Jump to content

Charles Anthony

Senior Member
  • Posts

    6,026
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Charles Anthony

  1. I know I'm nitpicking, but I only count 42% not getting any.The 2%daily are included in the 12%monthly which in turn are included in the 20%several...... get it?
  2. With respect to the vested interests, Statisticss Canada spends our money and holds all of the cards. They choose the questions and they collect the data. They also interpret the data for us too somtimes, so that we do not have to think. The source of information from the "Quebec's Universal Childcare Hurt Children and Families" study comes from a program called National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) http://www.statcan.ca/cgi-bin/imdb/p2SV.pl...g=f&adm=8&dis=2 After a simple web search, I refer to a website called "Fathers For Life" (admittedly, they probably have a bias too) with respect to evaluating how the NLSCY program presents its own research from the late 1990's: There is noticeable emphasis on the harmful effects of poverty on children's development, just as in "Growing up in Canada", which was produced from the 94/95 cycle of the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY). That, of course, is in keeping with the government's agenda pertaining to the "war on child-poverty." However, there is a slight difference in presenting or downplaying the data pertaining to certain family-patterns and their influence on the development of children. In "Growing up in Canada" the emphasis was on the fact that the majority of children with adjustment problems resided in two-parent families. That shouldn't come as a suprise to anyone who realizes that 4/5 of the children surveyed did live in those families. So, why mention it? Could it be that it has something to do with the feminist agenda of labeling two-parent families as being detrimental to the development of children and drawing attention away from the fact that children from single-parent families are more than twice as likely to have behaviour problems? At any rate, what should have been stressed is that single-parent families, comprising 1/5 of all families surveyed, produced 1/3 of all children with behavioural problems. ----snip--- Wouldn't it be great to be able to look at the data collected without having to rely only on biased interpretations? However, although thousands of Canadian familiies had to devote tens of thousands of hours in answering the survey questions, the data collected is accessible to Canadians only for a price: The 1994/95 data was made available at $1,500 +7% GST. There is no reason to suspect that the data from the 1996/97 cycle of the study will be any cheaper — far out of the reach of the under-funded pro-family organizations and un-funded and destitute fathers' rights organizations in Canada. Maybe we'll be lucky and the government-funded family-hostile women's organization will manage again to get StatCan and Health-Canada to produce a special report like "Growing up in Canada" in which they'll produce some useful data like the comparison between the impact of different family types have on the development of our children. http://www.fathersforlife.org/longitudinal...h_Canada_97.htm
  3. I agree. It is a bad incentive and more kids are taking advantage of their legal invincibility to get away with crime. The problem is ours (as adults) to fix it by both changing the laws and changing how we raise kids. We can not legislate "raising kids" very well so it behooves us to change the laws for young offenders. I do not understand why we do not have stiffer sentences. The cynic in me says that there are too many "rehabilitation" and "correctional" jobs at stake. There are too many people whose jobs depend on keeping bureaucracy complicated. It all depends on intent. If all things were equal even if "somebody died" I insist that the penalties must be the same -- whatever they are.
  4. What do undercover RCMP officers look like to you? I know, I know, my question is snarky but my point is that a uniform on an RCMP officer is tiny compared to the grand scheme of things. Racism and bigotry is more than skin deep.
  5. Oh, my God! is right. One of them is dead. Were the parties really worth it? Were the kids really ready? I notice that I quoted directly but you have read it by including YOUR own words. Funny how people read what they want to read, is it not? I used the words "possibly the culmination" and I made a point of identify "both sides, the perpetrator and the victim" in my statements. That would depend on EVERYTHING ELSE that preceded their holiday. I.E. how they raised you. I will suspect that possibly they raised you to become responsible adults-in-training. Would YOU GIVE YOUR PARENTS any credit for that? That would depend on how a kid was raised. Yes, I am being repetitive so that you have more options to misinterpret my words. If you look to the "state" to dish out justice, somebody has to be responsible with respect to the parties involved in the actual event. We are not slaves in a communist totalitarian regime, therefore who else, but your parents, have first responsibility after the two kids??? Remember, they were all minors.I would now use the words "possibly the kids were not ready" to be left alone or possibly the parents should have been more judicious with their decision to leave them alone. I would also use the words that "likely" there are people who do not want to be very responsible with the raising of their kids. Just as a trolling aside, what if you found out that I create little robots every 9 months and let them loose in my community? What if you found out that they were destroying other people's property and doing harm? What would you do?
