Yet your arguments point in that direction, so it's easy to mistake that it is what you're advocating. All friends here. Not an attack, just clarifying.
The Maple Leaf Lounge
- Thread starter Avro Arrow
- Start date
To answer what I believe is best:
#!: For students to have an actual basic understanding of financial math by grade 9, advancing through the years. Understanding personal finance is something we have a responsibility to provide to our kids. It also allows a basic understanding of balancing organizational and government budgets as well as personal.
#2: A basic understanding of political structure at a civic (city or township) level, which would be demonstrated by elections for classroom rep.
This should progress through the grades to at least an intermediate understanding of accounting and finance as well as an intermediate understanding of the roles and responsibilities of govt. at civic, provincial, federal, and international levels.
The desired purpose would be to produce a generation that had a right to their own opinions and could make informed decisions with the understanding of who was responsible for what, and what rights we have/should have at each level of government.
This would include, at base, our responsibility to govern ourselves, our own behavior and financial responsibilities.
There's more I'd like to fit in, but there's a limit to what you could fit in to a high school curriculum. Sum it up as, learn to take care of yourself and others, then have your own opinion of how govt should be doing the same. I think that leaves room for Left, Right, and Centrist opinions. And the important thing about that is, be free to have your own opinions about society's forward direction, but at least don't be fooled by fake mathematics.
And friend, i'm pretty much at, or to the left, of Tommy Douglas here.
Last edited:
Right, I know. But the broad discussion in the overall thread was following that line. So, it felt pertinent to mention it, as I felt the need to clarify as well. Didn't mean to imply that you were. Sorry if it ended up looking that way.
I guess it's because that was said directly after my reply to your quote. I should have been clearer.Your whole post sounds pretty good, and it gets the general feeling of what I've been trying to convey. And I think it's particularly important in a generation that spends less time listening to good news sources and more on social media and coming across fake news, something I feel the younger crowd is particularly vulnerable with. And I guess context and context through experience matters here. I guess that's partly why I'm uncomfortable with the idea of younger people getting into politics, as they might not necessarily have the context and worldview.
Last edited:
I feel my civics/politics education was actually quite good, and it got me interested in politics at a relatively young age, which has stuck with me through my life. But this, in the passage I quoted above... I could have definitely benefited from some education around personal finance topics in school.
Oh. Oh my. I'm sorry, I just cannot agree with the assertion that younger people are "particularly" vulnerable to fake news. This really is something that depends on the individual, and I really don't think we should be stereotyping it around age. There are *plenty* of older people who are very susceptible to this. (And I don't really even need to go further than my own family to find examples for you!) Take a look at the average age of a Fox News viewer. I'm not saying that younger people can't be taken in by it--they certainly can--but I honestly don't think they are any more vulnerable to it than any other age group.
I wish we could change the world with this thread. If we can change a single thought it's worth itr.Right, I know. But the broad discussion in the overall thread was following that line. So, it felt pertinent to mention it, as I felt the need to clarify as well. Didn't mean to imply that you were. Sorry if it ended up looking that way.
Your whole post sounds pretty good, and it gets the general feeling of what I've been trying to convey. And I think it's particularly important in a generation that spends less time listening to good news sources and more on social media and coming across fake news, something I feel the younger crowd is particularly vulnerable with. And I guess context and context through experience matters here. I guess that's partly why I'm uncomfortable with the idea of younger people getting into politics, as they might not necessarily have the context and worldview.
I'm talking about voting, not running for office. There's a difference.
I'm a born-and-raised Albertan who has never voted for a right-wing candidate in my life. My grandparents were staunch Liberal supporters until Pierre Trudeau retired (the second time). I usually vote NDP now, both provincially and federally.
It's funny what sometimes motivates this choice. I remember that my grandmother liked Nick Taylor (he was the Alberta Liberal leader once upon a time, and was ousted by some variety of backroom shenanigans). He ran again in the leadership race, and they just had to hold their friggin' convention at the same hotel as the science fiction convention I attended that weekend.
That weekend was one of the weirdest experiences I ever had. The hotel was one of the pricey ones and my friends and I decided to splurge on a corner room - with an assortment of a couple of king-size beds, a couch, and two who were willing to sleep on the floor (SCA-folk always have sleeping bags and mattresses), it was the only way we could afford it.
