Saturday, September 13, 2008
No entry today
I'm on my way to the 3rd annual Prog Blog get-together. If you're among the other party goers I hope to see all of you there.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Killer Six
A bit of a beef today about one of the most dangerous roads here in Hamilton -- the stretch of Highway 6 that runs from the 403 to the Wellington County line.
This north-south road should have been upgraded years ago. In fact it should have been completely bypassed and a new road running from Clappisons Corners (the intersection of 6 and Dundas Street) to the Hanlon Parkway in Guelph which itself is due to being upgraded to a full expressway with possible frontage roads.
Yet Killer 6 remains just that, a killer. And from 2000 to 2006, 24 people were killed on this 24 km stretch of road. It's poorly designed -- and a turn lane down the middle hasn't done anything, really. Adding a middle lane down a road designed for the 1950s actually makes the problem even worse because when people barrel down an undivided road at 130 km/h in an 80 km/h zone it's duck season. There are some medians here and there and some stretches of the road are fully lighted but that's it.
It's interesting they're currently upgrading the hill between Clappisons and the 403 to a dual carriageway with a climbing lane northbound and a full interchange at York Road (the present accesses to York and Plains road have been or will be sealed off when the project is completed). But no full interchange at the top where a lot of accidents happen even with dedicated left turn signals and it won't be build for at least a few more years, not until Hamilton can figure out just where the east-west bypass that skirts around the Waterdown neighbourhood so go.
And this project certainly didn't stop a couple of bizarre incidents the last month or so -- a trailer detaching from its tractor and running back downhill; or just the other day when someone caught under the street racing law tried to get away by going down the hill on a skateboard. The bottom of the hill feeds right into the 403.
With many people now commuting to Kitchener or Guelph for employment, this is becoming a more urgent issue. It's not enough to encourage people to be safe on six. It's time to build a new road.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
This north-south road should have been upgraded years ago. In fact it should have been completely bypassed and a new road running from Clappisons Corners (the intersection of 6 and Dundas Street) to the Hanlon Parkway in Guelph which itself is due to being upgraded to a full expressway with possible frontage roads.
Yet Killer 6 remains just that, a killer. And from 2000 to 2006, 24 people were killed on this 24 km stretch of road. It's poorly designed -- and a turn lane down the middle hasn't done anything, really. Adding a middle lane down a road designed for the 1950s actually makes the problem even worse because when people barrel down an undivided road at 130 km/h in an 80 km/h zone it's duck season. There are some medians here and there and some stretches of the road are fully lighted but that's it.
It's interesting they're currently upgrading the hill between Clappisons and the 403 to a dual carriageway with a climbing lane northbound and a full interchange at York Road (the present accesses to York and Plains road have been or will be sealed off when the project is completed). But no full interchange at the top where a lot of accidents happen even with dedicated left turn signals and it won't be build for at least a few more years, not until Hamilton can figure out just where the east-west bypass that skirts around the Waterdown neighbourhood so go.
And this project certainly didn't stop a couple of bizarre incidents the last month or so -- a trailer detaching from its tractor and running back downhill; or just the other day when someone caught under the street racing law tried to get away by going down the hill on a skateboard. The bottom of the hill feeds right into the 403.
With many people now commuting to Kitchener or Guelph for employment, this is becoming a more urgent issue. It's not enough to encourage people to be safe on six. It's time to build a new road.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Yo! Hadrian! Lehman Bros is toast!
The conventional wisdom said that it was simply impossible for an investment house to go bankrupt. They were designed to last the test of time and were supposed to be indestructable from an economic standpoint; much as Hadrian's Wall was from a military one. Well, the latter was picked off stone by stone after the wall's usefulness no longer existed and it took personal and government intervention to save what was left about 170 years ago. Now, the giants of Wall Street are set to tumble with the rise of sovereign wealth funds and proven just as useless as a military wall and it looks like nothing will put them back together.
First it was Bear Stearns. Now it's Lehman Brothers, the venerable brokerage firm that was once part of the American Express empire, that's teetering on the brink of collapse over liquidity issues unless it can find a willing buyer and its employees are already updating their c.v's. That after suffering a huge collapse year over year on the stock market from about $87 a year ago to just $4 yesterday. The pink slips are already being handed out, and as many as half could lose their jobs if they manage to find a buyer, as the case when JPMorgan picked up Bear.
When pillars of the trading community fall by the wayside, people have a right to know why. After all, the investors are real people and while their trading accounts may be affected based on what is in their portfolios, their savings accounts are indeed altered by the fates of the investment decisions of the management team. Those accounts are not guaranteed as a bank account at an insured institution would be.
And in an election year people look to the candidates for decisive leadership on what needs to be done to restore confidence in Wall Street. I really don't see that other than messages of "hope" or "stability" which may be fine to the power brokers but is totally irrelevant to the masses.
Bread and butter issues certainly do matter but it's seed money from the big guys (which is in tight supply these days) that gives people what they need to start things going. One wonders what the next shoe to drop will be. This isn't looking good at all.
Who's going to go next or to suffer a big crisis? Not an outright collapse but just a need to restructure big time Hmm, not too sure. They said Bear was too big to fall. So how about Merrill Lynch? They've love billions too.
I would have gone with Smith Barney (remember, "We make money the old fashioned way, we earn it"?) but they're owned by Citibank. Which is relatively safe. For now. We think.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
First it was Bear Stearns. Now it's Lehman Brothers, the venerable brokerage firm that was once part of the American Express empire, that's teetering on the brink of collapse over liquidity issues unless it can find a willing buyer and its employees are already updating their c.v's. That after suffering a huge collapse year over year on the stock market from about $87 a year ago to just $4 yesterday. The pink slips are already being handed out, and as many as half could lose their jobs if they manage to find a buyer, as the case when JPMorgan picked up Bear.
When pillars of the trading community fall by the wayside, people have a right to know why. After all, the investors are real people and while their trading accounts may be affected based on what is in their portfolios, their savings accounts are indeed altered by the fates of the investment decisions of the management team. Those accounts are not guaranteed as a bank account at an insured institution would be.
And in an election year people look to the candidates for decisive leadership on what needs to be done to restore confidence in Wall Street. I really don't see that other than messages of "hope" or "stability" which may be fine to the power brokers but is totally irrelevant to the masses.
