Machjo

Fully agreed. In fact, English is among the richer languages in the world for poetry and whatnot, owing to its myriad nuanced synonyms. English spelling is chaotic. It has way too many exceptions to the rules, even more so than many other languages. And it has many dialcts and pronunciations to contend with. Add to that that it's also grammatically imprecise in comparison to certain other languages. For aeronautical safety and other areas where precision is required for either legal or safety reasons, English is far from the ideal language. What serves as an advantage for poetry, allowing for puns, etc., could make the difference between life and death in an airplane, or alot of headaches in a court case. But this is useful only for those who can learn English, thus creating two separate linguistic classes, completely anathema to the concept of democracy. For that reason, it would be necessary for governments to intervene and choose a more just language to then become the compulsory second-language in schools. Translation into that language woudl soon follow. Remember though that teaching it in school and really succeeding in learning it well are two different things. Also, much of the science written in English can be atrributed to the brain drain, which again conflicts with the idea of equality and justice. Fully agreed. If we wanted a world federation, no matter how decentralized or capitalistic a federation it may be, it a common second language would be an essential prerequisite. The EU budget is strained by multi-millions of euros a year going towards interpretation and translatin for the Europarl alone, with two translation buildings, highrises, being rected! A common second language would not be an option. True enough.

Not forgiving at all. According to one researcher, an estimated 15% of air crashes are caused by miscommunication! That's not forgiving.

I remember reading statistics that though about 25% of the world is learning English as a foreign, only about 10% really know the language well, and this includes native speakers!

Least expressive? It's a quite rich and nuanced and expressive language, just too difficult as a universal auxiliary language beyond the elite classes and native English speakers.

I suppose a radically simplified form of English would be worth considering, but it would need to undergo so much revision that it would be a new language after the revision process anyway.

That's fine as a language of business, science, etc. But certainly not a language for a democratic world government supposed to ba accessible not just to international businessmen and scientists, but to the electorate. It depends on whether we'd want a grassroots world federation or a more elitist one. Personally, I'd be opposed to a world federation if it were just to benefit the elites of society.

I'd served as an interpreter at a meeting in Montreal once. The debate: whether to buy an expensive high-tech interpretation system, which would involve building a small room for the interpretor and wiring the hall so that people could plug in their interpretation devices. It was to cost a few thousand dollars, and this for a non-profit organization, just so that they could replace the current consecutive interpretation with simultaneous interpretation. Anyway, one francophone argued in French that it wasn't needed and that Anglophones should just learn French out of respect for the locals. The Anglophone responded in English that he was learning French, but that in the meantime, he'd need interpretation. Finally, that same francophone signalled to me not ot interpret, switched to English, and called the Anglophone a Nazi. This just gives some idea of how harmonious our country really is. I've lived in many parts of Canada, both French and English, and can tell you many more such stories I'd come across within a multi-lingual setting. A united country would require one language, and a world federation would be intended as a country after all, no?

Depends. If we want a more elitist system, then let's choose English, that way, native English speakers aside, only the academic elite and a few others who'd have had the chance to learn English well could truly benefit from it. If, however, we'd want a more just system that allows even the less educated to be able to learn the official language before the end of high school, then we'd need to adopt, revise, or create an easy second language to then be gradually introduced in schools worldwide.

God forbid all sides should agree to set borders too soon. That would end excuses for a massive military stimulous package.

I think a decentralized world federation could be possible, but it would first have to establish a common second language at least. Just look at the problems we have now in Canada with just two official languages and the First Nations, or the EU with its army of translators and interpretors, or the UN with its six official languages and little access to it for thsoe who don't speak one of those languages. A common second language woudl undoubtedly be a reprequisit, or at least co-requisite, of any kind of world federation.

Maybe you're right. Personally though, I think one symbol of a united country would be one official Anthem, not two. I can't see English speakers and French speakers ever agreeing to one (they'd kill each other before that ever happenned). But maybe you're right, maybe there could be agreement on one Aboriginal version. It would also be a step in shifting the geographic centre of our culture from Europe to North America. We're not Europeans anymore after all.

Unions would take no share of nothing, since they would not be officially recognized. This would be between workers and management, with the union having no official recognition at all. Now on the other hand, to be fair, there should be no minimum wage so that, in hard times, workers could take deep salary cuts if need be instead of government bailouts. They'd have to be on their own. We could possibly add too (and I think this would be reasonable) that workers would each have to buy at least one share in the company or, if they can't afford it initially, have it taken out of their pay on their first pay check. That way the workers too wold have an interest in the success of the company. I'd say that if it can be privatized, it ought to, maybe gradually transformed into a workers' co-op or, if it's a monopolistic company, then a consumers' co-op. As for what we can't privatize, unions should still not be officially recognized. One solution even thre could be to give workers a vote on the board of directors of the department, but no unions and no right to strike. In a dispute, a court could decide.