  6. I believe that you are making a mistake by combining immigration policy with refugee policy. The difference is important. If we insist on borders, we can still have a compassionate refugee policy which is distinct from our immigration policy.
  7. I would like to hear directly from the native population EXACTLY what natives want changed or improved. Please state: your claim your province or region if possible, links or references to justify claim I sincerely hope this thread can serve to eliminate any mis-representation from any side.
  8. Parents (I mean that on both sides, the perpetrator and the victim) have to take more responsibility for the safety of their children because the state will not. From the same article: Stevie was visiting a girlfriend in Hudson on Feb. 4 when they decided to visit the youth's house. It was there that Stevie paid $15 for an ecstasy pill. He gave her half of another because she said she didn't feel any effect from the first pill. The teenagers had the house to themselves, as the youth's mother was spending the weekend with an Ontario man she had met in December. The bold emphasis is mine. We must ask "Where were the parents??" because possibly this tragedy was the culmination of previous bad examples. Just as a trolling aside, maybe the people who promote subsidizing daycare for 0-2 year-olds have a solution??
  9. You are right. I should have defined my terms. Not everybody uses democracy for the same purposes. To understand whether a democracy is "good" or not, you have ask yourself: "What would I think if I was in the shoes of my oppositions?? Do I have a voice?? Does my opposition get ANY representation??? Does my MP actually have a say or is he just a backbencher???" That is what makes a democracy "good" relative to an other. Whether you like or dislike the alliances (between parties or individual MPs) that are being made is irrelevant because each of them were elected. My definition of "good" for democracy is anything that moves away from a majority government that plays Trudeaumania with our tax dollars and laughs at us all as they pay-off the jail guard and go straight to the bank. After decades of Chretien and Mulroney, I would gladly take our fractioned minority government.
  10. No. I would hope that this study leads us to ask: Why are we NOT collecting more specific data?
  11. I agree. Particularly with the headline. However, their bias is a drop in a sea of nanny-state policies and union-backed socialist agendas. How else could they get anybody's attention?
  12. I would give the federal government a 4 / 5 but I still do not understand the Emmerson deal. I hope that the prime minister is smarter than me (yeah, yeah, I know, you are all nodding your heads and saying "Yeah! No doubt! We hope so too!") but I can not help but think that the same deal with the Americans could have been reached by appointing or hiring Emmerson in some other capacity. The floor-crossing may likely have lost political points which would have otherwise been won. To further expand on "Rating the government so far...." I would say that the whole minority government has been perfect: more interesting co-operation than we have ever seen in parliament in a long time. This is good for Canadian democracy.
  13. There are provinces in Canada who have recently (and will continue to) de-listed unversal health services. You (and everybody else) votes for or against legislators and politicians. They make and update the laws. Your (and everybody else's) opinions DO matter. Our current laws were not drafted arbitrarily. Our laws were drafted and changed as a result of politicians who themselves had opinions and who responded to the opinions of people who vote.
