The Shotgun Blog
« Bin Laden on Iraq: "the darkness has become pitch black" | Main | The Case against Blair Wilson -- The Elections Canada evidence »
Sunday, November 04, 2007
The Entitlement of Child Care
When it comes to providing child care for Canadians, Jack Layton and the rest of Canada’s opposition parties want to keep the private sector out of it. Unfortunately for taxpayers, whenever a socialist like Jack Layton or Stephane Dion makes a proposal to limit private sector involvement in something, you know they’re about to waste a huge pile of your money.
Consequently, the NDP have proposed Bill C303.
Here’s a crazy thought, Jack… If this country wants child care, why don’t you ask the parents to provide that care to their own children?
I realize that not every family can afford to have one parent leave their job to raise their children full time. Therefore, outside child care is a necessity for some, but why should the taxpayer provide it? Parents must pay for their children’s clothing, recreation, transportation, food and medicine. They should also pay for any babysitting their children require.
To take the madness a step further, the politicians and special interest groups of the left have found an even higher evil force than the Canadian private corporation. Not only do they want to keep the private sector out, they want to block foreign ownership of child care centres.
First of all, we don’t need some universal state-run “pan-Canadian child care system” to bleed taxpayers dry just to fund something that parents should be paying for themselves.
Second, the groups who are against foreign ownership of child care centres, are the same groups that are constantly complaining that we need more child care spaces. Why should it matter where the owner of a child care centre is from, just as long as they provide the services you’re looking for? We’re not exactly talking about an industry of national security here.
Before the current age of socialist entitlement, Canadians used to be a resourceful people. They would make sacrifices and stay home to raise their children, and the children would grow up just fine. They would make arrangements with family, friends and neighbours to see that their children were properly cared for. Canadians have managed for years to do whatever it takes to care for their children, and they have done it successfully without the taxpayer providing for their every selfish need.
Raising children is the sole responsibility of parents, not the state. It is truly scary to think what havoc could happen to this country if the NDP ever got hold of the reins of power.
Cross-posted at www.exactlyright.ca.
Posted by Dave Hodson on November 4, 2007 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e54f8d6d488834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Entitlement of Child Care:
Comments
"They would make sacrifices and stay home to raise their children, and the children would grow up just fine."
Grow up just fine??? They grew up much better than the present generation of spoiled brats who are demanding everything free college, free child care, free condoms, and free anything else they can think of. Snow blunder is a prime example of this rotten generation.
Home-schooled children are the product of parents willing to give a proper education and good guidance to their children. Many private religious schools do the same.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 6:47:47 AM
Canadians should understand that outside the home child care is clearly a communist concept.
Couched in deceptive language but meant to socialize and brainwash children with progressive notions.
Make no mistake that early learning works well, just turn your attention to gun toting children currently
doing so, in many third world backward states.
Admittedly Canadian child care is not about teaching gun toting or Jew hating, it nonetheless means that parental guidance is greatly reduced in these (unionized?)state sponsored centres.
My message to Taliban Jack, Ken Dryden and the rest of the flock of closet communists, is to back off and leave parenting and child care for the people who bred them.
Sort of like in the old days that the rest of us did before this socialist notion became the shrill cry of progressives in Canada.
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2007-11-04 7:13:08 AM
It's a sad reflection on any society or humanity for that matter when we have politicians trying to gain politically by making an issue of who should take care of our children.
The only way a government should offer help is through financial breaks to allow a parent to stay home and raise their own children. That would not be satisfactory to the Liberal Leftists of course, they prefer to have a Chinese Commie style state run day care. It appears in their minds our kids should be products of the state.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-11-04 7:17:15 AM
Dave Hodson - Raising children is the sole responsibility of parents, not the state
You've penned an interesting article. I will disagree with one point that you've made that "Raising children is the sole responsibility of parents, not the state". Would you not agree that the state has an obligation to enforce child labour / education laws, which may go against the wishes of parents.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-04 8:19:36 AM
. . . and child sacrifice is also the State's business - unless we're talking about abortion. Then it's NOT the State's business.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 8:26:43 AM
>"Canadians should understand that outside the home child care is clearly a communist concept."
Joe Molnar | 4-Nov-07 7:13:08 AM
I like the way you think, Joe. Bravo.
>"“Foreign ownership of Canadian child care will kill the dream of a pan-Canadian child care system,” said Jody Dallaire, Chairperson of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada."
Who dreams these kind of dreams?
Communists do.
They also dream of foisting their dreams on us with bigger state intervention in our lives and higher taxes for all.