Bread and butter issues certainly do matter but it's seed money from the big guys (which is in tight supply these days) that gives people what they need to start things going. One wonders what the next shoe to drop will be. This isn't looking good at all.
Who's going to go next or to suffer a big crisis? Not an outright collapse but just a need to restructure big time Hmm, not too sure. They said Bear was too big to fall. So how about Merrill Lynch? They've love billions too.
I would have gone with Smith Barney (remember, "We make money the old fashioned way, we earn it"?) but they're owned by Citibank. Which is relatively safe. For now. We think.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Cons can Sparrow
Anyone remember the 2004 Canadian election? The Conservatives which were on the verge of actually winning a minority government that year had the wheels fall off when one of its members suggested that the then Liberal leader, Paul Martin Jr., supported child pornography. Of course, no one in their right minds -- except a pedophile -- would ever support such repulsive materials.
Now, another Conservative has made an off-the-cuff remark, well actually an e-mail. Not just attacking anyone's patriotism (which is to be expected anyway), or his or her political affiliation, but the father of a soldier KIA in Afghanistan.
In 2006, Cpl. Paul Davis was killed in a rollover near Kandahar City. In response to "Steve" Harper's announcement that 2011 is now a date certain and Canada will definitely end its mission in Afghanistan, Davis' father Jim called the decision irresponsible and asked what his son had been fighting for.
That's a fair reaction. This war hasn't been easy on Canadians, particularly those whose families have sent their own to the front lines. Reactions among those WIA or KIA are bound to vary too, which is also perfectly acceptable in a democracy. But incredibly, what happened next was that the Cons' communications director, Ryan Sparrow, sent out an e-mail suggesting that the elder Davis was a supporter of the Liberals' deputy leader, Michael Ignatieff, well known as one of the "hawks" among the Grits. In other words, the criticism of Harper's announcement was politically motivated.
Sparrow's remarks were completely inappropriate. Not surprisingly (or may it was a surprise), he has been suspended for the rest of the campaign and ordered to apologize to Mr. Davis.
First puffin poop and now this. Keep it coming, guys.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Now, another Conservative has made an off-the-cuff remark, well actually an e-mail. Not just attacking anyone's patriotism (which is to be expected anyway), or his or her political affiliation, but the father of a soldier KIA in Afghanistan.
In 2006, Cpl. Paul Davis was killed in a rollover near Kandahar City. In response to "Steve" Harper's announcement that 2011 is now a date certain and Canada will definitely end its mission in Afghanistan, Davis' father Jim called the decision irresponsible and asked what his son had been fighting for.
That's a fair reaction. This war hasn't been easy on Canadians, particularly those whose families have sent their own to the front lines. Reactions among those WIA or KIA are bound to vary too, which is also perfectly acceptable in a democracy. But incredibly, what happened next was that the Cons' communications director, Ryan Sparrow, sent out an e-mail suggesting that the elder Davis was a supporter of the Liberals' deputy leader, Michael Ignatieff, well known as one of the "hawks" among the Grits. In other words, the criticism of Harper's announcement was politically motivated.
Sparrow's remarks were completely inappropriate. Not surprisingly (or may it was a surprise), he has been suspended for the rest of the campaign and ordered to apologize to Mr. Davis.
First puffin poop and now this. Keep it coming, guys.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
They were against it, before they were for it
The media has the final call, but Harper and Layton have backed off their opposition and it looks like Elizabeth May of the Green Party is in the debates. But remember, they were against it before they were for it.
Can you say, Red-Green coalition? It's not impossible. They're quite common in the EU, after all.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Can you say, Red-Green coalition? It's not impossible. They're quite common in the EU, after all.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
What the deal is about the kid money
In response to a random question that 1337hax0r raised about Tom Brodbeck's column, re the Liberal's promise to double the so-called "universal child care allowance", I offer this musing.
The issue is not about child care. It's not about child poverty either. And throwing $1200 at the problem then taxing it back at a rate of anywhere between 15 and 50 percent (depending on one's bracket) is not a way to address the problem. This is in fact a regurgitation of one of the principles of Social Credit -- except it's not creating new money (which Bill Aberhart tried to do in the 1930s in Alberta but which was declared unconstitutional) but rather redistributing money that already exists and in an entirely inefficient way. It also had the effect of making the Canada Revenue Agency create a who new database and a new address list, when the one that existed for the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) would have more than served the purpose.
But let's suppose it was about child care and / or child poverty.
If the money had been added to the base amount of the existing Child Tax Credit which as it existed before 2006 offered upwards of $3500 per year per child, a successful strategy to reduce child poverty, then it would have served an additional purpose -- getting closer to the threshold anti-poverty groups say is needed to lift children out of poverty. Giving parents new money only to take some or all of it back with a stick is senseless.
And let's suppose it was about child care. Can anyone get full-time child care for a kid for a hundred bucks a month? Only province where that's possible is in Québec, that is if you can get a space.
As I've noted before, the Con money is not only taxable, it's non indexed which means it loses its value over time. The real allowance money on the other hand is tax free. If the Cons wanted to ensure that every parent got the money they wanted to hand out, all they would have to do is announce a floor on the CCTB that no parent of a child under seven would get less than $100 per month in 2006 dollars. But I guess it's better to make things simple on the outside while making it way more complicated for bureaucrats who have to cut not just one check for most parents but two. Most provinces and territories top up their allowances into the federal CCTB amount to save on paperwork. The fact the Cons refused to do so, instead having two separate amounts, is itself a disgrace for a party that claims to be on the side of the environment!
Note too, in creating the separate child tax money which is taxed back, they also eliminated the young child supplement for the poorest families. The Liberals want to put it back (an extra 30 bucks a month or so on top of the double). You don't hear the Cons explaining why they took the milk money away, do you?
I'm not sure whether the Liberals intend the doubled money they propose to be tax free or taxable -- but the fact is they are offering more, way more. Right now the Conservatives are not. It's not an admission the Liberals were wrong. It's acknowledging parents need help in these tough times. If incidentally it gets the money that kids really need closer to what parents really need, that's not the Conservatives' problem.
