Saturday, May 07, 2005

Caviar Socialism

The title links to the Vanier Institute for the Family / University of Lethbridge child care study released in February.
Socialized childcare sends the message loud and clear:
Family is irrelevant in Canada.

Paul Martin, Ken Dryden and Jack Layton (three 'old white guys' as Rona Ambrose so aptly put it) have decreed that in their 'Early Childhood Education' scheme, our kids are the beneficiaries of the wisdom that says children are better off being raised by the state, than by us.

Mr. Martin said recently that he was only providing what is necessary for the 'new reality' of two income families. Instead of making being a stay at home parent a viable or even preferable choice for families, we get the Nanny State.

A study by the Vanier Institute and the University of Lethbridge says that 90% of Canadians feel that ideally in two-parent households, one parent should stay at home with the children. 90% is not some slim majority.

The study determined that in fact, only 47% of kids are cared for by a stay at home parent. Less than half, but still far more than the media would have you believe. And of the other 53%, they are in 'some form of care' which I take to mean neighbours or relatives as well as formal daycare centres. Some of that 53% probably have moms or dads who work part-time or shifts, meaning the care is not full-day.

Government should be in the business of making it easier for families to raise their own children, rather than making it convenient for them not to.

Don't get me wrong. Women are more educated today than ever before, and sure, they want to use that education. But many, if not most women, are not putting their kids in daycare in order that they may go off to their careers as doctors, lawyers or politicians -- they are doing it so they can work as a clerk in an insurance company, or an office manager in an accounting firm -- because let's face it -- it isn't the doctors, lawyers and politicians who NEED daycare -- they can afford to hire nannies or to take a few years off to raise their kids and know their skills and education are still relevant in the world.

Those of us who need the choices are being told by those who don't. Instead of getting what we want, they are giving us what they think we OUGHT to want.

Most women want to rejoin the workforce at some point after having children, but that time-frame should be determined within a family, not by government edict. The tax system unfairly favours two income families and conversely, one income families are unfairly penalized.

By giving us 'Universal' daycare, the state is telling us that only wage earners are 'productive' members of society -- mothers and fathers who choose to stay at home with their kids are 'unproductive.' They are implying that state run 'Early Learning Centres' are a substitute for the love of a mom or dad.

The yearly price tag for this plan has not been talked about by the government, but daycare advocates and financial experts alike suggest $10,000,000, 000 (that's $10 Billion -- thanks to gullchasedship for the correction) per year to run a fully universal programme. But what will this social experiment cost in real terms? Families already face increasing burdens to their stability and on time together. Giving us babysitters in the guise of 'early education' is a cynical plan that usurps familial authority, obligations, rights, and even loyalty.

Mothers should have the choice to work outside the home and they should also have the choice to stay home with their kids. It's that simple. The key word is choice.

You shouldn't have to be rich to stay at home with your own kids.

Cheers, canadianna

Friday, May 06, 2005

Mayors Off-Side

CTV news (link) says Toronto Mayor David Miller, and Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell "warn Harper not to kill proposed budget."

Put People Before Politics (apparently a group of social/union activists) says "if the budget dies, then so will programs that would help the homeless, improve urban infrastructure and public transit, and increase affordable child-care spaces".

Mayor Miller said the federal budget is important to all Canadians and that he won't stay quiet if it should be struck down. "If there is an early election, I for one will certainly be speaking out about what's been lost," said Miller.

So now Miller, who just by taking office cost the Canadian taxpayer $35,000,000 (link to story of money from Ottawa for cancelling the Island bridge deal approved by the previous city council.) Just this week, the Feds agreed to pay legal fees incurred by the city after Toronto faced a lawsuit for having reneged on the deal.

Miller makes no secret of the fact that he is an NDP supporter. His admonition to Harper that politicians should put 'people ahead of politics' seemed to fly out the window when he decided to take partisan advantage of the first ever NDP federal budget.

It is this sort of grandstanding that casts illusions of a sinister Stephen Harper stealing daycare spaces from hungry children.

Even if all was cool in parliament -- to pretend that passing this budget would make any difference to anyone's life is asinine. The budget from LAST year has yet to be implemented -- and Martin has made it clear that the NDP add-ons would only be a go if certain conditions were met -- It would take more than a year from the budget being passed and implemented to even determine whether those 'conditions' had been realized -- and that is months longer than the time frame Mr. Martin gave before he'd call an election.

