The system of education that we currently reside in is a farce. Students are sent through the system, obstentably to learn the skills necessary to survive in the working world. And yet we don’t, not really. We get taught how to prepare for university, that golden hall in which we shall all meet our professional fate and become the automatons we were destined to be. The problem is that its not working, people still drop out of our “free” education system and admission rates to university and college is going down, not up. The reason? Because there’s no flexibility in our system. Our system of education is completely designed so that everyone gets the same education, so that there can be no complaints of differential treatment between different people. But its become a hindrance, not a benefit. We need to accept that there really is a difference in the skills and interests of our students, and thus the high schools need to start offering more courses that exist outside the typical realm of academia. In a perfect world, we could all become lawyers or doctors or whatever we thought we would be when we were little kids, but in reality there needs to be people who build houses or fix cars or pick up the garbage or any other thing like that which precious few people in the world ever wish to be. There needs to be more incentive for people to want to enter the trades and to inform our young people that university is not the only way to a future of wealth.
The best way to start this is right in the schools. Courses need to be added to the technical and artistic parts of the system, and rather than being expelled to the fringe as “elective” courses, it should be required that people take at least one course from both tech education and home economics. Also important is the financial incentive; many people who do want to take a trade and learn that trade are unable to because there is no way to finance their training. Rather than obsessing over getting scholarships to university bound academic students, schools and governments should actively aid young people who do wish to be carpenters or mechanics or any other labour intensive career.
This isn’t to say that I want to abandon financing for university students. Quite the contrary, I believe that governments should ensure that anyone who wishes to go to a post secondary institute be given the funding needed, as people with university degrees earn more money and thus pay more taxes, and are also less likely to be on government welfare due to their specialized skills. Once again, too many people are being left behind due to an inability to pay for their future, and thus people who otherwise have the necessary skills are stuck in life doing something that is a waste of their potential.
There have been estimates made that it would cost less to finance every single student going to university than it would to continue funding our engagement in Afghanistan. It seems like a small price to pay for future success and material wealth in Canada.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Friday, March 27, 2009
Energy Policy (mine)
We're facing an energy crisis. Not just Canada, not just North America. The whole world is facing an energy crisis in the face of climate change and the increasing price of fossil fuels. But what is being done? In America, China and India, the three biggest producers of carbon emissions, efforts are either being stonewalled by the legislative process or is simply non-existant. This is unacceptable, as the costs both financially and in terms of damage to our environment and our health is becoming too high, and cannot be paid for at our rate of consumption indefinately.
Firstly, and rightly so, we must begin to curb our appetite for energy and decrease our rates of consumption. In twenty-nine years, Canada has managed to double its energy consumption rates, and annually produces enough energy to run the Montreal subway system for almost 8,000 years. This kind of reckless consumption has only one cause and no justification; a lazy society that would rather a machine do what we would ourselves do in earlier generations. Reducing our energy needs starts right at home, simple things such as just turning off lights and appliances that aren't being used saves hundreds of dollars in energy bills every year, and it reduces our need on dirty energy sources to power our everyday lives. More than just using less energy, we need to use smarter energy. Everyday things like changing lightbulbs to the new flourescent bulbs or ensuring good tire pressure can reduce the need for oil in our cars and electricity in our homes, both of which can save money and reduce our carbon emissions.
Naturally, reducing our need for energy is an important way of reducing our carbon footprint, but the fact remains that we will still need to consume some energy unless we revert to a pre-industrial society. Rather than continuing to pour money into a solution that is growing both more expensive to maintain and more dangerous to the environment, we must begin prioritizing research and development of alternative fuel and energy sources. Our country is greatly varied in geography, and sadly there is no one form of "alternative" energy that we can use and apply to the nation as a whole, but that is how it should be anyways. The people in each province know their homes; the innovative Canadian spirit in every corner of the land can and should be tasked with finding solutions to the energy crisis that work best for that area of the nation, not something that would have widespread, ineffectual use. We must develop all energy sources that can prove themselves to be clean and affordable. This means looking not just at hydro power, but solar, wind, tidal and geo-thermal energy.
Many of these energy sources are already being developed, but without further funding we risk losing our chance to become leaders in the fields and profiting from the innovations and new technologies. Switching to these technologies should no longer be viewed as an attack on entrenched interests, but instead as a business opportunity to expand into new markets and obtain a greater profit in areas with less competition. And there will be competiton, nations around the world are beginning to come together and find the technology, perfect it, and produce it in order to better serve their own nation. We have a choice in this; we can either be the seller of new technology and reap the rewards of it, or we can be purchasing that technology and forever be left behind as a minor nation. What will you decide as an individual?
