?

Log in

Jill's Journal

> recent entries
> calendar
> friends
> profile

Monday, February 25th, 2002
8:55 pm
Why is it that it is so easy to find argument fallacies by looking at politicians write/say ?
What a sad state of affairs, and we're stupose to be the best country, our politicans lie and companies are just as disceptive in their labeling and they wonder why people are so paranoid.
hmm, i wonder.

(6 comments | comment on this)

Wednesday, December 19th, 2001
5:55 pm
I will do my best to keep updating this journal, this one will be for anything that is thought/rants, or anything political, i had a tendency to use hebe for that.
Hebe will continue to be used as the things I did journal, and my other for feelings.

(6 comments | comment on this)

Thursday, November 1st, 2001
4:34 pm - run and hide
We have nevermet our enemy
recognizition by a place
anger and revenge
seeps within us
genocide
run and hide
they will fight back
victime are we not
from nicaurgua to rawanda
we have spawned our destiny
death comes to those you never knew
the innocent
even of a different faith
no borders is simply a smoke screen
perhaps of condolances
instead food comes from the sky
and medicine not at all
a leader at the beckon call of
the super power
the people have very little say
from our trees, water and our potatoes
genocide
run and hide
we can not escape
it will only occur until there is none
nothing to fight over
anger subsides
and then the ignorant
realize that
hignsight is 20/20

current mood: angry

(1 comment | comment on this)

Tuesday, August 14th, 2001
9:22 am - the fragile peace agreement
It's strange how reporters, colomnists and political figures are determined to give their advice and "guidance" on the middle east. I think that one day maybe the US will be in for a very big surprise. More cultures in a small area the more problems that can arise.
It could be possible that what is going on in isreal could happen in California, or florida.
The only problem is that most of these wars are based on religous reasons and well americans may be extremely annoying christians, (the ones who are christian...)It would never probably get that bad. I'm really not sure maybe one day they'll be more muslims and hindus in the world than christians. Then we'll see what happens to Christianity.

(1 comment | comment on this)

Sunday, June 3rd, 2001
1:55 pm - the problem?
ok, i'm not quite sure what is wrong with being for labour standards and the environment,
why must "capitalism" follow suit with un-social
I mean yes, i'm nor socialist nor capitalist
I'm sick of taking a socialist view on my essays and then assume that i'm disreagrding the business community, pulllllease
Business and environment may not appear to go hand in hand, but business wouldn't exsist withoug the other,
i'm just tired of econmist stayint stupid thing
such as:
"we dont need to worry about global warming as it mainly only effects agriculture which is only 3% of the gross domestic product"
only 3% huh.....
lets think.....without agriculture, no plants, no plants no cows, lamb, and mammals, so without the "agriculture industry" your economy would perish.
What are they teaching them?
The environment can make u profits....really it can, preservation, can generally lead to increased value......which is good
Economists however is not synonmous with intelligent

(comment on this)

Wednesday, May 2nd, 2001
6:06 pm - pogo's
Anyone remember pogo"s, and not the hot dog ones, i mean the awful 80's idea of a ball that you bounce on by supporting your feet on its weell,..
um rings, it kinda looked like saturn.
It was very weird and useless, especially when it deflated,
what an awful idea,
I instead like the inflatable tents, those re funky,
i mean it was small, but enough to hide in..
anyway, enough 80's
later

(6 comments | comment on this)

