Vote for me for President this November!

Uhhh...

What's wrong, George. Is something puzzling you? :-)

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

Were I an American…

I may not be an American, but it's still fun taking these who-do-you-match quizzes—probably due to the whole “mouse beside the elephant” syndrome we Canadians have WRT the USA. I've never heard of Kucinich or Gravel, but I'm not surprised that Obama is the the number three match for me. Nor am I surprised at the sharp difference between how I matched to the Democrats (all above 67%) and the Republicans (all below 37%).

89% Dennis Kucinich
88% Mike Gravel
72% Barack Obama
71% Chris Dodd
70% John Edwards
68% Bill Richardson
67% Joe Biden
67% Hillary Clinton
37% Rudy Giuliani
35% Ron Paul
27% John McCain
23% Mike Huckabee
19% Mitt Romney
12% Fred Thompson
9% Tom Tancredo

2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz

Letter to the Editor

The Record has printed another one of my letters to the editor. First, here is the other person's letter to which mine is a response.

The teaching of atheism

October 02, 2007

Despite Premier Dalton McGuinty claiming "evolution is a science," (Record, Sept. 7) he cannot demonstrate a single repeatable fact of evolution.

If evolution is true, it does not need a god to guide it. Evolution stands on its own as the cornerstone of atheism. And so our public schools cannot be neutral on the issue. If they teach evolution, by default, they teach atheism. God is a myth.

No wonder there is an outcry. Intelligent design needs to be taught to balance the scales. We may argue over God's name, nature and plan, but to make the teaching of creation unlawful establishes atheism as the state religion, represses freedom of speech, stifles intellectual thought and oppresses all other religions.

Yet McGuinty is against faith-based schools and calls evolution a science.

Dan Kraemer

And here follows my reply.

The evidence is there

October 10, 2007

In his Oct. 2 letter, The Teaching Of Atheism, Dan Kraemer shows he does not know very much about evolution.

First off, Kraemer is utterly wrong about there being no demonstrable facts of evolution. Indeed, transitional fossils such as archaeopteryx immediately spring to mind, and the London Underground mosquito is one of many observed examples of speciation. There are many more examples for those who would but look.

Second, evolution is not a cornerstone of atheism and it is dishonest to try and portray the two as equivalent. Many Christians, including myself, accept the theory of evolution as the best explanation which draws the facts together into a coherent, operating whole.

Third, intelligent design is anything but scientific theory. Leading ID proponent Dr. Michael Behe has conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred." He also agreed that that definition of "theory" as he applied it to ID was so loose that astrology would also qualify.

Would Kraemer say teaching how two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom make up one water molecule is atheism? Chemistry never mentions God, either.

Cory Albrecht

Unfortunately, for The Record letters to the editor need to be under 250 words to stand a decent chance of actually being chosen for publication. There were so many other pieces of evidence I wanted to give. In my initial draft, each of the three sections were about twice the size, if not more.

The first section, to counter Kraemer's claim of no repeatable facts of evolution, had multiple examples of both transitional fossil sequences and observed events of speciation. In addition to Archaeopteryx, I had listed the well proto-horse fossils from Hyracotherium through Mesohippus and Merychippus and so on that lead up to modern day Equus, as well as those fossils in our own lineage — Ardipithecus, Australopithecus, Homo habilis and so on. To go along with the London Underground moiquito I had also mentioned Hugo de Vries's discovery of a polyploid variant of the evening primrose which he found in his test subjects and that would not breed back to the diploid parent stock and the multiple instances of Drosophila speciation in laboratory settings. I had hoped to give an indication of just how much supporting evidence there is for the theory of evolution without having to get into complex subjects such as molecular biology and genomics.

In the third section I had originally mentioned the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District and how in that court case Intelligent Design had utterly failed to show that it was a science and how organizations like the Discovery Institute use dishonest tactics like creating a strawman of evolution to tear down or even out and out lies about evolution. Alas, I had to settle for a few choice quotes from Dr. Michael Behe.

This is just... horrible...

