segnosaur

The issue here is whether subsidized day care was a significant factor in increased birth rates in Quebec... bringing in other parts of the Quebec government's plans doesn't exactly support that argument. It was 2003 when the Liberal plan was put into place as seen above. I suggest you go back and read the information you yourself posted. The Quebec childcare plan did not start in 2003... in fact, it was started years earlier under the PQ. (The Liberals just continued it, and changed some of the details.) If the birthrate was low with subsidized daycare in place, but only increased after other measures were put in place. Just to repeat again... Quebec had subsidized day care before the Liberal plan. They still had a low birth rate. Their birth rate didn't increase until other policies were put into place not directly related to subsidized daycare. Given the long term trend prior in Quebec, I would say that the Liberal government work has certainly hasn't hurt. However, you are welcome to think that Quebec is just experiencing a season of love and family. I never claimed it had hurt. Just that there is no evidence that it has actually helped increase the birth rate. 1 year does not necessarily indicate a trend. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I have assumed that the birth rate has increased. But there is no evidence that child care availability has contributed to it. I have no idea of the vagaries of each provincial system. That isn't the issue here... At one point you suggested that the liberal plan was 'popular'. I was pointing out that the 'popularity' may be due to a lack of understanding about how exactly such a plan affects taxpayers on an individual level. (And I should point out you haven't provided any evidence to suggest the Liberals made attempts to explain that to taxpayers.) I also find it ironic that you would champion a Liberal daycare plan that involves relying on the provincial systems, without even knowing what those provincial systems entail. And where exactly did the conservatives say that the demand for childcare will go down? By giving tax breaks to the parents themselves, all parents will be able to find their own solutions (whether through actual daycare systems or more informal babysitting services). If more institutionalized daycare is necessary, people will better be able to afford it. Quite possible. But as I've said before, the fact that a program is popular does not necessarily make it a good policy. And also, as I've explained before, people (in this case women) may end up supporting plans because they simply don't know the details. It is all perfectly acceptable under our constitution and hardly deceptive. Ummm... being constitution does not necessarily mean something isn't deceptive. The conservatives increased funding to the provinces for child care. You suggested that it was because their own plans failed. I suggested that it was just a crass political move in order to be seen as doing something "for children". You countered it could also have been an attempt to improve federal/provincial relations. Here's the thing... we were told it was to provide daycare. If the underlying motive is to improve support or improve provincial relations, then it is deceptive, even if such transfers are being done legally.

You have provided no evidence to support your conclusion. Once again: in the early 2000s, before changes in parental leave, Quebec had a birth rate below the Canadian average. Given the fact that a child is likely to spend more time in daycare (as compared to the time they would spend on parental leave), you'd expect their birth rate to be higher than the national average because of all this cheap daycare. It wasn't. Of course, all this is assuming that the recent increase in Quebec's birth rate isn't: 1) Just a one time anomaly which may reverse itself in later years, and 2) isn't due to some factor we haven't considered yet. Ummm... no. Sadly, people are incredibly ignorant when it comes to knowing costs and details. Yes, the Liberals said their plan would cost $11 billion, but at no point did they ever indicate exactly how much it would impact each individual taxpayer, which was what my initial statement was. (Perhaps they did, in which case perhaps you can provide a link where the Liberals claimed "This will add $X to your tax bill".) Just some rough calculations... According to the CIA World Fact book, the number of Canadians between 15-64 (the main taxpayer base) is approximately 23 million. Given the proposed $11 billion cost of the Liberal daycare plan, this works out to $480 for your average taxpayer. (And this is only a rough estimate... given the fact that many low income people pay little or no tax to begin with, the average taxpayer will probably end up paying well over $500/person.) Its easy to support a plan when you think the $billions are coming from some magic government money machine. Probably be a different story if they're told "This will mean more than $500 out of your pocket". And hey, even you, champion of the Liberal plan, didn't even know about the problems with waiting lists in the Quebec system. (Or perhaps you did, but in that case why did you keep asking for recent data?) Or as a good policy in federal/provincial relations. Even if the government did decide to increase daycare transfers in order to improve federal/provincial relations, it means they're using taxpayer money in a deceptive way. It was done under the label of "child care", not "provincial equalization".

Ummm.... no. If the federal government is making a contribution (in this case to daycare programs), then by definition the provinces are not "funding the programs themselves". Funding the program themselves would involve the province taking the money from only the taxpayers in their own province, using whatever mechanisms the local government uses to generate revenue.

