Anyway, our spammer this week is Zam Taamar.
Thanks Zam. We salute you.
The Hek
FROM THE DESK OF MR.YARO OJO.
AUDITING AND ACCOUNTING MANAGER,
BANK OF AFRICA,(B.O.A)
OUAGADOUGOU-BURKINA FASO,
WEST AFRICA.
DEAR FRIEND,
I AM MR.YARO OJO,THE AUDITTING MANAGER OF BANK OF AFRICA BURKINA
FASO.DURING MY INVESTIGATION AND AUDITTING IN THIS BANK,I CAME ACROSS A VERY
HUGE SUM OF MONEY BELONGING TO A DECEASED PERSON WHO DIED ON JULY 2002
IN A PLANE CRASH AND THE FUND HAS BEEN DORMANT IN HIS ACCOUNT WITH THIS
BANK WITHOUT ANY CLAIM, EITHER FROM HIS FAMILY OR RELATIONS.THE SAID
AMOUNT IS U.S$1.5m(ONE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS).
MEANWHILE ALL THE WHOLE ARRANGEMENT TO PUT CLAIMS OVER THIS FUND AS THE
BONAFIDE NEXT OF KIN TO THE DECEASED,GET THE REQUIRED APPROVAL AND
TRANSFER THIS MONEY TO A FOREIGN ACCOUNT HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE.THE
TRANSFER OF THIS FUND WILL REQUIRE A SECOND PARTY WHO WILL FORWARD CLAIMS AS
THE NEXT OF KIN TO THE BANK AND ALSO PRESENT A FOREIGN ACCOUNT WHERE THE
FUND WILL BE TRANSFERRED AFTER PAYMENT APPROVAL IS GRANTED.THE REQUEST
OF A FOREIGNER AS NEXT OF KIN IN THIS BUSINESS IS OCCASSIONED BY THE
FACT THAT THE CUSTOMER WAS A FOREIGNER AND A BURKINABE CANNOT STAND AS
NEXT OF KIN TO A FOREIGNER.
MOREOVER,I WILL NOT FAIL TO INFORM YOU THAT THIS TRANSACTION IS 100%
RISK FREE.YOU WILL BE ENTITLED TO 30% OF THE TOTAL SUM AS
GRATIFICATION,WHILE 10% WILL BE SET ASIDE TO TAKE CARE OF EXPENSES THAT MAY ARISE
DURING THE TIME OF TRANSFER,60% WILL BE FOR ME.I WILL BE MONITORING THE
WHOLE TRANSACTION HERE IN THIS BANK UNTIL YOU CONFIRM THE TOTAL FUND IN
YOUR ACCOUNT.CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY IF YOU ARE INTRESTED AND CAPABLE TO
HANDLE THE TRANSACTION.
I AM URGENTLY WAITING FOR YOUR MAIL.
BEST REGARDS,
MR.YARO OJO.
Hello,
It is out of desperation I am sending you this email. I would like to
remain anonymous for now till I am able to trust your confidentiality
in
this matter.
My husband and I need your help to front for us as owners of funds that
are his which might come under investigation if the funds ownership is
not
changed soonest as my husband's finances are increasingly becoming the
source of investigation by our Detractors.
The source of this fund, which my husband’s earnings would not
validate,
will further sink him into the cesspool dug by our enemies. It is
because
of the dire situation we find ourselves that we resolve to reach you
and
ask for your assistance in this matter.
It is only customary in Africa when one occupies a high position like
my
husband did, to enjoy the privilege of being presented with
gratifications
sometimes through the award of contracts especially by companies that
came
into operation during his tenure. But due to the recent plot by our
detractors towards my husband, hence we immediately wish to move some
funds away that his income cannot account for and which came in form of
gratification while he was in office.
We are averse to letting those we know here in my country into this
transaction because we are no longer sure who our friends are. You will
be
handsomely rewarded if you choose to help us in partnership in this
deal.
I will be expecting to hear from you as soon as possible, and will
disclose further details to you upon your response. Do well not to
disclose the content of this mail to anyone please.
Best Regards,
Mrs. Lindiwe Zuma.
On Oct. 10, the people of
There are a number of reasons why voters should choose the existing system over the proposed MMP system. Here are mine in no particular order.
- With MMP, the number of seats in Queen’s Park will increase. Currently, there are 107 seats. With the MMP system, there would be 129 seats. Our tax dollars pay the salaries of the 107 Provincial Parliament Members (MPPs). If the MMP system goes into effect, our taxes will increase in order to cover the salaries of the additional 22 MPPs. More people in the Provincial legislature means more agendas and more gridlock. Bills will take longer to pass. The process of government will be slowed down. It’s a simple matter of having more pigs at a trough (No, I am not calling politicians pigs. I’m using the term as a figure of speech). There is already not enough resources for everyone and with more people, there will be even less. Do we really want our tax dollars to pay more salaries and then watch as the Government process gets even slower? I sure don’t.
