betsy

I think this was the study that was mentioned on CTV.Newsnet. The following is an excerpt from the report. WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM QUEBEC'S UNIVERSAL CHILDCARE PROGRAM? C.D. Howe Institute Feb 2006 Study on the results of childcare in Quebec ________________________________________ Several measures we looked at suggest that children were worse off in the years following the introduction of the universal childcare program. We studied a wide range of measures of child well-being, from anxiety and hyperactivity to social and motor skills. For almost every measure, we find that the increased use of childcare was associated with a decrease in their well-being relative to other children. For example, reported fighting and other measures of aggressive behaviour increased substantially. Our results are consistent with evidence from the National Institute of Child Health and Development Early Childcare Research Network (2003), showing that the amount of time through the first 4.5 years of life that a child spends away from his or her mother is a predictor of assertiveness, disobedience, and aggression. Furthermore, we find that several important measures of well-being show parents to be worse off. The survey data showed that mothers of the children in daycare were more depressed, as indicated by the significant rise in their depression scores relative to the average. The quality of their parenting practices declined, as measured by responses to questions on consistency, hostile or ineffective parenting, and "aversive interactions.” They also reported a significant deterioration in the quality of their relationship with their partners, as measured by mothers’ reports of their satisfaction with their spousal relationship on a scale from one to 11. http://www.cdhowe.org/pdf/ebrief_25_english.pdf

Maybe because now he's also offering the fitness incentive bonus?

I guess I've vented already, Spike....I'm now suffering from Nambla fatigue syndrome.

I'll gladly help my daughter raise your kid. And as for you, you better hide where I won't find you. My bible-thumping way will not show mercy to you!

I am not from Alberta. I know that that doesn't have to be the way...but the reality is that's how it is for some if not most! It's the amount of bureacracy that's killing it! They've just mentioned on CTV.newsnet about 3 days ago that a study of Quebec childcare showed that children and parents are stressed out. It's not as rosy as they want it to be. They only broadcast it once. I was trying to find that particular report in their archive but couldn't find it. It'll end up just like the gun registry boondagle...only a whole lot more expensive! The money wasted will be astronomical!

Are you opposed to public schools? Because they've worked out very well for our country and, one could argue, contributed greatly to its overall wealth. Speaking of public schools....our standard had gone lower! Classrooms are bloated. Highschool students could hardly spell! Is that the blueprint for this national childcare?

Promised paradise awaits suicide bombers in the afterlife....at least, that's what they believe. Mullahs are just human too. Who knows, the welcoming arms of a dozen nubile virgins in paradise might prove too much for them to resist...that at the end of the day, they'll just opt to end growing domestic discontent and external threats once and for all.

At what is the real reason behind people who go on moral crusades against perceived evils? Ego gratification is often the primary reason. Whatever kind of gratification one may wish to attach to our reasoning, the fact remains that our moral crusades do not involve murder. What do you mean by "perceived" evil. There is nothing "perceived" about it. It's plain and a fact. Society is condoning and encouraging murder of the innocents!

That's what we've been saying! They can now manipulate around that legality....that's why, a full-term baby is forced breached and it's head crushed while it's still inside the womb....because at that point, they say since it's not fully delivered, it's still not human! Thanks for proving my point.

Yes, but if you really analyse the real reason behind such personal decisions for most people....you will see it's very "personal" indeed. Personal gratification, without wanting to take responsibility for the action.

Well, if it's already there, why not make use of it? After all, didn't the liberal thinkers campaigned vigorously to show the benefits of having those? Aren't those supposed to be the "answers", according to Liberal-thinkers?

I think we should just send abortion opponents to Iran and to give them an opportunity to ask themselves whether they really want to live in a society where the religious views of some are imposed by the state on all. Funny you should mention that. I was thinking we should send all liberal do-gooders to Iran and start promoting women's right to abortion, alternative lifestyles, including SSM...after all, there is already polygamy in that society...it shouldn't be too hard to sell them the concept of stretching it just a wee bit further. And while they're there...they can even volunteer as human shields.

Your beliefs may tell you that a fetus is a human but you must accept that the majority of people living in this society do not share that view. If some radical shift occurred and suddenly there was an overwhelming consensus (>90%) that a fetus is human then government restrictions on abortion could be justified. However, that unlikely to happen in our diverse society so the only reasonable approach it to allow individual people to decide what is right for them and keep the government out of it. But don't you see how this gets stretched? Before, correct me if I'm wrong, abortion was allowed up to three months of pregnancy. Now, just because the definition of what "human" should mean was diddled around, they can now manipulate a full-term baby so that it doesn't fall under the definition of "human". Our diverse society has "evolved" or devolved into a self-absorbed, hedonistic society....where the "I, me,mine" philosophy rules. Just read the justifications they give for just about everything and you get the picture where they're coming from. What next? Further manipulation of the law so it will be okay to.... Justify snuffing a week-old baby? Two-weeks old? A crippled baby? A high-maintenance 1 year old? I wouldn't be surprised if post-partum blues will be manipulated to play a very significant justifiable reason for this. After all, the baby adds to the problem the mother endures. Make her a very young single mom who writhes in poverty and you'll hear society clamoring for the baby's death!

There were a good number of Liberal MPs who opposed SSM that's why Martin acted the way he did. Now, if I'm not mistaken, a good numbers of these same MPs were re-elected. Unless they changed their minds, I would imagine they'll vote the same way as to their conscience/constituents' wishes. We'll see... The important thing is that at least this, being a moral issue, gets a chance to be decided by votes. If it wins and gets repealed...I hope they really cement the traditional definition so it can no longer be challenged by any groups.

