Melanie_

I take back what I said in the previous thread. Obviously the movie won't be made by Spielberg or Tarentino, but by George Lucas, of course! BTW, onlythetruth, I notice you started another thread rather than responding to the questions/comments in the other one.

Hahahaha!

This stuff is hilarious. Lets see, NESARA is going to restore financial privacy, yet manages to locate Bush and Cheney's bank accounts through "White Knights' intelligence" and coerces them into making false tapes of their resignation speeches by holding their funds hostage? NESARA is going to eliminate income tax, forgive credit card and mortgage debt, reduce all sales taxes to a flat rate non essential new item only tax, and yet increase senior citizens incomes, redistribute all wealth throughout the world, and release enormous sums of money for humanitarian purposes? Where is this money coming from? Oh, yeah, Bush and Cheney's private accounts, which somehow are exempt from the financial privacy previously cited. My personal favourite is establish peace throughout the world. Is there a game plan? Can it be shared with the rest of us? And who is going to institute these massive changes? Have candidates been selected for an election, or is the democratic process going to be conveniently sidestepped? It seems to be implied that this "ACT" is American, but yet it will be implemented in other countries as well. Is it being debated in our House of Commons without us ever knowing about it? And most important, is Speilberg going to make the movie, or will it be Terantino????

Luohan, you are far from annoying. I think you have the idealism of a 16 year old, which is exactly what you should have at your age. Its also what Tammy Homolka, Leslie Mahaffy and Kristin French should have had the chance to experience. For the most part, I am a rational, left leaning (yes, I know, some of you will claim that is a contradiction) supporter of human rights. But, IMO, Karla Homolka doesn't deserve a second chance - those girls aren't getting a second chance, because of the choices Karla Homolka made. You won't hear this often, but I agree with Argus - his points are my thoughts exactly.

I have never been a fan of Quebec's $5.00, now $7.00, a day model, but it seems to be the one people are most familiar with. Here in Manitoba, almost all child care centres are non profit, run by parent Boards of Directors, with a mix of trained and untrained staff. Parents pay $376 per month (18.80/day) per preschool child. There are no additional charges for children with special needs, and there is a modest subsidy system available for families who qualify on a sliding scale. Centres and licensed family homes are eligible for an operating grant from the province based on the number of children cared for, but this grant makes up a small percentage of their income. Anyone who wants to be licensed as a family child care provider is able to go through the process, which involves regular inspections, criminal records check, first aid training, and an evening training course. These homes are able to meet the needs of shift workers and people who work weekends. The biggest need is lack of spaces, not the cost of the spaces to the parents. Most parents are willing to pay for their child care, if they can find a space that provides affordable, quality care for their children. That is what I am hoping Ken Dryden's child care plan will accomplish.

I'll assume this was directed at me, and I agree with you, to a point. Fear and paranoia (I won't go as far as to say hatred) are a big part of the backlash that she should expect upon release. Her "rights" are the last thing that I want to hold up as the most important part of this debate. She willingly participated in the kidnapping, torture, rape and murder of three young girls, one of them her sister. Did she give any thought to their "rights"? Her sentence was a mockery of the justice system, and completely devalued the lives of three girls who were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. I understand what you are saying, that she was given a sentence and has served it; however, it is too much to expect the Canadian public to just forgive and forget.

The history and culture of corruption and tyranny resulted from colonization in the first place. Who are you suggesting should recolonize Africa? This is a paternalistic solution - "we are better, we know what is best for you, just do what we tell you to until you have learned to be like us." Would the colonizers truly believe that the Africans could be like them? If not, it just sets up a climate of inferiority that breeds resentment. Aid to Africa needs to be given in a way that empowers those who really want to make a change for the better. Not all of Africa is like Sudan, embroiled in a bloody power struggle where the leaders have little or no concern for those who are in their path. Some nations, such as Kenya, Tanzania, South Africa, are well established politically, but are suffering from the rampant spread of AIDS and the lack of medical supplies. Other nations, such as Eritrea, are still feeling the effects of wars that are (officially) over, but resulted in the loss of an entire generation. I read today about a study done by Save the Children, which listed the top 10 countries in the world to be a mother and child (Canada was number 8) and the bottom 10 - Mali and Burkina Faso, two countries on the west coast of Africa, tied for last place. Appropriate aid to these countries could increase their capacity to take care of their own needs, rather than creating more dependency on the West.

Sorry for the fanboy (girl?) one liner, but this thread sounds like my daughter's sixth grade class.

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Perhaps you could expand on this a bit, though, as I obviously took it differently then you meant.

I meant that KalosSkilo was not looking at all of the issues, not that we as a country should defer action because we hadn't "studied" it enough. We've waited too long to help Darfur as it is. What form that help should take is my question now - we need an active peacekeeping force that can actually effect change, not end up frustrated and helpless like our contingent in Rwanda was. General Crabbe's estimate of 1,000 soldiers seems like a drop in the bucket, frankly, but I doubt we have much more than that to offer. And, lets be clear about our mission. It isn't about regime change or Western powers deciding how a country ought to be run. It's about stopping violence long enough for the politicians to get their acts together and build a peaceful nation. Some may scoff at that, but if we can't hold out that ideal as the ultimate goal, we have already written Sudan off as unsalvagable.

That's a very bold statement, IMR. Are you saying there are no humanitarian values outside of organized religion? Athiests, agnostics, and those who choose to keep their spirituality a personal matter are just as capable of having a social conscience as any church goer, and often spend a great deal of effort fighting for human rights both at home (same sex marriage) and abroad.

