So much snow has fallen on the Eastern Townships region (55-60 cm) that Bishop’s University cancelled all classes and gave us a Snow Day! This doesn’t happen often for a University!

I have never seen that much snow fall down in two days!

Now I have to go and dig my car out…

Piles of snow, or cars? That is the question…

Wow, turns out they’re cars. Who would have thought?

Here’s mine. And to think I don’t even own a shovel. Fun times…

Here’s a broader view of the Bishop’s Campus… as you can see, I’m far from being the only one in that situation.

And here’s a view of my residence building…

I HATE WINTER! (Although it does have some good sides, like getting classes cancelled)

This is the modified version of an "op-ed" essay that I submitted as schoolwork this semester for my American Foreign Policy class at Bishop’s University. The other version will be sent to newspapers/magazines for publication later.

—

It’s a given. Conventional wisdom throughout the world holds that the more money you throw at poor and underdeveloped countries, the richer and the more developed they will become over time. Ask any non-governmental organization (NGO) devoted to the help of the world’s deprived and they’ll tell you so. It all logically makes sense, right? More funds equal less poverty.

As strange as this may seem to some, blankly throwing money at the world’s needy does not help. Personal initiative, market liberalization and economic development and growth – the very tools these countries need to pull it off - can’t be bought. If all foreign aid funds dispensed since the beginning really did anything to alleviate poverty, we’d have totally gotten rid of it by now. The whole continent of Africa has received roughly the equivalent of four or five “full-fledged Marshall Plans” since the 1950s. Unfortunately, these nations have become poorer. Something does not add up here, but what?

Well, for one thing, foreign aid to underdeveloped countries always is exchanged from the hands of one government (“giver”, democratic) to another (“receiver, usually authoritarian). Why is this relevant? Underdeveloped countries generally do not enjoy the same standards of transparency and accountability that we in the West do. Corruption runs rampant, and the flow of international aid often gets ambushed and diverted to the selfish profit of malevolent dictators and other non-recommendable rulers or “figures of authority”. Strike number one.

When foreign aid funds really do make it to the population for which they were intended, they still don’t help much. Industrialized nations that provide foreign aid for underdeveloped countries appear to help them in the short term – but they are in reality undermining their own willpower and capacity to make it on their own. They are causing them to be accustomed to receiving aid, and this lowers national morale because these populations then feel that they depend on the help of others to live. This kills any personal initiative that these individuals might have and enslaves them in a vicious, hard-to-break circle preventing them from creating a better living for themselves and their families. Strike number two.

If the aforementioned is in fact true and verifiable, and that dispensing foreign aid to underdeveloped countries really makes things worse, then why do most governments and NGOs come out in favor of continuing to do it? Well, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, or so the saying goes, and the truth is that foreign aid does help some, although it doesn’t help those that it was intended for. It helps the “giving nations” feel better about themselves. That’s right. We self-loathing Westerners can’t help but feel a little responsible for the tragedy of world poverty, so just grabbing hold of that checkbook and signing a fat one off to Zimbabwe helps us feel better about it. It’s purely instinctive. Strike number three, foreign aid: you’re out.

Are we at all responsible for their demise? Yes, but not in the way you think. Countries that suffer from poverty don’t suffer because they have been victims of globalization, but rather because they haven’t been “globalized” enough. Deprived countries could very well compete in the agrarian sector if they were given property rights and if the industrialized nations abandoned protectionist measures. The key is investment rather than just monetary aid. Everywhere they’ve been given the chance, capitalism and the liberalization of markets have enriched nations. Look at Ireland. Look at Taiwan. Look at India, which a while ago decided not to accept foreign aid anymore. We’re now moving call centers over there.

Let’s make that choice for their sake. Those who believe foreign aid actually helps will still be free to contribute on their own.

*SCROLL DOWN FOR ENGLISH VERSION*

C’est fait, je suis revenu de la convention du Fraser Institute et de l’Institut Économique de Montréal tenue à l’hôtel Delta Centre-Ville samedi en soirée, non sans mal toutefois. Je vous donne ici les détails, et j’ai même quelques photos pour vous, chers lecteurs!

—

Vous vous souvenez, chers lecteurs, de mon dernier article, celui publié juste avant de partir pour la convention du Fraser Institute et de l’Institut Économique de Montréal? J’y racontais (en anglais) que j’allais passer une fin de semaine géniale et que j’allais avoir beaucoup de plaisir!

Eh bien, tout compte fait, c’est raté.

