betsy

Is the only way to defend Canada ripping apart the US? YankAbroad was not being critical of Canada, just of politicians who play games with the GLBT community. The same could be said of countless politicians here in the US. Please learn the difference between criticising a politician and a people. I agree with you Liam. Such a shame that for all the chest-beating at how "understanding and tolerant" we are, that treatment clearly do not extend to our closest neighbor and trade partner. Credibility flies out the window. It only mirrors the kind of credibility the Liberal has.

I was not into politics....not until the Sep 11 and the ensuing drama that followed. It was then that I discovered Harper. After that, I never really followed politics as much as I'm doing now. What I knew of it was through the hourly news report on...of all station...CBC! I feel the stress in this election. I wouldn't be surprised if my blood pressure had skyrocketed. Do you feel the same way?

What you are suggesting goes against their own Code of Ethics. Read the Code of Ethics from this site Link to Society of Professional Journalists Webpage to see what I mean. I perceive a huge media bias towards the Conservatives in this election, just as there may have been towards the Lberals in the last election and again, i think this is wrong and against their own Code of Ethics. Look at the media today. How many of them are perceived as left/right wing rags? They obviously had to slant one way or the other to get those monnikers. So, since when has ethics had anything to do with it. What's the difference between being slanted and lying about it and being slanted and being intellecually honest enough to admit it? I think he who admits his bias is of higher integrity than he who lies about it. You're absolutely right! I take back what I said about agreeing with Rovik. Tis true come to think of it. If it's against ethics, why would any paper want to be perceived as left/right-leaning? I guess, it is about news reporting that a journalist had to be accurate and straightforward....but editorials and comments are a different matter.

They brought out an interesting analysis on M Duffy regarding Same Sex issue. It could be this very issue that might be working against the Liberals. That due to politcal correctness, people are not being open to pollsters in indicating why they are turning against the Liberals. An MP candidate said that that's a big issue where he's campaigning when he goes door-to-door. They even said that Liberal MPs who are opposed Same Sex marriage might be the ones who'll be able to hold on to their seats. I know that for me, it is a big issue. It is in the way that Martin did this that I feel so strongly now about the Liberals.

If there is anyone playing poker with the lives of gay people, it is none other than the party who nobly purported to protect them. The Liberals are scaring the pants off the gays and lesbians, using them in a cheap trick just like they used the military. The Conservatives had stated their stance regarding the issue in the past, and future should Harper becomes PM. He said he'll bring it up as an open vote and if it gets defeated....he'll let it rest. I don't see anything wrong with being open and honest.

SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. They're talking about this at M Duffy Live....the Liberals will use this as a wedge. Martin already brought it up apparently in his campaign. One gay Cabinet Minister already announced that he had to speed up plans to marry before Monday comes. M Duffy conferred with guests and all agreed that it will take years to take effect should Harper does open up the issue for votes in Parliament. M Duffy wondered out loud why would a Cabinet Minister cause the gay community needless worry and panic? He thinks the Minister was being irresponsible. BTW, M Duffy guests were scratching their heads when Martin showed up at a campaign bringing up this Same Sex issue...indicating that anyone who is against it is a neanderthal. Well, the Liberal candidate in that riding where he's campaigning (who was standing next to him on stage) was among the Liberal MPs who was against it.

UPDATE Boy, oh boy....Harper said what Hargrove said was shocking....to urge Quebecers to vote for separatism. That Martin, as a federalist, should distance himself from Hargrove. Then guess what, Martin did "back-pedalled", according to M Duffy. Guests were having another giggle over this latest fiasco. One said, you can be sure Hargrove won't be around...at least not until after the election. They really found it funny that Martin ended up doing damage control (again).....and, acknowledging Harper's patriotism as well! I forgot who said this but someone did: It only shows that Martin puts the party's interest first before that of our country. Oh Canada, who luvs ya baby?

What you are suggesting goes against their own Code of Ethics. Read the Code of Ethics from this site Link to Society of Professional Journalists Webpage to see what I mean. I perceive a huge media bias towards the Conservatives in this election, just as there may have been towards the Lberals in the last election and again, i think this is wrong and against their own Code of Ethics. Obviously CBC doesn't care about that code of ethics. And they're public-funded to boot! Most of the media who are now pro-Conservatives have been known to be slanted towards the Liberals in the past. That they, in droves, had gone the other way tells how disenchanted (to put it mildly perhaps) they are with the Liberals right now. No one can even say it's a conspiracy. Media's drastic action tells so much about the Liberals, I must say.