Friday, January 19th, 2001
8:08 pm - Robert Latimer
This is only my opinion, and only that.
The supreme court of Canada's decision is wrong. It may have to uphold the Constitution.
However, i do somewhat i disagree.
I dont necessarily agree with what he did, but i understand why he did it.
Now, the Netherlands have legalized euthanasia, but you must be over the age of 18.
Now, first I realize that murder, is a life sentence. Nor did his daughter say that she wanted to die.
However, if someone can't speak, how does that person tell another they wish to die. What if the individual doesn't understand what death is or can not concieve the idea.
Now, I am somewhat disabeled, and this is merely how i feel. I do not believe people with disabilites are equal. Our society does not allow for such things. I do not think life is precious if your in pain. They shoot horses when they are in pain.
The right to life, is a right to those who should be considered equal. The problem, is its very diffeicult to be equal in this world.
(oddly enough, i eat more intelligent/competent animals, then some humans are )
I dont think certain ppl who cant eat or talk, or have a SEVERE problem with comprehension, they may be human in biology, but I think they are not a true, "precious" human being.
The only thing that sepreates us is our ability for rational thought without it we are simpy a Ape, or an animal, which is legal to kill.
Then again , I agree with the world created in Gatica, in order for true fairness in this world, is not to allow ppl who are wearer to be accepted. That is why i support abortions for partents who do not want children, and I support infantcide, if the child is severly disabled. I do agree with mercy killing, However, i do think it is important for an adult to consent to being killed.
Now, that is just me. That is not to say, that if my child gets my genes, i'm going to give them up for adoption *though that could be considered, except my partner would never agree with such actions.
Personally if I HAD the choice before i was born, to be born, or to be killed, and have another chance, and only one other chance to have life, i would choose the other one.
It sounds odd, but i would not have known life anyway.
However, i think David Latimer should have tried other avenues, like foster care, or adoption.
If all other avenues were exausted, i can understand his actions but do not agree with lieing to the police.
anyway, this is just my opinion.

(comment on this)

Friday, December 29th, 2000
10:33 pm - Demand, and u really should supply it
Its odd, in a commercial, consumer driven world, where demand, and sadly supply rule the world. Where in the world of communism, equality and equity of production of goods is created, we live in a world where big business rules our lives, not the government nor the consumers.

Purchasing power is highly overaded. The consumer only buys what is supplied, what is supplied one might argue, is what ppl really want. I disagree, but will not rant on about how we only demand what is demanded of us to demand.
What spawned this rant u may ask.
Now as much as large companies may understand that the xmas season is busy, they lack the knowledge of supplying MORE goods, so that products do not run out.
Is purchasing power so that we all have 2 heard 2 stores in large lines and crowds? I dont think so. Its hype, your life is hype. but i regress.
As i was saying, i went 2 go look 4 boots, womyn's size 8 boots. Not fancy, more practical boots. All the store i went to they were sold out,( i wish i had larger feet)
Continue on to Starbucks, where there is no Chai tea, and hasn't been for over 2 weeks. Their christmas blend coffee, one must buy in the beggining of december *note remember this for next year.
Next i went to Micheals. They had quite a fair bit of products. As i wasn't looking 4 anything particular however. the sad thing was i had to wait 15 minutes in line, because there was only one cashier. It is the holiday season. ONe would think there would be more than one cashier.
Anyway.
On a side note: i can not believe how much chocolate oranges cost, it is a true waste of one's money.

It is official, i hate capitalism, and communism. I think i'll stick to socio-anarchy......
thats a VERY long rant, that i do not want to get into today.

(comment on this)

Thursday, November 30th, 2000
12:30 pm - The county divided
Its odd to look at a map of our county. The west is green or alliance. With a couple NDP and PC seats scattered. Ontario is red, Quebec is red and blue (la bloque) and atlantic canada is red as well, with a couple more NDP and PC seats.
The concept of our county seperating might actually be a good idea. I love canada dearly. Its a great county. However, the westerners are referred to as "different" by our PM and think Ottawa makes no decisions in the needs of the west. Thats difficult because of the diverse needs of the county. However, we could work together, but thats a difficult idea. The beauty or the appeal of the alliance to the west, is the decentralization of the government. Decisons based on the needs of the province. However, if a province is so misfortuned to get someone like Mike Harris, the decisions are more strongly held in his hands and result in a province in which disaproval would be high. As that Mike only got i out of every 4 votes.
I'm not going to even touch the belief idea behin politics, as i think its up to the voter, as decisons are based upon morals, as well as represention of the people. I c nothing wrong with people voting for a leader due to his beliefs.
I supose if we had 100% of the ppl vote, it sould not be mainly liberal, but a truly cenral party that could balance social programs and expenses.
However, that is a tremendous feat, and I think that the liberals are as close to that model as possible, but I vote for what I want, or what the principles behind a party is, the hope of achieving thier goals whether they be realistic or not.

