Blogging will be light…

…as I am working to set up a new blog on which I will post the responses which I received from the Ottawa Municipal Elections 2010 candidates – responses to the questions I had sent them.

Why?

Because I have never seen this many people actively taking an active part in the democratic process of election – especially on the municipal level!  THIS IS AWESOME!

These people deserve all the help they can get in getting their message across:  especially the newcomers to the political world.

For those unfamiliar with the Ottawa municipal scene:  during the last election, the people of Ottawa had elected a maverick-of-a-mayor, a newcomer to the political scene, in order to ‘bring about change.  But, being the cautious folk we are, we had elected every single City Councilor who ran for re-election – the very crowd that had built the status quo and loved it!

Exactly….

This election, we are seeing a definite change:  at no time in my memory have so many ‘ordinary’ folk from all walks of life (read, not just ‘professional politicians’ and lawyers) and running both for the position of Mayor as well as for the City Council.

So many, in fact, they are getting ‘drowned out’!

With over a hundred people running, it is difficult for mainstream media to give us in-depth analysis of each candidate (provided their ‘impartial reporting’ would actually do more good than harm) – so, an pre-canned sound-bite here and there is about the best coverage most of the candidates are likely to get.  (CFRA is trying – but, there is only so much coverage one lone radio station can give.)

How is a three-second cookie-cutter sound-bite supposed to tell us who the different candidates are and what they stand for?

Well, if they were willing to put in the effort to run, the least I should do is to provide them an opportunity to differentiate themselves.  So, I emailed each and every one of the candidates which lists an email address my email interview questions.  Over 120 of them.

For those who do not, I posted the questions here – they are free to get them, fill out the questions and submit them to me.  Either, they can do so as a comment, or they can send me a comment with their email address and I’ll contact without publishing the comment with their private info.

Since the very first ‘full’ reply got most of the answers ‘perfectly right’, I fell uncomfortable about publishing the results as they come in:  the later- answerers would have the benefit of becoming ‘enlightened’ by this one particular set of answers (NOT from a front-runner – YET!).

So, instead, I will set up a page for the Mayoralty race and a separate page for each Ward, in which I’ll list all the candidates, their websites (provided they took less than 5 minutes on Google to find:  with 0ver 140 candidates….but if ANYONE knows a website link I missed, please let me know and I’ll add it), their response to my questions (I say ‘response’, because some of them are honest, well thought out answers while others range from very polite questions of their own to not so polite PFO’s from their underlings).

I may (or may not) also note official endorsements and ‘slates’.  But, as I am an Aspie (and therefore very slow at this because I tend to get sidetracked….I have the attention span of a gnat on antihistemines), I have already put well over a hundred hours to setting it up, so, as they say, we’ll see!

So, that is ‘coming soon’.

Until the construction is done, blogging here will be light…

Thank you for your patience.

Videos from Watson/McGuinty accountability rally 18th of September, 2010

My photos are here.

Here are the videos from BigBlueWave:

VideoManOttawa also has videos from the rally: here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, her, here, here, here, here, here and here.

Danno’s channel (The Unsustainable Taxpayer) also has videos:  Part 1 of 3 (intro), 2 of 3 and 3 of 3(will update when link is up).

Thank you, all, for posting the videos!

‘Collaborators’ will be lined up against a wall and blogged!

Thank you, Suzanne from BigBlueWave!

Photos from Watson/McGuinty protest rally on September 18th, 2010

(Updated to include a video link)

Today, there was a protest at Jim Watson’s election office. I was there, taking photos.

(And, yes – they even let me say a few words….but I was so nervous, having NEVER spoken in public before, I covered barely a quarter of the stuff I prepared.  Some people took videos – I’ll post them when I see them.) As always,  the ladies organizing the rally were there (and I DO use the term ‘ladies’ in the best sense).

Debbie Jodoin:

Shirley Mosley used puppets to illustrate how Mr. McGuinty’s puppet, Mr. Watson, hippety-hoppeties from Municipal to Provincial to Municipal politics:

Mr. Nick Vandergraght was a crowd favourite:

As was Sharon, also from CFRA:

Ruth Parent, a behind-the-scenes helper to Debbie and Shirley during these protests also said a few words:

And, ‘Debbie’s sound guy’ – who has a YouTube channel called ‘TheUnsustainableTaxpayer’ where he uploads the videos from the protest, also spoke passionately:  

Despite technical difficulties, Sam also spoke:

A very pleasant surprise was that ‘Calculus’ (as he is known on this blog) came and said hello (our first real-life meeting ever): Suzanne from BigBlueWave also said hi to me:  when her video is up, I’ll post it! And, of course, there were many ‘disgruntled citizens’, exercising their freedom:

As usual, if you want any of these (or of the 200 or so other pictures I took) in higher resolution, comment and I will contact you with the pictures requested.

