41 Replies to “SWTE: They Just Can’t Kill The Beast”
Kate,
I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy to be in your presence.
You’re right, gov’t sponsor daycare is another social re-engineering project.
I am humiliated and despondent.
I wish and dream, in a way beyond my wildest desires, dear Kate, that I could have one ort of the literary capability that you do.
So brilliant.
Aw, you just threw in the Eagles references so that the sunglass dude Glyn would have something he could understand.
WoW, That was good Kate,how about some Led Zeppelin next time.
cheers
doug
Well written…
unfortunately too many people would like to be carried through life…
no responsibilites…no thinking…no effort…
leave that up to others (social engineers)…
so what if those people steal a little…
at least I get free health care, day care etcetera
the best part…
I don’t have to extend myself…
Sad but true!!!
they will do it all for me
Yet another outstanding commentary!
To coin a phrase, DO quit your day job as soon as an offer to be a MSM columnist comes open.
If the Conservatives were to form a government in 2006, is it too much to hope that a few journalistic jobs might open up for “token” conservatives?
Killer post, Kate. Keep up the good work.
Once again, you’re bang on. But think of where you could go with other issues using this logic. Look at the governments involvement with poor and/or homeless people – should we give our tax dollars to them in the form of welfare cheques (because realistically, they aren’t contributing to the tax base) and let them ‘decide what to do with it’, divorcing ourselves from any responsibility as a nation should ‘public opinion’ change (hmmm, kinda sounds like the very successful Native strategy brought in by Chretien in the 60’s) or do we need a little gov’t structure as well? To answer my own question – perhaps we could partner with organizations that are already doing this kind of work, apart from any government association. Might I go so far as to propose a faith-community solution (Example – the Mustard Seed in reaching out to homeless people in Downtown Calgary)? As you can see, I’m no liberal, but even conservatives gotta have some type of practical social conscience (Maybe I SHOULD vote CHP!).
Parents who THINK they support the idea might want to consider what would happen if a nation of unionized daycare workers went on strike for say, 10 days. It’s hard enough when there are PDs for teachers. But Quebec has seen plenty of daycare strikes in their own system, and not only have costs escalated as a result, the system is far from accessible space wise, and costs continue to rise. But like hospitals, which hire nothing but unionized workers (for the most part), this is an NDP/Liberal dream come true. Get the public so dependent on you, they’ll continue to support you for life. Works with crystal meth, why not social programmes?
Kate for Prime Minister of Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe in 2010 or 2014???!!!!
You have such a way with words that the normal MSM reporters wouldn’t be able to keep up with you!!!
Just f**cking beautiful!
Absolutely amazing piece, Kate!
Keep it coming, we love ya!
EPW
Kroeker:
This is no place for Red Tories, and certainly not for Reds like yourself!
Weasel:
Well thought out. Because of your comments my views have drastically changed. Thanks for your insight.
Martin spoke rather passionately about his children during the Vancouver debate when he tangled with Duceppe. Maybe he should review his own footage to understand why we parents are so passionate about keeping our children free of the Librano brainwashing machine.
We don’t need no thought control.
“it makes me wonder why such people don’t walk down the street and turn over the control of their bank account and spending decisions to a group of randomly chosen strangers, because this is, in a very real sense, what they are advocating.”
Way too funny.
“And it makes me extremely uncomfortable when I see such creatures…”
OK, I had to check some of these articles Status of Women Canada you linked to. I found one study “The Framing of Poverty as “Child Poverty” and Its Implications for Women”
Please note that I didn’t add the scare quotes to the term child poverty, the authors did. Some premises contained in this article appear to be:
-That fed cash should go to single mothers, who are “entitled” to it, rather than greedy children
-That child poverty is somewhat of a hoax
-That child support payments don’t work because a disproportionate amount of divorce/out-of-wedlock situations occur in low-income families, so the federal government should pick up the shortfall
-that “value” (read: gobs of federal money)should be “atttached” to caregiving.