I think under Martin's plan, each province set things up according to their needs. You disagree with that? Depends on what exactly you mean by "disagree with that". You referring to Martin allowing each province to set things up the way they want, or whether its a good idea. Yes, the Liberal plan was to transfer the money to the provinces. I agree with that. As for whether it was a good idea: It is a good idea to allow the provinces to set up their own daycare system. However I think each province should be willing to fund the programs themselves. I don't think its right that the citizens in province A should have to pay for a daycare system that is wanted only in province B. Let the federal government worry about the stuff it should worry about: defense, international relations, etc. Let the provinces worry about social services.

Seems to me that the Quebec program is doing exactly what the government wanted which is getting the population to have children. There are a lot of factors that go into a couple having children. I don't think the availability of childcare is the major concern. Consider: in 2002, the Quebec birth rate was below that of the Canadian average (despite the fact that they had subsidized daycare at the time, although not as many spaces as they have now). Their birth rate has gone up recently, but that seems to coincide with an increase in mandatory parental leave. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/040419/d040419b.htm http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories And there are costs to society (some financial, some not) which are part of subsidized daycare. Keep in mind I brought up this issue over the claim that the Liberal daycare plan was popular.. I still stick by my opinion that it wouldn't have been as popular had people understood the impact on their taxes and/or the problems in government subsidies. You're right, the liberal plan was to give money to the provinces. But it was advertised as a daycare plan, and it would be expected that the money would involve some sort of direct public funding. The more likely explanation is that its a crass political move, in order to be seen as doing something to "help the children", regardless of whether its a good idea or not.

I'm sure that's true. It doesn't make what I said a false assumption. It just means that some women have different situations. Quebec will have to answer for that since they control how space is allocated to the population. However, Quebec's day car system (with its universality) is often suggested as the model for day in Canada... universal, substantial government funding, publicly run (or at least substantial government control), etc. (That may not be what you want from a daycare system, but others do.)

How about this: Of the 392,000 children younger than 5 in child care in Quebec in 2008, 93,000 are in private daycare at a cost of about $25 a day, compared with the popular and overcrowded public system that costs only $7 a day. From: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news...fc-cb927eaaab24 Since the Liberals decreased tax the same year this policy came out, I'd say the argument that it raises taxes is not there. Ok, by using the phrase "added to your tax bill", I meant having your taxes higher than they would otherwise be. But, that's rather wordy. (Note that I deliberately didn't use the term "raising taxes" for just that reason.) Publicly funded daycare is a government expense. It costs money. It doesn't just appear out of thin air. Somewhere along the line money will come out of the taxpayer's pocket. I'm not a member of the Tory government. I do not have a part in their social policies, nor do I agree with everything that they do. I think a universal public system is a bad idea, regardless of who implements it. I prefer tax reductions, and if there is any need to provide direct daycare, it should be specifically targeted to those who need it.

Out of curiosity I did a bit of research on this. If Roberts is basing his analysis on the work of van Leeuwin and Smith, he could be dealing with some bad data... From: http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/articleid_3096.html (University of Melbourne) ...findings showing that hundreds of times more uranium could be available than was predicted in a widely quoted study by van Leeuwen and Smith. Associate Professor Sevior says Van Leeuwen and Smith also seriously overestimate the energy needed to mine uranium and construct nuclear power plants. ... The scientists find that the energy cost to build a power plant would be ‘paid back’ within one and a half months of its establishment, and that the disposal of nuclear waste would add just one and a half more months to that total. Van Leeuwen and Smith predicted that nuclear power plants would take 7 - 10 years to 'pay back' these energy costs. They also investigated the energy cost of mining uranium from the Olympic Dam mine in South Australia and found that it is at least 10 times smaller than predicted by van Leeuwen and Smith. Granted, its quite possible that the study out of Melbourne is overly optimistic; still, this was done by academics (rather than people directly involved in the nuclear industry, although its quite possible some do privately funded research.) Edited to add: Upon doing some research, I found even more conflicting information with the van Leeuwen and Smith study. Someone found problems with the way they handle some of the conversions of energy units, as well as flaws in some of their data. (Note: this source is a blog, but it does refer to the actual data provided in the study. Take it for what you will.) http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2008/0...-egregious.html

I don't think either of your arguments are really that valid: - Even if cars pass emissions tests, they ARE polluting, just at a lesser level than one that's not polluting - Yes, cars do probably burn more gas waiting at green lights; that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't make sense to reduce at least some emissions However, I agree that it is a stupid idea for reasons you have not touched on: - Its an issue of basic freedom. If people burn to much gas waiting at a drive through, they will end up paying more for gas - Many people may have limited mobility, and as such forcing them to get out of their car to get food may be a burden

Your statement makes several false assumptions. It assumes that home or government supported daycare are the only options. Some women do manage to earn enough income to pay for their own daycare. Secondly, it assumes that such daycare schemes would be targeted at those that need it most... the single parent. However, in the Quebec system, it is often the successful 2 parent families who get the best daycare spots, while single parents often end up on waiting lists.