Ne vous méprenez pas, j’ai eu beaucoup de plaisir à la convention où j’y ai rencontré pour la première fois en personne quelques membres des Blogging Tories et autres personnalités influentes de la droite au Québec et au Canada. Nous avons aussi eu droit à des discours très éloquents de la part de ces mêmes personnalités et d’autres aussi. Ce fut très excitant et de ce côté, rien à redire sur la convention. Même que, si j’en ai l’occasion future, j’adorerais assister à d’autres conférences de ce type. Non, le problème n’est pas là.

Et, il faut dire que la fin de semaine avait tout de même bien commencé, car vendredi soir, les quelques membres de mon groupe de l’Association des Étudiants Conservateurs de l’Université Bishop’s et moi-même sommes allés veiller, comme on dit en bon québécois, au Café Campus à l’angle de Prince-Arthur et du boulevard Saint-Laurent. C’était la première fois que je sortais dans un bar dans une grande ville et je dois dire que l’expérience fut très amusante et agréable. Ensuite, j’ai passé la nuit avec les membres de l’Association dans le repaire de la fraternité Sigma Chi, (dont deux des gars qui étaient avec nous sont membres du chapitre de Bishop’s) sur le campus de l’Université McGill. Je tiens à remercier les gars de la "frat" pour leur hospitalité, car ils nous ont très bien reçus et on a eu bien du plaisir à fêter ensemble.

Non, l’évènement trouble-fête qui est venu foutre ma fin de semaine en l’air s’est produit pendant que nous étions à la convention, à notre insu. Nous ne nous en sommes rendus compte que quand nous sommes revenus à la voiture. Des individus que je qualifierais personnellement de parasites de la société se sont permis de briser la vitre arrière du côté passager de la Honda Civic de notre chauffeur et membre de l’Association, Charles Lindstrom, et de voler mon sac à dos (et son contenu intégral) qui se trouvait sur le siège arrière.

C’est la première fois que je me fais voler de la sorte, et je dois vous dire que ça fait royalement chier. Le mot n’est absolument pas trop fort.

J’ai donc perdu pour environ $250 de possessions bassement matérielles, mais tout de même appréciées de ma part. Je n’ai pas perdu d’item de grande valeur, mais le tout ensemble fait que la facture monte vite (sac inclus).

Mais bon, c’est la vie paraît-il, et j’ai pu racheter les items essentiels à mes études (avec la précieuse aide de mes parents).

Je vous laisse donc sur la collection de photos que j’ai prises de mon groupe et de plusieurs conférenciers, ainsi qu’une photo de groupe de membres des Blogging Tories en compagnie de Paul Beaudry, qui est l’auteur de plusieurs textes politiques/économiques mais qui malheureusement ne tient pas de blogue…

————

De gauche à droite | From left to right :

1. Paul Beaudry, conseiller en politiques stratégiques pour le cabinet de Maxime Bernier, ministre fédéral de l’Industrie, collaborateur au webzine libertarien "Le Québécois Libre" (http://www.quebecoislibre.org) et participant au documentaire-choc "l’Illusion Tranquille" (http://www.lillusiontranquille.com); | Paul Beaudry, policy advisor to Maxime Bernier, federal Minister of Industry, contributor to libertarian webzine "Le Québécois Libre" (http://www.quebecoislibre.org) and participant in "l’Illusion Tranquille" (http://www.lillusiontranquille.com), a hard-hitting documentary about the state of Québec’s government, economy and politics.

2. Moi, Xavier R. Dubé, auteur de ces lignes, membre des Blogging Tories; | Myself, Xavier R. Dubé, author of these lines, Blogging Tories member;

3. Vincent Geloso, auteur du blogue "Vincent Geloso et cie" - membre des Blogging Tories, fondateur de la Coalition des Esprits Libres (http://www.espritslibres.org) et lui aussi participant à "l’Illusion Tranquille"; | Vincent Geloso, author of the blog "Vincent Geloso et cie" - Blogging Tories member, founder of the Coalition des Esprits Libres (http://www.espritslibres.org) and also participant in "l’Illusion Tranquille";

4. Adam Daifallah, auteur, journaliste, étudiant en droit, conférencier à l’évènement de samedi dernier, auteur du blogue "Daifallah" (http://www.daifallah.com) - membre des Blogging Tories. | Adam Daifallah, author, journalist, law student, speaker at last Saturday’s event, author of the blog "Daifallah" (http://www.daifallah.com)  - Blogging Tories member.

