A DISHONEST STUDENT MOVEMENT

The students of Quebec made history back in the 2005 student strike... Can they possibly do it again? Or are they being delusional?

Many interesting arguements were raised by Carson Jerema, in hi article, speculating the recent interest by Quebec student organizations to hold a second "strike". I believe and agree with Carson that the movement may be dishonest, in their efforts to hold a 3-day event and call it a protest. But at the same time, I think that their efforts are not necessarily "delusional", because of the major impact they serve, and the power theyeactually hold in society.

There are suspions that the Quebec student strike may be dishonest for several reasons outlined in the article, that I agree with. In comparison to other Universities across Canada, and even in the United States, the Quebec tutition has substantially less. Even as a McMaster undergrad, paying a minimum of $5000 per year, which is about the cost of grad school in B.C, Quebec students have had the luxury of having substantially less debt, and the addition of bursaries for support, than your average Canadian undergraduate student. By adding $100 per year over the course of a 5 year term, would still be only HALF of what many students pay. In a sense, I think that they are trying to abuse their power and "bully" the government into doing whatever they want, which makes people wonder if their intentions are actually genuine.

On the flip side of the coin, I think that Carson may over-estimate the power and influence of the students. When running for power, the premiers look to the post-secondary students for support. Mnay of these up-and-coming working class people can either make-or-break a politicians campagin. Yes, it's true that in the end that students would be only putting their education in jeporday, but at the end of the day, Univeristy does not only benefit the student, it's benefits the entire economy, having a vast majority of well-educated people. Also, the government is under pressure to give into the demands of this group of people, because in 4 years when they want to be re-elected, their chances will be next to none, because of the fact that this vast growing group holds much influence at the voting polls.

So who really loses? The students or government? I think that the students are just relying on the success of their past attempts to fight for what they strongly believed in. They were able to gather a group, something that is not only challenging, but difficult when there is much adversity being faced (i.e. police patrol); but people only joined the cause because it was genuine. This 3-day strike won't pose much influence in affecting the government, but truth be told, post-secondary students have much more say than they believe: it's about solidarity and collition for a cause, and the Quebec students have figured that out, which is why they control their governemnt, and won't let the government control them. Or else risk ending up like every other student in Canada: broke, rising tutition fees, and in debt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw2lgxxaZJc

FACEBOOK: IS IT THE BEGINNING OF THE END

Erna Amoah
0556229
TA: Rita T
November 8, 2007

Facebook: Is it the Beginning of the End?

It is so easy now, it has become second nature in our society: we can now even access people we met over 20 years ago, who we went to pre-school with, all through one major communication pool, which embodies thousands of millions of people. Facebook, which was created about 3 years ago, has taken the Western Society by storm, connecting people to their family, friends, and old acquaintances. Overall, online networking websites have become an integral part of our function as humans. But the revolution of networking, although created with a positive motive, has created some detrimental effects and has many people arguing that such social websites as Facebook will cause more damage to us than it will good.
In Lecture two, Dr. Sevigny introduced Harold Innis, and his philosophy of Communication Principle “changes in the mode of communication lie at the heart of social, cultural and economic evolution” (Sevigny-Lecture 2, Sept 14). Through the book of Minneva’s Owl, Innis states the concept that “creativity and learning attain their highest level only when society has begun to decline” (Sevigny-Lecture 2, Sept 14). In essence, only after we undergo an experience does it become of value, but by that time it is usually too late to alter any previous decisions.
When we take a look at the quick evolution of technology and how the importance of online social networking has increased at an uncontrollable pace, we are beginning to realize that the benefits of our new mode of communication has changed our social organization and influenced our society’s values and function. Facebook has provided the means for online-predators, and cyber-bullying. We hear of “Facebook stalkers,” and “racist groups” being formed everyday, with such little regulation of people’s privacy. As well, people are being screened by police and potential employers, via Facebook. As well, all data is completely accessible to third parties for “data purposes” which in actuality serve no direct purpose.
Canada prides itself as being a free, democratic country, where people have a right to express who they are, but in today’s society, you cannot really do that without thinking twice about how little privacy we have. We are losing our values, by investing time into such social networks which present themselves as good, but may be fatal to our futures, but we ignore it for now, because our ignorance only allows us to live in the moment.

