So Eddie Murphy said something like this is what a president is supposed to stand for. A democratic leader said that he has a gift for words and will be able to articulate himself well enough to express change. Well so what? Even if was not able to be articulate enough he would still have to put his words into action. This is where I would like Americans not to be disillusioned over a healthy speaker and even though he is charismatic and can speak eloquently what about final decisions to reverse the trend towards a market crash? I would not put too much emphasis on the speaking manners and more on what get s done. I would also like to see that the Democratic leadership does not dither about including Hillary. And still I think that a lot of economic confidence might continue to move away from the US to countries having hundreds of millions more because of the dithering, in- party squabbling even though their leader has called for a non-partisan view.

Palin did not know the answer to who made up NAFTA, what Russia was about and what Africa is. Any high school student with a descent average in world history could have answered those, should she be exempted from not having known the answers? Her hitting back at the press for her being unprepared to answer current affair questions should be questioned too. But according to the Alaskan governor, I am supposed to accept that her answers before the press, regarding these questions and other fundamental ones, were being taken out of context. If I were a voter I would want to have my nominee versed in current events, wouldn't you?

My dislike is not because she is a woman running for president; it is about being unprepared and immature herself. If a politician can't take the heat of being criticized for their failings, they should not be running for office. Let her take the time to learn some vital facts about the US. economy, foreign policies and nations that affect that before hitting out at the press again for the inopportune exposure.

What is ugly about the business or was ugly were the conditions that these magnificent mammals live under before their shipment, many of then would die of starvation while the owner of the project would be abroad and few of the locals took the necessary initiative to feed then properly. Truth of the matter is that when the dolphin is kept sequestered it suffers tremendous stress leading to disease, which added fuel to animal activist complaints regarding the exploitation.

There seems to still be an ongoing battle between two men in this picture and they are both former marine animal experts. One worked with Flipper the dolphin star of the 60s who died in captivity and that may have been caused by the stress of having to perform for television programs while under captivity.

Today large hotel concerns and even countries like Dubai are willing to spend top dollars on creating a new phenomenon called "swim with the dolphin" which puts these creatures in close contact with humans. This attracts the trade and transport of these animals that then boost the price it cost to send it overseas. The problem is that the animal's life is in danger doing so and that the detrimental stress of being continually handled by humans is irreversible; a good percentage of them die in captivity on their way to being sold abroad.

It amazes me how we can accept an electoral system which rewards the province of Quebec 50 seats in parliament when it is largely a provincial machine and the green party which is not that much lower in popularity does not get any! How can Canadians accept a system of government that is not truly representational? Part of the answer probably lies in the low turnout as only 60% of the voters showed up. Yours truly had to make three trips because of faulty information on the voting location that might have affected other potential turnouts as well by keeping voters at home. Then so many people as was reported in a late night CBC commentary are tired of political mediocrity and leaders that shout they speak for all Canadians when I am clearly not conservative.

I voted national Democratic which to many might make me socialist but it offered an opportunity for the middle class to recover and that is where my family came from. How could so many people be duped into supporting Harper again when he was responsible for the slashing of jobs across Canada specifically in the lumber and iron ore and their dependent industries?

The green party offered a glimmer of hope and became an actual party but how can you have a leader of a party wanting to sell out to the liberals and National Democrats and want to lead a party at the same time. Or did she just want to manage an advocacy group? So this party did get votes but no seats in Ottawa.

Dion was a total nerd for his carbon tax proposal that was a knife in his side and cost him his leadership. But his lack of leadership and English speaking skills is what really put the frosting on his demise.

Harper on the other hand is not increasing his hold on the province he so dearly needs to turn his minority government into a majority, Quebec. Recent polls have shown his popularity has slumped to 18 from 25 % while the Bloc is remaining strong. There is an element of immaturity, which will cost Duceppe's gain in the province. He was asked to account for his political record over the past 18 years by a conservative MP and called the man an imbecile over national television. IT does go to show you that Duceppe knows nothing of facing his opponent with self-assuredness and try to account for what his party did or did not do during that time instead of flaring up.