(comment on this)

Friday, November 3rd, 2000
11:53 am - parent synonomous with needy?
AS I'm looking up information on affirmative rights. Iread an article and interview with shall i say the f word "feminist" Elinor Buckette,
The word feminist has negative conontations surrounding it, as therefore, i dont generally like to use it.

Anyway, the point of the interview was that she disagreed with giving tax cuts to parents in the workplace. As it is not equal pay for work. Parents get more benefits and more money.
That is not to say that parents dont have an important role in society, as they do, however, i am inclined to agree.

By giving such tax benefits, it makes the word parent and needy synonomous, as she puts it.
One example she used was that is it fair that a family who's income is 200,000 $ , and a stay at has a stay at home parents, should they still get the "stay at home tax" benefit.

The way I see it, is the message is more important then the medium. The sad thing is I know people will read such things and think, just another feminist. Especially working mothers, who will probably see it as an attack that they choose to have children, and that the feminists see this as wrong because they are "fertility" machines that ends up putting womyn back into their traditional roles.

Such ignorance is sad. Perhaps it is because they challenge the way society sees an issue. Perhaps that would violate encouraging the american dream, of 2.2 children and 2 cars, and so on.

What i didn't realize that there are 14 million childless adults out there (i dont know if she was refereing to womyn or including men, but i'm pretty sure it was 14 million womyn)
and more interestinglyif they were to have 2.2 children, we'd end up with the population of canada plus a million or two.


People should get benefits in services , but not tax breaks, even in tax brackets, u end up with loop holes and end up with a huge headache.
Perhaps the best solution is have more womyn senators and such.

NOTE: tax breaks for parents are also in Canada. AS well, as just as a side note, if parents are on welfare and have a second child their income goes up signifagantly, as where the tax breaks for one more child, with working parents , is less. (of course, even so, they (people on welfare) probably have nearly the same amount of "income" with the money from 2 children as
the working parents who have 1 child, including benefits )

(comment on this)

Monday, October 30th, 2000
10:25 am - Raspberry Flavoured Peaches
Well, the US is a nice county. AFter realizing that most of their good with the exchange rate are the same, ther is no real longing,perhaps one feels to go shopping in the US. However, there is much more of a variety.
I find it interesting what products are released in the US and not in Canada. For example, I found a bottle of Cherry 7up. It was interesting, but not very good. The other interesting thing about the bottle was that it had a warning that the bottle was under high pressure and to be careful when opening. The cap, or the drink itself could damage one's eyes, or cause harm because of its possible explotion or the cap flying and hitting someone. No where in Canada would u find such a warning. I supose someone must have sued them about it. How american.

Going to the grocery store, was interesting and fairly similar to ours. However, one thing struck me as odd.

RASPBERRY FLAVOURED PEACHES, YES,
FLAVOURED PEACHES........


Perhaps this is very disturbing. It is to me, why would you even bother creating a product that is intended to taste of it natural, or similar taste, and not a different flavour. Its kinda like orange flavoured corn or pinapple flavored kiwi's. I thought that perhaps they were gentically engineered, but really its quite brilliant marketing. People will think your crazy and be interested. One was bought for me and I havn't yet tried it, or had the nerve to.
I always knew the US was weird, and had interesting products, but i think i'll remember those raspberry flavoured peaches for much too long.

current mood: Peachy

(1 comment | comment on this)

Tuesday, October 10th, 2000
10:31 am - Same Sex Marriages
Most people when they think of such a topic, realize that same sex couples do not have equal status nor rights as heterosexual couples.
I found a piece of information that I find very interesting, that one of the newer bills, federally, regarding the Modernization of Benefits and Obligations has passed. Now in Canada, same sex couples are considered a couple and can recieve the same benefits as a common law couple.
Of course this bill had and still has oppostion. IN the vote of the bill, what surprised me was that the ENTIRE Bloque Quebecois voted yes, 17 Liberals voted against it, (which is around 1/3) and of course Reform or the Canadian Alliance ALL voted against it. (hmmm, and this is probably going to be the party from which are next pm is going 2 be from)
Of course the Christian Organizations and people backing them agree with them.
Here is an article of what focus on the family thinks of Same Sex "marriages"

Focus on the Family Position Statement on Same-Sex "Marriage" and Civil Unions


Marriage is a sacred union, ordained by God to be a life-long, sexually exclusive relationship between one man and one woman. Focus on the Family holds this institution in the highest esteem, and strongly opposes any legal sanction of marriage counterfeits, such as the legalization of same-sex "marriage" or the granting of marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples, cohabiting couples, or any other non-marital relationship. History, nature, social science, anthropology, religion, and theology all coalesce in vigorous support of marriage as it has always been understood: a life-long union of male and female for the purpose of creating stable families.


