Archives

All posts for the month April, 2010

Definitely a feel good interview from CTS Television’s Always Good News, a newscast which prides itself on reporting on the brighter side of life.

Connie Smith’s interview is definitely a breath of fresh air when compared to the one done by ABC’s Charlie Gibson, a purely partisan affair which was edited to portray Palin as ill-informed and unintelligent.

Thanks to Blazing Cat Fur for posting this video. It definitely helps with all the nonsense we are seeing on a daily basis on both sides of the border.

UPDATE: I would like to say a little more about Connie Smith’s professionalism in this interview. Although her and Sarah Palin disagree on socialized health care, Smith showed far more character than others in the media who would take any opportunity to smear the former Alaskan Governor. Unlike Smith, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews lacks even an ounce of character, something he proved today by attacking Palin for being “a professional ignorant”. Stay classy Matthews… Pathetic…

UPDATE: Sky News’s Robert Nisbet is pushing a story about how, according to Steve Schmidt, that all of Sarah Palin’s answers for the televised debate with Joe Biden were all scripted. While off topic, I would like to discuss my feelings on this pseudo-fiasco, especially since there is no end in sight to these anti-Palin attacks. First off, Nisbet is grasping at straws if he thinks anyone will take what Schmidt has to say seriously. Even before Sarah’s book, Going Rogue: An American Life hit the stands, Schmidt has been trying to protect what’s left of his reputation by attacks her’s. He has been linked to one falsified story after another about former Governor and no serious reporter is paying attention to this nonsense anymore. Nisbet does himself, as well as his news agency as disservice by publishing this story. That isn’t all however…

After reading the comments for this article, it is clear that too many Americans still believe Sarah Palin is some stupid fake who has no right running for any public office, especially not for President of the United States. As we are seeing with Barack Obama, voters, encouraged by a partisan media, elected an ill-informed and highly inexperienced candidate to lead. How is it that he is experienced enough to be President while lacking the executive experience Palin has in abundance? As for claims of her stupidity, I think her list of accomplishments, especially the Alaskan Pipeline, show that she is far from the intellectual inferior that mainly in the media try to portray her as.

I like watching interviews with Sarah Palin, especially this one with Connie Smith I posted, because it shows her to be what many of us have known since John McCain put her on the ticket; a bright, enthusiastic woman with a deep affection for her state and country. It is because she is such an honest and genuine person that so many want to see her fail, as Nisbet’s story proves. Even without a credible source, this pathetic excuse for a reporter will do whatever he can to smear Palin…

This campaign against the former Governor has gone on long enough and it makes those involved look downright pathetic… Mind-boggling…

This is the speech President Barack Obama gave last December 28th from Kailua, Hawaii. Skip to the five minute mark when he discusses the Iranian protests…

“As I said in Oslo, it’s telling when governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation.”

As Ed Morrissey reported Friday, President Obama said that Arizona was being “irresponsible” for passing an immigration reform bill which makes illegal immigration a crime in the state. Why is Barack so concerned with the aspirations of Arizonans? They simply want to counter the tide of illegal immigration that has brought so much crime to their state. Instead of being concerned about the threat posed to Israel by a nuclear armed Iran, the Obama administration is focusing its attention on whether or not illegal immigrants will have their civil rights violated by this new state law (being illegal immigrants, they don’t have any rights, but that is far to complicated an idea for Barack and his supporters to figure out).

What was it that he said again about governments fearing the aspirations of their own people? Pathetic…

UPDATE: It just keeps getting better, doesn’t it? Even with the White House admitting that the Arizona law is due in part to the failure of Congress to enact meaningful and comprehensive immigration reform at the national level, the Department of Justice is still reviewing the legislation that was passed last week in Arizona. Hot Air’s Allahpundit has more, as well as video of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs trying to justify the Obama administration’s position on this new state law… Mind-boggling…

For those who enjoyed reading my first term paper I posted, or for those looking for assistance on a paper they are writing on Sino-Soviet relations during the Cold War, here is my term paper for Professor Jacok Kovalio’s HIST 3805A – Twentieth Century China: From Tiananmen to Tiananmen. I learned a lot during my time in Kovalio’s class, and while the final exam didn’t go as well as I hoped, he is one of the better history professors at Carleton University. As with the previous post, I have included the bibliography to not only support what I wrote in this paper, but to give those looking at writing their own papers a good starting point. I would hate to have to remind those intending to pass this paper off as their own that such fraud is can get one expelled from university. This post is a starting point and nothing more.

