April 23 2012: Alberta Provincial Election

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by First Lady

Good god. Here we go again.



I'm socially liberal and feel very at home with the Wildrose. No other party has such a strong stance on freedom for individuals and business.

A marriage commissioner is a public servant, they shouldn't have the personal choice who they marry based on sexual orientation. Religious leaders are a different story.

And health care professionals fall under the same umbrella.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

A marriage commissioner is a public servant, they shouldn't have the personal choice who they marry based on sexual orientation. Religious leaders are a different story.

And health care professionals fall under the same umbrella.

I don't necessarily agree with every aspect of the policy. And to the best of my knowledge, it currently reads health care only. I think before we could apply it to marriage commissioners, we would have to open up the licensing. (currently capped) Regardless, no one else would be denied any rights.

This is the card always pulled out to label the party (and members) as "radical right", "redneck" "ultra conservative", etc., etc. Yet the vast majority of members don't fall into any of those labels.

I've even been called racist on Twitter and I'm sick of it. And it's F'ing ironic since I have a child who is part Native.

I one of my kids is part of the LGBT community and they don't feel one bit threatened by conscience rights. They respect and would protect the rights of others, just as they expect the same to apply to them.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by First Lady

I don't necessarily agree with every aspect of the policy. And to the best of my knowledge, it currently reads health care only.

Oh, good, it's only health care, we don't need to worry about that. If anything, that's the part that should get everyone pissed off.

Originally Posted by corporatejay

A marriage commissioner is a public servant, they shouldn't have the personal choice who they marry based on sexual orientation. Religious leaders are a different story.

And health care professionals fall under the same umbrella.

That's exactly my concern. If you don't want to perform the duties of a health care professional regardless of your beliefs, then do something else with your life. If you don't want to marry certain groups of people, tough, don't be a marriage commissioner. I'm tired of people pandering to this irrational nonsense.

A firefighter isn't allowed to opt out of putting out a fire because he disagrees with the lifestyle choices of the people in the building.


Here's the deal, First Lady. I like the WRP. I really do, and I would like to vote for them, but ass-backwards proposals like this 'conscience rights' BS throws up red flags and makes me strongly consider if I want to put my vote towards those ideals. That's all. I'm not about to start throwing around terms like 'redneck' or anything either. Just a genuine concern from a voter, and I certainly don't think I've approached this in a way that portays the WRP as a 'redneck' or 'radical right' party.

[IntenseFan]

I was in a similar position as you TorqueDog, but I really do think that some of the WRA social policies are secondary and will take a backseat to the overarching need to get the Province back to living within its means. The WRA is the only party that seems to be at all concerned with that.

In any event, I think a minority WRA government would be kept in check against this kind of stuff anyway (and I continue to doubt they could form a majority).

[IntenseFan]

EDIT: double post.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by IntenseFan

I was in a similar position as you TorqueDog, but I really do think that some of the WRA social policies are secondary and will take a backseat to the overarching need to get the Province back to living within its means. The WRA is the only party that seems to be at all concerned with that.

In any event, I think a minority WRA government would be kept in check against this kind of stuff anyway (and I continue to doubt they could form a majority).

I really hope you're right, and in an ideal world, that's exactly what would happen.

I keep reminding myself that we don't live in the US, but sometimes I wonder....

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Here's the deal, First Lady. I like the WRP. I really do, and I would like to vote for them, but ass-backwards proposals like this 'conscience rights' BS throws up red flags and makes me strongly consider if I want to put my vote towards those ideals. That's all.

Then do what I did. I joined, despite there being one policy I couldn't stand. Then I advocated for change in the policy and was successful.

It should be noted, the policy we are discussing isn't in our caucus driven platform and there hasn't been any interest (that I've seen) in them pursuing it.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

First of all, let me reframe where this was coming from. Someone scoffed at the very idea of cutting spending to match tax revenue. Saying it was totally impossible. And clearly that is not true.

All I wanted to show is that it IS possible to do a 25% reduction in spending. I wouldn't necessarily recommend exactly this kind of platform, but I wanted to show it is very possible to find savings of this magnitute immediately.

Yes by gutting the public services to bare bones operations. No one should deny that it is possible to accomplish this but what people are trying to explain is that it is completely asinine to think that it is feasable in any way shape or form.

Yes you'd have to get them to agree to the cut, but Ralph Klein did exactly this during his tenure, rolling back salaries 5 %.

Costs that we are still trying to make up, Alberta has long held one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country, I would imagine that this would have a lot to do with the lack of teachers and large class sizes. A less educated person generally makes less money, uses social services more, and contributes less to the economy.