I'd rather dream the American dream.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-04 8:39:42 AM
Something about this debate makes me think of beer and popcorn.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-04 8:44:18 AM
Zeb ~
Just in time for today's Super Bowl at 4:15. :)
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 8:47:08 AM
If this program ever becomes law, can those of us who raised our kids, paid for their education, sporting costs etc, file a class action suit against the govt for not providing same to us.
(I am not serious). A better solution would be to bring back exemptions for children on the tax return to lower taxes for one earner families.
Imagine a generation of children being taught that there is right and wrong, you and you alone are responsible for your actions. Morals and values being instilled in children.
There will always be a need for some kind of child care facilities, but keep them private and the govt out. Another change that has to be made is to allow payments for care to extended family members (if they want to charge), like grandparents, aunts, etc.
Posted by: MaryT | 2007-11-04 8:56:02 AM
What gets me is that these "child care advocates" object to foreign ownership but not domestic ownership. Either way, it are still capitalist enterprises. Pathetic reasoning at its worst.
I'd like the choice at the very least of where I send my kids to day care - especially if it is my preference to keep them at home.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-11-04 8:57:08 AM
The REAL motives behind this child grab is that Leftoids are not reproducing. This is result of the Me Generation wanting to live the hedonistic life style without any responsibilities.
But if they want to retain power in the future, they must brainwash everyone else's children to keep voting for their failed policies - so they are trying to grab our mids and indoctrinate them from a young age.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 9:00:10 AM
Grow up just fine??? They grew up much better than the present generation of spoiled brats who are demanding everything free college, free child care, free condoms, and free anything else they can think of. Snow blunder is a prime example of this rotten generation.
Posted by: obc | 4-Nov-07 6:47:47 AM
Oh? How so? Where do I "demand everything free"? Please, provide some proof for your snowjob, that is if you can get your nose long enough out of the white powder (sold to you by an entrepreneur that found a market niche despite heavy Government intervention).
-----------------------
Home-schooled children are the product of parents willing to give a proper education and good guidance to their children. Many private religious schools do the same.
Posted by: obc | 4-Nov-07 6:47:47 AM
Yes, because without God nobody could justify throwin atomic bombs on cities or advocating to kill 1.2 Billion Infidels, erms, sorry, I mean those pesky Muslims who are going to kill us all because we have succumbed to a public eduction system which is clearly the work of the devil. If Jesus would still be with us he would tell us all to send our kids to obc's school of "hate everybody you don't agree with".
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 9:06:16 AM
Dave Hodson - Raising children is the sole responsibility of parents, not the state
You've penned an interesting article. I will disagree with one point that you've made that "Raising children is the sole responsibility of parents, not the state". Would you not agree that the state has an obligation to enforce child labour / education laws, which may go against the wishes of parents.
Posted by: O'REILLY | 4-Nov-07 8:19:36 AM
Actually the old saying goes: "It takes a village to raise a child". Which is true. The idea to "hunker down in the bunker" with the children and make sure they aren't exposed to anything "vile", may appeal to paranoids and haters like obc, but in reality to get a well rounded individual they need to be exposed (even as kids) to more than just one line of thought.
The problem is: There is no "village" anymore, people in most places in the Western world live side by side but not together, the "community" aspect is gone, especially in the suburbs.
-------------------------
The only way a government should offer help is through financial breaks to allow a parent to stay home and raise their own children.
Posted by: LizJ | 4-Nov-07 7:17:15 AM
Although this is a good idea in theory, how much of a "refund" should the Government give? It doesn't help either if there is no "support infrastructure" around these "breeding pods", you would need things like play grounds, community centres etc. in order to make this a useful proposal.
How much money does the average Canadian family need to raise to kids (net, let's ignore taxes right now)? My guess is that pure Government tax breaks won't cover the cost, but please, provide some math where this would actually work out, I am curious.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 9:11:26 AM
>"Actually the old saying goes: "It takes a village to raise a child".
Snowrunner | 4-Nov-07 9:11:26 AM
Snowrunner, it's not an old saying in the Western world.
It happens to be an old African saying.
Africa is in worse shape now than when I was a child.
So much for empty African platitudes.
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-04 9:17:23 AM
Snowrunner, it's not an old saying in the Western world.
It happens to be an old African saying.
Africa is in worse shape now than when I was a child.
So much for empty African platitudes.
Posted by: Speller | 4-Nov-07 9:17:23 AM
I could point out some historical reasons for Africa's state today, but that would probably just overload your brain with facts that don't fit in your world view of the superior Western Society.