La délégation de l’Université Bishop’s, en grande partie composée de membres de l’Association des Étudiants Conservateurs de l’Université. De gauche à droite, en bas : Sean McConnachie, président de l’Association et Vincent Light; de gauche à droite, en haut : Marc Cleary, Christina Lazarova, Eric Hamilton-Smith, Jonathan Fortier, conférencier à l’évènement et professeur de littérature anglaise à l’Université, Charles Lindstrom, Moi et Vincent Marmion. | The Bishop’s University delegation, mostly composed of members of the Bishop’s University Conservative Students’ Association. From left to right, on the bottom : Sean McConnachie, Association president and Vincent Light; from left to right, above : Marc Cleary, Christina Lazarova, Eric Hamilton-Smith, Jonathan Fortier, speaker at the event and Professor of English Literature at the University, Charles Lindstrom, Myself and Vincent Marmion.

Moi-même et le président de l’Association des Étudiants Conservateurs de l’Université Bishop’s, Sean McConnachie | Myself, and the Bishop’s University Conservative Students’ Association president, Sean McConnachie.

Jean-Luc Migué (animateur), collaborateur au "Québécois Libre" | Jean-Luc Migué (host), and contributor to "Le Québécois Libre".

John Robson (conférencier), chroniqueur au Ottawa Citizen | John Robson (speaker), Ottawa Citizen columnist.

Martin Masse (conférencier), consultant en politiques publiques, fondateur du "Québécois Libre" | Martin Masse (speaker), public policy consultant, founder of "Le Québécois Libre".

Michel Kelly-Gagnon (conférencier), président du Conseil du Patronat du Québec | Michel Kelly-Gagnon (speaker), president of the Conseil du Patronat du Québec.

Jonathan Fortier (conférencier), professeur de Littérature Anglaise à l’Université Bishop’s | Jonathan Fortier (speaker), Professor of English Literature at Bishop’s University.

Adam Daifallah et Tasha Kheiriddin (conférenciers), co-auteurs de Rescuing Canada’s Right : Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution | Adam Daifallah and Tasha Kheiriddin (speakers), co-authors of Rescuing Canada’s Right : Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution.

————

It’s over, I made it back home Saturday night from the Fraser Institute/Montréal Economic Institute convention held at the Delta Centre-Ville hotel in Montréal. I have to say that I had a lot of trouble. Here are all the details, and even some pictures for you, dear readers!

—

Do you remember my last post, dear readers, the one I published just before leaving for the Fraser Institute/Montréal Economic Institute convention? I was telling you guys I was about to have a wonderful weekend and that I’d have a truckload of fun!  

Well, all in all, it kind of backfired.

Don’t get me wrong, I did have a lot of fun at the convention where I met some Blogging Tories members and other influential right-wing pundits in Québec and Canada for the first time. We also got to listen to great speeches from these same pundits and from others too. I really couldn’t complain about anything, and I have to say that I’d love to assist to other conferences of this kind in the near future. No, the problem does not lie there.

And, I have to say that the weekend had kicked off pretty well, because on Friday night, some of the few members of the Bishop’s University Conservative Students’ Association and I went out on the town, and we ended up at Café Campus on the corner of Prince-Arthur street and Saint-Laurent boulevard.

It was my first time going out in a big-city bar and I have to say that my experience was very pleasurable and enjoyable. Then, the Association members and I spent the night at the Sigma Chi Fraternity (of which two of the guys that were with us are members in the Bishop’s chapter) house on the McGill University campus. I’d like to take this opportunity to thank them frat boys for their hospitality, because we felt welcomed and we had a lot of fun together.

No, the incident that really screwed up my weekend took place while we were at the convention, without any of us knowing about it until we walked back to the car at the end. Individuals that I would personally characterize as social parasites convened that it was appropriate to break the rear passenger side window of Charles Lindstrom’s Honda Civic, our driver for the weekend, and steal my school backpack (and everything that was in it) while it was resting on the back seat.  

It’s the first time I’ve ever been robbed in this fashion, and I have to say that I’m royally pissed off.

Basically, I’ve lost for about $250 of worldly goods, which I did enjoy possessing a lot. I didn’t lose anything really valuable, but the fact that I had a lot of stuff in the bag is what drives the estimate up (backpack included).

But hey, shit happens, as they say, and I was still able to re-buy the stuff that’s essential for my studies (with my parents’ precious assistance).