-that Canadian families should not rely “on access to the low-wage labour market or nuclear family formation” (wow, just wow)
Here are a couple of gems: “The emphasis on labour force participation is also problematic because it implicitly defines work as wage labour, and obscures the need for, and the value and costs of, domestic labour. For women receiving social assistance, this emphasis obscures the social value of the work performed by them including child care, shopping, economizing…”
Apparently, the Department of Status of Woman Canada believes that single moms should be paid to go shopping. Nice work if you can get it. The study concludes thusly, notice the whiff of greed as the authors appear to lament that federal money went to those greedy little bastard children rather than the single mothers who are “entitled” to it:
“By relying primarily on access to the low-wage labour market or nuclear family formation, and support as solutions to child poverty, these programs fail to address the structural dimensions of poverty for women or the most serious cases of need. None of the reforms directly increases the value attached to caregiving labour nor substantially relieves the contradictions women experience between paid and unpaid labour through the provision of child-care supports. None of the reforms addresses the impact of adverse conditions in the labour market on low-income women and their children. In general, the discourse and structural impact of these reforms can reinforce the view that poverty is simply the outcome of family breakdown or “deadbeat dads,” malingerers on social assistance or mothers with poor parenting skills.
Move over Mark Steyn.!!!!
Dang. That is one awesome post, one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. Let me track it for post of the year?
lmfao
excellent! stick it to the hippies!
Fantastic. Thanks Kate.
Brilliant, as usual. You must intimidate the hell out of the others. Liam seems to be the only one that comes within a country mile, but that’s probably my rightwing bias.
You hit it bang on Kate!!
I’ve been complaining about Trudeaus communist policies for years and no one would listen…
Such a contrast between your articles and Marcie Abramovitch’s articles. I read yours once and understand your point. I read hers two or three times and still don’t understand what she is trying to say except “From each according to thier ability, to each according to their need.”
Great work Kate.
You really take no prisoners when you tackle an issue. What a great piece – I’m late to the party but I have to say it anyway.
The sad fact is so many Canadians just believe what their ideology tells them to. To get them to understand what you’ve said, one would have to spend years cutting through a dense jungle of mind-weeds.
Powerfull, blew me away Kate. Glad to hear you are “straight” (from a previous post) since I will be dreaming about you tonight 🙂
“Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.” Alan Greenspan, 1967
I’m gonna add that one to my quote repertoire, Shaken. Thanks chum.
Careful with the term “social engineering”. My son, an engineer, took offence when I used the term years ago. Engineers know what they are doing.
While your on the debate topic, I can’t beleive everyone has missed the big one. In all the whorah over SSM Duceppe made it abundently clear, several times that after one vote that it was over and done with, “for ever”. I assume that also referes to seperation referendums. You don’t think he would lie or have a double standard do you?
Kate…
Thank you, for such a well thought out analysis.
Keep up the great work.
Bottom line. You can’t control the mind unless you control learning. You control the learning you control mind. You control the mind you control the child. You control the child you control the future. Are these people really any different that a Stalin, a Hitler, a Jimmy Jones, a Muslim fanatic?
Posted by: Western Canadian | 30-Dec-05 3:58:22 PM
My basic philosophy on childcare would be the same. I was “Mr. Mom” to my son when he was young for about 4 years.
Now with the advent of computers, I am able to work out of my home. Both my daughters are still school age; so I walk them to and fro to school.
I’m able to work my schedule around the family needs like dinner and snacks as we also have a Type 1 Insulin Dependent Diabetic in the household. If I had a choice I would opt for the child care tax credit as proposed by Mr. Harper.
State run day cares have a long and difficult history from Eastern block countries. If I want to instil values in my children; I’ll make sure they are the values we hold as parents, not state run values.
The state has and never will say to one of my childen: “I love you.”