Of course there are Christians in the Liberal party. Martin makes no secret of the fact that he attends church every week. No one is expecting politicians to all give up their faith. What is expected, though, is that they find their own way to maintain their faith as a personal commitment in a secular government. That means that there needs to be rational arguments for the positions they take, not based on religion but based on what is best for society as a whole. Someone who believes strongly that their religion provides the best guideline for society will find a very personal aspect of themselves, their religion, under fire when others disagree.

There are churches, synagogues, temples and mosques throughout Canada. Anyone who chooses to worship in whatever style suits them best is free to do so. The beauty of having freedom of religion is that each religion (theoretically) is equal to the others, and none are given more credence than the others. Involving religion in schools and politics, however, would mean we have to decide which competing view needs to be given more weight; it compromises freedom of religion to do so. Politics and education need to be secular in order to protect people's right to worship as they choose, or to choose not to worship at all.

Bigdude - in response to your post about adoption... (Warning - sappy post to follow - I have had a glass of wine) I carry guilt over not taking on the care of a little boy I came into contact with as a consultant in an inner city child care program two years ago. He was three years old, and had already been in a few foster homes. It was coming up to Christmas, and he was trying so hard to be "good", because if he was good Santa would bring him a Nintendo machine, or so he believed. He got moved to another foster home just a few weeks later, and I don't know what happened to him after that. He had the brightest little face, and such a belief that the world was open to him - I hope that belief stays with him, but I doubt very much it will. You ask what our problem is with adopting these children, and I rationalize - I already have four children of my own, I have no room in my house, would my husband embrace another child, how many am I prepared to take on if I start with this one? I just let it go, but it hasn't let me go yet. This thread ties in, though, to the one about the over representation of First Nations Canadians in the justice system - how long will it take him to realize that, no matter how good he is, the system is weighted against him? Santa won't bring him a Nintendo. OK, no more wine for me!

Bigdude, I agree with you. Canada is able to contribute to the developing world, while still maintaining (and expanding) a social safety net for those Canadians who need it; the two are not mutually exclusive. I don't mean to diminish those people in Canada who are living in poverty, but it is a relative term when you look at people who are starving in tents in refugee camps, have been wounded or raped and have no access to medical attention, don't know where their children are or even if they are alive. BUT, we need to be sure that the money Canada gives for these people actually makes it to them; the money can't go from government to government, but rather should be given to NGOs that actually can get to the people. It's fine to say people should give their own money if the spirit moves them; but we get caught up in our own lives, and the generosity we feel when we see the tsunami on TV soon gets replaced by our fascination with the Michael Jackson trial or the frustration of having to replace the transmission on our cars. And I don't know about you, but I get phone calls constantly from one deserving cause or another asking for a donation. I give to some, not to others, based not so much on the cause but rather on my means at the time. There is a place for private donations to causes like Amnesty International or the Red Cross, but our government represents our belief as Canadians that we can share our wealth with those in need.

I don't think we have any obligation to keep a deal that was made under these conditions. The integrity of law is compromised if we make deals in good faith and then have that good faith thrown in our faces.

Does it have to be a party leader? My vote is for Grewal as "no clue"!

I read much more than I post, but I am still new to this board. I post when I think I have something reasonably intelligent to add to the discussion, but I don't expect everyone to share my view of what "reasonably intelligent" means!

Eureka - I have no intention of vilifying all nurses. I know many nurses, and they work hard to provide good care. I am simply stating that the quality of the patient's care has a great deal to do with the nurses' attitudes. I saw a doctor twice in a five day hospital stay, but the nurses were there the whole time. When a nurse is having a bad shift, or is burnt out, it is obvious to the people s/he is caring for. I agree that they are overworked, and we need more nurses. However, those that are there also need to recognize the impact they have on their patients; surgery is unpleasant enough without being made to feel like a burden to the people caring for you.

Rightwinger, I hope your wife recovered and she and the baby are well. Its too bad that she had such a bad experience with nurses; after I had an unpleasant stay in the hospital myself last year I came to the conclusion that it is all about the nurse's attitude. However, whether the system is public or private the actual practitioners won't change, and the union will be a part of either system. Everyone deserves to be treated with compassion and respect when they are ill, regardless of their ability to pay; that is what our tax dollars should be ensuring.

I am Economic Left/Right -5.63; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian -6.51. I guess I should take up yoga, wear crystals, and burn my bra!

If common courtesy towards your neighbour were a two way street between Canada and the US, we wouldn't have the Beef Ban.

Does Homolka's deal really deserve to be honoured? She lied, withheld evidence, portrayed herself as a victim in order to get the deal, and then later was found to have been a willing participant in the tortures and murders. If someone benefits from being dishonest to the courts, shouldn't the benefit received become null and void when the dishonesty is discovered?

When asking about the purpose of incarceration, you left out one option - punishment. I believe many Canadians are not interested in the rehabilitation of Karla Homolka, and while deterrence of others may be a side benefit of her time in jail, it is not in and of itself the reason she was imprisoned. As for whether the agreement she signed should be honoured, I think not. I am reacting as the mother of teenagers, and I don't want Homolka out on the streets ever again. Rationality is not part of my thinking; I have no forgiveness, no desire to see her rehabilitated, no sympathy for her to get a chance to lead a "normal" life. She blew any chance she ever deserved.

This reminds me of a famous basketball player who, several years ago, boasted about the number of women he had slept with over the years. I can't remember his name, but he was very well known among basketball fans. My point is that promiscuity is not found only among gay men, and the stats quoted here don't preclude gay men from being monogomous.