But yes, you're right it's an African Proverb, but are you claiming that in the West "in the good old days" kids were never allowed to be out and about in the village and be raised by everybody around? That's how I was told both my parents and grandparents were raised, guess either they lied to me or they are African and never told me.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 9:26:59 AM
i have personal experience with the fruits of homeschooling.
most everyone with whom i associate has homeschooled their kids. i've watched these kids grow up and become incredible examples of lucid, fair, and accommodating citizens. i have one friend with SEVEN kids (rare these days!). all were homeschooled. they are all exemplary.
most are adults now. almost all are successful because they had not been through the public school State indoctrination of "socialization", and guilt and victimhood cultivation, like most of us had (and, like some of us haven't grown out of).
reading, writing, math, science (physics,geology, chemistry, biology), physical education, art, and CHRONOLOGICAL history (not "social studies") should be taught in scools. socialization and doctrine should be taught by parents.
Snowrunner~
it takes a village to raise an idiot.
Posted by: shel | 2007-11-04 9:41:15 AM
it takes a village to raise an idiot.
Posted by: shel | 4-Nov-07 9:41:15 AM
Wut? Me no understand big words, me no smart as you massa.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 9:51:43 AM
Your grandparents probably did lie to you and to their own children.
This would account for how truth challenged you are on this Blog, Snowrunner.
While it is true that children of the past were out and about in the 'village' it is also true that their parents were singly responsible for them.
That said, in the 'good old days' if a child damaged someone else's property their parents could be counted on to discipline the child, administer an appropriate whipping, pointing out to the child the error of it's ways, as well as compensating for the damage.
Or don't you think discipline is a integral part of child rearing, Snowrunner?
How can a 'village' raise a child if the neighbour cannot discipline that child?
How can a 'village' raise a child if the members of that village neither share the same values as the child's parents nor remain in the same neighbourhood for the entire raising of the child from cradle to adulthood?
Posted by: Speller | 2007-11-04 9:51:50 AM
Here's a reality check for you.
The Conservative solution to child care -- give parents a hundred dollars a month -- has actually cost my family more money.
When Harper in all his short-sighted wisdom decided to start handing out the payments to parents who have children under the age of 6 -- msot daycares just hiked their monthly fees by a hundred dollars -- not only for kids under 6 but for all kids.
As I have two kids -- one who is over age 6 -- the end result is I'm out an extra hundred dollars a month than I was before Harper's hair brained idea came into force.
Most other parents I know have had the same experience.
Thanks Harper -- NOT!
Posted by: Ken | 2007-11-04 9:59:09 AM
Today's secular progressives are yesterday's equivalent of the village idiot.
The village it took to raise a child never demanded villagers send their hard-earned money to a village social agency, so they could professionaly dispense their compassion.
Compassion always has been not only freely given, but understood to be one of the individual responsibilities that today's secular progressives believe the state can do better.
Parents, within the institution of marriage, understood this responsibility.
It is when the state intervened into relationships that much of today's social turmoil started.
But, it's in the interest of secular progressive thought to create strife. That way, they can create a need to clean up the strife they themselves created.
Posted by: set you free | 2007-11-04 10:00:46 AM
Your grandparents probably did lie to you and to their own children.
This would account for how truth challenged you are on this Blog, Snowrunner.
Posted by: Speller | 4-Nov-07 9:51:50 AM
I am "truth challenged"? Please, explain (with examples).
----------
Or don't you think discipline is a integral part of child rearing, Snowrunner?
Posted by: Speller | 4-Nov-07 9:51:50 AM
Sure, together with being a parent, not a "buddy" to their kids and understanding the responsiblity that comes with having kids, what this has to do with my opinion though that homeschooling in a bunker isn't the answer escapes me at the moment.
-------------------
How can a 'village' raise a child if the neighbour cannot discipline that child?
Posted by: Speller | 4-Nov-07 9:51:50 AM
Ahhh, I get IT, you seem to think that I suggest the parents kick Johnny out the door and let the neighbours take care of it instead of being involved themselves. Obviously you're idea of what you think I am trying to say is clouding your understanding, I have never proposed such a thing nor would I because parents ARE in the end responsible for their childs behaviour and I am in no way in favour of people who breed and then punt their offspring off to daycare or a nanny in order to not be disturbed in their daily lives.
--------------------
How can a 'village' raise a child if the members of that village neither share the same values as the child's parents nor remain in the same neighbourhood for the entire raising of the child from cradle to adulthood?
Posted by: Speller | 4-Nov-07 9:51:50 AM
Actually, if you had an involved community where people would live WITH each other (and no, not sharing the same bed), the values would probably be pretty identical, people like "Group Think", be it "Socialists" "Neo-Con" "People-Hater" or "obc", so that would be less of a problem.
The problems with "today's youth" don't lie with the youth but mainly with the parents and the fact that many people simply shouldn't be parents. Does that mean that when the Government provides access to childcare it is an "evil" thing?