Rather the state said when I applied for the Disability Tax Credit in respect of my son:
To qualify for the DTC one must demonstrate that “if treatment were withheld an organ or group of organs vital to sustain human life would fail.” Of course if I did withhold his insulin, my son would be dead.
I have yet to receive an apology for this outrageous piece of criminal clap trap.
And you want me to entrust the care of my children to state sponsored daycare, when CCRA bureaucrats suggest how to kill my son?
I strongly think NOT! Rather CCRA should go and consult s 464 of the Criminal Code and meditate on its provisions.
Quote:
“policies that leave (or return) money with those who’ve earned it to spend as they see fit are preferable by several orders of magnitude…”
“Preferable” vs the “detestable”: The choice, indeed. SDA is a realist in politics. Kudos.The struggle goes on. >> more
Raymond Aron said of politics, �It is never a struggle between good and evil, but between the preferable and the detestable.� Tony Judt tends to agree… more� http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060109&s=maier
More on Aron (1905-1983) here: http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/19/may01/opium.htm
Freedom of criticism in the USSR is total.
�Jean-Paul Sartre, on returning from Russia, 1954
I interviewed the Liberal and Conservative candidates for Northumberland Quinte West just before Christmas and put the transcripts up on my website. It was interesting to see what each said about childcare.
That riding is currently held by a Liberal MP, Paul Macklin, who won by just 300 votes last time around. It’s the one riding they’re almost sure will change hands, so this one’s really important (you can read it here)Hip at Home!: Paul Macklin interview: Northumberland Quinte West Liberal candidate. The interviews are pretty interesting, I think, because I asked questions that normally don’t get asked in the MSM (they were for a Christian radio station).
But when I interviewed the Liberal candidates for that riding and for Prince Edward Hastings, both gave the same answer to the childcare question. Both said 70% of women work so we need childcare.
As I said in my blog:
This is a misuse of statistics to the extreme. When my kids were under 6, I wrote from home. I received an income for this. I also did my husband’s billing (he’s a physician), so on every income tax return I have ever filed since I became a mom I recorded a not-too-shabby income, though hardly a large one. I’d be counted as “being in the workforce”, even though I have never worked out of the home and my kids have never needed childcare.
Similarly, a friend of mine with two kids under 6 currently sells Stampin’ Up supplies (cardmaking and scrapbooking stuff) at home parties. Most of these are at night, some are on the weekends, and she sure doesn’t need day care for it. But similarly, she’d be listed as “being in the workforce”.
I think this 70% that’s getting thrown around is making people think the demand is there when really it’s not.
I’ve linked to the Macklin interview, but the Conservative one is up on the website as well, along with other posts about childcare. Just go to the home page and scroll down.
If PMPM wanted to do something useful for parents, he could leave us enough money from our wages that the 90% of us who WANT to raise our own kids, could do so!
As it is, he’s just creating another boondoggle.
The Martin vision – no parent will ever be allowed to have enough money to raise their own children.
Government run daycare/government run Native Schools. Dare we compare?
I don’t like the Eagles much… If it was Priest now 😀
PM Paul Martin has tried to sell his “No choice in child care” policy by comparing it to Canada’s universal health care system.
Let’s suppose I need my appendix removed – is home surgery a real option? Not in my home.
On the other hand, let’s suppose I have pre-schoolers to raise – is having a parent stay home with them an option? For many Canadian families it probably isn’t, largely because we give so much of our income to the government as taxes. However in the case of my family, we opted to clip coupons and buy our clothes at Value Village so that my wife could stay home with the kids full time.
The Universal Child Care = Universal Health Care analogy is bogus, and Paul Martin should be challenged on it.
Choice in Child Care. Go Harper!
Kate,
I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy, I’m not worthy to be in your presence.
You’re right, gov’t sponsor daycare is another social re-engineering project.
I am humiliated and despondent.
I wish and dream, in a way beyond my wildest desires, dear Kate, that I could have one ort of the literary capability that you do.
So brilliant.
Aw, you just threw in the Eagles references so that the sunglass dude Glyn would have something he could understand.
