Know-Nothing Conservatism

[Ratio]

ha ha ha ha ha.

Harper is Reformer. He sits on the right of centre right in the political spectrum and closer to fascism then most people think.

harper is a nazi, and his conservative gestapo are right up there with the goose steppers of the TURD reich.

he's made of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, elitism and probably has penis envy.

did I mention he hates minorities too?

his platform is how best he can take away money and benefits OWED to minorities and natives... he has no leg to stand on.

we should have a nuremburg trial for him and his evil right wingers...

not to worry though, canada is getting more and more democratic (and less and less eurotrash white)... and only whites vote conservative... (the racist, hater ones)... the more progressive the country gets racially, well the more progressive itll be!

[bloodyminded]

did I mention he hates minorities too?

I believe you did.

[Keepitsimple]

harper is a nazi, and his conservative gestapo are right up there with the goose steppers of the TURD reich.

he's made of racism, xenophobia, homophobia, elitism and probably has penis envy.

did I mention he hates minorities too?

his platform is how best he can take away money and benefits OWED to minorities and natives... he has no leg to stand on.

we should have a nuremburg trial for him and his evil right wingers...

not to worry though, canada is getting more and more democratic (and less and less eurotrash white)... and only whites vote conservative... (the racist, hater ones)... the more progressive the country gets racially, well the more progressive itll be!

You are one angry Left-winger....an attribute too often demonstrated by the Left. Funnily enough though, most non-whites come from very Conservative backgrounds - India, Pakistan, Sri-Lanka, the African countries....where family is the focal point, religion is important, and in escaping corruption and a lack of law and order in their own countries - civilized and fair Law and Order is a priority. No matter how the opposition tries to depict the Canadian government as Right Wing (pretty silly), the natural tendency of newcomers is to identify with the Conservative Party.

[fellowtraveller]

ha ha ha ha ha.

Harper is Reformer. He sits on the right of centre right in the political spectrum and closer to fascism then most people think.

I noticed that Harper as abolished universal access to healthcare, repealed same sex marriage and banned abortion in the last couple of years. He is worse than Hitler, at least Hitler liked dogs.

Harper is naturally anti -intellectual, since he has only a Grade 4 education himself and was raised by survivalists in a cave on Baffin Island.

[segnosaur]

Hell, Stockwell Day believes the earth is only 6000 years old.

You're right... anyone who believes in Creationist nonsense deserves to be ridiculed. But, as others have pointed out, at least Day, in his current position, does not have any significant authority to impact education or science policy.

However, here's a little news flash... all parties have individuals in them that are, in some way, anti-science (or in some way deserving of ridicule).

For example, consider the Liberals... They have (as one of their MPs) Ruby Dhalla, who (according to Wikipedia) is a former Chiropractor (a medical "profession" that is basically a sham, anti-science, and possibly dangerous). Yet the Liberals at one point had her serving as the Liberal Health critic. Had the Liberals been in power, she might have actually been Health Minister (and frankly, I think the idea of a quack "medical professional" setting health policy is a bit more serious than Day setting trade or financial policy.

Or how about the NDP? They (as a party) opposed bill C-51, thus giving more freedom for scam companies to sell medically useless "natural" substances.

Again, my point is not to necessarily bash the NDP or Liberals. (Heck, I'm sure there are even more conservative MPs that hold similar faulty ideas.) I'm just pointing out that all parties have members and/or policies that are not supported by science or logic.

[Smallc]

For example, consider the Liberals... They have (as one of their MPs) Ruby Dhalla, who (according to Wikipedia) is a former Chiropractor (a medical "profession" that is basically a sham, anti-science, and possibly dangerous).

You do realize that to become a chiropractor, you have to first take a bachelor of science (in most cases), right? And that chiropractic is proven to help with back pain? There is a great deal of nonsense involved with some in the community (curing colds through manipulation, for example) but for skeletal problems, it really does work.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Smallc

[Molly]

I noticed that Harper as abolished universal access to healthcare, repealed same sex marriage and banned abortion in the last couple of years. He is worse than Hitler, at least Hitler liked dogs.