And in any case, the fact remains the same: Couples should have the choice about whether to have one or two parents working and $100 per month isn't enough to allow for that. Single parents definitely need access to affordable child care, and $100 per month certainly isn't enough to do that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The issue is not about child care. It's not about child poverty either. And throwing $1200 at the problem then taxing it back at a rate of anywhere between 15 and 50 percent (depending on one's bracket) is not a way to address the problem. This is in fact a regurgitation of one of the principles of Social Credit -- except it's not creating new money (which Bill Aberhart tried to do in the 1930s in Alberta but which was declared unconstitutional) but rather redistributing money that already exists and in an entirely inefficient way. It also had the effect of making the Canada Revenue Agency create a who new database and a new address list, when the one that existed for the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) would have more than served the purpose.
But let's suppose it was about child care and / or child poverty.
If the money had been added to the base amount of the existing Child Tax Credit which as it existed before 2006 offered upwards of $3500 per year per child, a successful strategy to reduce child poverty, then it would have served an additional purpose -- getting closer to the threshold anti-poverty groups say is needed to lift children out of poverty. Giving parents new money only to take some or all of it back with a stick is senseless.
And let's suppose it was about child care. Can anyone get full-time child care for a kid for a hundred bucks a month? Only province where that's possible is in Québec, that is if you can get a space.
As I've noted before, the Con money is not only taxable, it's non indexed which means it loses its value over time. The real allowance money on the other hand is tax free. If the Cons wanted to ensure that every parent got the money they wanted to hand out, all they would have to do is announce a floor on the CCTB that no parent of a child under seven would get less than $100 per month in 2006 dollars. But I guess it's better to make things simple on the outside while making it way more complicated for bureaucrats who have to cut not just one check for most parents but two. Most provinces and territories top up their allowances into the federal CCTB amount to save on paperwork. The fact the Cons refused to do so, instead having two separate amounts, is itself a disgrace for a party that claims to be on the side of the environment!
Note too, in creating the separate child tax money which is taxed back, they also eliminated the young child supplement for the poorest families. The Liberals want to put it back (an extra 30 bucks a month or so on top of the double). You don't hear the Cons explaining why they took the milk money away, do you?
I'm not sure whether the Liberals intend the doubled money they propose to be tax free or taxable -- but the fact is they are offering more, way more. Right now the Conservatives are not. It's not an admission the Liberals were wrong. It's acknowledging parents need help in these tough times. If incidentally it gets the money that kids really need closer to what parents really need, that's not the Conservatives' problem.
And in any case, the fact remains the same: Couples should have the choice about whether to have one or two parents working and $100 per month isn't enough to allow for that. Single parents definitely need access to affordable child care, and $100 per month certainly isn't enough to do that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Richard Monette dead, 64
Some sad news in the entertainment business today. Richard Monette, stage actor and the long time artistic director of the Stratford Festival of Canada who was the first director of any company in many a year to having achieved completing the "canon" (i.e. every Shakespeare play was performed during his tenure), oversaw the restoration of the Festival and Avon Theatres and turned around the repertory acting company from a $17 million debt to a nearly $50 million slush fund, has died. He was 64.
His work to save the festival can be traced back to 1980 when in one of the rockiest annual meetings the festival's foundation has ever had (in the middle of an actor's strike, the artistic panel resigning and the Trudeau government refusing to give a work permit to a British guy called upon to replace the panel as the new artistic director), Monette called the chair of the board a "pig." Click here to the CBC digital archives then select clip #7 -- this was one hell of a meeting! In time, the festival picked a Canadian director, which has been fairly standard policy since and we owe Monette the credit for that.
Perhaps the heady early years of the Festival, or the rocky nature of the 1970s, can never be duplicated. But Monette made a once stuffy cornerstone of the Canadian arts community a lot of fun again. Adieu, sir.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
His work to save the festival can be traced back to 1980 when in one of the rockiest annual meetings the festival's foundation has ever had (in the middle of an actor's strike, the artistic panel resigning and the Trudeau government refusing to give a work permit to a British guy called upon to replace the panel as the new artistic director), Monette called the chair of the board a "pig." Click here to the CBC digital archives then select clip #7 -- this was one hell of a meeting! In time, the festival picked a Canadian director, which has been fairly standard policy since and we owe Monette the credit for that.
Perhaps the heady early years of the Festival, or the rocky nature of the 1970s, can never be duplicated. But Monette made a once stuffy cornerstone of the Canadian arts community a lot of fun again. Adieu, sir.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
Where's the real savings, Steve? Plus babies, poop and Opus Dei
Day three of the 2008 election. And the Conservatives offered today a two cent per litre cut in the excise tax on diesel in an attempt to help the trucking and farming industries -- but squat for new diesel technologies.
Let's do the math. Suppose your tractor trailer has side-by-side 125 US gallon tanks (250 gallons or 946.25 litres), pretty large by industry standards, that saves the average trucker -- well, $18.93 per fill-up, but that barely covers the day's meals on a long haul and doesn't even begin to compensate for all the paperwork or e-filing requirements for inspection stations. And with diesel averaging about $1.25 here in Hamilton that give a driver -- 15.144 litres "free." If a trucker gets 5 mpg US (47.042 L per 100 km) that savings will keep a truck on the road for -- ready for it -- 19 minutes.
Less than twenty minutes. Truckers work 11 to 14 hour days -- and many have been known to keep two logs and drive even more (illegally but to make sure the goods get there on time). You think they're actually going to be happy they can stay on the road for an extra twenty minutes? Diesel has doubled in the last two years!
A symbolic cut in the excise tax is short term thinking. That's not leadership.
A long term thinker would keep the tax for old style diesel plants that pollute heavily but offer tax incentives and rebates for cleaner diesel conversion and development of diesel-electric tractors, with a 100% acceleration rate for amortization costs. Diesel trucks as well as automobiles that can run on the maximum blend of biodiesel possible or ultra low sulphur diesel (98% less polluting than the regular kind) would also get a tax break at the pump. That's leadership.
The Conservatives also keep coming up with the lie -- and they know that it's a lie -- that the Liberals want to take away the $100 per month money for the baby. Money which by the way is taxed and not indexed to inflation which actually means less money each year.
In fact, the Liberals have pledged to double it and offer an addition $30 per month for low income families. This was already included in the Green Shift plan but it had to be repeated today and has to keep being repeated. I would hope Dion commits to making it tax free like the existing child benefits and adding it to the base amount with a pledge that the floor for the family allowance will never be lower than $200 per month per child under six, ever (adjusted to inflation).
