bleeding heart

Thanks, jacee. At any rate, I'm not sure how my post is "pseudo-psychiatry" anyway, rather than speculation on political tactics. (And did he actually mean "psychologizing" rather than "psychiatry"?)

No, and there's no need to indulge in a (faulty, in my view) premise of "balance" on all things, just to display one's sense of fairness, etc. On the other hand, "from time to time," as you put it, IS a good thing, if for no other reason than that it shows one is not an insane ideologue.

I don't know, Waldo, I'm inclined to accept TimG's remark at face value. Look at it this way: if someone were to post, repeatedly, that climate change was literally poised to destroy the Earth within weeks, I would think that this is an inane and false assertion...and, also, worse than useless. And I might call him on it... ....or I might think, "why bother responding to trollish lunacy?"

Yeah....my floated speculation that conservative elites have tried to produce talking points for political and campaign purposes is...just so....out there! It's even "pseudo-psychiatry"!

And if the self-described sceptics were serious about having honest discussions on the matter, they'd jump in and explain to you what's wrong with this statement. Interestingly, they don't have any interest in doing so.

Yup. I didn't scrape frost off my windshield this morning....the frost came in and vacuumed my rug.

The idea fundamentally is questioning why scientists are uniquely bad for politics. The only answer I've yet received is "scientists are biased!" Evidently a weakness that the majority of politicians (coming from a law or Business background) do not share.

Fair enough.

You're slightly changing your tune back and forth as it suits you. I'm talking about gifting private industry with "free" [sic] labour....at the taxpayers expense. Subsidized slavery for the sake of private profit. Literally.

I have no doubt you're right. There's populism, and then there's delusional populism. But while it's obviously true that "liberal elites" exist, I think that, as far as the term is used as a political football, it has been a successful theme created by....conservative elites! You can't make this stuff up.

How is my throwaway remark, an obviously intentional exaggeration, included as a de facto subordinate clause--subordinate within a parenthetical remark, in fact--"all of it"? The thrust of my argument couldn't be more clear; so there's no way that you, an intelligent man, could have misconstrued it. But in case I'm wrong about that, here it is: Rob Ford sold himself as a Tough on Crime sort of guy...and evinced sniggering contempt for illegal drug users. His followers had not stood up and remarked, out of their innate compassion and empathy for such folks, that Ford was being too harsh, too unsympathetic. no; they saved that riposte for Ford's critics. All of a sudden, it seems, people with horrible drug-using behavior deserve some sympathy. That is, now that the subject is a powerful millionaire. The sympathetic response did not (and presumably does not) apply for the lesser breed of humans; it's the old "worthy" vs "unworthy" victim phenomenon, which tends to exclusively orbit issues of Power.

Non-responsive. When you grow an argument, let me know.

I was responding to August's remark, which wasn't about being aware of potential individual biases among scientists, but was about how he doesn't like the very idea of scientists entering politics at all. Which, as I said, is frankly bizarre. Evidently there's no "bias" issue with the glut of lawyers and Businesspeople entering politics....are their biases not present, and potentially problematic, as well? That is, what I responded to had little to do with what you're saying here. And--again--how scientists are uniquely a bad thing for politics (compared to law or business, the two surest ways inside, currently)...well, no one has offered any reason.

If you're trying to curry agreement from anybody that tax-subsidized slave labour for private industry is a good idea...your voice is going to be a lone one. Thankfully.

Fine, but that's not what was said, and so not what I was responding to.

Well, that's just plain weird. I don't know what exactly you think "scientists" are...but they are just people who happen to be scientists. They are as political (or apolitical) as anyone else. Of course, per the eugenics point, science can be bad, and can be badly used. So can (and is) law, morality, religion, militarism, economics, capitalism, socialism.... Your "scientist" distinction is quite strange.

Sure, as taxpayers house them, feed them, and pay for their medical care. So it'd be, literally, tax-subsidized slavery for private industry. Who could object to that?

Until I am offered a more reasonable and benign interpretation, I'm going to assume the primary priority is that of Power.

I said that they were elitist by inclination, not by virtue of their actual position. Like I said, if you deride and despise the criminals and addicts who are (at least relatively) without means and power--but feel sympathy and compassion for the rich and powerful elite who shares the very same problem--then that is, in my view, a type of elitism, of top-down class warfare. More to the point, I think, is that it's a type of power-worship (and all True Blue power-worshippers hate some powerful folk....in Ford Nation's case, it's those to the left of Pinochet). It's also bipartisan, as we've seen recently with the grief-soaked Passion Play involving the adoration of a vicious international gangster named John F. Kennedy. It's just that it seems unusually stark in the Ford case, probably due to the peculiarities of his more ardent admirers.

Further, as has already been pointed out, we already have different tiers of justice...based one one's ability to pay for counsel. I should think that, in terms of disparities in justice, that this would be the point to focus upon.

A good question. And while, like most humans, I understand the desire for revenge, it is at bottom probably impractical, and probably little more than a weakness of character. What matters is practical effects of a justice system. Decreasing crime. That's the goal.

While I believe human beings are inherently contradictory creatures, there's something fascinating about the blatant contradictions of many (but presumably not all) of Ford's defenders and admirers. That is, I think a lot of them are feeling some compassion for a man's substance abuse issues. Now, in and of itself, I appreciate that. More compassion will make a better world. I genuinely believe that. So what's the problem? Well, it's not true compassion. It's partisanship (and worse, as I'll get to) under a self-serving pretence of compassion. Where were these ford supporters when he was lambasting criminals and drug abusers? Were they saying, "Hey, Rob, show a little compassion for the addicts and those troubled enough to take solace in dangerous substances"? Nope. "Rob, you are being too harsh and sanctimonious, and these people need and deserve our sympathy"? Silence. If anything, they were probably applauding his harshness, his smug No-Drug righteousness, and nodding quietly at his "common sense" and his "ability to tell it like it is" and his lack of "political correctness." Because, despite how they view themselves (and how they are often viewed by others) these Ford supporters are, in fact, elitists. If you can only summon empathy for the successful politician from the rich family...while viewing with contempt the people without means, networks, or anything else when they share the same problems....well, I'm sorry, but you are an elitist (by inclination, I mean, not by virtue of position), a sycophant, a power-worshipper. In this vein, Ford's continued popularity among a certain sector is beginning to make more sense to me.

Everyone opining about what a good man Nigel Wright is...must be quite apoplectic about Harper's remarks regarding the man. But, no, apparently having one's cake and eating it is the New Cool.

You might be asking the wrong guy....I despise Forrest Gump.

Yep, good points.