<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <id>http://www.cocomment.com/comments/Semaphore</id>
    <title>coComments related to Semaphore</title>
    <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/comments/Semaphore"/>
    <rights>Copyright 2007 coComment.com</rights>
    <updated>2009-11-25T12:25:53.020+01:00</updated>
    <icon>http://www.cocomment.com/images/logo4rss.gif</icon>
    <entry>
        <id>http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=Semaphore&amp;conv=575403&amp;comment_id=10922705</id>
        <title>Quite thawt-provoking, especia</title>
        <author>
            <name>Audiovisiotor</name>
        </author>
        <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=Semaphore&amp;conv=575403&amp;comment_id=10922705"/>
        <content>Quite thawt-provoking, especially pointed when one sees the banner with the divide-and-conquer banner that dredges up a certain mindset from the Nam era, a mindset that prevailed among some military rank-and-file in a mostly conscripted military. The Iraq War does not involve any conscripts, and the divide between low-rank soldiers and ranking officers no longer obtains to such an extent.</content>
        <published>2007-03-24T06:21:47.273+01:00</published>
        <updated>2007-03-24T06:21:47.273+01:00</updated>
    </entry>
    <entry>
        <id>http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=Semaphore&amp;conv=481394&amp;comment_id=8718802</id>
        <title>Snowheart by koldor01 is wonde</title>
        <author>
            <name>Audiovisiotor</name>
        </author>
        <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=Semaphore&amp;conv=481394&amp;comment_id=8718802"/>
        <content>Snowheart by koldor01 is wonderful Valentines imaginal for a snow-laden country like Canada (Toronto, Ontario) at the momment. -- Audiovisiotor</content>
        <published>2007-02-15T19:21:03.680+01:00</published>
        <updated>2007-02-15T19:21:03.680+01:00</updated>
    </entry>
    <entry>
        <id>http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=Semaphore&amp;conv=10134&amp;comment_id=16919</id>
        <title>I especially liked this point </title>
        <author>
            <name>Owlb</name>
        </author>
        <link rel="self" href="http://www.cocomment.com/sidebar?object=people&amp;context=explore&amp;mode=detail&amp;id=Semaphore&amp;conv=10134&amp;comment_id=16919"/>
        <content>I especially liked this point you make, J., "the proposed child care allowance. While the leftists have long pushed for state run day care - centralized, socialized and unionized - this is hardly the best choice for many parents. It is especially not suitable for a growing number of families in Toronto who run home-based businesses and do not have car. For many of these families, getting a child to and from a day care outside of walking distance is out of the question. For this growing segment, the $1200 per annum allowance is a far better solution.

The second plank of the Conservative child care platform will encourage employers to establish day-care facilities at the work place. For those who work full-time (with a commute either by car or transit), this option is better than having to drop their child off at another location.

So who then benefits from the Liberal/NDP day car plan? Oh yes - CUPE.

CUPE = Canadian Union of Public Employees (spelled out for the benefit of readers outside Canada)

Choosing among the two planks, as you call them, by dwelling on the first, then boiling that down to the scenario so easily grasped in your clause "a growing number of families in Toronto who run home-basedbusinesses and do not have a car," immediately enfleshes the Harper Child Benefit in tellingly practical terms. You've made the meaning of the proposal so vivid for me that the accumulated fussings of the nay-sayers on the topic are gone with the wind, or into the shredder.

We need to have the practicalities spelled out in specifics in order to escape the pseudo-utopics that hide the ideologization and bureaucratiziation of even so close a famlial matter as the care of the kid/s when/where the parent/s work. Thanks!</content>
        <published>2006-02-23T09:06:07.762+01:00</published>
        <updated>2006-02-23T09:06:07.762+01:00</updated>
    </entry>
</feed>