Firstly, and rightly so, we must begin to curb our appetite for energy and decrease our rates of consumption. In twenty-nine years, Canada has managed to double its energy consumption rates, and annually produces enough energy to run the Montreal subway system for almost 8,000 years. This kind of reckless consumption has only one cause and no justification; a lazy society that would rather a machine do what we would ourselves do in earlier generations. Reducing our energy needs starts right at home, simple things such as just turning off lights and appliances that aren't being used saves hundreds of dollars in energy bills every year, and it reduces our need on dirty energy sources to power our everyday lives. More than just using less energy, we need to use smarter energy. Everyday things like changing lightbulbs to the new flourescent bulbs or ensuring good tire pressure can reduce the need for oil in our cars and electricity in our homes, both of which can save money and reduce our carbon emissions.
Naturally, reducing our need for energy is an important way of reducing our carbon footprint, but the fact remains that we will still need to consume some energy unless we revert to a pre-industrial society. Rather than continuing to pour money into a solution that is growing both more expensive to maintain and more dangerous to the environment, we must begin prioritizing research and development of alternative fuel and energy sources. Our country is greatly varied in geography, and sadly there is no one form of "alternative" energy that we can use and apply to the nation as a whole, but that is how it should be anyways. The people in each province know their homes; the innovative Canadian spirit in every corner of the land can and should be tasked with finding solutions to the energy crisis that work best for that area of the nation, not something that would have widespread, ineffectual use. We must develop all energy sources that can prove themselves to be clean and affordable. This means looking not just at hydro power, but solar, wind, tidal and geo-thermal energy.
Many of these energy sources are already being developed, but without further funding we risk losing our chance to become leaders in the fields and profiting from the innovations and new technologies. Switching to these technologies should no longer be viewed as an attack on entrenched interests, but instead as a business opportunity to expand into new markets and obtain a greater profit in areas with less competition. And there will be competiton, nations around the world are beginning to come together and find the technology, perfect it, and produce it in order to better serve their own nation. We have a choice in this; we can either be the seller of new technology and reap the rewards of it, or we can be purchasing that technology and forever be left behind as a minor nation. What will you decide as an individual?
Afghanistan; Vietnam redux?
So its time to talk about everyone's favourite war that no one likes to talk about. I mean Afghanistan. Recently, Fox News decided to pay tribute to Canada and its service in protecting the world from terrorism with THIS poorly received, ignorantly created and downright meanspirited segment. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVKlFT58Zwc
Thankfully, the host of the show in question has made a public apology and rescinded those comments, which were timed to coincide with the return of four dead Canadian soldiers to their homeland. While the nation has moved on and accepted the apology for such a crass attack on our people, the segment has become the catalyst for (more) Canadians to question our involvement in Afghanistan.
So, why are we there exactly? Most of our forces are in the Kandahar region, one of the most violent and vicious in the nation. Our purpose has been both to provide security for the Afghani populace, a task that grows ever more impossible with every attack by the Taliban Insurgency, and our other mission is to provide humanitarian aid and begin, for lack of better term, modernizing the nation through improved infrastructure and greater equality between the sexes. In this, we are also hampered by the Taliban attacks, but NATO forces are beginning to see obvious success in their efforts. This is where the debate is centered; is the improvement of life for Afghani citizens worth the lives of Canadian soldiers and aid workers?
I say it is; we have long claimed in Canada that we are a peacekeeping nation. What peace will there be in Afghanistan if our soldiers and aid workers leave and all our progress is erased? We'd be condemning a nation to civil war as the current government and the Taliban fight for supremacy. Millions of innocent people would have their lives ruined or simply be killed; as a peacekeeping nation we should abhor the idea of it and proudly stand to prevent such an event. I realize that the death toll has become unnerving to many Canadians, I'm one of them too. But we have to look at more than just ourselves; we need to look at how our actions would affect not just ourselves, but a whole nation and even a whole region of the world. A stable Afghanistan could bring peace to a whole war-torn region of the earth, how can we as a peacekeeping nation afford to stand aside and say that we've grown too squemish to protect something like that?
