The importance of an MPs character.

[William Ashley]

On the contrary: given the same amount of exposure to a foreign language,

This is the BS rhetoric I was talking about. Your citation has nothing to do with my MORE TIME = MORE LEARNING

Your post is irrelevant.

[William Ashley]

Further how do you have the same two children learn the same things... you can't each child has a different learning capacity and strategy, this is likely a soft science BS study that can't actually hold variables intact and is thus mostly hogwash.

[William Ashley]

Where are we going to get the money for all of this?

It's not a money issue, it is a human resource issue. There are lots of computer programs and mass communication devices. We have an abundance of bilingual speakers. The key is to set up a knowledge sharing network for language aquisition that includes C/T AL and language exchanges, at first for instructors and pilot groups. This network could feed off existing networks that support this - at no cost to the federal government. Current federal training programs have been overbudgetted and poorly administered, atleast in context to what would be required for a much larger initiative.

Why not adopt policies now being implemented in Europe that are in fact based on hard research and have taken the economic aspects of their policies into consideration in this research?

If they are good policies, but the fact is that the needs of Europe do not match the needs of Canada, and that is why different strategies may be required.

Edited December 26, 2009 by William Ashley

[Bugs]

I don't mean to be petty, It's Christmas, after all ... but what has character got to do with being a vegan? Or multi-lingual, either?

Vegans (presumably) make their choices for their own reasons, and see their diet as being the best choices for them. But what has that to do with 'character'?

If veganism were a 'code', like a moral code, I could see it -- but how can preferring tofurkey to giblet gravy be a test of character? It would make as much sense to say that it's a test of intelligence, and if someone chooses the tofurkey, they lose 10 IQ points.

[Machjo]

It's not a money issue, it is a human resource issue.

You need the money to train and then hire the resources. A person doesn't just come out of high school as a qualified foreign language teacher. it takes years to train them. Now multiply that on a national scale, or even provincial scale an say it doesn't involve money.

There are lots of computer programs and mass communication devices.

It helps, but it doesn't replace a teacher, at least for younger children.

We have an abundance of bilingual speakers.

That's nice. And some of those bilingual speakers have no university degree. So will the government pay to teach them all how to teach their language and brush up on any weaknesses in their language skills, and then give them incentives to move to other parts of the country to teach? The vast majority of Canada's bilinguals live in the corridor between Ottawa and Montreal. That's far away from the edges of British Columbia, Iqaluit, and Halifax. OK, we do have quite a few bilinguals in Labrador too, and a few odd pockets in Manitoba and small areas of Alberta, but still in small concentrated pockets. And if the government did that, then the private sector would also have access to fewer bilinguals for commercial translation and interpretation. This would be a double whammy in that taxes would have to go up and prices would go up too. Add to that the political tensions caused by bilinguals mostly concentrated in a few geographical pockets suddenly having their university paid for because they were lucky enough to be bilingual. It would be a major source of political tension too. Just not realistic.

The key is to set up a knowledge sharing network for language aquisition that includes C/T AL and language exchanges, at first for instructors and pilot groups. This network could feed off existing networks that support this - at no cost to the federal government. Current federal training programs have been overbudgetted and poorly administered, atleast in context to what would be required for a much larger initiative.

I don't see how this would not cost more money. It would mean more investment in these networks.

If they are good policies, but the fact is that the needs of Europe do not match the needs of Canada, and that is why different strategies may be required.

Basic language acquisition theory is still universal, as are basic economic principles. The resources just aren't available.

[Machjo]

I don't mean to be petty, It's Christmas, after all ... but what has character got to do with being a vegan? Or multi-lingual, either?

Vegans (presumably) make their choices for their own reasons, and see their diet as being the best choices for them. But what has that to do with 'character'?

If veganism were a 'code', like a moral code, I could see it -- but how can preferring tofurkey to giblet gravy be a test of character? It would make as much sense to say that it's a test of intelligence, and if someone chooses the tofurkey, they lose 10 IQ points.

It shows they put their beliefs into practice. Clearly a hamburger guzzling PETA member is not to be taken too seriously. Now of course if a person sees nothing wrong with eating meat, that's a whole other matter. But if he does see something wrong with it and yet does it anyway, then it becomes a sign of a weak character. Same with language. A person who sees no issue with language rights etc. is a separate matter, but if he proclaims strong views on language and cultural rights etc. and yet is monolingual himself, then it does show a weakness.

[Machjo]

This is the BS rhetoric I was talking about. Your citation has nothing to do with my MORE TIME = MORE LEARNING

Your post is irrelevant.