We all know that Japan is pro-whaling, even for species which are endangered. Indeed, the more endangered a species is, the more of a delicacy its meat seems to be in Japan.

Now no killing of animals for meat is a cute and cuddly process, but this video of a dolphin harvest in Japan is nothing short of disturbing. I warn you, if you are easily upset you may not want to watch that video.

I think that I am going to be writing my Member of Parliament and a few other government officials to encourage them to place pressure on Japan about this.

Does my MP even read the emails I send him?

On 8 February 2007 I read this article about the Tory government's attitude towards 'Net Neutrality which I found disturbing and I immediately emailed my local MP (Gary Goodyear), Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Industry Minister Maxime Bernier my thoughts on this.

Today (technically yesterday since it is now after midnight) I received a response from Mr. Goodyear's office saying “...I wish to acknowledge receipt your letter of February 23, 2006, regarding your concerns on ‘Net Neutrality.’” Excuse me? February 23, 2006?!?!?

Now when I email my elected officials I don't expect a personally targetted reply and an invitation to in-depth dialog—I know they are busy people. However, I do expect a prompt acknowledgement, especially from my local MP. I also expect the staffer writing the reply to at least be marginally competent and properly reference things so I know that my MP has been made aware of my concerns.

Even if this is just bad writing on the staffer's part and they meant to say they were acknowledging receipt on 2007/02/23 (4 days from receipt to acknowledgement), the fact that it took them so long to reply is just terrible. It's also the first email of the last 2.5 years since I moved to Cambridge that my MP's office has responded to, and they took three weeks less two days to do it.

When I lived in Kitchener (Kitchener-Wilmot riding, specifically) I got an acknowldgement froma staffer within 5 business days and, occasionally, a direct response from my MP within 2 weeks. They certainly didn't take almost three weeks to merely acknowledge.

Now I'm unlikely to vote Conservative in any event, but this seeming lack of competence from my MP's office certainly isn't going to raise my faith in my current MP.

Oh baby, baby

I found this on the Web today. A hospital in Japan has put in place a “baby hatch” where mothers can anonymously drop off unwanted babies.

You can bet that conservatives everywhere will be foaming at the mouth over this. That it encourages premarital and casual sex amongst singles. That it promotes lack of responsibility among new parents. Even that it destroys the foundations and sanctity of marriage.

In a perfect world perhaps it would do those things — I don't know. But we don't live in a perfect world. We do have have women who get pregnant and don't want to be but have no access to abortion. Maybe they don't want the baby because there is no economic way they will be able to afford, first, taking the time off work and, second, buying everything that new child will need. Then there are those women who could afford it, they just don't want a child at that point. Babies are innocents — they deserve to have the chance at a real chances in life rather than being poor, or the emotional problems of knowing that your mother never wanted you in the first place. And you know what? We do have a stigma in our society against people who give up their children and that stigma can prevent a woman from doing what is right for her baby. Not just adult women, but teenage mothers, too. Perhaps all hospitals should have baby hatches.

Me, I choose that which benefits the innocents in the picture, even if it promotes that which the conservatives fear it does.

Talk about a whiner

Normally I am all for people getting tattoos if that is what they want. I feel it is wrong to to think that all people who get tattoos are drug users, gang members or whatnot — that is hurtful stereotyping.

However, I also think that Rebecca Holdcroft from the UK is a whiner. She has a lot of tattoos, as you can see from the picture on that page, and her employer would like her to cover them up. She says how she's been ask to wear a cardigan and at a previous job “on a hot day I passed out and cracked my head in a toilet cubicle”. Oh poor baby. There are long sleeved shirts that you can buy which can be worn on a warm day, and Britain doesn't even get that hot in the summer! Now if she lived in the Mediterranean area, I might have some sympathy.

Now I say this as a person who has a tattoo — your employer has the right to require that you dress in a fashion which they feel will be presentable and acceptable to their customers and clients. If you don't want to, then your employer has the right to put you in a a non-public facing position, even if it pays less and is in the back broom closet.

Rebecca — give it up. Stop being a whiner. It's not like this is a real issue like freedom of speech or equal rights regardless of age, sex or race.

