Alberta Election Thread - Election Day April 16 2019

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by simmer2

Children don't know what is always best for them. Did I know what the best thing for me was at 15? No, I didn't. The thing is, we want to encourage more communication between all parties, not less.

You are also making the assumption that because LGBT kids' parents find out, there will automatically be mental health issues...each scenario is going to be unique, but I would tend to think that the outcome will be overall positive in scenarios where more parents are involved versus less.

No, I'm not. I'm making the assumption that kids who are terrified of their parents finding out will avoid GSAs under the UCP, and as a result will absolutely incur mental health costs.

Otherwise, you are making the assumption that parents will cause more issues versus less...which I don't believe is accurate because going back to the first point, parents know us better than anyone else.

It opens the line up for parents to understand more which I think helps the kids work through things.

This isn't really a case for utilitarianism, in my opinion. Or if it is, please give me the ratio of positive outcomes:suicides/mental health issues you'd find acceptable.

[GGG]

The legislation is largely irrelevant.

####ty school employees will out kids with ####ty parents with or without this legislation.

I don’t think the existing legislation has negative affects either (there is a thread from a few years ago of me arguing passionately for the negative consequences) as teachers are allowed to notify parents if they believe a student is at risk of self harm.

The bigger issue here is that the UCP basically has been claiming that their fringe views would not affect legislation however when the education critic holds these views and the legislation reduces protections you have to try really hard to convince yourself there is causation going on here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by simmer2

Children don't know what is always best for them. Did I know what the best thing for me was at 15? No, I didn't. The thing is, we want to encourage more communication between all parties, not less.

You are also making the assumption that because LGBT kids' parents find out, there will automatically be mental health issues...each scenario is going to be unique, but I would tend to think that the outcome will be overall positive in scenarios where more parents are involved versus less.
Otherwise, you are making the assumption that parents will cause more issues versus less...which I don't believe is accurate because going back to the first point, parents know us better than anyone else.

It opens the line up for parents to understand more which I think helps the kids work through things.

I don’t know guys, I think people who have never had to deal with coming out to their parents or have never been parents in that situation know best. Let’s leave it to these experts.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

The legislation is largely irrelevant.

####ty school employees will out kids with ####ty parents with or without this legislation.

I agree to an extent, however without the legislation those teachers wouldn’t be subject to any form repercussions because they wouldn’t be breaking any rules. I’d argue that if a teacher’s career is at risk for doing so, the odds of them outing a kid would decrease significantly.

One potential outcome without the legislation that I’d be worried about is that if a student did harm themselves their parents may try to hold the teacher or school responsible for not telling them even if there were no warning signs.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I don’t know guys, I think people who have never had to deal with coming out to their parents or have never been parents in that situation know best. Let’s leave it to these experts.

Well, I'm on the same side of the issue as you, but I don't love this take either. Is that what you propose, that laws be made on the basis of what people who are directly implicated by the outcome of those laws think the law should be? How could that possibly be an objective and unbiased method? Let's let sentencing guidelines for murder be dictated by murderers and their victims' families, while we're at it - they have first hand experience, after all.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Well, I'm on the same side of the issue as you, but I don't love this take either. Is that what you propose, that laws be made on the basis of what people who are directly implicated by the outcome of those laws think the law should be? How could that possibly be an objective and unbiased method? Let's let sentencing guidelines for murder be dictated by murderers and their victims' families, while we're at it - they have first hand experience, after all.

That's not really the argument I got from Pepsi's post. I think he was just saying that maybe someone with no experience on the subject probably shouldn't speak to how the process of being outed to your parents feels like and whether it's a positive experience.

[Ozy_Flame]

This seems like an issue in which the LGBTQ2 community should be heavily consulted and let them decide what happens since it affects them the most. Nothing should be imposed on them without proper consultation in a collaborative manner. That should just be basic practice.

Based on online chatter, the LGBTQ community, in no uncertain terms, wants GSA protections and protection against being outed against someone's will.

I doubt the UCP has heavily relied on the LGBTQ community to advise him on his policy decision. In fact I think they're probably listening to many other groups on this issue except this one.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

This seems like an issue in which the LGBTQ2 community should be heavily consulted and let them decide what happens since it affects them the most. Nothing should be imposed on them without proper consultation in a collaborative manner. That should just be basic practice.

This is a terrible idea in this and every case. Not the consultation, of course, but the notion that any special interest group gets to "decide what happens" in an area that affects them. Especially when there is objective evidence to show that GSAs save lives and perfectly rational arguments that can be advanced about the fact that people will be less likely to avail themselves of GSAs if that activity might be discussed among administrators and parents. Evidence-based decision making is always the way to go, especially on policy items that people have an emotional stake in and are likely to produce clouded and biased reasoning.

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's not really the argument I got from Pepsi's post. I think he was just saying that maybe someone with no experience on the subject probably shouldn't speak to how the process of being outed to your parents feels like and whether it's a positive experience.