I used to be with a public-funded agency that place children in homes. The adminstration gave thmeselves a big fat raise....care-providers didn't get any. They've lost a lot of care-providers from that move. One thing I know is that they have a hard time filling up spaces from these homes....careproviders are grumbling. That was years ago. I've been talking to careproviders who work for the same agency. Nothing has changed. They still are grumbling from not having children to fill up their spaces. Some are forced to take out ads as private careproviders just to fill up the spaces. In my area, there's no shortage of spaces for years! I know that a lot of parents are not happy with government funded agencies. Most complain that they charge too high. Which is true. Now, in desperation, I heard they've lowered their price a bit. Some parents just simply don't like an institutionalized environment. They specisfically want a home setting. I know that these agency had kicked out a client I referred to them when she was still a student (single mom trying to enter the workforce), because she's found a job but got awful casual hours that they cannot accomodate. This single mom mentioned above is the typical example of the type of people ought to be helped by public-funded agencies. Now, she quit her job and just stays at home.

With the Liberal-thinkers way of doing it, there is no doubt that in the end, we won't just be looking up to future immigrants to supports us all...we'll be begging them to. We're creating a climate of dependency! Suddenly, the help we give had become an "entitlement". A lot are exploiting the system....those who truly deserves help are getting nicked by it! We already have welfare! Child allowance! Food Bank! Subsidized housing! Subsidized daycare! Healthcare! And probably other things I've never heard about! We're talking basics here. It is covered. Of course they won't have the same standard of living as any working person has....but that's the point. The one who has a better standard of livingis working his butt off! We can't keep supplying everything to everyone...especially as you say, they're breeding like rabbits!

What do you mean by "compete?" Why is there a "competition"? Are you talking about "Keeping-up-with-the-Joneses" syndrome? I'm talking about the market, which is inherently a competition. For example, couple A and couple B place competitive bids for their dream house. Couple A has two incomes and couple B has one, so couple A is obviously in a better competitive position to buy the house. When two-income families become the norm and people are bidding what they can afford to pay on houses, the cost of buying a house rises to the point where it is very difficult for a single-income family to compete. (The market has a natural tendency to drift towards what people can afford--that's why house prices go up when interest rates go down.) So Couple B cannot afford the house. Then what's stopping them from getting a house they can afford? Yes there are developers who targets a certain up-end clientele....but if it's not within one's reach, then they've got to face reality. Live within your means. I'd love to live in an ocean-front with manicured lawns and minimum 5 bedrooms ensuite in a posh neighborhood....but that ain't gonna happen for me in this lifetime. Unless I rob a bank or de-fraud an elderly. Yes, two-income families is the norm....but you'll be surprised to know how flexible they are as far as needing a daycare goes! Oh yeah, a lot of couples have mastered the art of working out a schedule. Btw, for those who got 12 year old and plus kids....imagine them earning a nice allowance from mom and dad by babysitting their siblings after hours! A lot of parents only need befaore and after care. Public-funded care charge 7 dollars per hour minimum...even if mom only needs 30 minutes of care.

I don't care about Iran's democracy! The concern is about their capability of wiping out another country. With their fundamentalist fanaticism that takes to heart the belief of "death to all infidels", and their loathing for our way of life, they are a great threat to us...whether they've got democracy or not!

I would love for the opposition to vote down the budget. It would gaurntee a Conservative majority next election. Diane Ablonscy said on Mike Duffy that she'd like to see the opposition call for another election based on this one. That sounds like a blunt challenge on air. So sounds like Harper will act like a majority with this?

Regarding SSM, supposing opponents of SSM won in the votes, you think they'll do something to tighten and cement the definition of marriage so it can no longer be challenged in the future by any groups?

He said, SSM will probably be brought up by the fall. They want to raise age of consent to 16.

True. But themn income suport programs have a preset criterea to qualify. There's no such prequalification for Harper's plan save for a functioning uterus. But Harper's plan (parents will be able to submit with their tax forms a bill worth up to $500 for each child under 16 for any organized activity that encourages physical exercise: they wil get up to 16 per cent back, or around $80) will only help those who already have $500 handy to put their kids into sports. And what about physical activities that aren't organized sports (like for example, dance)? If Harper wanted to make an impact and promote fitness, why not fund sports so that the costs are lower to begin with, instead of offering a meaningless sop worth a wopping $80? Prequalifications? Anyone with children below 6 years of age! Btw, why shouldn't every parents get a break? Most of these parents are carrying the extra burden for the other parents who couldn't afford by paying for various social programs. Whoa. There's nothing stopping Harper with funding sports if it's on their agenda. But the point is Harper is killing three birds in one stone with his fitness plan: after-school babysitting, promoting physical activities and physical fitness for our youth. Whether the amount is "peanuts" for some....at least it's there.

It's not necessarily "wanting to have it both ways." The market has reacted to women entering the workforce en masse: mothers and non-mothers. There was a surge of employable labour as a result, and the laws of supply and demand forced the buying power of the average wage down. Two-income households also became the norm, which created market conditions where people could afford to pay more for housing, cars, etc., whether they have kids or not. Subsidizing kids like the CPC plan does can help all families if it's done at such a significant level that it counters these market forces, but that would involve way too much money. The only solution (and we need a solution, because the birth rate is perilously low) is more daycare spaces. Just heard Diane Ablonszcy on Mike Duffy saying 225,000 daycare spaces will become available.

I agree that my belief system equally ephemeral. However, I don't seek to impose my beliefs on others. I respect the right of people to choose to not get an abortion because that is what they believe is right. I expect people who oppose abortion to extend the same consideration to people who do not have any religious/moral objection to abortion. But who speaks for that little human whose life is getting snuffed?

What do you mean by "compete?" Why is there a "competition"? Are you talking about "Keeping-up-with-the-Joneses" syndrome?