Why couldn't childcare be a good thing for the kids involved? Instead of abandoning them with parents who don't seem to be interested in their children beyond having them?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 10:06:12 AM
Joe said "Canadians should understand that outside the home child care is clearly a communist concept."
No--not when it is a private business--like a private school.
I have a PILE of empathy and sympathies for the parents of Canada today--therefore, when it comes to daycare--I side with the children and the parents.
It is not a coincidence that parents are young people--and the younger the person is when they have children, the more likely it is that they will have more children--and the almighty knows we are heading for a HUGE problem in a few more years IF our young people are not supported more than they are now.
Having children is not a privledge--let me tell you this!
Having children means having a future in the country--so the value of children is much much more than just money. It better be in your mond--and I am simply speaking in general here--otherwise the debate is not where it ought to be.
Canadians need good daycare--and Canadians need daycare--not when we all get around to it--but now. And the childre, they deserve the best--and the best is not something that is based on a system--whether capitalistic or communistic. If the point of a daycare is to make money for the corporation--or the co-op--or the communist manifesto--then the children are not being placed first. That means that if the children are not first--then Canada is also not first.
The market will take care of the market--yet as I said, it is a fact that young people are the ones who have familes--and in today's world--with ever decreasing workforce--all of the young people who are starting familes--need some leg up. If that means they get support so they can go to school--take the economic pressures off--and have good daycare--excellent daycare--that does mopre than just stick kids into some stinky place--then I am all for it, with a variety of models of daycares--that suit the location, the parent's needs, and most of all--the children.
Not every parent that has children is as smart as those who are raising their children at home in home schooling--and not every home school is what some say they all are--because I have seen some disasters--children growing up without an education and reading at grade two level--just because their parents could not teach for the life of them. I am not going to say that one model works for all instances--yet as a conservative, I am going to say that a single model is the anti-thesis of a healthy society.
So, when it comes to daycare and the needs of the communities across Canada--I support democracy--and for GD's sake, keep jack's hands off of our children. We do not need more commies and terrorist sympathizers in Canada--we have enough already!
Yet Joe, when it comes to daycare, I don't see it as a communist idea at all--unless it is run by taliban jack and his stooges. I actually see it as a community idea--because people--who live together in communities, have to work together. And at certain times in people's lives, being in isolation simply does not work. I do not believe that it is natural for women to be all on their own--by themselves. I believe that it is natural for women and men--to work together--on matters that are important to the health and well being of entire communities, and I believe that that includes EVERYONE.
So, I hope that this debate moves on away from what some romantic ideas of what the mom's of the past did--which in all reality was not always what people chock it up to be, as there are many people who grew up under that single model and became misfits--and get with the democratic method, and do what is good for families and communities.
Let the parents and the neighborhoods design what is necessary for their communities. I parents both need to work to raise their children, then we need to figure out a way in which that can happen--otherwise we are dooming people even before they get a chance to get their feet on the ground. Once they are up and running with their careers, they will be--if they step up and take the option--good taxpayers--good citizens--who care more than what is at the end of their noses, have been able to raise healthy children, and are full participants in our society.
After all--that IS what is good for Canada.
last--and not least, daycare is about very few years in children's lives. When parents need to have two incomes, and are not able to live off of one, then it is not a matter of choice. Parents are given the responsibility of having the children, and also raising the children--not just for themselves. I do not support the model that people have children only for selfish reasons--that is a communist idea. Children are a blessing, and they become adults--and we need more people. I do not support the communist idea that the world is over populated--perhaps in some locations. Canada is a huge nation, and we need to maintain a particular number of people raised on Canadian values--IF we are going to have a country that is as Canada was designed to be--a democratic one.
So, whoever has managed to get through this, I hope you look very close. I actually do not see lots of foreign investment coming here to open daycares. And yet--if some did--then they will employ Canadians. This is not such a bad thing. What matters most is the children, the standards of care, and the parents, the neighborhoods, and the communities.
Lady, over and out.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-04 10:28:52 AM
The current state of 'our villages' is one of rampant crime, drug use, pornography, pedophilia and worse.
Parents cannot let their kids roam freely on the streets anymore.
The current village is a far too dangerous place for kids to be raised ....
The Leftist values we have been subjected to for the past forty years have so degraded any standards of morality and safety, the we are now at point of having to monitor kids 24/7.
Free drugs, very light on crime, no limits of pornography on the web, the movies or TV etc.
Those would be your values, right Snowrunner?
I will say that in smaller rural communities where the values are still closer to conservative, people do still keep an eye out for each other.