- With MMP, the number of ridings in
- With MMP, there would be 90 local members and 39 list members. The list members are awarded seats in the legislature based on the “popular vote” (MMP allows you to vote twice; once for a local member candidate and once for a party). For example, if the Liberals received 46% of the popular vote, they would get about 17-18 seats out of the 39 available seats. Voting for a candidate and a party does seem nice and does give the impression of having a fair result. However, it’s a back-handed approach. In fact, being a list member in the provincial legislature would be a back-door approach. To be a local member, you would have to knock on doors, attend many events and festivals, shake lots of hands, debate with your fellow candidates, and spend a lot on signs and pamphlets. To be a list member, all you would have to do is be friends with lots of important figures, have a generous cheque book, give your opinion once in a while, and (possibly) be an expert in ass-kissing and brown-nosing. You wouldn’t even have to deal with constituents. If I was a local member, I would be pissed if I had to do all this hard work just to be elected and get a seat in the legislature, while the person next to me is a list member, and all he had to do to get a seat in the legislature was donate to the party and help the leader move some furniture. I realize that’s hypothetical, but not matter how you look at it, it’s still unfair.
- Sure, the MMP’s party vote allows fringe parties the chance to have a spot at Queen’s Park. Sure, it gives the impression that there might be a fairer result. However, voters would not choose the list members! The MMP system would allow us to choose how the 39 list member seats are divided up, but it doesn’t allow us to decide who gets to sit in those seats. List members are chosen only by the party. That’s not fair! We live in a democracy. Therefore, it is our right to choose who represents us and who runs our government. It should be that way with every political system in
- Yes, the MMP system gives the Green Party the chance of having representation in the legislature. I understand that. I would like to see the Green Party have an official voice. However, it would be wrong for the Greens to get seats through a back-door approach. If the Green Party wants to have a seat at Queen’s Park, they have to earn it. In order to earn it, they have to go out to every single riding with a candidate, meet people, shake hands, preach their policies, and be elected. The people should choose whether or not a Green Party candidate gets a seat in the legislature. Choosing the party but not getting to express which candidate represents the party is wrong.
- Popularity is a measurement that should have no value. It is also very subjective. What could be popular to me is unpopular to someone else. The Liberals might only be popular with a particular group. The Conservatives might only be popular with a different group. Just because something is popular does not necessarily mean it’s the right thing to choose. Pierre Trudeau was a popular Prime Minister, but it does not mean he was the best Prime Minister. Leonard Cohen is one of the best songwriters of all time, but it does not mean he’s one of the most popular songwriters. Brittany Spears is one of the most popular singers of all time, but it does not mean she’s the best singer. By having voters decide on a party - essentially deciding the most popular political party - the MMP system will lead to subjective results. It could also lead to the possibility of a party winning the most ridings, but losing an election because another party won fewer ridings but received more “party/popular votes.” That’s not fair. Something as subjective as popularity should not be considered when deciding something as important as the next Government. This is why we need to keep the existing First Past The Post system because it is objective. It spells everything out in black and white. The candidate with the most votes wins the riding. The party with the most ridings forms the Government.
- Numerous times I hear, “I like this candidate, but I don’t like the party he/she represents.” Hey, that happens. Sometimes, you have to choose a necessary evil. It would be unfair to penalize a strong candidate just because you do not like the candidate’s party. It is also unfair to vote for a candidate and then vote for a different party that goes against everything the candidate stands for. I hate to use clichés, but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
I will be voting for our existing system. I admit, the First Past The Post system is not perfect. However, it is more stable then the MMP system. The MMP system will only lead to greater imperfections and a dangerous amount of subjectivity.
For more information on the Referendum, visit www.yourbigdecision.ca
U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, already under fire from fellow Democratic candidates for his supposed inexperience and unguarded comments on American foreign policy issues, is raising eyebrows again after vowing to call "the president of Canada" if elected to the White House to begin renegotiating terms of the NAFTA trade deal.
The titular miscue came Tuesday night during a discussion of trade and labour issues at a Democratic debate in the Illinois senator's home base of Chicago.
"I would immediately call the president of Mexico, the president of Canada, to try to amend NAFTA, because I think that we can get labour agreements in that agreement right now," Obama said. "And it should reflect the basic principle that our trade agreements should not just be good for Wall Street; it should also be good for Main Street."