Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« "Dreamland" | Main | The Canada file returns! »

Friday, March 31, 2006

Speaking Out

* Suing Your Hospital? According to Tony Clement, Canada’s new Minister of Health, Canadians “stuck” on waiting lists under a proposed, but as yet undefined “framework” might be able, possibly, maybe, somehow, someday, to “take legal action.” Does he think we are idiots? Does he think anyone will sue to get money from a medical institution that cannot even give them medical care?  Of course, we are idiots, by definition, for still believing that a socialized system can deliver the best of anything; for not seeing all along that government medicine is a political empowerment and vote-buying scheme floated via collective taxation without any price or profit-and-loss mechanism by which to discipline either providers or consumers, to control costs, or to distinguish true from false health needs. The system was doomed before it started three decades ago, because the real underlying “framework” is that in Canada, health care is seen strictly as a negative cost; all demands for service are seen as a drain on a fixed budget, and never as a positive investment in the consumers of health care and the technology and services they require.

* Pope Benedict XVI did just what a Pope ought to be doing when he spoke up in defense of marriage and the natural family yesterday. In this respect he is a beacon of light in the darkness formed by so many other religious groups huddling together in a collective absence of the plain courage to publicly defend marriage and the family as the fundamental basis of all human societies.

The ghost of poor John Stuart Mill was heard in the midst of this when Franco Grillini, a homosexual parliamentarian and member of Italy’s “Democrats of the Left” squeaked that “it is people who decide whether their relationships constitute a family.” Read between the lines. He is here claiming that society, the church, and the state have no right to define or control the institution of marriage. He believes that is a right reserved for “people.” By this he means that any two individuals should be able to define – and presumably also undefine - themselves as “a family.” The proper response is that the true and only defensible interest of the public and religious agencies in marriage and the family is precisely that marriage has always been defined and defended solely as an institution established for the creation and protection of children - future citizens. The tail should not wag the dog, and homosexuals who wish to “marry” their same-sex friends should butt out of an institution from the procreative potential and purpose of which they are forever barred. No one really cares if such people love each other and wish to live together, for any reason. But they have no right justified only by their personal desire, to re-organize society’s most fundamental procreative institution. Readers interested in further arguments on this topic should read the “A Declaration on Marriage” under “Essays” on this website.      

* Women and Money. Egalitarians, with a boost from Statistics Canada, are all in a lather over the fact that women are “losing the battle of the sexes” in terms of their “earning power.” We are informed that too many of them – 67% - prefer the “pink ghetto” to the Boardroom, the same percentage as a decade ago, and the level of female managers (oh, the national shame of it!) has “dropped back” to where it was two decades ago. So we are said to be “losing the war for general equality.” In light of the higher numbers of educated women today, Statistics Canada is surprised by “the continuing stubborn wage gap,” and by the number of women still working in traditionally female jobs. Egads! More impenetrable national stupidity here. A little voice asks: what if women prefer the so-called pink ghetto? And anyway, who says women and men must crave the same jobs, and earn the same pay? Never-married women and never-married men in Canada have always earned about the same wages. Actually, the last time I investigated this ridiculous battle of the sexes, there were a couple of decades of life shown where never-married women earn more than never-married men. Fact is that the great majority of healthy women not already brain-washed by a materialistic commercial society do not crave money and job status. They do not want the Boardroom. They want a strong male earner in the bedroom. And from him they want healthy beautiful babies, a happy family, and a financially secure life. That is what they have craved since they were teenagers. Some of them get it. But far too few. Statistics Canada’s own figures on the earnings of never-married women show that what causes the so-called “wage-gap” is the natural female preference for marriage and children over commercial work outside the home. Mothers refuse jobs that are too demanding or switch to part-time work so they can fulfill their own ambition to raise their kids properly. Some cannot afford to turn down money, however, and it is a national scandal that millions of them have become wage-dupes of all the modern welfare states that so badly needs their tax dollars. Such states strive to keep as many men and women in the work-force as possible paying as much in taxes as possible so the state can take over life’s most meaningful functions such as child-rearing in government daycare centres, education in government schools, social-welfare needs in government housing and programs, and care of the sick in government-controlled hospitals and old-age homes.  Don’t buy it. Fight back. Encourage every man you know to be a real man. Take a better job. Work harder. If the good wife loves working outside the home, fine. But if she is trapped there, then let's encourage husbands to go for a pay raise to get the mothers of their own children out of the work force and raising the kids at home. Shame on Statistics Canada for partaking in this number-juggling scam. 

Posted by williamgairdner on March 31, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Speaking Out:


Brilliant! I especially liked the bit about the hospitals. Perhaps Alberta can lead the way, as it has in the past, by running a few pilot projects and implementing a non-socialist health care scheme. You know, since health care is supposed to be a provincial matter.

Of course, we have to wait for the glorious but gone-to-seed Premier to wedge his ass out of his throne first.

Posted by: Tozetre | 2006-03-31 10:35:51 AM

You might like this link. It seems right up your alley:


Posted by: Mark Logan | 2006-03-31 11:02:36 AM

I'd agree that a socialist method of providing services is dysfunctional because it changes the focus from the provision of 'best services', defined as such only by comparison, i.e., a competitive market, --- to the well-being of the providers of that service (e.g. the hospitals, the employees). With this change of focus, the unions move in to take over and the notion of 'best service' is lost.

But I strongly disagree with your view of social values as best defined by systems; e.g., 'the society, the church, the state'. That's pure authoritarian socialism.
I remind you of Lincoln's Gettysburg address, defining government as ''of the people, by the people, for the people'. Remember, the society, the church, the state, are creations of the people and therefore, answerable to the people. You are trying to remove this accountability.

You have put these systems beyond and outside of the people. You are setting up a state with an authoritarian upper level of 'pure' ideology - and that is essentially a totalitarian state...in the mode of Plato's authoritarian state.

I also disagree with your view of women as best kept 'barefoot and pregnant'. That's insulting. I am strongly anti-feminist but, I certainly disagree with your view of 'the perfect man and woman' - with him in the boardroom/bedroom, and her in the kitchen and delivery room. That's not only insulting but it's economically and intellectually out of date.

Our modern economy does not run by peasant farming, with the men doing the heavy labour and the women providing the cooking and housecare. A peasant economy requires a large family as workers, and the extended family acts as the provisor of care for children. Our modern economy is not based around manual labour, which has been taken over by our dev't of machines, but is based around information - and both genders can and should be involved in that.

The family has traditionally been the basic economic unit, operating to maintain the current generation and produce and maintain the next generation. That's not going to change, but, what will change, is the 'method of how this is done'. There is no reason whatsoever in modern society for the family to operate the way you envisage. Nor is there any reason to keep women, as you propose, out of the intellectual life of a society.