*****

The Cold War was a conflict between ideologies. Following the defeat of the Axis powers in World War Two, the world was divided into two radically different political spheres, separated by an “Iron Curtain”, with democratic nations united against those that embraced communism. It seemed natural that Joseph Stalin’s Soviet Union and Mao Zedong’s People’s Republic of China would form an alliance, but it would be short-lived. This essay will examine the Sino-Soviet relations from the Second World War to President Richard Nixon’s visit to Beijing in 1972, explaining why this alliance, once believed to be strong, turned into a bitter rivalry during the height of the Cold War.

To say that the Soviet Union was always an ally of Mao Zedong would be incorrect. During the Second World War, Stalin had actually been a supporter of Chiang Kai-Shek, the leader of the Nationalist Party of China and Mao’s political enemy. It was at Stalin’s request that Mao formed an anti-Japanese alliance with Chiang’s Nationalists during the Second World War. After the war ended Stalin requested that Mao not attempt to seize power. The Soviet Union signed a Treaty of Friendship and Alliance with the Nationalists which it wished to honour, so it could not support any effort by the Communist Party of China to oust Chiang’s government. A dispute between Chiang and Stalin over the USSR’s illegal occupation of Tannu Uriankhai, a province in Northern Mongolia, finally gave Mao his opportunity to seize power without Soviet inference. During the Chinese Civil War, Mao ignored both political and military advice given by Stalin and the Comintern, an international communist organization founded in Moscow in 1919, because unlike Russia, China lacked a large working class population. The country did, however, possess a large force of peasants, and it was through them that Mao would achieve his political goals. By October 1st, 1949, Mao had routed Chiang Kai-Shek’s Nationalist forces and had established the People’s Republic of China, with Beijing as its capital. The civil war left the country in ruins, and with Chinese hopes for a communist utopia fading, Mao turned to the Soviet Union for assistance. Mao believed the Soviet example was the one China should follow, and an alliance with the communist superpower would be in his country’s best interests. In 1950, the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship was the culmination of talks betweens Stalin and Mao, which provided China with a $300 million low-interest loan and a thirty year military alliance. With the help of Soviet advisers, China was able to begin the process of industrialization. This partnership was celebrated throughout China with various pro-Soviet displays, including traditional Russian style dancing. The People’s Republic of China was now a developing country, as well as one armed and trained by the Soviets, but it was treated as a tool by Moscow to continue its campaign of expanding the communist sphere of influence.

While this treaty demonstrated to the Western powers the unity of the Soviet bloc, the relationship between the two countries wasn’t without its problems. During his visit in 1950 Mao was kept waiting in Moscow for two months while Stalin attended to other matters. When the two finally met, the Chinese leader felt he wasn’t being treated as an equal partner. During negotiations, Mao felt not only that the Soviets were trying to annex parts of China, but that Stalin’s real aim was to place advisers within the Communist Party of China and thereafter take over the party and the government. Also during this time there was a divergence in propaganda between the Soviet Union and China. The Chinese claimed that Mao had made new contributions to Marxist-Leninist theory through his writings on China‘s Communist Revolution, claims the Soviets didn’t fully embrace. The ideological divisions caused friction between the two communist powers. American journalist and activist, Anna Louis Strong had written an article, “The Thought of Mao Tse-Tung”, and a book, Dawn Out of China, on Mao’s contribution to communist thought, both of which were banned within the USSR. Strong had also been given documents by Mao to show to communist party leaders within Europe and the United States, but suggested that she need not take them to Moscow. This signaled China’s decision to not only redefine itself and Marxist-Leninist theory, (moving away from the Soviet interpretation), but actually separating itself militarily and politically from the USSR. The People’s Republic couldn’t, however, split from their alliance with the Soviet Union while the United States was engaged in conflict with communist forces in Korea. Under pressure from Moscow, Chinese troops marched into North Korea and fought the American forces to a standstill.

