Machjo

Proposal to promote the local indigenous language in Ontario schools Section 1: Language choice in school 1.1The Ontario Ministry of Education (MoE), a local indigenous education authority (hereinafter referred to as LIEA), or a local sign-language education authority (hereinafter referred to as LSLEA) shall grant each school the freedom to teach the second-language of its choice, either to be chosen among course plans that have already been approved by the MoE, LIEA, or LSLEA or to be created by the school as a course plan to be presented to the MoE, LIEA, or LSLEA for approval, to be approved based on the pedagogical soundness of the course plan. 1.2The MoE, LIEA, or LSLEA shall grant each pupil the freedom to choose to be tested in the second-language of his choice to fulfil compulsory graduation requirements, to be chosen among tests already approved by the MoE, LIEA, or LSLEA. Rationale: The Hague Recommendations Regarding The Education Rights of National Minorities & Explanatory Notes (http://www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/1996/10/2700_en.pdf) The Universal Declaration of Linguistic Rights (http://www.unesco.org/cpp/uk/declarations/linguistic.pdf) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html) What is Sign Language, Linguistic Rights in the UN Recommendations and Conventions, and the Status of Sign Languages in the UN Member States (www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable//rights/ahc5docs/ahc5wfdside.ppt) Section 2: School choice 2.1The MoE shall provide a school voucher to parents for each school pupil under their care, to be accepted in any voucher school (i.e. Any school participating in the voucher programme). Rationale: The Hague Recommendations Regarding The Education Rights of National Minorities & Explanatory Notes (http://www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/1996/10/2700_en.pdf) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_choice...nal_Human_Right Section 3: School participation in the voucher programme 3.1Each state-owned school shall participate in the voucher programme. 3.2Each non-state-owned school shall be free to apply to the MoE, the LIEA, or a LSLEA for participation in the voucher programme, with the LIEA and LSLEA being free to establish their own participation requirements independently of the MoE, with the MoE honouring all applications accepted by the LIEA or LSLEA. 3.3Each non-state-owned school applying directly to the MoE for participation in the voucher programme shall: a) charge no additional fees, B ) select pupils on a first-come-first-served basis, c) offer a minimum of 100 hours of Esperanto lessons per year for 6 years to pupils starting at the age of eight, and 100 hours per year of local indigenous language lessons for four years to pupils starting at the age of ten, with the local indigenous language lessons being made compulsory for all pupils proven to possess the necessary aptitude for the learning of a difficult second-language. Rationale: The Hague Recommendations Regarding The Education Rights of National Minorities & Explanatory Notes (http://www.osce.org/documents/hcnm/1996/10/2700_en.pdf) UNESCO Resolutions in favour of Esperanto (http://e.euroscola.free.fr/unesco-en.htm) Research on the propaedeutic value of Esperanto (http://www.springboard2languages.org/documents/springboard_rationale.pdf) United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/en/drip.html) What is Sign Language, Linguistic Rights in the UN Recommendations and Conventions, and the Status of Sign Languages in the UN Member States (www.un.org/esa/socdev/enable//rights/ahc5docs/ahc5wfdside.ppt) Research suggesting that sign language may be particularly useful parents of infants (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Sign#Research)

I'll present a proposal in the next post of this thread. It's only a brainstorm and an attempt to answer to the concerns of various cultural communities as well as to the right and left of the political spectru. As a result, it's only natural that it's not likely to suit everyone perfectly, but might be something that could atract at least a few. I'll post it next.

True. One possible solution would be to require each ballot to include an empty line at the bottom where we could write in the name of the local citizen of our choice.

And of course the same applies to voters. Too many voters vote against a candidate, especially prevalent among strategic voters. Again, can't they vote for a candidate on principle instead of against a candidate strategically?

... and destroying the country in the long-run.

You do have a point there. We have idealists with no footing in reality, or alternatively realists with no ideal whatsoever. Where are the pragmatic idealists when we need them?

But really, is it asking too much to know what a politician is for rather than against? I don't want to know what my candidates are against, yet that's all they seem to talk about. I want to know what they're for.

Hey, I'd rather a candidate be pro-pan-American Union than anti-American. Again, at least he'd stand FOR soemthing instead of AGAINST something. If he wants to be pro-Canadian-sovereignty, fine, but not anti-American. They could learn something from both the pro-choice and pro-life movements. You'll notice they are both focussed on being for life or choice as the case may be. Neither side is anti-life and neither side is anti-choice. They know how to present a positive view of something at least, regardless which side you're on. My point exactly. I don't want to know what my candidate is against. That says nothing to me. I want to know what he's for. Now here's the thing. I couldn't care less if my candidate was pro-death-camps. Of course I wouldn't vote for him, and would be fearful if he won, but would at least appreciate his honesty.

What about now?

It seems that every election, most politicians say little about themselves and the ideas they have to improving society, and instead are exsessively focussed on talking about their opponents' faults. Why coudl a politician not just ignore the jabs of his opponents, take the high road and focus instead on discussing his own policy proposals and leave his opponents alone? Where are those politicians?

Sorry, my mistake. I do remember Iggy mentioning that though he agreed with stimulous spending, that he thught it ought to be spend in a better planneed manner to ensure we benefit from it as an investment and not just spend it randomly. Nice rhetoric, but we'd have yet to hear how he'd spend the money differently so as to benefit from it so as to help pay off the debt.