And a lot of Families in Quebec, when the instituted their universal plan years ago, have found it difficult (if not impossible) to find spots. From: http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/...a_snapshot.html : "As soon as I got pregnant, everybody told me you have to call everywhere to be... well, to get a place, because it's very difficult," one mother says....many day-cares have waiting lists 900 names long.... "I'm going back to work in a month and a half, and for the moment, I only have a spot in a private day care"... So, in Quebec, many people still can't get this nice, cheap day care. (Of course, those people stuck in private daycare end up helping to pay for those people lucky enough to find publicly sponsored care... doesn't exactly sound like a very fair system to me.) Hey, that's quite possibly true. But then, whether we support or reject public day care should depend only on whether its a good policy or not. But the, I wonder how many people would change their opinions if they were told "Do you want to have $X added to your tax bill to fund day care", or how many would change their opinions if they head about the problems in the Quebec system. Its easy to say "I want free stuff". Its a bit more difficult to say "I want stuff that I have to pay for and have no control over". Your right, the Liberal plan was to basically turn the money over to the provinces. But then, there would have been 2 possibilities: - The cost per space or demand would have been higher than expected, and as a result, many people would end up on a waiting list, - The provinces start demanding more money We may never know whether the Liberal plan would have worked. However, the experience with the Quebec plan should cause people to question the wisdom of large-scale public daycare subsidies.

Yet they said they would invade if bin Laden wasn't handed over. What do you think the deal was? 'Hand over bin Laden but we're going to attack you anyway?' I'm sure the Taliban would have jumped on that. Once again.... even though news sources and press releases singled out bin Laden, the other requirements (shutting down terrorist base) was a requirement right from the beginning. You seem to forget that the information you get has been filtered through a news source. That was after the bombing started. I'm talking about prior to the bombing. Prior to the bombing, Bush said: President Bush demanded Thursday night that the Taliban surrender all leaders of bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization and close al-Qaeda's bases in the country. (From: http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf...afghan.taliban/ ) This was in mid-September, weeks before any bombing started. So the U.S. was always interested in more than just bin Laden. I didn't say it was "just" about bin Laden. Actually, you said (on June 16, at 2:38 pm), "there would be no war if the Taliban turned over bin Laden to the U.S....Al Qaeda is not what's at issue here, though. Bin Laden is. It was all about bin Laden.". Who's this "we"? After all, I had heard that they wanted more than just bin Laden. The fact that you only knew about the one individual seems to be more of a failure in your ability to read and understand the news. The fact is that there were multiple news reports, statements, press releases, etc. all of which indicated that the U.S. wanted more than just bin Laden. That makes no sense at all. It's more than a stretch to say that he wasn't charged with 9-11 because it's unneccessary. After all, he's already been charged with lesser acts, so why charge him with the attack we went to war over? Ummm... you do know that the previous crimes that bin Laden was charged for involved terrorist attacks that killed hundreds of people? More than enough to have him as a very wanted man. You seem to have this bizarre fixation on the term 'hard evidence'. Would you care to define what you consider to be 'hard evidence'? Care to explain why the evidence that we do have (videotaped confessions, his position as head of al Qaeda, etc.) isn't significant?

Ummmm... straw man. Nobody here is claiming that the U.S. would have invaded Afghanistan if it weren't for 9/11. What we are doing is pointing out the failure of the arguments that somehow getting bin Laden was the only purpose of American involvement there. Its not. First of all, keep in mind that this article (while fairly accurate) is in no way comprehensive. True, they do focus on Bin Laden, but that does not mean that getting bin Laden was the only goal of the U.S. Secondly, I suggest you read to the end of the article, where its stated: The US vice-president, Dick Cheney, expressed his conviction that Bin Laden was behind it: "I have no doubt that he and his organisation played a significant role in this.... Even if the Taliban was to hand him over, that is unlikely to prevent military action. The best the Taliban could hope for is the US focusing solely on Bin Laden's bases So, even the author of the article seems to understand that getting bin Laden was not the only goal.