The death of Joseph Stalin not only brought Nikita Khrushchev to power, but it had also caused friction between the Soviets and the Chinese Communists. Khrushchev pushed for a de-Stalinization of the USSR, and in doing so, he provided Chinese critics evidence of Soviet revisionism. Khrushchev would denounce his predecessor in his “Secret Speech” on February 25th, 1956, a speech given to a closed session of Congress which was limited to Soviet delegates. It wasn’t long, however, before transcripts of the speech were sent to Eastern European delegates, then copied and distributed throughout the Soviet Union. Soon afterwards, the “Secret Speech” reached Beijing, where it would fuel anti-Soviet opinion in China. In April 1956, a Beijing People’s Daily article attacked the Soviet Union, stating that the country made many mistakes under Stalin including an “excess in zeal in eliminating counterrevolutionaries“, the “lack of vigilance” before World War II, the failure to substantially develop agriculture, the mistreatment of Yugoslavia’s “apostasy” and “crudely” applying his political policies concerning China. While praising the leadership of Mao Zedong and claiming he was the true defender of Marxist-Leninist teachings, the article also criticized Stalin’s “cult of personality” and the use of mass media to create an idealized, heroic public image of the country’s leader. Ideological differences aside, Khrushchev was also troubled by Mao’s desire for conflict with the United States. He had been critical of Mao’s actions during the First Taiwan Strait Crisis, criticizing him for trying to initiate a superpower war with the United States. During a 1958 meeting between the two communist leaders, the Chinese leader said “Provoke the Americans into military action and I’ll give you as many divisions as you need to crush them.” Mao tried to prevent Khrushchev from seeking détente with the United States, even referring to the Second Taiwan Strait Crisis as “batons that keep Eisenhower and Khrushchev dancing, scurrying this way and that.” Friction began to develop between Moscow and Beijing over the latter’s desire to acquire nuclear technology and weaponry. Mao had expressed his belief to Khrushchev that China could survive a nuclear war.

If war breaks out, it is unavoidable that people will die. We have seen wars kill people. Many times in China’s past half the population has been wiped out… We have at present no experience with atomic war. We do not know how many must die. It is better if one-half are left, the second best is one-third… After several five-year plans [China] will then develop and rise up. In place of the totally destroyed capitalism we will obtain perpetual peace. This will not be a bad thing.

While the Soviets had been prepared to hand over an atomic bomb with documentation, cooling relations, as well as Mao’s comments on China’s ability to weather a nuclear war, kept them from doing so. With Moscow’s and Beijing’s ambitions now in conflict, the Soviets recalled their advisers from China.

Tensions between the two countries soon boiled over. In September of 1960, the Soviets made it clear that communist bloc countries should subordinate their national interests to preserve the “world of Communism” as “dogmatist” efforts were endangering it. It was clear these comments were directed at the Communist Party of China, signalling to them they should cease efforts to distance themselves from the Soviets. The USSR also criticized Mao’s commune and Great Leap Forward programs, both of which had done great social and economic damage to China. November of the same year, Deng Xiaoping criticized what he saw as the Soviet abandonment of communist principles.

The Soviet party is opportunist and revisionist; it lacks any deep knowledge of Marxism; its ideas about disarmament are absurd; peaceful coexistence could mean nothing, except as a tactical weapon to deceive the enemy; the Soviet idea of a division of labor among the countries of the socialist camp is wrong; and China must go her own way.

Mao openly criticized the USSR for not putting more pressure on the West, as well Soviet reluctance to engage Western powers in conflict, especially after the Soviets developed intercontinental ballistic missiles. Chinese criticism at this time was also directed at the Soviets for their denouncement of Enver Hoxha, the communist leader of the People’s Republic of Albania. China had formed an alliance with Albania in direct opposition to the USSR, criticizing various Soviet practices, including the demanding of interest payments on loans made to communist countries. Because of this, the USSR broke off formal relations with Albania the following month. By 1961, it was clear that relations between Moscow and Beijing had broken down, and the two powers were openly quarrelling with each other. In 1962, Mao openly criticized Khrushchev’s efforts during the Cuban Missile Crisis, saying that “Khrushchev has moved from adventurism to capitulationism”. Even after Leonid Brezhnev deposed Khrushchev and became the new Soviet leader in 1964, following a visit to Moscow by Jou Enlai, the Chinese Premier, Mao stated that it was “Khrushchevism without Khrushchev”.