The videos will be posted as they come online.

Email interview for Ottawa Election Candidates 2010


The following set of questions will be emailed today to all the candidates who list an email – the rest can find it here, should they be interested.

If at least 10-15 of the candidates do respond, I will set up a separate blog at which I will post all the responses I receive (by Mayor/Ward#).

This election is likely to see many changes in the municipal political scene – and so it should be. Still, it can be confusing for the ‘regular voter’ to know who’s who and what their defining values are.

In order to help the voters identify which candidate stands for what, I have put together a few questions which I would appreciate if you would answer. In order to identify everyone’s stand on some of the issues which are important to the Ottawa taxpayers at this time, some of the questions are provocative, pointed and otherwise biased in order to highlight each candidate’s uniqueness.

If you would like to answer any or all of my questions (feel free to pick and choose), I will post each reply on a dedicated blog. It might not get a lot of traffic – but, then again, it might take off. All I ask is that the questions be answered by the candidate and not their political staff and that they be honest, direct and heartfelt.

(If some of the questions make you mad – please, say so: they are meant to! Which questions make you mad just may help voters identify with your core values! If none of the questions get you ‘hot under the collar’, then I have failed and I apologize.)

Part 1: tell us about yourself

1.1

Why did you decide to run for public office now – as opposed to another time?

1.2

Why did you decide to run for the Municipal level of government, as opposed to the Provincial or Federal?

1.3

What makes you the best candidate for this job?

1.4

What separates you from all the other candidates?

1.5

Whom do you admire and why?

Part 2: decision making

Each of the following questions will present you with 2 options: sometimes, these may be congruent, sometimes not. It does not matter. This section is meant to highlight, if elected, how much relative relevance you would give these considerations in YOUR decision making.

Dividing ten points between the two choices in each question, please indicate how many you would give to each of the two options presented (ensuring the sum adds up to 10).

Example: When considering a snack, how would you rate ‘healthy’ vs ‘convenient’?

Healthy __6___

Convenient __4___

(A snack can be both healthy and convenient – this just tells us, the voters, which quality you would consider more, and by how much.)

Please, feel free to comment as well.

2.1

To whom is the primary responsibility of the City Council?

City employees _______

Taxpayers _______

2.2

When introducing new initiatives (or evaluating existing ones), what should be the relative importance of these to each other?

‘Environmental good’ _____

Taxpayer burden _____

2.3

When introducing policies intended to change the behaviour of the citizens of Ottawa, how would you balance the following?

Advice of experts _____

Voter feedback _____

2.4

When motivating citizens to use public transit, how would you balance these two approaches?

Making it easier, more convenient and especially safer to use public transit _____

Introducing penalties/fees/traffic tie-ups to discourage the use of private vehicles _____

2.5

Who is responsible for the welfare of children?

Parents _____

Public officials (including all variety of school programs) _____

2.6

What is the relative importance of these?

Individual (including property) rights _____

‘Public good’ _____

2.7

What should be the relative focus of any government?

Providing services to citizens _____

Enabling citizens to provide for themselves _____

2.8

When implementing a policy that may not be popular, which is preferable?

Legislating behaviour _____

Permitting those citizens who wish to ‘opt in’ to do so, with no penalty to the rest _____

2.9

What is a better way to help people with ‘drug problems’?

Needle exchange/safe injection site programmes _____

0 tolerance of illegal drug users (including marijuana) _____

(I specify drug ‘users’, as opposed to ‘dealers’)

2.10

In policing, what is the relative importance of:

‘Public Good’ initiatives – such as ‘driver sobriety spot checks’ by police _____

Respecting the constitutional rights of citizens (random police checks illegal) _____

2.11

Who is entitled to decide the fate of trees?

The property owner (whose house may be getting damaged by the tree) _____

The community (as represented by City Officials) _____

2.12

Which is more harmful to the environment?

Raw Sewage _____

Carbon Dioxide _____

2.13

If ‘security’ and ‘freedom’ are in conflict, which should take precedence?

Security _____

Freedom _____

2.14

If a city official (such as a police officer or a by-law officer) is attempting to carry out an illegal order or to enforce an illegal law/by-law (one which contravenes the Canadian Constitution), what should be the reaction of the citizen?