Stable families !!! There can be unstable heterosexual couples. Just because your in a same sex marriage, doesn't necessarily mean its unstable. Its just new.



History and Marriage

Marriage is not an American invention. It has existed as an institution since the beginning of civilization, and thus supersedes our modern laws. Every long-standing society has viewed marriage as a union of male and female. Studies of previous civilizations reveal that when a society strays from the sexual ethic of marriage, it deteriorates and eventually disintegrates.1
I dont think marriage will ever disentegrate. There will always be religion and people seeing as a symbol of devotion. Common law may be easier and bluring the lines of our strict definition of marriage is good. It shows that our society is changing, with the morals and values of the times. Change is good.


Nature and Marriage

Even a casual observation of nature reveals the vital distinctions between male and female and the need that each has for the other. Gender distinctions are not simply an artificial social construct. Men and women are uniquely designed to complement each other physically, emotionally, and spiritually. Marriage is the means for melding the two sexes into a stronger and more complete whole. Thus while marriage has intrinsic value of its own, a primary purpose of marriage is procreation. Marriage is the natural and best means for the propagation of the human race.

"Propagation of the human race" hmmm, I dont think that will ever really be an issue. I think any 2 people can form a bond, a strong bond does not necessarily derive itself from a one male and one female relationship. We can see this clealy by observing a gay/lesbian couple. They are not void of love or emotion nor the ability to give/recieve and function in a long term relationship.

Children and Marriage

The optimal environment for raising a child is one in which the child's mother and father are married to each other. Deliberately depriving a child of a mother or a father is not in the child's best interest. On average, when compared with children raised by both parents, children in single-parent homes fare worse in virtually every measure of well-being.2 The sparse research regarding children raised in same-sex couple households reveals that such children are comparable in well-being to those in single-parent households.3 In addition, children raised by homosexuals are significantly more likely to develop a homosexual orientation themselves.4 Men and women are distinctly different. Each gender brings vitally important - and unique - elements to a child's development. Research reveals that the presence of a father in the home affects children's cognitive and verbal skills, academic performance, involvement in or avoidance of high-risk behaviors and crime, and emotional and psychological health.5 A wealth of research and information has been published about the power and importance of the mother-child bond.6

Perhaps OPTIMAL , it may be, however the studies, I would question the validity of them. I would question who did the study and who participated. I highly doubt that due to a lack of a male or female "role model" or parent will psycologically damage children development. The Focus on the Family does not mention that there are children who's parents die or get seperated at a very young age. I could mention single parent "families" of in which children may be may have more problems adjusting and living, but that would be mainly due to poverty and the state of womyn.

Discrimination and Marriage

We elevate marriage in our laws over other relationships because marriage has proven over millennia to be an obvious societal good. Marriage is open to any two individuals provided they meet certain criteria regarding age and blood relationship, and provided the individuals are of the opposite sex. Homosexual activists seek not to end discrimination, but rather to completely redefine - and thus undermine - the foundational institution of marriage. Indeed, some prominent gay activists have gone so far as to state this as their goal.7 This powerful,advantaged, vocal special interest group is seeking not to be left alone, not to be simply tolerated or even respected, but to force its views on the rest of society.
</font> ummm, what do u think your doing. Do you not support the Black movement or the Womyn's movement. Of course, its not about forcing ideals down people's throats, its about exceptance and equality, but all equality movements suffered great persecution.
</font>

Love and Marriage

Those who would redefine marriage often insist that the only necessary qualification for marriage is "love." Yet if one accepts that rationale, then there can logically be no boundaries as to what constitutes marriage; any combination or number of consenting individuals must ultimately gain the same legal and societal sanction as traditional marriage. While love is vital, it is not the definitional element of marriage. We love many people we do not marry.
This is the dumbest argument I have heard due to the illogical defence being used. I refuse to comment to such anti-christian beliefs (of which they are christian organization)
Questioning someone's love is ridiculous as there is no strict definition. Of all people who should grasp this notion it would be christian's and their "undying love for god"


