The second one was a mistake anyway...it happened when she got really stoned at Burning Man and slept with one of Phish's roadies.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Rules for others, not applicable to themselves. Another Liberal hypocrite.

Perhaps the slippage explains why she hasn't been heard of in the last decade or so. Usually friends look out for each other by keeping them out of the limelight when they lose their minds.

She just wants to show her boss that she can sell newspapers.

Or, at the least, get attention.

Does anyone expect journalists to express a heart-felt or carefully reasoned opinion?

It DOES happen, but not often.

Fraudsters steal $7B in carbon credit scams in past 18 months. http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/cbc-article.aspx?cp-documentid=22852625

The way I see it these people that believe CO2 is a problem should just hold their breath for say 20 minutes. That should greatly reduce the amount of CO2, and if they do it properly is should reduce the population as well. 2 birds with 1 stone so to speak. Then there would be work for people removing and disposing of the bodies, great that would mean less unemployment because after the cleanup there would be all sorts of vacant jobs to fill. I know it sounds silly but no more silly than what they are spouting.

Consent to death

14. No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him, and such consent does not affect the criminal responsibility of any person by whom death may be inflicted on the person by whom consent is given.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 14.

Homicide

222. (1) A person commits homicide when, directly or indirectly, by any means, he causes the death of a human being.

Kinds of homicide

(2) Homicide is culpable or not culpable.

Non culpable homicide

(3) Homicide that is not culpable is not an offence.

Culpable homicide

(4) Culpable homicide is murder or manslaughter or infanticide.

Idem

(5) A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

(a) by means of an unlawful act;

(b) by criminal negligence;

(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or

(d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

Exception

(6) Notwithstanding anything in this section, a person does not commit homicide within the meaning of this Act by reason only that he causes the death of a human being by procuring, by false evidence, the conviction and death of that human being by sentence of the law.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 205.

Counselling offence that is not committed

464. Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of persons who counsel other persons to commit offences, namely,

(a) every one who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment to which a person who attempts to commit that offence is liable; and

(b) every one who counsels another person to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 464; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 60.

How long does Diane Francis want to go to jail for?

Get out the beer and popcorn should be quite the 'show trial'.

But as Armstrong & Miller noted:

"You haf no rights in zis room!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1rWvGSmOuo&NR=1

Armstrong & Miller - WWII RAF Sketch 5

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

Promoting population control for the "Western World" is a silly thing.

Firstly, it's happening naturally, as our perma-adolescent adults want to continuing partying into their 40s, 50s, and 60s, concomitantly avoiding parenthood.

Secondly, for North American born parents, their kids are an expensive and time consuming proposition, with lessons and other extracurricular activities (as well as added food and housing costs), so children are often viewed as an encumbrance.

Thirdly, I have read the statements of others that have given me pause to think - they say where will the people be born who will solve the future major crises of the world? North America or The Sudan? Although on the surface this sounds very distasteful, I think it's a fair question that deserves debate.

Didn't she used to be Diane Francis?

I'll tell you when you begin to pay attention to
idiots like her.

When she begins preaching this in mosques.

I'll listen to this idiot the day she leads by example and commits suicide. When my hippie aunt espoused this nonsense to me as a teenager back in the 1970's my response to her was "Why are you still alive?"

Dianne is one of the reasons I dropped my subscription to the Financial Post in the mid '90s. Much, much too far left for anyone with the amount of influence she has at the Financial Post.

Sounder:

Did you really write "Rules for others, not applicable to themselves. Another Liberal hypocrite."

Francis, a Liberal!?! I think not.

I very much disagree with the wish for one-child-pre-couple crap being espoused by her or anyone else but ...... Francis, a Liberal!? Better you should do some reading.

Not being fair here. Diane Francis is much older than the 19 years she was when she got married. I suggest that the world wasn't in peril back then. Two kids, but normal standards is not even replacement numbers. Diane did the right thing staying home until the kids were in school.

I don't see how trashing Diane Francis with such a flimsy grab is doing anything but trashing a good conservative woman for making a perfectly decent choice at the time.

As far as the "Sophies Choice" question, I don't think it is very nice to ask a woman such a question. There is no answer to that one, only anxiety and profound sadness.

Besides, the only reason we have any population rise is because we are importing people who have eight kids each. Let's have a look at that.

On this blog, most are conservative type freedom loving capitalists. Our system has one flaw ... it is that in order to work it requires never-ending growth. You know ... investment and development ... larger markets etc.