I will therefore be leaving you with this collection of pictures taken of my group and of all the convention speakers, along with a picture of me with some Blogging Tories members posing with Paul Beaudry, author of many political/economic essays, who doesn’t maintain a blog, rather unfortunately… Scroll up to see them.

The Fraser Institute and the Montréal Economic Institute are holding a bilingual event this Saturday, February 3rd, from 9 AM to 5 PM at the Delta Centre-Ville hotel in the heart of downtown Montréal. (777 University) The conference features many renowned speakers each presenting a highly interesting topic. The conference will be about Public Policy Issues in Canada and will also focus on North America as a whole. The editor of the French Libertarian webzine Le Québécois Libre, Martin Masse, will be delivering a speech at the event, as well as The Blogging Tories’ very own Adam Daifallah, author of Rescuing Canada’s Right : Blueprint for a Conservative Revolution. Jonathan Fortier, Professor of English Literature at Bishop’s University and Senior Fellow of The Fraser Institute will also be speaking at the event about the impact of excessive regulation on the economy. The conference also features a free lunch while Michel Kelly-Gagnon, president of the Conseil du patronat du Québec addresses the participants about "Re-awakening the Coureur des bois spirit in Québec".

And you know what the best part of it is?

I’M GOING!

Yep, Sherbrooke (where I’m studying Politics at Bishop’s University) is a mere two-hour drive from Montréal. I’ll be attending with the Bishop’s University Conservative Students’ Association and there’s quite a bit of us going. This is going to be my first-ever conference of the kind and I’m extremely excited. I need to pack up my stuff and get my suit ready for tomorrow. I’ll keep you posted and maybe will put some pictures up here on KR when I get back on Sunday.

I hope I’ll meet many of you guys from the conservative blogging community there!

Have a nice weekend! (I know I will!)

OR?

Folks,

That last U.S. Congressional Election on November 7th, 2006 got me wondering a great deal about just how I would vote if I were an American citizen. It used to be clear though, as I have always been a staunch blue supporter (I can’t really say voter, huh?) but as the 2008 election looms ahead, I’m not so sure anymore, and I’m feeling like I’m starting to turn purple…

After all, I have been shifting to the right for a while, (yes, I used to be a center-left social democrat) and I’ve recently discovered with the Political Compass (see here) that I’m now standing more to the right than I ever was. The other part of the picture revolves around the fact that I’ve recently read a Ronald Reagan biography (Exit with Honor: The Life and Presidency of Ronald Reagan by renowned historian William E. Pemberton - that I enjoyed throughout) as part of my U.S. History since 1945 class last semester, which brought me to have much more respect and admiration than I did before for the 40th President of the United States. The other factor is that I’ve also recently bought and read Gregg Jackson’s Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies. Now, while I can’t bring myself to even think of agreeing with him on his moral and religious conservative positions, his support of George W. Bush as "The Man for the Hour", his irrepressible hatred of Bill Clinton or his unabashed support for the Iraq war, there’s a couple of issues, namely environment, economics (except when he blames Bill Clinton for everything that’s wrong in America today), gun control, healthcare, Israel, criminal justice, taxation, Social Security, education and his denounciation of the liberal media on which he makes a lot of sense for a conservative/libertarian like me. He also surprised me on abortion, but while he made me a bit less pro-choice, I still can’t bring myself to support a legislative ban on the issue.

So yeah, last November 7th, I indeed was supporting the Democrats for House and Senate control, and I don’t think it’ll change until Bush and his whole administration are out of the White House for good. But for 2008, I really have no idea who I will support or even which party I will commit to. One thing is absolutely certain though, I know that I do not want to see Hillary Clinton become president. She is much more to the left and socialist than her husband, which I have great respect for. Not good. The Democrats are never going to get my support if she’s her nominee, that’s for sure, unless the Republicans nominate a complete doofus to run against her. And even then I might just decide to remain neutral.

No, I don’t know what to think anymore, and although it’s a little early and I’m aware that not all the candidates are actually out and running, I still think it’s time to start thinking about it all. But since we’re not yet really aware of who’s running and who’s sitting this one out for sure, I figured I would just try to determine which of America’s two major parties fits my views and my ideology the most (and therefore, which I should support in 2008 now that Bush is out of the picture).

I therefore decided to compare both parties’ simplified platforms, issue by issue, and decide on which I agree the most with for each and every paragraph of them. I will rate them according to my own personal ideology and beliefs on a scale of one to five, whereas five represents a total agreement with what I think. To get these simplified party platforms, I decided to rely on Wikipedia, and to do a little formatting and editing of my own.