You don't need to have personally gone through something to be able to comment about it in policy terms. That's an absurd standard that I reject whenever it's applied. If your experience allows you to offer a perspective that others lack, you're encouraged to provide it and it may influence the debate and hopefully give others the benefit of that perspective in arriving at their own views, but others' lack of such experience does not mean they should keep their mouths shut on the subject. We'll never be able to have any conversations about anything, if that's the standard.

Incidentally, as none of us have never been NHL players as far as I'm aware, it would also result in this forum having to be immediately shut down...

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You don't need to have personally gone through something to be able to comment about it in policy terms. That's an absurd standard that I reject whenever it's applied. If your experience allows you to offer a perspective that others lack, you're encouraged to provide it and it may influence the debate and hopefully give others the benefit of that perspective in arriving at their own views, but others' lack of such experience does not mean they should keep their mouths shut on the subject. We'll never be able to have any conversations about anything, if that's the standard.

Incidentally, as none of us have never been NHL players as far as I'm aware, it would also result in this forum having to be immediately shut down...

Okay, Policybot 5000, I'm aware of all that. Sometimes, however, people can have a discussion that's related but adjacent to the policy, as opposed to directly applicable to the policy. I guess I'm saying I'm going to give more weight to those who have actually gone through the process, as well as the research supporting GSAs, than I am to some dude who lacks either of those aspects in his argument but thinks the outcomes will be generally positive because reasons.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, Policybot 5000, I'm aware of all that. Sometimes, however, people can have a discussion that's related but adjacent to the policy, as opposed to directly applicable to the policy. I guess I'm saying I'm going to give more weight to those who have actually gone through the process, as well as the research supporting GSAs, than I am to some dude who lacks either of those aspects in his argument but thinks the outcomes will be generally positive because reasons.

You don't need to rely on the opinions of people who have gone through the process to rebut his position, though. There is objective evidence. There are inescapable logical conclusions about the outcomes of the UCP policy. It's over, Anakin - we have the high ground. So why are you pitting the subjective, inherently emotional opinions of one group of people (gay kids and people who have been through the process of coming out) over the subjective, inherently emotional opinions of another group ("I want to know what my kid is doing at school" parents)?

I just hate the way the left side of the argument continuously shoots itself in the foot on this stuff, and it's part and parcel with the disagreements I have with you guys on other subjects.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You don't need to rely on the opinions of people who have gone through the process to rebut his position, though. There is objective evidence. There are inescapable logical conclusions about the outcomes of the UCP policy. It's over, Anakin - we have the high ground. So why are you pitting the subjective, inherently emotional opinions of one group of people (gay kids and people who have been through the process of coming out) over the subjective, inherently emotional opinions of another group ("I want to know what my kid is doing at school" parents)?

I just hate the way the left side of the argument continuously shoots itself in the foot on this stuff, and it's part and parcel with the disagreements I have with you guys on other subjects.

Well it's because in this case, some parents just straight up suck.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

You don't need to rely on the opinions of people who have gone through the process to rebut his position, though. There is objective evidence. There are inescapable logical conclusions about the outcomes of the UCP policy. It's over, Anakin - we have the high ground. So why are you pitting the subjective, inherently emotional opinions of one group of people (gay kids and people who have been through the process of coming out) over the subjective, inherently emotional opinions of another group ("I want to know what my kid is doing at school" parents)?

I just hate the way the left side of the argument continuously shoots itself in the foot on this stuff, and it's part and parcel with the disagreements I have with you guys on other subjects.

Because experience matters when evaluating and prioritizing subjective opinions. If you're trying to decide on going to Vegas for a vacation, are you honestly weighing the subjective opinion of "yes, you should because I went and found it fun because..." from someone who has been there equally with the subjective opinion of "no, you shouldn't because I don't like gambling" from someone who hasn't been there?

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Kerplunk

The PPA crapshow is what has convinced me that this NDP government should be no where near power again. Too bad it was so long ago that most people seemed to have forgotten it, even though a reminder is on our power bills every month.

Don't kid yourselves, the PC's handled this as poorly in 2000 as the NDP did in 2015.

Klein rammed through deregulation as part of his "deregulate everything" mandate to reduce government spending, while pushing the cost back on the consumer. Whenever he deregulated a government run market there were no reciprocal tax breaks; he essentially double dipped. This helped balance his budgets when his tax rates remained the same, but budget line item expenses such as "Power generation location XYZ" were no longer included.

In terms of electricity, he sold off all the Ab government generation capacity for literally cents on the dollar to the likes of Enmax/Enron/Epcor, with the caveat that if it was ever unprofitable for them they could hand it all back to the Balancing Pool (formerly called the "Power Pool"). So not only did they get a sweetheart deal on generation capacity, held all the distrubution, held all the customers, but they also got an escape clause. The original PPA was one of the darkest moments for the Ab power consumer, because he was trying to create a competitive market for something that is nearly impossible to run in a true free market. This isn't commodity trading; true commodities are available and TRANSPORTABLE; electricity is not. All it did was create an environment for the three aforementioned companies to price gouge, and gouge they did.