You won't find that in big Lib cities ... you will find freaks, fags, tannies, gangsta rap gunners, druggies, homeless mental whacks, pedos, aids, Hep C, lots of welfare kids running around doing graffiti and so on. And a bunch a Leftie groups running around defending their rights to be the deviant scum that they are.
Private child care with serious tax breaks is the way to go. I don't care who owns the business as long as they can do a good job.
It is the Private Sector's job to solve problems and provide services. It is the government's job to keep them honest .... that's the best and the cheapest way to go.
Posted by: John | 2007-11-04 10:43:20 AM
"You won't find that in big Lib cities ... you will find freaks, fags, tannies, gangsta rap gunners, druggies, homeless mental whacks, pedos, aids, Hep C, lots of welfare kids running around doing graffiti and so on. And a bunch a Leftie groups running around defending their rights to be the deviant scum that they are."
Right you are.
Rudy cleaned up New York City and made it a safe place once again--for people to live, work and play. All it takes is for the right kind of leadership to get into the right positions, and design the right system, to clean up the streets, so that the communities across Canada can all be healthy once again.
We have to believe first--that this is possible.
And last thought--there have always been people who are deviants--just nowadays, you actually see them do what they do out in the open--like shooting drugs on the sidewalk--it is totally unacceptable and against everything I believe.
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-04 10:56:54 AM
The current state of 'our villages' is one of rampant crime, drug use, pornography, pedophilia and worse.
Parents cannot let their kids roam freely on the streets anymore.
The current village is a far too dangerous place for kids to be raised ....
The Leftist values we have been subjected to for the past forty years have so degraded any standards of morality and safety, the we are now at point of having to monitor kids 24/7.
Free drugs, very light on crime, no limits of pornography on the web, the movies or TV etc.
Those would be your values, right Snowrunner?
Posted by: John | 4-Nov-07 10:43:20 AM
What? Legalization of drugs? Yes, does that mean a joint for every newborn? No.
Light on crime? What do you mean by that? Because I am against the death penalty I am against having people pay for their crimes? Only in your mind.
Pornography, has existed as long as we were able to record it, there are "safe guards" in place, but can you honestly tell me that as a teenager you weren't trying to get your hands on "nudy magazines"? In the end it comes down to the parents to make sure that kids only see what they are ready for it's not anybody elses job.
Speaking OF job, the job for a parent is to get their kids ready for a life of their own, the current "helicopter parents" (the other side of the coin) aren't doing them or society a favour either.
And btw, if you want to put blame on someone, try the "mememe" generation, which is part of the Baby Boomer generation who after the end of WWII "struck it rich", followed by the Student "revolution" in the 60s who started the whole mistrust of the Government (in part justified).
What we have today is the result of people who where in power back in the 1950s - 1980s, anybody who wasn't an adult back then can hardly be blamed for the world they have created, they could be blamed though if they don't try to "change things bacK".
This "teary eyed" look back at the "good old times" that many people on here have is quite out of focus with the realities back then.
-------------------------
You won't find that in big Lib cities ... you will find freaks, fags, tannies, gangsta rap gunners, druggies, homeless mental whacks, pedos, aids, Hep C, lots of welfare kids running around doing graffiti and so on. And a bunch a Leftie groups running around defending their rights to be the deviant scum that they are.
Posted by: John | 4-Nov-07 10:43:20 AM
Actually having lived mostly in cities I found that the kids in general were better adjusted than their counter parts from the burbs where kids tend to get bored and have nothing to do.
Having grown up in a city of around 600.000 myself I remember spending all afternoons exploring the city, parks and play grounds pretty much from first grade onward. If you live in a high density area it isn't as easy to avoid other people as it is in the burbs where you can "slide" into your own "bunker" in your SUV and shut the door behind you and keep other people out.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 10:57:33 AM
Anyone have any news on the leftists at the University of Victoria? I hear there is a debate there that was started by their leftist Student's Society, regarding the right of the military to recruit on campus during career fair? Apparently they have motioned to ban the military from campus. Can you believe this? The very people who have pledged to protect Canada with their lives are being banned from a University--is this the truth?
Because if it is--it is pure sickness!
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-04 11:01:08 AM
Anyone have any news on the leftists at the University of Victoria? I hear there is a debate there that was started by their leftist Student's Society, regarding the right of the military to recruit on campus during career fair? Apparently they have motioned to ban the military from campus. Can you believe this? The very people who have pledged to protect Canada with their lives are being banned from a University--is this the truth?
Because if it is--it is pure sickness!
Posted by: Lady | 4-Nov-07 11:01:08 AM
Can anybody come into your house and tell you what they think or do you chose who you let in?