Add to that -- the Federal government can't bypass the provincial in dealing with the cities. The transfers go the provinces, don't they? And can the Federal government dictate to which cities, how much and for what? All three levels of government are banking on the fact that most people have only a slim grasp on federal/provincial powers in these things.

The successor to politics will be propaganda. Propaganda, not in the sense of a message or ideology, but as the impact of the whole technology of the times. --Marshall McLuhan

Mass media has made it so that people have more access to information than ever in the history of the world -- and the spread of lies and propaganda travels faster than the flick of a TV remote, or connecting to a news server. Some people will look deeper than the headline, but most will just scan it and see: the Mayors are warning Harper, so Harper must be doing something wrong.

Miller, Martin, Layton et al. are creating a crisis where there is none. They talk as though if this budget doesn't happen, the government spigot will shut off and people will suffer grave harm.

By playing into peoples' fear and anger they can personify the devil and call him Stephen Harper.

If this does go to the polls, we're in for a bumpy ride.



The Liberal Message

Title link is to a column by Michael Harris of the Ottawa Sun.

Harris talks about the violation of public trust:

If the policeman steals, the doctor harms, the banker pilfers, the game warden poaches, or the priest abuses, they are subject to much more than the sanctions of the law. The fundamental reality is that they can't be policemen, doctors, bankers, game wardens, or priests anymore. The fountainhead of their authority, the public trust that willingly transfers special powers to these people, has been betrayed.

Martin isn't lying when he says he didn't know about Adscam and the lot. But I also believe it was a 'don't ask, don't tell' arrangement, therefore he should be held accountable by voters. He has not been, and likely will not be, punished for his involvement or his 'lack of vigilance'. If we re-elect this government, we will be providing the means and opportunity for continued breach of public trust, and the burden of guilt will shift from them, to us.

After the last election, media reported that the Liberals had been chastened. Paul Martin said that he viewed his minority showing as a 'message' and that he and his party had 'got the message'.

In that time, Martin has made controversial senate appointments, ignored committee and parliamentary votes on various issues, approved at least one questionable judicial appointment, pushed ahead with dishonest same-sex marriage legislation (it doesn't matter which side of the issue you're on -- the bill as written does not protect religious freedoms for churches or individuals), he had to have his arm twisted on the Atlantic Accord (and still refused to put it in stand-alone legislation which could have been passed by now), and he manipulated the public when he bartered the budget in a deal he knows will never have to be implemented.

No one goes to the polls voting for a minority government. When we cast our ballots, each of us hopes our Party wins. The only message of the last election was that millions of Canadians are fine with the corrupt Liberal version of 'business as usual'.

The Liberals got the message.


Thursday, May 05, 2005

Who 'Owns' Parliament?

Scott Reid (the Liberal one) is on CBC's Politics. In referring to the Conservatives forcing an election, says:

"It's like someone trying to steal your car and then being angry that you won't hand them the keys."

The arrogance of this regime that they believe they have taken ownership of our government.

This is why we need an election.


Question Period

Scott Brison might just as well put on a tape and let it drone over and over.
Ann McLellan should shut up.
Jack Layton seems really subdued when he asks questions -- is he sorry? I think he realizes he's painted himself into a corner. He has to support a budget which, due to Liberal 'conditions' on the deal -- the policies that he had added on will never be implemented, even if it were to be passed.

The Liberals keep saying in the House that they have started civil proceedings against people in order to recover money stolen in Adscam --

-- What I want to know is why -- if WE have to wait for the Gomery Report to decide who's guilty, why did the government not wait for the Gomery Report to be sure who to sue, and for how much?

If Gomery is the only one who can provide the answers, why did the Liberal government jump the gun and start lawsuits?

The Liberals are certain 'these people' are guilty because they are positive this is going to get the money back. Yet 'these people' have not had their day in court -- the Liberal party has predetermined their guilt without benefit of Gomery.

Their skewed logic is getting tired. If people don't think they're corrupt, let's kick them out because they're getting really boring.


Accused, disgraced, disgraceful . . . yet they stay

Sometimes I think the Liberal's using Scott Brison as their mouthpiece as a shaming tactic. They value loyalty, and he is disloyal.

Or maybe it's an initiation rite. In order to be a Liberal you have to stand and betray your own history, deny any shred of your former belief system, act as though these fellows have always been your heroes, and swallow any integrity you ever had -- once you've kissed up enough, and knowingly lied to the point where your credibility is shot should you ever try to leave -- then, and only then are you allowed to join the 'in' group.