Here’s the analysis:

GENERAL IDEOLOGY

Democrats : Since the 1890s, the Democratic Party has favored "liberal" positions. The party has favored farmers, laborers, labor unions, and religious and ethnic minorities; it has opposed unregulated business and finance, and favored progressive income taxes. In the 1930s, the party began advocating welfare spending programs targeted at the poor. The major influences for liberalism were the labor unions, and the African-American wing, which has steadily grown since the 1960s. Since the 1970s, environmentalism has been a major new component. In recent decades, the party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, fiscal responsibility, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention. The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services.

Democrats = 2/5

Republicans : The Republican Party comprises many informal factions, which often overlap but do not necessarily agree. For example, there are Fiscal Conservatives, Evangelicals, Social Conservatives, Neoconservatives, Libertarians, Moderates, Liberals and Log Cabin Republicans. The Republican Party is often the more socially conservative and economically libertarian of the two major parties, and has closer ties to both Wall Street (large corporations) and Main Street (locally owned businesses) (small mom & pop businesses), has little support among labor union leadership but more support from blue collar workers. The party generally supports lower taxes and limited government in some economic areas, while preferring government intervention in others. This has been apparent in the growing influence of "religious right" groups within the party.

Republicans = 3/5

ISSUES 

Democrats :

Labor

Democrats favor a higher minimum wage, and more regular increases, in order to assist the working poor. Party leaders have said increasing the minimum wage is one of the top priorities of the Democratic majority in 110th Congress. Various state ballot initiatives in 2006 to increase the minimum wage were supported by the Democrats, and all six such initiatives passed. The party has favored farmers, laborers and labor unions throughout its existence.

Democrats = 1.5/5

Tax Policy

The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services.

Democrats = 1/5

Fiscal responsibility

Democrats are trying to position their party as the party of fiscal responsibility. Democrats increasingly call for responsible tax policies and government spending that keeps the budget deficit under control. The Democratic-led House of Representatives reinstated the PAYGO (pay-as-you-go) budget rule at the start of the 110th Congress. DNC Chairman Howard Dean has cited Bill Clinton’s presidency as a model for fiscal responsibility.

Democrats = 4/5

Health care and insurance coverage

Democrats call for "affordable and quality health care," and many advocate an expansion of government intervention in this area. Many Democrats favor a national health insurance system in a variety of forms to address the rising costs of modern health insurance. Some Democrats have called for a program of "Medicare for All." Some Democratic governors have supported purchasing Canadian drugs, citing lower costs and budget restrictions as a primary incentive. Recognizing that unpaid insurance bills increase costs to the service provider, who passes the cost on to health-care consumers, many Democrats advocate expansion of health insurance coverage.

Democrats = 1/5

Welfare

The party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means a larger role for government and progressive taxation to pay for social services.

Democrats = 1/5

Environment and renewable energy

The Democratic Party generally sides with environmentalists and favors conservation of natural resources together with strong environmental laws against pollution. Democrats support preservation of endangered lands and species, clean land management and regulation on pollutants. The most contentious and concerning environmental issue championed by the party is global warming. Democrats have pressed for stern regulation of greenhouse gases. Democrats have opposed tax cuts and incentives to oil companies, favoring a policy of developing domestic renewable energy. Democratic governors have led the way in this issue, as in Montana’s state-supported wind farm and "clean coal" programs.

Democrats = 1.5/5

Education

Most Democrats have the long term aim of having low-cost, publicly funded college education with low tuition fees which should be available to every eligible American student, or alternatively, with increasing state funding for student financial aid such as the Pell grant or college tuition tax-deduction. The Democratic Party has voiced overwhelming support for all stem cell research with federal funding.

Democrats = 2.5/5

Trade

The Democratic Party has a mixed record on international trade agreements that reflects a diversity of viewpoints in the party. Generally, more conservative and moderate Democrats favor free trade agreements while those further to the left, supporters of fair trade, populists, and unions often oppose them. In the 1990s, the Clinton administration and a number of prominent Democrats pushed through a number of agreements such as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Since then, the party’s shift away from free trade became evident in the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) vote, with 15 House Democrats voting for the agreement and 187 voting against.

Democrats = 0.5/5

Immigration

Democrats support Equal Opportunity for all Americans regardless of sex, age, race, sexual orientation, religion, creed, or national origin. The Democratic Party mostly supports affirmative action as a way to redress past discrimination and ensure equitable employment regardless of ethnicity or gender, but opposes the use of quotas in hiring. Democrats also strongly support the Americans with Disabilities Act to prohibit discrimination against people on the basis of physical or mental disability. Democrats are open about immigration and support a steady influx in the country. They also tend to oppose strict immigration policies.