Bibliography
Sevigny, Alex. Communication Studies 1A03 Lecture 2. Friday September 14, 2007

TV TALKS

Erna Amoah
0556229
TA: Rita T
November 8, 2007

TV Talks- Teenagers: We are what we Buy

It happens every year, especially around back to school and Christmas time: Teenagers go mad for the latest things! It’s inevitable, because you’re constantly bombarded by television ads of the coolest, and newest electronic devices, articles of clothing, and personal items, that if you don’t have you will absolutely die!
Teenagers are the best target market for marketing companies. The average teenager themselves will see about 5,000 different advertisements a day, causing them to indulge in impulsive shopping to get the latest and trendiest things. Television ads have been proven to be one of the most effective marketing tools, especially with teenagers. However, it has not always been beneficial. “Cultural theorists and anthropologists say: social identities and differences, and equalities are legitimated through our cultural consumption. TV ads function as myths and metaphors” (Sevigny-Lecture 13, Nov. 6).
TV ads work to create an illusion of a “Utopia” life (example: “If you don’t have this iPod, you will never be happy.”) Advertising reveals the latest fashions and the new popular novelties on the market. It exhibits perfect individuals wearing the new styles and looking good. However, Dr. Sevigny speaks in Lecture 13 about how the difference between the poor and rich in Canada are projected taste. For example, the purpose of a car is to take a person from destination point A to destination point B. But TV ads will work to advertise BMW as the better, more powerful car, which the rich people will invest in, and the lower class people will settle for the Hyundai model. At the end of the day, a car is a car, and everyone has achieved their ultimate goal of reaching their destination. Because TV ads work to increase the projected tastes in individuals, teenagers make the perfect marketing target group, because of their materialistic values. When they see an ad on TV they see perfection and envy it, and go out to buy the product, in hopes of being one step closer to being “cool”. Kids look into ads to buy into ideas, not necessarily the product. Companies like Apple, H & M, Artizia, and other companies targeted at teens use television as the medium for connecting teens to the idea of popularity and acceptance, and not necessarily the perfection of the product, which teens buy into, and perpetuates stereotypes, endorses conformity, and causes kids to buy into things not necessary in life.

Bibliography
Sevigny, Alex. Communication Studies 1A03 Lecture 13. Tuesday November 6, 2007

WHITHER MARRIAGE?

Many young girls picture this: You grow up, find Prince Charming, you get married, say "I DO", have kids, and you live Happily Ever After... Sounds lovely doesn't it? But in fact, the reality is that more and more Canadians are choosing not to get married: either becoming common-law weds, or remaining single all together, and the number of marriages are on the steady decline. Why, you may ask? I think it has to do with choices, and I although I think both points of view were weakly argued on the video clip by CBC News, I think there is a misconception of the necessity of marriage anymore.

Many people argue that the pressure remains on women, but when it comes to the idea of marriage, children, and family-life, women must be in the spotlight. Over the years, women have found their voice, in the fact that they have the ability to choose. In the past, it was not uncommon for women to be placed in arranged marriages, by age 18, and immediately start having children. The stigma was placed on unmarried women, with no children, who were not accepted by society. But with the push by women for further education, rights and privileges in the political settings, and more equality to men, women have had more opportunities to fulfill any dreams they have: an opportunity that many women of the past could only dream about.

Women today are beginning to realize that there is potential for them to excel career-wise, and maybe not rush or be forced into a marriage. With the declining rate for marriage, we see that there is a massive increase in divorce. Many women are second thinking the decision to rush into a relationship, and having children with someone they cannot foresee a promising future with, and I mean who can blame them? You hear of so many relationships that infidelity, abuse, depression, substance abuse all play a role in the deterioration of the function of the family, so women are beginning to take their time in making such a lifelong decision with their significant other.

Nowadays, if you want a child you can just go to a sperm bank. And the number of single-parent families are on the rise, which shows promise of a self-sustaining family. With a fast-paced culture like the Western society, and its changing norms, there is no surprise that the necessity and meaning of "Marriage" has lost its significance. We can now have all the benefits of marriage (i.e. common law) without the signing of papers. I think marriage is still a dream I hope to obtain, but it's significance and necessity are not as important as they were in the past, so I will never feel pressured, by family or society to get married if I do not feel it is under the right pretences.

THE GREATEST HAMILTONIAN

What makes a great Hamiltonian? My guess is that it is the same criteria that makes a great Canadian. When we think about what makes a great Hamiltonian, it's not about the wealth, the prestige, or the popularity of the individual, but it is about what contributions the person has made to bettering the lives of others, honoring the past, present, and providing a brighter future for its society. Hamilton has developed immensely, and had it not been the devotion and contributions of several individuals, it may not be the pre-industrialized city we see it as today.