I look into Brison's face during question period, or when he's interviewed and it almost looks like he's trying not to laugh when he's defending the dirt. Most times he sounds like a trained seal, barking out the Liberal line of doublespeak. You'd almost think he was born Liberal, he's got it down so well.

Tonight on television when he was saying the PM had absolutely nothing to do with this (like Brison would know) he actually looked edgy.

I wonder if he'll keep a straight face tomorrow when he stands up to defend Martin.

I wonder how team Martin will find a way to turn this around.

As you watch the coverage, it's obvious the networks are all trying to be careful. By this time tomorrow, will it even be a blip on the radar?

A couple of the things I've written about this week (the Health Minister wanting New Brunswick to fund abortions at the Morgentaler private clinic, and Alberta lawyer, John Gill, having been appointed a judge early this year by Irwin Cotler, after having had an important role on the Liberal campaign in Alberta during last year's election) I looked for them to be discussed more indepth in the media, but there is just so much sleeze oozing from the Liberals, that important things just get a tiny write-up or no play at all because no one can keep track.

There isn't a Liberal MP who isn't tainted by this mess because of their willingness to hold their ground and defend their PM and party. How can they defend the indefensible and walk around as though they have been wronged? Why is the Liberal party not bleeding members and MPs?

I used to think it was just politics that made the Liberals seem so arrogant -- now I believe that it is arrogance which calls people to the Liberal party.


Wednesday, May 04, 2005

Libranos' Diversionary Tactics

The fuss over the 'Libranos' poster is a red herring. Tony Volpe isn't offended; he and his fellow Liberals probably wish they had something as wickedly funny about the Conservatives.

Volpe's meltdown was a perfect example of the Liberal media machine at work. Volpe goes on an over the top rant, in an attempt to snatch away the headlines from other, more disturbing issues dogging the Liberals as they fester on in an infected Parliament.

If proven, accusations by Inky Mark that he was approached by the Liberals with an offer of a patronage appointment to reduce Conservative numbers in the House, are potentially catastrophic for this ignoble mob.

What better way to take attention away from their own wrong-doing, than to start playing the race card?

Accusations of bigotry resonate with the public -- accusations of vote tampering are just another day in Ottawa under the Liberals.


Tuesday, May 03, 2005

Liberals Selling Judgeships in Alberta?

The NDP defeated a motion to bring a non-confidence vote to the House -- this despite their questions about a lawyer who received a judgeship six months after helping the Liberals run their campaign in Alberta.

The Calgary Sun says:

John Gill, appointed to the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta by Justice Minister Irwin Cotler in January, served as the Liberal party's Alberta campaign co-chair for the 2004 election. The NDP worries that allegations of political interference in the judiciary - that have so far focused on Quebec - are reaching across the country.

According the SUN, NDP MP Pat Martin says Gill's former law firm -- McCuaig Desrochers of Edmonton, also received "lucrative" aboriginal land claim contracts worth hundreds of thousands of federal dollars.

Knowing these allegations and the obvious appearance of judgeships for sale, the NDP had no trouble choosing influence over ethics. They have voted down a motion in the Public Accounts Committee which would have borought a non-confidence motion to the House.

The NDP might have conned a lot of people into believing they were only trying to make Parliament work -- but power has proven more alluring than principle. They have no more scruples than their partners in crime.


Monday, May 02, 2005

Swiss Banks or Grand Banks -- Military Strength is Essential to Protect a Nation's Interests

Paul Martin's speech to the International Fisheries Conference was all bark and no bite.
Martin said:

"for fishing fleets that break the rules, we need real sanctions with real bite. Unfortunately, illegal fishing occurs because the profits far outweigh the penalties. Giving violators a mere slap on the wrist and sending them back to their home port isn’t good enough. Too often, fines for breaking the rules are seen as “just another cost of doing business.” This is unacceptable. We need to correct this imbalance, put good before greed, stop pretending that certain nations aren’t breaking the rules and instead put in place tough sanctions for those who do."

Okay -- tough sanctions? Any suggestions Paul?

For National Post subscribers, George Jonas has an enlightening column. He's making the case for strengthening our military, and he sites the Swiss as an example of a 'neutral' country that defends it's neutrality with considerable military strength. Jonas says:

"Few people realize that the home of the Geneva Conventions has the largest militia in the world (200,000 including reserves). The federal constitution makes military service obligatory for Swiss men . . . Citizen-soldiers must keep their service weapons at home, making the land of international peace conferences bristle with submachine guns."