Democrats = 2/5

Foreign policy

Democrats mostly oppose the doctrine of unilateralism, which dictates that the United States should use military force without any assistance from other nations whenever it believes there is a threat to its security or welfare. They believe the United States should act in the international arena in concert with strong alliances and broad international support. This was a major foreign policy issue of the 2004 presidential campaign, and unilateralism has been blamed for the failures in Iraq. Democrats in the House of Representatives and the Senate near-unanimously voted for the authorization of military force against Afghanistan in 2001, supporting the NATO coalition invasion of the nation. Most elected Democrats continue in their support of the Afghanistan conflict. In 2002, Democrats were divided as most in the Senate voted for the authorization of the use of force against Iraq while most Democrats in the House voted against it. Since then, many prominent Democrats have expressed regret about this decision, such as former Senator John Edwards, and have called it a mistake. Amongst lawmakers, Democrats constitute some of the most vocal critics of the Iraq War and the President’s management of the war.

Democrats = 3/5

—

Republicans :

Labor

Republicans generally oppose increases in the minimum wage, believing that the minimum wage increases unemployment and makes doing business less profitable. They are also generally opposed to labor unions and have supported various legislation on the state and federal levels, including right to work legislation and the Taft-Hartley Act that makes it harder for workers to organize closed shop unions in workplaces.

Republicans = 3.5/5

Tax Policy

Many Republicans consider the income tax system to be inherently inefficient and oppose graduated tax rates, which they believe are unfairly targeted at those who create jobs and wealth. This is illustrated by the fact that the top 1 percent of income tax returns account for 33.9 percent of income tax receipts while the bottom 50 percent of tax payers accounted for 3.97 percent. They believe private spending is usually more efficient than government spending. Republicans emphasize the role of corporate and personal decision making in fostering economic prosperity. They favor free-market policies supporting business, economic liberalism, and limited regulation. The predominant economic theory held by modern Republicans is Reaganomics. Popularized by Ronald Reagan, this theory holds that reduced income tax rates increase GDP growth and thereby generate more revenue for the government from the taxes on the extra growth. This belief is reflected, in part, by the party’s long-term advocacy of tax cuts, a major Republican theme since the 1920s.

Republicans = 4/5

Fiscal responsibility

In theory and historically, the Republican Party is the party of fiscal responsibility. However, with a Republican Presiding over the largest deficit in U.S. history in 2006, opponents have begun to say that the Republicans are no longer the party of fiscal responsibility.

Republicans = 1/5

Health care and insurance coverage

The party opposes a single-payer universal health care system, sometimes referring to it as "socialized medicine"; and is in favor of the current personal or employer-based system of insurance, supplemented by Medicare for the elderly and Medicaid for the poor. On the one hand, congressional Republicans and the Bush administration supported a reduction in Medicaid’s growth rate. On the other hand, congressional Republicans expanded Medicare, supporting a new drug plan for seniors starting in 2006.

Republicans = 4/5

Welfare

Republicans agree there should be a "safety net" to assist the less fortunate; however, they tend to believe the private sector is more effective in helping the poor than government is; as a result, many Republicans support giving government grants to faith-based and other private charitable organizations to supplant welfare spending. Members of the GOP also believe that limits on eligibility and benefits must be in place to ensure the safety net is not abused. Republicans strongly supported the welfare reform of 1996, which limited eligibility for welfare and successfully led to many former welfare recipients finding jobs.

Republicans = 4/5

Environment and renewable energy

The GOP opposes the Kyoto Protocol, claiming that the treaty would hurt America’s economy and do nothing to stop warming from major competitors such as China. Many Republicans do not believe that man-made greenhouse gases are causing global warming.

Republicans = 3.5/5

Education

Most Republicans support school choice through charter schools and education vouchers; and many have denounced the performance of the public school system and the teachers’ unions. The party has insisted on a system of greater accountability for public schools, most prominently in recent years with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The religious wing of the party tends to support organized prayer in public schools and the inclusion of teaching creationism or intelligent design alongside evolution. Although the GOP has voted for increases in government funding of scientific research, many members actively oppose the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research because it involves the harvesting and destruction of human embryos.