Harper is naturally anti -intellectual, since he has only a Grade 4 education himself and was raised by survivalists in a cave on Baffin Island.

Now there's a perfect example of why one should be careful with the use of sarcasm, because it is so often so easy to mistake for sincere comment.

Let's see... Harper has criticized aspects and safeguards to universal access to healthcare, even while claiming it is safe under his stewardship; he has pandered to the social neanderthals and religious nuts by hosting a vote on the simple privelege of marriage, and he's endorsed and tolerated the rabid anti-abortion Bruinooge, and used international aid programming to float anti-abortion/anti-birth control trial balloons...

He has selected anti-intellectuals for his cabinet, to the point even of putting a creationist in charge of science research funding.

Consequently, we have only the grade 4 on Baffin Island crack to accurately identify your intent.

[nicky10013]

Well, I'm not exactly a conservative supporter. I just disagree less with them than the other idiots. Still, I'll take a stab at it for you!

I don't think the bias is against intellectuals so much as against 'academic' intellectuals. There are many well educated members of the CPC. However, they do seem to have a mix of people from other backgrounds, whereas the Liberals seem to be virtually all law and poli-sci graduates, with only a few exceptions.

Source? Furthermore, what does education matter. Members of the CPC can have all the degrees they want, but if they didn't truly learn from their education, what's the point? Case in point, no one except for them disputes the need for real data. They'd rather trust ideology over hard facts which shows that they really haven't learned a thing.

The bias against academics seems stronger in the West, although it has been picking up some steam here in the East as well. The charge against academics is based on the popular caricature of an academic being some university prof who has never actually done a specific task himself but because he has taught it from a book believes he knows all about it! This view is usually accompanied by some anecdotes about how someone with a string of degrees was put in charge of a product, arrogantly ignored the experience of all the people under him and then had the project go down in flames for failing to understand the specific details of the task, for having taken a superficial textbook example as gospel. An example would be Stefan Dion and his 'green energy plan'.

The charge is of course an exaggeration but there is a grain of truth to it, unfortunately! Technicians have joked for generations that while it may take a tech to make something work to really screw it up requires an engineer!

That's exactly what it is, a caricature.

The Liberals have always seemed to put much trust in academics and perhaps this explains some of the estrangement they suffer in western Canada. Maybe it's a french thing! One of the constant criticisms of government programs is that they always sound good in the action plan but bog down into a mess for not foreseeing the details. Myself, I'm even more cynical because I don't believe governments really care about things working at all! It's enough to look good to grab votes. If it actually works that's just a bonus.

LHence the old joke about a 'liberal Solution': "It doesn't have to work, as long as we can say we've got one!"

Put too much trust in academics? I'd rather trust a guy with a degree than billy bob with their GED. In traditional anti-intellectualism is that they don't the "plight" of the real man. First of all, that just shows how stupid some people really are. Just because someone has rough hands or puts in general labour doesn't make him any better or worse off than anyone else. It certainly doesn't make it smarter. I'd rather have the guy with the Ph.D. figuring out financial problems or fixing health care than the guy doing general labour, despite whatever qualms over "academics" one might have.

Academic solutions flourish best when times are flush and it doesn't really hurt when they make mistakes! Errors like the National Energy Policy hurt the people in the west so badly that they were forced to be very practical in their outlook, just to keep food on the table. It went so deep that it became part of their culture to distrust academics and so-called experts. Perhaps the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

Most solutions are academic solutions, so keep on trying.

Ontario has been economically hurting for some years now as well and we are seeing a growth in sharing Alberta's view.

No were not. Despite the horrible gaffes by McGuinty, they're still far out ahead. Indeed, the people of Ontario have voted time and again to raise taxes to keep services. No one wants to go back to the Harris years.

So that's my story and I'm sticking to it! I'm not saying that the anti-intellectual or academic viewpoint is justified in all cases, just trying to explain what it is, where it came from and why it survives. Like any other instance of having lost trust in something, it's much harder to get it back! When someone has come to distrust academic intellectuals the only way to earn that trust again is to give a very large number of success stories.

That is perhaps the very hardest thing for ANY politician of ANY party to do!