The dilemma is that on one hand you scorn a women for having two kids (she would likely choose one if her choice was today) yet you promote the continuation of the growth economy?

Which will it be?

BCer you're such a typical BCer- not able to spot a liberal just because they are in the financial pages. I think you should read carefully her past tripe.

With all due respect Jake, Ms. Francis is being scorned for being an idiot, not for having two kids.

well I'm doing my part.

I have a daughter, an only child. Furthermore she is mixed race, coincidentally Chinese and my race whatever that may be. the kid got thru 1st year university on a scholarship. just like the stereotype.

get off the pedestal ms francis. and stay off, your 15 minutes is up.

More anti-western hate. We should just die out. Not mentioned is that the developed countries already have birth rates well below replacement and their populations -less immigration are declining sharply.

The big population increases are in the developing world esp. the Islamic countries. Good luck on the birth control for Muslims spin.

Funny how all the problems in the world are the west's fault, even when they aren't

Jonah Goldberg comments:

Imagine if someone wrote an op-ed saying that we need a planetary ban on abortion. Feminists would get their dresses over their heads in outrage about such a naked assault on "reproductive freedom."

Meanwhile, at the Calgary Zoo.

We have a Small Dead Animal and it instantly becomes an international incident.

Diane Francis zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

The reproduction rate in Canada is 1.6. Less than the 2.1 required for replacement.

How come Francis does not know this?

Jake, it doesn't matter whether Francis is Lib or Con, her thinking is weak. Canada has 33 million and a low birth rate. Why should anyone in our society practice population control. All western democracies but one, the USA are reproducing below replacement.

This my Dear Diane, is simply not a problem for highly developed Western Democracies.

Period.

Hey diane you NUMPTY !! how many people around the world are dying every four day's , from natural causes and ...sooomee shall we say not so natural causes....http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2009/10/al-qaedas-schoolyard-massacre.html ....Your a Dumb woamn and a hipocrite!! if the chinease only allow one child per familly that is there problem , if the africans refuse to use birth control or condoms (i am agaainst both as well i beelive in marrige and educating youth how to handle those situation if and when they get into them it just eliminates so many problems)and have an aids pandemic and a birthrate of 8 or nine kids per family that is there problem as well i beleive in helping everyone including these people but but look at who and where there is an overpopulation ....definatley not in any western white christian countries we are dying as fast as they are breeding and out breeding us at that so i say live and let LIVE. China should not be killing babies they should be educating and giving incentives for smaller families simple !! And here in canada we should be giving incentives for large famillies closing our boarders ,this way we don't have tamil tigers closing our highway's or the muslims threatening MR. Harper with there shoes!!! start breeding patriotism and pride into our canadian people and future!!

Sorry i know alittle off topic!!

Paul in calgary

"So, which one, Diane - Eric? Or Julie?"

She won't make that choice, but what people like her WILL do however is choose to "off" your one child instead.

Jake, Francis may be a fiscal conservative, but not a social one. People who are fiscal but not social conservatives are simply liberals who at least understand economics. Anyone who could support the tragedy that is China's one-child law has a fascist control streak that would make Hitler proud. Her logic would only destroy western civilization, making the future of the world even grimmer than it is right now. And we don't scorn her for having 2 kids then, we scorn her for being a hypocrite now.

In terms of total population, the world has an incredible capacity for growth. As was discovered with crop yields 40 years ago, our technological capacity outstrips our growth rate by a significant margin. You might not think so living in downtown Toronto, but try visiting Saskatchewan some time.

Your dilemma is as invalid today as it was when posed as "Limits to Growth" by the Club of Rome 40+/- years ago. Will it be 40, or 140 years from now? If it survives factors other than population count, I bet it will.

Kate,

You always "cut-to-the-quick"! Maybe DF's #2 was a "cut-to-the-quickie" as well?

Cheers.

I disagree with Francis because it is none of her (or the government's) GD business how many children should be allowed per family. As a libertarian I would prefer that a family can afford to raise them without burdening the welfare system but that is another debate.

BTW, wouldn't she have been in her childbearing years at the same time the Population Bomb was exploding on the bookshelves. Kind of odd that her concern was delayed until after her own menopause.

There is a solution for her. She absolutely must insist that her children only produce one grandchild to make up for her own baby overage. Any subsequent grandchildren should be shunned for the ecological burden they represent.

I'm thinking Diane is no spring chicken anymore. Does she think the elderly (she'll be there in 10-15 years or so) will be exempt from eco-nazi-totalitarianism????