Shut up and obey, like a good little slave _____

Place the city official under citizen’s arrest _____

2.15

Where do rights originate from (and thus reside with)?

Individual _____

Society _____

Part 3: Short and to the point

Please answer the following questions in 10 words or less.

3.1

What is the main purpose of government?

3.2

What is the main purpose of fines?

3.3

What is the proper role of by-laws?

3.4

Currently, the average salary (and benefits) of the City of Ottawa employee is roughly double the average salary (and benefits) of private sector employee (this average includes the high salaries of CEO’s and other executives – as shown in multiple studies). Under what conditions is this justifiable?

3.5

In many City of Ottawa departments, the workers and managers are members of the same labour union. Is this proper?

3.6

Should the City of Ottawa have departments which duplicate the services (and often undermine the policies) of Provincial and/or Federal departments?

3.7

Many businesses in Ottawa claim the amount of ‘red tape’ they have to go through simply to exist is excessive. Is this a problem?

3.8

Under what conditions is it justifiable for a government to financially subsidize one business, but not another?

3.9

Is ‘reverse discrimination’ also a form of discrimination?

3.10

Under what conditions should governments be permitted to fund non-core, non-essential programmes/services?

3.11

Does accommodating sensitivities of ANY/ALL religious groups by the City of Ottawa a breech the separation of ‘government’ and ‘religion’?

3.12

Should elected city officials be subjected to a specific term limit? If so, how long?

3.13

Similarly, should city employees (perhaps with the exception of front-line police officers, firefighters and paramedics) face a similar cap of a maximum number of years in the civil service (say, 15 or so)? (This would help bridge the public/private sector gulf and enrich both, as well as slow the destructive trend of emerging ‘privileged class’ of civil servants we are seeing in our society.)

3.14

Why should the City of Ottawa permit the operation of businesses (such as clubs) which ban a citizen from becoming a member based on their gender (or which set aside hours of operation for members of a specific religion)?

3.15

Should the City of Ottawa tolerate the practice of gender discrimination in any form, including ‘gender segregation’ on City property? (In privacy/modesty situation, the existing measures such as ‘family changing rooms’ and ‘family rest-rooms’ are a perfect accommodation to all without implementing gender apartheid.)

3.16

Should City of Ottawa financially support public events (including sports competitions) which practice gender apartheid? Should it tolerate such intolerance in City owned facilities?

3.17

It is difficult for most non-communications specialists to be ‘perfectly bilingual’: still, it is even more difficult to be ‘perfectly trilingual’. As such, the current City of Ottawa language policy unfairly prevents non-linguist allophones, mostly from immigrant backgrounds (such as myself) from even seeking employment with The City. If elected, will you work towards a more inclusive, tolerant workplace which only requires ‘functional bilingualism’, and only in ‘front-line positions’ for personnel which is directly serving the public?

Part 4 – deeper questions

Please, answer the following questions.

4.1

The classical role of government is defined as protecting territorial integrity (not applicable to a municipal government), protecting the security of person and property of its citizens and providing an impartial and objective judiciary. This is a much narrower role than what the modern governments tend to play. Most citizens would likely agree that the role of municipal government also includes supplying clean water, proper sewage treatment/waste (garbage) disposal and road infrastructure.

Should a municipal government to provide any service other than listed above? (Please list.)

Why/why not?

4.2

This will be difficult to put in practice, but…

Do you support, in principle, the assertion that since civil servants are paid from the salaries of ‘regular citizens’, the average civil service salary should not be higher than the average salary in the private sector?

If elected, would you work towards implementing this principle into practice?

4.3

Multiple studies over decades have established that people who regularly use public transit suffer from many more infectious illnesses than people who don’t. If elected, what measures will you pursue to minimize this public health hazard?

4.4

Public transit is used by downtown commuters more than any other group. Yet, most of the people who work downtown are civil servants – whose salary is, on average, already roughly double that of people working in private industry. As such, concentrating on providing increased public transit service to downtown is an additional subsidy to already overpaid civil servants. When the property taxes are rising to unprecedented high levels, forcing people from their homes, how can such a blatant subsidy to already overpaid bureaucrats be justified?

4.5

Cities which have light rail public transit are increasingly converting their systems to uses buses. Since the accommodation to the unions states that no rail system which the City of Ottawa might implement would reduce the number of drivers/commuters had been made, there will not be any cost savings on the salary of operators if a rail-based transit system is brought in. Yet, the construction of rail-based transit systems is much higher than of bus-based systems while at the same time it lacks the flexibility inherent to a bus-based transit system. If there is a justification for a publicly run transit system (which is far from established), will you oppose all the hair-brained schemes involving rail-based system in favour of a reasonable, bus-based system?

