Conservative War On Science

[eyeball]

Besides creationist Gary Goodyear, Canada's government is top-heavy with Evangelicals...Stockwell Day, Vic Toews, Stephen Harper.

What's with all the chiropractors?

If Harper, while leading a minority government, is willing to risk getting rid of a mandatory census favoured by scientists and most Canadians, what would he do if he actually achieved that elusive minority?

You mean majority? Probably make 'Dr' James Lunney the Minister of Health.

[Oleg Bach]

Rejecting the use of stem cells "harvested" from human tissue....pre-birth tissue - Is not a conservative war on science..it is a war on cannibalism..to consume any human tissue to sustain life is exactly like sustaining life though nutrition - through eating! Yah and I am also against waiting for people to die so you can snatch their organs...If you need a chunk of another fellow human to survive then devine law is telling you it's time to leave the world... BUT - if I - yes me, were injured and needed blood - I would turn cannibal...BUT - I will never be in the position of needing a transfusion or a transplant..because - the way I live keeps me safe...I simply ward off all evil through the power of faith and the dynamics of my wonderfully beautiful persona...not kidding....I never have accidents or get sick unless I want to and have made the decision to be careless or suicidal - which is not in my make up....

[capricorn]

He opposed Bill C-250, the legislation which made it a hate crime to promote the murder of homosexuals in part because he feared that it would result in the bible being banned in Canada.

[bloodyminded]

...BUT - I will never be in the position of needing a transfusion or a transplant..because - the way I live keeps me safe...I simply ward off all evil through the power of faith and the dynamics of my wonderfully beautiful persona...not kidding....I never have accidents or get sick unless I want to and have made the decision to be careless or suicidal - which is not in my make up....

Courtesy of "The Office"'s Dwight Shrute:

"Through concentration, I can raise and lower my cholesterol at will."

"My feelings regenerate at twice the speed of a normal man"

"When my mother was pregnant with me, they did an ultrasound and found she was having twins. When they did another ultrasound a few weeks later, they discovered that I had adsorbed the other fetus. Do I regret this? No, I believe his tissue has made me stronger. I now have the strength of a grown man and a little baby."

Edited September 18, 2010 by bloodyminded

[ToadBrother]

You mean majority? Probably make 'Dr' James Lunney the Minister of Health.

Lunney's the MP for my area. He's a dyed-in-the-wool old-time Reformer in the bad way. He once angrily complained at an all-candidates meeting that allowing same-sex marriage was an attack on his religious freedoms. While he hasn't spoken on his beliefs on the age of the Earth or evolution, I'm pretty confident that Lunney's a Creationist.

And yes, he's a quack, a big pusher of "alternative" treatments. I'm damned glad that health is a Provincial matter. I may not like the BC Liberals, but at least they're not trying to dole out taxpayer dough to voodoo doctors.

While I'm sure there are no lack of whackos in the other parties, the difference is that the other parties' whackos don't tend to speak out quite as much. The Conservatives, like Reform before them, have this big problem in that they just spout off, revealing the kind of people they really are. While Harper has, over the last couple of elections, done a reasonably good job of keeping the crazies in the closet, mainly by the rumored dictate that new candidates not say anything controversial, that apparently doesn't spread to long-timers like Lunney.

The worst part about Lunney is that he is, on top of everything else, a really crappy MP. People in my riding frequently joke that they never see him. He's the invisible man, except when he shows up for a photo-op. I look at neighboring Conservative MPs, and they were getting their pictures in the paper at every opportunity when the stimulus cash was flowing, and Lunney was still by and large a non-entity. But I have it on good authority that the problem is that the local riding association is basically dominated by a group of septuagenarians who love the guy, and keep getting his name put on the ballot.

Edited September 18, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

Lunney's the MP for my area. He's a dyed-in-the-wool old-time Reformer in the bad way. He once angrily complained at an all-candidates meeting that allowing same-sex marriage was an attack on his religious freedoms. While he hasn't spoken on his beliefs on the age of the Earth or evolution, I'm pretty confident that Lunney's a Creationist.

And yes, he's a quack, a big pusher of "alternative" treatments. I'm damned glad that health is a Provincial matter. I may not like the BC Liberals, but at least they're not trying to dole out taxpayer dough to voodoo doctors.

He's my MP too. He sent us a flyer telling us drug addicts have no rights. His base of support where I live stopped VIHA from establishing an assisted living facility for people recovering from mental illness here, it also opted for neighbourhood snitch committee to try and chase all the druggies out too. A charming guy backed by charming people.