The decision was not easy, as there were many people like Lincoln Alexander, Karen Kain, and even the founder of Hamilton itself, the man who envisioned the ambition of a great city "Steel City" George Hamilton: my greatest Hamiltonian is Michael G. DeGroote.

Michael DeGroote has accomplished so much, and he has affected contributed to various aspects of Hamilton that has better the lives of the citizens of Hamilton. For a many who never finished high school, he has been on the fore-front of encouraging education for all aspiring youths today. His $105 million dollar contribution to McMaster alone, in business and medicine shows his devotion to life long learning, that will in effect assist us one day find cures for many of the major diseases in health today.

His billion dollar business, Laidlaw, has created so many job opportunities to the residence of Hamilton, a city that has experienced a slump, since no longer relying on it's steel factories for economic success. His garbage collection, and recycling program has promoted the idea of a "Greener" Canada. He has opened the school bus program that has expanded to other cities in Ontario, creating safe transportation for children.

He also purchased the Hamilton TigerCats, encouraging athleticism and promoting the growth of the city of Hamilton.

Michael G. DeGroote has left a legacy in Hamilton that is not only honorable, but has set a promising future for Hamilton residents. He is not popular or very known, but the contributions he has made to the city of Hamilton will be recognized and spoken of for decades to come.

DION ACCUSES TORIES OF HAVING HIDDEN AGENDA ON DEATH PENALTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvUaspp40FY

Too many loopholes, too many inconsistencies... Are the Tories really trying to pull a fast one over Canadian citizens?

The idea of capital punishment has been an issue that has set aside Canada from many other industrialized countries in the world. The fact is that Canada has set a precedence as the leading nation against capital punishment. It has been a trademark that Canadians have upheld for several decades.

The idea of capital punishment has been an issue that segregates the political parties in Canada. The Liberal Party, and the New Democratic Party has stood firm in defending the idea of anti- capital punishment. The Progressive Conservative Party, however, have been known to be more right-winged, and have a strong American affiliation influence. Although never inadvertently outspoken, their party has been known to have strong views on capital punishment, and amending the idea of anti-capital punishment in Canada.

Today, the Progressive Conservative Party has com into power. Many people worry that now that they have power, they may try to implement their radical ideas into Canadian society, which has many people worried. There is no middle-ground when it comes to the idea of capital punishment: either you are for or against it. Other political party leaders have come out and stated their ideas of capital punishment openly, but no word has been given by Stephen Harper. Should Canadians be worried that we may adopt ideas that support the American culture? It has already began with the idea that Canadians can be executed in other countries, but who is to say that by accepting those terms, Canadians are not opening the doors to allowing politicians to change the face of Canadian culture and its values and beliefs. I strongly believe that if you commit a crime in another country, those country's laws should be implemented when facing our consequences: death penalty or not. But Canada itself should not allow politicians to tell us whether someone should be executed or not, because we are one step closer to adopting the American culture, and integrating it into our free, democratic society.

Should Your Daughter get the HPV vaccine?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vB2Vv_kEEdY

This Youtube video is a clip from the Today Shoe, advertising the positive effects of the Gardasil drug

This article raises up probably one of the most controversial issues of 2007: the vaccination of female girls. Very convincing issues are raised on both sides of the issue, but in the end, my opinion stands that the vaccination should be available to females, and they should be given the choice.

Many people opposing the idea, are mainly from the Catholic board. Their idea is that by providing the vaccination, they are supporting or "opening the gates" for pre-marital sex. However, at the end of the day, girls are going to have sex if the choose to, regardless of whether they have protection or not. By providing the vaccination, it protects the future of all females, but the choice about sexual engagement still remains in their hands.

However, a strong point against the vaccination is about how "new" the drug is to the market. Doctors and scientists have argued the fact that the drug provides more benefits to females than it does risks, but no one has seen the long term effects of the drugs in females. There have been many anti-depressants and other anti-anxiety drugs that have been pulled off the shelf, due to the horrible effects it has had on people (i.e. addiction, weight gain, mercury-traces etc.). Many people are at risk by using this drug so early at it's stage, and the fact that it is being introduced to females at such a young age, we do not know the risks it may pose and the impacts it can possibly have on their lives in the future.

