Concerned

A number of months ago, before the arrival of my third baby (ya, since he has been born you can bet there hasn't been much time for posting !) .... I commented in certain strings that I felt under the Bush Administration it seemed to me that democracy had been on a down-hill slide in America and that the events leading up to 911 and Iraq were sorely affected by a power hungry government. I have recently come across a book by Miller, "Cruel and Unusual" who is an expert in this debate and who outlines many interesting facts and opinion in his book. In particular his criticism of the press, its biases, and lack of responsibility to the American public is excellent. Has anybody read it ?

Your statement illustrates the entire problem: no one absolutely needs to buy a detached home in Vancouver for $600,000. A two or three bedroom condo in the $200-300K range provides adequate housing for most people. All they need to do is adjust their expectations or move to a different city. I beleive that most people who insist they need two incomes to live are not being honest with themselves. What they really want are two incomes to support the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed and are not willing to sacrifice that lifestyle to support their children. That is why the gov't should never provide a universal daycare service because it simply encourages people to make bad choices that end up costing the tax payer a lot of money. If anything, the gov't t should provide more incentives to encourage people to stay at home to take care of their own kids. Subsidized daycare, when it is available should be restricted to the truely working poor (i.e. single parent households with low income). A three bedroom condo in Vancouver would cost between 500 and 600K...sorry you're out of touch here.

Just be careful walking down stairs. System: Liberalism Variation: Moral Liberalism Ideologies: Progressivism US Parties: Democratic Party, Green Party Presidents: John F Kennedy (95.58%)

This is ridiculous. These people and VLT's are starting to get on my nerves. I can't believe that people will let themselves go that much, to where they have to put a gun to someones head and then sit down at the machines and play for awhile. I think everyone here is to blame, dumb in-bread people, VLT's, and the Government. What do you guys think??? I'm fuming right now.... I agree, get rid of them. And online poker ! And restrict casino gambling hours....why are they open till 5:00 am ?? This cannot be good for Canadian families.

I agree with you. The reason for the technology is to eliminate positions and improve productivty. Your reason for resisting the change is borne out of self-interest. The vast majority of the population will also look to their self-interest and use the devices to realize lower wait-times, and eventually lower product costs. People seem anxious to protect part-time service jobs like they are some essential part of the economy. They are not. The sooner we get rid of them the better. Let's use people for the things only people can be used for and not the things which can be done better by machines. When I was a kid, I earned money delivering newspapers, mowing lawns and shovelling snow. In the last 15 years, no kid has come to my house and offered to do those things. These are all now taken over by contracting companies. Personally, I'd much rather support the kid down the street, and at lower cost to me, but it doesn't seem like they want the work. I guess our society has become too wealthy and kids today don't care about doing that kind of work. However, it does seem that if people are looking at ways to earn extra income, there are plenty of ways out there. Our society needs more skilled workers. Unskilled jobs will all go by the wayside eventually. A good argument for further education. Canada should be investing in both technology and education, to improve society's productivity and to improve the average workers' standard of living, including the job experience.

NAME ONE !!! I had my knee done at Dr. Day's clinic in Vancouver, it was an excellent experience. Contrast that with having my third baby at bc women's hospital, supposedly the best hospital to have a baby.....they were extremely disorgnized, losing blood tests, losing paperwork, no communication between nurses (I had not less than 8 nurses assigned to me over a 16 hour period, it was a bloody waste of time and money) and this for a straight forward delivery and no complications........very poorly run, no wonder our health care is in such a mess.

Apparently kids have been carrying them to school since that is why the school went to the trouble of forbidding it.And Geoff, you (and others on this forum) have avoided the key question: Does anyone have any evidence of any incident from any school anywhere in which a kirpan was used to injure someone or threaten someone? Without such evidence, and as a purely practical question, the Supreme Court's decision seems perfectly justified. Ya, but do you have to prove that you are a Sikh to carry one of these things ? Any kid could carry one if a Sikh could carry one....I don't think you can discriminate. Dangerous equipment does not belong in school, nor do any religious symbols in my mind. Its ok to dress the way you wish but carrying knives, crosses, any type of symbolism is unnecessary in the schools. We have to be just as respectful of those people that believe that weapons are a symbol of violence as those who believe it is a symbol of a religion. Just keep the symbolism out of schools altogether.