Am I supposed to laugh or what...?

Normally I'm a pretty irreverent person. I'm able to laugh at not only my own goofs but also at my own sacred cows. Partially, this is because I knoow my own failings, but mostly it is because I cannot comprehend a God without a sense of humour. After all, look how counter-culture Jesus was — you just know God had to have seen the humour in overturning so much of what the Jews expected the Messiah to be.

But today I came across this video. I couldn't decide whether to laugh at its irreverence or to be shocked at how it trivializes the tragedy of terrorism and all those deaths. I guess I'll let you decide for yourself.

Yes, it is true, I have had another letter to the editor printed in my local news paper. This time it is about photo–radar, which almost every seems to be complaining about. Personally, I don't see what the problem is, as I say in my letter.

Bring back photo radar — it's not a big deal

I don't see what the big hoopla over photo radar is all about.

The biggest reason I heard in the public outcry back in 1995 when the provincial government cancelled photo radar was the same one I hear today: "What if that is not me driving my car?"

Well, that is just an excuse, and a poor one at that. If it wasn't you then it was a family member or a friend to whom you lent your car. If your family member or friend gets a parking ticket with your car, then they hand it over the next time they see you along with a promise to pay it back.

If they are not honest, and you don't find out until several months later when the second notice arrives in your mail box, then you go to them and ask to be reimbursed. And perhaps you will be more responsible about whom you lend your car to in the future.

We can deal with photo-radar tickets in exactly the same way. I wonder if the people complaining are the same people who get angry when they get a ticket for parking in a space reserved for the disabled?

I have little (if any) sympathy for people complaining about photo–radar. Don't speed, keep to the posted limits, drive safe. Oh, and be responsible to whom you lend your vehicle.

And yet another letter of mine was printed in The Record's opinion pages yesterday. I wonder if I can get frequent flyer miles for all of them? :-) This one was about my experience as a deputy returning officer for a poll in the recent Ontario provincial election.

Low turnout in election is a deep concern

I'm not sure what to think of the results of the Ontario election on Oct. 2. I voted Green but I think that the Liberals are an acceptable replacement to the Tories, who I disliked.

What bothers me, however, is the lack of voter turnout. I was a deputy returning officer for a poll, and at 5 p.m. I was wondering if even 20 per cent of the voters would show up. The poll next to us had had twice as many people by that point. At 8 p.m., when the polls closed, I did my duty as a returning officer and counted all the ballots. Total turnout for my poll was 39 per cent and I went home disappointed but hoping that this was an anomaly.

As I flicked past the post-election analysis, I came across a station whose talking heads were estimating a 48 per cent turnout based on the polls so far reporting. Less than half the electorate turning out for the vote is not just terrible, it is shameful.

Bill Hurst said in his letter to the editor on Sept. 23 that he wasn't going to vote because he doesn't like the way in which we choose our elected officials. To me, a reason like that is just an excuse to deny being lazy. If Hurst truly wanted change, he should participate by either refusing or spoiling his ballot. If significant numbers of people did that, the politicians would take notice.

People who don't vote lose the right to complain about the process or the new government. After all, if they don't like it, why didn't they participate?

If you didn't vote or you didn't refuse or spoil your ballot, don't come complaining to me when something about the government bothers you. I'll just do my best to make sure that when I say "Oh, poor baby" that it is only midly condescending.

Here is the letter to the editor form Henry Brunsveld to which mine was a response:

Gay equation is wrong

Besides getting his facts about the Bible wrong (the Bible does condemn sexual relations between women -- read Romans 1:26), Corey Schlueter's June 21 letter stated that homosexuality cannot be equated with, among other things, pedophilia. His reason is that homosexuality is legal, whereas pedophilia is not.

In fact, there are many similarities between the two. Like pedophilia, homosexual behaviour was once illegal. Like homosexuals, pedophiles comprise a tiny percentage of the population, and are able to live otherwise normal lives, coming from all walks of life. Most people seem to think pedophiles can't change, like homosexuals.