I agree with Rovik that media should be neutral. However..... When MAJORITY of the media coming from all forms (journalism, radio, tv, newspapers) start pointing out...and ganging up...in OUSTING the current regime.... one can only see that this is no petty "slant" or "biased" information. The media clearly knows where the true evil is coming from. They smell and see something terribly rotten. After all, without the media, we wouldn't have known about oppressive regimes and atrocities happening all over the world. The media is doing its utmost to help Canada.

La Presse endorsed the Conservative Party in Quebec. All Radio Talk programs that aired live on CPAC station have all been vocal in pointing out the corrupt Liberals and supporting the need for change. They are very pro-Conservative. Yesterday I watched only a portion....it was a station from KELOWNA, B.C. The announcer had a guest (I think he's from a local paper), fielding questions from viewers. Both sneered at the Gomery Report. They said it is hard to imagine that as a Finance Minister. Paul Martin knew nothing about what was going on. They said: Either that...or he's incompetent! Last night on Duffy, three announcers were guests. All three were happy about the Conservatives. One went so far as to rant about what he called the "ethically-bankrupt Liberals!" There is real active "revolution" out there aimed at pushing the Liberals out the door. I would like to think that they are not only wishing for the Conservatives to win....but wanting to see a Conservative Majority.

He may have been a staunch Liberal...but definitely not anymore. He's one of those who had finally seen the light. I've watched him steadily since the first debate (both daily shows) and although he tries to appear neutral, he is helping out the Conservatives....and poking holes/shooting down Liberals...in a sly way. Last night when he had Harper on a one-on-one, his last question was clearly to give Harper a chance to clearly point out why there must be no fear at all about him winning a majority as far as governing is concerned. Harper, with the aid of Duffy, pointed out that if the Conservatives win as a majority, the party's hands would still be tied by the various appointees of the Liberal in various office. Duffy reminded the viewers how Mulroney's term was made miserable by the appointees. When he described the new Liberal ad as "touching"....there was a slight innuendo, which Anne McLellan tried to correct. Peter McKay was let to rant for so long that he used up a good portion of air time....so when the NDP guy's turn came up to rebutt and whack Conservatives, Duffy said "you've got only 30 seconds." Two labor leaders (one helping Stronach and pushing for the Liberal) and the other was for the NDP had in the end the same message: Prevent the Conservatives from taking hold. That the lesser of evil will be either Liberal or NDP. Duffy jokingly quipped: "Gee, you two sound so well-rehearsed." Duffy had the last words and the two looked discomfitted. All of the above happened last night. Check it out....he's definitely changed. Duffy is cleverly bringing out issues that may be used against Harper...making light of them....and thus, inocculating Harper.

Liberal new ad aired on Mike Duffy. It was "touching", as Duffy described it (to the objections of Anne McLellan who insists it was not "touching"...but rather, positive). It showed a humble Paul Martin. Is this dah bomb?

I am an adpoted child (one of two out of seven kids) and I love my family. My parents are great (although my dad didn't remember me last time I went to visit...strokes, dementia etc.) and I am proud to have the family name. I do realize, though, that should I have children, I won't be spreading the family genes, just the name. Kind of kooky when I think about it. As Argus states, (I am not in agreement with the tone, just the facts) that honesty must be a part of acceptance. If someone's family tree is a stump, as it were, it is that which should be realized and accepted, and I feel it is somewhat dishonest to show it as something else. I am happy that the people who adopted me did so, and think that adoption is a wonderful thing. Now that I am older, and own a business (with my wife) we have made charitable donations (of services) to a Christian adoption group in Calgary. While I am not religous, I feel that what they do is a good thing, and feel it warranted my support. I personally would rather see organized religion spend money and effort on these ventures, rather than on new churches, etc. Were you adopted by a gay couple? Just curious.