BTW, where is the outrage about what's going on in Pakistan right now? Seems like our ally there is trying to build himself an empire, suspended elections, arrested opposition members etc.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 11:06:11 AM
correct me if i'm wrong.
i believe the term "it takes a village to raise a child" was picked up and promoted by Hillary Clinton when she visited a country in Africa. i think that's how the term migrated to North America.
this phrase means something other than what she meant. the "village" was a large, extended relative and family structure, not a socialist distribution system.
the phrase refers to extended helpers and babysitters, not a welfare State.
Posted by: shel | 2007-11-04 11:10:53 AM
the phrase refers to extended helpers and babysitters, not a welfare State.
Posted by: shel | 4-Nov-07 11:10:53 AM
Yes it does. But considering that there is no "village" anymore we (society) have to figure something else out.
I am curious to hear your solution.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 11:12:54 AM
Snowrunner~
i have a good start for a solution. but does it matter? my past posts have never really filtered through to you, and neither would you agree with this one. what's the point?
i'm a consevative who leans heavily toward libertarianism. you're a social liberal.
i don't want the State to help nor hinder me. you embrace the State.
"two men of different minds must soon part company".
Posted by: shel | 2007-11-04 11:23:44 AM
Hmmmm. Pakistan.
Anyone hear the Leftoids protest Hugo Chavez and his power grab in Venezuela? He is President for life now.
Oh, I forgot. When a Leftist like Chavez or Castro does it - no problem.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 11:38:41 AM
"Activists Detained in Pakistan Emergency"
Sort of like Trudeau when he jailed Nick Aufdermaier and others in Montreal, using the War Powers Act, eh?
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 11:47:08 AM
More communism being promoted again. As many have already stated the responsibility of raising children belongs to the parents and at time extended family, never the state. Communists and fascists do not want this to happen, since it prevents their indoctrination of children.
In this situation the most insulting thing is that these same people do not give a damn about children or children's well-being. If they did they would not push for unrestricted abortion, SSM and the adoption of children by homosexuals and lesbians. No, their interest lies in the welfare of unionised labour (the child care industry) and the elimination of parental and family influence on children.
Posted by: Alain | 2007-11-04 12:09:30 PM
.
Some last thoughts on this subject, before I go and revue my capitalist pig financial portfolio that I earned and saved myself in the private sector, because I don't want my neighbors to be responsible the cost of my retirement. Just as didn't burden them with the upbringing of my child.
It takes a village idiot to support government funded day care.
Those would be the same village idiots who thing that tax cuts are bad.
The same village idiots who think Cuba is a socialist paradise.
The same village idiots who want brainwash all children to be like them, because when they say they love diversity they only mean in shades of gray, not in political opinion or lifestyle or philosophy or level of wealth and independence.
.
Posted by: John | 2007-11-04 12:26:11 PM
They want to do to kids what they are already doing to university students:
"Flag-burning 'lesson' provokes UM student"
ORONO, Maine - A University of Maine student alleges her former professor offered extra credit to class members if they burned the American flag or the U.S. Constitution or were arrested defending free speech.
On the first day of class, associate professor Paul Grosswiler offered the credit to members of his History of Mass Communications class, according to sophomore Rebekah McDade. Disturbed by the comment, McDade dropped the class and intends to take the course again next semester with a different professor.
"I was offended," McDade said Friday. "I come from a family of military men and women, and the flag and Constitution are really important symbols to me because of my family background."
AND LEFTOIDS TAKE pride in this indoctrination by their comrades.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 1:28:41 PM
Snowrunner,
There is a difference between a house and a University.
Career fairs are organized on campuses so that people can choose their career. There is nothing wrong about a career in the military--should someone choose that path. To ban the right for people to choose is typical of lefties.
And your methodology of using the comparison of "house" and other locations reminds me of the same doctrine and dogmas used to coerse people in the middle east--specifically that against women and children--by equating the entire world--nation--state--or country-- with being a house. Works for those who are relegated only to houses and who are segregated, controlled and manipulated.
Won't work for me--I believe in choice, and if I had a career fair at my house, the military would indeed be there. I don't have career fairs at my house--therefore it is not a question. And military men and women are honoured in my house--make that very very clear--while islamofacists are dispicable monsters--never to be mentioned at the dinner table!
Regarding Pakistan--who do you support Snowrunner?
And why?
Posted by: Lady | 2007-11-04 1:32:52 PM
Didn't Hillary Clinton write a book titled "It Takes A Village To Raise A Child"? Certainly it's a Leftist idea wherever it came from.
It may be an idea that came from Africa. It gives the impression it's OK to put your kid out the door and the village people will take care of it.
The Leftists here are getting closer to the idea that anyone but parents should look after the children for most of their growing up years, calling for state run daycare everywhere like the Communist regimes.