Most of the public employees are aware they have had large salary increases compared to the private sector over the past few years. It wouldn't be unreasonable to ask them to give back to the taxpayer as well.

The wage for the average civil servant is still less than that of the average person working in the private sector. It isn't as though people are rolling in the money in the public service as people in the private sector are struggling to get by. Look at the average salary of a worker in downtown Calgary, I would bet you any amount of money that it is higher than that of the average government employee.

Yes it is unreasonable to unilaterally cut wages by the way, especially 10% that is massive. If someone asked you to cut 10% of your wage because the economy wasn't doing great I would imagine that you would quickly be looking for other work.

Huh? We already know the public service has a 4-1 manager to worker ration. Private sector is a 10-1 ratio. Why is it always so much harder to manage public employees than private ones?

Cut. The. Fat.

Can you provide some links to your numbers.

I can't find a link but last I remember their budget is close to 100 million dollars a year. Courts would do a much better job than these wasteful tribunals. Go read some posts from Ezra Levant if you want details as to why this is a worthless program. In fact, didn't he write a best selling book on the subject?

http://www.culture.alberta.ca/about/...ual-Report.pdf

Here is a link to the budget - the good thing about the government is if you are willing to sift through the documents it is fairly easy to gauge costs.

And Ezra Levant is not exactly the person I would be calling on in order to strengthen ones argument.

Not at all. Between sitting on (and being paid for) nonexistant or wasteful comittee's, pensions, and the ludicrous transition allowance. (which Redford finally axed... a good thing from her!!) It easily adds up to 100 million dollars. CTF projected amalgamating 3 cabinet portfolios would save 25 million all on its own.

Please provide some links with actual costs... just saying get rid of committees doesn't do any justice to those which actually do a lot of work and are responsible for the governments organization of policies and legislation.

Yes there was a bad committee but that doesn't mean that all committees are the same.

How much do we have to spend to keep people from getting sick and dying? No matter how much, people will ALWAYS end up getting sick and dying. Finding more efficient and effective ways to treat and deliver service makes more sense than pouring even more money into a failing system as we have been for the past 20 years.

Then put money into programs that prevent people from getting sick such as education programs, primary health initiatives and (gasp!) taxation of products which are known to cause serious health problems such as tobacco and alcohol. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, something that sometimes seems like it doesn't sink in with many people around here.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Costs that we are still trying to make up, Alberta has long held one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country, I would imagine that this would have a lot to do with the lack of teachers and large class sizes. A less educated person generally makes less money, uses social services more, and contributes less to the economy.

It is more likely that young people can drop out to work in the oilpatch and make a lot of money.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Costs that we are still trying to make up, Alberta has long held one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country, I would imagine that this would have a lot to do with the lack of teachers and large class sizes. A less educated person generally makes less money, uses social services more, and contributes less to the economy.

Alberta's Class sizes don't differ much from the rest of the country. I think our drop out rate has more to do with the fact that someone of a high school education has a higher chance of finding a half decent paying job here than most of the rest of the country. That is not to say, that we shouldn't make efforts to keep them in school.

http://www.ccl-cca.ca/pdfs/LessonsIn...ize-debate.pdf

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by zuluking

It is more likely that young people can drop out to work in the oilpatch and make a lot of money.

You beat me to it

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

Costs that we are still trying to make up, Alberta has long held one of the lowest high school graduation rates in the country, I would imagine that this would have a lot to do with the lack of teachers and large class sizes.

I would like to see you base your arguments on facts, and not your imagination. Can you support this claim?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Handsome B. Wonderful

I would like to see you base your arguments on facts, and not your imagination. Can you support this claim?

He's just seriously reaching to try and back up his ridiculous claims.

I was in a classes of around 31-35 kids, and it was just fine.

Kids drop out because they are not interested in education, which often has to do with lack of proper parenting, or because they can easily get a great job without a high school education in Alberta.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by Azure

He's just seriously reaching to try and back up his ridiculous claims.

I was in a classes of around 31-35 kids, and it was just fine.

For you.

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by Azure

He's just seriously reaching to try and back up his ridiculous claims.

I was in a classes of around 31-35 kids, and it was just fine.

Kids drop out because they are not interested in education, which often has to do with lack of proper parenting, or because they can easily get a great job without a high school education in Alberta.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1014122045.htm

"The study suggests that reducing class size in early grades provides a dual benefit: It raises achievement for all students through middle school, while also closing the persistently large gap between high- and low-achievers, say authors Spyros Konstantopoulos from Michigan State University and Vicki Chung from Northwestern University."

