Melanie_

I read the article, but it doesn't go into detail on some of what you are claiming. For example, how does the Bible say to vote? I admit I'm not an avid reader of it, but I doubt it mentions the Conservative Party of Canada. What policies of the Conservatives are in line with Biblical teachings? Please be more specific, Mr. Canada.

I have to agree with you, Kimmy. Some of the violence you can see any day on regular TV programming is far more offensive, and more easily accessible, than this cartoon porn. How is it “entertainment” to watch young women get raped and mutilated week after week on these shows? I’ve also seen an episode of Law and Order (I think – I get all those shows mixed up) that had children taking the stand to describe their sexual abuse – those were actual child actors saying those graphic lines, which in my opinion verged on child porn. I’m not saying I like the idea of cartoon porn, but its just a small drop in a big bucket of what has come to be seen as “entertainment” in our culture. Any kid can turn on their TV day or night, find an episode of CSI on multiple channels, and see the bloody corpse of a young woman in the trunk of a car.

Yes, “eligible employees” are entitled to twelve weeks unpaid leave. Who is an “eligible employee”? If I’m reading this correctly, FMLA is not universal – it seems there are many women who would not be covered under this legislation. Many save their sick time and holiday time to use during this time, so that they are not without pay for the full twelve weeks. From your link: The graphs at the bottom show that the benefits they do receive, in the form of short term disability (since when is having a baby a disability?), are completely dependent on the employer. So I don’t think my comment regarding maternity leave in the States was too far off the mark.

Further to my previous post - Elton John live was worth the big $$. He's just as good now as he ever was!

In the many threads regarding child care in the three years I’ve been on this forum, one of the recurring arguments from the right has been, “Why have kids if you aren’t going to stay home and take care of them? It’s worth the sacrifice of giving up your job to take care of your kids yourself.” And yet, it seems some of those same people are on this thread, defending Sarah Palin’s right to work. I’m glad to see it, and will bookmark this thread for future reference when child care comes up again somewhere else. Actually, though, one of the things that I find interesting in this has been how quickly she returned to work after the birth of her child. In the States, there is no standard maternity leave – women generally just use up their sick time/holiday time, unless their employer chooses to give them time off. In Canada, we’ve recognized that women need time to adjust to their new role as a parent, and babies need time to bond with their mother; this is why we have 1 year of maternity/parental leave. I consider this a victory for feminists, who said loud and clear that it was important that they have time with their babies without running the risk of losing their jobs – you can be a mother and have a career, too. You don’t have to sacrifice one for the other. Sarah Palin didn’t get the luxury of maternity leave, but I’m glad to see that she has converted so many of the right wing to the idea that it is OK to be the working mother of an infant – and an infant with special needs at that.

Funny, I was listening to a song from John Lennon's Double Fantasy album on the radio this morning, thinking about how the lyrics were so poignant given that he died just as the album was released. I've gone to a few concerts recently where big name artists were still singing the songs they played 20 or more years ago (and I'm going to see Elton John on Friday), and I have to say sometimes it is better to listen to them on the old recordings, when they were in their prime. Could a Pink Floyd reunion really live up to the expectations of those of us who rocked out to "Another Brick in the Wall" back in 1979? I hope Rick Wright had peace in his last days, and was with people he loved when he passed.

I think we are almost saying the same thing. I have no issue with her holding private beliefs, although I don't share them (Shady - that goes for Harper, Dion, and Layton as well). But when she talks about God's plan for government, or the war, or whatever else she thinks there is a supernatural plan for, she is mixing religion with politics. You're right, it is no different from those who say they are acting according to Allah's plan; both are being influenced by their subjective mythologies.

You’re right, people will make their choices – my choice wouldn’t be to support someone who depends on her Imaginary Friend when it comes to making important decisions. Whether or not a Christian should hold office depends on whether or not they are willing to take responsibility for their choices, or instead will hide behind “God’s will” when something doesn’t work out. No, I don’t think praying will curse anything – as you say, that would be superstitious – I just don’t think it will result in divine intervention, either. It may allow someone to work something out in their heads, but if it does it is their own logical thought processes at work, not “God’s answer”. Betsy, I agree with you. I am glad she is open about it. It allows people to make informed decisions about supporting her or not – if I were American, and had a vote, this information would be important to me in deciding against voting for her. Yes, Shady, Obama and Biden also believe in the magic sky pixie. Lucky for me I don’t have to vote for them, either! Well said, Jerry. My personal aversion to mixing superstition with governance may not be the norm south of the border. But remember, some of us secular post modern liberals live in Winnipeg, too!

That got a chuckle from me, I'll admit! But I'm not interested in running for politics, just in being an armchair quarterback...and I think I have that in common with most members of this forum. We don't need a political career to discuss politics, do we?