  14. The original research paper looks at three different things: How Does Use of Childcare Depend on Its Price? What is the Effect of Childcare subsidies on Work? How Does Childcare Utilization Affect Child Development? It is only the last question whereby the comment: applies and the writers do not hide this. There is simply a lack of specific-enough data. The research paper deals with the lack data by examining statistical trends of various "child development factors" before and after the introduction of the CPE policy in Quebec. They also compare those trends to the rest of Canada. The conclusions they draw are worded thus: Part VI: Conclusion In this paper we provide, to our knowledge, the first comprehensive analysis of a universal subsidized childcare program, following its impact from childcare use through employment and finally to children’s and parent’s outcomes. We uncover strong evidence of a shift into new childcare use, although approximately one third of the newly reported use appears to come from women who previously worked and had informal arrangements. The labor supply impact is strongly significant, and our measured elasticity of 0.236 is slightly smaller than previous credible estimates. Finally, we report striking evidence that children’s outcomes have worsened since the program was introduced. We also find suggestive evidence that families we study became more strained with the introduction of the program. This is manifested in increased aggressiveness and anxiety for the children, more hostile, less consistent parenting for the adults, and worse adult mental health and relationship satisfaction. As discussed earlier, these results are subject to a number of interpretations that highlight the importance of future work in this area. Most importantly, it is not clear whether the negative child outcomes are short-run transitions or long-run effects. We also have no results for single parent families, a group that previous studies suggest can benefit from high quality childcare. In addition, we raise a puzzle here of why families would take advantage of a policy which leads to worse child outcomes, worse parenting, and worse parental outcomes. It is possible that the other unmeasured benefits of higher family incomes offset these costs. Alternatively, it is possible that families will learn that they are not better off in this new regime, and that ultimately use of subsidized childcare may fall. Once again, following the long-run evolution of these policy effects will be central to a full welfare analysis of the program. UNIVERSAL CHILDCARE, MATERNAL LABOR SUPPLY AND FAMILY WELL-BEING Michael Baker, Jonathan Gruber, Kevin Milligan Working Paper 11832 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 Issued in December 2005
  15. I believe that you are right. It really sounds like it is very difficult (maybe close to impossible!) for you. You may even think that you are in a no-win situation. Based on your participation in this forum and your strong will to demonstrate glaring injustice, I believe that if you persist and continue to look for a job YOUR HONESTY will pay off. It may continue to take a long time. However, a potential employer will identify your analytical and technical skills and your honesty. Do not give up.
  16. A universe where you and I do NOT KNOW exactly what the aboriginals. If "negotiating" involves "finding out exactly what aboriginals want" than I am all for it but only if we start with the first step. Here is a question for everybody: What exactly do various aboriginals want? Until that question is answered, EVERYTHING we discuss amongst ourselves is useless (except for assigning consulting fees and research grants to "friends" of the federal government to the year 2030) in negotiating land claims. We are asking "How much do you want to settle land claims?" of people would DO NOT EVEN KNOW what settlement may cost. Keep chasing your tail.
  17. Yes, I think you can easily make that claim. However, only if you understand how taxation is theft. Otherwise, you will be chasing your tail.
  18. I do not even understand how people can enjoy watching soccer --- sorry, I mean, football. It is boring! The intentions of a person displaying a foreign flag or sticker may be arrogance such as ("My home country is better than Canada!") or it may simply be pride of their heritage. Personally, I am more patriotic to my hometown NHL hockey team than to Canada. Patriotism does not have to be (and I think that it rarely is) rational. I HATE seeing other hockey jerseys in MY city! I HATE people in my city cheering for the visiting team! I HATE them!!!!!!! Get out of my town! is all that I can think. However, if I moved from my city to permanently reside in a different NHL city, would I change allegiances??? I would be reluctant. Hockey is the only way that I can relate to seeing national flags and bumper stickers.
  19. Yes, it is and luckily this thread is in the Moral & Religious Issues! Anything goes! By raising the issue of taxation, it opens up a second aspect of the moral dillemma: 1) not only are we looking at the morality of abortion, per se 2) but also whether it is moral to FORCE everybody else to PAY for what you want (in this case, it is abortion). We could also ask the same question about getting a reduction of your taxes if you do not support ANYTHING ELSE that the government does. Yes, I think you should. The reason has to do with whether I think you should be paying taxes at all more than anything else...... but that is for a different thread! Just to tease everybody, I could say that if your taxes fund the war in Afghanistan or everybody else's abortions, YOU ARE COMPLICIT in both of those actions whether you agree with them morally or not.