I agree with you that our modern state's bureaucracy has exploded to the extent that we, the taxpayer, have to work harder to maintain that bureaucracy - and this requires both parent's working. But I think the situation and the solution is more complex than your Platonic state ideal.

Posted by: ET | 2006-03-31 11:20:32 AM

"If the good wife loves working outside the home, fine. But if she is trapped there, then let's encourage husbands to go for a pay raise to get the mothers of their own children out of the work force and raising the kids at home. Shame on Statistics Canada for partaking in this number-juggling scam." Williamgairdner

"I also disagree with your view of women as best kept 'barefoot and pregnant'. That's insulting. I am strongly anti-feminist but, I certainly disagree with your view of 'the perfect man and woman' - with him in the boardroom/bedroom, and her in the kitchen and delivery room. That's not only insulting but it's economically and intellectually out of date. "

I think William's point is that StatsCan and the Egalitarians don't consider stay at home mothers an acceptable lifestyle choice for women to make.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-31 12:21:35 PM

Yes, Speller, I saw what Mr. Gairdner wrote. But he also wrote:

"Fact is, that the great majority of healthy women not already brainwashed by a materialistic commercial society do not crave money and job status. They do not want the Boardroom. They want a strong male earner in the bedroom. And from him they want healthy beautiful babies, a happy family and a financially secure life. That is what they have craved since they were teenagers".

That's what he wrote. He defined his conclusion as FACT:... 'fact is'.
And he defined his population base as: 'the great majority of women'.

If you, a woman, don't agree with his view, then, he tells you that it's because you have been 'brainwashed by a materialistic commercial society'.

And what have you bee brainwashed to want?? You, according to him, want a job because you 'crave money and job status'. Is that all there is to a job?

What about intellectual rewards? The rewards of, if you are a doctor - of curing illness; if you are a mayor of a town, of developing that town; if you are a scientist, of analyzing the best way to purify water in x-area..etc???
None of that is relevant to Mr. Gairdner. No, for him - men work and women have babies. Indeed, he informs us that they, naturally, 'crave' this since they were teenagers.

I certainly agree that our society does demote stay-at-home mothers. And I think that it should be a viable and encouraged choice, for, I think it is important, that at least for the first few years, a mother should stay at home. It's not always an easy or available option.

What I objected to, in Mr. Gairdner's post, was the above outline of 'what women want'. It's both insulting and patronizingly naive.

Posted by: ET | 2006-03-31 12:44:23 PM

"I also disagree with your view of women as BEST kept 'barefoot and pregnant'. That's insulting. I am strongly anti-feminist but...." ET

William asserts MOST healthy women would CHOOSE stay-at-home motherhood.

ET says William said, "women as BEST kept 'barefoot and pregnant'.

Not the same thing at all.

"Fact is that the great majority of healthy women not already brain-washed by a materialistic commercial society do not crave money and job status. They do not want the Boardroom. They want a strong male earner in the bedroom." Williamgairdner

I think William's arguement is that StatCan and the Egalitarians, while ostensibly representing choice for women, refuse to accept that women might make a choice that they find unaccepable.

Rather than being insulted by a figment of your imagination, ET, you should ask William to provide evidence that MOST women would CHOOSE stay-at-home motherhood.

Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-31 1:03:06 PM


One should never try telling a woman what she wants. Especially because women don't know themselves... ;)


Sorry, couldn't resist.

Posted by: Warwick | 2006-03-31 1:05:14 PM

ET- I sometimes wonder why I find it so hard to make friends, and then I write something like this:

Perhaps William thinks that because he and other men whom he knows want a woman who wants a man to be the father of her healthy babies and who will appreciate his providing for her and her children, that he thinks God would have made women to want that complimentary (same) compatible thing.

This gets William into trouble on a lot of aspects of his thinking. I know the God thing is right up there near the top, but that's the "fact" of how guys get these nutty ideas about women.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-03-31 1:20:33 PM

Speller - what Gairdner wrote is hardly a figment of my imagination; he actually wrote it.

I simply examined his terms, which are
1) 'the great majority"'of healthy women'

That's his population base and his variable (great majority ....of women).

2)Then, he provides the attributes/values of that variable:

- healthy= not already brainwashed"

3)He provides us with the definition ofbrainwashed= someone who likes materialist commercial society and therefore, craves money and status

Then, he provides the definition of healthy or not brainwashed, which further clarifies the attributes/values of a 'healthy woman' is:

4)wants a strong male earner...etc, etc..beautiful babies..craved since they were teenagers'.

It's in his actual writing. It's not part of my imagination. But I do think that it's an aspect of Gairdner's imagination. He has no proof of his assertions.
So, you are right, Speller - he should come up with the evidence. But, I think it would be very difficult. Surveys are notoriously suspect; their questions can lead the respondent to say just about anything you want..

Warwick - try to resist.

Posted by: ET | 2006-03-31 1:30:04 PM

There seems to be a suggestion that women want it both ways; career and babies. OK, why not? That’s not illogical. I know a lot of women that feel like that.

As a male I want it both ways too. I want an intelligent, well-educated female, plugged into the workings of the world and the workplace, who wants to have children (ok, that should be past tense, I’m looking for grandkids now, but the concept still applies).

A couple of things have to happen. The government has to place a significant value on families. As opposed to Liberals placing a significant value on 2 sources of income to tax so that the government can put in place a CUPE nanny care system to keep the socialists, government-unionized-job-for-life-with -pension cycle churning.

Instead we need to be able to file taxes jointly and have sizable deductions for kids. Expensive? Yes, in terms of lost tax revenue, but less expensive than bringing in immigrants that don’t speak English and need to be assimilated etc.

I wouldn’t mandate this but I think it behoves big business and professional firms to continue to try to make it as attractive as possible for women to leave the work place to raise a family and welcome them back without too much slippage in terms of opportunity. This is difficult because if a woman is off for several years, the world will have changed by the time she returns and so I don’t have an easy answer to this problem. But it is a problem. Smart companies need smart employees so they are incented to try and accommodate half the IQ’s in the country that want to contribute in the workplace.

Being a parent is a very tough job. The feminist movement for some reason tried to diminish the perception of the job. That was a mistake. Except maybe the feminists did influence men to say what I just said as opposed to keeping it to ourselves.

Enough sympathy for the females, just to throw a curve ( hahaha ) in here, a high-ranking female executive, who had been successful through all the career and baby juggling, once said to me something like this ..

