Nappy hour

Now tell me, is this not a photo just dying for a snappy caption?

When the Liberal Party news release containing this came yesterday, I had a good snicker and then filed it away, knowing that the images would eventually come in handy.

Since then, my friend and Star colleague Susan Delacourt had at the story, here and here and here.

The gist? Opposition leader Michael Ignatieff, wearing a Liberal red (in contrast with PM Steve Harper's Conservative blue) sweater, hit an Ottawa daycare center yesterday to announce that his party is putting a national childcare program front and center on his party's election platform.

Well, talk is cheap, sez Broadsides.

Ignatieff did acknowledge that delivering on a national child-care program will be difficult if Canada remains mired in deficit – a condition that Finance Minister Jim Flaherty has already forecast to last another five years.

"How you phase it in depends on what these guys leave in the till – and they've spent the cupboard bare," Ignatieff said.

"It's a very clear commitment. ... It's a legacy issue for the Liberal party."

The Liberal leader made the vow after spending the morning at an Ottawa child-care centre, reading a story – Little Bear's Big Sweater – to a group of 4-year-olds. At the end of the reading, Ignatieff was mobbed with a spontaneous group hug from the children.

The New Democrats, meanwhile, are skeptical about the child-care promise, recalling that Liberals spent most of the 1980s and 1990s promising a universal daycare program.

Back then, as Ignatieff is promising now, it was also a top priority among Liberal campaign promises, but it was only in 2004-05, under then prime minister Paul Martin, that a $5 billion program was negotiated with the provinces.

Conservatives unravelled that plan, in favour of the $100 cheque system, known as the Universal Child Benefit.

And we know how many childcare spaces that created, don't we?

<crickets chirping>

Anyway, by coincidence, or not, today the Liberal Women's Caucus released their third Pink Book which contains their recommendations for what the party should do for women. Note that none of it is binding, or an actual promise. That, apparently is for the party base backroom boys to decide.

I'm just having a read, and will be posting on that shortly.

Meanwhile, your captions are welcome.

To me, Ignatieff looks like he's swallowed the kitten that Harper has strangled.

There's a metaphor in there somewhere.

Comments

[Jim M]

Caption suggestions:

1. Santa Claw-back
2. Rumpelstiltskin spins gold into straw to prove tricks are for kids
3. Mr. Rogers wears women’s pain on sleeve
4. Nation about to be attacked?
5. Book upside down again?

[Jim M]

6. No Bush angle left behind

[deBeauxOs]

Iggy does look as though he's trying to choke down a fur ball.

[The Stygian and his Shemitish Dogs]

also from the Pink Book:

"Under Stephen Harper’s Conservative government, women are increasingly at risk for domestic abuse and violence."

well, not surprising if the Liberals keep on obstructing the crime bill.

[Dr.Dawg]

"Yes, is is 'The Pet Goat.' Why do you ask?"

[Jim M]

I can’t tell for sure, but even if that is not the same book George Bush was holding on the morning of 9/11, "The Pet Goat" sounds like a great caption suggestion. If it is exactly the same book then that is kinda eerie.
I think the caption suggestion is good either way because The Pet Goat is part of an ‘educational’ series of books that uses a teaching method called “direct instruction,” which apparently works more like athletic coaching than education.
Two questions:
1. Can anyone confirm that this the same book that George Bush was holding (if not reading) on the morning of 9/11?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pet_Goat
2. Is the direct instruction teaching method used in Canadian schools?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_instruction

[Jim M]

I have a question to repeat here that moderators might let pass, which I asked in another post but looks more relevant to ask here since the issue of male anti-intellectualism is more central to this post, although I'm not sure those words are used above (come to think of it). The question from the other post was, are we using in Canadian schools what is known as or anything like what is called the “direct instruction” method of teaching? Here is a link to the original question on this blog, where I posted two links to the beginning of the two trails, which is where I started from…
http://thestar.blogs.com/broadsides/2009/10/nappy-hour.html#comment-6a00d8341bf8f353ef0120a61aec2a970b