certain issues in terms of economics. The conservative elements outweighed my liberal viewpoints. While I am more liberal than conservative on foreign policy, the bulk of the questions in the survey were concerned with economic policy, which is why I seem more conservative. If I were to vote today in the 2008 Presidential Elections and base my decision solely off of economics, I would side with the Republicans, but in regards to foreign policy, I would wholeheartedly vote Democrat, specifically, either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama (however, I do not like his policy of meeting with other world leaders without any preconditions). When my father took his survey, he received the same results. My beliefs are based on principles my parents always instilled in me, but I also have taken those principles and values and formed my own opinions, independent of my parent’s ideology or guidance.

My first survey indicated that I was a “Liberal”, which is a result I most likely expected, especially because I am more liberal when it comes to social issues. However, when I looked back on my answer choices for some of the questions pertaining to social problems this country faces, I found I was more conservative than I anticipated. I am for free speech, but I am against making marijuana legal, and I believe that if marijuana is to be used in hospitals, there needs to be more restrictions and supervision. I am against censorship in many cases (a liberal stance), yet I am for keeping illegal immigrants out of this country through tougher border control (a more Republican viewpoint). I do not believe illegal immigrants should have equal access to government programs that help the poor. I advocate that we get the illegal immigrants in this country documented and then put through the legalization process so that they can be legal citizens. The problem mainly takes root with the incompetence and corruption of the illegal immigrant’s native country. I also wholeheartedly support legalizing gay marriage and more gun control, and I am against the death penalty, even though I had once been convinced that people who committed horrible acts should deserve to be executed. There will always be misconceptions about liberals as there are about conservatives, but I think, in the upcoming presidential elections, liberals and Democrats will be more attuned and adept to address the national mood and the most pressing issues. If I were to choose one presidential candidate that I felt could make a difference, according to my liberal positions on social, economic, and foreign policy issues, I would pick Hillary Clinton.

My age, my gender, and my socioeconomic status have influenced my political ideology to a great extent, yet I find that I have the ability to transcend my own circumstances and what would be beneficial to me, to try and step inside the shoes of my fellow Americans. I understand that no person can cater to all the American people and their needs and beliefs, but I believe that every issue we must confront has a point of resolution, the opportunity for compromise, no matter if it concerns extremely controversial issues where there are more clearly defined oppositions. This may be the idealist in my character, but I think it is possible if we move beyond the partisan conflict and stubbornness convoluting Capitol Hill to truly reevaluate the course we want to take as a nation, and to look at our own willingness to get things done and accomplished so that we may see success in the future, for generations to come.

If I could get back to the presidential elections…at a later time….that would be great. I know I have some consternations about recent events, but it is almost 10:00 pm over here and my family is downstairs with late night snacks and the television on full blast. Haha.....Random: By the way, I hate my title. Had to think of something!

Feel free to post your own ramblings. (!)

Mortal Kombat, Vatican style

Ever since Cardinal Ratzinger from Germany was named Pope, controversy has followed his very footsteps. We didn't blame him for his participation in Hitler Youth as a child; we can't expect him to not do something that was legally compulsory. We didn't blame him for his "mistaken words" against Mohammed to the Muslims. And the Canadians certainly didn't blame him when he said that Canada was hell-bent due to it's legalization of gay marriage.

I never had many problems with personally, though I've had many with him religiously, but after reading on his new "plans" to fight Satanism head-on, there is no possible way that I can ever, in my lifetime, have the capacity to take him seriously. Here are some exerpts from an article regarding the matter:

The Pope has ordered his bishops to set up exorcism squads to tackle the rise of
Satanism.

Vatican chiefs are concerned at what they see as an increased interest in the occult.

They have introduced courses for priests to combat what they call the most extreme form of "Godlessness."

Each bishop is to be told to have in his diocese a number of priests trained to fight
demonic possession.