A creationist eh? That jibes with what I've read about him being an Armageddonist who supports invading Iran. Seems like a logical choice for Chair of the Canada-Israel Inter-parliamentary Committee don't you think?

God help us all.

[Jack Weber]

It would seem then,that the Con/Reform kooks realized they could'nt tranform this country into the vision they have for it all of a sudden,most people recoil at that sort of stuff...They have realized they could possibly do it incrementally...

[wyly]

It would seem then,that the Con/Reform kooks realized they could'nt tranform this country into the vision they have for it all of a sudden,most people recoil at that sort of stuff...They have realized they could possibly do it incrementally...

it's the proverbial "death of a thousand cuts"...the media has to begin asking the hard questions and batter down the cone of silence the conservatives erect around themselves...

[ToadBrother]

He's my MP too. He sent us a flyer telling us drug addicts have no rights. His base of support where I live stopped VIHA from establishing an assisted living facility for people recovering from mental illness here, it also opted for neighbourhood snitch committee to try and chase all the druggies out too. A charming guy backed by charming people.

Guess we're neighbors, and fellow victims! The guy is something else, that's for sure. I preferred his predecessor, Gilmour, who while still something of a Nowhere Man, at least was good enough not to make any meaningful stands one way or the other. He would have made a good Liberal.

A creationist eh? That jibes with what I've read about him being an Armageddonist who supports invading Iran. Seems like a logical choice for Chair of the Canada-Israel Inter-parliamentary Committee don't you think?

God help us all.

As I recall, he stood up in the House once a few years ago and made his true feelings known. The problem for the Tory leadership is that the guys like Lunney just can't lose. They could announce that they eat BBQed puppy dogs on Valentines Day after they've spent the afternoon beating their wives, and they'd still get elected. Nanaimo-Alberni, in particular the North Nanaimo-Parksville-Qualicum Beach area, isn't just solidly Conservative, it's almost psychotically conservative. And the riding association is just bizarro. I know a guy, who himself is a pretty right wing Conservative, who thought they were a pretty crazy old bunch of coots.

The western end of the riding, Port Alberni, Ucluelet and Tofino, around there, is more left-wing, but the numbers aren't there to beat out Lunney, and he has plenty of supporters in that neck of the woods, too. I made it known a couple of times when talking to both Reformers/Alliance campaigners and to Tory campaigners later on that until Lunney was gone, I couldn't put an X next to the Tory slot and live with myself. He make get in every single time, but at least that religious crackpot ain't getting in with my help. I feel the same way about Harper. I just can't do it. No matter how many times Tory supporters deny an agenda, there's just something really creepy about the guy. I'll probably go Liberal this time, despite myself, simply because I think Iggy, at least, has some respect for our democracy, and probably wouldn't put a Creationist in a portfolio that doles out money to scientists.

[Pliny]

I'll probably go Liberal this time, despite myself, simply because I think Iggy, at least, has some respect for our democracy, and probably wouldn't put a Creationist in a portfolio that doles out money to scientists.

Would Ali al-am waliki be OK in that portfolio? He would at least promote nuclear research.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Pliny

[capricorn]

the media has to begin asking the hard questions and batter down the cone of silence the conservatives erect around themselves...

Wyly, maybe Harper and the Conservatives wouldn't be so distant if the media slowed down on trying to turn everything they say as a hidden agenda, a scandal or an opportunistic political ploy. Sensationalism sells I know, but oftentimes the media thinks and acts as if it's the opposition. Parliament returns Monday, maybe if the opposition parties take their role seriously we'll get some straight talk from this insular Conservative government.

[wyly]

Wyly, maybe Harper and the Conservatives wouldn't be so distant if the media slowed down on trying to turn everything they say as a hidden agenda, a scandal or an opportunistic political ploy. Sensationalism sells I know, but oftentimes the media thinks and acts as if it's the opposition. Parliament returns Monday, maybe if the opposition parties take their role seriously we'll get some straight talk from this insular Conservative government.

it is the media's job to act as opposition and question the government on everything otherwise they become the official propaganda arm for the state...

it's become obvious there is a hidden agenda, anti-science, anti-information, anti-secular, anti-gay, anti-cultural, anti anything they fear is progressive...it's a death of a thousand cuts, we will lose our freedoms one tiny cut at a time...

[ToadBrother]

it is the media's job to act as opposition and question the government on everything otherwise they become the official propaganda arm for the state...

it's become obvious there is a hidden agenda, anti-science, anti-information, anti-secular, anti-gay, anti-cultural, anti anything they fear is progressive...it's a death of a thousand cuts, we will lose our freedoms one tiny cut at a time...