Oh, and here's another example of how messed up things are with our med system.... Three years ago I tore my ACL ligament skiing. My doctor advised me about 1-2 year waiting period to have it fixed...or try Dr. Day, for $4,000 he'll fix it for you in his private clinic. Ok, so obviously I don't want to hobble around for 1-2 years, I take the 4K hit. Ironically, the clinic is not considered to be legal.....however I was able to write off the bill on my tax returns. Can anybody make sense out of that ??? Our system pretends to be public, and lets private enterprise run free as they can't do a thing about it, and won't because if they challenge it in court, the courts just may favour the private clinics and then they have an ugly precedent to deal with....well those cases are becoming more and more frequent and finally we have a situation that is going to be impossible to continue to ignore. Thank god for that.

There has got to be alot of money wasted on administration as we have one of the most expensive per capita systems in the world. I agree nurses are grossly underpaid. The system is really messed up for doctors too. Recently my girlfriend (doctor) moved to another city 400 kms away and had to take half her patient files with her as she couldn't find a home for them at another doctors office here. So how about living in North Vancouver and reporting that your family doctor is in Kamloops ?? Too often canadians look at the US for their fear based answer. Can we not think a little more globally then across the street? There are many systems out there rated better than ours, we are rated about 30th in the world. Why can't we look to another country and educate our population about the benefits of change to a system that is rated higher than ours and in fact costs less? Our government should be picking a model that is already in place, that is proven to work, and then driving our system towards it. Instead we are "muddling through" and getting all caught up in the Tommy Douglas anti - US crap..... We have no have had no national leaders on this issue, they all prefer to ignore it for political reasons. It was the one thing I had hoped Harper could help with as he is not afraid of partial privatization, a system which has been proven to work in other countries. We do not have universal health care if patients are not looked after and left to die on wait lists. My dad died of cancer because he was not treated promptly enough. Many others have and will continue to if we do not do something soon....

Probably wouldn't have kids if that was the situation, if someone can't stay home with them, then theres no point in just shipping them off to other people for them to be their parents. Up until school, a parent needs to be there, otherwise babysitter or daycare provider is definiltely going to have a closer bond than you with you child. That also depends on the employment situation at the time, if I could work out of the house with them, then most likely yes. I honestly don't see the point of having kids if your going to get someone else to raise them. Apparently the Canadian contempt for the family is growing with the support of these institutionalised daycares (not that I accuse you of holding these values Concerned, because obviously you don't support them). You mean if the woman can't stay home with them. But if you could work at home and focus on your career and ignore them while you are there, then you might consider it ? Ha ha. I support the choice of the parents, it is a personal decision, and nobody raises your kids but you. You can employ help but it is up to you to manage it. Better resources and more choices are really what parents need.

So Geoffrey, when you meet the career woman of your dreams, you are prepared to stay home and look after the kids ?? I voted none of the above in favour of a full tax write off. That way we all have the choice to do what we please and favouritism doesn't go to the small town stay at home mom that has no mortgage to pay.

Food is everything - without a reliable food supply no society can evolve beyond a primitive tribal existance. All human beings have the capacity for initiative and innovation that you talk about but only those humans with access to critical resources will be able to do much with those abilities. Most importantly, the drive to innovate is purely a cultural phenomena. Look at the case of China: the oldest civilization on earth that was the leader in technology until the 1500s. It fell behind the Europeans because of a cultural bias against a market economy (Confucian values placed merchants at the bottom of the social pyramid). China is now a rising power in the world because it has finally got over that cultural bias against free markets, however, it still has not figured out that democratic values and freedom of the press are also key cultural values of the successful western societies. You cannot argue that the failure of China over the last 400 years was genetic because Chinese have demonstrated the ability to lead in the past and Chinese that adopt European values are very successful (look at Taiwan and Hong Kong). This is a really good example because if you look at Chinese people living in the same society as us, you can see that they are very successful, innovative and demonstrate iniative just as well as white people do here... Black people in the US have been oppressed since they arrived in North America, racism held them down, and racism keeps them down. They are a generally uneducated population and they are victoms of the cycle of poverty that got them there in the first place. Given equal chances in equal environments to white people, they can be and are just as successful. And Betsy, crime is high anywhere that the population is uneducated and poor. It has nothing to do with being black or white. So I agree with Sparhawk, it all started somewhere, and some of us were better off to begin with than others, largely because of environment, which doesn't mean we are supreme in any way. If we give others the chance, they will be equal to us in our successes in life. It is attitudes like Leafless that promote ongoing societal problems. He is not promoting culture, there is no true white culture. Culture has to do with heritage, not colour of skin.

well I guess you just need a new circle of friends ! Keep looking , you will find. There are many women of good character. And probably the ones you meet are just fine, but they are growing up too, and are playing the games that we all played in our twenties....part of this is just learning to be comfortable with who they are. Be patient, and spend the time getting comfortable with who you are, you will eventually find somebody who will appreciate you.