Thankfully, the host of the show in question has made a public apology and rescinded those comments, which were timed to coincide with the return of four dead Canadian soldiers to their homeland. While the nation has moved on and accepted the apology for such a crass attack on our people, the segment has become the catalyst for (more) Canadians to question our involvement in Afghanistan.
So, why are we there exactly? Most of our forces are in the Kandahar region, one of the most violent and vicious in the nation. Our purpose has been both to provide security for the Afghani populace, a task that grows ever more impossible with every attack by the Taliban Insurgency, and our other mission is to provide humanitarian aid and begin, for lack of better term, modernizing the nation through improved infrastructure and greater equality between the sexes. In this, we are also hampered by the Taliban attacks, but NATO forces are beginning to see obvious success in their efforts. This is where the debate is centered; is the improvement of life for Afghani citizens worth the lives of Canadian soldiers and aid workers?
I say it is; we have long claimed in Canada that we are a peacekeeping nation. What peace will there be in Afghanistan if our soldiers and aid workers leave and all our progress is erased? We'd be condemning a nation to civil war as the current government and the Taliban fight for supremacy. Millions of innocent people would have their lives ruined or simply be killed; as a peacekeeping nation we should abhor the idea of it and proudly stand to prevent such an event. I realize that the death toll has become unnerving to many Canadians, I'm one of them too. But we have to look at more than just ourselves; we need to look at how our actions would affect not just ourselves, but a whole nation and even a whole region of the world. A stable Afghanistan could bring peace to a whole war-torn region of the earth, how can we as a peacekeeping nation afford to stand aside and say that we've grown too squemish to protect something like that?
Dirty Fuel
Lets have a look at the oil sands, one of the crowning jewels of the Alberta Oil Industry. According to the oilsands website (how corporate), oilsands are "naturally occurring mixtures of sand or clay, water and a thick, heavy substance called bitumen." The mixture is removed from the earth in two different ways, either through traditional drilling or bi in situ (in place) drilling. This mixture is separated with hot water to free the bitumen, which can then be sold on the market as a form of crude oil.
There are supposedly over 170 billion barrels of crude oil that can be extracted through these oilsands, but there are a few causes for concern.
First and foremost; it is STILL oil. You can call it anything you want, but its still oil and its still polluting our air and contributing to climate change. The Alberta Government says that there are stringent measures in place to protect the environment, yet greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands continues to increase, not decrease.
Second; both in situ and traditional drilling practices do considerable damage to the ground and environment that is being drilled upon. What is being done to protect and regenerate the environment after drilling has taken place? Not much. All that needs to be done is that the land is "reclaimed" and left alone. More importantly, water from the Athabasca River is used to separate the bitumen from the rest of the oilsand. Where does this now-polluted water go? Right back in the river, downstream of where it was taken out and used.
A better solution, both economically and environmentally, would be to stop developing these oilsands and demand more investment in alternative fuel sources. Right here in Vancouver we are pioneering new fuel sources everyday, sources that have zero carbon emissions and are cheaper to produce than current fuels.
Translink, the entity in charge of public transportation in Metro Vancouver, has been experimenting with many new fuel sources, including nitrogen, natural gas and hydrogen fuels. Furthermore, the city has been a leader in the use of electric buses, with almost the entirety of the downtown core equipped with electrical wiring designed for the buses' use. These technologies, with additional funding and support, could quickly and cheaply be a replacement for the fuel sources of the past. We have an opportunity to innovate and lead the world in finding clean, cheap, profitable energy sources for our vehicles, but instead we continue to defend these oilsands because its easier and its a known commodity. No more oil, no more destruction, just clean simple fuels.
There are supposedly over 170 billion barrels of crude oil that can be extracted through these oilsands, but there are a few causes for concern.
First and foremost; it is STILL oil. You can call it anything you want, but its still oil and its still polluting our air and contributing to climate change. The Alberta Government says that there are stringent measures in place to protect the environment, yet greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands continues to increase, not decrease.
Second; both in situ and traditional drilling practices do considerable damage to the ground and environment that is being drilled upon. What is being done to protect and regenerate the environment after drilling has taken place? Not much. All that needs to be done is that the land is "reclaimed" and left alone. More importantly, water from the Athabasca River is used to separate the bitumen from the rest of the oilsand. Where does this now-polluted water go? Right back in the river, downstream of where it was taken out and used.