In the end, I think that the HPV vaccine could possibly be another scheme that pharmaceutical companies are using to get rich really quick, by providing a drug that can "allow girls to have sex, with one less disease to think about", but I also think that it can be an opportunity for a major break-through in science and in health. I'm wondering: if the vaccine was geared directly towards young boys, would there be such an outrage by the public? Just something to think about.

THE TABS: NO MEN ALOWED

WHAT SEPERATES THESE CELEBS AND THEIR "MISHAPS" ISN'T THE TROUBLE THEY GOT IN, BUT WHO THE TROUBLE WAS CAUSED BY...

This article was interesting in the fact that it really raised awareness to an important issue hat our society indulges millions of dollars into every year: Gossip! The social constructs we have created in the American society has seen a dramatic increase in the female scandals published in tabloids. Even our latest victim, Duane "Dog" Chapman, whose recent racist conversations with his son about his controversial relationship with a Black female were recorded and aired to the public, has seen not even a quarter as much publicity as Paris Hilton's time spent in jail, that had news coverage on CNN for 24-hours this past summer. According to a new MSN-Zogby poll, 70 percent of Americans say they don't change their viewing choices based on a celeb's comments. Meaning, we base our opinions more upon their actions.

I completely agree with Ms. Weinman, with all of her comparisons between male and female celebrity scandals. The only time men are targeted are when make racist comments, or when they are in a couple- thus the blame gets diverted to the female in the relationship. A perfect example would be Brad Pitt, Jennifer Aniston, and Angelina Jolie scandal. Angelina was perpetrated as a "home-wrecker" but what about Brad being a "male-whore"? No no, such radical ideas don't exist in American fame or in it's culture. I disagree with Fuller's prediction that male gossip will be aired more in the future. Tabloids are making way more money, and drawing much more attention to the females who make mistakes in life, than how Bobby Brown's rehab is going after over-dosing on cocaine. Give me a break! Tabloids are garbage, but it's difficult to escape it. So by feeding into the tabloids and what they write, we give them more ammunition to continue doing what they do best: making women seem evil, and males scandals seem very "boys will be boys", and give them less reason for change.

NBC executive slams Apple for "killing music industry"

VS.





iTunes and NBC have officially ended their divorce. And boy was it ugly!

There is no doubt about it... iTunes has been argueably one of the most powerful, and influencial business of the 20th century. It's monopoly has taken over the media industry by storm, leaving all of it's competitors watching them bask in their glory from the sidelines, or gain any little benefit they can from the successful business... Well, if you can't beat 'em, join em'! Which is what many people have opted to do. Even Second Cup, and business that is not even media affiliated, has joined forces with Apple, in marketing and advertising their business.

NBC is just greedy! How can you ask another company for profits from their private product? The nerve of NBC! If NBC wants a profit from iTunes, then in fact, it's true when they say that NBC doesn't ask television manufactorers for a cut in their sales. If anything, Apple is expanding NBC's network to those who cannot access it directly through television (i.e us Good Ol' Canadians)

They accuse iTunes of " killing the music industry in terms of pricing,” and for threatening to do the same to the video business. The article goes into great detail explain how iTunes did the exact opposite, and are responsible for the music industry still even existing today. All in all, NBC is crazy for suggesting such radical ideas, and even if in the event other television stations follow the lead of NBC, the money iTunes makes from iPods and selling music alone, will still overpower and defeat those running against them... Tough, better luck next time NBC!

What to do with ex-PMs and all that pent up bile?

Have you ever wondered: So where did all of these guys go?...

Many Canadians just see our PMs come and go, but where exactly do they go and what exactly do they do when hey are no longer in power?

This article talks about the bitterness PMs experience once they are elected out of power: given the big BOOT by Canadians. Even though all former Prime Ministers are taken care of by Canadians through tax money, they are still unsatisfied. It has become a major problem especially over the last few decades, now that as a country, our health has continued to improve significantly over the years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ77kN8Yh2Y

In this clip, Jean Chretien is expressing his hostile bitterness towards his predecessor Paul Martin.

I feel that the PMs should hold no bitterness when they leave. They were elected into power, by the people, for the people. So if the people are dissatisfied, then they must leave. They must understand that as politicians, they are under much scrutiny for upholding their promises and holding the interest of Canadians at heart: but if you look, many of the ex-PMs do not hold a good reputation in the eyes of Canadians.