Pre-borns and oldsters will be on the chopping block. She should think about that a little bit more. Remember death panels??

Guys, give her a break. She's obviously desperately grasping for attention while her ship goes down.

One kid? Heck, even David Suzuki has five.

Oh, and there is another downside. Population control will lead to vast numbers of males and vastly fewer females.

That, is as Mark Steyn points out, a recipe for war. Teenage and young men with no women to pursue means a huge population of males with fighting on their minds, and governments eager to start a war to occupy those same young men.

I believe that men really only have two primary interests. fighting and f***ing. In my experience, food trails a distant third.

Didn't Bob Rae's Uncle Mo suggest something similar, like getting rid of a billion or so people?
Ah the leftist elite, they never seem to think that these policies they dream up for us, the great unwashed, will never come back and bite them in the ass.

Gore has four kids...

I believe that men really only have two primary interests. fighting and f***ing. In my experience, food trails a distant third.

I think fighting and food switch rankings somewhere around 35ish. The chip falls off the shoulder and lands in a bowlful of potato chips that deliciously compliments the sports shows on TV.

My point is that at some point, on a finite ball in space, we will be beyond capacity. That would be hell on earth for sure.

Those think continued growth of population is good, please note the living conditions in the most populous countries and why that is so.

At some point there just ain't enough to go around and like today's world it will not be distributed equally and that is why we have the save the planet crowd nipping at our heels.

Francis is correct in supporting limited pop growth. I have noted in my lifetime, the high the world's population gets, the more problems, wars, famine etc we have.

Remember, capitalism (my favorite system) has the fatal flaw of requiring unlimited growth for it to work. That cannot be sustained for ever.

Just as Socialism eventually runs out of capitalist's money to spend, Capitalists eventually run out of resources to develop.

Neither can be sustained forever. That is the real dilemma. The larger the population, the less time we have left.

Just as Socialism eventually runs out of capitalist's money to spend, Capitalists eventually run out of resources to develop .

One of these has been proven again and again , the other , not so much .

Jake,
the living conditions your refer to are due more to shitty governments than to the population.

You also presume we will always be restricted to this planet; Lazarus Long would disagree.

I have always enjoyed Francis' writings, although not always agreed with her propositions.

She appears to be moving to the dark side: "Socialism/envirometalism for you but not for me".

Jake at December 11, 2009 7:55 PM

Jake you completely miss the point. If resources become constrained, then economic activity shifts in a liberal, capitalist society.

The problem is when hierarchical organizations attempt to determine how to use those resources, which are, after all, still constrained.

It's called dictatorship.

So, the big question is:

Did Gore do a Francis or did Francis do a Gore?

Or have they both done a David (two home) Suzuki?

Must decide.

Holdren, Obama's Science Czar, wrote a book discussing how to limit populations. It was called Ecoscience. ALthough he recommended, among other things, placing sterilants in a population's water or food supply. I am pretty sure the CBC covered this. lol.

She is on Fox News right now . . .

Actually, history shows that war, famine and disease was more prevalent when there was lower population and primitive technology (what the progressive greens would like to return to). The Dark Ages for instance. The modern world wars and genocides were a product of megalomaniacs with a grand plan and an all powerful totalitarian state.

No society has ever been able to even control the cat problem! Why even bother trying with humans?

HRM City Council, I'm sure, would do a fine job.

Jake, you need to study up on how capitalism works. The stone age didn't end because we ran out of stones.

I sent Dianne a note:
"Dianne, Which one gets it in the neck, Eric or Julie? Further to that, will you support the implementation of that law, rather than just the deluded do-gooder "its for the planet" meme? Lets say Julie, by an accident, gets pregnant after already having had a child, will you put the needle into the baby's skull as it crowns, to kill it, or are you above such tawdry chores as executing babies? I would ask the question as if it pertained to Eric's wife, but since Julie is alive, clearly he has been the victim of state extermination, and as such is...........a statistic?

You know the best part of you having your head so far up your ass? At least we only have to read your drivel, rather than listen."

Eric and Rick and Paul are all correct and the reason we are in trouble is because we've turned our back on the old religion, the decalogue and Natural Law. We have several generations brought up with divorce, abortion, birth control, etc.. Children born out of wedlock, or not knowing who their mother or father is, wondering why they left them, whether they are loved or just put up with. This is not conducive to building families, having children, and working for the common good. Jake, no one claimed life is "fair" or "nice" and Diane couldn't be described as being either.