I don't know about you Betsy, so many of your posts are in line with Margraces comments above. What are you exactly and what do you really stand for? Men are good at certain tasks at home and not at others. This is a fact most women have learned...men are not that adaptable around the homes, they have their limitations. However they have their strengths and are very good at certain stuff...mr. fix it stuff , the garbage, the remote control, you know what I mean. For the rest of it you hire a housekeeper at 10 bucks an hour. Get an education and go out into the workplace and make $30 plus. Take a few risks, that is the downfall of women, they just don't want to do stick their necks out a bit and manage instead of letting their lives drive them. When I said "I think we've been had!", I neglected to put a smiley to indicate it was a joke. But yes, I believe in some points that womens' movements are fighting for (and I find that based on their objectives, REAL WOMEN is the group that actually represents me...for I share the same values). So that's where I stand. But going back to working women, I sense that: Women who prefer and had chosen to stay at home to become TRADITIONAL wives and moms are somewhat made to feel that they are either being taken advantaged of or dominated by their spouses, that they are simpering morons who go along with the dictates of their husbands...and therefore do not have a voice in the matter of womens' rights agendas. The movement had evolved into something that had unintentionally somehow put a great deal of pressure on all women, in a negative way. I guess this was not really the intention when the movement first started...but it had taken on a different route. Concerned, please elaborate on this statement. I might've misunderstood what you mean so I'll keep my comment for now until I hear from you. "For the rest of it you hire a housekeeper at 10 bucks an hour. Get an education and go out into the workplace and make $30 plus. Take a few risks, that is the downfall of women, they just don't want to do stick their necks out a bit and manage instead of letting their lives drive them." Betsy, my point was in response to your statement: ...""The reason why a lot of women end up doing the chores is basically identical. Men are so clueless when it comes to cleaning...that either you put up with a sloppy job or end up doing the chore yourself. A lot of women cannot abide by the former, thereby they end up opting for the latter."" If women are at home because they want to be at home choring away on household tasks and spending more time with the children, good for them, I'm all for it. But if they are resentful of the fact that men can't or won't do the work they have to do, then get a housekeeper and get out and take some risks and make some serious money. Women do not have to be slaves to their homes or their families, some of them choose to be and that is their choice. Its not that I think that men should not contribute, its just that we all know when it comes to domestic detail, many of them just don't have those talents. Nor do I have the talent to fix things and I hate taking out the garbage...so I have a nanny, on top of my Mr. Fix it.... It sounds almost like reverse feminism that I have to hire a women and keep her in a 10 buck an hour job, but for her she has no choice but to do what she does....she is a foreigner with language issues and does not wish to do much else. So my point is, women, do your choring if you love it and if you don't, get some hired help, get an education, and get out and make a career for yourself. You can have both a successful and rewarding career and a happy family too, it is VERY possible.

Well Jamie, you are young and obviously just as confused as the girls you meet...and that's ok because its all part of growing up. And yes, women are very much pressured into the "looks" thing, despite if it is what they want or not. Scroll through a post on Belinda Stronach in this website and you will see that some men never grow out of this attitude!! When I was in university I went through a stage, for about a year or two, where I decided I was just going to be my pure and simple athletic self. Most of my best friends were biology buffs, and I joined them in their earthy looks..gave up all the make up and the rest of it. It was the deadest years of dating I've ever had ! I got more dates after my divorce at 40 then I did at 21 not wearing any makeup. So I guess women have to present themselves regardless, and if you are truly looking for that good hearted girl, why don't you look at some of the ones that do not wear the makeup and the short skirts and ignore the rest.....

I don't know about you Betsy, so many of your posts are in line with Margraces comments above. What are you exactly and what do you really stand for? Men are good at certain tasks at home and not at others. This is a fact most women have learned...men are not that adaptable around the homes, they have their limitations. However they have their strengths and are very good at certain stuff...mr. fix it stuff , the garbage, the remote control, you know what I mean. For the rest of it you hire a housekeeper at 10 bucks an hour. Get an education and go out into the workplace and make $30 plus. Take a few risks, that is the downfall of women, they just don't want to do stick their necks out a bit and manage instead of letting their lives drive them.