WoW, That was good Kate,how about some Led Zeppelin next time.
cheers
doug
Well written…
unfortunately too many people would like to be carried through life…
no responsibilites…no thinking…no effort…
leave that up to others (social engineers)…
so what if those people steal a little…
at least I get free health care, day care etcetera
the best part…
I don’t have to extend myself…
Sad but true!!!
they will do it all for me
Yet another outstanding commentary!
To coin a phrase, DO quit your day job as soon as an offer to be a MSM columnist comes open.
If the Conservatives were to form a government in 2006, is it too much to hope that a few journalistic jobs might open up for “token” conservatives?
Killer post, Kate. Keep up the good work.
Once again, you’re bang on. But think of where you could go with other issues using this logic. Look at the governments involvement with poor and/or homeless people – should we give our tax dollars to them in the form of welfare cheques (because realistically, they aren’t contributing to the tax base) and let them ‘decide what to do with it’, divorcing ourselves from any responsibility as a nation should ‘public opinion’ change (hmmm, kinda sounds like the very successful Native strategy brought in by Chretien in the 60’s) or do we need a little gov’t structure as well? To answer my own question – perhaps we could partner with organizations that are already doing this kind of work, apart from any government association. Might I go so far as to propose a faith-community solution (Example – the Mustard Seed in reaching out to homeless people in Downtown Calgary)? As you can see, I’m no liberal, but even conservatives gotta have some type of practical social conscience (Maybe I SHOULD vote CHP!).
Parents who THINK they support the idea might want to consider what would happen if a nation of unionized daycare workers went on strike for say, 10 days. It’s hard enough when there are PDs for teachers. But Quebec has seen plenty of daycare strikes in their own system, and not only have costs escalated as a result, the system is far from accessible space wise, and costs continue to rise. But like hospitals, which hire nothing but unionized workers (for the most part), this is an NDP/Liberal dream come true. Get the public so dependent on you, they’ll continue to support you for life. Works with crystal meth, why not social programmes?
Here comes the next one…
http://www.ctv.ca//servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060103/ELXN_libs_education_060104/20060104?s_name=election2006&no_ads=
“Canadian Press
OTTAWA � Thousands of low-income students would get virtually free university and college educations under a multibillion-dollar plan to be unveiled Thursday by Prime Minister Paul Martin, The Canadian Press has learned.”
Don’t you just love the use of the word “free?”
Kate for Prime Minister of Canada!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe in 2010 or 2014???!!!!
You have such a way with words that the normal MSM reporters wouldn’t be able to keep up with you!!!
Just f**cking beautiful!
Absolutely amazing piece, Kate!
Keep it coming, we love ya!
EPW
Kroeker:
This is no place for Red Tories, and certainly not for Reds like yourself!
Weasel:
Well thought out. Because of your comments my views have drastically changed. Thanks for your insight.
Martin spoke rather passionately about his children during the Vancouver debate when he tangled with Duceppe. Maybe he should review his own footage to understand why we parents are so passionate about keeping our children free of the Librano brainwashing machine.
We don’t need no thought control.
“it makes me wonder why such people don’t walk down the street and turn over the control of their bank account and spending decisions to a group of randomly chosen strangers, because this is, in a very real sense, what they are advocating.”
Way too funny.
“And it makes me extremely uncomfortable when I see such creatures…”
OK, I had to check some of these articles Status of Women Canada you linked to. I found one study “The Framing of Poverty as “Child Poverty” and Its Implications for Women”
Please note that I didn’t add the scare quotes to the term child poverty, the authors did. Some premises contained in this article appear to be:
-That fed cash should go to single mothers, who are “entitled” to it, rather than greedy children
-That child poverty is somewhat of a hoax
-That child support payments don’t work because a disproportionate amount of divorce/out-of-wedlock situations occur in low-income families, so the federal government should pick up the shortfall
-that “value” (read: gobs of federal money)should be “atttached” to caregiving.