Dion is stepping up to the plate. He is a leader.
Oh, and thanks to Con webmasters who thought it necessary to have an Atlantic puffin drop shit on Dion's shoulder ... well, if they want to play nasty, then clearly Harper isn't a leader because he's ultimately responsible for his party's message, his apology notwithstanding. If the Conservatives want this to make this personal, fine. Canadians won't stand for it. People in 307 districts can't vote for Steve anyway, only his cronies. (For people who don't get the puffin reference, some time last year Deputy Lib Leader Michael Ignatieff suggested the party should adopt the puffin as its official emblem, saying that it is a noble bird.)
Oh -- and another thing, turns out one of the Conservative candidates is also a member of Opus Dei. The only Catholic group that is a personal prelature of the Pope -- in other words, it has its own dedicated bishop, the only elected one incidentally (at least in the Western church). Whether that candidate belongs to the group or not is her business, of course but the very words ring a lot of alarm bells for many Catholics (who think the group has way too much influence at the expense of interests of the rest of the laity), let alone all the conspiracy theorists out there.
Not even the Knights of Columbus has as much power within the Church as Opus Dei does, and the former is a much more respected organization. That should tell you something about the people running under the Harper banner.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Let's do the math. Suppose your tractor trailer has side-by-side 125 US gallon tanks (250 gallons or 946.25 litres), pretty large by industry standards, that saves the average trucker -- well, $18.93 per fill-up, but that barely covers the day's meals on a long haul and doesn't even begin to compensate for all the paperwork or e-filing requirements for inspection stations. And with diesel averaging about $1.25 here in Hamilton that give a driver -- 15.144 litres "free." If a trucker gets 5 mpg US (47.042 L per 100 km) that savings will keep a truck on the road for -- ready for it -- 19 minutes.
Less than twenty minutes. Truckers work 11 to 14 hour days -- and many have been known to keep two logs and drive even more (illegally but to make sure the goods get there on time). You think they're actually going to be happy they can stay on the road for an extra twenty minutes? Diesel has doubled in the last two years!
A symbolic cut in the excise tax is short term thinking. That's not leadership.
A long term thinker would keep the tax for old style diesel plants that pollute heavily but offer tax incentives and rebates for cleaner diesel conversion and development of diesel-electric tractors, with a 100% acceleration rate for amortization costs. Diesel trucks as well as automobiles that can run on the maximum blend of biodiesel possible or ultra low sulphur diesel (98% less polluting than the regular kind) would also get a tax break at the pump. That's leadership.
The Conservatives also keep coming up with the lie -- and they know that it's a lie -- that the Liberals want to take away the $100 per month money for the baby. Money which by the way is taxed and not indexed to inflation which actually means less money each year.
In fact, the Liberals have pledged to double it and offer an addition $30 per month for low income families. This was already included in the Green Shift plan but it had to be repeated today and has to keep being repeated. I would hope Dion commits to making it tax free like the existing child benefits and adding it to the base amount with a pledge that the floor for the family allowance will never be lower than $200 per month per child under six, ever (adjusted to inflation).
Dion is stepping up to the plate. He is a leader.
Oh, and thanks to Con webmasters who thought it necessary to have an Atlantic puffin drop shit on Dion's shoulder ... well, if they want to play nasty, then clearly Harper isn't a leader because he's ultimately responsible for his party's message, his apology notwithstanding. If the Conservatives want this to make this personal, fine. Canadians won't stand for it. People in 307 districts can't vote for Steve anyway, only his cronies. (For people who don't get the puffin reference, some time last year Deputy Lib Leader Michael Ignatieff suggested the party should adopt the puffin as its official emblem, saying that it is a noble bird.)
Oh -- and another thing, turns out one of the Conservative candidates is also a member of Opus Dei. The only Catholic group that is a personal prelature of the Pope -- in other words, it has its own dedicated bishop, the only elected one incidentally (at least in the Western church). Whether that candidate belongs to the group or not is her business, of course but the very words ring a lot of alarm bells for many Catholics (who think the group has way too much influence at the expense of interests of the rest of the laity), let alone all the conspiracy theorists out there.
Not even the Knights of Columbus has as much power within the Church as Opus Dei does, and the former is a much more respected organization. That should tell you something about the people running under the Harper banner.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Anchorage paper: Questions for Sarah Palin
It's not just the Exempt Media in the lower forty-eight that wants to ask the Governor of Alaska questions. Even the state's largest paper, the Anchorage Daily News, is taking her to task. (HT to Editor and Publisher, the trade publication of the newspaper business).
Here's a link to the questions. Will Palin dare to answer? Or does she have, like so many right-wing leaders, a hidden agenda known only to the neo-cons who understand her "code" when she actually speaks?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers?
Here's a link to the questions. Will Palin dare to answer? Or does she have, like so many right-wing leaders, a hidden agenda known only to the neo-cons who understand her "code" when she actually speaks?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers?
Four ex-PMs get it; why won't Harper?
Despite Stephen Harper's best efforts to destroy the progressive movement in Canada by any means necessary -- short of using the notwithstanding clause -- four former Prime Ministers of Canada (Liberals John Turner and Paul Martin, and Progressive Conservatives Joe Clark and Kim Campbell) have joined 60 business leaders and academics, and signed a declaration demanding Canada take a hard line to cut greenhouse gas emissions. They have called for a $30 per tonne carbon tax. While stopping short of endorsing the Liberals' Green Shift (which calls for a $40 per tonne tax within four years) it does match quite nicely the legislated plan in British Columbia to have a $30 per tonne tax by 2012.
To offset the carbon tax, the group calls for offsetting income tax cuts to ensure lower income people aren't hit particularly hard; precisely what most carbon tax plans entail anyway (and which the Conservatives are completely blind to).
Many will dismiss the intervention of Campbell, Clark, Martin and Turner as the mindless ranting of "interim leaders." Interim they may have been but all were Prime Ministers. Although technically inaccurate to do so, one should address them as Mister / Madam Prime Minister in deference to the office they held because all four served honourably and deserve to be recognized as having held the primus inter pares position. All four understood that it's the middle ground and not extremism on the left and right that holds the social consensus. Stephen Harper is not a man of honour. Never has been in fact.