Within reason. Oh bollocks. Are you under the illusion that going to university makes one an intellectual? That it gives you a better awareness of society? I'm getting the idea you have very little life experience and a very small circle of acquaintances. Awe shucks, whad'ya mean Argus, everything I need to know I learned from my dog, my skateboard, and Alex Tribec !!

Whistler has excellent snow making capacity and in fact man made snow can be more consistent than the stuff that comes from the heavens, and better for competitive events. The rain, however, would be a problem. Usually not raining here in February, keep our fingers crossed on that one....

Oh my god Geoffrey I agree with you too ! What's happening to me. Your best point is that about the kids. The Olympics and its athletes are an inspiration for recreational athletes and having those facilities will only increase the number of participants in sport. This has very long term benefits for Canada as people who participate in sport on a regular basis live healthier lives than those who do not.

I beg to differ. I've seen hundreds of thousands of miles of highways. I've never seen a mile, or ten, that have jumped out to me as a killer highway. Driver error/apathy is the real problem. People do really stupid things in their cars every day and don't realize it. I can't count the number of times per day cars cut in front of me, stomp on their brakes in front of my truck and then turn right a fraction of a second before I would have hit them. What these people don't see is that that manoever put them within an inch of their losing their life. When a truck hits a car we don't count injuries, we count fatalities. Those who have tangled with a truck and lived to tell about it were the lucky recipient of a miracle. And what's really scary is that there are a lot of drivers that are even more careless around smaller vehicles. People aren't aware of the limitations of their vehicle - 4x4 drivers are the worst. They have no clue that though they can maintain a higher speed that they can't stop any faster. Still more people aren't aware of the limitations of the vehicles around them - specifically drivers of cars have no clue what larger vehicles can and cannot do and put their lives and the lives of others in danger because of it. People tailgate more today than I have ever seen. And if these factors were not enough, people are increasingly allowing themselves to be distracted by cell phones and other such devices. I'm not trying to say all of us truck drivers are innocent, because we're not. But we do have one thing on our side. We're not the ones causing most of the accidents. We cause only 30% of accidents compared to nearly 70% for drivers of cars. We drive over 1000 safe miles for every safe mile a car drives. Having said that, I think we all have much room for improvement. Yes, and the wreckless drivers and even those that don't understand their limitations are out there...and a safer road will decrease the number of accidents. You can't blame the road, I agree, however people don't drive cautiously enough for the Sea to Sky highway and therefore it needs to be fixed. Just because some yahoo can't drive doesn't mean my family should be wiped out by them. If it can be prevented, it should be. And the government can't drive people's cars for them, so a safer road it will be.... I can't tell you how many times I have seen people cross that center line in areas where it could have meant death. Sure, they are not good drivers, but do they deserve to die because of it ? And what about the people in the car coming the other way, do they deserve this ???

Wilbur, we finally agree on something .... here are some of the facts and projections related to the re-development of the Sea to Sky Highway. I travel this road every weekend during the winter with my two (going on three) kids in the car... the drive is already alot easier with the improvements that are in place now, and this will only get better. ".......There are 300 accidents each year on the Sea to Sky highway (many of them head on collisions) Average Annual Daily Traffic between Horseshoe Bay and Squamish are forecast to increase from 13,700 to 22,000 by 2025 (a 62% increase). Between Squamish and Whister volumes are forecast to increase from 7,700 to 12,000 by 2025 (a 56% increase) Safety improvements are projected to result in 30% fewer accidents per year. The highway is projected to create 6,000 new jobs as a result of economic activity generated along the Corridor and increase provincial GDP by $300 million over the period of 2010 to 2025....." To me, the Olympics are worth it just to have this road re-developed. And JML.....Whistler may be well recognized globally (and also the lack of safety of that road is as well)....however tourist visits over the past 5 years have been on the downward trend...much of that caused by the low US buck....so it is important that Whistler gets further world wide attention if it is to stay in growth mode and continue to attract tourism revenues to this province.