My goodness, a priviledged, wealthy, white woman advising the third world on birth control. Does she not see the racism in that statement? Sounds colonial to me. Cheers.

I look forward to reading in Diane's next column her explanation of why she is exempt from the law she espouses. Let's hear it Diane. Educate me.

"I believe that men really only have two primary interests. fighting and f***ing. In my experience, food trails a distant third."

By 55 or so #3 seems to become tied with #1 (and it ain't fighting). Just saying.

Jake: Running out of resources is a fallacy.
Resources are infinite and found between our collective ears.

There's no peak oil; no peak food; no peak nuthin'. No peak lunacy either it seems. And, er, Santayana was an idiot: he opined that those who don't know history will be forced to repeat it. Wrong. It gets repeated over and over and over again, 'cos, it's believed to be DIFFERENT THIS TIME.

And Thomas Malthus was an idiot too: how depressing to see the Malthusian fallacy [fixed resources and a steadily growing population getting progressively poorer] being pimped afresh by the putatively enlightened.

The population adjusts naturally and automatically to changing circumstances.

When I was growing up most families were one income with 4-6 kids.

Then came the welfare state, massive government expansion, massive tax increases, and two-income families with 1-2 kids.

What Me No Dhimmi said.
Overpopulation is still the bugbear of selfish, elitist alarmists who somehow determined how endangered everyone is according to how African, Asian or poor the other person is. It's a form of racism and elitism that for some reason hasn't died out. If Mrs. Francis, among others, is so damned worried about overpopulation, she's more than welcome to take a drastic step herself. She won't and therein lies part of the hypocrisy.

I think drowning the one female child would be the better choice as the outcome is assured whereas needles in the brain(come on magic eight ball) outcome uncertain!http://www.upi.com/Top_News/International/2009/12/10/Chinese-docs-pull-needle-from-girls-head/UPI-83821260483305/

people....ignore her....remember...this is a facist beyotch married to a brit wanker...from the center of lefturd Canukistan.Call it like it is.....SHE is a media whore also...and as such should be hauled in front of the taxpayer to explain why she wants to off one of her own kids....sounds like child abuse to me...she can't have it both ways...or do we allow her too?

Diane Francis was just on teh Oreilly factor and Laura Ingram just destroyed Diane Francis making her look like a total nut job.
I used to have respect for Francis but her whack job position on population control has really eliminated that.

"capitalism ... has the fatal flaw of requiring unlimited growth for it to work"

Depends somewhat on your definition of capitalism. Capitalism, as currently maligned by the left, is properly defined as one element of a free market economy, which we don’t have.

At issue is the proper understanding of growth. Most on the left, and many on the right, conflate growth with increasing consumption, since our entangled economy appears predicated upon it. Conservatives should be chided for defending this system in toto. “Horsewhip-and-buggy” growth is, of course, unsustainable! All that means, in a free market system, is that growth moves to a different arena.

Regarding population: in western societies, extended adolescence, the vastly increased personal freedoms, and the increasing educational requirements needed for functioning in what society considers meaningful ways have all contributed to depressing fertility in the biologically optimum childbearing years. Translation: women have kids later, and no longer have the time for more.

Sophie's choice can be such a bitch...

Jake...if you think Francis was being scorned for having 2 kids you should stick with cbc.ca.
They will tell you what to think there.

Has anyone seen 'Demographic Winter'? Francis and her ilk may get what they wish for, but the results may backfire on them.

Just as Socialism eventually runs out of capitalist's money to spend, Capitalists eventually run out of resources to develop .

One of these has been proven again and again , the other , not so much .
Posted by: Bill D. Cat

Have you seen a northern where the resource developers have run out of stuff to mine? The move on and the population is left outside. They move on, but at some point in the future, there will little left to move onto and those will jealously guard what is left. A bad recipe for the future. I do still prefer capitalism. I am just connecting dots.

I sent her an email when the story was first published - b4 the comments were allowed. In part - the best part I think -it read:

Your line of thinking is akin, and just as archaic, as sacrificing a virgin into the mouth of an active volcano to appease the gods - in this case "mother earth". Had your Mother embraced this line of thinking you would not be here to preach the intrinsic virtue of aborting millions of female babies each year - sons are preferred over daughters. What you are really advocating is murder of children and the micro management (slavery) of the human race on a global scale.

I would suggest that you sacrifice yourself to the human caused climate change active "volcano" -ie: the angry mother earth god, but your obviously not a virgin seeings how you have been screwed over and over again by the Church of Climatology's false and pseudo prophets..."