She mixes superstition with governance when she claims that a mythical figure has a plan for the country, and that everyone needs to ask him nicely what that plan might be. It doesn’t really matter if she said it in a church or anywhere else, it is part of her public persona – this is the image she is deliberately projecting to the world.

A politician who truly believes there is a magic sky pixie directing any type of “plan” doesn’t get my vote of confidence. Her personal life is not relevant to the campaign; it’s her willingness to mix superstition (religion) with governing the country that should scare people off. Hiding behind some mythical “plan” that no one is privy to, or can objectively say even exists, is not the sign of a rational person.

Is English your first language? I suggest that you work on your own skills before criticizing others.

Great movies mentioned so far. Here's a few of mine... Platoon - saw it on the big screen - I had to walk out of the theatre, walk around the lobby a bit, remind myself it was just a movie, and then go back in and watch the rest. One of the most intense movie experiences of my life. For the chick flick viewers among us - Sophie's Choice. Every mother's worst nightmare, vividly portrayed. For the pure fun of popcorn movies - Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves... A Knight's Tale... The Princess Bride The last movie to make me cry - Black Snake Moan. Christina Ricci was amazing. AW, Gone With the Wind is one of my favourites, too! When I was younger, I always wished I was named Scarlett, not Melanie, but I've mellowed into the name over time.

OK, I'm a devoted 'Pegger - I go to Bomber games, Goldeyes games, Moose games; I listen to Burton and Randy, speak reverantly of Neal Young and Monty Hall, and went to University with most members of the Crash Test Dummies; I trash talk Regina, eat at Sals, and laugh at anyone who thinks -40C is too cold to go out in; I never pay full retail; and I slow down from 80 to 30 on Kenaston just in case a goose decides to walk across the road. But even I, a true fan of this city, have a hard time accepting that it is the sexiest in Canada. Heaven help the rest of the country.

Which family? Tim McLean's? Do you really think its even slightly appropriate to contact this family just to trumpet your anti-immigrant biases? If you want to do something to benefit the family and strike out against those who let undesirables into Canada, call your MP and protest Westboro Baptist Church being able to get into Canada to disrupt the funeral tomorrow. Or come to Winnipeg and be part of the group that will be blocking them from access to the family. But I don't really think you're interested in the family or the tragedy they have experienced - all you care about is getting more ammunition for your crusade against immigrants.

You obviously had a bad experience, and that is a shame. It’s true that there is poor quality care out there, but there is also a lot of higher quality than what you are describing. Most of what you are saying is not the result of the government regulations – outside of child to staff ratio (1:8 for preschool), every other problem you’ve listed is directly connected to the centre you chose. Each centre is autonomous – they follow the basic licensing regulations, but the board of directors (made up of parents) sets the policies and approves the budget, with the guidance of the director of the program. Parents have the final say in policies – you had more opportunity to change that centre than you are aware of. There is very little government involvement, outside of licensing regulations and some funding. The government funding could be used to provide higher wages, which might attract a better quality of caregiver – again, a choice made by the board of directors. While you may have eventually found a private sitter who met your needs, that isn’t the case for the majority of parents. Instead, they find patchwork care - one day with grandma, two with the neighbour down the street, etc. Or they put their kids in less ethical care than what you are describing – your caregiver stayed beneath the limit of 4 children in a home for unlicensed care, but there are many illegally operating caregivers who take in far more children than they can reasonably care for. And what about the caregiver you use? As an unlicensed provider, she probably isn’t eligible for EI, health benefits, sick time, paid vacation (unless the families who bring their children there are willing to pay her for it), etc. She can’t be making a lot of money, if she is only taking in the maximum of 4 children, so in effect she is subsidizing you. Turning to the issue of subsidy… the $100/month doesn’t cover the cost for low income families, so they are still dependent on taking spots in programs that are eligible for subsidies. You’ve questioned the quality of these programs (although I disagree that it is as widespread as you claim), but the Harper plan does nothing to increase the quality – in fact it has taken money out of the system. What are the options for those families? Bryan, I honestly do recognize that the system has flaws, and I’m sorry to hear that your son had such a bad experience. But I go into centres on a regular basis, and I see much better care than this. I’d rather try to work to improve the system, than abandon it because of the bad experiences of the minority.

Ouch! Is that for one child? Here in Manitoba the nonprofits charge a standard rate of $376/month, and receive a small operating grant from the province for each space. We don't have city or government run programs at all, but we do have a few for profit centres, who charge much higher fees (without a corresponding increase in quality).