We celebrate the mountains and lakes and forests as much as we do the inner cities. We deserve and expect a similar standard of living wherever we live in Canada even if the provinces and territories don't always exactly match on the details.
So what is so inherently wrong with taxing what we waste rather than what we produce? A manufacturing and processing tax may have been fine when we were hewers of wood and drawers of water, but Canada is a much more sophisticated country than that nowadays. We can't expect to continue to be leaders in natural resources if we don't develop the technology to develop them in a responsible manner. There are indeed ways to tap into the tar sands without permanently polluting the watershed that farms and forests downstream rely on. There are ways to produce electricity without turning entire landscapes into moonscapes. The environmental crisis is one of the greatest economic opportunities of our time. If we tax tobacco (which will kill us) and alcohol (which can if not consumed in moderation), why can't we tax pollution (which is determental to both urban and rural areas)?
When they find more oil and natural gas under the provincial parks in Kananaskis Country next to the Alberta foothills, expect Harper to be the first to endorse a slant drilling operation to get to the black and blue gold even if it means destroying the campgrounds about it, watershed be damned. Maybe that's what it'll take to get the gun-toting and Bible-thumping neocons to finally wake up -- after all, they're not going to be very happy if their earthly happy hunting ground has nothing to hunt on anymore and they can't summon up the stamina to even go on the trip because their bodies are so polluted they need liquid oxygen just to breathe.
For now, I applaud four people of principle who understand that we can't keep taking good things and not putting anything back except the bad -- and that it's time to pay the piper until we clean up our act.
Vote for this week at Progressive Bloggers.
To offset the carbon tax, the group calls for offsetting income tax cuts to ensure lower income people aren't hit particularly hard; precisely what most carbon tax plans entail anyway (and which the Conservatives are completely blind to).
Many will dismiss the intervention of Campbell, Clark, Martin and Turner as the mindless ranting of "interim leaders." Interim they may have been but all were Prime Ministers. Although technically inaccurate to do so, one should address them as Mister / Madam Prime Minister in deference to the office they held because all four served honourably and deserve to be recognized as having held the primus inter pares position. All four understood that it's the middle ground and not extremism on the left and right that holds the social consensus. Stephen Harper is not a man of honour. Never has been in fact.
We celebrate the mountains and lakes and forests as much as we do the inner cities. We deserve and expect a similar standard of living wherever we live in Canada even if the provinces and territories don't always exactly match on the details.
So what is so inherently wrong with taxing what we waste rather than what we produce? A manufacturing and processing tax may have been fine when we were hewers of wood and drawers of water, but Canada is a much more sophisticated country than that nowadays. We can't expect to continue to be leaders in natural resources if we don't develop the technology to develop them in a responsible manner. There are indeed ways to tap into the tar sands without permanently polluting the watershed that farms and forests downstream rely on. There are ways to produce electricity without turning entire landscapes into moonscapes. The environmental crisis is one of the greatest economic opportunities of our time. If we tax tobacco (which will kill us) and alcohol (which can if not consumed in moderation), why can't we tax pollution (which is determental to both urban and rural areas)?
When they find more oil and natural gas under the provincial parks in Kananaskis Country next to the Alberta foothills, expect Harper to be the first to endorse a slant drilling operation to get to the black and blue gold even if it means destroying the campgrounds about it, watershed be damned. Maybe that's what it'll take to get the gun-toting and Bible-thumping neocons to finally wake up -- after all, they're not going to be very happy if their earthly happy hunting ground has nothing to hunt on anymore and they can't summon up the stamina to even go on the trip because their bodies are so polluted they need liquid oxygen just to breathe.
For now, I applaud four people of principle who understand that we can't keep taking good things and not putting anything back except the bad -- and that it's time to pay the piper until we clean up our act.
Vote for this week at Progressive Bloggers.
Monday, September 8, 2008
Voters believe in democracy; the networks don't
The self-styled "Broadcasting Consortium" has decided that the Green Party can't participate in the leaders' debates on Oct. 1 and 2. This is completely stupid.
The Green Party should be included in the debates despite the decision of the six networks to exclude them. Elizabeth May is running nearly a full slate of candidates as are the other parties and they have held at least 5% popular support in the polls since the last election -- the minimum needed to get public financing on a quarterly basis. More importantly they have a Member of Parliament in their stable.
The excuse that the Conservatives, Bloc and the NDP have said they'll refuse to participate if the Green are in, citing the Liberal-Green entente not to run candidates in one riding each -- namely the party leaders' -- is just a cop-out. More voices means more democracy and greater voter participation. If the voters in Central Nova and Laurier Sainte Marie think they're being manipulated they'll vote accordingly. But don't you dare tell me that people in the other 306 districts don't have a right to at least hear what May has to say.
This is dictatorship of the broadcasters. And the airwaves belong to the people. If the networks don't back down, then the CRTC should cancel their licenses and give them to groups that actually respect the fact that the airwaves are ours -- not that of bureaucrats and big business.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The Green Party should be included in the debates despite the decision of the six networks to exclude them. Elizabeth May is running nearly a full slate of candidates as are the other parties and they have held at least 5% popular support in the polls since the last election -- the minimum needed to get public financing on a quarterly basis. More importantly they have a Member of Parliament in their stable.
The excuse that the Conservatives, Bloc and the NDP have said they'll refuse to participate if the Green are in, citing the Liberal-Green entente not to run candidates in one riding each -- namely the party leaders' -- is just a cop-out. More voices means more democracy and greater voter participation. If the voters in Central Nova and Laurier Sainte Marie think they're being manipulated they'll vote accordingly. But don't you dare tell me that people in the other 306 districts don't have a right to at least hear what May has to say.
This is dictatorship of the broadcasters. And the airwaves belong to the people. If the networks don't back down, then the CRTC should cancel their licenses and give them to groups that actually respect the fact that the airwaves are ours -- not that of bureaucrats and big business.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Another salvo from David Frum: GOP really is in trouble
I just noticed an interesting piece that David Frum wrote yesterday in the NYT's Sunday Magazine section, a little over a week after he assailed John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin as running mate.