If you've shown anything, it's why anti-intellectualism needs to be stomped out.

[nicky10013]

It's certainly evident that professors are predominantly Liberal in their political leanings and I tend to agree that there has been a cumulative coziness over the years between Universities and Liberals.

Considering the entire post is predicated on the first sentence, I'll stop it right here. No, most professors aren't Liberal. Clearly, you've never been to university. Funny, I love the train of thought that academics have no right to make decisions because they don't understand the common man and don't live in the "real world." Yet, people from the real world get to freely comment on what happens in universities despite never having attended.

[segnosaur]

For example, consider the Liberals... They have (as one of their MPs) Ruby Dhalla, who (according to Wikipedia) is a former Chiropractor (a medical "profession" that is basically a sham, anti-science, and possibly dangerous).

You do realize that to become a chiropractor, you have to first take a bachelor of science (in most cases), right?

Yes, I am aware of the training required to become a chiropractor. Sadly, this training is all wasted.

Here are the problems with Chiropractic medicine:

- The whole basis of the "treatment" comes from a belief that diseases are caused by "sublaxions", something that has never been proven to exist. So right off the bat you're dealing with pseudoscience

- While some chiropractors are fairly responsible enough to work with doctors and/or stick to skeletal problems, a large number of chiropractors actively discourage patients from using real medicine. Many are anti-vaccination for example. And you yourself admitted they can make false claims (such as curing colds)

- Chiropractors can kill. there have been many cases of paralysis and death caused during routine manipulations (often of the neck)

And that chiropractic is proven to help with back pain? There is a great deal of nonsense involved with some in the community (curing colds through manipulation, for example) but for skeletal problems, it really does work.

Whatever "benefit" chiropractic medicine provides is likely caused by improved blood flow to the area caused by the manipulations, something that could just as easily be provided by a good massage. Furthermore, there's never been any scientific proof that it provides more benefit than more medically-responsible treatments. Anyone suffering is better to go to an Orthopedic surgeon or a physiotherapist, and avoid any possible nonsense that their chiropractor may try to sell.

See:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-10-21/

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

http://www.chirobase.org/01General/skeptic.html

[nicky10013]

Yes, I am aware of the training required to become a chiropractor. Sadly, this training is all wasted.

Here are the problems with Chiropractic medicine:

- The whole basis of the "treatment" comes from a belief that diseases are caused by "sublaxions", something that has never been proven to exist. So right off the bat you're dealing with pseudoscience

- While some chiropractors are fairly responsible enough to work with doctors and/or stick to skeletal problems, a large number of chiropractors actively discourage patients from using real medicine. Many are anti-vaccination for example. And you yourself admitted they can make false claims (such as curing colds)

- Chiropractors can kill. there have been many cases of paralysis and death caused during routine manipulations (often of the neck)

Whatever "benefit" chiropractic medicine provides is likely caused by improved blood flow to the area caused by the manipulations, something that could just as easily be provided by a good massage. Furthermore, there's never been any scientific proof that it provides more benefit than more medically-responsible treatments. Anyone suffering is better to go to an Orthopedic surgeon or a physiotherapist, and avoid any possible nonsense that their chiropractor may try to sell.

See:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/09-10-21/

http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

http://www.chirobase.org/01General/skeptic.html

Do you have a problem with academics, or just chiropractors?

[Smallc]

Whatever "benefit" chiropractic medicine provides is likely caused by improved blood flow to the area caused by the manipulations, something that could just as easily be provided by a good massage. Furthermore, there's never been any scientific proof that it provides more benefit than more medically-responsible treatments. Anyone suffering is better to go to an Orthopedic surgeon or a physiotherapist, and avoid any possible nonsense that their chiropractor may try to sell.

Besides adjusting my back, my chiropractor pretty much just teaches me different stretches. Although, there are times when my hip goes out....and when I go, it gets put back in. With the latest stretch he showed me, it stayed that way for quite a while. I do agree with you though that in most cases, a massage would be just as good. I should perhaps say that I have only had dealing with one sane chiropractor, who knows a great deal about medicine and will send you to a real doctor if he feels it's necessary. Perhaps that colours my view.