A better solution, both economically and environmentally, would be to stop developing these oilsands and demand more investment in alternative fuel sources. Right here in Vancouver we are pioneering new fuel sources everyday, sources that have zero carbon emissions and are cheaper to produce than current fuels.
Translink, the entity in charge of public transportation in Metro Vancouver, has been experimenting with many new fuel sources, including nitrogen, natural gas and hydrogen fuels. Furthermore, the city has been a leader in the use of electric buses, with almost the entirety of the downtown core equipped with electrical wiring designed for the buses' use. These technologies, with additional funding and support, could quickly and cheaply be a replacement for the fuel sources of the past. We have an opportunity to innovate and lead the world in finding clean, cheap, profitable energy sources for our vehicles, but instead we continue to defend these oilsands because its easier and its a known commodity. No more oil, no more destruction, just clean simple fuels.
Opting out of Common Sense
So, we have a bit of Canadian Content for once, its good to finally comment on things happening within my own country, gives me perspective into how bizarre we all can act and that silliness has no nationality. http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=1434770&sponsor=Compliments%20of%20TD%20Waterhouse
This really is silly, and I'm not even talking about the same-sex protections clause. You mean to tell me that in this day and age, people can still remove their children from a provincially certified, secular, part of an educational curriculum because it clashes with one's religion? This is not acceptable; schools are provided to teach ALL students the necessary facts to make them productive human beings, no parent has the right to remove their child from that situation because of their own beliefs, especially here since it is removing the child from important facts about life. The example mentioned in the article, of preventing children from learning about sexual education, is simply shocking. In the United States, states that do not teach sexual education or use abstinence-only education have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation, with both Alaska and Texas topping the list. Why, exactly, would something of this importance be something that could be forbidden to a child because of their parents religion?
This is more than just bad politicking, this is an attempt to harm our children and contribute to our increasing health care costs with unwanted pregnancies, increased abortions and the spread of sexually transmitted infections due to plain lack of knowledge. Alberta has a chance here to prevent that, but the Culture Minister seems to want no part in the fight to protect our youth and keep our education system free of outside influences.
This really is silly, and I'm not even talking about the same-sex protections clause. You mean to tell me that in this day and age, people can still remove their children from a provincially certified, secular, part of an educational curriculum because it clashes with one's religion? This is not acceptable; schools are provided to teach ALL students the necessary facts to make them productive human beings, no parent has the right to remove their child from that situation because of their own beliefs, especially here since it is removing the child from important facts about life. The example mentioned in the article, of preventing children from learning about sexual education, is simply shocking. In the United States, states that do not teach sexual education or use abstinence-only education have the highest teen pregnancy rates in the nation, with both Alaska and Texas topping the list. Why, exactly, would something of this importance be something that could be forbidden to a child because of their parents religion?
This is more than just bad politicking, this is an attempt to harm our children and contribute to our increasing health care costs with unwanted pregnancies, increased abortions and the spread of sexually transmitted infections due to plain lack of knowledge. Alberta has a chance here to prevent that, but the Culture Minister seems to want no part in the fight to protect our youth and keep our education system free of outside influences.
Proposition eight and Vermont
Earlier this week, the Vermont State Senate voted almost unanimously to legalize same-sex marriage in their state, shedding some positive news in an otherwise grim year for the movement towards equality in America and Abroad. The full article can be found here http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-03-23-vermont-marriage_N.htm and the below are my thoughts on the issue.
I think its disappointing that something like marriage has become so cheap and commercial, that its become something that people can take ownership of instead of it being a celebration of two people's feelings for one another. We've taken the most beautiful of emotion in the whole world and stolen it from each other, simply because they're different...and that's sad that as a society, this is acceptable.
Keith Olbermann said it best when he said that this isn't about yelling or politics, its about the human heart. And its sad that something so beautiful has become something that can polarize a world and split people. And for what? Because some people don't want us to have the same chance at permanence and happiness in this life.
I'm sorry if I sound upset or anything, but I cannot understand why this is something that can be voted on, that can be challenged. What is being defended by preventing same-sex marriage, what is so terrible about two people who want to share their love with the world that they would commit to that love in a ceremony and contract? I keep hearing that America is the greatest country in the world, where everyone is equal and its the "land of opportunity"; so where is it? In a world as barren and devoid of love as the one we have, why, why are we still living in a place where people can take away that love because a religion tells people this is wrong. How does your conscience abide this decision to ban love between people, how does your HEART not cry out when you extinguish love so that your own love can feel just a little bit more important?