-that Canadian families should not rely “on access to the low-wage labour market or nuclear family formation” (wow, just wow)
Here are a couple of gems:
“The emphasis on labour force participation is also problematic because it implicitly defines work as wage labour, and obscures the need for, and the value and costs of, domestic labour. For women receiving social assistance, this emphasis obscures the social value of the work performed by them including child care, shopping, economizing…”
Apparently, the Department of Status of Woman Canada believes that single moms should be paid to go shopping. Nice work if you can get it. The study concludes thusly, notice the whiff of greed as the authors appear to lament that federal money went to those greedy little bastard children rather than the single mothers who are “entitled” to it:
“By relying primarily on access to the low-wage labour market or nuclear family formation, and support as solutions to child poverty, these programs fail to address the structural dimensions of poverty for women or the most serious cases of need. None of the reforms directly increases the value attached to caregiving labour nor substantially relieves the contradictions women experience between paid and unpaid labour through the provision of child-care supports. None of the reforms addresses the impact of adverse conditions in the labour market on low-income women and their children. In general, the discourse and structural impact of these reforms can reinforce the view that poverty is simply the outcome of family breakdown or “deadbeat dads,” malingerers on social assistance or mothers with poor parenting skills.
Move over Mark Steyn.!!!!
Dang. That is one awesome post, one of the best I’ve seen in a long time. Let me track it for post of the year?
lmfao
excellent! stick it to the hippies!
Fantastic. Thanks Kate.
Brilliant, as usual. You must intimidate the hell out of the others. Liam seems to be the only one that comes within a country mile, but that’s probably my rightwing bias.
You hit it bang on Kate!!
I’ve been complaining about Trudeaus communist policies for years and no one would listen…
Such a contrast between your articles and Marcie Abramovitch’s articles. I read yours once and understand your point. I read hers two or three times and still don’t understand what she is trying to say except “From each according to thier ability, to each according to their need.”
Great work Kate.
You really take no prisoners when you tackle an issue. What a great piece – I’m late to the party but I have to say it anyway.
The sad fact is so many Canadians just believe what their ideology tells them to. To get them to understand what you’ve said, one would have to spend years cutting through a dense jungle of mind-weeds.
After I write my post I find this on Marcie’s site:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/politicagrll/113597917005486669/?a=32485#89120
I’m a sucker for punishment.
Powerfull, blew me away Kate. Glad to hear you are “straight” (from a previous post) since I will be dreaming about you tonight 🙂
“Stripped of its academic jargon, the welfare state is nothing more than a mechanism by which governments confiscate the wealth of the productive members of a society to support a wide variety of welfare schemes.” Alan Greenspan, 1967
I’m gonna add that one to my quote repertoire, Shaken. Thanks chum.
Careful with the term “social engineering”. My son, an engineer, took offence when I used the term years ago. Engineers know what they are doing.
While your on the debate topic, I can’t beleive everyone has missed the big one. In all the whorah over SSM Duceppe made it abundently clear, several times that after one vote that it was over and done with, “for ever”. I assume that also referes to seperation referendums. You don’t think he would lie or have a double standard do you?
Kate…
Thank you, for such a well thought out analysis.
Keep up the great work.
Bottom line. You can’t control the mind unless you control learning. You control the learning you control mind. You control the mind you control the child. You control the child you control the future. Are these people really any different that a Stalin, a Hitler, a Jimmy Jones, a Muslim fanatic?
Posted by: Western Canadian | 30-Dec-05 3:58:22 PM
My basic philosophy on childcare would be the same. I was “Mr. Mom” to my son when he was young for about 4 years.
Now with the advent of computers, I am able to work out of my home. Both my daughters are still school age; so I walk them to and fro to school.
I’m able to work my schedule around the family needs like dinner and snacks as we also have a Type 1 Insulin Dependent Diabetic in the household. If I had a choice I would opt for the child care tax credit as proposed by Mr. Harper.