The kicker was that our room was next door to Nick Taylor's hospitality suite (when I told a friend who wasn't part of the group in our room, she nearly fell off her chair laughing, and asked, "What god did YOU offend?"). The hostess tried to coax us into letting ourselves get sidetracked, but we politely said no, we've got our own convention that we'd like to get back to... and Taylor's supporters were some of the most miserable SOBs I have ever seen. Crowding in the hallways, smoking, mocking those of us wearing hall costumes (the word "cosplay" wasn't a thing back then), constantly noisy... it was like running a gauntlet between our room and the elevator.
Some of the delegates (not only Taylor's but other leadership candidates' supporters) crashed our panel discussions (hey, guys, we PAID to attend our convention), and holy crap, the drinking... they didn't like our convention being there and we certainly didn't like theirs. A bit of federal stuff got tossed into the mix when someone mentioned on Friday night, "Some of us are going to picket Harvey Andre's house, wanna come?" (he was in Mulroney's cabinet).
Um, no. Thanks, really, but no. I went there for the panels, to meet the author/artist guests, the costume bacchanal, the filking... I leave the "real world" behind at SF conventions. But these delegates just had to stick their damn noses everywhere, in the most obnoxious way possible.
It backfired on them, though. Saturday night word went around that they'd called the cops and told them that there were people doing drugs in our consuite. To be on the safe side, someone told one of my roommates to put on a cloak and hide somewhere (she debuted her chainmail bikini costume that weekend, and of course that's one of the things the delegates didn't like, though I have no idea what they had against my costume - I was covered head to toe in a quasi-medieval outfit). When the cops showed up, all they found to do with our convention in the consuite were two people drinking coffee and having a quiet conversation.
What they found in the other convention were people carrying open alcohol containers in the hallways, and making noisy nuisances of themselves.
Finally the hotel management had enough and kicked the Liberals out. It was sweet, sitting in the filking room on Saturday night, watching all those people marching past and out the door with their suitcases, glowering.
I think it was at least 10 years before I voted Liberal in another provincial election, and the only reason I broke my one-person boycott (though I would surmise that there were a few hundred other people who vowed on the spot that weekend that the party would never get their support after causing so much trouble) was because I knew the candidate - I'd worked with him in the theatre, on a production of Jesus Christ Superstar. Oh, and he was a responsible, intelligent school teacher who would have done a decent job of representing the riding. Just knowing someone isn't enough; I'd never have voted for him if I didn't think he could do the job properly.
Fast-forward a few decades, and election night in May 2015 was another weird political landmark in Alberta. For the first time in 80 YEARS we had a premier who was neither Social Credit nor Conservative. It was actually rather hilarious, since some people used to say that hell would freeze over before Alberta had an NDP government.
There was a snowstorm that night.
It only lasted 4 years, until Jason Kenney cheated his way into the leadership of the UCP (the RCMP have been "investigating" him for years, after he fired the election commissioner whose job it had been to investigate all the irregularities that happened).
Anyway, I've got a short fuse where provincial stuff is concerned these days. The health minister decided to screw over the people with certain medical conditions so the meds that actually worked better for us were no longer covered, and Kenney's first budget canceled part of the very modest increase in the disability benefit (my own MLA stood up to say how "proud" she was of that budget, which I'll remind her of if she has the gall to show her face at my door next year).
Now, about the things you mentioned, about finances and teaching kids about government. The civics part of what you mentioned were things that my junior high social studies teacher covered. I was 13 in Grade 9 (that was considered junior high back then), and by that time I'd developed the habit of reading the newspaper, watching the news, discussing things with my grandparents, and so on.
The financial stuff... in the new draft curriculum that Kenney and his Minister of Gutting Public Education are determined to push through, financial literacy is covered not in math, not in any dedicated financial literacy course, not in social studies, or anywhere else that makes sense for a K-6 curriculum.
They decided that kids are going to learn about banking as part of the gym classes. I've read the curriculum and cannot fathom in what universe this makes any sense. When I learned this stuff in school, it was either in practical math courses or accounting courses. Gym is where you learn physical education stuff - volleyball, track, and everything else I was never much good at but needed those 3 credits to get my high school diploma.
I guess I just happened to get really lucky and have a fantastic social studies teacher in junior high, who scolded us for being complacent and taught us that we were not too young to learn, investigate, ask pertinent and blunt questions of political candidates, and prepare ourselves over the next few years so we would feel ready to participate in voting when we turned 18.