One of the major factors in conditioning people to accept homosexual behaviour as normal was the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from its diagnostic manual of mental disorders. At a symposium on May 19 in San Francisco, sponsored by the APA, some psychiatrists proposed removing pedophilia from the manual.

Our courts will have no problem in changing our laws to make pedophilia legal and grant pedophiles the same rights homosexuals have.

They won't even have to change the definition of "sexual orientation," since it is nowhere defined in our laws.

If pedophilia becomes legal, will that make it right?

Henry Brunsveld, RR 2 Puslinch

Yesterday my local newspaper, The Record, printed yet another of my letters to the editor. Perhaps I should write a book? :-) Anyways, it was once more on the topic of same sex marriages. This is a majorly hot topic, because the letters to the editor have just not stopped coming in! Ot's also a hot topic in the constituency of he mennonite Churche of Canada. Last week was MC Canada's General Meeting in St. Catharines, ON there was a resolution put forward on the same-sex marriage issue. The resulution was this:

Since we believe that marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in a life-long covenant of love, and

Since the Prime Minister has indicated his intention to have the Federal Government redefine marriage in future legislation,

Be it resolved that the General Board communicate to the Federal Government Mennonite Church Canada’s understanding of marriage and our encouragement that, whatever action the Government should take to redefine marriage, all religious groups be guaranteed the freedom to practice and proclaim their understanding of what marriage is.

People got up and commented from various sides of his debate — people who were "out of the closet" wanting to vote No for this resolution and people who wanted it to be strengthened from simply advocating for religious freedom for churches to having MC Canada to explicitly lobbying against same-sex marriages. One opinion expressed was that it was already over and done with because MC Canada (and it's predecessors) had already made a statement on this issue in years past.

It was asked that this resolution be voted on by secret ballot, rather than by the usual show of hands, and I think that is a good idea. To do it publicly would have made many people feel very uncomfortable about showing what their true feelings are on this cointentious subject. But when it came time for the moderator to announce the results, he merely said that the motion was carried. I know that annoyed me, and it must have bothered otehr people as well, because he eventually announced the results. When he sauid that the count had been 131 for, 130 against and 16 spoiled ballots, the audience reacte dnoticibly with "oohs" and "oh mys" all over the place. Clearly the issue is not over and done with!

Anyways, here is my letter to the editor, with typos corrected. I will try to find the original letter to which this is a response and enter it here.

Put love in same-sex case

Henry Brunsveld, in his letter to the editor on July 7, has got it all wrong when he tries to compare homosexuality with pedophilia, and I feel that it is dishonest of him to imply that homosexuals are child molesters.

When an adult attempts to entice or coerce a child into having sex, that harms the child, no two ways about it. The child suffers from the physical abuse at the time of the sexual encounter and from mental and emotional hardships as he or she deals with the ordeal.

When two consenting adult men or adult women choose to have sex with each other, they are not harming anybody. At most, they might have the same regrets that those of [us] who are heterosexual might have.

Brunsveld is right when he says that homosexuality as a mental disorder was removed from the accepted manuals in 1973, and this was done based on overwhelming empirical evidence.

For me, the underpinning of Jesus' teachings is "Love your neighbour as yourself" from the parable of the Good Samaritan. It saddens me that I see no love in all the letters to the editor written by so many professed Christians.

Cory Albrecht, Kitchener

Today, in my local newspaper there was response to my recent letter to the editor on the subject of same sex marriages. Lo and behold, it was written by somebody who goes to the same church as I! Here is the text of Dawn's letter as published:

Do not call it marriage

This is in response to the June 14 letter written by Cory Albrecht: Welcome Gay Marriages.

I don't hate gay people; I know some and they are people just like the rest of us. They deserve happiness just like we do and if they find it in this lifestyle, then that's their choice.

But I can make choices, too. My choices are to not choose that as my lifestyle and please do not call it a marriage. What the judges say and what the marriage licence says is up to them. But what I believe in and how I live my life according to the morals I was taught is up to me.