And why exactly do both wars have to have the same cause/reasoning behind it? Given the fact that 9/11 was caused by terrorists who were residing in Afghanistan, I'm pretty sure that getting justice was the key point in that invasion. If you want to argue that perhaps the Iraq invasion had different motivations, I might even have some agreement with you. (In fact, prior to the war the Bush administration itself indicated that its actions were partly due to a desire to bring in democracy and freedom to Iraq.) But then, Iraq wasn't the issue being brought up in the early posts... Bin Laden and Afghanistan was. First of all, you do realize that the offer to turn bin Laden over to a 'neutral country' only started after the U.S. began its military action? The Taliban completely refused prior to that. Secondly, do you honestly believe that the Taliban would have been willing to send him to a "neutral" 3rd country that would have had anything resembling a western-style Judicial process? How do you even define neutrality in this case? Remember, the initial offer was to have bin Laden tried in an islamic court... which isn't exactly what we would recognize as a modern justice system. And why exactly should the U.S. bother with this neutral 3rd country/extradition? Bin Laden's crimes were against the U.S. The U.S. should be the one who handles its justice. Do you think that if someone commits murder in Canada, that we should hold his trial in Mongolia? Uhhh... no. Afghanistan didn't even make an attempt to comply with the U.S. Had they been serious, they would have at least tried to get bin Laden themselves. And they could have offered the U.S. access to the training camps themselves. They did not. Quite possible that the Taliban didn't know about it. But, its irrelevant. Even if they didn't know about al Qaeda's plans until after it happened, the fact that they refused to act until under the threat of military action indicates at least a compliance. Justice involves having him face the laws of the country that he attacked, not some islamic court in some country that would just as likely give him a pat on the back. Hey, I admit, I do have an opinion that my "morals" are superior to those of the Taliban. I believe in basic human rights (the right to life, to free speech, in basic equality of the genders). Those are obviously things that the Taliban did not believe in, and are worth fighting for/defending. (I could point out that most of the world technically feels the same way, since the U.N. has adopted certain basic human rights principles; however, many of its members don't bother practicing what they preach.) Of course, if you want to argue that no set of morals is 'superior' to another, then the issue becomes irrelevant, since engaging in war cannot be considered an immoral act. So, if someone actually believes that enforcing certain 'morals' isn't a valid basis for war, then how do you feel about the Holocaust? What about the slaughter in Rwanda? Are they OK because they were within the moral confines of the countries involved?

I know the feeling. I do know there are troothers around here; however, I am willing to give some of the posters here the benefit of the doubt. It is possible for someone to believe bin Laden was likely responsible, but we only bothered invading Afghanistan due to other reasons.

Actually, quite a bit has changed. There are at least 2 new pipelines in the region... one through to china, the other through to Turkey. Both of these pipelines are more secure than anything that can be put through Afghanistan. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4577497.stm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakhstan-China_oil_pipeline So, while having a pipeline through Afghanistan would benefit Afghanistan (and help secure oil supplies), it is certainly not a necessity. If the whole reason for invading Afghanistan was to build the pipeline, it seems like a bit wasted effort.

How exactly is that "laying their hands on Bin Laden"? The Taliban agreed to send him to a "neutral" third country, not the U.S. Given the fact that bin Laden's crimes were carried out against americans, its quite reasonable to expect the U.S. to actually have access to him. Of course, as I pointed out, that was not the only demand that the U.S. had... they wanted access to other terrorists, as well as terrorist training camps. (See my post above for references.) Every sovereign country has the right and duty to police its own affairs. However, if a country (such as Afghanistan under the Taliban) allows attacks to be launched from its soil, it has the obligation to at least attempt to bring the perpetrators to justice. You do realize the Taliban were not exactly respectful of human rights. The civilian casualties that resulted from this war are indeed unfortunate; however, the amount of death probably wasn't that much greater than that caused by the Taliban and its strict Islamic law. (How many women died because the Taliban limited access to women's doctors? How many were executed at public executions?) Yes, the 'war on terror' may not have an easy "winnable" goal; however, that does not mean that it is not worth pursuing. Eliminating some terrorist infrastructure, and bringing improved human rights to some areas that were previously under despotic leadership will not solve all of the world's problems. But, it has the potential to at least make the world better than it was before. Is it moral to force women to stay at home and prevent them from working or going to school? Is it moral to execute women for adultery? Is it moral to force men to wear beards? Granted, those weren't exactly the main issues that were on the minds of the U.S. when they overthrew the Taliban, but before you go assuming the war was 'immoral', consider the alternative.