It looks like they’ll let me say a few words…

While I am not one of the organizers of the September 18th demonstration in front of Jim Watson’s office (and, yes – it is rumoured that Mr. Watson himself plans to attend the protest rally), they WILL let me say a few words…

Mr. Watson has been campaigning on the premise that he works through ‘consensus building’ – something he claims is a ‘positive’ thing which his opponent lacks.

I intend to say a few words as to what exactly that means:  and why governing through ‘consensus building’ is anti-democracy!

If you want to learn more, please, come to the rally (if you can):

Date:  September 18th, 2010

Time:  High Noon

Place:  Jim Watson’s campaign office, 1355 Richmond Rd., Ottawa

UPDATE: They did!

Thunderf00t’s thought experiment

Eco-Tax Rally: Saturday, 18th of September 2010

Where:  Jim Watson’s campaign office, 1355 Richmond Rd.

Time:  12 noon

Date:   18th of September, 2010

Here is the email from Debbie Jodoin, one of the protest organizers, announcing the rally:

“Are you tired of Premier Dalton McGuinty and the Ontario Liberals taking money out of your pockets?


Maybe you are tired of Dalton and the Ontario Liberals playing hide and sneak with your tax dollars?


Or, maybe you are just tired of Dalton and all his broken promises.


Come out at 12:00 pm, Saturday, Sept 18th to Jim Watson’s Campaign office . 1355 Richmond Road.

Let’s ask Mr Watson about his 6 and half years as a Cabinet Minister under Dalton McGuinty.

He has to be held accountable for our high provinical taxes.

Bring your signs, bring your water, bring your chairs and show Dalton he can no longer take advantage of us.

With your HELP, ONTARIO CAN LEAD AGAIN!!!”

Was the ‘Koran-burning preacher’ Terry Jones duped by the moderate imam Musri?

While checking out TheReligionOfPeace, I came across this story.

Instead of trying to simply retell what the article says, let me try to re-construct some plausible approximation of how it might possibly had happened.

First, we have the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’.  And, yes – the undercarriage of one of the airplanes that hit ‘The Towers’ on 11/09/2001 actually fell on top of this building and damaged it:  this makes the building ‘Ground Zero‘. Imam Rauf, who is building the Ground Zero Mosque  cannot, by any reasonable person, be called ‘moderate’ – not with what has been learned about him… and certainly not based on his behaviour.

Anyhow…

Yesterday (Wednesday), imam Rauf is quoted in the linked article as saying that

‘nothing is off the table’  when asked whether he would consider moving the site.

Today, (Thursday), Donald Trump is reported to have offered that he would buy the building from imam Rauf for 25% more than it had cost him:  not because he wants the building, but because he would like to end the controversy amicably.  Considering that imam Rauf and his gang had paid $4.8 million for the damaged building, Mr. Trump is truly putting his money where his mouth is.

So far so good.

But things go from good to bad rather fast.

A nutty and, by the sounds of it, somewhat unpopular preacher Terry Jones from Florida got annoyed by something and declared September 11th, 2010, to be ‘International Burn-the-Koran Day’.  (No, not a ‘Burn-an-imam Day’ – just destroying some inanimate objects he owns.)

Could it have been the very existence of the Mosque at Ground Zero?  Or, perhaps the speed with which it’s breezing through all the building permits while St. Nicholas Orthodox Church, the tiny little churched destroyed as the South Tower collapsed on top of it, appears to be fatally entangled in the red tape which denies its reconstruction?  Or was it hearing about the hundreds of bibles burned by Iran?

Perhaps he was expressing solidarity with the Muslims in Iran who have posted this video of themselves, burning the Koran, as a symbol of protest against the oppressive theocracy which is ruining their country? (Thanks, BCF, for digging this one up.)

Perhaps it was a little bit or everything.

Perhaps he was simply exercising his freedom of religion!

Whatever the cause, the fact remains that preacher Jones is well within his rights to destroy his own property, however he chooses to, and nobody has the right to meddle!

Of course, meddle they did.

And this is where it gets rather ugly…

‘Everyone’  has been meddling!

It was just ugly when it was just the usual media lackeys who condemned him.

It was emotional blackmail and just idiotic when people ‘all over’ tried to make him somehow responsible for the potential actions of other people.  Yet, that is exactly what happened!

But when General Petraeus, the American Troops top commander in Afghanistan, came out and started telling anyone who’d listen that how a specific citizen of the USA chooses to exercise his Constitutionally guaranteed rights, he’ll be guilty of putting American troops into danger – that is when it gets downright scary!