I don't care how society changes. I don't have to change and neither do the gay people. But please don't expect me and many others to live and believe as they do. I accept this. The same-sex marriage issue is getting far too much publicity and who is benefiting from it?

I accept any race, colour and person for who they are. But when Albrecht asks what is the difference between an interracial marriage and a same-sex marriage, there are lots. But the main one is that interracial marriages are between a male and a female. Same-sex marriages are not. Please call it a union, not a marriage.

Dawn Rees, Kitchener

Dawn talks about homosexuality as a "lifestyle choice", but I don't see it that way. I know that as a heterosexual man I did not chose to be attracted most to certain types of women — it is simply whom I am naturally, normally attracted to. From that I can easily generalize to a gay person not having chosen to be homosexual. After all, who would willingly chose to have so much prejudice and bigotry heaped upon them?

Yesterday my local newspaper, The Record, printed another of my letters to the editor. This one wasn't in response to somebody else's letter, but my comments on the recent court ruling on same sex marriages. The letter as printed follows:

Welcome gay marriages

With the debate on homosexual marriage about to ratchet up a notch, I would like to offer an analogy.

If we were to look at common opinions on interracial marriages a few generations ago, what would we see? Most people would have disapproved of a white person marrying a black person, with some people engaging in slander and violence. Many white parents would have been shocked at their daughter for wanting to engage in miscegenation and some priests and ministers refused to perform the ceremonies. Nor was the use of scientific arguments against interracial marriage limited to Germany in the 1930s. While race was not as big an issue here in Canada as in the United States, these attitudes still existed.

If somebody were to speak out against interracial marriage today, we would call them bigoted. "Love is colour-blind," we would say.

So what is the difference between interracial marriage and same sex marriage? None that I can see, and if I ever know a homosexual couple who get married I will be just as delighted for them as I would be for any other couple. Shouldn't we all?

Me, I just can't understand why somebody would want to prevent twp people who love each other from getting married. I don't see how same sex marriage harms anybody, not even those nitwits who think that gay people are out to "convert" (pfft!) them or their children.

Sometimes, when my intolerance for intolerance (yes, ironic, I know) overwhelms my compassion I wish that every person who is against same sex marriage would have a close friend or family member come out of the closet. Perhaps then the anti-gay people, as they see directly the effects of intolerance, would realize that homosexual people are just that – people. Hopefully they would develop some true compassion. The thing is, even though I am pro-gay rights and do not feel that it is sinful at all (I apply the same standards re sexual fidelity, etc.. to straights & gays), I would never wish it up on a person to have to endure the intolerance and abuse that openly homosexual people suffer.Thus my wish will be for naught.

Well, I got another letter to the editor printed in my local newspaper (The Record). It was about bilingualism in response to somebody that I saw as being prejudiced and anti–francophone. Since the Record has recently gone non-free :-( on it's website, here are both letters for you to read and make your own choice.

Ottawa is wasteful, 29 April 2003

Our Canadian dictator and his loyal followers have done it to us again. The millions needed for housing, health, education and a great many other subjects are to be wasted, with the help of Heritage Minister Sheila Copps, on divisive, useless, unneeded bilingualism.

It always amazes me how Prime Minister Jean Chr�tien can come up with dreams like this, especially at a time of war when the United States needs our assistance. Even the military is neglected when urgently needed.

What we have now with no real opposition is sad.

William White, Kitchener

---

Yea for bilingualism, 5 May 2003

I fail to see how bilingualism is "divisive, useless, unneeded," as characterized by William White in his April 29 letter, Ottawa is Wasteful.

White comes across as one of those anglophones who complains that they were forced to take French in public school yet still expect francophones to learn English. Were I a francophone, that kind of attitude would annoy me to no end.

Why should a francophone have to learn English if the anglophones aren't going to make a similar attempt to learn French?

Nor does it help White's argument that he comes out of the gate with an attack on Prime Minister Jean Chrétien. Perhaps White missed the last few decades of democratic elections in this country?

Bilingualism is a good thing and not just because of the benefits of learning any second language.

French-English bilingualism programs here in Canada are great things.