Religion and Marriage

The five major world religions, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism recognize and uphold the natural, heterosexual understanding of marriage. By contrast, these religions teach that homosexual behavior is sinful or wrong.8

The Bible and Marriage

Marriage is the first institution ordained by God and has served from the beginning as the foundation for continuation of the human race. Genesis tells us that shortly after the creation of the first man, God acknowledged Adam's incompleteness. God then created Eve as Adam's partner, his completer, and blessed their union.9 Jesus underscored the importance and sacredness of marriage in His own teachings.10 The apostle Paul taught that the marital relationship is to be an ongoing demonstration of the sacrificial love that Christ showed His church. In contrast, the Bible clearly proscribes any form of homosexual behavior as sinful.11 As such, it is not and cannot be the basis for a sacred marriage relationship.
people have different religions and belief systems, to use this argument, is inconsequential. The people you wrote this for are usually not christian, and there are christians who actually disagree with the notion of Christianity being opposed to same sex marriages


Marriage is unquestionably good for individuals and society. It deserves respect and protection. Any efforts to redefine marriage destroy the institution. Thus we oppose any government recognition or endorsement of marriage counterfeits, including same-sex unions.


Endnotes
1 See J. D. Unwin, Sexual Regulations and Human Behavior (London: Williams & Norgate, 1933).

2 See, for example, D. A. Dawson, "Family Structure and Children�s Health and Well-being," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53:573-584 (1991).

3 See F. Tasker and S. Golombok, "Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 65:2: 203-215 (1995).

4 Ibid. See also, T. J. Dailey, "Breaking the Ties that Bind." Family Research Council Insight, February 18, 2000.

5 See D. Blankenhorn, Fatherless America. (New York: Basic Books, 1995). See also, K. D. Pruett, Fatherneed. (New York: Free Press, 2000).

6 See for example, B. Hunter, The Power of Mother Love. (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press, 1997).

7See, for example, Michelangelo Signorile, "Bridal Wave," Out, January/February 1994, at p. 161.

8 "Major World Religions on the Question of Marriage," Marriage Law Project, April 2000, at http://marriagelaw.cua.edu.

9 Genesis 2:24.

10 Matthew 19:6.

11 Leviticus 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; I Corinthians 6:9-11.

I guess its all a matter of opinion. Perhaps the rest of the population wil truly be able to accept other members of society and not try to impose their value system upon others.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Copyright � 2000 Focus on the Family.
All rights reserved. International copyright secured.

(comment on this)

Monday, October 2nd, 2000
10:28 pm - NAFTA
I was looking stuff up on NATFA
and realized how horrible of an argreement it is.
I mean any agreement that allows corporations to use the Investor by State law that says a country cant infringe on a company's profits or its owes the company compensation.
Y must we pay polluters to stop polluting?
I seriously think canada should re think this whole agreement deal and the whold concept of trade is based on a theory:

Assumptions made for Heckscher Ohlin (HO) Theory Model

1. There are two countries using two factors of productions, capital and labor, to produce two goods.

2. Identical production functions exist in both countries.

3. Production functions in both countries display constant returns to scale.

4. One of the commodities is capital intensive at all input prices, the other is labor intensive.

5. Perfect competition in both commodities and factor markets, as well as full employment of resources exists in both nations.

6. Both nations have identical tastes.

7. There are no transportation or similar costs and no barriers to free international trade.

8. Perfect factor mobility exists within each nation but not between nations.

9. Neither country has complete specialization in production.

These are false and assuptions and I seriously think Canada should look at what we must compromise with this agreement.
Our laws can be overturned by the fact that it infringes upon corporations rights to make profits and encourage trade. So any environmental or health rule can be overturned.
But then again nothing is perfect. It would just be nice if the agreement could focus on environmental and social issues as well.

(comment on this)

Thursday, September 28th, 2000
7:36 pm - Pierre Elliot Trudeau
Its sad that one of the best prime ministers Canada has ever had has passed away. On CBC, all poeple could say were good things, and anicdotes that were so very moving.