  20. I will play the devil's advocate on you. How do you feel about your taxes going to fund abortions? Do you object to abortion as birth control enough to demand your taxes back or at least to remove it from the list of universal health-care services?
  21. That statement sounds like you want to reserve to right to say no if what they want is too much. Is that a correct interpretation?That is a correct interpretation but it is more than that. You could say that I will reserve the right to say "no" because I can not afford to live anywhere else on this planet. I can not afford to move. Therefore, if they ask more than I can afford, by default, saying "I can not afford that much." is the same as saying "no" to their request. I know that explanation is a simple cop-out. In my bold opinion, it is the smartest and most practical answer. Here is where my "more than that" comes in. I am a gambler. I am willing to take the chance that the aboriginals: 1) do not ONLY want money from us. (We give them a lot already.) I think they want a different kind of respect than we have afforded them so far. 2) are willing to share the country if we are open to a more environmentally-friendly concept of respecting and conserving the land. I can not say exactly what aboriginals want. It is up to them to say it. However, most of the young aboriginals (in Ontario, B.C., Yukon and Innu) of whom I have met are very peaceful people. I have dealt with some who live on and off reserves. They do not seem to harbor any ill feelings living side by side with white men today. I believe the violent conflicts arise when we disrespect them and their heritage.
  22. My answer is 0% -- nothing. The reason is -- [brace yourself; if you thought you hated my snarky comments enough; this one will be the kicker!] -- because I do not think we should be asking that question. It is a selfish question. The question we should be asking is: "Hey, Aboriginals! What do you want? I am here and I can not afford to go away to live someplace else on this planet. I can not correct the injustices from the past. Tell me what you want from ME personally and I will see what I can afford. I can not go back in time." Period. The answers will range from: "We aboriginals just want to assimilate with all Canadians and forget all of our claims. "We want to share the continent with you." "We aboriginals want EVERYTHING back and we want you ALL to leave the continent." I am willing to bet that if we approached aboriginal land claims as equal human beings who share this planet, we might find they are willing to share. Remember that originally the natives did not consider land an "ownable" property or object. We introduced that concept to them. What "we" are willing to pay to live up to these terms of these treaties is not going to resolve anything if "they" do not want what "we" offer. We must find out what "they" are willing to accept. My answer is 0% until I know exactly what they want from me.
  23. Yes, but the options are not. Yes and nowhere was that disputed. Can you quote anything that indicates that was disputed??????????? No and nowhere was that stated. Can you quote anything that indicates that was stated??????????? Funny how people read what they want to read, is it not? Now you have finally provided a clear option for the poll. You must make the option a clear amount. You can not put the options as a tax rate or as a percentage of spending or as a percentage of anything. The option must be a dollar amount paid by the individual answering the question. A more realistic set of options to your SAME QUESTION would be: What is the most you would pay to resolve native land claims? 1- Nothing 2- $ 200 per year 3- $ 400 per year 4- $1000 per year 5- Whatever it takes. 6- I am Native so my opinion does not count By making it a tax rate, you are asking each individual "How much do you want EVERYBODY ELSE to pay for......?" An individual paying a lump sum or a specific sum every year (or month or whenever) has a VASTLY different economic impact and TOTAL REVENUE COLLECTED than an increase in a tax rate paid by everybody.
  24. The options are not answers to the poll question. The only options that make sense are..... surprise, surprise: a dollar amount! The question asks: "What is the most you would pay...?" so the options must be answers to that question! You can make those options a lump sum or a regular payment but they must be a dollar amount. Period. We need some "Clarity Bill" here!
×
×
  • Create New...