Frum notes something that many others in the press have missed -- a seismic shift in politics due to the growing gap between the wealthy and the much less so. Surprisingly, says Frum, it's leading the even the wealthy in those areas with the greatest disparities to vote for the Dems.
He cites as an example Fairfax County, Virginia (next to Washington DC), once a rural to suburban swath of land with relative equality in family incomes, but in the last thirty years or so exploding in population to over a million people. While the median family income there is over $100k (the highest of any county in America), it disguises the fact that there are half below that figure and they're restless that the good life is escaping them. The other half is above that and they're upset they can't enjoy the good life. Urban sprawl and poor land planning decisions were made while the GOP were in control of the county. So how have people reacted? They vote in solid numbers, and they vote Democratic. The county council, long Republican, is now Democratic.
In fact, says Frum, the narrow wins of Gov. Tim Kaine and Sen. Jim Webb statewide were due to their relatively huge wins in Fairfax; as well as in neighbouring Prince William, about as straight up middle class as it gets. While John Kerry got clobbered in Virginia four years ago, he got a majority of votes in the northern-most part of the state.
You see GOP candidates rally against "the elite." Problem is most of the elite are themselves Republicans. Resentment of the elite -- usually Republicans -- is leading people to vote the other way. Or not to vote at all. They understand their pocketbook is just as important as values. And in the last decade while the elites have gotten richer, the middle class has stagnated. If their wages have risen -- if -- it's been eaten up by skyrocketing health care premiums.
Frum also says that people have become distracted by issues such as same-sex marriage rather than the fact that single-income parents usually earn less than the lesser earning partner in a two income marriage -- and that the state has failed to develop policies to ensure healthy families and more marriages rather than two people just shacking up.
I don't agree with some of what Frum says -- that the higher rates of immigration during the Bush Administration have contributed to America's current economic crisis. I think immigrants create jobs, they don't take them away from others. He also misses an important point as to why the wealthy and poorer parts of DC consistently vote for the Dems -- the donkey supports voting rights for the national capital and the elephant wishes DC to continue to be a protectorate. But for the most part, he's onto something. The GOP may be in for the whacking of a lifetime on November 4th at all levels of government.
I think McCain's pick of Palin may be the neo-cons' last gasp at clinging onto whatever power they may have left. But in the hallways of schools, the shop floors, and by the water coolers, people are talking revolution. And as Thomas Jefferson once said, a little revolution now and then is a good thing.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Frum notes something that many others in the press have missed -- a seismic shift in politics due to the growing gap between the wealthy and the much less so. Surprisingly, says Frum, it's leading the even the wealthy in those areas with the greatest disparities to vote for the Dems.
He cites as an example Fairfax County, Virginia (next to Washington DC), once a rural to suburban swath of land with relative equality in family incomes, but in the last thirty years or so exploding in population to over a million people. While the median family income there is over $100k (the highest of any county in America), it disguises the fact that there are half below that figure and they're restless that the good life is escaping them. The other half is above that and they're upset they can't enjoy the good life. Urban sprawl and poor land planning decisions were made while the GOP were in control of the county. So how have people reacted? They vote in solid numbers, and they vote Democratic. The county council, long Republican, is now Democratic.
In fact, says Frum, the narrow wins of Gov. Tim Kaine and Sen. Jim Webb statewide were due to their relatively huge wins in Fairfax; as well as in neighbouring Prince William, about as straight up middle class as it gets. While John Kerry got clobbered in Virginia four years ago, he got a majority of votes in the northern-most part of the state.
You see GOP candidates rally against "the elite." Problem is most of the elite are themselves Republicans. Resentment of the elite -- usually Republicans -- is leading people to vote the other way. Or not to vote at all. They understand their pocketbook is just as important as values. And in the last decade while the elites have gotten richer, the middle class has stagnated. If their wages have risen -- if -- it's been eaten up by skyrocketing health care premiums.
Frum also says that people have become distracted by issues such as same-sex marriage rather than the fact that single-income parents usually earn less than the lesser earning partner in a two income marriage -- and that the state has failed to develop policies to ensure healthy families and more marriages rather than two people just shacking up.
I don't agree with some of what Frum says -- that the higher rates of immigration during the Bush Administration have contributed to America's current economic crisis. I think immigrants create jobs, they don't take them away from others. He also misses an important point as to why the wealthy and poorer parts of DC consistently vote for the Dems -- the donkey supports voting rights for the national capital and the elephant wishes DC to continue to be a protectorate. But for the most part, he's onto something. The GOP may be in for the whacking of a lifetime on November 4th at all levels of government.
I think McCain's pick of Palin may be the neo-cons' last gasp at clinging onto whatever power they may have left. But in the hallways of schools, the shop floors, and by the water coolers, people are talking revolution. And as Thomas Jefferson once said, a little revolution now and then is a good thing.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Finally, some straight talk from CNN
HTs to Jeff, Cameron and Galloping Beaver:
The AP wire has picked up the story about the coming Canadian election. The story below the headline is basically the same across the board. But note that the NYT chose the headline "Early Election is Called in Canada" while CNN chose the much more appropriate "Canadian PM employs loophole in potential power grab" -- perhaps an indication of the latter's style book but nevertheless a very appropriate analysis of what we're facing up here. For the no-longer "World's Leader in News and Information ™," this kind of frankness is refreshing.
Harper must be hoping, hoping beyond belief, that the situation in the US picks up and that he rides the coattails of that. But with the feds down there effectively seizing Fannie and Freddie today, potentially putting Americans on the hook for up to five trillion dollars, over and above the more than nine billion they already owe foreign creditors -- not to mention an eleventh bank also being seized over the weekend -- things are going from bad to worse.
That can only favour the opposition. But five weeks is an eternity in politics. Let's see.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The AP wire has picked up the story about the coming Canadian election. The story below the headline is basically the same across the board. But note that the NYT chose the headline "Early Election is Called in Canada" while CNN chose the much more appropriate "Canadian PM employs loophole in potential power grab" -- perhaps an indication of the latter's style book but nevertheless a very appropriate analysis of what we're facing up here. For the no-longer "World's Leader in News and Information ™," this kind of frankness is refreshing.
Harper must be hoping, hoping beyond belief, that the situation in the US picks up and that he rides the coattails of that. But with the feds down there effectively seizing Fannie and Freddie today, potentially putting Americans on the hook for up to five trillion dollars, over and above the more than nine billion they already owe foreign creditors -- not to mention an eleventh bank also being seized over the weekend -- things are going from bad to worse.