Its sad that a man who believed in a multi cultural and bilingual country died.
I didn't realize he was the first to appoint a women Governor Gerneral, and 2 other political postions I cant recall (i think one was the senate)

A man who changed our freedoms and rights. A man who seemed to try so hard and have such optimism for this country. Well, at least he'll be an inspiration for the generations to come what a true politicial should be about.

(comment on this)

Wednesday, September 13th, 2000
11:22 am - I remember
I remember

when his smooth hands
would caress my skin
and now
are used for defending himself
when his cute lips
would give kisses softer than butter
and now
speak bitter words or nothing at all
when his soft tongue
would speak words of sweet nothings
and now
speak sharp words that cut
when his beautiful bluey green eyes
peered at me and silently said i love u
and now
avoid me as though I dont exsist
when his slender arms
gave hugs of such strength that they could turn
coal to diamonds
and now
are fragile and small as though done by obligation
when his adorable smile
made me feel like i was *mewting*(melting)
and now
has gone on strike

and most inportantly

when his sweet heart
showed me he cared and loved
and now
has lost its
unconditions
its nuturing and
its interest


I wish the sweet sugar coated days could
return
I wish the for the
soft touches
long cuddeling
whispered words
brightly coloured dreams
and most of all
the fun
we once had

(comment on this)

Friday, September 8th, 2000
8:08 pm - The decisions of today
the youth of every generation
are given the mistakes
of the past generations
to be dealt with

we stuggle to give our children the world
and end up burdening them
we try and give them the skills
to solve and think critically
but we short change them
due to change

we struggle to clear past mistakes
and in so make more
solutions can not be reached
without imput from all
elderly, youth and adults

we start off with a clean tomorrow
and taint it as today goes on
which eats each possible day
for movement and change
to endless days of repairing

perhaps thought and solutions should be sought
to include all
because today's decisions
affect the adults of tomorrow

(comment on this)

10:43 am - Mike Harris
From the Globe and Mail....


Will the real Harris please stand up

Premier says he is a simple man who believes
in the values of hard work, self-sufficiency
RICHARD MACKIE
Queen's Park Bureau
Saturday, June 5, 1999


North Bay, Ont. -- Over the past four years, it sometimes seemed that Mike Harris had the proverbial devil sitting on one shoulder and an angel sitting on the other. The question now is which will dominate.

Will it be the Mike Harris who talked of taking money away from pregnant women on welfare because they might spend it on beer?

Or will it be the Mike Harris who was so affected by a 15-year-old boy's story of his fight against hepatitis C that he reversed government policy and found $200-million for victims of tainted blood?

Mr. Harris himself says he is a simple man who retains the values he learned from his father growing up in North Bay, a community that still emphasizes the small-town values of hard work and self-sufficiency.
---
hmm, self sufficiency .., some people in our society need help, does encouraging people who make large amounts of money, to give them more back through taxes so that poorer people ( or according to him, lazy people) can suffer more..
And that the arts dont encourage self-suffiecency, please, the people who take the arts the people who really question what needs to be questioned ...
-----

"I don't believe I have personally changed" over the past four years, despite the conflict and controversy that his government has engendered, Mr. Harris said earlier this week.

"I believe I am the same individual. I'm Mike from North Bay who believes in all his heart that this is the greatest province in the world, but that it needed a change of direction.

"I believe we have it on that right track now and I want to keep it on that right track."

---
Great so maybe by the time my kids reach school, it will be privatized and only math, science, business and basic English classes will be provided. On top of which my kids will be put with 30 other kids and a teacher THAT HAS NO BACKGROUND IN TEACHING.....
-----


For Mr. Harris the right track for a government is to be fiscally responsible and to provide a few basic services, but for the most part keep out of people's faces.

It means a government that protects people who abide by the traditional rules of society from those who threaten them.

And it means a government that doesn't believe in giving handouts, but believes in providing people with the means to assist themselves.
----
Health Care, Education isn't giving out handouts. I am assuming he is talking about people on social assistance. Is cutting funding for womyn's shelters, crutial fairy boats,(thats for chirstyn)
and people who have problems providing for themselves. People who are disabled, or ill for an example.
-----


This pattern likely will see Mr. Harris cast in a new light during the coming four years.