While the Vietnam war had allowed for cooperation between the U.S.S.R. and China during the 1960s, it was now clear the two countries were on the brink of war. In January of 1967, as part of efforts for the Great Proletariat Cultural Revolution, Red Guard besieged the Soviet embassy in Beijing. On March 2nd, 1969, Chinese soldiers opened fire on Soviet border troops patrolling Zhenbao, killing thirty and injuring fourteen. On March 15th, Soviets responded by bombarding troop concentrations around Zhenbao. The conflict quickly subsided as both Moscow and Beijing wanted to avert all-out war between the two countries. Tensions were once again raised in May, however, when China accused the Soviets of trying to subvert the Uyghur population when nearly 60,000 ethnic Uyghurs crossed into the USSR, fleeing economic repression. In August 1969, concerned about China’s development of nuclear weaponry, the Soviet Committee for State Security, Komitet gosudarstvennoy bezopasnosti or KGB, asked U.S. officials at the State Department what would the United States do if the USSR attacked and destroyed China’s nuclear installations. It was clear to the United States that the Soviet Union and China were no longer allies, but instead of allowing the two to continue hostilities, American President Richard Nixon decided he would use this to his advantage. Although China was considered less trust worthy than the Russians, America opened discussions with China in the hope they would be able to use the Chinese to put political pressure on the Soviets. With the United States planning to withdraw forces from South Vietnam, they needed an ally to counter the increasing Soviet presence within Southeast Asia. Northern Vietnamese forces were being aided by Moscow, and while China was still in a military alliance with the Soviet Union, their relationship had become fractured. The first diplomatic meeting between the United States and the People’s Republic of China occurred in 1971 with Dr. Henry Kissinger’s trip to meet with Jou Enlai. This secret meeting helped lay the ground work for Nixon’s visit the following year. Fearing a Sino-American alliance, the USSR yielded to American pressure for détente.

President Nixon’s visit to China not only signalled the end of the alliance between the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China, it also helped ease tensions between China and the U.S,S.R. The fear of a partnership between the Americans and Chinese kept the Soviets at bay, while the opening of communication between China and America helped ease tensions between China and the Western powers. While initially united against everything the United States stood for, the Soviets and Chinese became divided due to the political and ideological differences of their respective leaders. Both countries fought for greater influence within the Soviet bloc, with the USSR pushing for a more practical approach to communism and China demanding communist purity. In the end it seemed that they were more worried about the threat the other posed than the threat posed to them by the United States.

Bibliography:
Declassified: Chairman Mao. Dir. Kosh. Ten Worlds Productions. The History Channel, 2006.

China: A Century of Revolution – Part 2: The Mao Years 1949-1976. Dir. Sue Williams. Zeitgeist Films. PBS, 2002.

Harold P. Ford. “Calling the Sino-Soviet Split.” Central Intelligence Agency. https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/docs/v42i5a05p.htm.

William Burr. “The Sino-Soviet Border Conflict, 1969: U.S. Reaction and Diplomatic Maneuvers.” The National Security Archive. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB49/.

Wikipedia Links:
“Sino-Soviet split.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_Split.
“Nikita Khrushchev.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev.
“Enver Hoxha.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enver_Hoxha.
“Sino-Soviet border conflict.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_border_conflict.
“Richard Nixon.” Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon.

*****

What I found interesting about this project was that the Cold War wasn’t this simple “United States versus Soviet Union” fight, but a three-way conflict that included the People’s Republic of China as a dangerous and unpredictable third superpower. In the 1960′s, Moscow’s attention was centered on the threat Chairman Mao posed, especially with his desire to possess and use nuclear weapons. The military alliance between the Soviets and the Chinese had broken down, and it was in part thanks to former President Richard Nixon that an outright conflict between these two communist powers never occurred. Cooler heads did prevail, but let’s not forget how close we did come to all-out nuclear war.