Kids drop out for a lot of reasons but to just say they aren't interested in education is akin to burying ones head in the sand regarding the issue - why aren't they interested in education, do they have a different learning style which can't be accomodated in a larger classroom.

I am amazed that people think that it is ridiculous to suggest that children do better in smaller class sizes. Is it the only factor - of course not, you need qualified, motivated teachers as well and guess what... employees like that cost money and you sure don't motivate people by threatening to cut their wages and go back on previously signed contracts.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Azure

He's just seriously reaching to try and back up his ridiculous claims.

I was in a classes of around 31-35 kids, and it was just fine.

Kids drop out because they are not interested in education, which often has to do with lack of proper parenting, or because they can easily get a great job without a high school education in Alberta.

What grades were you in where you had those class sizes as well? It makes a huge difference depending on the ages.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1014122045.htm

"The study suggests that reducing class size in early grades provides a dual benefit: It raises achievement for all students through middle school, while also closing the persistently large gap between high- and low-achievers, say authors Spyros Konstantopoulos from Michigan State University and Vicki Chung from Northwestern University."

Kids drop out for a lot of reasons but to just say they aren't interested in education is akin to burying ones head in the sand regarding the issue - why aren't they interested in education, do they have a different learning style which can't be accomodated in a larger classroom.

I am amazed that people think that it is ridiculous to suggest that children do better in smaller class sizes. Is it the only factor - of course not, you need qualified, motivated teachers as well and guess what... employees like that cost money and you sure don't motivate people by threatening to cut their wages and go back on previously signed contracts.

Nicely done!

It's a shame that research supporting your earlier assertion will be dismissed by those who offer their opinions (but nothing else) as fact.

It's impossible to debate policy with an ideologue.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Slava

What grades were you in where you had those class sizes as well? It makes a huge difference depending on the ages.

Most of my grades actually. The idea of trimming down class size came when I was in grade 11, and by then it wasn't a problem having 35 kids in a class because you were split up in 'a' and 'b' groups, where the 'a' kids were higher level, and 'b' kids lower level.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1014122045.htm

"The study suggests that reducing class size in early grades provides a dual benefit: It raises achievement for all students through middle school, while also closing the persistently large gap between high- and low-achievers, say authors Spyros Konstantopoulos from Michigan State University and Vicki Chung from Northwestern University."

Kids drop out for a lot of reasons but to just say they aren't interested in education is akin to burying ones head in the sand regarding the issue - why aren't they interested in education, do they have a different learning style which can't be accomodated in a larger classroom.

I am amazed that people think that it is ridiculous to suggest that children do better in smaller class sizes. Is it the only factor - of course not, you need qualified, motivated teachers as well and guess what... employees like that cost money and you sure don't motivate people by threatening to cut their wages and go back on previously signed contracts.

I never said it is ridiculous. I said its not the 'big' problem that people think it is. There are a lot of factors involved where a child gets a good education. Class size is probably pretty far down the list when you considering teacher quality(not quantity)....parenting influence, the curriculum, resources available in terms of equipment(for physics/chemistry class, etc, etc)...or even the classes being offered, which is often solved by interactive television, and not MORE teachers like you're suggesting.

When I was in grade 12, the school I attended offered a history class over interactive television. The teacher who was teaching the course came from another school in the district, and I have the chance to sit in on a few of the classes. The students in my school did very well compared to the students in the school where the physically located.

Why am I bringing that up? Because its an example of how technology can help lower the cost of education and increase the efficiency and overall learning experience. That history course wasn't available to me in grade 11. Sure, my school could have paid another $60,000 to a teacher to teach it, but instead they came up with a better alternative. And it was more cost effective too.

And that was over 5 years ago. I'd imagine the technology has changed immensely since then.

Your idea of education revolves around a dated 'model' that doesn't include how much more efficient technology can make the learning experience.

[Handsome B. Wonderful]

Originally Posted by Mean Mr. Mustard

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1014122045.htm

"The study suggests that reducing class size in early grades provides a dual benefit: It raises achievement for all students through middle school, while also closing the persistently large gap between high- and low-achievers, say authors Spyros Konstantopoulos from Michigan State University and Vicki Chung from Northwestern University."

Kids drop out for a lot of reasons but to just say they aren't interested in education is akin to burying ones head in the sand regarding the issue - why aren't they interested in education, do they have a different learning style which can't be accomodated in a larger classroom.

I am amazed that people think that it is ridiculous to suggest that children do better in smaller class sizes. Is it the only factor - of course not, you need qualified, motivated teachers as well and guess what... employees like that cost money and you sure don't motivate people by threatening to cut their wages and go back on previously signed contracts.

And the connection with high school graduation rates is mentioned where?