With the deficit eliminated, government spending squeezed and tax cuts a regular feature of budgets, Mr. Harris has achieved some of the goals he set out to achieve when he became leader of the Progressive Conservative Party nine years ago.

The second term gives him an opportunity to begin the positive things he believes a government can accomplish.

The postsecondary education system will be restructured to ensure that graduates are all but certain of stepping directly into jobs, and that businesses have little trouble recruiting people with the skills they need.

----
I'll bet you thats not included for people who get a BA or MA in an Arts degree.
---


Mr. Harris had drifted through various interests as a young man, but found his mtier in politics when former premier William Davis asked him to run as a long shot against an entrenched Liberal MPP.

After scooping the riding from the Liberals, he was re-elected in 1985, and served a short stint in cabinet under Frank Miller before the Tories were ousted by the alliance between the Liberals and New Democrats.

After the Conservatives were trounced in the 1987 election, the party was dispirited, disorganized and seemed at least a generation away from recapturing office.

There was a fight for the leadership in the winter and spring of 1990, when Mr. Harris was opposed by Dianne Cunningham, the personable MPP from London.

At times the party's demise was forecast even by its own polling experts. But Mr. Harris refused to give up, and managed a respectable and surprising showing with 20 seats.

It was a baptism of fire for the team that still surrounds Mr. Harris -- including David Lindsay, Deb Hutton, Leslie Noble and Tom Long.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

top of this page

(comment on this)

Thursday, September 7th, 2000
10:30 pm - to be a man or not to be a man
I ponder why is it men's clothing is so comfortable?
Why is it womyn's clothes are meant to reveal?
Why is men's clothing material softer?
I think if I had the choice of being male or female, I think I would be female. The prejudices and stuggle to be a womyn in today's society is greater than that of men. Womyn must endure pms, menstration, child birth, lower wages and balancing family and work. Womyn tend to have to work twice as hard, at least in management positions, to get the same respect.
It also bothers me that womyn who wear form fitting clothing and makeup get more attention. Of course guys who wear more formal clothing get more attention by females but with womyn it's MORE about the physical beauty, and especially with makeup; an artificial image, a mask of sorts of who people are.
I do realize however we are human beings and beauty and asthetics is highly important to us as a species, but as concious beings, we should be able to see beauty in more ways than physical beauty, in the sense of sexual beauty, as there is more to us as people.

The only thing I like better about being female is the variety in accessories and clothing.
However, that is fairly minor to the rest of the reasons, at least for me, to prefer being male to female.
Perhaps in the next life.

(comment on this)

Monday, September 4th, 2000
6:29 am - Live and Learn
The thing that bothers me the most about society is our value system. We look at people who do not contribute economically to our society as lazy, and unmotivated. The perception is that everyone must be an active member of society, in the sense that they must be in a financial situation whereas they can support themselves.
Now I understand the viewpoint that why should other memebers of society pay money to help support people who apparently do nothing all day. Unfortuantely, we cannot choose how the money that we as taxpayers pay, is distributed.
What further bothers me is that people will complain about paying maybe 1 to 2 dollars a household, depending upon the province for people on social assistance, whereas each household spends almost the same amount or more for senators, who sadly I might say, don't do the equivalent amount of work for the money they are paid. Of course there are other lavish things the government spends its money on. We could look at how its distributed to large bureaucratic government departments.
Then people have the audacity to complain about people who get such a pitful amount of money to live on. No person WANTS to be on social assistance, most human beings in general want a job and want enough money to be an active member.
So hence, these members who may not take as much intiative as others and are frowned upon for this reason.
Also people can assume that most people on social assistance are one type,lazy and unmotivated whereas the people should look at others on a case by case basis.
This is just what I see and I think, but everyone is entitled to their opinions.

(comment on this)

Tuesday, August 29th, 2000
9:12 pm - A PLACE FOR THOUGHTS
I don't anticipate anybody 2 b reading this.
However, this is going 2 b my niche of useless thoughts and questions.
All my weird philosophy and political rants will go in here.
Anyway., enjoy
catch ya later....

(1 comment | comment on this)


> top of page
LiveJournal.com