Melanie_

Reading both articles, particularly the first one, was quite a chore, so I appreciate that you took the time to do so. I read them both, but I'll admit that I read the first one a couple of years ago, then just skimmed it before posting it here. I am far from an economist, but the premise of market failure makes sense in the child care industry. If it makes sense in other industries as well, that is a topic for another thread. Good child care is a benefit to society. A short term investment in young families when they are in their prime childbearing years allows them to both start their families and continue to be productive in their workplaces. As they age, they pay back that short term investment many times over in their taxes. This passage I found disturbing: 13 year old's academic performance is a good indicator of how they will continue academically. By this age they have set patterns and attitudes regarding school - of course these patterns and attitudes can be changed, but not easily.

JBG, no one said the US deserved it. Get that straight. No one deserved to die that day. However, the US administration needs to recognize that for every action they take, there is an equal and opposite reaction. When their foreign policy is designed to promote American business interests in third world countries, at the expense of the people living in those countries, they have to expect that there will be resentment directed at them. Some whackos will act on that resentment.

Renegade, I disagree with your purely dollars and sense approach to providing childcare, but here is some evidence that points to the economic benefits. Two economists from the University of Toronto, Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky, have been doing research for years on the economic impact of child care. Here's a quote from an older article (beware, the entire article is 103 pages long)... http://www.childcarecanada.org/pubs/other/benefits/bc.pdf A more recent article they published sets out their idea of how a publicly funded system should work. This was in response to the Liberal QUAD (Quality, Universality, Accessibility, Developmentally appropriate) plan, which of course is now defunct. http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2004/cc/cleveland-krashinsky.pdf

It isn't a question of whether or not parents will pay for child care. It is a question of whether or not it is available, and with what standard of care. The taxpayer isn't being asked to foot the bill for the daily care of children - although I recognize that the government of Quebec certainly subsidizes more than any other province. The central argument is really about whether the government should have a hand in establishing a licensed and regulated system, or if parents should be fending for themselves.

From Charles Anthony, earlier in the thread... Actually, the people who work in child care are among the lowest paid in the country, with generally poor benefits. If you care to wade through the facts and figures, this link takes you through each province's regulated system, and shows average wages of child care staff, as well as tables showing how tax dollars are spent. http://www.childcarecanada.org/ECEC2004/index.html#toc

This is very much what is already in place in Manitoba. The provincial government licensing body inspects licensed daycares every three months; non-profit centres that pass the inspection get a small operating grant that supplements the fees the parents pay. This allows the rate to stay affordable, at $18.80/day for preschool children, and $27.50/day for children under 2. Parents whose incomes are below a certain level (I believe it is $30,000, but I could be mistaken) qualify for a sliding scale subsidy. Private, or profit making, centres are inspected but are not eligible for the grant, and can set their fees as high as they want. Unlicensed daycares are uninspected and unregulated.

I think one of the reasons we don't talk about it is that our minds shy away from the horror of the choice the jumpers had to make. No one really wants to think about what it was like for those who were trapped, who knew their death was inevitable and were forced to decide between the fire and the fall. I agree with you, August, it makes it too real. Its so much easier to solemnly talk about the 3000 dead, and the tragedy of 9/11, while slowly distancing ourselves from the gruesome, horrific details. Maybe it is an exercise in self preservation.

I don't think there are that many people happy with the plan. People pay for child care. That won't change under either plan - one of the biggest misconceptions about the Liberal plan was that it would provide free care - that was never part of the proposal.The Liberal plan went to developing a system that would serve many children over generations; the Conservative plan has no accountability, no structure, no plan for quality child care services. It is a thinly veiled slap at working mothers, saying that a hundred dollars a month gives them the choice to stay home, if they were good mothers they would make that choice. For those interested in some statistics (I know you all were hoping for statistics, right?) here's some facts and figures from StatsCan about the numbers of children in care, and the types of care they use. I've talked about the flexibility of the child care system here in Manitoba in other threads; that flexibility may account for the increased numbers the article shows. http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/060405/d060405a.htm

The public sphere doesn't need The Magic Sky Pixie's version of morality.

