Saturday, December 13, 2008
Canadian Leaders Debate
I was watching the leaders debate live on television. I did not know much of each political leaders stand point. I knew some about all five, Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Green and Bloc Quebecois. Although there were a great number of views and agenda’s of each party I had not heard of or knew about before. After hearing these views, I realised that the Conservative party of Canada is much worse than I had already determined. I had not realised that Harper had cut spending on the Canadian arts, one of the biggest trademarks of Canada. These cuts had been made by decision through specialised voting within the conservative party; votes that the majority of the public are not counted in. It also seems that all other political leaders are for the arts and love the arts. I am on their side. I feel the arts are one of the greatest attributes to Canada, and it would be a terrible thing to take away from this country. From totem poles on the west coast, the soap stone sculptures in the North, great architecture in all the great cities, the picturesque homes on the east coast and the music scene in the south, these are all inspirations to Canadians and international societies and I believe that these talents should be funded so that they may prosper in this generation and limitless to come.
Facebook; the social utility that helps you connect and share with the people in your life … true of false?
Facebook was created by Mark Zuckerburg as a social networking for University of Harvard students, on February 4th 2004. Over time, the website has expanded its membership to all university students, then high school students, and has now currently enabled anyone aged 13 and over to attain a membership. Taking off at an astonishing rate, Facebook’s membership is currently at 120 million.
Controversies seem to be magnetic to this newly developed social networking site. What began as a medium for users to connect with each other, has become a spiral of controversy and law suits. These issues have arisen, through unclear positions on copyrights from embedded materials of users to spam advertisements. Facebook has also been known to be the reason for not getting a job acceptance because of unruly behaviour cited and shown on the website. There are other countless stories that have arisen from this social networking site to have a negative outcome.
Although Facebook has encountered many difficulties as one would from a public social networking site, there have been many positive outcomes. For example, people have been able to create or join groups that are tailored to their interests, which inevitably creates online friendships. This site also allows users to easily share photos, videos, literature and a very wide range of subjects that would be hard to share otherwise. Facebook has proven itself in many respects to be a useful social networking utility.
The question comes though; is Facebook truly a social utility that helps you connect and share with the people in your life? True. Facebook has proven to be a positive to a social life of someone. It is easy-to-use and easy-to-access website that empowers users to access all members who have signed up. It also gives users the power to create groups and post almost anything they want. This networking site also helps users to contact those who are extreme lengths apart. They can contact those who are very far in a matter of seconds, and it won’t cost a cent; eliminating the cost of long distance phone charges. Thus bringing everyone a little bit closer.
Facebook can also be used as a tool to promote and project the general publics opinion. Facebook has already been and will continue to be the housing for many protests and petitions. Facebook groups are easy to create and easy to pass by word of mouth. Many protests that have been created on Facebook have reached member numbers in the hundreds, to the hundreds of thousands. Some of these groups have been able to create change and others have not, although all of them have in-fact been able to serve the most beauteous purpose; uniting many people for one idea of change.
Facebook groups also have the power to enable the promotion of human rights and human equality. These groups, and their powers, as many have demonstrated, show that if people on Facebook can unite to make a change on certain topics, it can be done on other topics as well. Facebook groups have been based on raising awareness and money for HIV/AIDS victims, as well as cancer patients. Many other positive and beneficial groups to the community and the world have arisen through Facebook networking.
Facebook has been seen as a negative impact to our generation for its time consumption and productivity obstacle, but through human ingenuity and human kindness, we can easily see the positive outcomes of such a popular and influential social networking site.
Facebook was created by Mark Zuckerburg as a social networking for University of Harvard students, on February 4th 2004. Over time, the website has expanded its membership to all university students, then high school students, and has now currently enabled anyone aged 13 and over to attain a membership. Taking off at an astonishing rate, Facebook’s membership is currently at 120 million.
Controversies seem to be magnetic to this newly developed social networking site. What began as a medium for users to connect with each other, has become a spiral of controversy and law suits. These issues have arisen, through unclear positions on copyrights from embedded materials of users to spam advertisements. Facebook has also been known to be the reason for not getting a job acceptance because of unruly behaviour cited and shown on the website. There are other countless stories that have arisen from this social networking site to have a negative outcome.