Hi JMH, I respect your opinion that 650 MM is alot to spend on these Olympics..however you don't have all of the facts straight here.. I am of the middle class of this city so I think I can speak fairly here ( no inherited wealth in this household, we had to earn it ourselves). Yes the hotel rates are expensive but my family stays at whistler about 5- 10 nights per year at an average cost of less than $200 bucks per night. Of course you don't stay there for new years and christmas when it is really crazy but there are lots of good snow days to enjoy at $200 per night if you are a regular skiier. As far as the Sea to Sky highway is concerned I would argue that many more Vancouverites travel it than out of town billionaires. For one, the out of towners tend to stay for a week or two and therefore only make the trip once and back for that stay. Many of us city dwelling skiiers commute each weekend often both ways in one day. Of the cars that I see speeding like maniacs, they are not the airport limos...they are the average 4x4 crowd that wants to maximize ski time during the day. So making the road safe is giving safer roads to British Columbians that travel it, more than any other group. Whistler has more skiier visits annually from BC'ers than it does from foreigners, incidentally. Whistler being a major tourist destination however, needs a good road if we are to continue to attract tourism to BC and this is a good investment longterm for the tourism industry, not just for whistler regulars, and not just for the Olympics. As far as the other costs are concerned, there is revenue associated with the games as well, including the major sponsorship that you slag, and much of it offsets the $650 MM investment. Whistler is not the only beneficiary of the construction for the games. Venues are planned on the local mountains, and throughout the lower mainland. These venues will allow for greater tourism expenditures in the future as now we will also be able to host world cup events in our province, for each of the specific sports. As far as the venues are concerned, you are incorrect in assuming nobody will use them. Most of the athletes that won medals at the 2006 Olympics were from Calgary (28% in fact) where we last had our games, and Montreal, where the games were also previously held. Having these venues in Vancouver will mean that our athletes here will enjoy future successes in Olympic sport. We will be able to develop more Vancouver based athletes for future competition, and attract more members of Canadian society to these Olympic specific sports. Some people may not see that as a benefit, but I do. And don't forget BC being a "have" province, its not often that we EVER get Federal dollars spent here, this is the one reason I vote "yes" for the Olympics. Having spent my life watching Federal government $$$ subsidizing the Quebec economy, I felt it was about time BC got something !!

Critical thinking is merely a high-fallutin' term for common sense and judgement. And while I respect those who want to educate themselves more about their world I can't say that I've noticed a lot better judgement or "critical thinking" from BA grads. Sorry. I'm not entirely certain that critical thought is even a part of most general BA courses. One can be exposed to literature, art, politics and historical facts and still take away all the wrong ideas depending on ones open mind and the capability of ones professors. This response indicates that you are not unversity educated. It shows in most of your posts !!

I belive it was an ivy league history professor who claimed the value of a degree in history, is simply that you can criticaly read a Newspaper. It might seem like alot of money to invest, only to teach people how think critically, but given todays society, people who can read a newspaper are a rare treasure. If history can teach people only to think critically, to read a newspaper, then we as society have made a great gain. I know alot of people on the right side of the political spectrum say, everyone should be forced to take an economics course, I understand the principle behind this, and I would like to continue this principle to suggest that if a B.A means you understand your surroundings even a little better, society as a whole will be better. Hmm Slavik, I like your idealism and what a great place this world would be if we could all have degrees and all that. But there is a limited resource, over utilised as is, and we have to make sure only the most qualified and dedicated have access to this resource (being university spots). Are you taking History? If so, great, I'm sure your doing well with it and all that. I'm not bashing all BA people (a BA is part of my current program)! But its not worth the cost to our society, and to people like you and I in overcrowded classrooms, to have all our welders or plumbers be experts in 17th century poetry. I hope you see where I'm coming from. There just aren't enough jobs out there that require expertise in many of these fields, or jobs that require critical thinking. Too many undergrad degree holders end up working in drycleaners and resturants for many years. Why? Because there are too many of them! Geoffry, darling, without critical thinkers in our midst, most of us would think like you. Narrow minded and bull-headed....now there's a combination for you. That's the cost to my society I would like to avoid. I'm all for the university degree, an educated population makes for a better society. It doesn't matter what you take, you will contribute to society by your awareness, your ability to understand, and your valuable intellectual input, regardless of your degree.

A university degree, particularly one in the arts, is a stepping stone for a career. It certainly doesn't train you with any job specific skills, however I have found that my university educated employees stick with their careers, are better goal setters, learn faster, and problem solve better. They still need the technical training...and anybody with a degree has to understand this, and pursue it. If you want to get past bartender or taxi driver you have to work from the bottom of an organization, up. This is what our grads have to understand. When I am recruiting I always look for the degree, and tend to get better results from those that have it than those that don't.