Sunday thoughts
1. I'm pleased to see his morning that my editorial appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press. In it I point out that child welfare agencies are bound by the Child and Family Services Act and that the act outlines what is to be looked at when considering best interests of the child. Decisions made solely on the basis of culture do not meet the standards.
I am disappointed to see that no link was given to my other blog, which I started to give voice to this issue. I've asked for that to be ammended for the online version.
2. I've noticed that Conservative's election campaigning consists almost solely of slamming the Liberals. I will continue to hope for a day when campaigning adequately discusses policy, outcomes and research. But I suppose the Conservatives might have a hard time with that as research clearly demonstrates that their typical policies are more likely to produce a society where income inequities expand (the rich get richer, the poor get poorer), pollution continues unabated and people's overall health and well-being drops.
Also, despite some people's preference for right-wing parties due to the issue of abortion, it is the types of policies supported by Liberals and NDP (such as raising welfare rates) which are more likely to bring a reduction in the abortion rate. As pro-lifers, we must do more than oppose abortion - we must seriously consider what it takes to save the lives of more children.
3. In the states I have been fascinated by Sarah Palin. There didn't seem any way that the Republicans could bring some attention away from the media love-affair with Obama, but they certainly did it by choosing Palin. Liberals in the US are reacting more like Conservatives here, with a lot of name-callign and smear tactics.
In that rhetorical sea burst out a fairly balanced view of Camille Paglia. She spoke of Palin being a step forward for feminism and admitted that "the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand."
I am disappointed to see that no link was given to my other blog, which I started to give voice to this issue. I've asked for that to be ammended for the online version.
2. I've noticed that Conservative's election campaigning consists almost solely of slamming the Liberals. I will continue to hope for a day when campaigning adequately discusses policy, outcomes and research. But I suppose the Conservatives might have a hard time with that as research clearly demonstrates that their typical policies are more likely to produce a society where income inequities expand (the rich get richer, the poor get poorer), pollution continues unabated and people's overall health and well-being drops.
Also, despite some people's preference for right-wing parties due to the issue of abortion, it is the types of policies supported by Liberals and NDP (such as raising welfare rates) which are more likely to bring a reduction in the abortion rate. As pro-lifers, we must do more than oppose abortion - we must seriously consider what it takes to save the lives of more children.
3. In the states I have been fascinated by Sarah Palin. There didn't seem any way that the Republicans could bring some attention away from the media love-affair with Obama, but they certainly did it by choosing Palin. Liberals in the US are reacting more like Conservatives here, with a lot of name-callign and smear tactics.
In that rhetorical sea burst out a fairly balanced view of Camille Paglia. She spoke of Palin being a step forward for feminism and admitted that "the pro-life position, whether or not it is based on religious orthodoxy, is more ethically highly evolved than my own tenet of unconstrained access to abortion on demand."
posted by Jude | 9:06 AM
3 Comments:
1. Great article!
2. I'm getting SOOOOO tired of all the pro-conservative rhetoric here in cowtown. It would sure be nice to hear a party's policies and proposed means of getting there instead of all the name-calling. I had to turn of Charles Adler the other day because, although he had both a right-wing and left-wing guest give their position on crime and punishment, he continued on to state the left-wing position through his own eyes (and berate his interpretation of it) and totally negated what his guest had ACTUALLY said.
Wouldn't it be nice if we had some ability to HEAR what someone is saying before we pass judgment on it? Wouldn't it be nice to be able to follow someone's line of thinking so we can see at what point the logic might fail?
Ah, too much to ask from a those who believe the public must be spoken to in sound bites. Isn't it?
This comment has been removed by the author.
great article Judi. It doesn't link to the other blog, but it does mention it and gives the address(which is likely their amendment!)
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home