Although Facebook has encountered many difficulties as one would from a public social networking site, there have been many positive outcomes. For example, people have been able to create or join groups that are tailored to their interests, which inevitably creates online friendships. This site also allows users to easily share photos, videos, literature and a very wide range of subjects that would be hard to share otherwise. Facebook has proven itself in many respects to be a useful social networking utility.
The question comes though; is Facebook truly a social utility that helps you connect and share with the people in your life? True. Facebook has proven to be a positive to a social life of someone. It is easy-to-use and easy-to-access website that empowers users to access all members who have signed up. It also gives users the power to create groups and post almost anything they want. This networking site also helps users to contact those who are extreme lengths apart. They can contact those who are very far in a matter of seconds, and it won’t cost a cent; eliminating the cost of long distance phone charges. Thus bringing everyone a little bit closer.
Facebook can also be used as a tool to promote and project the general publics opinion. Facebook has already been and will continue to be the housing for many protests and petitions. Facebook groups are easy to create and easy to pass by word of mouth. Many protests that have been created on Facebook have reached member numbers in the hundreds, to the hundreds of thousands. Some of these groups have been able to create change and others have not, although all of them have in-fact been able to serve the most beauteous purpose; uniting many people for one idea of change.
Facebook groups also have the power to enable the promotion of human rights and human equality. These groups, and their powers, as many have demonstrated, show that if people on Facebook can unite to make a change on certain topics, it can be done on other topics as well. Facebook groups have been based on raising awareness and money for HIV/AIDS victims, as well as cancer patients. Many other positive and beneficial groups to the community and the world have arisen through Facebook networking.
Facebook has been seen as a negative impact to our generation for its time consumption and productivity obstacle, but through human ingenuity and human kindness, we can easily see the positive outcomes of such a popular and influential social networking site.
Canada's Coalition Government
Stephen Harper’s minority government is in jeopardy of being toppled. The Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, and the Bloc Quebecois Party, all intend to overthrow the Conservative party through the actions of a coalition government.
The three leaders, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe signed the coalition accord and sent a letter to our Governor-General Michaelle Jean, advertently saying that the opposition has lost confidence in the Conservatives.
This proposed coalition government between these three parties will last until June 2011. The Bloc Quebecois will only pledge support for the first eighteen months. Of this time frame that is proposed, Stephane Dion would become Prime Minister until May. At this point in time, he will be replaced by his successor.
The plans for the coalition government would be 24 total cabinet positions. Six of these positions would be filled by New Democrats and the rest, eighteen would be filled with Liberal members.
This proposed coalition government is greatly enthused by the three participating parties as it is fiscally responsible in such distressful economic times and promotes the basic principles of national unity and equality. Liberal MP’s are also stating that even if the Conservatives show an economic-stimulus package, it would be rejected by the parties in opposition.
This rising coalition government, greatly reflects the majority of the populations concerns with the current Conservative minority government. Stephen Harper has not been able to conquer or even act significantly against the diminishing economy. This has been a major trigger in the reasoning for the coalition government and the three parties have already begun to set plans to implement a strong economic-stimulus package.
The coalition government is a very large threat to the Conservative government. It is a choice made by the opposing three parties that is needed. Stephen Harpers government has failed to accomplish many of the points that were recognised in his campaign and his lack of commitment to the economic downfall has Canadians worried about the future economy more than ever. This coalition government is the choice that needs to be made to reassure Canadians that we do in fact have a very bright and green future ahead of us.
The three leaders, Stephane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe signed the coalition accord and sent a letter to our Governor-General Michaelle Jean, advertently saying that the opposition has lost confidence in the Conservatives.
This proposed coalition government between these three parties will last until June 2011. The Bloc Quebecois will only pledge support for the first eighteen months. Of this time frame that is proposed, Stephane Dion would become Prime Minister until May. At this point in time, he will be replaced by his successor.
The plans for the coalition government would be 24 total cabinet positions. Six of these positions would be filled by New Democrats and the rest, eighteen would be filled with Liberal members.
This proposed coalition government is greatly enthused by the three participating parties as it is fiscally responsible in such distressful economic times and promotes the basic principles of national unity and equality. Liberal MP’s are also stating that even if the Conservatives show an economic-stimulus package, it would be rejected by the parties in opposition.