Gross oversimplifcation. There are a variety of reasons NATO countries have joined the U.S. in Afghanistan. Canada's mission is to provide stability and enable the country to rebuild. Saying that its 'just to get bin Laden' is wrong. Again, a gross simplification. The U.S. actually made several demands. Not only did they demand bin Laden, they demanded his 'cohorts', and they wanted access to terrorist training camps. From: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/...ain310852.shtml : Mr. Bush demanded in his speech before members of Congress that the Taliban surrender bin Laden, release imprisoned Americans, and give the United States full access to terrorist training camps.... "They will hand over the terrorists (note the plural) or they will share in their fate." From: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/1...stan.terrorism5 : Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." So, your claim that it was 'just about bin Laden' is false. Could be that the average person is lazy and doesn't bother to actually properly research things. The U.S. said right from the beginning that they wanted more than just bin Laden... however, its probably easier for the average person to fixate on one individual. (For the same reason most people know who Hitler was, even though there were others nazis that were just as evil/ruthless; a single personification is easier to comprehend.) That makes no sense. If there's enough to convict him, there would be enough to lay charges. Laying charges doesn't take as much evidence as a conviction does. It's why people are charged and aquitted. Read what I said again... I did not claim that they lacked the necessary evidence to charge and/or convict him. What I said is that a lack of charges does not mean bin Laden is innocent. They likely have enough evidence to try and convict him, if they so choose... however, such legal proceedings are pretty much unnecessary because of outstanding charges for other terrorist activities for which he's already been charged. Nope, I've already shown that that was incorrect. The U.S. did not just want bin Laden, they wanted access to al Qaeda training camps, and they wanted others in the terrorist organization.

There have been many rumors about bin Laden's health, but for the most part they are unconfirmed, from non-reputable sources, or even contradictory. Even many of the reports that claim he had problems with his kidneys don't claim its serious enough to need dialysis. I'd treat all such statements with a grain of salt. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/kidney.asp Yes, the CIA disbanded the unit specifically tasked to hunt bin Laden. The main reason for that may be because they believe al Qaeda (since the invasion of Afghanistan) no longer has a hierarchical structure (with bin Laden at the top), but is more compartmentalized... therefore, spending all their efforts to hunt one man may not be an effective use of resources. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html Well, its not like the Pakistanis know exactly where he is... they follow reported sitings, some of which may be accurate, some of which may be false, and most tend to be at least a day or 2 old. (And of course that doesn't mean that the Americans don't have the same information; they just might not be publishing it.)

I had responded to this earlier, but going over my post, I don't think I properly responded to part of your post... They didn't "overlook" updating the FBI most wanted list. The FBI says there's not enough hard evidence to charge Bin Laden with 9-11. I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. The opening post sounded like he might be using the FBI's most wanted list to suggest that 9/11 was some sort of inside job, as part of some global conspiracy. That's why I was questioning his motivations.

Actually, prior to 9/11 the U.S. had launched cruise missiles into Afghanistan (Operation Infinite Reach) over al-Qaeda's involvement in attacks on U.S. embassies. Most people would consider firing missiles an act of war, even though the U.S. didn't have the political resolve to push the issue and overthrow the taliban at the time. Once again, the fact that they haven't bothered to lay charges does not mean that they would not have enough evidence to actually convict him if and when they actually bring him into court. Of course, I could also point out that al Qaeda is more than just one man... there is more than enough evidence tying the hijackers into al Qaeda, so going after the base of operations for that organization is a valid response, even if you don't have evidence directly implicating the very head of the organization. Not at all. First of all, while i do want governments to act on the best possible evidence, I recognize that establishing 'guilt' (according to standards in the court system) is not always possible, when the suspect is residing in a country hostile to western ideals. (Evidence is difficult to gather because the host country is uncooperative, witnesses are unwilling to testify, much 'evidence' must be classified by the government for legitimate security purposes, etc.) However, when the preponderance of evidence points to Al Quaeda's guilt, and there is no other logical explanation, then the government should respond appropriately. And as I pointed out, bin Laden is just one individual... a country has the right and responsibility to act against terrorist organizations, even if they don't have charges laid out against the head of the organization.

