idealisttotheend

I used to be against quotas but now I find myself agreeing with them. One poster on this thread says that positions should go to the most qualified, a common argument. Is it realistic then to believe that men are so much more qualified than women that 90% of board positions go to men? Wouldn't that indicate that sexism exists? What makes a man 90% more qualified than a woman? Also, these positions are "who you know" decided on golf courses etc? Wouldn't that indicate that a quota would lead to long term change with more women on corporate boards if they are let into the old boys club?

A national securities regulator just makes sense. Alberta, Quebec or Ontario don't really have any valid differing interests in securities regulation, It is just turf protection and it is unnecessary.

I say Irony over Calculus. In the end computers can do calculus, they are going to have a hell of a time learning irony, therefore irony is the more needed skill, ironically of course....

I am told Liepert is actually a bit of a Red Tory, though he keeps these opinions inside of caucus and represents the Party line outside of caucus (as is appropriate for an MLA). As well, he is tough, and well spoken despite a lack of formal education. Anders just strikes me as a clown, sort of Rob Ford light. Harper would do well to put Liepert in cabinet if there is another Tory majority....

Liepert is clearly the better man, this is good news for Canada....

(many apologies for the mess, I have yet to master the multiquote function...) I understand that the PQ is soveriegntist but election campaigns are fought on which part of your platform you emphasize rather than the entirety of the platform, (modern campaigns will roll out the "big 5" ideas they emphaize during the campaign etc.). The PQ only talks about sovereignty when they feel assured of a win (even in referendums when they add all kinds of conditions like monetary union, open borders with Canada etc.) This campaign the PQ spent the first half of the campaign doing that and the second half backtracking to other issues. Kimmy and jbg's points are well taken, but history is littered with governments who pick and choose what to say in an election campaign and what they really intend to do (Harper in 2011 was going to govern "for all Canadians" (ha!) the federal Liberals were notorious for running to the left and then governing from the right). Election campaigns are more about what you appear to be than what you are... more than usual in politics. I agree that Quebec SHOULD and MUST take steps to maintain and protect its French character and language, but the occasional hijab on a nurse is no threat to that character and language. The charter smacks of racism, cheap nationalism and is an affront to, not a protection of, individual rights. It is, quite simply, un-Canadian. Yes Wolfe beat Montcalm at the Plains of Abraham, and then France gave away its colony in a treaty with Britian but things change, those people in 1760 took that land from indigenous peoples (not always nicely) and I doubt would have given it back to the natives because of it. One indigenous tribe took it from another before that I am sure. Later we have to live together whether we like it or not, and "we" had nothing to do with beating "them" in some ancient war. Having said that, maybe 150 years later an independent Quebec makes sense, (I don't think so), things as I said change, but the point is that the French have been well treated within Canada and have no real actual "national grievances" against the federal state outside of said Seven Years' War. Like the PET quote, but it is pie in the sky theory, in practically a referendum everyday would be chaos. We may choose to live together everyday, but we do so within institutions (like countries, legislatures and provinces) that must occasionally change but mostly must be stable. A "No" Vote should mean as much as a Yes vote.

School boards get all their funding in Alberta from the province, the government decides when, where and how to build any new schools or to fund maintenance of old ones, and the province has complete control of the curriculum. Boards are considered a junior level to said province. The constitution and Charter also applies to boards like the rest of us. It is a bit rich to suggest that forcing them to honour GLBT rights is suddenly infringing on their territory when they are considered to have very little power to start with. In fact, it is ludicrous and simply a way for conservatives to justify allowing bigotry by religious or rural groups....

I thought about it and you are absolutely right, Confederation wasn't forced on Quebec (then Lower Canada), they were equal partners. As to Charlottetown, I don't think that would have stopped the separatists anyway.... in fact it might just have emboldened them with talk of nation status. You are right we here Alberta have had but three changes of government, United Farmers in '21, the Social Credit in '35 and Lougheed's Progressive Conservatives in '71. For the record... I think there should be a law that a no vote means no for fifty years, not "until the next referendum," might be a nice addendum to the Clarity Act if we ever get federalists with guts in Ottawa again (like PET).