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/organicagriculturefeedtheworld.php

I can't recall hearing anything from DF for a long time so this may have been intentionally provocative to bolster a flagging career.

Regardless, IMO she has actually done a service by pointing to the pink elephant in the environmentalist war room.

Isn't the whole AGW sham ultimately about population control? Of course trading in bs carbon credits is of course a lucrative side benefit for the masters of the universe.

Syncro

When I first read the DF article my first thought was to wonder how many brothers or sisters she had that she'd kill off, knowing full well DF would choose DF to be THE lone survivor (maybe we should ask her mom about that one). It really didn't occur to me she had children (plural) and still advocate the assinine 1 child rule.

On Fox News Diane looked like a hamster in a cage with a large hungry snake.. Laura was on a roll

I know this analogy is from pajamas media, but it's such a great image.

Ferris Bueller:

Have you seen a northern where the resource developers have run out of stuff to mine? The move on and the population is left outside.

Know, but I seen a southern where they're wuz know education. Everyall done since starved.

Several years ago I was a frequent reader of DF's business articles and she seemed to have her head screwed on right. What happened to that woman I ask. Well apparently she went to Harvard in 2005. Enough said.

Here is the link to the fox interview with Diane Francis. She uses the fact that children are dying to fortify her argument for Population Control - if the children are dying then the population is being reduced - she wants incentives for women to not have babies - that was talked about in "Population Bomb" make having another child so expensive people can not afford it - seems to already be working.

http://video.foxnews.com/12439441/radical-idea

I read the Diane Francis column and thought, she's either making a lame and unsuccessful stab at satire, or she's flipped her wig.

Link: thx for the link re FOX news interview.

DF claims she is a feminist.

But of course in China there is no "choice" you have it imposed on you by force.

On this point DF is an open totalitarian.

Looks like she has a hate on for the Catholic church as well, although the full justification for that position isn't fully explored.

She drifts back to poor, unfortunate, starving children etc... as if that were some sort of rationale.

Of course the correct response is to clothe and feed poor and starving children rather than 'offing' them.

Her leaps of 'illogic' are rather tremendous on this score. Agreed the interviewer took her to task and rightfully so.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group “True North"

if we factor in the cost of preparing for, waging, and cleaning up after all the wars we wage from day to day and year to year and then eliminate the drain on resources and capital, what more can we achieve?

is there a point at which the maximum theoretical capability of development and thus population is reached and then conditions beyond human control manifest which further limits population growth from that maximum level?

jist askin' . . . .

A friend of mine - a very well established agricultural consultant who does business around the globe was at a seminar recently and one of the presenters made a presentation arguing - apparently quite convincingly - that the worlds ag sector could easily support 35 billion people if needed.

Diane Francis is a pessimist and is anti-humanity - she sees us as a a non-beneficial parasite on the world's ecosystem. She misses that point as do so many others. It is as simple as "i think therefore i am."

Diane says the Catholic Church has a lot to answer for; having just viewed the Fox piece I actually felt sorry for her, she was way out of her league, she better stick to pure economics. Pope Benedict is sure to phone her tomorrow with the answers she's looking for.

Know, but I seen a southern where they're wuz know education. Everyall done since starved.
Posted by: KevinB

Too stupid to figure our that the missing word was 'town' there Kevin. But but just stupid enough to mock a typo.

Get a life you creep.

curious_george - I would highly recommend Prof Al Bartlett's video for a great take on the challenge of overpopulation, and frankly it's recommended to many people on this thread. It's longish - one hour, but worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY

That's part one, and the rest follow.

Most of the posters have taken DF to task for being a moral midget. Fine, I agree, but what also stuns me is that somebody working at the NP for years doesn't seem to know that birth rates have already crashed not just throughout the developing world (not just in Europe and North America, but also in East Asia to some of the lowest levels on Earth) but also quite radically in countries like Brazil, Iran, Mexico and Turkey. The ONLY places where birth rates are still high are the Muslim areas and Africa, and in spite of that world population will soon begin to fall. How can she not know this? Even the UN admits this. How out to lunch can she really be?

My email to Diane Francis:

Ms Francis, According to the CIA World Fact Book, the Canadian fertility rate in 2009 is estimated at 1.58 children per woman; in China, it is 1.79 children per woman. Canadian women have fewer children than Chinese women. Why then do you advocate even fewer Canadian children? For a population to remain biologically stable, the fertility rate should be about 2.2 children per woman. Therefore, both Canada’s and China’s population is crashing down from lack of children. Whereas China’s population is indeed decreasing, Canada’s population is artificially maintained by immigration. The logical conclusion of your column is that you should also advocate the closing of Canadian borders. There, I gave you the subject of your next column. Looking forward to read it.