Perhaps because Bin Convenient isn't so much any more. Or a much more likely scenario... the failure to capture Bin Laden is viewed by the public as a failure. (The failure to capture him is understandable, given the lack of U.S. influence in that area as well as the region's topology... however, perception is important.) Because they failed to capture him, they want to downplay their failure, regardless of how guilty he really is. True. Never mind the fact that Iraq had been involved with other terrorist organizations other than al-Qaeda. However, please point to me where the Bush administration has stated that Saddam was involved (at least once al Qaeda was properly identified as the culprit.) Granted, many in the U.S. mistakenly assume Saddam was involved with 9/11 (and the government may have made use of people's misconceptions), but where exactly did they say "Saddam did 9/11"? And where did they say they did have something to do with 9/11? Really, there are other problems and threats in the world other than al Qaeda. Many people don't like the idea of nuclear weapons in the hands of a theocratic dictatorship who has declared open hostility to Israel, regardless of their involvement with one particular terrorist group. Uhhh... no. The Taliban (you know, the previous rulers of Afghanistan) allowed al Qaeda (you know, the group that has actually admitted to being behind 9/11) to establish bases in the area. Sounds to me that they Afghanistan certainly did have something to do with 9/11.

And what exactly is your point? There are a number of issues at work here... First of all, you are assuming that the FBI list is both correct and comprehensive with regards to who is 'dangerous' and what they are under suspicion for (as well as the exact evidence against them.) There have been many statements by the FBI that indicate that they believe that bin Laden was involved in 9/11, but until there are actual legal charges, they don't want to update the poster. Not charging someone doesn't mean they don't have evidence.. they just don't want to (or need to) charge him for it at this point in time. Secondly, Bin Laden was already wanted for other terrorist attacks... what exactly would be the need to charge him for the 9/11 attacks until they actually have him in custody? Not like its going to change his status and/or the way he's looked at. (This would rather be like digging up the corpse of Ted Bundy just to electrocute him again...) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6082700687.html Really... what exactly do you think is the relevance of your opening post? Do you think there is a conspiracy, and/or that bin Laden is innocent? Don't you think that if there was some sort of vast powerful conspiracy to falsely blame bin Laden that it would be strange that they'd overlook some little detail like updating the FBI most wanted list?

Hey, quite possible that you didn't miss anything... however, you never stated the author of the survey in your opening post... that was what 'missed'... details that you should have given. (And yeah, it is relatively easy to click on the link and read it myself... however, when you do provide summaries of information, its always good to provide all relevant information so people have the opportunity to decide if its worth reading. If this is the study, then it really, really, really sucks. Some of the problems: - As expected, the only thing they dealt with was public day care. Never mind if everyone was a millionaire and private daycare was only $1/day, the CLC would still fail a province over lack of public funding - Look at the data and see how many of their entries are missing information - Their assignment of grades seems rather arbitrary. What qualifies as a C? What qualifies as a D? It would be just as relevant if they were making the C an equivalent of an A. I do not have any other comparative study. (Given the complexity of the issue, when you factor in public, private, and home-provided care, I doubt you'll ever find any study that actually addresses the issue properly.) However, you don't need to have a comparative study to recognize the CLC study as bunk. (As an analogy, if someone claimed they saw a U.F.O., I would not have to come up with an alternative explanation to know that they probably didn't see little green men from mars.) The CLC study is bunk. It fails on its own. Which to me is irrelevant to how much this study fails. I'm not a hardcore conservative supporter... I'm more of a libertarian (although I have voted conservative in the past because their policies were the ones that I felt were currently closest to what I want implemented.) Ummm... there are some rather large differences between daycare and education/schooling: - Schooling is a requirement for everyone; daycare is, in many cases optional (in a large number of cases, one of the parents may choose to stay at home with the child during the earlier years; the length of time a parent will stay at home may also vary.) - Daycare does not necessarily teach skills required later in life, unlike schools Because of those differences, daycare should be looked at as being totally different from traditional school education. (I sincerely doubt you'll find many conservatives who favor eliminating public schools, even if they are against subsidized daycare.)

Funny, I've always thought that saying was bastardized and should be the other way around. Children are not compassionate towards others (socialist) they are selfish and think the world revolves around them (because they are children). Once a person grows up they should have developed some compassion through life experience. Umm... in that quote (It is widely attributed to Churchill, but was likely said by someone else.... see http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/ethicalesq/20...-over-30-maxim/ )), the 'young people' that he is referring to are not children, they are adults (for example in their 20s), who would have developed compassion for others, but may not have the responsibilities or life experiences that someone in their 40s have. As the younger adult ages, they realize that the concepts that they have (e.g. let the government give money to various causes, liberalize things like drug usage) may not work as well when they get older (and may end up with families of their own) and actually see their tax money funding such programs.