State run day cares have a long and difficult history from Eastern block countries. If I want to instil values in my children; I’ll make sure they are the values we hold as parents, not state run values.
The state has and never will say to one of my childen: “I love you.”
Rather the state said when I applied for the Disability Tax Credit in respect of my son:
To qualify for the DTC one must demonstrate that “if treatment were withheld an organ or group of organs vital to sustain human life would fail.” Of course if I did withhold his insulin, my son would be dead.
I have yet to receive an apology for this outrageous piece of criminal clap trap.
And you want me to entrust the care of my children to state sponsored daycare, when CCRA bureaucrats suggest how to kill my son?
I strongly think NOT! Rather CCRA should go and consult s 464 of the Criminal Code and meditate on its provisions.
Quote:
“policies that leave (or return) money with those who’ve earned it to spend as they see fit are preferable by several orders of magnitude…”
“Preferable” vs the “detestable”: The choice, indeed. SDA is a realist in politics. Kudos.The struggle goes on. >> more
Raymond Aron said of politics, �It is never a struggle between good and evil, but between the preferable and the detestable.� Tony Judt tends to agree… more�
http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060109&s=maier
More on Aron (1905-1983) here:
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/19/may01/opium.htm
Freedom of criticism in the USSR is total.
�Jean-Paul Sartre, on returning from Russia, 1954
I interviewed the Liberal and Conservative candidates for Northumberland Quinte West just before Christmas and put the transcripts up on my website. It was interesting to see what each said about childcare.
That riding is currently held by a Liberal MP, Paul Macklin, who won by just 300 votes last time around. It’s the one riding they’re almost sure will change hands, so this one’s really important (you can read it here)Hip at Home!: Paul Macklin interview: Northumberland Quinte West Liberal candidate. The interviews are pretty interesting, I think, because I asked questions that normally don’t get asked in the MSM (they were for a Christian radio station).
But when I interviewed the Liberal candidates for that riding and for Prince Edward Hastings, both gave the same answer to the childcare question. Both said 70% of women work so we need childcare.
As I said in my blog:
This is a misuse of statistics to the extreme. When my kids were under 6, I wrote from home. I received an income for this. I also did my husband’s billing (he’s a physician), so on every income tax return I have ever filed since I became a mom I recorded a not-too-shabby income, though hardly a large one. I’d be counted as “being in the workforce”, even though I have never worked out of the home and my kids have never needed childcare.
Similarly, a friend of mine with two kids under 6 currently sells Stampin’ Up supplies (cardmaking and scrapbooking stuff) at home parties. Most of these are at night, some are on the weekends, and she sure doesn’t need day care for it. But similarly, she’d be listed as “being in the workforce”.
I think this 70% that’s getting thrown around is making people think the demand is there when really it’s not.
I’ve linked to the Macklin interview, but the Conservative one is up on the website as well, along with other posts about childcare. Just go to the home page and scroll down.
If PMPM wanted to do something useful for parents, he could leave us enough money from our wages that the 90% of us who WANT to raise our own kids, could do so!
As it is, he’s just creating another boondoggle.
The Martin vision – no parent will ever be allowed to have enough money to raise their own children.
Government run daycare/government run Native Schools. Dare we compare?
I don’t like the Eagles much… If it was Priest now 😀
PM Paul Martin has tried to sell his “No choice in child care” policy by comparing it to Canada’s universal health care system.
Let’s suppose I need my appendix removed – is home surgery a real option? Not in my home.
On the other hand, let’s suppose I have pre-schoolers to raise – is having a parent stay home with them an option? For many Canadian families it probably isn’t, largely because we give so much of our income to the government as taxes. However in the case of my family, we opted to clip coupons and buy our clothes at Value Village so that my wife could stay home with the kids full time.
The Universal Child Care = Universal Health Care analogy is bogus, and Paul Martin should be challenged on it.
Choice in Child Care. Go Harper!