And I suppose another part of it is that we didn't have the internet back then. In the '70s, if you wanted the public to know your political opinions, you would either run for office or write a letter to the editor. Newspapers were our social media.
This is exactly why I'm not suggesting that teenagers become candidates. I feel they have a right to hold politicians accountable for the decisions they make regarding post-secondary education, employment, etc., but there's a jerk here who's run for basically everything possible, and he has ZERO awareness of what life is like for some segments of society. I can forgive people not knowing right away, but I refuse to forgive willful ignorance - especially when it comes with a shrug.
Mind you, my MLA is equally stupid, and she's my age (give or take a year).
You have to be who you are and do what you need to do. I'll never argue with that...
I might argue with your reasons, but that comes with the job.
I have no idea what "reasons" you find unacceptable. If "life experience" was required to vote, there would never be any votes in school - for councils or anything else. And then the moment people graduate (presuming they're 18, which is not a given; I was 16 when I graduated), they're suddenly assumed to have enough "life experience" to be trusted to vote?
My point is that I do think a bit of life experience in the adult world should be required to be a candidate, at whatever level. Just to toss out an example, people are carded here for tobacco purchases until they're 25. That seems a reasonable enough age to be young enough to recall the issues that the youth demographic (children, teens, and post-secondary students) find important, yet by that time they've had some education and work experience of their own, hopefully some volunteer experience, and so on.
People complain (in general) that voting is necessary, not enough people do it, and they don't want it made mandatory. Others boast of spoiling their ballot, as though that would matter to the candidates.
The candidates don't care. Honestly, unless the count is extremely close, they don't care. They never see the ballots. A spoiled ballot means the Deputy Returning Officer, whose job it is to count the votes and the Poll Clerk whose job it is to do the paperwork associated with counting the votes will just shrug, mutter that here's another one who's too stupid to understand the direction to "mark an X in the space provided next to the candidate of your choice", make a note of it in the spoiled ballot section of the paperwork, put the ballot in the spoiled ballot envelope, and go on to the next one.
Spoiled ballots don't make a "statement" to the candidates. They just waste the poll workers' time.
If you actually do want to make the statement that you don't consider anyone worth voting for, go to the polling station, get your name crossed off, and then decline your ballot. Just refuse it. They will make a note of that, you'll have refused to vote, nobody can vote in your place, and there's nothing to spoil.
I've done that in municipal elections (as in last fall; I declined the mayoralty ballot and a couple of Kenney's piggyback ballots he wanted to be added that were really provincial issues, not municipal). I did accept the council, school board, and daylight saving time ballot. The point was that I didn't know enough about all the mayoralty candidates to make an informed choice, so I made none (to avoid possibly voting for some idiot who would turn out to be someone I'd loathe), and Kenney's "referendum" questions were pointless nonsense.
It's not the first time a "senate election" ballot was included in the municipal vote; the first time for that was back in the '90s, and it was a joke then as well. Most people had no idea what it was about, and it wasn't binding anyway.
Well, maybe 'vulnerable' is not quite the right word in this instance. Maybe more 'susceptible'. Of course, it does vary on the individual, and of course we see it in older people are too, ie the convoys and the misinformation linked to these are an example. We live in an era where we see a lot more misinformation and misleading news, and we unfortunately live in an era where lots of people are only getting their news via social media where a lot of manipulation is seen as well. Combine that with the fact there's a generation out there who whose worldview will be limited to what they see via social media, which is another topic for itself, but it also quite alarming. Heck, my former hairdresser of 50+ refused to watch the news, only getting it via social media sources, and then passes that limited worldview onto her sons.
To look at it another way, there must be good reasons for why young candidates don't happen often, beyond the candidates themselves. Maybe the political system has a hard time dealing with the issues that would rise up out of it. I'm not saying they should never get into politics, but rather I think they should be eased into it rather than jumping head first into something that is considered quite a commitment. To get a taste of politics, they should join debate clubs, student bodies, and committees, heck even volunteer at a local candidate's office. A political candidate also strikes me as the type of job one would be mentored in. That would give them time to decide if that kind of life is what they really want, and the benefit of that is of experience and character growth, the kind of thing that can be very valuable in life.
Teenagers have so much ahead of them. They should be out there enjoying their lives, with their friends. I'd hate to think how miserable they'd be if they weren't given that opportunity.