As I finish this rant, I want each and everyone one of you who reads this to think about one thing. Think of the people you love in your life, the people who you call family, that you call inseparable from your life and tell me, why should any of them be denied that special right to share their love, to express their love, and to be celebrated for their love? Because its not just some nameless person who gets hurt by taking away same sex marriages; its someone's son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, niece or nephew, somebody's mother, father, uncle, aunt who's been condemned to a life without love, because that's what society tells us is right.
I leave as my final comment Kieth Olbermann's special commentary on proposition 8, from whom I receive my inspiration to write this last rant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE
I think its disappointing that something like marriage has become so cheap and commercial, that its become something that people can take ownership of instead of it being a celebration of two people's feelings for one another. We've taken the most beautiful of emotion in the whole world and stolen it from each other, simply because they're different...and that's sad that as a society, this is acceptable.
Keith Olbermann said it best when he said that this isn't about yelling or politics, its about the human heart. And its sad that something so beautiful has become something that can polarize a world and split people. And for what? Because some people don't want us to have the same chance at permanence and happiness in this life.
I'm sorry if I sound upset or anything, but I cannot understand why this is something that can be voted on, that can be challenged. What is being defended by preventing same-sex marriage, what is so terrible about two people who want to share their love with the world that they would commit to that love in a ceremony and contract? I keep hearing that America is the greatest country in the world, where everyone is equal and its the "land of opportunity"; so where is it? In a world as barren and devoid of love as the one we have, why, why are we still living in a place where people can take away that love because a religion tells people this is wrong. How does your conscience abide this decision to ban love between people, how does your HEART not cry out when you extinguish love so that your own love can feel just a little bit more important?
As I finish this rant, I want each and everyone one of you who reads this to think about one thing. Think of the people you love in your life, the people who you call family, that you call inseparable from your life and tell me, why should any of them be denied that special right to share their love, to express their love, and to be celebrated for their love? Because its not just some nameless person who gets hurt by taking away same sex marriages; its someone's son, daughter, brother, sister, cousin, niece or nephew, somebody's mother, father, uncle, aunt who's been condemned to a life without love, because that's what society tells us is right.
I leave as my final comment Kieth Olbermann's special commentary on proposition 8, from whom I receive my inspiration to write this last rant. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnHyy8gkNEE
What is right about Gay Marriage
Marriage, it’s supposed to be a term that evokes a sense of merriment and wonder. A term we use to describe the union of two people who love each other. Yet, when this word is used to describe that very same union of two people who are of the same gender, displaying this same happiness to the world, the word takes on a negative, divisive connotation. It is about rights, about dignity, and about equality; and it crushes me to know that there are people who oppose this concept that is cherished by those oppressing the few who cannot yet achieve this union.
Marriage was once considered entirely in the realm of a proclamation you made in spiritual good faith to stand by your partner, to love them and be with them for time immemorial. Millennia later, the term refers not just to its traditional roots as an evocation of one’s love; it also stands as a legal construct, a way of binding one to another in the strongest of terms. It is this that the queer community wants, we do not want to intrude on religion, only to obtain the rights that are denied to us, that should be given to each person in their turn. There are over one hundred separate rights collectively given to couples who undergo a civil marriage, these rights are not encapsulated in any other legal contract, and include power of attorney and next of kin benefits, legal rights that only the closest of bonds should grant.
To hear opponents, one could be excused for thinking gay marriage was the precursor to universal Armageddon. Opponents of gay marriage are quite fond of using overblown rhetoric, claiming that by allowing gay and lesbian couples to enact a legal contract that has been in our society for thousands of years, the almighty creator of their religion shall bring divine retribution upon us all. Thankfully, I live in a country that is not hostage to religious fundamentalism. There has been no catastrophic disaster, no unparalleled scale of death, and no retribution at all for gay couples in Canada, except that of the ignorant and the bigoted, who believe themselves to be executing the will of the divine.
It is not a difficult task to argue in favour of gay marriage. What right do any of us have to say that gays and lesbians should not have the same legal rights as the rest of society? I can think of no reason why gays and lesbians should be denied rights given to the rest of humanity, unless there is someone who would like to argue that gays and lesbians are, in fact, not human beings.