What can be gained from examining this past? Well, with the exception of Mao Zedong’s anti-Western and anti-Soviet beliefs, the majority of those involved in the Cold War simply wished to maintain this state of non-conflict to maintain political and economic control. Nuclear weapons were and are kept to deter outright conflict between superpowers, but only countries that have shown that they have the restraint necessary to not use them should have them. This is why the Soviets were so concerned about China getting weapons while Mao held the reigns of power. While it the Americans never officially announced whether or not they would allow or oppose Soviet efforts to prevent China from obtaining these weapons, I believe that if it did come down to it, the United States wouldn’t have stepped in to prevent the USSR from attacking Chinese nuclear facilities. I also believe the same could be said about whether or not Russia and/or China would step in to prevent the United States from attacking Iranian nuclear facilities as Iran has expressed a desire to possess and use nuclear weapons. To prevent all-out nuclear war, alliances will be broken with the radical Islamic regime. This is exactly what we saw when Mao discussed his desire to start a war with the United States.

While the Cold War is over, tensions still remain. Superpowers rarely agree on international politics, and we have seen recently that they tended to butt heads over a variety of issues, be it domestic or foreign. In the end, all of them wish to not only maintain their current position of power, but increase their sphere of influence, though not at the cost of human lives. Battles between superpower in the twenty-first century are more about economics than military, and the more interconnected economies become, the less likely it is that we will see an outright conflict between the United States, Russia and China.

Mao wouldn’t be able to recognize his country now, and I am sure that makes many people, especially those in China, happy.

This from Liz White at Newsweek…

On Tuesday night’s The Daily Show With Jon Stewart, Stewart discussed a new book, A New American Tea Party: The Counterrevolution Against Bailouts, Handouts, Reckless Spending, and More Taxes, with its author, John O’Hara. O’Hara drops the O word—”Obamacare”—several minutes into the discussion about whether the tea-party movement is or is not antigovernment.

Stewart immediately jumps on O’Hara’s slip, calling him out on using the “derogatory” phrase and firing back by referring to O’Hara’s book as a “tea-bagger book.” O’Hara stammers for a few seconds and tries to defend his word choice, but concedes to calling it the health-reform bill instead. (It’s a law, by the way.)

Last month, I took on this same issue. Should the bill be called Obamacare, or is that phrase, as Stewart puts it, derogatory by nature?

Since its passing, so-called Obamacare has become a more mainstream term for the health bill, but it still hasn’t overcome its negative beginnings. The search results are still overwhelmingly negative, but it has made its way into several NEWSWEEK stories over the past couple of weeks.

Writers and journalists might find the term useful—it’s catchy and easier to write—but it isn’t likely to shed its unfavorable connotation, especially with partisan voices like O’Hara dropping it into conversation.

Notice how Jon Stewart used the term “tea-bagger”, a derogatory term that refers to a specific sexual practice. Hypocrisy is definitely Stewart’s strong suit, but while I could spend numerous blog posts pointing outlining this fact, that is not what I am here to discuss. ObamaCare is called ObamaCare. Everyone refers to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as ObamaCare because it was the Obama administration, headed by President Barack Obama, that pushed this. This is the same with Mitt Romney and Massachusetts health care reform, called RomneyCare, and Hillary Clinton and the Clinton health care plan which she pushed as First Lady, called HillaryCare. If you are the champion of it, your name gets attached to it, and here is the problem for those like Stewart. They know Obama’s poll numbers are sliding, as the latest Quinnipiac poll reports, and being supporters of him, they are trying to put some distance between their President and this legislation. The problem is they can’t, especially with all the speeches Obama is giving patting himself on the back for it and the other legislation he has passed.

Stop this nonsense Stewart, it exposes you as the purely partisan political hack you are. No more of this “clown nose on, clown nose off” idiocy… MAN UP OR SHUT UP!