The initiative was revealed by 82-year-old Father Gabriele Amorth, the Vatican "exorcistinchief," to the online Catholic news service Petrus.

"Thanks be to God, we have a Pope who has decided to fight the Devil head-on," he said.

And my mom told me that Mortal Kombat could never become a reality. What a lying bitch!

Here was another really funny tidbit that I loved:

The Vatican is particularly concerned that young people are being exposed to the influence of Satanic sects through rock music and the Internet.

Seriously folks, it's time to step up. We act like we've gotten rid of the biggest terrorists, but if that were true, why do we have an incredibly crazy pope and an incredibly dumb president heavily impacting the lives of people across the globe? If people did their research more before they made final decisions as to who they want to spend their lives being subordinates to, then we wouldn't have to deal with this kind of shit. We wouldn't have to be the workers of the real terrorists, and we wouldn't have to feel cultural inferiority complexes because we wouldn't have bad leaders making us look like asses. And most of all, at least they'd be able to come up with more reasonable and original targets than the internet and rock music.

Benazir Bhutto killed in assassination

I just read the article from Yahoo Canada, and though I didn't know much about her prior to her assassination today, I can't help but feel horrible. Not just for Benazir's death, but for the sake of democracy in Pakistan. I can see why her supporters reacted with such great destruction - because she was a great lady. How much personal courage does it take to be a woman involved in politics, in a country like Pakistan, to be so heavily involved with the Americans and to agree with their War on Terror? It takes so much that words cannot describe how I now feel about her. The sad part is, however, that she died not too far away from where her father was executed.

R.I.P. Benazir Bhutto

Back to school

I thought you guys would find this video really interesting, because I didn't know most of the things going on with these ethnic groups specifically, and I'm part of one of them! I had no idea of identity crisis of Armenians, my people, in Georgia. I had only some idea of what was going on in Egypt. With Jordan... well, I don't know much about the country besides the fact that it exists, and happens to be significantly close to Iraq on the map.

Ontario's Efforts to Remove Religious Education

Firstly, I go to a Catholic school, and, not of my own will, but that of my mother's. Strange, I am still not completely against it, though I am not a believer of God as a superior deity.

It was during education week that this issue was brought up. The theme was to "Show your Christianity to stop the bill from passing." "The bill" refers to Ontario's effort to remove religious education within the province, which, as many would agree, would be a good thing. However, I do not wish for religious education to just be eliminated, but also replaced.

You see, a few years ago, I had some bad experiences in a public school down in the Southern region of the province. During my stay, I realized a few things about the differences between religious and public schools; some positive, some negative. To my surprise, the positives and the negatives added up to a neutral point. Here's what I realized:

Positives of going to a public school versus a religious school:
You waste less time learning crap you'll never use, unless you become a priest or some sort of religious authority.
Negatives of going to a public school versus a religious school:
Your experience in school is somewhat more daunting because of the fact that religious schools implement structures such as the Golden Rule of respect heavily, while public schools do not implement such rules at all.

This is my remedy: completely eliminate religious programs within Ontario, but replace them with ethics classes, or implement a structure into all schools that bring out the inner humanitarian in all of us. Not only does this usually cost less, but it's less of a waste of time. Besides, we're going to end up learning the same shit anyway, minus the whole God aspect.

Thanks for reading, and..
Ciao!

Rammstein - Amerika

I was just watching this video called Amerika by the German industrial rock act Rammstein, and I must say, this time, they haven't completely got me. Well, I don't mean that as in I don't understand the video, because I understand it damn well. I mean... there's some stuff in there that they claim to be part of American traditions that I don't feel really are.