“Don’t listen to all the whining from women, we are just bargaining, we actually have it a lot better than you males many of whom would also like to stay home with the kids for a few years and then return but that isn’t like to ever happen to more than 1% of males”

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-31 1:32:35 PM

nomdenet- nice post

But, it isn't easy for companies, which are, after all, in business to 'do something' to allow some of their employees to take a year or two off, every few years. And, what happens to the person who replaces them - do they lose their job then? And, information and work doesn't move into Frozen Realm; if you are off for a year or two- it's a different world when you return.
And what if you are a lawyer or dentist or..wouldn't your clients go elsewhere?

So, it's not easy. At the same time, I think it's best for the child for their mother to be with them for at least the first three years. But- how can this be dealt with?

Even the option of 'work-at-home' is difficult, as any mother with young children knows it's almost impossible to get time for yourself during the day.

I was just objecting to Gairdner's assumptions of 'What the Majority of Women Want'. His views are 'a bit much'.

Posted by: ET | 2006-03-31 1:56:32 PM

ET, the job has to kept open for a year for “mat leave”, I’m not sure what size company this applies to; small companies can’t accommodate it (except maybe in France ha ha). But it works in large companies. However, beyond a year the same job is not guaranteed, in other words it could be a return to a lesser job.

I used to be much more libertarian about this subject (and nearly everything else) before 9/11. That is to say, I used to think the government should stay out it. But the fact is, the government doesn’t stay out of anything, so let’s at least formulate some policy thinking on it.

I think we have to treat woman differently if we in the Anglosphere don’t like multi-culti and if we believe that we need to be stronger advocates of capitalist-democracy with which our culture has centuries of evolution.

I think smart companies are going to find a way to allow women in and out of the work place more easily and that men had better understand that sometimes actions might not look fair to them; i.e. because males have worked long hours at their desk while women were on “mat-leave”.

We need to acknowledge that well-educated men and woman want like-minded partners to have babies with. The next prejudice isn’t race; it’s IQ, education, upward mobility etc (I know I’ve put my foot in my mouth now).

The reality is, partners having babies aren’t going to stay like-minded if the woman stays out of the formal work place. My experience of watching men have affairs has had something to do with this phenomenon. I can’t prove it. My sample is limited (and cough cough only observation, I stress)

It’s an important subject for the next generation. It’s different than feminism was. And maybe those of us older folks that have been through it need to be more honest about it and less PC about it.

To answer some of your questions: the temp knows it’s a temp job and they may in fact be a woman in and out of the work force. With big pools of employees this can work.

In a big law firm, there’s a battery of lawyers on the case anyway. Ditto my dental office has 2 males, one female (now on mat) and the para people are all women, having lots of babies. Again it works. But you need scale. Hence mat accomodation happens mostly in big cities. Which vote Liberal!!!

Because Liberals will at least talk about the problem and (falsely) seem sympathetic to it. Conservatives need to get their minds around this.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-31 3:04:03 PM

"You might like this link. It seems right up your alley:


Because, as we all know, disagreement with an activity is the same as disliking people who perform that activity.

Posted by: Tozetre | 2006-03-31 3:14:26 PM

OK, nomdenet - I agree with your points. It works, in large populations, where the work pool can deal with maternity leaves. I personally think that the child needs at least three years of reasonably close care by their mother..but..that's admittedly debatable.

Our work system can, however, as you point out, become more flexible. Especially since so much of your work is about 'information'. And, as you say, in law offices, the work load can be distributed among all...

And yes, I agree we have to be much less politically correct about it - and keep the rabid feminists out of the discussion. I don't think the Liberals were that great about this issue - they were, after all, just pc and feminist. That doesn't solve anything.

As you point out, the conservatives have to deal with the issue. In a realistic way. The answer isn't Gairdner's viewpoint ( I don't consider him a representative of the type of conservative perspective I support, but I think he considers himself conservative). I felt his analysis was regressive, and frankly, as authoritarian as any feminist (or essentialist) viewpoint.

Posted by: ET | 2006-03-31 3:35:56 PM

Hmm. Where do I start? I think that women trying to juggle careers and motherhood is indeed a dilemna for a lot of women. I think for some men, it is becoming a struggle too...how to provide for their family and yet "be there" for them. I have several friends of the feminist persuasion that think I'm crazy. Why would a smart, educated girl like myself choose to stay home and raise (and home-school) four children? What a waste of potential! It must be because I'm under the thumb of my dominant husband!! Please. Maybe it's because I don't define who I am by what I do, a common mistake in our society. I know I could do any number of things, and do them well. I CHOOSE not to have paid employment. I don't need a paycheque to feel validated. My self-worth is not tied into my career, or lack of it. I think that more and more women are starting to feel the same, and it's encouraging.
As an aside, I think that William has a point...like it or not, people have genetic predispositions, and although women don't like to admit it, men are more attractive when they have a healthy dose of testosterone. ;)

Posted by: RK | 2006-03-31 3:48:06 PM

ET--why do you think that it is debatable whether or not children being raised with "reasonable close care" by their mother is necessary? Why do people bother having children just to let someone else raise them?

Posted by: RK | 2006-03-31 3:51:58 PM

Yeah ET, but I think William got caught up in the old wage equity conundrum, which can throw me off too. He’s probably right … that never married woman compare to never married men. But we’ve switched the discussion to survival of the Anglosphere in a multi-culti Liberal propaganda world.

At least up until this post I've thought that William seems likes a sensible conservative guy, maybe he’ll come out and defend himself. Because women vote. But they don’t vote conservative …. in our cities. Soooo …

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-03-31 3:55:02 PM

RK - to comment on a few points.

One major reason it's debatable about staying home with your children until they are least three - is that one does not always have a choice. The ability to choose can be an economic luxury.

What if your husband died; you were left with nothing; you had to work.
What if there was a divorce; you were left with almost nothing; you had to work.

What if your husband's income was simply insufficient to permit you not to work. After all, our society is not and cannot be, made up only of the middle to upper middle class. Are only the wealthy permitted to have children?

And, the other reason, is not economic but intellectual. What if, before you had children, you moved into a stimulating career - let's say as a biologist. You are working with several international teams, on the cusp of some important breakthrough dev'ts in ... Do you have to reject this realm - when you have a child? Moving away from the research for two to three years might lock you out of the field forever, since the field is moving so rapidly...

So, it's not an easy choice. On the one hand, you may not have the economic luxury of choice. And, you may want both worlds - the intellectual and the parental.

Posted by: ET | 2006-03-31 4:39:04 PM

"You might like this link. It seems right up your alley: http://www.godhates....com/"

I'm a Christian and I believe certain things about myself and fellow-Christians. If you disagree with me, you hate me. In fact, if you disagree with my ideology, many fellow-Christians will commit suicide. And you will be to blame. The remedy: teach Christianity in schools from kindergarten on up. Anything less is intolerant, mean-spirited, bigoted, and hateful (did I miss anything?). Make schools a safe place for Christians. Eradicate Christophobia. Set days aside to indoctrinate teachers to ensure that Christian ideology trumps all others. Anything less is an infringement of my equality rights. Thank you!