The show of force in protecting our valuable resources is crucial lest the perception of weakness provide an enormous hole through which foreign vessels will sail with impunity.

Jonas says about the show of strength:

"Historically, palace guards and peace officers were selected for size and fierce appearance, often enhanced by busbies to make them appear even taller. It was understood that the best way to keep the peace was to make breaching the peace appear to costly. This was an instinctive rather than a rational calculation: Many species of animals puff themselves up when alarmed. Animal instincts may not be sophisticated, but they're seldom wrong.
'May your enemies always underestimate you' is useful advice when fighting is inevitable. But when the aim is to avoid fighting, 'may your enemies always overestimate you' is by far the wiser counsel."

The successive Liberal regimes have abdicated their duties with regard to safe-guarding our fish stocks. The Prime Minister's speech suggests 'stronger sanctions' might help.

The gutting of our military over the past 40 years has played an integral part in the plundering of our waters by foreign fisherman. Our weakness is a point of pride for the Liberal regimes, who refuse to acknowledge the proud military heritage of our country.

The only way to prevent foreign overfishing in Canadian waters is to make breaching our boundaries too costly. Under a Liberal regime there is neither a will nor a way to make this happen.


Private Abortion a Must - Liberal Sleight of Hand

Health Minister Ujjal Dosanjh is cracking down on private health clinics -- well --- SOME private health clinics.

"For myself and Prime Minister Martin, it's very simple: We stand for public pay and public delivery and we will fight every inch of the way against the Harper, (Mike) Harris and (Preston) Manning agenda in this country,'' Dosanjh said to applause.

Last week, the Health Minister sent letters to Nova Scotia, Quebec, Alberta and B. C. warning them they would face consequences over the use of private diagnostic clinics .

New Brunswick got a letter of censure for refusal to cover the cost of abortions at Dr. Henry Morgentaler's private clinic in Fredericton.

Abortions are available in New Brunswick hospitals if two doctors have deemed it medically necessary. Those abortions are paid for by the province.

Don't dare set up a private clinic to serve Canadians who need MRIs or other diagnostic care -- that would be against the Canada Health Act -- It betrays the principles of our medicare system.

And should you choose to pull out your credit card and use a private diagnostic clinic rather than waiting 6 - 8 months in a government facilitated queue -- those privateers will win!

But go ahead an have an abortion at a private abortuary on the public dime.

In the Liberal dichotomous view of the world some "health care" warrants private delivery -- just not the kind that would save lives.

Minister Dosanjh has overstepped his authority in writing to New Brunswick at all. The service is available in New Brunswick -- end of story. How care is delivered within the framework of the public system is for the provinces to determine.

Provincial rights to determine which services will or will not be covered are at risk by the Health Minister's directive to New Brunswick .

And more galling -- he is advocating-- nay-- imposing-- provincial funding of a private clinic for abortions when public delivery of the same service is already in place.

While the Liberal mouth spouts one thing -- the Liberal hands are doing another.

How much more do people need to to see of this regime before they are 'scared' enough to cast their votes elsewhere?


Sunday, May 01, 2005

Fraud in Plain Sight

Today Linda McQuaig writes in defence of the Layton-Martin budget. That in itself is no surprise, but her analysis should be.

McQuaig lauds the new spending on 'environment, public transit, affordable housing, post-secondary education and foreign aid' (only one of which is exclusively in federal jurisdiction) and then says:

" . . . and the Liberals had campaigned on them (this list of priorities) last year. By contrast, tax cuts for big corporations, cancelled in the Liberal-NDP deal, were never mentioned in the Liberal campaign. But then, that's how the Liberals have traditionally operated, promising popular social spending on the stump and then, after the election quietly making the real budget decisions in close consultation with business lobbyists."

So, because Liberals traditionally lie during campaigns, we should not be concerned that they lie during campaigns, but because the Liberals say the Conservatives are lying during a campaign, we should worry that the Conservatives may or may not be deceiving us.

It's okay to vote for a proven liar, because at least you know where you stand? What kind of logic is this?

When the Liberals make a promise -- we know they won't keep it -- and that is reassuring? I get it -- all is right with the world ---the Liberals are lying and I can sleep at night.

What if the Conservative 'hidden agenda' is that they will bring an end to hidden agendas, and actually implement the policies they campaign on?

We couldn't have that, now could we? We're Canadian and we don't like uncertainty. We must uphold the years-long tradition of Liberal lies -- how else could we be sure what was happening in Ottawa?