The National Democratic party has my support. They are bent on getting jobs back to Canadians especially those of middle class families without the rhetoric of the PM. Harper has been heard to say that those constituents hit by the job shortages and cut-backs should invest in stocks! He mentioned that there are jobs everywhere! Well people in the steel and forestry industry who have seen further downsizing since Harper has been in power don't think so.

We in Canada are largely disillusioned with the money laundering politics of the Liberal party. Martin never accounted for his poor financial balance and the Conservatives who are reminiscent of the Russian old guard status quo are taking advantage of this drop in liberal favoritism. For the first time in many years the Conservatives are gaining votes in Quebec because of a power vacuum there. The fact that most Quebecois are against the policies for a separate French province is also helping him and the liberal leader is totally deficient in being able to hold any proper discourse to bring an economic recovery to the province. The carbon tax is a total absurdity. The Conservatives will continue to keep the oil gluttonous companies happy and little will be done to reach Kyoto accords or see a real change in what cars run on the roads. This does not sound too distant from Russian styled politics aimed at feeding the public lies on what they need and keeping the average citizen away from knowing our real foreign political intentions.

I am encouraged to know that communism has failed in Eastern Europe probably not by the reasons that we are fed but by the futility in their maintaining a dominant sphere in regions, which hitherto did not want the rule of one party politics which modern communism is privy to.

One has to know that living in a capitalist society dies not mean I have a free choice in determining what the future can be but I can fight the status quo, express my opinion without fear of being arrested as an "enemy of the state". To keep this country free of ever becoming a place where one party rules means that I should be able to make tangible choices and this is not the case. Whichever party wins power I am likely to support the continued deployment of Canadian troops in an undeclared war. I am also indirectly supporting energy giants like Exxon who have the government in their pocket by continuing got to push for more oil and gas drilling when we are supposed to be moving for more energy friendly sources.

One has to know how capitalism has been able to survive whereas communism in the form of Soviet Bloc style or Maoist leadership hasn't. Man has a natural tendency in wanting to own what he has and not be dictated to about how he has to get there. Man will often follow a model and the model of sharing appeared to be practical and simple enough at the start but it favored the politicians who became corrupt and funneled wealth to themselves like the late Romanian leader Ceausescu did before being hung for his crimes against the state in 1989.

Much of what was intended as communism is not what Marx and Engel intended. I used to say that if they were aware of the Gulag that was set of for "prisoners of conscience would have turned over in their graves. If anything their socialist thought from which communism came to be last century was not intended as a model for imprisonment so that individuals who want to speak out for their independent rights must be imprisoned and punished. It came to be interpreted as an oligarchic form of government that kept the people on the lowest rung of the social scale in that position. Consequently it allowed for little movement up the social scale.

It is important to understand on what basis communism was created so that researchers can work around it and devise a system that is going to be fair for the general public. After all we work on percentages where there is a growing sense of discontent among the educated class that they cannot reach their goals because they have been arbitrarily eliminated from any competition or because their degrees suddenly become useless as younger people are giving the opportunity enter into the job market without sufficient experience. Additional friction is being caused by language obligations imposed by the province on new immigrants who are only contributing to the welfare of the whole province. The province has set out language police to monitor immigrant-operated businesses and this smacks of something out the ex-Soviet Union.

I do not know what went on in the Soviet Union as far as respecting a person"s educational level but on this side of the Atlantic, I think our government is soviet like that in the way foreign policy is explained to foreigners. One shouldn't forget that the Soviets used their Brezhnev doctrine to go into Afghanistan by force and we are doing the same with a cover up story of bringing peace and prosperity to the country. We are only fueling the corrupt practices of maintaining cocaine poppy fields and keeping the local farmers from growing what they want to!