So what to do with these angry people, who are no longer needed in the Canadian society? In my opinion, I say that as long as they continue to live their life as normal Canadians... I mean, isn't that what they are now? Travel the world, explore new endeavours, advocate for and join commissions that are of interest to them. But in my perspective, once your out, you are out! Use your intelligence, and experience as the most influential person in Canada to grow as an individual.

Sex & Marriage with robots? It could happen

If this picture doesn't freak you out completely, then I don't know what will? This controversy over the development of robots in the near future, for me is the beginning of the end of society... And now we are proposing that we are going to have the urge to marry these things?

Science and technology have evolved so rapidly, that I think most people can agree it has spun out of control. Dr. Levy, in his Article, "Sex and Marriage with robots? It could happen" states all the research that has been done in creating the artificially intelligent robot, that will replace the need for human beings, mentally, physically, and emotionally.

We spoke in class about the use of technology, and how we do not know when an event is occurring until it is over, and too late. In today's society, we rely so heavily on the use of technology, and it has come to the point where it's involvement is necessary in order for us to function from day to day. It comes as no surprise that someone would want to take it to the next level where we would even consider relying to artificial intelligence for emotional support.

In my opinion, I think that although robots are capable of many things: they can never feel emotion. Humans ourselves, struggle in understanding why we feel the way we feel, when we feel... How can we implement it into another "being"? The ability to feel and convey emotion is innate. While Dr. Levy argues that the robot can have sex, we humans feed off of each other's drive, and compassion and love, displayed by our partners, not necessarily that they are engaging in the act of sex. So can a robot respond, in the same way a human can? I argue that they cannot. As well, how would we, as a species, be able to pro-create?

Dr. Levy speaks about who the robots would be designed for, but I think that there is a stigmatization set in his argument, and that the social context we have created makes us believe that "ugly" people cannot obtain love, when in fact everyone is beautiful in their own way.

In tutorial we spoke about A.I and how similar to humans technology can become. But like we discovered, humans can only program machines to know and do as much as we do: we have yet to uncover the mystery of emotion, so how do we re-create it into a robot? In my opinion, this is just a waste of money researching into something that will not better the lives of humans, and we would be better off putting that money towards better use.

THE BLAME GAME

Erna Amoah
0556229
TA: Rita
October 11, 2007

The Blame Game- “I” Statements vs. “You” Statements

Katie: “Danny! Didn’t I tell you to wash the dishes? You are so lazy, and you never help out around the house. You leave everything to me, and all you do is watch football all day. I’m so fed up with you!”
Danny: “Well, what do you do? I work, and all you ever do is nag and complain. You don’t do that much yourself, and you just told me to do the dishes five minutes ago, and I was just about to do them, so get off my back!”

The 21st century in North America has seen a huge recent increase in divorce rates, reaching almost 50! Why are all these relationships and marriages suffering? The primary cause of the failure of relationships is a lack of communication: both verbal and non-verbal. I will focus on the verbal sector of communication in relationships, which are the “I” and “you” statements. In every healthy relationship, there will be times of disagreement between two individuals. It is the way we can effectively and clearly express ourselves that will determine the way our partner reacts and understands the situation. In lecture three, Dr. Sevigny revealed the importance of the power of language and responsibility. “In North America, I messages are assertive and given higher status. “I” messages show power, and acknowledgment that a person is taking responsibility for one’s actions.” (Sevigny-Lecture 5, Sept 28)

“You” statements, however, deflect blame, which is the cause of the blame game in relationships. It places the opposite person in a defensive position, and they in turn will go on the attack. This means nothing is solved, feelings get hurt, and therefore communication is lost. Dr. Sevigny stated that “I messages are very effective conflict management tools.”(Sevigny-Lecture 5, Sept 28) It gives us power and allows all of our thoughts and feelings to be conveyed in a manner that is clear and concise and least damaging to your partner’s self esteem. By exercising the use of I messages, you will get much positive feedback, and future success in your relationships.




Bibliography
Sevigny, Alex. Communication Studies 1A03 Lecture 3 (chap 2- UAC). Tuesday Sept 18, 2007
Sevigny, Alex. Communication Studies 1A03 Lecture 5. Friday Sept 28, 2007

I AM BEAUITFUL

Erna Amoah
0556229
TA: Rita
October 11, 2007

I Am Beautiful- The Positive & Negative Self Concept

Take a minute to ask yourself the following questions: Are you happy with your appearance? Are you honest and trustworthy? Are you fun to be around? Are you confident? Are you a good person? Do people like you?