UPDATE: Hot Air’s Allahpundit is talking about this now. Jim Treacher at The Daily Caller is also discussing it. I don’t know if Jon Stewart wanted all this attention for his idiotic remarks, but now we are having a discussion on the issue. Suffice to say, I am sticking to my belief that this is a pathetic attempt to distance Obama from the unpopular legislation he championed. Once again, the term “ObamaCare” has caught on and it is being used by a lot of political commentators. If he is trying to prevent the use of this word, it is too late, especially after more than a year of it being used by various media outlets, columnists and bloggers. When even columnists for liberal publications like Newsweek are scratching their heads over Stewart’s comment, it is pretty clear that the terminology is here to stay… Mind-boggling…

UPDATE: Just how “in the tank” is Jon Stewart for Barack Obama? It was The Daily Show’s writers who wrote those surprisingly funny jokes the President read at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. Though it is very much a puff piece, Llyod Grove at The Daily Beast has more information on what happened at the dinner.

If I am going to tear out President Barack Obama for this nonsense, This from the National Post.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty defended the province’s new sex education curriculum Tuesday, saying children as young as eight years old should be learning about a variety of issues, including gender identity and sexual orientation.

“I think I speak with an understanding of the information available to children today. They are going to get this information. We [can] provide it in a format and in a venue in which we have some control, or they can just get it entirely on their own and be informed by potentially uninformed sources like their friends at school.”

The revised curriculum, which will be implemented in Ontario schools beginning in the fall, will see Grade 3 students being taught about gender identity and sexual orientation. This is the first time this topic has been specified in the sex education curriculum.

Students in Grade 6 will learn about masturbation and wet dreams while those in Grade 7 will be taught about oral and anal sex.

I received a call from the Ontario PC Party, asking whether or not I would vote for Tim Hudak in the upcoming provincial election. Being a registered Liberal, having voted for McGuinty in the past, I said that I didn’t know who I would vote for, but that has changed. The Premier of Ontario has lurched to the left since taking office, and now we see how far it has come, allowing these so-called experts to educated young children on gender identity and sex orientation. These are children who haven’t the ability to understand these concepts, especially not sexual orientation. The same goes with all this nonsense about sex changes for children as young as twelve, it is the result of so-called “experts” pushing their twisted views on sexuality on school children. There is no other way I can describe it.

Am I saying no sexual education at all? Of course not. As I have stated before, I wanted to sit down with my students in Nantong and teach them the basics, especially safe sex practices. When they are handing out coupons for abortions, on top of the discount they already offer to students, there is a problem. The difference is that these were college students, and were more than old enough to understand what was being taught to them.

Young children on the other hand, lack this basic understanding, and therefore do not benefit from any sexual education before a certain age. In my opinion, forcing sexuality on young children is akin to child abuse. We have teachers who are uncomfortable and not quiet informed on the subject matter teaching fairly advanced concepts to children, many of which are still having trouble with basic mathematics and spelling, who are now forced to examine their own sexual identity and sexual orientation. It is because of puberty that we are able to understand these things as we become aware to them with the changes our bodies undertake, both physically and psychologically. We know this because of our own personal experience, not simply because this is, or was the prominent psychological view on age and sexuality. Ontarians don’t need deranged therapists dictating what should be taught in the classroom, especially since parents not only have the right to decide what their children should learn and when they should learn them, but the obligation to sit down with their son or daughter to have this discussion on sexuality. In my opinion at least, they will benefit far more from this than having a stranger talk force this information on an uncomfortable child.

As we saw with the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools at the U.S. Department of Education Kevin Jennings, the same man who praised NAMBLA enthusiast Harold Hay, this kind of nonsense only leads to trouble. I demand we know who these experts that McGuinty has turned to for his sexual education curriculum are. I want to know whether or not they subscribe to any of this radical nonsense before they are allowed to educate anyone’s children. As Blazing Cat Fur said, “If the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation then why do they insist on planting their vision of the bedroom in the minds of children?” We want answers McGuinty and we want them NOW!

If the Ontario Liberal Party wants to push this nonsense before an election, I will be voting for Tim Hudak. I will not tolerate this nonsense any longer especially in Ontario, MY province. Disgusting…

UPDATE: I forgot to mention it in my original post, but after receiving criticism over this new sexual education curriculum, Dalton McGuinty has backed off his reform plan. With an election around the corner, it is no surprise, but my comments are unchanged. They wanted to teach young children about sex and just because their plans have been, at the very least, put on hold, the Ontario Liberal Party doesn’t get a pass on this nonsense. We know where you stand on this issue McGuinty, and you will be punished for it at the ballot box. Pathetic…