That can only favour the opposition. But five weeks is an eternity in politics. Let's see.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
"The race is on and it's pride in the backstretch ..."
"... heartache is going on the inside."
-- George Jones
So the race is on ... Canada will have an election on Tuesday, October 14th; the 40th since the formation of the federation in 1867.
The one thing nagging me is the moment when "Steve" Harper was asked if he was implying in the pre-election commercials that he was a family man and his opponents are not. Harper said something like, "I presume M. Dion is a family man."
Dion and his wife, Mme Janine Kreiber do have an adopted daughter. If Harper wants to make this election about families, bring it on; because his has been one of the worst when it comes to families -- making people pay tax on some of the family allowance money which prior to 2006 was completely tax free; eliminating a child care program before it started and not making any meaningful gains in creating private child care spaces (the rules created are so onerous that most companies aren't even bothering); and cutting the red tape on foreign adoptions while making domestic adoptions even harder.
You want a discussion on family values, pal? All of Harper's opponents will welcome it any day. They've actually worked in the community, not the corporate boardrooms and right-wing think tanks where you've spent your whole life. They know what families want, not what you and your oil, forest and mining cronies think they need.
Oh and the other thing? Four by-elections have been cancelling, costing taxpayers an unnecessary million bucks and people who voted at the advance polls presumable will have to vote again. How stupid is that?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
-- George Jones
So the race is on ... Canada will have an election on Tuesday, October 14th; the 40th since the formation of the federation in 1867.
The one thing nagging me is the moment when "Steve" Harper was asked if he was implying in the pre-election commercials that he was a family man and his opponents are not. Harper said something like, "I presume M. Dion is a family man."
Dion and his wife, Mme Janine Kreiber do have an adopted daughter. If Harper wants to make this election about families, bring it on; because his has been one of the worst when it comes to families -- making people pay tax on some of the family allowance money which prior to 2006 was completely tax free; eliminating a child care program before it started and not making any meaningful gains in creating private child care spaces (the rules created are so onerous that most companies aren't even bothering); and cutting the red tape on foreign adoptions while making domestic adoptions even harder.
You want a discussion on family values, pal? All of Harper's opponents will welcome it any day. They've actually worked in the community, not the corporate boardrooms and right-wing think tanks where you've spent your whole life. They know what families want, not what you and your oil, forest and mining cronies think they need.
Oh and the other thing? Four by-elections have been cancelling, costing taxpayers an unnecessary million bucks and people who voted at the advance polls presumable will have to vote again. How stupid is that?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Where "abstinence only" gets us
Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska and who has a pregnant teenage daughter, opposes sex education programs in schools. In a state that has one of the broadest line-item veto laws in America, Palin either eliminated or severely slashed spending for even sensible initiatives, including the types of early intervention programs that have worked in many of the lower 48. She also cut programs to help teenagers who actually got pregnant.
The problem, as many see it (as do I) is that this is reflective of a puritanical attitude towards sexuality; one that treats the accidental exposure of a nipple on live TV for 9/16 of one second a greater threat to morals, than a terrorist who would make women slaves in their own homes and their own country and his minions who enthusiastically support this. And while worrying about threats that many not even exist, so many families are so worried about even talking about sex that they don't realize the ticking time bomb developing under their feet -- a huge teenage pregnancy rate and the burden on social programs that come with that; if there are any left.
Sex is not a comforting topic, discussing it with our kids even less so. But is America and to a lesser extent Canada so afraid of sex, that we think that hoping for the best will solve the problem? That young teens will actually keep their promises at so-called "purity balls"? Don't get me started on those, but there's something telling about someone who claims to be Christian and then insists on a strict following of the law rather than upholding its spirit. By making people follow the so-called rules, we suppress their spirit and thus undermine the basis of healthy marriages which is love based on total surrender rather than mechanical submission and suppression.
Which, inevitably, leads to marital breakdowns; many of which break down because one of the partners (usually the man) was able to manipulate the other (usually the woman) into unspeakable acts, including sex without their consent.
We also imply that while it may not be okay to have intercourse pre-marriage, it's quite okay to have unprotected oral sex and/or mutual masturbation. Thus ignoring a base fact: Sex organs are like a solenoid switch. One will go into the other eventually.
Didn't Jesus criticize the Pharisees for precisely that? For being so concerned about what others did that they dinn't care about their own souls?
In my opinion, we should encourage our kids not to have sex; to wait until they get married or are at least in a committed relationship. We also need to be realistic and understand that whether educated or not on the issue, kids will have sex. The last thing we need are unwanted pregnancies, which inevitably lead to unwanted abortions.
Here's a column I found interesting, from today's NYT. It notes the rate of teenage pregnancies, abortions and sexual activity in many developed countries. Note that teen pregnancies and / or rates of abortion are high in countries with an overall lack of sex ed programs or where parents simply choose to duck the issue (including the Us and Hungary) while they are low where sex ed is par for the course and sexuality is celebrated.
Consider that Canada, which has no abortion law at all but where sex education is strong, has a teen abortion rate 27% lower than the States, and a teen birthrate 52% lower. The rate of teen sexual activity is identical in the US and Germany, but the abortion rate among teens is 82% lower and the birthrate 75% lower. Denmark which has the highest rate of sexual activity among teens, even higher than America, has a teen pregnancy rate 85% lower.
Similar trends can be found within the States. As a general rule, states with better comprehensive sex education programs have lower teen pregnancy rates than those that have lesser programs or none at all.
It's counterintuitive but it seems that where kids are armed with knowledge, they have the power to make the right choices (abstinence, best choice) or at the very least make sure they aren't reckless (safer sex, second choice).
What about those of us who went to a Catholic high school where the official line was abstinence only? Please. We passed around condoms, diaphrams and pills in the locker room and real sex education material in the cafeteria; surrepticiously of course. The level of sexual activity was much higher than in the non-demoninational system yet the rate of pregnancies was way lower. Many guidance counsellors actually encouraged us to have sex as well if we thought it was the right thing to do. And they told us where to get birth control, too.
What does that tell you? Must have been we students (and the more enlightened teachers and psychologists on the staff) knew better than our so called masters and mistresses.