Posted by: Richard Ball | 2006-03-31 8:55:59 PM

Richard Ball,....linkie no workie.

Chapter 2
12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, WORK OUT YOUR OWN SALVATION with FEAR and TREMBLING.
13 For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.

Oh, and grow up and take some responsibility.

What? Are you new?

Posted by: Speller | 2006-03-31 9:34:17 PM

Did you ever think that maybe some of the health care workers want public health care to fail?

I've seen waste that the only reason for it's being is that some worker figured that the governments pockets are deep enough to cover it. Working with my church I saw welfare people being denied simple costs for no reason and then the same people end up using an ambulance to go to the emergency centre. Doctors pump out pills know that the people taking them will be clients for life. The poor are forced to beg each month for proper nutrition, which they never get thus putting more pressure on our health care system.
Seems that the government has forgotten that the money they give these people, they spend in the stores in the community, creating jobs. The money that walmart brings in leaves the community.

Posted by: ed | 2006-03-31 11:01:11 PM

Uh, Speller, Richard Ball was being sarcastic. Replace "Christian" with "Muslim" and I think you'll grasp his point.

Posted by: Tozetre | 2006-04-01 1:43:47 AM

ET, I understand that some women simply must work. But far too many have used finances as an excuse to dump their kids at daycare. I have managed to "stay at home" since the beginning, and let me assure you, it wasn't easy. I have had need to supplement my husband's income over the years, including working outside the home. There are ways of making money (both legal and ethical) that don't involve working full time during the same hours your spouse does.

And yes, I get the whole intellectual thing. I find ways of satisfying that craving too (like this blog haha), and no, I didn't have a prestigious career to give up. Let's face it, most women don't. Most are working in an office somewhere, and hang on for dear life to their "career". It's all about priority. Is it more important to feed your intellectual vanity by being on the forefront of exciting discovery, or to do your best at equipping your kids with what they need to be successful people? Everything has an opportunity cost...isnt that what year one economics teaches? I'm not saying that working moms are evil, far from it. I think that "work" and "home" can be combined with good results with careful construction. But understand this: You can't have your cake and eat it too...something's gotta give. I'd rather it not be my kids.

Posted by: RK | 2006-04-01 7:05:32 AM

RK - you are still focusing only on those who have the choice to work/not to work. For many families, there is no choice. It's been almost a generation since a one-individual income was enough to raise a family- except in the upper middle class.

I'm not talking about supplemental income; I'm talking about the requirement for two full incomes..and not even talking about the one-parent family (death, divorce).

You are focusing on one economic level, where, for instance, someone with a Masters in Economics could do some at-home research or could do a three month contract. What about the individual with a useless BA or without - they can't get work-at-home or contracts. And, again, such may only be possible in the very largest Canadian cities.

Then, you act as if it were a choice between 'the joys of work' and 'the joys of raising your children' - and this moves into the moral dimension. I don't think you should add this dimension to the choice, for that is unfair. It adds a moral evaluation of 'neglect' to all those women, now working, in so many parts of the economy - the salesclerk, the secretary, the nurse, the teacher, etc.

I think that a fair number of women ARE in a highly skilled profession before they have children. After all, that has been the educational mantra of this generation - get an education, get a career. And that is precisely what many young women have done. So, they complete that MSc or PHD before they have children. They can't drop that career, and the years spent on it - because it would lose them the results of their education; or, they can't financially afford to (have to pay off student loans).

Therefore, I disagree with you that most women don't have a 'career' to give up (I'm dropping the 'prestigious' adjective since that adds a level of evaluation that doesn't even apply to men's careers). Our culture promotes higher education; a fair proportion of our youth take a university degree. That means they have remained out of the work force for longer than a generation ago. How can this financial loss be made up? I don't mean financial loss just to themselves but also to the economy? They haven't been paying taxes - so, where do their future pensions come from? Who will pay for their pensions when their time in the work force is so short? They haven't been getting income, so, how are they to purchase high-investments such as homes, retirement funds?

Is it the case that this society will remove women from childbearing and raising until she is in her thirties, and also educate her and not expect any results of that education. I'm looking at it just from a 'benefits to the society' perspective. No- having a higher education doesn't mean you will be a better parent. In Canada, at least, it means you will possibly be indoctrinated into the Platonic Cave Myths of the left!

So, it's not a simple 'black and white' question or answer. It isn't a matter of financial sacrifice, it isn't a matter of moral choice. It's far more nuanced and complex.

I fully agree with you about concerns about families who have children, and fob them off onto daycare almost immediately..just for the job that the mother wants because staying at home can be so boring. We've all seen plenty of that. That's not what I'm talking about.

Posted by: ET | 2006-04-01 7:35:43 AM

RK, my wife has done both, i.e. stayed at home for the first few years and alternatively worked using a nearby daycare facility (after the first year or so). The kids turned out as “normal” as could be expected, given the parents … :>)

But I agree with you, it is hard on the parents trying to “have your cake and eat it too”. And it is hard financially on one income where the government takes over 65% in taxes (including, GST, PST, real estate taxes, gasoline taxes). In the early working years families only get to keep 35% because our marginal tax rates are so high plus we spend everything we earn and thus are taxed 15% on what we spend (except in Alberta). I think I could have kept more of my earnings in the USSR because I would have figured out how to barter and use the black markets.

It should be about choice. The feminists should not judge parenting. Also, stay-at-home Moms should not judge working Moms. It’s nobody’s business but our own. As ET says parenting should not be reduced to a moral choice or a financial choice. But in a developed country like Canada the choice should be ours and it should be made financially easier than it has been under socialists regimes.

To make the choice easier we should get away from the cynical Liberal strategy of wanting 2 parent incomes to tax so Liberals could keep tax revenues as high as possible and keep their cradle to grave socialist laundromat churning to buy our votes with our won money.

A whole new tax regime needs to happen as soon as we get a conservative majority with the emphasis of making it as easy as possible for Canadians to have larger families. It’s about our choice, not the government’s, not the feminists’.

If we were to let families keep over 50% of their money instead of 35% we would have a growing population and we would not need massive immigration to support our demographic collapse.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-04-01 7:59:03 AM

RK - I see now recognize my lack of blogger skills. I've thought about your comments and those of others from yesterday on and off (and other things too, of course) for hours.

If you totally give then you actually possess.

The people who give everything they have then really have something.

The person who has a family has given everything that she has. I think that nature (i.e. God, is may terminology, but evidently many who participate here style themselves as atheist) is such that men desire to give all of themselves for love, that is, someone who they love. This could be some of that intelligent focused energy that ET speaks about sometimes. But with human love, a one way street isn't satisfying. A woman must be able to both receive love (appreciate it and it's source) and give love.