The PQ was arrogant and stupid. They should have ran against the Liberal record, the corruption inquiry and the fact that the Liberals had been in power for too long. They would have won in a landslide. Instead they moved the campaign to sovereignty and that godawful charter and got slaughtered. It warms my heart though to know that the appeal to cheap nationalism (ie Quebec nationalism) didn't work, it works far too often in far too many elections around the world (think of the rise of the fascists currently in Europe or Milosevic/Serbia prior to the end of Yugoslavia -- though the PQ is neither fascist nor genocidal). Whether the PQ will wither or not remains to be seen. If we have learned one thing about Quebec politics since the great NDP win of 2011 and now this come from nowhere Liberal majority is that anything can happen in Quebec politics (the polar opposite of Alberta)....

Of course, the alternative is to pay though our wallets for insulin, and pay more. Or to die because we can't pay at all individually. Or to go broke, medical costs are the number one cause of bankruptcy in the United States. Medical ethics/decision making is clearly the highest priority for our society as new technologies become available. How do we decide who lives? We can't do it now when it comes to what treatments we should provide the old or chronically ill etc. Look at India and China where the simple technology of sex revealing ultrasound and the combination of a millennium old cultural practice that families of females pay dowries to families of males (plus the usual misogyny) has led to a 60-40 male to female birth split and the countries to try and ban that one simple technology: sex revealing ultrasounds, never mind sex selection abortions. I fear that an inability to raise taxes will lead medical costs to be privatized in Canada which will then make it simple like in the States; if you are rich you live and live well, be poor and you die, or live poorly healthwise. This is consistent with corporatism replacing democracy, and corporatism being the "rule of none," no one will decide, just if you have enough money you can pay.

I think what people are missing here is that Ralph got screwed by the one person one vote system. With only 1200 delegates it was reasonably easy for Dinning and/or Obergs people to get their way and dominate even if the vast majority of Klien's caucas still supports him. I hear that Dinning has got it hands down from people who are "in the know" but I think that whoever posted that more time gives Preston a better chance was right. It is an interesting time to be a political watcher in Alberta where one party rule makes only civil war in the ruling party interesting.

It's not that I don't trust the common man, after all the common man is not who the law is aimed at since the common man doesn't have means (generally) to broadcast his views and the law protects private conversation. It's the uncommon man that I worry about. Many a "leader" in this world has risen to power by 'speaking freely' about an identifiable group. Think Milosovich (spelling approximate). To be free people have to be free from people inciting hatred about them. I like to think I stand for maximum freedom, but that includes both freedom to and freedom from. Think of math, a parabola, set the x variable (say the charge for a service in business) in the equation to high OR too low and you get a smaller number (y or the profit achieved) than when you set it at the perfect point.

Anything is open for political abuse. Advertising for example. That doesn't make advertising inherently bad. There are no absolutes in this life, (besides possibly God if you Believe). There are slander laws, you can't yell fire when there is none, you can't advertise if you are a tobacco company, there are truth in advertising laws, there are laws against telling lies in court or holding the judge in contempt. Plus there are positive and negative freedoms. Your freedom of speech is enhanced by me not using mine to incite people to stop you from expressing yourself.

Criminal Code of Canada S. 318-319 I don't know whose side this supports but I thought adding it may further the debate. Looks like religious condemnation of homosexuality is definately not indictable so I guess it can't be used. IMO the law is a good one. As nice a platitude that unristricted free speech is... events around the world prove it necessary. Rwanda, for one, went one step further and banned identifying people as Hutu and Tutsi after 'free speech' over a couple of radio stations went along way to incite that genocide with a loss of life of nearly a million. Germany still bans Nazi groups and so on and so forth. Think of it like a no insult rule on a certain internet discussion board we know and love. Without this, our particular 'society' would degenerate into useless flaming and trolling so everyone accepts it. The only difference is in the real world when that degeneration occurs people sometimes start dieing.

Alright we will refer to you as a centerist then, Red Tory perhaps? Not so many around federally any more but I think people would be very suprised as to how many of them are in Alberta. And that, I suppose, is what the thread is all about.