Edited August 18, 2010 by Smallc

[nicky10013]

I'm more fearful of something else. People like Nicky trust "experts" because, I suspect, this trust makes legitimate their own education. Or something.

Not at all. I understand the process that people have to go through to get their degree. In a lot of cases people spend upwards of 10 years in university to get their Ph.Ds. (I'd also like to point out that they, too, have experience in the real world. 10 years of university is expensive, if you think they don't work at supermarkets, restaurants etc. etc. to make the money to get their degrees while being in school full time, you're an even bigger idiot) I have a lot of respect for people who are smart enough to get into those programmes and are able to succeed. I also understand that experts have to go through the peer review process, unlike anyone here who like to make unsubstantiated claims. Publications such as essays and books that come out of universities, in all disciplines, are beaten down and written back up to make sure they're as accurate as possible. For your masters and Ph.Ds, you have to defend your thesis in front of a board of academics who deliberately try to undermine your argument to make sure it holds up.

If these AREN'T good things, let me know how and why. If you actually understand the process which people go through to get their degrees and accreditations and still don't respect their accomplishments, then I have absolutely nothing to say.

Edited August 18, 2010 by nicky10013

[segnosaur]

Do you have a problem with academics, or just chiropractors?

I have a problem with anyone who does not apply critical thinking. Chiropractors are just one case of that (although the whole "alternative medicine" racket is filled with such nonsense.)

As for academics/intellectuals, I will base my opinions of their value on a case-by-case basis.

I believe that "academics" are often useful/right; however, their effectiveness can rapidly decrease the further that they get from their particular area of expertise. I myself have multiple university degrees, and they are invaluable in my job, but I will gladly defer to my non-university educated brother-in-law over issues of business due to his real-life experience.

I'm reminded of an old 'Dilbert' cartoon where he meets someone who's a Mensa member, who's working at some low level job. When Dilbert asks why, he states that "Intelligence isn't as valuable as you might think".

Trudeau was an "intellectual". Yet for whatever brain power he may have had, in my opinion many of his economic and social policies were a disaster, giving us the era of stagflation, and alienating large sections of society.

[nicky10013]

I have a problem with anyone who does not apply critical thinking. Chiropractors are just one case of that (although the whole "alternative medicine" racket is filled with such nonsense.)

As for academics/intellectuals, I will base my opinions of their value on a case-by-case basis.

I believe that "academics" are often useful/right; however, their effectiveness can rapidly decrease the further that they get from their particular area of expertise. I myself have multiple university degrees, and they are invaluable in my job, but I will gladly defer to my non-university educated brother-in-law over issues of business due to his real-life experience.

I'm reminded of an old 'Dilbert' cartoon where he meets someone who's a Mensa member, who's working at some low level job. When Dilbert asks why, he states that "Intelligence isn't as valuable as you might think".

Trudeau was an "intellectual". Yet for whatever brain power he may have had, in my opinion many of his economic and social policies were a disaster, giving us the era of stagflation, and alienating large sections of society.

Couldn't agree more. First and foremost, I think the first lesson of university is critical thinking. You don't have that when you graduate, you've learned nothing.

As for Trudeau, he was far ahead of his time in terms of pretty much everything but the economy. He was brilliant constitutionalist, a champion of human rights and an incredible statesman. Economically, he was hemmed in, like most other PMs, by what the US was doing. Stagflation was a global problem started in the US, there really wasn't much he could do about it. There really wasn't much that worked without making either unemployment or inflation worse.

Edited August 18, 2010 by nicky10013

[segnosaur]

Couldn't agree more. First and foremost, I think the first lesson of university is critical thinking.

Sadly I don't think that's true. They may teach facts, how to interpret things and make new discoveries. But they spend very little time teaching people how to filter out nonsense.

The fact that, as SmallC pointed out, Chiropractors often have university degrees, is evidence that a university degree doesn't stop people from championing nonsense.

And as I've stated before, all political parties have people that are, shall we say, logically-challenged.

As for Trudeau, he was far ahead of his time in terms of pretty much everything but the economy. He was brilliant constitutionalist, a champion of human rights and an incredible statesman.