Reference:
CIA World Fact Book, countries per fertility rate 2009 :
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

PS: If you worry about CO2 emissions, I want to remind you that the best carbon trapping device is a growing tree. I suggest you and your friends stop cutting them to print such non-sense.

I saw the interview on Fox last night. My question is why do femi-nazis always need to announce "btw, I'm a feminist"? Has anyone else ever noticed that woman that seem to hate alot of people includinjg themselves are usually the ones that need to announce that they are "feminists"?
Laura Ingram's interviews are always hardball as are most of Fox's people.
I guess you can give Francis some props for showing up and getting destroyed.

Just once I wish that "population control" meant that MEN had to stop having sex, not women.

Or that men had to stop whining about wearing condoms.

Diane Francis is a flake. Moral relativism at its worst.

common

no worries here. Im a long ways from emptying the jelly bean jar, being married over 25 years.

have to rely on my spawn to spawn again.

I think I know what happened to Diane Francis - menopause...affects some women more so than others and in different ways - I started wearing very low rise bell bottom jeans, bought a padded bra, streaked my hair 3 different colours and borrowed my daughters Mp3 player to listen to her music. Its seems surreal to me me now - its like I lost me mind temporarily. Another friend of my had absolutely nothing out of the ordinary happen to her mentally during menopause, but she is now battling breast cancer - very perplexing this menopause.

Over population isn't the problem. Declining Pop is !!

The debate I'd love to see: Mark Steyn vs. Diane Francis. There would be one less person polluting the earth afterwards, as Francis' head would explode.

Diane States at about the 1:30 mark that she does not understand the "science" behind "climate change". Which means she has no idea if it is fraudulent or not, nor any ability to recognize if it is. Yet she is an editor of a major Canadian Daily.

Depite not knowing as to whether or not there is any credibility to the cliams of AGW theorists she is suggesting that the world adopt radical policies to fight that which she does not understand.

Again she is an editor in a major Canadian news organization.

Jaymo - Laura Ingram? I don't think so, unless she's had a complete face and body transplant!

The decision to have lots of kids relying on you gives whole new meanings to the phrase "sponge-worthy".

Manny wrote: "Whereas China’s population is indeed decreasing, Canada’s population is artificially maintained by immigration. The logical conclusion of your column is that you should also advocate the closing of Canadian borders."

That is just what I was thinking after reading her column, while wondering about Diane's state of mind.

Just a couple of years ago, if THAT, Canadians were reading news reports telling us that Canada cannot maintain its population level without an increase in immigration. Ergo, WE ARE NOT THE PROBLEM when it comes to the size of families. Maybe Diane should be preaching in India?

Read this....GREAT article:

http://www.ejsd.org/public/journal_article/16

"To sum up, Julian Simon strongly believed that the notion that nature puts a clear-cut, limiting condition on growth is a simplistic and misleading premise for public debates and governmental decisions. He was convinced that both facts and theory were on his side. But ultimately his views were rooted in deep moral convictions. Simon was always eager to denounce the anti-humanism of those who think “that additional poor persons in this generation do make others poorer in this and future generations,” that human lives matter less than lives of animals or that humans are the cancer of the Earth. But more than anything, he wanted to demonstrate that altruism is not the monopoly of any particular political economic philosophy and that staunch supporters of free markets, like himself, are true altruists. Simon took pride in his own altruism, a “cosmopolitan view of human beings”: “The lives of people of other countries, ethnicities, and religions matter to me”, he wrote, “irrespective of the fates of the groups to which they belong. I take pride and pleasure in the human race (…)” (Simon 1996, p. 558)"

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/11/AR2009121104378.html?hpid=artslot

Title of the article: Looming population crisis forces officials to rethink one-child policy, but couples hesitate

"More than 30 years after China's one-child policy was introduced, creating two generations of notoriously chubby, spoiled only children affectionately nicknamed "little emperors," a population crisis is looming in the country.

The average birthrate has plummeted to 1.8 children per couple as compared with six when the policy went into effect, according to the U.N. Population Division, while the number of residents 60 and older is predicted to explode from 16.7 percent of the population in 2020 to 31.1 percent by 2050. That is far above the global average of about 20 percent"