What did I do with this knowledge? None of your business. But you don't see me having an ungrateful kid who's graduating from high school this year.
I believe that it begins with the parents. Parents should tell their kids flat out it's not okay to have sex but if they're going to to be prepared. It should also start early by telling younger children about the "bathing suit test," that if someone touches a part of the body that a bathing suit would cover it's not okay for the attacker to do that (which I think would greatly reduce the levels of unreported child abuse, something we should all stand up for). It should continue to progress with increasing levels of maturity.
But the education system should also be permitted to stand up to the plate. If the best the anti-abortion crowd can do is the promise to "reverse Roe v Wade," they're only going to make the problem worse. The best abortion is one that never has to take place because it doesn't have to be considered at all -- since an unwanted conception didn't take place. Knowledge is power, and I'm convinced the more information they have, the more likely they are to wait. After all, their potential partners who are also armed with this knowledge will know that they themselves are as much worth the wait as their Miss or Mr. Right.
Having free clinics in schools handing out morning after pills to girls as young as 11, as they do in the UK, may be pushing it; but at least the system in Great Britain and Northern Ireland gets it -- since pre and post natal care costs the NHS a heck of a lot more for a woman who's under eighteen.
It's not too late to stand up for families and responsibility. Ignoring the issue, as Palin wants to do, is just about as irresponsible as we can get.
Abstinence first? Definitely. Abstinence only? Not in the real world. Ignorance is not bliss -- it is a recipe for disaster.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The problem, as many see it (as do I) is that this is reflective of a puritanical attitude towards sexuality; one that treats the accidental exposure of a nipple on live TV for 9/16 of one second a greater threat to morals, than a terrorist who would make women slaves in their own homes and their own country and his minions who enthusiastically support this. And while worrying about threats that many not even exist, so many families are so worried about even talking about sex that they don't realize the ticking time bomb developing under their feet -- a huge teenage pregnancy rate and the burden on social programs that come with that; if there are any left.
Sex is not a comforting topic, discussing it with our kids even less so. But is America and to a lesser extent Canada so afraid of sex, that we think that hoping for the best will solve the problem? That young teens will actually keep their promises at so-called "purity balls"? Don't get me started on those, but there's something telling about someone who claims to be Christian and then insists on a strict following of the law rather than upholding its spirit. By making people follow the so-called rules, we suppress their spirit and thus undermine the basis of healthy marriages which is love based on total surrender rather than mechanical submission and suppression.
Which, inevitably, leads to marital breakdowns; many of which break down because one of the partners (usually the man) was able to manipulate the other (usually the woman) into unspeakable acts, including sex without their consent.
We also imply that while it may not be okay to have intercourse pre-marriage, it's quite okay to have unprotected oral sex and/or mutual masturbation. Thus ignoring a base fact: Sex organs are like a solenoid switch. One will go into the other eventually.
Didn't Jesus criticize the Pharisees for precisely that? For being so concerned about what others did that they dinn't care about their own souls?
In my opinion, we should encourage our kids not to have sex; to wait until they get married or are at least in a committed relationship. We also need to be realistic and understand that whether educated or not on the issue, kids will have sex. The last thing we need are unwanted pregnancies, which inevitably lead to unwanted abortions.
Here's a column I found interesting, from today's NYT. It notes the rate of teenage pregnancies, abortions and sexual activity in many developed countries. Note that teen pregnancies and / or rates of abortion are high in countries with an overall lack of sex ed programs or where parents simply choose to duck the issue (including the Us and Hungary) while they are low where sex ed is par for the course and sexuality is celebrated.
Consider that Canada, which has no abortion law at all but where sex education is strong, has a teen abortion rate 27% lower than the States, and a teen birthrate 52% lower. The rate of teen sexual activity is identical in the US and Germany, but the abortion rate among teens is 82% lower and the birthrate 75% lower. Denmark which has the highest rate of sexual activity among teens, even higher than America, has a teen pregnancy rate 85% lower.
Similar trends can be found within the States. As a general rule, states with better comprehensive sex education programs have lower teen pregnancy rates than those that have lesser programs or none at all.
It's counterintuitive but it seems that where kids are armed with knowledge, they have the power to make the right choices (abstinence, best choice) or at the very least make sure they aren't reckless (safer sex, second choice).
What about those of us who went to a Catholic high school where the official line was abstinence only? Please. We passed around condoms, diaphrams and pills in the locker room and real sex education material in the cafeteria; surrepticiously of course. The level of sexual activity was much higher than in the non-demoninational system yet the rate of pregnancies was way lower. Many guidance counsellors actually encouraged us to have sex as well if we thought it was the right thing to do. And they told us where to get birth control, too.
What does that tell you? Must have been we students (and the more enlightened teachers and psychologists on the staff) knew better than our so called masters and mistresses.
What did I do with this knowledge? None of your business. But you don't see me having an ungrateful kid who's graduating from high school this year.
I believe that it begins with the parents. Parents should tell their kids flat out it's not okay to have sex but if they're going to to be prepared. It should also start early by telling younger children about the "bathing suit test," that if someone touches a part of the body that a bathing suit would cover it's not okay for the attacker to do that (which I think would greatly reduce the levels of unreported child abuse, something we should all stand up for). It should continue to progress with increasing levels of maturity.
But the education system should also be permitted to stand up to the plate. If the best the anti-abortion crowd can do is the promise to "reverse Roe v Wade," they're only going to make the problem worse. The best abortion is one that never has to take place because it doesn't have to be considered at all -- since an unwanted conception didn't take place. Knowledge is power, and I'm convinced the more information they have, the more likely they are to wait. After all, their potential partners who are also armed with this knowledge will know that they themselves are as much worth the wait as their Miss or Mr. Right.
Having free clinics in schools handing out morning after pills to girls as young as 11, as they do in the UK, may be pushing it; but at least the system in Great Britain and Northern Ireland gets it -- since pre and post natal care costs the NHS a heck of a lot more for a woman who's under eighteen.
It's not too late to stand up for families and responsibility. Ignoring the issue, as Palin wants to do, is just about as irresponsible as we can get.
Abstinence first? Definitely. Abstinence only? Not in the real world. Ignorance is not bliss -- it is a recipe for disaster.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)