This rising coalition government, greatly reflects the majority of the populations concerns with the current Conservative minority government. Stephen Harper has not been able to conquer or even act significantly against the diminishing economy. This has been a major trigger in the reasoning for the coalition government and the three parties have already begun to set plans to implement a strong economic-stimulus package.
The coalition government is a very large threat to the Conservative government. It is a choice made by the opposing three parties that is needed. Stephen Harpers government has failed to accomplish many of the points that were recognised in his campaign and his lack of commitment to the economic downfall has Canadians worried about the future economy more than ever. This coalition government is the choice that needs to be made to reassure Canadians that we do in fact have a very bright and green future ahead of us.
Barack Addresses the World Via the Internet
Since the beginning of American history, since the first President, George Washington, there have been forty three presidents of the United States of America. Barack Obama is the forty-forth president. Many have implemented and utilized resources that were available to them at the time.
Barack Obama, the newly elected president of 2008, has begun to use the internet as a valuable resource in which no other American president has used on such a spectrum. This is a revolution in presidential communication and public consultation.
The newly elected President of the United States of America is clearly showing the advancing power of globalization. Obama can now be reached through the household computer instantaneously, which is effective and useful to working families who cannot spare the few extra minutes to watch a televised viewing. They are now enable to call up the viewing at any time and any place with the right internet connection and computer.
Although this limits those who do not own such technology. Americans who do not own computers with internet are at a disadvantage. Approximately 31% of Americans do not own a computer. For these people, it may seem that they are being disconnected from the diplomatic process of America and being forced into the dark because of their incapability’s to connect with the government.
It is understood that Barack Obama wants to revolutionize the way he communicates with America and with the world, but it seems to be unfair that many can not be communicated through this way. Although he is still addressing the country, through television and literacy he has eliminated the unfairness of this.
Globalization is showing its strength over the strongest person in one of the strongest countries in the world. Globalization is proving itself to be a measure that cannot be stopped due to our increasing advancements in communication and technology. It is showing though that it can be a good advancement that helps governments to create stronger democratic lifestyles and connects the world even more closely, and helps to spread the strength of fair and just governmental ideals.
Barack Obama, the newly elected president of 2008, has begun to use the internet as a valuable resource in which no other American president has used on such a spectrum. This is a revolution in presidential communication and public consultation.
The newly elected President of the United States of America is clearly showing the advancing power of globalization. Obama can now be reached through the household computer instantaneously, which is effective and useful to working families who cannot spare the few extra minutes to watch a televised viewing. They are now enable to call up the viewing at any time and any place with the right internet connection and computer.
Although this limits those who do not own such technology. Americans who do not own computers with internet are at a disadvantage. Approximately 31% of Americans do not own a computer. For these people, it may seem that they are being disconnected from the diplomatic process of America and being forced into the dark because of their incapability’s to connect with the government.
It is understood that Barack Obama wants to revolutionize the way he communicates with America and with the world, but it seems to be unfair that many can not be communicated through this way. Although he is still addressing the country, through television and literacy he has eliminated the unfairness of this.
Globalization is showing its strength over the strongest person in one of the strongest countries in the world. Globalization is proving itself to be a measure that cannot be stopped due to our increasing advancements in communication and technology. It is showing though that it can be a good advancement that helps governments to create stronger democratic lifestyles and connects the world even more closely, and helps to spread the strength of fair and just governmental ideals.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Driving Us Lonely
As of November 16th 2008, the Ontario government has passed new driving laws that affect the younger generation of drivers. The law states that all drivers under the age of 21 are required to have a blood alcohol level of zero, speeding of 16 km an hour over the speed limit, will result in a license suspension for thirty days and only one other passenger is allowed in the car less than 19 years of age.
This new law that has been passed greatly goes against all other environmental laws. The government has been trying to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions to better the health of the environment, us and the entire world. I do agree that there should be strong laws placed on speeding and drunk driving, but limiting the amount of passengers to a vehicle, only creates more vehicles on the road, more greenhouse gas emissions.