Since when do we live in a society which permits military generals to dictate who gets to exercise their Constitutional rights, and how?  Do we even WANT to live in such a society?

Of course, the media ignored the constitutional rights issue and instead of demanding that General Petraeus be stripped of his position and dishonourably discharged from the military (the minimum reasonable reaction to a general caught bullying civilians out of their civil rights) , they have given the military man a pass and continued to beat up on the nutty preacher.  Sad, even if predictable.

Of course, this is not where it ended.

US President Obama – the guy who found nothing offensive in decades of reverend Jeremiah Wright‘s ‘God Damn America’ sermons – condemned his own citizen for exercising his freedom of religion. In this abc piece, Obama is quoted as saying (regarding Terry Jones’s plan to exercise his freedom of religion):

“If he’s listening, I just hope he understands that what he’s proposing to do is completely contrary to our values … this country has been built on the notions of religious freedom and religious tolerance,”

In other words, Obama says that the USofA ‘has been built on the NOTIONS(?!?) of religious freedom’, but believes that exercising them is ‘completely contrary’ to American values.  (I am presuming here that when Obama says ‘ours’, he actually DOES mean ‘American’.)

Does Obama really not realize what is coming out of his mouth?!?!?

Last night, the internet provider pulled the plug on the prea

Today, when Secretary of Defense Gates did not only not fire Petraeus, but actually personally phoned Jones up and parroted Obama and the disgraceful general, preacher Jones began to show cracks.

So, let me recap.

So far, we have tons of pressure on preacher Jones to cancel his ‘Burn-a-Koran Day’ day, which he is ostensibly holding as an exercise of his freedom of religion, because he is so annoyed with imam Rauf’s arrogant project which has created so much discord in the American psyche.

We also have imam Rauf claiming ‘nothing is off the table’ when he was asked if he would be willing to move the mosque’s location to a less controversial spot.

Donald Trump takes imam Rauf seriously and offers to buy out the ‘Park 51’ property from him while giving imam Rauf a 25% return on his investment.

In comes the ‘moderate’ imam Musri,reportedly  an influential Muslim from Florida.

Preacher Jones meets with imam Musri and comes out of the meeting convinced (rightly or wrongly) that since the Ground Zero Mosque builders have agreed to move their project, he is calling off the ‘Burn-the-Koran Day’!

Yes, he has called the ‘Burn-the-Koran Day’ off!

But, he has done so in the honest belief that the reason for his decision to so publicly exercise his freedom of religion by burning the Koran was no longer there – that the thorn has been removed from his side!

Alas, not so!

Once the ‘Burn-a-Koran Day’ was called off, the ‘moderate’ imam Musri says that there must have been a misunderstanding:  he only promised that the two of them (Musri and Jones) would travel to New York to seek an audience with imam Rauf in order to ask him to, please, be so kind as to consider, may be, perhaps, moving his project elsewhere.

If he’d like to.

Pretty please.

Gee – how could such a misunderstanding have come about?!?!?

On a completely unrelated note – have you ever heard of the Islamic concept of  ‘taqiyya’?

Thunderf00t: ‘Tolerance’ and the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’

This is brilliant!

I love Thunderf00t’s videos – OK, most of Thunderfoot’s videos.

He is really intelligent and articulate.  And, he has a large following of really intelligent and  articulate people who watch his videos on YouTube.  His YouTube -and, I am sure, non-online achievements (he is, after all, a scientist) – have earned him the opportunity to interview Richard Dawkins.

Disclosure:  I like Thunderf00t and what he says WAY more than I like Richard Dawkins and his message.   Still, we are talking ‘celebrity access’ here – earned in the best way possible.

Which is why I was happy to see Thunderf00t post a video about ‘Tolerance and the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’.

What made me even happier was to see that he had felt obliged to put up ‘Part 2’ to it – so many of those who love and respect Thunderf00t (and follow him in his fight for freedom of speech) simply missed the salient and important points in the original video.  OK – it’s not that they ‘missed’ the point that is so great:  what IS awesome is that someone as intelligent and eloquent as Thunderf00t explained it to them.

It is this explanation that completely and clearly explains the reasoning behind the opposition to this ‘we-have-conquered-America’ landmark which is something every single person who thinks (or says – those are not necessarily congruent) that those who are opposeing the ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ are intolerant bigots or some such thing ought to see and listen – really listen – to!

First, the original message:

And then, the explanation:

If you still have any questions, ask yourself:  what would George Carlin say?