At the risk of derailing this thread (of course, given the fact that it was just an attempt to do some biased mudslinging, so I won't feel that bad about it), his reputation as a "constitutionalist/human rights champion is overblown. In my opinion our constitution was a failure; things like the notwithstanding clause actually goes against the concept of "human rights", and the fact that he was unable to get unanimous consent has caused problems for the country over the past decade.

Stagflation was a global problem started in the US, there really wasn't much he could do about it. There really wasn't much that worked without making either unemployment or inflation worse.

Although there were global economic problems at the time, government economic policy made things worse here than elsewhere. (Heck, with our resources, our country should have been better off than the U.S. rather than worse.)

[Keepitsimple]

Considering the entire post is predicated on the first sentence, I'll stop it right here. No, most professors aren't Liberal.

So you're saying most professors are Conservative?

[Keepitsimple]

Funny, I love the train of thought that academics have no right to make decisions because they don't understand the common man and don't live in the "real world." Yet, people from the real world get to freely comment on what happens in universities despite never having attended.

That's because it's NOT the real world. That's not a bad thing - it's just very different and is out of touch with everyday Canadians. They do what they are taught to do - they profess - and become big fishes in small ponds - the smartest people in the room. They make an incredibly valuable contribution to society....but to equate lifetime academics with the huge number of Canadians who hold down a myriad of different jobs in their lifetime is just silly. I've got several professor acquaintances - it's common knowledge that in general, they are so self-absorbed that divorce rates are sky high. "Publish or perish" institutes a mindset and culture that is foreign to most Canadians. Again - not bad - just different.......and because the majority (by far) of University professors have worked very little outside of academia, it's no wonder that the terms "ivory tower" and "elitist" are used to describe them. Not bad - just very different.

[nicky10013]

So you're saying most professors are Conservative?

They come from every walk of life. Some are Liberal, some Conservative. Most of my professors, those "lefty poli sci types" came from the right side of the spectrum. Preston Manning even taught a course at U of T.

[nicky10013]

That's because it's NOT the real world. That's not a bad thing - it's just very different and is out of touch with everyday Canadians. They do what they are taught to do - they profess - and become big fishes in small ponds - the smartest people in the room. They make an incredibly valuable contribution to society....but to equate lifetime academics with the huge number of Canadians who hold down a myriad of different jobs in their lifetime is just silly. I've got several professor acquaintances - it's common knowledge that in general, they are so self-absorbed that divorce rates are sky high. "Publish or perish" institutes a mindset and culture that is foreign to most Canadians. Again - not bad - just different.......and because the majority (by far) of University professors have worked very little outside of academia, it's no wonder that the terms "ivory tower" and "elitist" are used to describe them. Not bad - just very different.

By your own words, everyone in this country has a myriad of different jobs. Someone who works in a mine have a very different job than someone who might work at pulp mill. What about someone who works at a financial firms or as lawyers? Is it just against academicians or is it applied to anyone who has to do more with their brains than they do with their arms?

Furthermore, the fact that you're completely seperating them into a different category altogether. Something aloof and scary that Canadians shouldn't like. You may just say that these people are different, but in using those terms elitist and "ivory tower" you're essentially hoping that they become second class citizens because, though you've never met them, god forbid they challenge your belief systems which are predicated on ideology and not fact.

Maybe their divorce rates aren't because they're self absorbed, but because they actually do put in an honest days work unlike what your notion (not based on reality) tells you. Universities run more classes late at night, there's the office hours, structuring course works, the pressure to publish essays and books because the university requires they do, or else they're out of a job. Of course not, though, it doesn't fit with the pre-concieved notion that the average joe can be just as good, and that these academics are somehow evil elitists out to destroy the average man! That the man's views, despite being backed up by nadda, can stand just as easily as a professors, even though the professor had to go through the wringer with his. It's that mentality that a worker can rise up to manage a company, which he surely can, so therefore his ideas must easily be as valuable as the person who went to school for that period of time. It all comes down to the fact that people generally think they're smarter than everyone else. Saying you're ideas in political science are better because you run a company is just as ignorant as poli sci professor thinking he can lecture on how to run a paper mill. Funny thing is though, I've never run into a professor who claimed they were an expert in any other field but their own.