It is without dignity to tell us that we cannot marry, because it violates your religion. Religion is important; spirituality can be the foundation for a lifetime of happiness and content. What it cannot be, and continually is being used as such, is a bulwark against criticism when preaching intolerance and hatred of fellow human beings. Furthermore, the society we live in is a secular society, for better or for worse, the government and the laws cannot respect one religion over any other, including those who profess belief in no religion. We live in a world with constant grief and sorrow. With two wars and an international credit crisis upon us, why are we continually treating our fellow man with disdain and banning gay marriage?
We have an opportunity as a society to bring happiness to those who cannot express their joy, and equality to those who are not equal under the law. What right does society have to say that we shall only extend our precious rights and equality so far, that we would actively discriminate against those of us who we live and work with everyday of our lives? Please, don’t let your straight life take away my gay marriage.
Marriage was once considered entirely in the realm of a proclamation you made in spiritual good faith to stand by your partner, to love them and be with them for time immemorial. Millennia later, the term refers not just to its traditional roots as an evocation of one’s love; it also stands as a legal construct, a way of binding one to another in the strongest of terms. It is this that the queer community wants, we do not want to intrude on religion, only to obtain the rights that are denied to us, that should be given to each person in their turn. There are over one hundred separate rights collectively given to couples who undergo a civil marriage, these rights are not encapsulated in any other legal contract, and include power of attorney and next of kin benefits, legal rights that only the closest of bonds should grant.
To hear opponents, one could be excused for thinking gay marriage was the precursor to universal Armageddon. Opponents of gay marriage are quite fond of using overblown rhetoric, claiming that by allowing gay and lesbian couples to enact a legal contract that has been in our society for thousands of years, the almighty creator of their religion shall bring divine retribution upon us all. Thankfully, I live in a country that is not hostage to religious fundamentalism. There has been no catastrophic disaster, no unparalleled scale of death, and no retribution at all for gay couples in Canada, except that of the ignorant and the bigoted, who believe themselves to be executing the will of the divine.
It is not a difficult task to argue in favour of gay marriage. What right do any of us have to say that gays and lesbians should not have the same legal rights as the rest of society? I can think of no reason why gays and lesbians should be denied rights given to the rest of humanity, unless there is someone who would like to argue that gays and lesbians are, in fact, not human beings.
It is without dignity to tell us that we cannot marry, because it violates your religion. Religion is important; spirituality can be the foundation for a lifetime of happiness and content. What it cannot be, and continually is being used as such, is a bulwark against criticism when preaching intolerance and hatred of fellow human beings. Furthermore, the society we live in is a secular society, for better or for worse, the government and the laws cannot respect one religion over any other, including those who profess belief in no religion. We live in a world with constant grief and sorrow. With two wars and an international credit crisis upon us, why are we continually treating our fellow man with disdain and banning gay marriage?
We have an opportunity as a society to bring happiness to those who cannot express their joy, and equality to those who are not equal under the law. What right does society have to say that we shall only extend our precious rights and equality so far, that we would actively discriminate against those of us who we live and work with everyday of our lives? Please, don’t let your straight life take away my gay marriage.
Welcome
Welcome to my Blog, Working Solutions.
This is just my place to comment on politics of the day, from any part of the globe, and post my criticisms, comments and changes I would make. Anything I criticize will most definately have my own ideas added after as a counter-proposal. I should be posting at least twice a month, though I'll try to go weekly with it.
This work is my own and does not represent the beliefs or wishes of anyone else, if you have issues with my political and personal beliefs, then perhaps reading this blog is not for you.
As always, I welcome comments from my readers regarding things I've posted; either the actual posts or my critiques are fair game for comment, just try to keep any comments tasteful and avoid any unneeded swearing or personal attacks.
Without further adieu, I'll start adding my stuff.
This is just my place to comment on politics of the day, from any part of the globe, and post my criticisms, comments and changes I would make. Anything I criticize will most definately have my own ideas added after as a counter-proposal. I should be posting at least twice a month, though I'll try to go weekly with it.
This work is my own and does not represent the beliefs or wishes of anyone else, if you have issues with my political and personal beliefs, then perhaps reading this blog is not for you.
As always, I welcome comments from my readers regarding things I've posted; either the actual posts or my critiques are fair game for comment, just try to keep any comments tasteful and avoid any unneeded swearing or personal attacks.
Without further adieu, I'll start adding my stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)