The governments should stay the hell out of the child care business and give the parents the tax breaks to decide how they wish to take care of their children.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-11-04 1:37:27 PM
A house is privately owned (but not in the minds of Leftoids like snow blinded), whereas a university is publicly funded by our taxes - and is a public area where all should be welcome to "do their thing" - as Leftoids are wont to say.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 1:38:37 PM
"the idea that anyone but parents should look after the children for most of their growing up years, calling for state run daycare everywhere like the Communist regimes."
No different from the Nazis and their Hitler Youth who were taught to inform on their own parents if they spoke against the regime in their own homes.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 1:41:05 PM
Snowrunner~
i have a good start for a solution. but does it matter? my past posts have never really filtered through to you, and neither would you agree with this one. what's the point?
i'm a consevative who leans heavily toward libertarianism. you're a social liberal.
i don't want the State to help nor hinder me. you embrace the State.
"two men of different minds must soon part company".
Posted by: shel | 4-Nov-07 11:23:44 AM
Shel,
I am having the feeling MY postings (much less my position) got through to you either, so let me try this again:
I do not believe in a Nanny State, I do not WANT a Nanny State either.
Having said this, I acknowledge the fact that I live in a society with vast amounts of people that all have a different opinion and priorities. To this extend compromises have to be reached.
The "solution" we came up with is a Government, the role of which is to serve it's citizens who elected them and come up with solution that further the common good and enable both individuals and businesses to thrive.
To that extend I acknowledge the fact that I cannot always get what I want, the way I want, it's called compromise and is essential to have any society, regardless of the "ideal" behind it, further to that extend I do believe certain services are too important for the common good to be left "for profit" and that my taxes pay for these services.
A Government is NOT a business, the ideas of "for profit" thinking that has invaded the politicial thinking has weakened the Government in some aspects to the point that it cannot serve it's people anymore and as such tries to invade in areas it should stay out of, this needs to be corrected. Privatization is NOT always the solution, neither is a Government run system that doesn't allow anything else.
Am I "liberal"? I don't consider myself that way, as I said above I do not believe in the Nanny State, Political Correctness etc. But neither do I believe that individual Freedoms rule above everything else, this isn't workable in a society either, if you want this move into the middle of nowhere, get a shotgun and a dog and be done with it.
And yes, I am fully aware that my arguments at times are "inconsistent", mainly because I do not subscribe to one single political philosophy like most people on here do. Every one has good ideas, the best solution is to take all of these ideas and build something new.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 2:04:00 PM
Hmmmm. Pakistan.
Anyone hear the Leftoids protest Hugo Chavez and his power grab in Venezuela? He is President for life now.
Oh, I forgot. When a Leftist like Chavez or Castro does it - no problem.
Posted by: obc | 4-Nov-07 11:38:41 AM
You're usually one of the first to cry wolf when something even remotely like this is happening, and yet, on the Pakistan thing you are utterly quiet, could it be that you try to protect your idol Musharraf from any "bad fallout"? After all he is a friend to the United States (well, at least he claims he is), so it doesn't quite fit in what he's doing right now.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 2:05:34 PM
More communism being promoted again. As many have already stated the responsibility of raising children belongs to the parents and at time extended family, never the state. Communists and fascists do not want this to happen, since it prevents their indoctrination of children.
Posted by: Alain | 4-Nov-07 12:09:30 PM
Or capitalists who need to raise little consumers so that things can continue to "grow".
It's not only your sworn enemies that are benefiting from a system like this you know.
---------------
In this situation the most insulting thing is that these same people do not give a damn about children or children's well-being. If they did they would not push for unrestricted abortion, SSM and the adoption of children by homosexuals and lesbians. No, their interest lies in the welfare of unionised labour (the child care industry) and the elimination of parental and family influence on children.
Posted by: Alain | 4-Nov-07 12:09:30 PM
So you rather have children sitting in foster homes than being raised by a lesbian or gay couple? Why is that? Think they would turn their adopted children gay?
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 2:08:18 PM
There is a difference between a house and a University.
Career fairs are organized on campuses so that people can choose their career. There is nothing wrong about a career in the military--should someone choose that path. To ban the right for people to choose is typical of lefties.
Posted by: Lady | 4-Nov-07 1:32:52 PM
So you are trying to tell me that the smart students couldn't figure out the military existed (as an option) unless they are at a career fair? If that's the case then maybe the military is better off without them, it seems they can't even read a map, not much use to the military then, are they?
--------------
And your methodology of using the comparison of "house" and other locations reminds me of the same doctrine and dogmas used to coerse people in the middle east--specifically that against women and children--by equating the entire world--nation--state--or country-- with being a house. Works for those who are relegated only to houses and who are segregated, controlled and manipulated.