Other consequences that arise from limiting the number of passengers is that this puts more vehicles on the road, diminishes the purpose of a designated driver, eliminates carpooling and many others. In today’s society where environmental ignorance is looked down upon, it is surprising to see that the Ontario government would pass a law that does not show any consideration for the environment. Carpooling and designated drivers are designed around the idea of using all seats in the car. Designated drivers are there to protect intoxicated persons from needing to drive themselves home. Most people will now recognize that they will not be able to get a ride back unless they take a taxi or bring their own car and most will probably choose the latter simply because they do not want to spend their money on taxis if they have a car. Also, students who carpool to school with friends will no longer be able to use this method because of this law. They will have to find other ways to school, which is difficult for many of them. This also includes sporting events where students need to carpool to play or cheer on a sports team.
Teenagers who live in rural areas of Ontario will be at a great problem. This new law will force many of these young people, way more than needed, to drive around to have a proper social life. This will force older drivers to drive them around instead. This will inconvenience many and cause many social interaction problems, that will cause these people stress and frustration.
Inevitably, the more cars there are on the road, the more accidents there will be. I question the reason behind this. If the likelihood of accidents rises due to the much larger amount of cars on the road, then how will this be safer for drivers?
I think the Ontario government should review the recently passed law. They should keep in mind that they are saying that people who can vote, help to decide the direction that their country will move in, cannot drive with their friends. These people cannot interact with people in a convenient manner. I think as an Ontario residence, this is unacceptable and that premier Dalton McGuinty needs to decide laws with professionalism and common sense … not by emotion.
This new law that has been passed greatly goes against all other environmental laws. The government has been trying to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas emissions to better the health of the environment, us and the entire world. I do agree that there should be strong laws placed on speeding and drunk driving, but limiting the amount of passengers to a vehicle, only creates more vehicles on the road, more greenhouse gas emissions.
Other consequences that arise from limiting the number of passengers is that this puts more vehicles on the road, diminishes the purpose of a designated driver, eliminates carpooling and many others. In today’s society where environmental ignorance is looked down upon, it is surprising to see that the Ontario government would pass a law that does not show any consideration for the environment. Carpooling and designated drivers are designed around the idea of using all seats in the car. Designated drivers are there to protect intoxicated persons from needing to drive themselves home. Most people will now recognize that they will not be able to get a ride back unless they take a taxi or bring their own car and most will probably choose the latter simply because they do not want to spend their money on taxis if they have a car. Also, students who carpool to school with friends will no longer be able to use this method because of this law. They will have to find other ways to school, which is difficult for many of them. This also includes sporting events where students need to carpool to play or cheer on a sports team.
Teenagers who live in rural areas of Ontario will be at a great problem. This new law will force many of these young people, way more than needed, to drive around to have a proper social life. This will force older drivers to drive them around instead. This will inconvenience many and cause many social interaction problems, that will cause these people stress and frustration.
Inevitably, the more cars there are on the road, the more accidents there will be. I question the reason behind this. If the likelihood of accidents rises due to the much larger amount of cars on the road, then how will this be safer for drivers?
I think the Ontario government should review the recently passed law. They should keep in mind that they are saying that people who can vote, help to decide the direction that their country will move in, cannot drive with their friends. These people cannot interact with people in a convenient manner. I think as an Ontario residence, this is unacceptable and that premier Dalton McGuinty needs to decide laws with professionalism and common sense … not by emotion.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Sweatshop Fashion?
In class we have begun examining sweatshops that are run by some of the biggest countries the world has ever seen. We have looked at the atrocities that occur in these sweatshops and have begun to question intervention methods. What we can do. I have personally decided that as citizens we are able to stop boycott these products, send complaint letters to the corporations, hold strikes and create petitions; all of which will do little to nothing. I believe all the power to putting an end to these sweatshops lies completely in government hands.
These sweatshops are very unsafe. Many workers become disabled for life from accidents that can be easily be avoided in a workplace. Wages are also very low in sweatshops and hours are long. Workers receive about 0.4% of each total sale. That is a very small amount. Most workers (even with pay) are still not able to support their families or sometimes even themselves. That is unjust and wrong. Some workers have been subject to harassment verbally and sexually. Exploiting humans should not be accepted but it is.