That is the essence of having a family. It is a total giving away of yourSELF. And then you end up with something.

I once had to travel across country for a couple of unexpected separate reasons. I found myself with down time between the two activities and I needed a place with a desk and a phone for several hours. I knew of a company which had offices in that city. I called and just off the wall asked if they had an empty office with a phone that I could use. They said yes.

I was very grateful. They set me up in a library room, but with a phone on one of the tables. I used my own telephone calling card (of course) so there would be no costs to these people.

For some reason I went out of the library room and walking down the hallway passed another large room and I saw the elderly man who owned the company. I guess that he called me in, I don't recall, but we ended up sitting down and talking. He talked with me about one of his son's. I happened to have in my briefcase a large school (eighth grade) picture of my daughter (now an architect). We talked about her (a pretty little girl).

While we talked this older (old) man started to cough a little, and I sort of thought that perhaps I was upsetting him, and I got up to leave. But he asked me to stay. We talked some more and then I left.

This old man owned airplanes and ships (he didn't have a railroad) and hotels and oil facilities and huge apartment complexes and truck lines and pipe lines and at least that one huge office building where we were sitting. A very unusually rich and successful man. Oh yeah, he owned a bunch of radio and television stations - and now that I think about it there were other terrific entire businesses and assets like that. I ran into his chauffeur just standing by in the hallway as I left.

All we talked about was one of his sons and one of my children.

The man died a few years later, I thought to go to the funereal (it would have been a trip to another part of the country) but I felt odd and that I'd be out of place.

I wrote a note to that son and he appreciated it.

We all really have to deal with the material things in our world and having sufficient of them is usually a life long struggle. But the spiritual and the loving relationships are all that actually counts (in my experience and the same with those who I have known).

My wife and I invested the entire "three years" in that daughter, and even some additional ;- )

RK - if you love your husband with your entire heart and soul, as I sense that you do, your choice about what "career" alternative you could have will mean nothing. I think God makes it so that if you actually give everything, risk everything, then it works out. Your children are very lucky and we are all very fortunate that you are doing what you are.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-04-01 8:00:41 AM

I`m so thrilled that our taxes have allowed you enlightened ones to get your education and then sit at home debating over the pros and cons of more subsidies i.e. daycare. It is also so convenient to ' leave the work force ' for a year or two at gov`t expense usually and be mandated to return to the exact position and salary , regardless of a decline in skills or a shift in workplace demands
When the masses demand more subsidized education and healthcare, we are well on our way to communism , by definition , I suppose.
As re health care , the system is overburdened by those willing to eat junk , watch crappy TV and get fat and lazy, that`s why costs are exploding exponentially . It is an accepted human right to allow the medical- pharma mafia to dictate how we live our lives ; as they pilfer the system with their , for the most part useless drugs , and play up to our stubborn entitlement to a fat ass and an empty head. .

Posted by: daveh | 2006-04-01 8:15:35 AM

Let me head off some of the wailing and gnashing of teeth . since I`m off to my job of betting horses , something truly risk taking .The column was titled ' Speaking out ' .

Posted by: daveh | 2006-04-01 8:22:04 AM

No, daveh - you are accountable for what you say; you can't 'sound off' without accepting responses and debate about your opinions. Do you know the only people who do that? Preachers - who spout dogma and reject debate.

Your assertions are empty. There is no causal link between disease and your assumed causes: (1) junk food, watching crappy tv -->and getting fat and lazy --> and getting a disease.

Did you know that you can get a disease without any of your variables?
Did you know that you can get fat without watching TV?
Did you know that you can watch tv and not be lazy?

The medical-pharmaceutical realm is not a mafia; it's the means of developing new drugs. Did you know, daveh, that it takes LOTS of money, reliable money, not horse-getting money, to invest in the development of a new drug? Did you know that it can take years and years of such investment?

Did you know that drugs are not, 'for the most part, useless'? Tell that to the survivors of a serious infectious disease, cured because of drugs; tell that to the individual with diabetics whose drugs are most certainly not useless. And so on...

Instead of betting on horses, try to learn something.

nomdenet - I agree completely with your outline. The gov't taxes people in this country so heavily that we cannot, as a nation, develop our own investor class. We rely on foreign investment because our citizens can't accumulate enough surplus to invest in Canadian enterprises.
And, it's so difficult for families to get by, because their dual incomes are taxed so heavily.
And- there are also all the other taxes, as you point out.

Something else that I find disturbing, is the new tax tactic of lotteries. We are finding more and more and more lotteries, all run by the gov't. They reap enormous revenues from this - and without any accountability. Where does that money go?

I also suspect that the 'winners' , at least in Canada, are NOT random. There is no way, given a set of, let's say, 47 to 49 numbers, that a top winner would necessarily ever, randomly, emerge every few weeks. Yet, that is what happens. The probability is low; it could go on for a year. But it doesn't. The lottery system 'knows' the numbers paid for; after all, it can immediately inform the news that a winner is in x-part of the country and was purchased exactly at y-shop.
So, I'm suspicious. I don't think the actual numbers are chosen, but, I do suspect that, every few weeks, the system is programmed to select one/more of the actually purchased number-sets.
That keeps interest in lotteries alive. No-one would purchase tickets if there were, never, any winners. And..how much does the gov't get from these lotteries?

Posted by: ET | 2006-04-01 9:06:19 AM

Congrats ET , you have been successfully hoodwinked as re meds . And I`ve got an ' edycation ' . horses are really my avocation ; I had to get your reaction .
If I may I would like to get your response to this particular entity--- namely savethemales.ca
I like it . I don`t have to give out sites as re medical pharma malfeasance -- they are legion . I`ve spent a lot of time studying health ; also martial arts , athletics and the like -- and I`m 59 . I speak from some experience having my share of family and friends immersed in health problems , so please don`t tell me the white coats are gods , I don`t and won`t bet on it .