Here's the video:


Here's the lyrics translated into English:

"[CHORUS]:
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika ist wunderbar
we're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika

Do you want me?
(no I don't)
Do you need me?
(No I don't)
Dance with me I'm leading?
(No I can't)
Will you love me?
(No I won't)

This is not a love song
(No it's not)
I don't sing my mother tounge
(No I don't)
Afrika for Santa Claus
Und vor Paris steht Mickey Maus

[CHORUS]

Will you do it?
(No I won't)
Should you do it?
(No I don't)
Could you do it?
(No I can't)
Will you please me?
(No I won't)

If you don't want me
(You'll get hurt)
If you don't need me
(You'll get hurt)
If you don't love me
(You'll get hurt)
Fuck you is the magic word

[CHORUS]

We're all living in Amerika
Coca Cola, Wonderbra
We're all living in Amerika
Amerika
Amerika

This is not a love song
No, this is not a love song
This is how we do it
You'll get hurt
Fuck you is the sweetest word

[CHORUS]

We're all living in Amerika
Coca Cola, sometimes war
we're all living in Amerika
Amerika"

So, here's what I don't agree with about Amerika:

Last I checked, Santa Claus wasn't American, and neither is 80% of the modern interpretation of him. Look up Santa Claus on Answers.com. It will tell you that he was from Asia Minor, specifically Turkey, which is in the Middle-East. That's right, Santa Claus is as Middle-Eastern as.... well, me. Not only is he Middle Eastern in true origin, but the modern-day interpretation of Santa Claus is based on Sinterklaas, who was a character that's quite popular in the Netherlands and Belgium, as the article entails. Don't believe Wikipedia? Look anywhere else.

Next, the part about Wonderbras being made in America. Though the product was actually trademarked in America, it was made here in Canada, which I think should be taken into account. But seriously, I'd like to ask... what's so great about showing off your tits?

Apart from that, really, I'm not going to argue the song. Okay, maybe the "sometimes war" bit, because to say that America has had significantly more wars than every other country would be a bit silly, don't you think?

I know this song is old, but I just wanted to put my opinion on it out there, especially since it brought back great old memories.

What do you think about America's effect on the world? What do you think Rammstein is trying to get out?

The Difference Between War and Peace

And we wanted to go in and bomb Iran. Or let me rephrase. Those war-mongers in Bush's cabinet wanted to go in Iran and attack their nuclear facilities, which we know now are solely used for peaceful, resourceful purposes (for clean energy, and not for reasons of war). No, that ended almost five years ago, and the CIA either had, yet again, lacked efficient intelligence or were afraid to tell Bush and step down as cowards, afraid to tell the President, this time, what he so desperately needs to hear. The NIE (National Intellgence Estimate) was finally reported by the sixteen federal agencies. Finally. Bush is now, or was, obviously "confuddled" by this news that goes against "Bush's rhetoric" for the past four years. Good. The CIA actually had the balls this time to step up to the President.

Time Magazine:

"The NIE represented another promising opportunity missed. Imagine if the President had said,'This report means we don't want war. We want to talk, and everything - including lifting of the economic sanctions and our acknowledgment that you are a major regional power - is on the table so long as you put eveything on the table too. That means not only your uranium-enrichment program but also your support for terrorist organizations.' How could Iran have said no to that?

But that would have required another President. This President appears to lack the desire, creativity and patience to engage in the most important diplomacy that a nation can face - with its enemies - over issues that could mean the difference between war and peace."

Thoughts?

Rock the Vote just to Rock the Boat?

Here it comes, yet another heated presidential election.

Who will take it? The Democrats? The Republicans?
The black guy? The white lady?

Is it just me, or is this turning into an election that is more about getting something that is out of the ordinary into the White House than it is about getting somebody who is the most qualified into office?

A group of people came into the restaraunt where I work the other day and when asked their name the head of the party jokingly said that it was Barack Obama. They demanded a table for the next black president. When I laughed and said that they would have to wait he laughed with me and said, "It's ok, you're voting for me and thats all that counts." I smiled and laughed again and casually informed him that I actually wasn't sure who I would be voting for. The smiles and laughter ended there. Apparently not being sure that I would vote for the black man in the election makes me an Uncle Tom.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that women and black men aren't qualified to be president. I am just a little worried that people are beginning to overlook the issues in their heated desire to elect the first black or woman president. I have actually had conversations with several different people that lead me to believe so. In a nutshell, they all felt the same way. They felt that breaking the barrier and getting a black man or a woman into office was much more important in the long run than electing someone just based on who would be the best president.