Posted by: Lady | 4-Nov-07 1:32:52 PM
Bit of a difference there. The Students are "living" on the Campus so in a way it is their house, they as a whole VOTE on this and decide one way or the other, compare that to your example (nice way btw, to drag Islam into this again, here, have a cookie) where a handful (at most 50% of the population) makes this rule without anybody getting any input into this. Not quite comparable, wouldn't you agree?
-----------------------
Won't work for me--I believe in choice, and if I had a career fair at my house, the military would indeed be there. I don't have career fairs at my house--therefore it is not a question.
Posted by: Lady | 4-Nov-07 1:32:52 PM
If you had a career fair, would you let someone from the Liberal Party present the party or the UN?
---------------------
And military men and women are honoured in my house--make that very very clear--while islamofacists are dispicable monsters--never to be mentioned at the dinner table!
Posted by: Lady | 4-Nov-07 1:32:52 PM
Way to go to swerve from the topic at hand into your "I hate Islam" tirade.... You should get a T-shirt with that, btw. (here, have another cookie).
--------------------
Regarding Pakistan--who do you support Snowrunner?
And why?
Posted by: Lady | 4-Nov-07 1:32:52 PM
Who do I support in what way? Pakistan should have been the target after 9/11, not Afghanistan. Likewise Saudi Arabia was / is way more of a problem than Iraq was, at least as far as fundamental Muslism go. Guess someone in the pentagon failed to program the GPS right.
What's happening in Pakistan right now is not really a surprise, that writing was on the wall years ago.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 2007-11-04 2:15:13 PM
Suffice to say, Pakistan is a worrisome place, gotta keep apace of developments there, it's a ticking time bomb.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-11-04 3:04:20 PM
"it's a ticking time bomb."
A NUCLEAR ticking time bomb!
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 3:15:13 PM
"the best solution is to take all of these ideas and build something new."
Yeah - the commies tried that, and 125 million had to die to disprove their theories.
The tried & proved philosophies work if socialists and commies would let them be - but power & avarice on the part of their leaders takes precedence over what is best for society.
Posted by: obc | 2007-11-04 3:30:33 PM
If day care becomes too big a problem and private sector employers cannot get women to fill the jobs required, they will come up with a solution by putting some day care on site or allowing women to adjust their hours.
Many of the larger ones already do this, but you don't hear about it.
Smaller businesses are even more flexible and can adjust hours of work. If the government wants to help keep women with kids in the work force they simply need to make it worth their while through meaningful tax breaks for those women.
They don't need to build a huge crown corporation around the processing and indoctrinating of kids ... that is inefficient and no truly caring parent wants their kids raised by the state.
We need smaller, not bigger government. We need people to be independent, not dependent. We need kids to have fair and balanced up bringing, not social engineered to be collectivist from the cradle on.
As our world becomes more global and competitive, socialism will find no place to fit itself in except in the minds of the less-motivated losers of society. They will always be around and should be ignored.
China has made the change economically and will be forced to do so socially and politically as their population becomes more affluent and educated.
Posted by: John | 2007-11-04 5:05:57 PM
Karol:There's something sad and off kilter about this whole story.
A 22 year old with an 18 month old little sweetheart in foster care giving birth to another child without a stable home setting is the real story here.
He also had a "father" who wasn't caring for him as well? It's about time this "young mom" take stock of her behavior if she's of sound mind.
Posted by: LizJ | 2007-11-04 5:50:41 PM
Government officials who propose anything "for the children" should be viewed as murderers, and premeditated murderers at that.
Familes produce children and families should care for their children. Government intervention is like rigging a diesel locomotive engine to perform eye surgery.
Forming a family and raising children is a private matter and a extreme effort of total devotion for EVERY family. Only people who have no children or who hate children would be so stupid and evil to involve government in child raising (aka daycare AND the now thoroughly evil government schools).
Any family must devote ALL of its resources to raising their children and that is how it should be, with the husband and wife working together and making careful choices and taking prudent actions.
Government is poison and evil in anything it does with respect to families and children.
Any government official who proposes new government programs intruding on children should be recognized as rotten craven demonic evil and denounced as such in every public venue possible.
Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2007-11-04 8:01:43 PM
Conrad-USA - Government officials who propose anything "for the children" should be viewed as murderers, and premeditated murderers at that.
Like the government officials in Canada and the US (and most of the western world)that had all children vaccinated against polio and smallpox. Do you like seeing children walking around with braces on their legs or pushed in wheelchairs because their parents couldn't afford or were too stupid to have them vaccinated?
Posted by: O'REILLY | 2007-11-04 8:15:20 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.