Posted by: daveh | 2006-04-01 9:19:23 AM

daveh, I agree with you and I think if the posters above really thought about it they would agree with your wave of thought also - what our sluggish country's citizens need is a feeling of adventure rather than a feeling of safety. Safety is good when there is a perceived danger but it is boring!! Property ownership and the ownership of your own health and welfare provide the proper ingredients for adventure because risk taking almost always involves health and welfare - and thinking. Children need adventure to grow into strong, independent people; adventure is always risky. The schools, gument silly servants and the parents of today's children think that they OWN people who are not old enough to vote - children are coddled and directed and regulated into trained or untrained (but always programed) robots - and those robots take no responsibility for their own actions - good or bad. Adults need to focus on property that is not their own, or their fellow citizen's, offspring because children are not personal property like land, cattle, horses, cats and dogs, buldings etc. If people do not own property they have no control of anything but their own bodies - it makes them kowtowers and that is GOOD for Totalitarian gumments. Parents, not the gument, are the 'caretakers' or stewards of their own offspring and they are entitled to demand respect and proper conduct from the little people they provide for while those small people grow into responsible, able adults. If children are the only focus of an adult's life, the latter will never allow risk taking - for this reason, I think it is better for people to have three or more children in their families than to have just one 'hothouse' child. My grandfather's family had 12 kids in it, when the third and forth oldest boys were 8 and 10 they took a job herding bulls; the boys had a horse and a collie dog to help them and they lived in a tent. They earned enough money to buy their mother a new stove and a quarter section of land for themselves. They owned that piece of land and their dad rented it from them to run cattle on it. Their dad and mom could have claimed their land but they loved and RESPECTED their sons. What a priceless gift of independance and freedom .

Posted by: jema54j | 2006-04-01 9:51:53 AM

daveh - why does it make you feel good, to state an opinion, and then, assert that you didn't mean it; i.e., that you've 'hoodwinked' your readers? Why does that action make you feel good?

Did I say that 'white coats' were gods? What a silly thing to assert. It's naive of you to even expect such a result - with 'god' meaning an absolute action, breaking and nullfiying the relation between X-biological cause and Y-biological result.

Since we are material, and operate chemically and biologically, that means that we cannot, ever, remove biological interactions from our bodies. Bacteria want to live too- and our world would be impossible without them. So, we will never, ever, be 'cured' of disease - which is one and only one, of the results of biological interactions. Once one biological entity is reduced in power, another will emerge..

So- you are educated in martial arts, athletics? My.
I hope that everyone speaks from both experience and knowledge. And please don't expect doctors to change the biological composition of our universe. It's not only impossible but would be a disaster (all life would disappear)..

Posted by: ET | 2006-04-01 9:57:23 AM

Writing from a parallel universe - thank Jema54j for prompting me to insert a comment which ties back to the SOFT WOOD TARRIF topic of a day ago.

You folks in Canada have heavy duty Socialism to deal with (e.g. un do) and we in America have to defeat it before it takes over (daily).

During the SOFT WOOD TARIFF discussions several correspondents suggested "selling off" the government owned timber resource. I thought to jump in with commentary at that point but the discussion was technically informed and my comment was sort of one-off.

Emboldened by Jema54j's insights today I'd like to suggest that if you ever unbundle your Socialist government overship of resources that you RESTRICT the sales to actual CANADAIN CITIZENS, rather than get a "big idea" and sell all your forrests at once to some guy from Hong Kong, etc.

This is going to be tricky, creating an open market type of a sale of resources while also restricting sale to CITIZENS and then keep the citizens from just dumping it for quick sales - but it has been done (wasn't the Calgary stampeed something that originated as a land rush to stake claims on farmland?).

Your population is tiny in comparison to your geographic area and resources, so it will be (stupid) easy to "solve" problems (e.g. welfare type problems) by selling assets and thus giving away that which you can't get back and which certainly has the potential for wonderful livlihoods for all of your nation (Wow! Ten years old herding bulls).

Everything good takes "impossible" risks and work but I had always thought of Canada and Canadians as EXACTLY that type of people. This crazy socialism and lefty stuff and sad focus on homosexual "issues" and all the attendant "hatred" of your neighbor down south, just bewildered me.

I'm real glad to listen in to this blog, but I see that the socialism stuff isn't being imposed from outer space. FIRST thing is taking the real risk of forming families. Everything is "impossible" until you just do it and unless you stick with it.

I wish I had more cows and less hat, but my intention is to support and encourage.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-04-01 10:38:04 AM

Conrad--Thank you!

ET, etc...Please don't lecture me on "economic nessessity". You have no idea how little we made for the first, say, 10 years of our marriage. I think you'd find it a bit shocking. And I didn't get to sit on maternity leave, as we were self-employed after the first baby, and when my husband did get "regular" employment, I wasn't working enough hours to qualify. The point is, you don't need two incomes if you don't eat out, have new vehicles, a big house, cable tv, vacations, brand name clothes, etc. Not much fun, admitably, but doable. It's only been in the last few years that it's been even remotely comfortable. I have to agree with nondenet though, we pay way too many taxes. If my hubby made half of what he does and I made the other half, we'd pay much less tax. It's ridiculous.

As for the moral aspect of it, I don't think you can remove that from the equation. I think a lot of people struggle with family/career because they don't have anything bigger than themselves (ie: "God" "Intelligent Design" etc) to give them purpose. And if there is no higher power directing things, then the only thing that matters is Self. So, making self happy/fulfilled at any cost would make sense. Why have kids at all? Why get married? Why do anything that doesn't directly benefit me? That is the prevailing thought in society today, and it's sad.

And I don't see the point in going to University. I naively thought that the point of going to such an institution was to learn. Imagine my dismay at the discovery that they simply wanted me to regurgitate. Ick. So much for being educated, all that does is make you schooled. I learned more sitting in the library than in lectures.

Also, most drugs are worse than useless, they are dangerous.
I'm getting off my soapbox for now. :)

Posted by: RK | 2006-04-01 10:41:05 AM

Rk- I disagree. I think you are considering only your own lifestyle and mode of life. I won't insert my own, which might equally shock you, because I don't think that anecdotal personal experiences are relevant.

I disagree that two incomes are necessary only if you want an upper middle class lifestyle. You say that a family doesn't need two incomes - unless they want to eat out, have a big house, cars..etc, etc. I disagree; you are thinking only within one economic level.

There are many families who rent or have a small home, who have none of what you describe, who never eat out, etc..and require two incomes to get by. The husband might be a carpenter, a garage mechanic; he might be a street sweeper, a garbage man..and the wife might clean homes or businesses, or be a receptionist, or be a clerk in a grocery store etc. They need both incomes to get by; they simply couldn't even rent, or save up enough to buy that small house or used car without it.

I continue to remove the moral aspect from this argument. I don't understand how you are linking 'struggling with family career'..and..'bigger aspect'. I disagree that if you don't believe in god or some higher power directing things, that you necessarily only focus on the Self. That black and white either-or link is irrational. People don't necessarily focus only on the self if they don't believe in a 'higher determining force'. They can readily focus on the family, on their community etc.

I certainly agree that defining one's individual actions as irrelevant, because life is essentially ordained/determined by a higher power, does deny the validity and responsibility of the Self. You'll see that mindset in all fundamentalists - from the Muslim terrorist to the marxist idealist.

Instead, I opt for the responsibility of the rational individual, who takes charge of his/her life, - Such responsibility does not lead to a self-absorption, to selfish narrow wishes..but to care and responsibility for both the self and others.

