« jason kenney says we already have gay marriage | Main | harper's speech - so much for reaching out to immigrants »




It was an odd comment for sure. I thought the Conservative party was against the 'politics of identity'?

And even if not, like you say, it doesn't really make sense in the context.

I wonder how old I have to get before I become an old white guy whose opinions are no longer valid anyway...

I'd better post while I still can!


you could always go transgendered the second you become old.


It's true - you rarely hear anyone saying that they don't need a bunch of old white women telling them what to do - not even regular Martha Stewart viewers.

The hard part is knowing when that exact moment (of turning old) happens. Perhaps it has already passed and you should be ignoring this comment...

James Halifax

National Childcare will be an expensive fiasco...in fact, it will make the Gun registry look like the model of efficiency. First, let's consider the logic of the Bill.
We are to have a strategy that provides assisstance to anyone who needs daycare for their children REGARDLESS of financial means. This means that two professionals (a doctor and lawyer for example) will be subsidized by the poor working stiff who works two minimum wage jobs, has a wife (or hubby) at home with the kids.
Ken Dryden stood in the House of Commons and said that people who raise their kids at home are "depriving" their children of a rich up-bringing.....never considering that most children thrive best when they have the care of a parent.
Ms. Ambrose was bang on in her assessment of the National Daycare strategy, which if you are honest about it, was simply a last-ditch effort of Martin and the Liberals to regain support he was losing to the Conservatives. The same will go for Kyoto...that's another boondogle in waiting, and you can be sure that we will not even come CLOSE to achieving our Kyoto targets....but we will pay billions to other nations in exchange for our continued "right to pollute"
If anyone hasn't read the Kyoto Protocol in total (I have) I'll give you the Cliff notes version. It's a wealth-distribution document than can be equated to 100 people sitting in a swimming pool......trying to determine who gets to pee first...how much, and how often, in the mistaken belief that if we all take turns, the water will somehow be cleaner at the end of the day.

If you doubt it.....go find a copy and read it.


ms ambrose discredits whatever she means to say when she uses a feminist argument out of context.

the thing about childcare is it isnt just about children, it is also about the parents who are expected to stay home and raise them. though you were graciously egalitarian enough to advance the idea of the stay at home dad, there are still more stay at home moms. i think this is one of the issues national childcare is addressing.

James Halifax

Ainge, if I had a nickel for every feminist argument I heard taken out of context....I could pay for the gun-registry myself....and it's usually a feminist that makes it.

As for the National Childcare strategy not being "just about children"...then please tell me what it is about? No kids...no program. I assume you have no children of your own, or you wouldn't have said "it is also about the parents who are expected to stay home and raise them" because most parents I know would love to spend time with their children. Believe it or not, there was a time when children were considered a blessing, not a burden.

The reason we are even having the debate is due to the fact that with the taxes of today it is almost a necessity to have two income earners just to get by. National Daycare will penalize those parents who have only one income earner, and benefit those families that have two earners. Today, that means two working professionals making six-figure salaries will be having their daycare provided by the labourer who works two jobs while his wife stays home. The better idea is to let people keep more of their own money, and if you want to have day-care then you can decide best how to papy for it, and if you want to raise your own kids, then you have the extra money to benefit their upbringing.
The only issue that National Daycare is meant to address, is ensuring the Liberals maintain power after the next federal election. The fact remains, this program will provide benefits in an unequal manner. It will punish the poor and reward the wealthy.....no matter how "feel good" the program is meant to sound.


no, i dont have kids, but i really dont consider them a burden. i have been known to tutor them or teach sunday school because i think we can learn a lot from the wee ones.

of course parents want to stay home with their children - i will want to be able to be with mine one day. the thing is, childcare will actually benefit the poor over the rich because everyone will have equal access to the same system. employers will stop assuming women are going to be less productive because of their young kids (which is sexism, because they never assume this about fathers).

and if the liberals stay in power after this election... hoo boy... i dont want to think about the election. i have no idea who im voting for.

Ainge, the premise behind national childcare is fundamentally flawed. I know it sounds good to have day care available for people who both want to work, but the gun-registry also sounded good to a lot of people and look at the fiasco that turned out to be.
If we're going to have any national childcare service at all, we should have a system that applies equally. Subsidize parents who both work....but give an EQUAL sized tax credit for those who do NOT use the system. It's not fair that some people pay for others.......in particular, it is not fair to those who want to raise their own children because they don't want their youngsters "brainwashed" at Government run facilities.
it's a matter of fairness to all........forget the "feel good" sound of the program. It's gonna cost a fortune, and a few years after it's up and running you will be sure to see the "National Childcare Workers Union" holding people hostage until their wage demands are met.

Luboš Motl

Haha, very funny, thanks. I've linked to this article of yours from my blog because I just wrote a text about RA and needed to show what the feminists have inside their heads at the same moment.

The comments to this entry are closed.