From your link.... I see nothing in this article about incompatiblilty of races. It's about community and society, which doesn't have to be limited to a single skin colour or religion. Everyone has biases, no matter how much they might like to think otherwise. Our brains are structured to look for connections between the known and the unknown, which means we often generalize past experiences or knowledge to new situations. The trick is to recognize where that generalization is coming from and to decide if it is a valid connection to make, or if it is just the path of least resistance.

It seems like a pretty simple request to get a doctor's note for the dog to come to school, but I wonder how much of the story we aren't seeing. Many parents of children with disabilities spend so much time fighting for thier children's inclusion; I wonder how much time and energy she has had to expend over the past 15 years just getting services for her child. It might make her quicker to defend her child's rights than those of us who have never really had to argue with the school board about our child's place in their school.

First of all, Christianity is not the government's "own" religion - we have a seperation of church and state in this country. And I doubt very much that you would refuse to adhere to a court ruling forcing the Canadian public to accept only the standards of Christianity. Freedom of religion means that people are not hindered in practicing whatever form of religion they choose. If their religion dictates that they wear a turban, no one should stop them - really, what harm does it do you? As for gay marriage, the topic has been exhausted on several threads.

Whaaa, Whaaaa, Whaaaa!!! Who's being childish? It's a public board isn't it? Sorry, everyone else, I fed the troll. I'm going back to my original strategy of ignoring these threads.

This is just rude. There is a personal messenger system available in this forum, as well as the option to email each other. Stop being childish.

A good idea in theory, but not so much in practice. I've had students who were completely funded (by their band, by EI, by various programs to encourage post secondary education), and sometimes there seems to be a lack of commitment to their studies. Not always, there are many students who appreciate the opportunity and make good use of it, but there seems to be a higher drop out rate among those who are fully funded (that is just my own observations, no hard data to back it up). Whether that is due to the "free ride" or due to other personal factors I don't know - perhaps if there were a program for the general population of students my observation would be different.

I'm just an armchair quarterback.

This isn't Isreal defending itself. It is placing Lebanese civilians at risk, regardless of their affiliation. Isreal has every right to defend itself with reasonable means, but this to me seems unreasonable.

Strawman back. I didn't say anything in defense of Hezbollah - condemning one is not an endorsement of the other.

You're saying as long as it doesn't cause MASS destruction its OK. Multiple sites of indiscriminate MODEST destruction are something to be proud of?

From the link.... Of course, often people fall back on the old "I was just kidding!" when they say something they actually believe and find that it offends people, but I just can't see anyone writing an article like this and intending for it to be taken seriously.

I think the article wasn't meant to be taken seriously, although there are probably many of both genders who either agree or took offense. When a woman has a career, though, staying in a marriage can be based on free will, rather than financial necessity. Not to say divorce doesn't impact both partners' finances, but if a woman has been totally dependent and is unable to support herself if she leave the marriage there is great incentive for her to stay.

Now Muslims shouldn't travel? Muslims who are not terrorists shouldn't deny being a terrorist? Leafless, you are being irrational.

george Allen's America Dear GOP: please select this man to be your candidate 2008. Thanks. -the Democratic Party An apology from Allen today, two weeks later. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/24/...in1931999.shtml

No one is supporting or romanticizing terrorism here. The passenger in question was not a terrorist, he was simply a doctor going about his business, flying home from a conference. Saying he deserved to be treated like a criminal because he was Muslim is equivalent to treating every Catholic priest as a pedophile. The real fad can be found in those who claim to "love freedom" but are choosy about who it should apply to.

This is hard to determine. Not hard to determine at all. It's not going to happen. As Trudeau once said, "The government has no place in the bedrooms of Canada."