OK, now I was half-joking, but also half serious, in my suggestion. The serious side comes from the fact that, with both English and French being dominant languages in Canada, choosing a local indigenous language could help to depoliticize it to some degree (it's not like such a language woudl be a real threat to either English or French anyway) between English and French speakers while raising respect for the indigenous languages of the land, and also helping to give Canada deeper cultural roots in the land instead of overseas. It should be about time by now. We'd been separate from Europe for awhhile now after all. The joking side comes from the fact that it could also introduce a new political element if it should result in rivalries between First Nations. Though I did make the suggestion, I have to say that it would have to be well thought out and consulted on with all the First Nations before we tried such a thing. Now, if, and I say IF, all the First Nations could agree to one official Aboriginal version to replace English and French, I'd be all for it. It wouldn't take too long to learn to sing a song in a new language and to learn the meaning of the new verses. Now that's the question: Could all the First Nations agree on one official First Language version? Of course we could still allow non-official versions and no one would force anyone to sing the official version, and instrumental versions could be used too. But for symbolic reasons (one official version to represent one country, and an indigenous version to represent our roots in Canada and not abroad), we'd have one official version, to be used at each person's discretion. I think many Canadians would choose to learn it just because it's official anyway. But again, this would be all conditional on the First Nations being able to agree to one official Aboriginal version.

Personally though, I prefer a capella to instrumental, though instrumental is nice too, as are combined instrumental and voice.

Is that a jokie? I'd been throwing out a few suggestions up there. Which suggestion are you referring to?

And another point. I recognize that candidates are indeed busy and do show them the appropriate respect as such. Last eleciton, I'd e-mailed each of my candidates (except for one since I could not find her e-mail addres) with the quesitons I was likely to ask them at the all-candidates meeting a few days later, so as to make the event more constructive so that instead of fumbling or saying they don't know the answer, they could have an answer prepared. As it turned out, because of the overflowing crowd, I never had the chance to ask my question, but I'm just pointing out that I do understand that even candidates need a break, and I did show a willingness to reach out half way at least by not tripping them with some surprise question. I do try to treat all candidates equally and with dignity.

I fully agree. if the candidate is genuinely busy, then he could have foreseen this and pre-planned for it by including a detailed list of his ideas on various issues on-line so that we wouldn't need to ask. Pre-planning is also a reflection of a candidate's character.

Had he provided a website with a detailed list of his views on various issues, I woudln't have needed to ask him now would I have. And seeing that he was running for RE-ELECTIOn, he'd had awhile to collect comon questions to place on his website so as to focus on the more unusual quesitons by now, so he shouldn't have been getting too many questions to begin with.

We shouldn't think of an instrumental version as being necessarily inferior if played live. Now if one country's Anthem is live while ours is just played from a CD, that's another matter.

Or alternatively: ᐆ ᑲᓇᑕ! ᓇᖕᒥᓂ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ! ᐱᖁᔭᑏ ᓇᓚᑦᑎᐊᖅᐸᕗᑦ. ᐊᖏᒡᓕᕙᓪᓕᐊᔪᑎ, ᓴᙱᔪᓗᑎᓪᓗ. ᓇᖏᖅᐳᒍ, ᐆ ᑲᓇᑕ, ᒥᐊᓂᕆᑉᓗᑎ. ᐆ ᑲᓇᑕ! ᓄᓇᑦᓯᐊ! ᓇᖏᖅᐳᒍ ᒥᐊᓂᕆᑉᓗᑎ, ᐆ ᑲᓇᑕ, ᓴᓚᒋᔭᐅᖁᓇ! Each of the words of at least this version were created on North American soil. I believe a Cree version exists too, which might be even more appropriate considering its spread across many Canadian provinces and even parts of southern Nunavut. Why could we not have that as our official version? A version each word of which was created on our own soil, not overseas.

I was just pointing out that there is no official bilingual version, leaving it up to us to decide how to mix the verses, the Heritage Canada version being but a recommended one; I did not intend to suggest that we should not use the recommended one. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest that Heritage Canada go one step further by having but one official version, that being the bilingual version Heritage Canada now recommends, and that it make the current official versions but unofficial recommended unilingual versions. One country, one official Anthem, all others being unofficial but free to be used at will.