So yes, the NDP were complete morons for not seeing that clause, but deregulation of that particular industry shouldn't have happened in the first place. To this day it STILL bothers me how little attention was paid to the whole thing, and how much it has cost Albertans on ALL sides of the political spectrum. I mean, it's still lingering around on your power bills. MCAF fees (now called "transport" or "line" fees or some thing) are a direct result of a calculation that includes the average cost of power back in 2000, which (going off memory) was $0.12/kWh. That rate is set by the municipality (like Enmax), and approved by city council. So when they say "we have no control over these charges" they're literally lying to your face, because you don't know any better. Chances are they don't either, which is ridiculous.

Anyway. I hate thinking about all that crap these days. I spent WAAAAAAAY too much time fighting it in 1999.

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

In terms of electricity, he sold off all the Ab government generation capacity for literally cents on the dollar to the likes of Enmax/Enron/Epcor, with the caveat that if it was ever unprofitable for them they could hand it all back to the Balancing Pool (formerly called the "Power Pool"). So not only did they get a sweetheart deal on generation capacity, held all the distrubution, held all the customers, but they also got an escape clause.

This isn't true. The 'Enron clause' gave them an out if the government made some change that made the plants "more unprofitable" but if the government didn't make the change, there was no out of the unprofitable plants.

Not that I necessarily disagree with your point, but the "more unprofitable" clause only mattered because of changes that the NDP put in. And really, it's a fair clause. You bought a plant from the government, if the government changes the laws on you to screw over your deal, there should be an out. It's just that it worked very favourable for the plants given when it happened.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because experience matters when evaluating and prioritizing subjective opinions. If you're trying to decide on going to Vegas for a vacation, are you honestly weighing the subjective opinion of "yes, you should because I went and found it fun because..." from someone who has been there equally with the subjective opinion of "no, you shouldn't because I don't like gambling" from someone who hasn't been there?

They're going to say their experience matters too, and then you have this whole battle of the value of subjective opinions that cannot be quantified or ranked except on the basis of other subjective opinions, people are going to form battle lines and everything's going to be personal. What do you think Simmers' next response to Pepsi's post would have been? I bet it wasn't going to be in the spirit of a rational discussion about policy.

I don't really think this discussion is analogous to vacation planning, but if you wanted to play that analogy out, there are plenty of cases where I'd take the advice of someone who hasn't been to the specific destination but can supply good and thoughtful information about it over someone who has been there, but is biased or has some agenda, for example.

Either way, as my initial post said, I don't think the input of people who have first-hand experience should be discarded, because it's valuable. But I also think going straight to appeals to authority on the basis of that experience is foolish. It's even more foolish when you have a more objective, better foundation on which to base a policy decision. And it's simply wrong to try to discard or discount the views of people without those experiences on the basis that they don't have them, or (as Ozy_Flame suggested) let special interests rule the day from a legal or public policy standpoint on the very issue they're likely (and in many cases, understandably) biased about.

[Cowboy89]

Another interesting nugget discovered from Vivian Krause:

Press Progress has been funded from Tides as part of the 'Tar Sands Campaign'

2016: US$38,559
2017: US$24,282


https://twitter.com/FairQuestions/st...17107512205312

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Another interesting nugget discovered from Vivian Krause:

Press Progress has been funded from Tides as part of the 'Tar Sands Campaign'

2016: US$38,559
2017: US$24,282


https://twitter.com/FairQuestions/st...17107512205312

These are such comically low values that it's inconsequential.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

This isn't true. The 'Enron clause' gave them an out if the government made some change that made the plants "more unprofitable" but if the government didn't make the change, there was no out of the unprofitable plants.

Can't be stressed enough - it's a totally reasonable clause to insert so that your contractual counterparty can't unilaterally change the outcome of deal to disadvantage you, and then hold you to the deal.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Regorium

These are such comically low values that it's inconsequential.

I don't know how much it costs Duncan Kinney to run that thing or how much pro-NDP advertising those funds could buy. Who knows what's material to his operation or not.

One of their greatest accomplishments as quoted by them on their website was:

- Raised $4,000 for Pro-Choice YQL, a reproductive justice organization in Lethbridge, in response to Jason Kenney and the UCP refusing to show up and debate the abortion clinic bubble law bill

If that's in CAD funds the money raised in 2016 & 2017 from Tides would do 20x as much

[Cowboy89]

Progress Alberta is actively campaigning against the UCP as well. How much of that funding to run that campaign is coming from Tides and other groups that are trying to land lock Alberta's oil?

https://twitter.com/FairQuestions/st...28539985272832