Edited August 19, 2010 by nicky10013

[Keepitsimple]

By your own words, everyone in this country has a myriad of different jobs. Someone who works in a mine have a very different job than someone who might work at pulp mill. What about someone who works at a financial firms or as lawyers? Is it just against academicians or is it applied to anyone who has to do more with their brains than they do with their arms?

Furthermore, the fact that you're completely seperating them into a different category altogether. Something aloof and scary that Canadians shouldn't like. You may just say that these people are different, but in using those terms elitist and "ivory tower" you're essentially hoping that they become second class citizens because, though you've never met them, god forbid they challenge your belief systems which are predicated on ideology and not fact.

Maybe their divorce rates aren't because they're self absorbed, but because they actually do put in an honest days work unlike what your notion (not based on reality) tells you. Universities run more classes late at night, there's the office hours, structuring course works, the pressure to publish essays and books because the university requires they do, or else they're out of a job. Of course not, though, it doesn't fit with the pre-concieved notion that the average joe can be just as good, and that these academics are somehow evil elitists out to destroy the average man! That the man's views, despite being backed up by nadda, can stand just as easily as a professors, even though the professor had to go through the wringer with his. It's that mentality that a worker can rise up to manage a company, which he surely can, so therefore his ideas must easily be as valuable as the person who went to school for that period of time. It all comes down to the fact that people generally think they're smarter than everyone else. Saying you're ideas in political science are better because you run a company is just as ignorant as poli sci professor thinking he can lecture on how to run a paper mill. Funny thing is though, I've never run into a professor who claimed they were an expert in any other field but their own.

You've been very sensitive about academia all the way through this thread - it seems as though you have a vested interest somehow. I really do know my way around universities but feel no need to puff myself up. I'm friends with an assistant Dean who's just about to become Dean - environmental Studies actually. I also regularly converse with a retired professor of Victorian History from the U of T. There is nothing evil about professors - and nothing to really dislike.....I'm just telling you how a lot of people have trouble relating to them - and it's almost natural for Canadians to consider them "privileged" and elitist......and that goes for many graduates who go into business and reflect back. That's just the way many people view academia. Now - back to those lawyers.

[August1991]

Furthermore, what does education matter. Members of the CPC can have all the degrees they want, but if they didn't truly learn from their education, what's the point?

I think this is the problem: in your view, no one intelligent or educated can have conservative beliefs. You have defined an "expert" to be someone who shares your opinions.

[msdogfood]

WTF?

I understand that Nicky is a Registered Harper Hater , a fan boy, so he likes any article/column critical of Harper.

I'm more fearful of something else. People like Nicky trust "experts" because, I suspect, this trust makes legitimate their own education. Or something.

I suggest that Nicky read this review:Link

It refers to this book.

----

BTW, I should tip my hat to Bergkamp's comment in the Maclean's thread of the OP.

What?? do you have a problem with intelligent journalists???.

[eyeball]

For example, consider the Liberals... They have (as one of their MPs) Ruby Dhalla, who (according to Wikipedia) is a former Chiropractor (a medical "profession" that is basically a sham, anti-science, and possibly dangerous). Yet the Liberals at one point had her serving as the Liberal Health critic.

That's nothing, My MP is an Armageddonist and Chair of the Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Committee...what's that all about, does Harper's wing-nuts think interparliamentary cooperation will bring on the end of the world even faster?

AND he's a chiropractor too!

[bloodyminded]

You've been very sensitive about academia all the way through this thread - it seems as though you have a vested interest somehow. I really do know my way around universities but feel no need to puff myself up. I'm friends with an assistant Dean who's just about to become Dean - environmental Studies actually. I also regularly converse with a retired professor of Victorian History from the U of T. There is nothing evil about professors - and nothing to really dislike.....I'm just telling you how a lot of people have trouble relating to them - and it's almost natural for Canadians to consider them "privileged" and elitist......and that goes for many graduates who go into business and reflect back. That's just the way many people view academia. Now - back to those lawyers.

People who are successful at business are also "priveleged and elitist," of course.