So I wonder, is this true?
Is it much more important to overcome the race and gender barrier than it is to select based on the issues?

China's Olympic Warmup

“China’s Olympic Warmup”, an article from Time Magazine, discusses the progression of China toward a more modernized and visionary nation, as the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing looms closer. It begins with an accurate depiction of Beijing as a global city with an obvious capitalistic nature similar to industrialized cities in the western world. However, the article reverts back to ways in which China is still an isolated, alienated, stubborn nation, unwilling to submit itself wholly to the demands of foreigners. Nevertheless, the Olympic Games next year will give China a chance to dismiss misconceptions that surround the country and will allow them to show the world what they are truly capable of. As the Chinese people envision a positive, and prosperous future with endless possibilities, political leaders and countless activists from all corners of the world are highly skeptical about Chinese domestic and foreign policy and find their own chances to confront the Chinese government by means of the Beijing Summer Olympics.

The article points out the dramatic transformation of Beijing, but it fails to address immediately the static and oppressive character in the rest of the country. The article notes this after it emphasizes the reconstruction of Beijing so as to illustrate the glaring disparity between the thriving capital city and the rest of the country stuck in the 19th Century. China is trying to convey to the world this superficial image, while still harboring deeply ingrained flaws and issues. There is no freedom of the press within the Chinese media, but it is granted to American reporters and British news stations to a significant extent. The domestic media faces more regulations and laws than the foreign press. Human rights is also of main concern to international activists and organizations who see Hutongs, although in poor condition, stripped from entire families, leaving them homeless as a result of the rapid transition from traditional to modern. They see the injustice in the government’s AIDS policy that leaves women especially vulnerable, and they see an egregious rights issue under the direction of the government in Tibet. More notably, it is a fact that the Chinese government is the number one foreign consumer and investor of Sudanese oil, thus China is financing and supporting a government that is deliberately attacking its own people in Darfur. Hu Jia, a political activist, believes, “It’s a policy of ‘soft to the outside, strict within’”, where he describes a nation committed to concealing these underlying issues. However, as China finds itself competing with the world’s powers in wealth, growth, and prestige, it also becomes subjected to codes of conduct expected of its position. China’s increased visibility means the potential for more scrutiny.

The question comes down to whether the Olympic Games in Beijing should be boycotted, and by whom. Will the Chinese let other nations dictate the way it is to conduct its own business? Will the games in 2008 be a chance for the Chinese people to reevaluate their goals and prove their capabilities or will it be an opportunity for foreign powers to intervene and point out all the flaws that this country has yet to resolve? Elegant leaves an open-ended question for the reader to contemplate.

I have never liked the idea of boycotting the Olympics because first you have the competitors, the athletes who have worked so hard to get to that point. The coaches, the committee, who try so hard to get things running as smoothly as possible. The Chinese government takes no part in their lives, dedication, and aspirations. I know it would be a symbolic protest, but protest in this case would be unnecessary and ineffective. If you want anything to change or get done, speak your voice to the government more directly, where you aren't affecting the millions of people who are looking forward to the Olympics, the millions of Chinese who have pride in their country, and the hundreds of athletes who have spent years training for this event. The actions of the Chinese government you may disagree with, like me and perhaps countless other activists, but lets put our activism where we can be most effective and that doesn't mean boycotting the Olympics. Look at the positives of this event and what it means to the Chinese people; look at what the boycotting will lead to, its consequences. We should have a voice especially when in regards to social and human rights' issues, but using the Olympics as a means to do so is not right at all. Yes there have been protests at the Olympics in the past, but it didn't solve anything, didn't help pass any legislation, didn't change a dictator's mind, only exacerbated the conflict, and so forth. I believe to represent peace, it needs to steer clear from politics, from socioeconomic issues, from human rights/egregious issues, and focus on the things we share justice in, on our commonalities, aspects that unite us. All these issues should surely be addressed, and people from all over the world should recognize and voice out against it and do something to try and change it, but the Olympics is not the place for this conflict between passionate activists and the Chinese government; it should be above that fray. The world is coming together in China, thus let it be that we come together in peace, that we are willing, for the sake of all participants and viewers, to forget about our differences for that brief period of time.