Cheers! Unfortunately Rome wasn't built in a day!
Exactly. Plus with someone like him, you'd want to hold them accountable.
Remember our local candidate I mentioned as having been charged with hate speech? Well, he's in the list of candidates yet again, as was pretty much expected. The thing about this guy is, they say he knows he's never going to win, but uses the platform to further his own agenda of spreading his hate speech.
The toronto star raised an point in article this morning.
Never mind the election, can del deca win his old ridding back?
The poll track there has the Vaughn-Woodbridge as toss up but list as PC/Lib indicating the tory (tibolo) is slightly ahead.
333canda has it trending towards a PC hold (PC 45%/Lib 40%) and 77% chance of a tory win.
Still 2.5 weeks to go so anything can happen tonight is the one and only debate and most of the big policies have already been announced so unless videos emerge of ford kicking dogs and eat cats I'm not sure we're going to see much of shift.
Be very embarrassing for the liberals if they become the official opposition (as the polls are showing) but lack a leader in the house. Will then have to decide whether they stay with del duca or replace him. In Australia a leader who fails to win the election generally falls on their sword but that doesn't seem to happen as often here.
My riding is also looking towards a tory hold (76% chance leading 37% to 34%) There's decent support for the NDP (25%) which would be hurting the liberal candidate.
Never mind the election, can del deca win his old ridding back?
The poll track there has the Vaughn-Woodbridge as toss up but list as PC/Lib indicating the tory (tibolo) is slightly ahead.
333canda has it trending towards a PC hold (PC 45%/Lib 40%) and 77% chance of a tory win.
Still 2.5 weeks to go so anything can happen tonight is the one and only debate and most of the big policies have already been announced so unless videos emerge of ford kicking dogs and eat cats I'm not sure we're going to see much of shift.
Be very embarrassing for the liberals if they become the official opposition (as the polls are showing) but lack a leader in the house. Will then have to decide whether they stay with del duca or replace him. In Australia a leader who fails to win the election generally falls on their sword but that doesn't seem to happen as often here.
My riding is also looking towards a tory hold (76% chance leading 37% to 34%) There's decent support for the NDP (25%) which would be hurting the liberal candidate.
Last edited:
Well, bye-bye to Jason Kenney. He's resigning after barely winning a leadership review.
This could be good news or bad news, depending on who the next leader is. There's a provincial election next year, and I do not want the UCP in again.
This could be good news or bad news, depending on who the next leader is. There's a provincial election next year, and I do not want the UCP in again.
they way conservatives around the world seem to be going, they'll probably choose some-one who makes kenney look like a socialist.
The prediction is a showdown between Brian Jean and Danielle Smith. Both are morally bankrupt for many reasons. Danielle Smith is an idiot, but Jean isn't. People who know him in Fort McMurray say he's a nasty piece of work who presents such a mild-mannered public face and then goes for the (political) kill. Religious fundamentalist, of course; that's a given in that party and in the Wildrose, where those two used to be.
Sometimes I wonder where Alberta would be if, back in 2015, Jim Prentice hadn't pitched a hissy-fit when the NDP won and quit. He'd won his seat, but resigned on the spot, leaving the PCs vulnerable to the predators from the Wildrose party. Now the PCs are extinct and we have the NDP vs. a bunch of lunatics.
Well, Horvath has Covid and has cancelled her campaign tour for Northern Ontario. Doubt it's going to affect her chances too much given the NDP's popularity here. But all the same, the timing couldn't be worse.
Could be. On the other hand it's right in the face of loud mouths who protest anything COVID. Gains her a sympathy vote here and there.
I have a feeling those who are protesting aren't going to be the ones viewing the regional campaigning over Zoom though, which is what was said she'd be doing once it was confirmed she had Covid. The region is already 50/50 Liberals/NDP, which is why I say it probably won't affect her chances very much here. She's already got a better chance than the Conservatives here.
At my in-laws for the long weekend where we never lost power and heading home tomorrow if the power is back on in the building.
Will have to clean out the fridge but hopefully with the power back in on within 48 hours the stuff in freezer will be okay.
The Hydro One website has been pretty useless for getting updates.
Yeah, my brother out in Ottawa has lost cell service, presumably due to damage to the nearest cell tower. They have one uprooted tree in their front yard. Although I hear most of the damage was received in the Kitchener-Waterloo area.
Similar threads
- Poll