As a working mother and grandmother, I can never support the Conservative child care plan. They’ve basically said that good mothers stay home, and bad mothers should be satisfied with unregulated, substandard care because they don’t really care about their children anyway. Comments like “take responsibility for your own children” continue to echo that sentiment – as if working to pay for your child’s food, shelter, and clothing doesn’t count as being responsible. Non profit daycare is not government run. It is run by a board of directors, generally made up of the parents of the children in the program. The government’s role is to ensure standards are met, just as they ensure standards are met in restaurants and other businesses. They also provide some funding in terms of operating grants, and subsidies for low income families; they can also provide grants to hire extra staff to meet the needs of children with disabilities. There is no grand socialist plot to create little Jack Laytons, complete with cheesy porn star moustache. I feel like I’m banging my head against a wall every time this subject comes up. Have the people who make such grossly misinformed statements about child care ever even set foot in a child care centre?

Were you drinking when you posted this? It seems out of character.

You're right, I can't support that kind of state control on a woman's reproduction. Your last comment really brings us back to the beginning of this thread - who has the right to life? Is it preferable to abort all children who may have a genetic defect, such as Down Syndrome? Are we trying to engineer the perfect society, by eliminating all those who are less than perfect? How do we define "perfect"? I know that wasn't really the angle you were coming at with your comment, Drea, but it is really the point I wanted to address when I started this thread. We've gone down some interesting paths in the ensuing 24 pages!

This is the only woman you are close to who has had an abortion that you know of. I can think of half a dozen women off the top of my head who I know who have had abortions, and if I spent some time at it I could probably name many more. Two were pregnant as teenagers, one was in the middle of an ugly divorce, one was pregnant as the result of rape, the others just were at a time in thier life when a child was not something they were prepared for. We probably all know women who have had abortions, we just don't know this detail in their lives.

Another reason for late term abortions can be access. Women living in remote areas may not have immediate access to abortions. Combine that with a partner or community that doesn't support her desire for an abortion, and it may take months to actually be able to have the procedure carried out. I agree with you, WIP. If a pregnant woman who has chosen to carry a pregnancy to term drinks or takes drugs, we should be able to do something about it. But it opens up the slippery slope argument. Do we also prevent them from smoking during pregnancy? More and more research is pointing out the negative effect of cigarette smoke on a developing fetus. What about trans fats? Will we prevent a woman from eating at McDonalds? Here is where I start getting tied up in knots. I have an issue with the state getting involved in micromanaging a woman's pregnancy, but at the same time there are definite health issues that can be prevented depending on the choices she makes.

Gee, thanks, Large 26, I was all in a flutter wondering what was going on regarding staggered terms for board members of regional mobility authorities in Texas. Now I will sleep well tonight.

Mr. Dion, Canadians have waited a long time for a workable National Child Care program. When the bilateral agreements were signed between the federal government and the provinces, it seemed that there was a real possibility that the different levels of government could work together to create a system that recognized each provinces’ unique needs within a national framework. The QUAD principles ensured that Quality, Universality, Accessibility, and Developmentally appropriate practices would be the basic underpinnings of a system that could meet the needs of children and families. Would you resurrect that program, and immediately begin working again on a National Child Care system? Would you keep any element of the Conservative attempt to address the child care needs of Canada? What steps would you take to convince the skeptics among the Canadian public that child care is worthy of public dollars? When the QUAD principles were initially designed, there was a movement to make them the QUAID principles instead, with the “I” standing for Inclusion. At the time, it was decided that the “U” principle, Universality, and the “A” principle, Accessibility, were enough to ensure the inclusion of children with disabilities. How will you ensure that the spirit of that decision is not lost with the passage of time, and children with special needs are fully included in any National Child Care program? edited to add... Large, for profit child care chains are beginning to set up shop in Canada. These programs are set up and administered from other countries, and siphon profits back to those countries. There has been growing concern that large, profit driven programs will seek to have regulations loosened or eliminated, in order to make more money (for example, rather than have a 1:8 ratio of adults to children, there could be a 1:10 ratio, allowing a centre to hire fewer staff and house more children). What will you do to ensure that the Quality aspect of the QUAD principles is not compromised by bigbox, institutional, multinational child care chains? The Star The profit child care model is concerned with creating wealth for the owners of the business, and the needs of the children and the centre are secondary. How will you ensure that Canadian tax dollars are being directed towards creating a quality system of child care, rather than towards lining the pockets of big business? Wikipedia

This is where it gets tough. There was a woman here in Winnipeg quite some time ago who was pregnant, and a crack addict. The courts tried to force her to go into rehab during her pregnancy, but they were unsuccessful, because she had the right to make choices for her own body - the fetus had no rights. I see many children with disabilities through my job, and it is heartbreaking to watch kids with FAS/E struggle to understand their disability. They can't learn as easily as their classmates, they can't control their impulses, they are constantly distracted; this is just part of the damage alcohol does in utero to developing brain structures. This is physical damage that can't be undone, and it is totally preventable. I believe a woman needs to make a choice whether to continue a pregnancy or not. But once she has made the choice, she is obligated to protect the developing fetus from harm in any way she can. Can this be legislated? I go back and forth on this.... I'm sure some of you have more definite opinions than me.