We aren’t at a time to truly or justifiably say what should be done in terms of boycotting the Beijing Olympics. We may find that a boycott will not be necessary as the year progresses, or we may find that it is the only option available; the only right thing to do. The basis for my argument is that if we look throughout the course of the games, a boycott, and solely a boycott, was not entirely effective, however, it did lead to other initiatives, such as when the United States, along with many other western nations, boycotted the Moscow Games because the Soviet Union had recently invaded Afghanistan. If the actual boycott doesn't do much, the consequences or results of that boycott can hold a lot of impact, which is really the true purpose of a boycott. It may start a path toward progress, if planned out carefully. It may start some sort of positive revolution or evolution if approached intellectually and cautiously, because the last thing we need is to act on impulses, and look at the underlying issue as an excuse to interfere arrogantly in the Chinese government. We must understand who we are dealing with, and how we can go about making compromises and resolutions before we resort to boycott. Really, it should be of last resort, if it is to be done at all.

In shifting focus to Chinese pro-democracy activists, it is widely known that the Chinese citizens are kept ignorant of what is going on with the Tibet conflict, and if they learned of the situation, or were educated in this conflict, no doubt, many Chinese civilians would be ashamed and angry, frustrated even with the control of their own government and the injustice being committed by their own leaders. I am sure the majority would not be too happy.

We should leave money out of this debate because it really isn't the issue. Sure, the Chinese would be losing the potential money they would have earned to pay for the city development, and perhaps those countries that boycott may lose a little from their pockets, but it just isn't the problem if you think about it. I mean we are dealing with human lives here, and a terrible injustice. The IOC has come out with a statement of proposals that the committee and several organizations from around the world demand China to adhere by, which involves China improving it's human rights' records. On top of that, it also involves allowing the Tibetans religious freedom, and calls for democratization in the region. As for the event, it demands that the government allow the international media to have full coverage of the games, and lift bans and restrictions on the people who can participate, which includes those, such as the Dalai Lama and Indian exiles, as well as the Taiwanese who have campaigned for democracy in Tibet.

The article refers to Yuan Weijing, wife of a blind lawyer who escaped from house arrest after being detained for publicizing the abuses of women by government officials in regards to family-planning, but she was again confined to house arrest after these officials finally found her. This anecdote shows the persistence of the Chinese government. It is a sad thing what the Chinese government is doing. If it does not comply with all the aspects of the statement, then other measures will have to take shape in any form most coherent, responsible, and effective. If it means that we must boycott, then so be it, but as of right now, I don't see how boycotting will do any good.

One country boycotting the Olympics would not be enough to help the Tibet situation or the conflict in Darfur, and if it cannot help it fully or contribute to it largely and effectively and would only alter China's approach only moderately and may even do more harm and disrupt international relationships then there has got to be other ways that we could be more effective in resolving the Tibet conflict, that would not involve the Olympic games, that could represent a larger, broader voice, even from Americans (because surely Americans boycotting the Olympics would be dire to our alliance with China, even the smallest conflict could do harm because sadly we have become too dependent on China, and they have become too dependent on us), which would bring the issue to the government faster and more directly, and we (America) could address the problem more intellectually, and appropriately, because more than ever do we have to be smart about who we choose to confront.