So far I've got from Ignatieff that he supports stimulating the economy, promisses no tax increase, and intends to pay off the debt. So how does he intend to pull that off? He could stimulate the economy on borrowed money or tax increases, but if he's planning to pay off the debt and has no plan for a tax increase, that's out of the question. He could pay off the debt through a tax hike or spending cuts, but since he's committed to stimulating the economy and has no plan for a tax increase, that's out of the question. He could keep taxes down by borrowing or cutting spending, but since he's committed to stimulous spending and paying off the debt, that's out of the question. One possible solution I could see would be a planned economic restructuring to make the economic system more efficient and get the extra money from that. But I've heard no hint from Ignatieff of any specific such plan. The only option I can see left to achieve this is inflation, unless I'm missing something?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/currenc...ace-dollar.html

Had Reform never compromised, who knows, maybe the Progressive Conservatives would have eventually just gotten swallowed up between the Greens (who are quite right-wing for a leftist party, in spite of the rhetoric), Reform, the CHP, and the Libertarian Party. The Reform Party would likely have ended up with secure seats in various parts of the West at least, and maybe the odd one in Ontario, still today. It would likely have ended up being forced to form alliances with other parties in Parliament or stand in official opposition. Either way, it woudl have had a presence.

Hd reform been smart, it woudl have learnt from the NDP. The NDP has not yet formed a government federally, but whenever a minority government is in power, the NDP does become a force to contend with to varying degrees. It may never have formed a federal government yet, but has influenced policy, and is present. Reform could have made the same decision, to resign itself to permanent minority party status like the NDP, yet still present at least, and able to break the balance of power in minority governments. By compromising, it's ended up disappearing off the map altogether. Perhaps it's a question of which is better, to compromise, form a government, but have lost its orginal purpose, or to stand firm, never form a government, but at least remain present and influential in minority governments. In that respect, the NDP has outsmarted the Reform Party.

A few points to make: I do agree with eliminating minimum wage laws, as they essentially force people out of work, thus hurting the very people they're intended to help. Seeing that this also risks abuse from employers, I would also support some kind of co-determination laws or alternatively profit-sharing laws to ensure that workers benefit fairly from their actual work. I could also agree with controlling unfair exploitation through monopolisation of a market, industry, or resources, as a capitalist could choose otherwise to strategically corner the market unfairly. There must also be controls on exploitative industries such as drugs, nicoine, alcohol, gambling, etc. I believe that these woudl protect persons from injustice but would still require them to work and save their own money. I could also support universal compulsory education to ensure all have an equal start irrespective of parents' position in life. Beyond these parameters, I'm essentially capitalist. I guess one could say I'm a socialist when it comes to regulating the market, but a capitalist when it comes to owning the market.

And I would definitely support an empty line on all ballots giving us the freedom to write in the name of our choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy This site presents a list of pros and cons. I still believe the pros would outweigh the cons. Also, the fact that co-alitions would likely need to be formed on a bill-by bill basis would make it somewhat more difficult to pass a new bill. Not impossible, but more difficult, meaning that there must be considerable genuine support for the bill to pass, otherwise a big enough co-alition for this bill would be difficult. Also, since it woudl take longer to get a bill through, more time would need ot be spent on it, giving it plenty of time to get polished up, take the glitches out of it, put it through major critical review before it could finally make it through. If it could survive that, then we could figure it must have considerable support to have made it through.

As for Iggy's plan though, any ideas on what his plan is? Economic growth thgough stimulous spending + paying off the debt + no tax increase = ? Honestly, the only way I can see of achieving the above is through inflation. Any other possible way of pulling this off? Unless of course he's talking of moderate stimulous funding and moderate growth, then maybe it's possible, but then he should clarify that and not lead us into believing that he's talking about the next gold rush.

That's sick. Regardless of the party, any candidate ought to be ashamed of making such a threat. As far as I'm concerned, all MPs ought to have equal access to the government, and that includes independent MPs. For candidates to make such a threat suggests that they themselves support this norm and that, if elected, they will defend that status quo. And we vote them in? We're idiots. Last election was the first time in my life that I'd handed in a blank ballot just because I was so disappointed. I'm starting to understand the absolute disillusionment among non-voters. The only way I could see us solving this problem would be something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy Maybe what we need is a Canada-wide co-alition of independent candidates all promissing that if independents can form a government, they'll introduce non-partisan democracy to the Hill.

OK, maybe I'm wrong on this, and Harper isn't the most partisan PM we've ever had. I think what we need at this stage is to fill Parliament with as many independent MPs as possible. Just down the parties! One thing I could support would be the requirment that all ballots must have an empty line at the bottom where we can write the name of whom we wish. That way, if we know someone in the community who we think would do a good job, but who's just not political enough to run for office, we could still vote him in. I can't imagine the government supporting such a ballot though. Too democratic.

I fully understand the frustration I read about stimulous funding going to Conservative ridings. I was shocked last federal election when at an all-candidates debate, our local Conservative candidate actually used the threat that if our constituency did not have a Conservative candidate to represent us 'in government', that we'd ahve no voice! I wanted to challenge him on that comment, but owing to a full audience, never had the chance. I can't believe that people voted for him. Instead of questioning his implication that his party would systematically discriminate against non-Conservative ridings, we voted him in! We truly have idiots in this riding. Anyone with the most basic understanind og democracy should understand that even if party X should form a majority, all MPs ought to have equal access to the government, an equal say in teh government, and the government ought to be there to represent the entire nation, not just their ridings. I've said this many times before and I'll say it again. Harper is probably the most partisan PM we've ever had. His party likewise.

But he's said already that he wants to promote economic growth. That can only mean putting more money into the economy or making the money already available circulate faster. He could borrow to do this, but he says he wants to pay off the debt. He could raise taxes to do this, but he opposes tax increases. So really, what's left? The only way left that I could see is inflation. Hang on tight 'cause on this ride inflation's going up, up and away.

So Ignatieff supports more government spending on the stimulous, no tax increase, and pay off the debt. Well, something's got to give. Will that be inflation owing to printed money to pay for this?

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/20...h-winnipeg.html