We as civilians can do little to change this. The majority of Canada would have to boycott these companies. I have a strong doubt this would work. For one reason, there are too many stores that use sweatshop labour to produce their goods and many people are not willing to give up “good style”. We can send as many complaint letters to CEO’s of as many corporations as we possibly can and most will be destined to wait on a desk for months at best. Holding strikes and petitions will only show these corporations how many people did not attend or sign; all the people who will still buy their products. To be honest, if I was a CEO of a corporation who obviously did not care for human rights, I would not care about a few people getting angry about it, as long as I still made my money.
The way to stop these corporations is through government action. The Canadian government needs to ban selling products made in other countries such as clothing, electronics etc. Food is another story, as some can’t grow in Canada. If the government bans the selling of products made in other countries, then that will force these companies to open factories in Canada to sell to this market. This will increase Canadian economics too. If other countries follow suit with this, then these corporations will be forced to do this in every country it applies to. This will also force the removal of sweatshops out of developing countries as there will no longer be a need for them.
Some would say that passing a law stating this is not possible because it would demean the entire ideal of international trade. This is not so, trade will still be accepted with other countries as long as it free trade or trade that is ensured that the products are made with fairness and equality, ensuring human rights. It is a law that is based on morals, like many other laws in Canada that ensure human rights such as; do not commit murder, do not steal and freedom of speech; basic human rights
This is very easy for the Canadian government to do as well as many other governments around the world. It is left for them to decide whether or not they believe in human rights for all.
These sweatshops are very unsafe. Many workers become disabled for life from accidents that can be easily be avoided in a workplace. Wages are also very low in sweatshops and hours are long. Workers receive about 0.4% of each total sale. That is a very small amount. Most workers (even with pay) are still not able to support their families or sometimes even themselves. That is unjust and wrong. Some workers have been subject to harassment verbally and sexually. Exploiting humans should not be accepted but it is.
We as civilians can do little to change this. The majority of Canada would have to boycott these companies. I have a strong doubt this would work. For one reason, there are too many stores that use sweatshop labour to produce their goods and many people are not willing to give up “good style”. We can send as many complaint letters to CEO’s of as many corporations as we possibly can and most will be destined to wait on a desk for months at best. Holding strikes and petitions will only show these corporations how many people did not attend or sign; all the people who will still buy their products. To be honest, if I was a CEO of a corporation who obviously did not care for human rights, I would not care about a few people getting angry about it, as long as I still made my money.
The way to stop these corporations is through government action. The Canadian government needs to ban selling products made in other countries such as clothing, electronics etc. Food is another story, as some can’t grow in Canada. If the government bans the selling of products made in other countries, then that will force these companies to open factories in Canada to sell to this market. This will increase Canadian economics too. If other countries follow suit with this, then these corporations will be forced to do this in every country it applies to. This will also force the removal of sweatshops out of developing countries as there will no longer be a need for them.
Some would say that passing a law stating this is not possible because it would demean the entire ideal of international trade. This is not so, trade will still be accepted with other countries as long as it free trade or trade that is ensured that the products are made with fairness and equality, ensuring human rights. It is a law that is based on morals, like many other laws in Canada that ensure human rights such as; do not commit murder, do not steal and freedom of speech; basic human rights
This is very easy for the Canadian government to do as well as many other governments around the world. It is left for them to decide whether or not they believe in human rights for all.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
I Lay in My Bed
I'm laying in my bed
Soft sheets and a window with a view
Moon shines a sun-burnt red
As if it had seen the ones who now lay dead
I'm laying in my bed
Scared of the reality that mankind has built
Scared of reliving it in shards of nightmare
Scared of knowing that this is one
I can never awake from
I hear the clock tick
Something 'bout pain, it always sticks
I know time won't sleep
Throughout our lives it will creep
During pain, laughter, joy and anger
And it will not allow us to let go
Of every memory and emotion we know
Laying in my bed
Strong visions cycle through my head
A boy waits alone on a street
A mother cries over an empty plate
A father fights each day in soldiers feet
Laying in my bed
Harsh visions cycle through my head
A girl makes wishes to the stars
A brother stands fearless to a raging storm
An innocent burns out her life behind bars
Laying in my bed
Real visions cycle through my head
A life becomes a price to pay
A human lies bloody in a road-side ditch
A someone still remains next to nothing
As I lay in my warm and comfy, safe bed
Isaac Eagle-Bell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)