These are all some of the questions that can detect your current level of self concept. In lecture four Dr. Sevigny defined the self concept as “who we are to ourselves- also known as our interior monologue.” (Sevigny-Lecture 4, Sept 21) This is important because it will determine how we act and communicate with others. If you answered yes to all of the questions above, it is a clear sign of possible high self-esteem, which is closely linked to the outcome of our self-concept. A high self esteem shows that you have a positive view of yourself, and that is portrayed in our personality. Our personality is a measurement of our outward perception. As human beings, Dr. Sevigny stated that “we view ourselves as we think people see us, and we do this all the time.”(Sevigny-Lecture 4, Sept 21) By having a negative self concept, we reflect to others a low self-esteem, and as such people will treat us as such. A negative self concept is usually a result of the fact that we focus on failures and insecurities. Therefore, the stronger you know who you are, the better your chances of gaining people’s respect.

The idea of the self concept is linked to body image issues found in females, particularly focusing on females at the adolescence stage. Every female, including myself, has been affected by media and culture. What we see on TV and in magazines eventually become our standard of reality and desire. “I’m so fat” or “I’m so ugly”, are comments we commonly hear people say to themselves. I have found that personally by putting myself down, I set myself up for failure in accepting my looks and who I am. From the pressure of society to look a certain way, we place pressures on ourselves. These negative views of our physical appearance can lead to bigger more problematic issues, like eating disorders. By improving our self concept and by having a positive outlook on ourselves will assist in improving several other aspects of our individual lives.



Bibliography
Sevigny, Alex. Communication Studies 1A03 Lecture 4. Friday Sept 21, 2007

McGuinty's Liberals Roll To Majority

Once again, the liberal party has won the hearts of Ontarians. Dalton McGuinty must be very proud of the strong campaign he and his party made. But, did Ontario make the right choice?

As a citizen of this province, I felt it was important to vote, and I encouraged many of my friends to vote as well. It's important to have our voices heard, and since we are the future of Canada, it's best we implement what we want, starting now. Even my mother (who was not born in Canada, and did not really care too much about Canadian politics) has since the election in 2003 exercised her right to vote. However, only about 50% of Ontarians voted this year, a short-fall of 56% that voted last election. Why?

I feel very frustrated and helpless with the form of politics we have. As a first-world, democratic society, I feel our politicians have failed us in our event of pushing towards a greater Ontario for the future. Personally, I know I had a very hard time choosing who to vote for. The politicians say they will do one thing, but once in power, they implement their own agendas, which in my eyes defeats the purpose of electing a representative. I know many people that feel this same way, which is why many people chose not to vote. No one can be trusted, so why waste our time anyway.

I chose who to vote for based on a process of elimination: I really loved the campaign for the NDP party, who strive to enhance education by freezing tuition prices (something the Liberals removed immediately once in power). This was very interesting for me, seeing as how every year we have a tuition increase and I plan to be in school for a little while. The amount of debit that I will face once out of school can be over-bearing and stressful. However, the NDP Party would increase taxes, and have been known to have many hidden agendas (i.e. Bob Ray). The Green party was another one option for me, where I know that, if nothing at all, they will help the environment, which is a positive thing for me. However, the Green Party does not encourage immigration. My family immigrated to Canada, which many families have. Without immigration, this country would not have the incredible diversity it has. The Liberals have broken promises. They have not helped out with youth, crime, education and in my eyes have failed to represent Ontario in a positive light. However, they do help middle-class families, and as such they received my vote.

The problem is that the Liberal Party worries me. They have already started implementing half-public half-private hospitals in my hometown of Brampton. Tuition keeps increasing, taxes are not being lowered, our environment is in danger... Are they going to be truthful this time? I can't really blame people for choosing not to vote... why vote if you don't like anyone asking to be elected, and if you don't like what they stand for? But at the same time, if you don't vote, we cannot complain about what the politicians chose to do.

The Liberal Party has four years to fix the mistakes they made. Let us hope that, in light of this new confidence given by Ontarians, Dalton McGuinty will restore our faith in the Liberal Party, and embrace the values that Canada stands for: a free, and democratic world.

The following link from You Tube was a post I had seen when researching on the various politicians... it's very interesting, and puts the Liberal Party in perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_DzkLNDXEE&mode=related&search=