Strictly speaking, both versions are equally official and there is no official rule concerning mixing them, thus allowing us to mix them as we see fit. However, you're version is the recommended bilingual version of heritage Canada: http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/ceem-cced/symbl/anthem-eng.cfm It's interesting to note too that Heritage Canada also includes an instrumental version on its website.

Another point to make, not all labour laws do as intended. Let's look at minimum wage. Remember, higher educaiton is not free. A person with debt, bad credit, other responsibilities, or other obstacles cannot get a higher education, yet without a higher education, he may not be worth minimum wage in the eyes of employers, and so we are essentially pricing the most vulnerable members of society out of the labour market. How kind of our government to do that! Other examples of such well intentioned fiascos include the rent ceilings in Toronto some years back. Teneants were happy at first, but since there was no more profit to be made in the rental industry, this killed the incentive to build more apartment buildings while the city's populaiton was booming. Before long, housing shortages became apparent, tenants tried to bribe their way into the few apratments available, or rentors found loopholes in the bi-law such as 'key fees', etc. In the end, whom did the rent ceilings hurt the most? The very people they were intended to help the most. And when the city had no choice but to finally raise the rental ceilings gragually, prices naturally rose too. This resulted in a construction boom and now I believe prices have stabilized again. I doubt the city will repeat that mistake again. If you're thinking that NDP-style socialism would be a good thing, I fully disagree. It's too anti-capitalist and confrontational towards the market, not to mention that it's just there to help its main special interest group, the unions. I tend to be mroe capitalistic myself, but if I had to go for a more social democratic candidate, I'd likely be looking for something more akin to the Swedish social democrats, not the Canadian NDP. The Swedish social democratic model, though high-tax-based like any social democratic system, still shows willingness to work with the market, not against the market. They even have a school voucher system with 10% of the population attending private schools! They are by no means friendly towards labour unions. In fact, if anything, they've made labour unions redundant by giving workers more say in company operations, much like in Germany. You'll find too that the Swedish model is more of a no frills no gimmicks kind of socialism focussing on the basics, quality universal compulsory education and universal access to higher educaiton, quality health care, etc., unlike the NDP model that spends more on gimmicks like gay pride parades or other artsy fartsy stuff. This, by the way, might be why social democracy succeeded in Swededn but not in Canada. If our socialism is to look like NDP-style socialism, then I'd rather go libertarian all the way. There's no point having all kinds of restrictions such as minimum wage, qualifications, certificates, etc., if we have to pay for the education for all those certificates so as to be worthy of that minimum wage. Looking at it that way, it would seem the Swedes understood we can't have it both ways. If we want minimum wages, we must also provide the free and universal quality education to ensure people can earn those wages, otherwise the minimum wage laws and certification requirments will merely amount to legislated unemployment. Looking at it that way, libertarianism and rational socialism are the same in some ways: the libertarian recognizes that if the state won't provide free higher education for all, then it forfeits the right to block people from employment by imposing minimum wages, prohibiting volunteer work to gain experience, etc. and the rational socialist recognizes that before we can have minimum wage laws and certification requirments for this or that job, higher education must first become free and universal. The NDP, unfortunately, got it @ss backwards, encouraging minimum wage laws, certification requirements etc. BEFORE introducing free and compulsory education. The education must come before the standards, otehrwise it's imposed, legislated unemployment, the ultimate cruelty.

What labour laws specifically? I'd be in favour of giving workers voting rights on the board of directors of companies, much as is the case in workers' co-ops, as that would promote unity between labour and management, all working together to share ideas to overcome common challenges. That's a far cry from the confrontational approach labour unions now use, whereby they intimidate workers to join them and pay their dues or face the consequences, whereby the only way they know of dealing with management is with threatening strikes, etc. I'm not necessarily saying management are always angels either, but simply that confrontation can only get us so far. In sone European countries, by the way, they have used systems similar to what I'm proposing above, whereby workers have more say in the company, thus marginalizing essentially making redundant the power of the union leaders.

This is what I mean when I say the Anthem has lost all meaning. It shouldn't be about threatening to kill those who change the school policy, and it certainly shouldn't be about bopping baby seals on the head. One should sing Oh Canada as a sign of his love for the country, as a sign of his patriotism. In a sense, it's like prayer. One prays out of deep conviction with personal significance to him, but does not force it on others, satisfying himself that others will remain respectfully silent. The same should apply with the Anthem. It has nothing to do with who's the PM, or whether we like him, or whether we agree with the country's policies. A person could oppose certain policies of the government's yet still love Canada. I disagree with Official Bilingualism, I'm vegan too, so should I refuse to sing Oh Canada until everyone stops eating meat?