For most of university learning, I would completely agree with you - most of it is useless and even, terrible brainwashing. I used to tell my students - that learning is and must be, done on one's own. And they must always question, critique..and that included, never to even accept what I was saying as authoritative. The opposite was the case with many other profs, who insisted on, as you say, regurgitation. And, regurgitation of nonsense. Students would come to my classes, spouting sheer nonsense; we'd have open full class discussions..where they would readily see how those conclusions were ungrounded both empirically and logically. Just a few guidelines of critical thinking empowered them to think for themselves and not have to be brainwashed.

However, this non-learning brainwashing is in the humanities and social sciences.

But- In the sciences, - I'd suggest you'd get a decent education. [Admittedly, it's still heavily Darwinian in biology..but..that's another argument...]But in science, you can't wallow around in the sophist relativism of postmodernism.

No, I disagree with your blanket assertion - 'most drugs are worse than useless'. You are, if I may say, again being too black and white in your conclusions...

Posted by: ET | 2006-04-01 11:14:47 AM

Conrad re the issue of selling major assets to say Commie thugs, we’ve debated that here, and it rages on.

My own view is that the issue should be part of our Foreign Policy debate, which needs to take place soon. The sale of large resource properties or companies needs to pass a smell test. We wouldn’t allow Acme Energy to be sold to the Mafia so we shouldn’t allow its Sale to China either. Maybe under certain assurances of disclosure by China I could allow certain purchases but they would need to be vetted by Parliament. Ditto Crown Corp forestry lands.

But the previous Liberal government was in bed with China through a Goldfinger type of Canadian Character that has had influence with Power Corp and the UN … he looks like milquetoast but he’s very dark and dangerous .. he’s Maurice Strong the father of Kyoto. So goodness knows who would have owned Canada had we kept electing Liberals.

Anyway, I’m glad to see you on the Shotgun , please keep warning us and hopefully in return you can keep the GOP from morphing into nanny care. Having said that, I thank God for Bush everyday.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-04-01 11:17:45 AM

ET, I disagree that personal experience is irrelevant. Have you lived below the poverty line? How about hovering above it? I have, and so I can comment on it. I have never been at a level one could call "upper class" and in fact would venture that our lifestyle could only qualify as "middle class" in very recent history. I know plenty of people who are scraping by. I'm not saying that a woman shouldn't work. I'm not even saying it isn't necessary for two incomes in some families. But after you factor in the costs of 2 incomes, it's hardly worth it. Even at the economic levels you are describing. I know, I LIVED IT. It's still a matter of priority.

As for the greater purpose, you're right. It doesn't have to be God per se, plenty of people pour that same energy into family, work, etc. The point is, if we reject the need to be part of something bigger than ourselves, we can only focus on ourselves. You obviously believe that people are basically good, thus why you think if "rational" adults take responsibility for themselves. I don't. I think "personal responsibility" should be expected, but there are far too many examples of just the opposite. If people were basically good we wouldn't need government at all, but here we are.

Yes, the social sciences are the worst, but really, "science" is just like another religion, it's something you have to take on faith a lot of the time. Yes, there are some facts, but an awful lot of science is conjecture.

And finally...there are useful drugs out there, but how many 'miracle' drugs have to get pulled cause guess what-they are dangerous! before these companies are made accountable? If you go to a dr's office, you'll see posters on the wall giving all sorts of medical advice, all of which are sponsered by drug companies. Wow, that's objective advice. I don't have much faith in any of the established institutions, including medicine. Call me crazy if you will.

Posted by: RK | 2006-04-01 11:50:42 AM


A most excellent post above, your view and vision of Canada is very much that I feel of most Canadians, particularly the entrepreneur Albertans. And we are as bewildered as you are at the mentality, mainly in our major cities that obsess over nuances, and hold this country back.

I have said many times with our small population, huge natural resources, with proper leadership, this country would be giving out tax rebates rather imposing the suffocating tax it does.

Not much different than your own problem, only as you mentioned the situations are reversed. It is amazing with all the examples in the world, and in history, including this failing experiment, your country is teetering on the edge of falling into the same black hole. The leftist media with their captive masses in the cities are threatening the downfall of us all.

If you haven't checked him out yet, give Mark Steyn a read. He has a very realistic view of Canada, as well as the rest of the world. Think you will like him. steynonline.com.

Keep your chin up on the immigration thing, it is depressing, but if you get the urge to vote dimmy just have look up here, or France. Like nomdenet I thank god for Bush and a strong America every day.

Posted by: deepblue | 2006-04-01 11:59:31 AM

Well said nomdenet - with the Keri dingledong (who was creepy like the dingledong dingwall-bat up here) as President of US with paule under the skirt of Mo the Commo as Prime Minister, North America would have become 'toast' under the assult of the terrorists from islam and the communists from 'habitats for humanity', mo strong types. I thank God for George W Bush and Stephen Harper as the President and Prime Minister of our respective countries.

Posted by: jema54j | 2006-04-01 12:05:52 PM

RK, I don’t think it’s wise to go on about poverty. I live in Toronto worked on Bay St and Wall St, did well financially but didn’t start out that way. The fact is most of us baby boomers started out literally on a one horse farm or one step from it. Or they were the kids of immigrants, many of whom saw the Holocaust up real close. You are starting to moralize about poverty and most of us that pulled ourselves up by the bootstraps don’t have any sympathy for it. You are starting to sound like a Liberal.

I do share what Conrad said about you and parenthood etc. but I also suggest that you chew on what ET said about you being too black and white. We all have a story to tell, but I don’t think you want to hear about my dad dieing and my Mom working nights to put food on the table. So stop the bleating or join the NDP.

I think it was Ella Fitzgerald that said, “I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor and I prefer being rich”. If you haven’t seen the movie Ray, see it. It’s a capitalist’s “can do” kinda story.

RK you seem like a nice person. Maybe I’ve been too harsh, I considered not posting this, but you seem tough enough to take it in the helpful spirit it intended. Cheers.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-04-01 12:21:20 PM

I know of only one American who moved to Canada and stayed there. He was a CCCRRREEEEEEEEPPPPPP in America. He stayed up there and worked for your government and became a really "big wheel" of some kind in your government. He is even more of a CCCRRREEEEEEEPPPPP still today.

I know that ET says that anecdotal experience is irrelevant, and as I've said before, she is gorgeous (tell the pretty girls they are smart...), but I hope you will suspend your beliefs for just this one moment and take it to heart that government and government people are THE main part of your problems. Best-only way to beat them is cut taxes; you cannot make an error in cutting taxes - cutting government will follow.

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-04-01 12:25:38 PM

You are right about selling public assets to private citizens. BUT, the problem in Canada is that Canadians are so heavily taxed that we have never developed an investor class in Canada! No-one is 'allowed' to develop enough surplus to invest in Canada in any meaningful way.