Are you kidding me??? Some kids start hitting almost as soon as they're able to swing their arm. Not all kids do this, but certainly there are many kids who simply lash out when annoyed or frustrated. And if your argument is simply that it's "learned behaviour", then who taught the first caveman to swing a club??? Violence is an inherent part of our nature that must be dealt with rather than denied. This extends to kids, else the problem of schoolyard scraps would not be anywhere near its current scope. Some kids can be spoken to with soft words, and will take those words to heart. Some kids need an attention-grabber, and a slap on the hand is usually more than enough for a small child. Either way, my argument, which was echoed a bit later in the thread, was that people need to be aware that actions have consequences. Plain and simple. If a kid is constantly allowed to get away with rotten behaviour, then his/her "learned behaviour" will simply be that he/she can get whatever he/she wants, through whatever means necessary, without any negative consequence whatsoever. An ex-neighbour of mine is a great example of this. Three male kids who could do no wrong. No matter whether it was another child or an adult who aproached the parents of these 3 hellions, the parents would always simply deny that the boys had done anything, and believe me, they did plenty. It was unbelievable. You could literally watch the kids throw a rock through a window, go immediately to their parents and tell them about it, and teh parents would just stand there and say "No, no, no. There's no way he did that". Of course, when asked, the kid would deny it with a sweet smile at mom and dad. I recall one incident stole a brand new bike from another neighbour's kid. The second kid's dad went to talk to the offender's parents' The little brat told his folks that "She gave it (the bike) to me". They stood there and refused to give back the bike because "There you go, your daughter gave her bike to my son, so you can't have it back". Things like this happened on a regular basis. I had both a snowmobile and a 10-speed bike wrecked by the eldest boy. Both times he told his folks that I said he could use the item in question. Both times the "usage", and breakage, happened while I was away for a couple days. Great way to teach your kids about values and consequences. One of the brats is now doing time for murder. Both the others had criminal records by the time they were 18. All three had at least 1 charge for some sort of violent offence. All three had been kicked out of school by age 16 for various incidents of mischief, fighting, or worse. Oh I absolutely agree with you. A parade pf children had come and gone through my daycare...and there were some that you could swear were spawns of the devil. Right now I have a two and half year old whose face looks so much like a cherub....but believe me, his parents are going crazy trying to figure him out. He just wants to hurt other children. Period. From purposefully running them over with any toys on wheels, shoving and grabbing. He slyly looks over to me to see if I'm watching him. Several times I saw him on the verge of doing something but that he happened to see that I was observing....he just stopped in mid-track of what he was about to do (grabbing)...then turned the sweetest innocent smile on me. The parents are gentle, now-generation types of parents who just talked so kindly and softly to him. One time, my three-year old told the parents boldly "He was bad. He hit me. Next time he hits me again, I'll hit him back." The poor mom just said..."oh but you're older than him. If you hit him, he'll only learn that hitting is okay." Wow! I just kept my mouth shut. Btw, the terrible-two's period I've notice go by like a jekyll and hyde syndrome. A period of goodness followed by a period of rottenness...and so on.

Interesting post, betsy. I'll take this one quote. I don't see any real difference between "bribery" as you call it and the threat of being hit, actually being hit, being sent to one's room or getting something good for dessert. I don't think there is any doubt that a parent and a friend are two very different relationships. But I don't see why a parent has to be an authoritarian or "tough", even with a young child. Ultimately, it is all the constraints of the outside world (including dealing with friends) that a child will have to face. More importantly, the child has the power to change those constraints. Life is not a one way street. I think children should be free to choose as much as they can as soon as they can, as long as the consequences of the choices are clear to them. Admittedly, this depends enormously on the child's personality and preferences. I have often felt that the single most important thing in raising children is listening to them. Choices. As long as the consequences are clear to them. A 4 year old chosed not to wear a winter coat in the middle of winter. "No Junior, please wear your coat. It's freezing out there. If you don't, you'll get sick. You'll end up with pneumonia. You could die." Gee, it's a rare 4 year old who'd even care. Maybe you'll get a response of "what's pneumonia, daddy?" But in the end, after all the lenghty explanation of what pneumonia is, all you'll hear is "I don't have to." So clearly, the consequences are made known to him. And he still insists. Now what? It's good to have choices. Choices such as, "Junior, you want Cereals or pop tarts?" But clearly, there is a limit where-in children are given that choice. BTW, there is nothing wrong in being an "authoritarian." We live in a society where there is authority. The sooner children recognize that there are rules in life to follow, the better it is for the child.

I support the parents' rights to use spanking should they want to. But I do not agree that anyone other than the parent or legal guardian should. As a careprovider, I had learned different ways to be more effective and I see where errors are. Here are common mistakes: The one-two-three method. Parents say: Okay Junior, stop swinging the cat....I say stop it. One.....two.... (and then Junior obeys). Good boy Junior. This method of discipline becomes a game to a very young child. Threatening a consequence you know you cannot keep. "If you don't stop that, I'll go home and leave you here with your babysitter!" Negotiations. To me that means a form of bribery. Anyway how do you negotiate with a three year old? To me the kind of negotiation will be: If you don't do as you're told, you'll find yourself sitting in one place for a very long time. Time-out method done wrong. When I put a child to do time out, I like him to feel bored and miserable sitting all by himself. That's the whole point. Oh, they try to engage me in conversations as a form of entertainment while they sit....but I don't bite into it. Instead, I say: "sorry, I don't feel like talking. Besides you're in a time-out. You're supposed to be thinking why you are in a time-out." Consistentency. Once you become inconsistent with your methods, you lose credibility and you're back to square one. Fairness. You want them to feel a sense of justice....and being fair makes them know and understand that you are not singling anyone. Punishment fits the crime and age.