It still reveals that "if you have a limited number of hours to give to foreign language teaching in school, it will probably be more rewarding in terms of sheer amount of learning to invest these in the older classes."

And clearly with a limited number of qualified teachers, limited funding, limited available instruction time, etc, they do in fact have "a limited number of hours to give to foreign language teaching in school", so it's perfectly applicable.

[William Ashley]

It shows they put their beliefs into practice. Clearly a hamburger guzzling PETA member is not to be taken too seriously. Now of course if a person sees nothing wrong with eating meat, that's a whole other matter. But if he does see something wrong with it and yet does it anyway, then it becomes a sign of a weak character. Same with language. A person who sees no issue with language rights etc. is a separate matter, but if he proclaims strong views on language and cultural rights etc. and yet is monolingual himself, then it does show a weakness.

I'll weigh in on this one. Things can be more complex than that.

For example. I don't support mistreatment of animals. I don't support the animal industry commercially - however I will use natural products for example. Ferral eggs, naturally deceased animals. Also there is a ongoing moral issue with dairy use, because they are artificially kept milk bearing and it can cause them pain not to be milked, but they are kept in this state artificially. Chickens living conditions are poor, and they can be mutilated, likewise other farm animals can face the same circumstances.

Of course I don't support those practices. But once someone else has, I'm more than obliged to take away the benefit of the practice from them by eating the food they paid for so that it doesn't go into their gut.

None the less while I eat food other people provide, I make it explicitly known that I prefer a vegan diet, so them providing animal product to me is somewhat of an offence, which very much dilutes my qualms about eating their plate. Afterall the person eating it to defend the animals rights is far better than someone who cries for more meat in their gut.

It is actually complex, what it comes down to me is putting the animal to best use. It is a complex struggle to avoid using animal product, for example driving a car without oil tested on animals. Fact is there are lots of abuses against animals, that cutting it out entirely causes issues. God just hasn't allowed that. But atleast speaking up for the rights of animals, and putting use to a bear minimum of need and not taking advantage of the situation is better than helping the problem. Doing something is better than doing nothing, especially if it reduces a trend.

-----------------------

I see the animal as going to use as better than not but I ought to reduce the benifit to those who prosper from mistreatment of animals.

------

bari bari and social opinion aside.. I think we should treat animals as we would our friends and family for they are our companions in this life, but should they die using their remains after their spirit is freed is of no issue to me.

Likewise if an animal were to attack me, then I would defend, as it would, and if it was killed then once again, after its spirit had left its remains I would see no issue with putting it to the best use. Chances are it might take flight after injured or finish enjoying its meal.

Edited December 26, 2009 by William Ashley

[Argus]

Fact is I wouldn't vote for the conservative anyway because he is helping to support one of the worst prime ministiers in Canadian History - Steven Harper

You say that like you have some familiarity with history, when your postings demonstrate very clearly, you have none.

[William Ashley]

You need the money to train and then hire the resources. A person doesn't just come out of high school as a qualified foreign language teacher. it takes years to train them. Now multiply that on a national scale, or even provincial scale an say it doesn't involve money.

I think you are exagerting the timescale. There are many bilingual individuals, and program delivery isn't incredibly complex and should NOT take years. I disagree with your statement of years of preprogram training.

It helps, but it doesn't replace a teacher, at least for younger children.

I think for the level of learning required by younger learners the vast majority of the program could be delivered by computer assisted and multimedia applications. The phase in of the program would be time scaled, and require very minimal resources.

That's nice. And some of those bilingual speakers have no university degree.

Personally I don't think a university degree is required to teach. All you need is the ability to teach. There are cases when this has occured for hiring purposes in Ontario, especially in Technology.

So will the government pay to teach them all how to teach their language and brush up on any weaknesses in their language skills,

Whether you realize it or not it is not hard for someone to learn a basic languge program within the span of a month. There are many many teachers who have a hard time getting a teaching position fresh out of university. Your understanding of the sector is clearly lacking.

Frankly your understanding of phased delivery isn't clueing in, I can't help you if you are unable to understand. Initially bilingual capacity woulnd't be required. Also the number of capable teachers would hopefully increase as the standards, and legacy effect kick in.

I don't see how this would not cost more money.

Because you like many politicians don't know how to use tax payers dollars effectively, nor do you have enough inventiveness to develope a program that is cost effective, much like many politicians in government.

It would mean more investment in these networks.

No it wouldn't.

The resources just aren't available.

When stupid spending decisions like buying land already held by the government to the tune of 150 Billion are being operated there is a reason for that. But it wouldn't represent any drastic program cost increases. There would be cost savings, in program delivery, and long term economic return.

Edited December 27, 2009 by William Ashley