Every industrial country ought to have at least 20% of its population capable of high cost long term investment. In Canada, the ratio of people with incomes over $200,000 a year - (that's what we might call our 'investor class') is LESS THAN 1%. Got that? Even at that low income level of $200,000 - there are less than 1% of Canadians.

How has this ridiculous situation arisen? Out of the Trudeaupian CaveDweller's era (my reference is to Plato's Cave, where a population lived, and defined the shadows on the wall as reality). We defined 'reality' - not by actual facts but simply within our own imagination. So, Canada's gov't said that 'everyone should be more or less equal' ..(all the same middle middle class)..and it attempted to do this, by taxing businesses, corporations very heavily; by taxing citizens very heavily, by adding all sorts of consumer taxes..such that Canadians have very little capacity to achieve surplus funds.

And then, it 'redistributed' these monies. It set up multiple 'make-work' projects in low economy areas, making those people completely dependent on those tax-dollar infused projects..rather than developing locally viable businesses. So, Alberta is paying for jobs for people in the Maritimes and the North.

Our universal health care is a bureaucratic deep well, with most of the money going to union-led salaries rather than services. It set up all kinds of 'gov't funded' systems. All research money comes from the one source - and thus, all research is led by a bureaucratic mind..with the result that Canadian research is non-foundational and merely descriptive (women on the prairies in the 19th century). On and on and on...our tax money goes to fund an enormous bureaucracy.

So- Canadians have no money to 'invest in Canada. We have to rely on foreigners and that's why we can't even be particular. It's them or no industrial dev't.

Now, Harper is trying to deal with that. He's actually saying that IF you sell a capital asset, there'll be no capital tax if you re-invest the money in Canada within 6 months. A first time.

Of course, our heavy duty socialist political parties - which is all of them but Harper's conservatives - are furious over this. For them, business is Evil, and out for Profit (frothing noises from the pulpit)..and the monies must be taken from these Evil People and given to...the citizen.
And..we are left with no capacity to develop long term infrastructures.

Posted by: ET | 2006-04-01 12:26:22 PM

Nondenet, :) I'm not easily offended, or I wouldn't be here. I wasn't trying to tell a sob story, just that the reasons the left give for needing a national daycare program are crap, and so are the "reasons" the average joe gives for having 2 incomes. That's all. :) So I was momentarily shocked that you'd think I was a liberal. Made me gasp! Although it's not the first time I have been accused of being rather black/white.

Posted by: RK | 2006-04-01 12:37:14 PM

First - please accept my apology for saying that guy was a Creep. I'm probably much more of a creep than he ever was or is.

ET - regarding the need for or lack of an investor class in Canada; just finance the purchases for Canadians with zero down and if the government doesn't want to do it, let foreigners do the financing - BUT WITHOUT ANY COLLATERAL INTEREST IN THE RESOURCE - that is, just let them lend UNSECURED to Canadians to finance Canadians' purchase of forrest lands or whatever. Just don't let the resources go out of Canada to non-citizens. If the financing defaults, the foreign lender loses PERIOD.

I'm in LA. You can finance ANYTHING. There are TV shows running, more than one, which are entirely about watching people play cards.

It costs money to set up a studio and pay crews etc. for a TV show. Someone actually agreed to finance a show about watching people play cards.

And he was a "genius" (as we use the term in LA).

And RK and nomdenet and deepblue and so many other folks, it is just an absolute delight to have "discovered" that Canadians are such great terrific people, after my having been so dumb as to believe the crazy terrible "free press" and "main stream media" depictions which had me actually convinced that I was living next door to "France".

I wonder what the French are like? ;- )

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-04-01 1:12:14 PM

RK, I’m very relieved to read your reaction. I confess, I’m actually becoming more black and white too, no point in compromising, it just dilutes the point. Good luck with the “dinks” (double income no kids).

I know what you mean, I have to keep reminding myself that not all Americans are like Jimmy Carter and Michael Moore and the 48% of the US self-loathing population that votes Dim … ;>)
Someday we can debate how the Democrats export that self-loathing crap to Canada through Lou Dobbs and Christine Armpit. Canadian conservatives have enough trouble fighting our own MSM but when Americans attack Bush for wanting to protect us from Islamofascists, it makes our cocktail party converstion just that much more severe.
That’s why I’ve turned “black and white” like RK, take no prisoners.

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-04-01 2:25:21 PM

I think I'm gonna like it here. :)

Posted by: RK | 2006-04-01 2:39:15 PM

I think the entire situation we have discussed on many of the threads on this blog come down to one thing: the entire problem is in the hands of ET and RK.

The Democrat Party (i.e. the Communists, aka Atheist Socialists) is entirely comprised of American women (OK, ET, plus or minus 15%).

The major issues reflect variations on thoughts, actions and beliefs expressed perfectly by RK and ET. I am drawn to and like both of these women, they are both on "my side" (i.e. obvious desire and energy to make our world better and actually excellent).

I will listen and learn from you both (I will also try to encourage and persuade).

Posted by: Conrad-USA | 2006-04-01 3:58:42 PM

A point that I'd like to emphasize in the discussion about 'women's work', is that the Canadian 'system' does not encourage family life, and Canadian society as reflected in the media DOES put pressure on women to be successful outside the family. This is a problem of socialism. No freedom.

An intelligent, beautiful, vibrant woman (like my little sister) can feel useless and unaccomplished because she is caring for her two children instead of working outside the home. I don't understand her feelings, but I can see that many of her working 'friends' are not helping, and her perception of success is warped. It does not put value in her motherhood.
Does she do a good job? Yes. Does she love her children? Yes. But she cannot be happy without looking elsewhere. It is very sad.
When we realized that the gov't was against us, and we were spiralling further into debt, in spite of my husband's excellent teaching career and our very modest living style, we had an option to leave the country (and the taxes) and continue our lives elsewhere. This was only possible for us because of family. I feel sorry for the struggle that families have in Canada. I fell sorry for the children who grow up spending only a minimum of time with their parents. I feel sorry for a country that sees so little value in family that they practically force both parents to work, encourage the killing of children, and publicly proclaim that marriage (husband and wife) is not a good unto itself. Canada has joined Europe in promoting proudly a Culture of Death, and the future will show the consequences.

Posted by: lwestin | 2006-04-02 7:39:54 PM


You’ll like this post ..


a quote …

“Since the sixties, socialist feminists like Dijksma and Snoey have refused to accept that women also contribute to the wellbeing of society by investing in children. The time, energy, money, talent, and indeed education invested in the upbringing of children produces greater benefits for society as a whole than the pursuit of individual wealth and satisfaction..”

Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-04-02 7:49:24 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.