We also have to deal with such an unanswerable government that sends soldiers to Afghanistan just as the average non-violent Russian had to, when an unpopular war started in 1979 as the Soviets invaded their poorer neighbour. In a capitalist democracy where the average citizen pays taxes to maintain the deployment of soldiers in an open ended war, I should be able to have a few questions answered and none of the psychobabble that the mainstream media controlled by the government feeds us.

McCain has also been critical over Obama's call for a freeze on drilling off the coast when he has not been working on making alternative fuel and vehicles that use them, a reality in the states. Otherwise America will always be dependent on the very nations they cannot control. Amazing how he had the nerve to desire a debate with Obama after the primaries and before the elections especially when the popularity over continued war in south Asia is not good. Americans are busy bombing civilians in a never-ending struggle.

Clinton is indirectly in the race even though she gave up to Obama in July. In fact one wonders whether she is supportive of Obama because she is just looking for her own spotlight because she was certainly vehement about his political outlook when they were running for Democratic nomination. It is a pity for democratic voters who should have been united against the Republican alternative that has no sense of what the economy is about. A recent question period on the economy made McCain look unknowledgeable to say the least.

Such was the case for Pete Seeger a peace activist who contributed largely for the cleaning up along the Hudson River. His initiative brought attention to the polluted river such that its popularity has been restored. The singer was accused of favoring communism since he was anti-war and opposed the Vietnam involvement. How could he not have been patriotic by wanting to contribute to his own homeland?

The same can be said for Bruce Springsteen who has also been dubbed as non-patriotic. Yet he is also concerned with the improvement of life in areas of America that have become downtrodden.

There are other performers, now long gone who were also accused of being unpatriotic like Charlie Chaplin. Unfortunately his move back to the UK was a loss to Hollywood as far as I am concerned.

Republican politicians should be aware of these gifted artists and others who contribute to their country through peaceful means. They should be reminded about their own Bill of Rights where diverse opinions and political opinions can be expressed. War has never been a lasting solution for peace and taking away one's freedom to speak freely is not a democratic solution for peace either.

After Russia counter attacked the Georgians in the region of South Ossetia, they went deeper into the country to capture key points linking the east and west side of the country.

Their military presence is still being felt after they destroyed much of the central city of Gori and other cities along the east-west route. They have also captured the port of Poli and are going through its port facilities perhaps in search of weapons that might have been used to widen the conflict. Georgia is a sovereign nation; too bad it did not get into the NATO membership before the conflict otherwise the Russian would have thought differently from exasperating a conflict which could have ended with their capture of the so-called pro-Russian province of South Ossetia. Personally I don't know how pro-Russian that province is, but I do know that passports were given out to its residents perhaps to rekindle an animosity between Ossetians and Georgians? So who is the aggressor then?

The mayor who resigned over the issue and then returned to fight change, doesn't like the idea of the town turning into an evacuation center, so he said initially but when he was further interviewed up came an issue I did not want to hear concerning the presence of Canadians in their area. In other words all the mayor had to say from the beginning was that he would be against the setting up of a relief center or any foreign funded project that would invite Canadians into the country to help former New Orleans residents regain a livelihood. Obviously the donor of the project went about the project with a profit in mind, which wouldn't in this capitalist world.

Today the mayor is against the building of the community center but the town council is for the building of it. I would be in favor of the center, which would help evacuees that is not going to put a realistic burden on the town. Maybe had the word evacuee has turned a good deal sour. People should be educated not be fearful even though there are references to those new residents being potentially dangerous to the former residents. Violence can happen anywhere and is independent of race. Black people no longer need the validation of a white person to get ahead in life. All this has to do with a terrible past and the distinction between plantation owners and their slaves in the American south. It all has to do with a previous history of race relations. Solve that and the experiment of Canadaville will be solved, regardless of what the mayor of Summerville thinks.