When I took French in public school and university, I learned a little bit about francophone-Canadian culture and if you remember the Canadian history course from high school, then it is easy to understand a little bit about what causes the feelings that fuel the separatist movement.

Bilingualism programs go a long way towards healing that rift.

J'espère qu'à l'avenir pour tous les étudiants Canadiens que l'immersion de langue sera la norme, plutôt que l'exception. Bravo pour le bilinguisme.

Cory C. Albrecht, Kitchener

Here is the text of a Second Opinion article of mine (basically, an extra long letter to the editor) that appeared in October 2001 in my local news paper, The Record. little over a year later, this article seems especially topical to me.

I must strongly disagree with Amy Moses who wote in a letter to the editor on Saturday, September 22 that U.S. policy is not to blame for being one of the root causes of terrorist actions. U.S. foreign policy is to blame, at least partially, as is Canadian foreign policy and polices of all the rich Western nations.

As a group, we in the Western world have not treated the rest of the people on this planet very kindly or respectfully. It started with traditional colonialism by the European powers a few centuries back and turned in the economic colonialism of today.

During colonial times the indigenous peoples in colonised lands were at best viewed as ignorant savages who only needed to be educated in the proper civilised European way of doing things — a form of racism. At worst the natural resources of their lands were taken without recompense and they were turned into slaves.

We Westerners wanted our clothes and shoes at cheaper and cheaper prices, so we set up sweatshops in Third World countries, making the employees work brutally long shifts with no breaks for wages less than what they needed to support their families. We wanted our bananas and coffee cheaply, too, so we set up plantations which again payed the workers unfairly low wages, sometimes less than what the plantation owners charged for rent of the slums on plantation property.

We used their countries as pawns and proxies during the Cold War, sending billions of dollars for weaponry to governments whom we knew were corrupt and just as likely to turn those weapons on their own citizens as well as their enemies. We set up the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund ostensibly to help Third World nations buy food or improve their infrastructures, and they are forced to pay these "preferred creditors" in full, on time and without any possibility of relief. These institutions have refused to write off bad debts and have chosen instead to extend more credit, driving poor countries deeper and deeper into debt.

Is it any wonder that people in these nations are so resentful of the Western World? The situation forced upon Germany after it lost World War I produced a fertile ground for the seeds of hatred spread by the Nazi Party and resulted in World War II. Similarly, the actions of we rich Western countries have produced a fertile ground or the seeds spread by Osama Bin Laden and others like him. Similarly, blaming all of Islam for terrorist attacks is an act of bigotry that will only make resentful people even more resentful and give credence in their minds to Bin Laden's claim of a Christian-Jewish crusade against the Muslim world.

The attacks in Washington D.C. and New York City were terrible tragedies and cannot be condoned. Justice must happen and it must be appropriate justice, not revenge. However, the only way that we can truly get rid of terrorism is by getting rid of the global inequities and injustices that helped to spawn it. Bombing countries that support terrorists might get rid of individuals like Bin Laden, but then again it might not. It's a chancy thing that doesn't seem to have made Saddam Hussein a fan of the West. What military action will produce is more resentment and hatred of the West in innocent people, giving those people stronger reasons to follow the next Bin Laden that comes along.

Well, as I read through rec.arts.startrek.* and all the posts that seem to have degenerated into a discussion on politics and Iraq, I remember my thoughts on the whole thing before the UN inspection teams ent to Iraq this time.

If the teams found anything, then George W Bush would appear on TV saying "See? I told you they had this stuff! Now we have to go in and remove Saddam!"

If the teams found nothing, then President Bush would appear on TV saying "See? I told you they wouldn't cooperate or reveal that stuff! Now we have to go in and remove Saddam and uncover all the weapons!"

It just seems so painfully obvious to me that this "Iraq Crisis" is a manufactured one, designed to divert peoples' attention away from the fact that Bin Laden was never caught and that Al Quaeda was never shut down.

So how come I've seen those same conclusions reached on BBC World News, CBC Newsworld and other Canadian political debate shows, but never on American TV?