I like Harper's plan of giving the Auditor General more power. It was because of lack of power that she was not able to get to the bottom of the Options Canada thing when it was reported. She must have a formidable team....that when they swoop down to do their audit, no stone is left unturned. Heads of departments must be held accountable, along with any perpetrators, for they should know....and make it a point to know what is going on in their departments. Anyone who is being investigated must step aside until the investigation is concluded.

And a big waste of taxpayers money! I say if they can't give straightforward non-biased journalism...then they should finance their own station. I don't think it fair that we finance Liberal commercials.

The promo for the ConservaTiVe news that just ran started with a soundbite of Harper saying something ambiguous like "choose good over evil" and then Lloyd Robertson voicing over something like "The Conservatives push to bring freedom to the Maritimes." There was no other mention of any other political party. Go Big Blue!! I can't believe the left is complaining about CTV being pro-right wing. The left need look no further than CBC and the Globe and Mail, two of the most leftist anti-CPC outlets in this country. And I shouldn't forget the Toronto Sun, what with Sheila Copps writing her "daddy dearest" letters about the Martin Liberals and her seemingly unabashedly pro-NDP views. If CTV is as unabashedly pro-CPC as CBC and the Globe and Mail are, we might actually has some biased journalism in Canada...go CTV go!!! Even the CBC sounded pro-Conservative last Friday! But it was because they had no control over it. They were interviewing people on the 6 oclock news segment (radio) and asking who they'd vote for. CBC was having a hard time finding pro-Liberal. Out of all those people, only one was voting for the Liberal. I think M Duffy is finding it hard to locate any pro-Liberals among the media too? Either they are very much against that party....or are choosing to remain quiet and distance themselves.

According to M Duffy, the Liberals will be releasing something, which they (Liberals) say could turn the tide. It's supposed to happen tomorrow. Btw, journalist gave his analysis (based on what he'd been hearing from people), that some "silent" things are secretly hurting Paul Martin. It's family values. Then he cited the recent swing club ruling, polygamy issue, etc., as examples....and said: these are not our values.

I understand the concern about violence....but I think the no-spanking advocates are really looking in the wrong direction and I can only question what the real motivation is. If my aim is to eliminate physical violence, I would start by throwing that television out into the garbage....along with those video games. Right now, every household has two or more tv....and every child has a form of two or more types of video games. So far I have not heard this endorsement or demand for a ban on these products that had invaded every homes....and had been slowly disensitizing our children. Reality Shows that demeans and verbally abuse participants, TV shows with characters the epitome of rudeness are being hailed and more popular than ever. I do not wish for any ban. I'm just making a point.

I'd really liek to see the evidence that shows kids who aren't spanked are more likely to commit crimes. I'd be far more willing to bet that kids who get hit by their parents are more likely to grow up to see physical violence as an acceptable solution to their problems. Gee who can really say? All I can say is spanking had been acceptable for ages...and the days of my parents and grandparents had produced a population of mostly upright and responsible citizens. I had been spanked in my childhood...most friends or acquaintances in my generation had admit having been spanked....but we all seem to bel okay. It's just been in recent years that this almost zero tolerance to spanking had come into effect. And yet amazingly....this coincides with the growing numbers of bullying - an aggression related to violence...or threat of violence. Perhaps we are giving the wrong signals to children. One of my steadfast rules for kids in my daycare was "NO HITTING." But due to the rise of bullying incidents in schools....my school kids whine to me and express frustrations over how teachers seem to be indifferent to bullying incidents...and one example of indifference was witnessed by one of my parents, I decided to change my rule. Now I say : DON'T HIT FIRST. Then I explain that if no one will hit first, there wouldn't be any hitting at all. I'm all for children learning how to stand up for themselves. I do not wish to "tie up my childrens' hands" by a rule that forbids them to defend themselves. So back to the idea of spanking generating more violence....maybe we should seriously re-think that.

Also, Ontarians are much more angry with Dalton McGuinty, for outright lying through his entire campaign. They should make another ad showing the big fat liars. McGuinty is so recent....that should make a lot of blood boil!

Well I don't know how you can say that "there is no daycare to choose." Harper's plan do not have to create more daycare facilities....since there'll be lots of other options and open spaces from other areas...which will free spaces in the daycare facilities that we now have.

I'll see if Mike Duffy mentions anything about it.