Republicans = 2.5/5

Trade

The party strongly promotes free trade agreements, most notably NAFTA, CAFTA and now an effort to go further south to Brazil, Peru and Colombia.

Republicans = 4.5/5

Immigration

Republicans are deeply divided on what to do about illegal immigration, mostly Hispanic. The Bush administration made appeals to Hispanics a high priority long-term political goal, but that goal is not a high priority in most local GOP parties. In general, the business community supports more immigration and social conservatives oppose it. In 2006, the White House supported and Senate passed a comprehensive immigration reform that would eventually allow millions of illegal immigrants to become citizens, but the House, taking an enforcement only approach, refused to go along. They support welfare benefit reductions and oppose racial quotas, but are split regarding the desirability of affirmative action for women and minorities.

Republicans = 3/5

Foreign policy

Since the September 11, 2001 attacks, the party supports neoconservative policies with regard to the War on Terror, including the 2001 war in Afghanistan and the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and attempts to spread democracy in the Middle East and around the world. The party has advocated reforms in the UN to halt corruption such as that which afflicted the Oil-for-Food program.

Republicans = 2/5

Total score:

Democrats = 20/55

Republicans = 35/55

Therefore, it looks like I would be an Elephant if I were American (or a Republican if you prefer). However, I really do not like Bush or his administration and I absolutely can’t stand the "religious right", so I’m supporting Democrats until the 2008 Presidential Election. We’ll see what happens from now until then and who deserves my support.

Until then, I’ll keep on following as closely as ever…

Yeah, I’m back in Lennoxville (Sherbrooke) for a new semester at Bishop’s University, just after a nice Christmas holiday. Exciting!

I’m starting to get back into the beat, and this is not counting the 850,000 meetings I have to attend all over campus in the next few weeks, whether it is the Conservative Students Association, the Bishop’s University Debating Society or some other student-planned activity…

Last semester went well, I didn’t get any grades below 70%, and averaged 80% for my five classes. I’m hoping to do even better this semester. I’m taking three politics courses, and two electives, just like last semester. I got to choose them all, like last semester, and only POL101 is required. Here’s my course list for Winter 2007:

1. HIS215 History of the U.S. until 1877

2. POL101 Introduction to Modern Governments

3. POL173 U.S. Government and Public Policy

4. POL245 American Foreign Policy

5. SPA102 Spanish II

So far, everything starts to be starting out well, except on the financial side of things. Residences and meal plans are so expensive here at Bishop’s that their cost actually more than offsets the benefits of the (too?) small tuition required of Québec residents to attend university in the province. And without student loans or bursaries and limited parent support, it’s harder than it looks. I’m reaching the bottom of my bank accounts at a hair-raising speed…

I’m probably going to try to find an off-campus job (those on campus do not give me enough hours to be worth keeping) and I’m moving the hell out of residence and with some friends (if it all goes as planned) as of this summer or next semester. The best thing would be to find a part-time job for now while I study (10-15 hours a week max) that could turn into a full time job once summer rolls around.

Any ideas?

I’ll keep you guys posted.

Une nouvelle année, amenant avec elle son lot de promesses et d’attentes toutes aussi nouvelles a commencé aujourd’hui. Permettez-moi donc, conformément à l’évènement, de vous souhaiter à tous, chers lecteurs, une bonne et heureuse année 2007!

—

A new year has begun today, bringing its very own bundle of new promises and expectations. In accordance with this event, allow me to wish all of you readers a good and happy 2007!

Salut tout le monde!

Je devine que plusieurs d’entre vous connaissez sûrement déjà le site WWW Political Compass, un site sérieux qui vous permet de savoir vraiment où vous vous situez politiquement parlant sur la carte des idéologies.

J’aime beaucoup Political Compass car je trouve que c’est un site bien balancé et très objectif. De plus, il donne des résultats faciles à comprendre, plausibles et sérieux à toutes les fois que je l’utilise. C’est pourquoi j’y retourne de temps à autre pour savoir si mon idéologie politique a évolué depuis la dernière fois où j’ai passé le test. J’y ai donc récemment fait un tour, le 19 novembre dernier. Voici mes résultats, en bas. Ils seront ajoutés à la section "À propos de Keep Right" bientôt, afin que les gens qui visitent ce site puissent avoir une meilleure idée de mon idéologie politique.

Je vous encourage d’ailleurs fortement à passer le test si vous voulez, et à publier vos propres résultats dans la section "commentaires" de cet article. Ça ferait une discussion intéressante…

Voici mes résultats pour le 19 novembre dernier:

—

Hey there folks,

I’m guessing most of you probably already know about Political Compass, a serious, ideology-oriented website enabling you to actually know where you stand on the political map.

I really love Political Compass because I believe that they’re well-balanced and very objective. Furthermore, they provide me with easy to understand, accurate and serious results every time I pay them a visit. That’s why I usually go back there once in a while and re-take the test so that I know whether my ideology has evolved or not since the last time I took it. On november 19th, I went there and took the test again. My results are just above. They will also be added to the "About Keep Right" section when I have the time so that visitors to the blog can get a better grasp of how I think.

I also strongly encourage you to take the test for yourself and come back to publish your results here in this post’s "Comments" section. This would spark up an interesting discussion…

My results are just above, after the French version of this post.

—

Link to Political Compass | Lien vers le Political Compass :

http://www.politicalcompass.org

Like pretty much every conservative blogger out there, I too have followed the ongoing Liberal Leadership Convention this weekend with great interest. And as I was watching both the candidates’ and the guests’ speeches (even if I didn’t watch all of them) as time went by, I began more and more to feel the smite and burn of the Liberal Party’s deeply arrogant mentality and the ideological distance along with the ever-wider discrepancy between my values and theirs.

Folks, after seeing what I’ve seen over the weekend in Montréal, I have to say something:

I DON’T THINK I COULD BE PROUDER TO BE A CONSERVATIVE NOW. I REALLY DON’T.

I hate the Liberal Party of Canada with all my guts. In fact, I LOATHE them. Pretty much always did. They rule arbitrarily. They are corrupt. They bash the U.S. for more popularity. They think they’re the only ones allowed to rule the country. They are the only ones who support "Canadian values", whatever that means. They don’t stand for anything good. They don’t stand for anything bad. They don’t stand for anything at all, which is why they get reelected all the time! Their positions change from election to election. They don’t have any qualms with supporting one thing at an election, and then supporting its exact opposite the next. Their arrogance knows no bounds.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again now: The Liberal Party represents everything I hate about Canada.

Fortunately, I think Harper - provided he does not screw up big time from now until the election - is not going to have any trouble defeating them and gaining a majority. Even some Liberals, unhappy with their party’s choice, think so.

The Liberals are in big trouble. Their Conservative-demonizing, self-congratulating, U.S.-bashing fest that they DARE call a convention sucked. Look at the Ken Dryden and Jean Chrétien speeches. More and more spewing of self-righteous anti-American hate Liberals are SO GOOD at. And to think they invited Howard Dean to speak for them! I felt ashamed for them. And what the hell is that? Stéphane Dion as leader? Oh, please…

Out of three serious possible contenders for the leadership, (along with Ignatieff and Rae) they chose the only one that represents the OLD Liberal Party of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin (ughhh! Just thinking about these people makes me shiver!) and its corrupt, uncaring ways.

They chose the one that represents the most their stupid self-righteous mentality.

They chose a candidate that actually does NOT speak English (I still can’t get over this one, I’m a native French speaker and I couldn’t figure out what he said in English when not reading off of a teleprompter).

They chose one that has no personality (which is something they actually discredited the Conservatives for doing with Stephen Harper).

They chose a Kyoto-worshipping, (not that stupid, useless "treaty" rearing its ugly head again, please!) socialist, leftist unpopular policy wonk.

They chose Stéphane Dion because they thought he’d help them in Québec (which still would rather vote Conservative than Liberal) *NEWSFLASH* for Liberals: I am from Québec and Stéphane Dion is UNIVERSALLY-hated here. The Clarity Act, which he came up with, is perceived as a blatant federal incursion into Québec powers and is hated by sovereignists and federalists alike.

The Liberals are never going to learn. Ever. To them, being put in the opposition was but a short break from exercising power. "Hey, of course Canada’s "natural governing party" will come back to power!" People of the Liberal Party, there’s a reason you’re NOT IN POWER right now. We’re not going to tell you though, you’re going to have to figure it out…

Anyhoo.

This is laughable, and have you noticed just how freaking much the Liberal Broadcasting Corporation, er… the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation covered it? The last Conservative convention in Montréal didn’t actually enjoy even 10% of the coverage the Liberals had. Tell me again the CBC isn’t biased, leftists, and I’ll openly laugh in your face.

No, seriously folks:

‘Tis a great day to be a Conservative. Stand tall and proud, Tories!

For you, actually, DO stand for something…

Stephen, the coast is clear for your majority government. Please proceed.