And let's not forget anti-constitution and anti-Parliament.

[capricorn]

it is the media's job to act as opposition and question the government on everything otherwise they become the official propaganda arm for the state...

If it's not OK for the media to be the official propaganda arm for the state, is it right that the media is the propaganda arm for the opposition? Sounds to me like you're saying it is. In fact, there may be some truth to this.

it's become obvious there is a hidden agenda, anti-science, anti-information, anti-secular, anti-gay, anti-cultural, anti anything they fear is progressive...it's a death of a thousand cuts, we will lose our freedoms one tiny cut at a time...

It's far from being a hidden agenda if they have successfully taken steps in all those areas. I have to ask, where was the opposition whilst the Conservatives were dismantling the country?

[ToadBrother]

If it's not OK for the media to be the official propaganda arm for the state, is it right that the media is the propaganda arm for the opposition? Sounds to me like you're saying it is. In fact, there may be some truth to this.

Every democratic government in modern history has made this complaint against the press. The one thing that is constant is that it's not the press's job to make governments look good. It is that that governments, and the supporters of those governments dislike, and why when it's a right-wing government, there's howls against the evil left-wing press, and when it's a left-wing government, there's howls against the evil right-wing press.

As the old joke goes, a politician complaining about the press is like the skipper of a ship complaining about the sea.

It's far from being a hidden agenda if they have successfully taken steps in all those areas. I have to ask, where was the opposition whilst the Conservatives were dismantling the country?

They prevented the Conservatives from overthrowing the Bill of Rights, 1689 with some fictitious constitutional notion of executive privilege. That alone puts at least a few members of the Opposition high in my books, and makes me look with contempt upon all those Tory MPs who were willing to sell their own rights, earned by bloodshed, to have Parliament supreme over the Executive.

[wyly]

If it's not OK for the media to be the official propaganda arm for the state, is it right that the media is the propaganda arm for the opposition? Sounds to me like you're saying it is. In fact, there may be some truth to this.

media doesn't support the opposition it is the opposition regardless of who forms the government, the media will do the same to the liberals should they form government...that you believe otherwise points out the conservative obsession/paranoia and it's secretive agenda...those " the elitists are out to get us"...

It's far from being a hidden agenda if they have successfully taken steps in all those areas. I have to ask, where was the opposition whilst the Conservatives were dismantling the country?

that's the insidious beauty of a death by a thousand cuts, small wounds that that no one takes notice of until it's too late...

[wyly]

And let's not forget anti-constitution and anti-Parliament.

I was losing count of the all the little cuts there have been so many...

[Jack Weber]

Wyly, maybe Harper and the Conservatives wouldn't be so distant if the media slowed down on trying to turn everything they say as a hidden agenda, a scandal or an opportunistic political ploy. Sensationalism sells I know, but oftentimes the media thinks and acts as if it's the opposition. Parliament returns Monday, maybe if the opposition parties take their role seriously we'll get some straight talk from this insular Conservative government.

Perhaps Mr.Harper,and his merry band of Reformers,should stop throwing redmeat at their kooky base,or,stop proroging Parliament oppotunistically and maybe the "left wing media" might stop accusing Mr.Harper of doing the things he seems to be doing?

[bloodyminded]

it is the media's job to act as opposition and question the government on everything otherwise they become the official propaganda arm for the state...

I agree. And in fact, this is the way a lot of professional journalists (incorrectly) view themselves: as rogue discoverers of concealed truths.

When people complain about the media's supposed "anti-government" agenda, two things come to mind:

1. First of all, they're mistaken.

2. Second, to say that the media should "just report the facts" ignores the obvious elephant: "just the facts" are what is spoon-fed the media from the government, with the help of PR experts who usually know exactly what they're doing in terms of manipulation and propaganda. The PR industry (the same institution as the advertising industry) does not run through tens of billions of dollars a year just to give us straight and honest information. The notion is preposterous.

To ask the media to simply be stenographers, when there's far too much of this already, is jaw-dropping.

Edited September 19, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Molly]

During the last decade they have gradually lost what we, with a cosy little Swedish word, call "problemformuleringsprivilegiet". Unwrap that from the end; the privilege of formulating the problem (see how easy Swedish is!).

What this means is to have the power of the grand narrative: to describe the society and its problems in a way that fits into a certain political agenda. Because as we all know, politics is not about solving problems per se but about finding problems for which one's party has the solutions.

I'm not going to identify the source for this one. (It's not an authouritative voice. Just easier to quote it than to reformulate.)

The two idea, though: government controlling the grand narrative; and of available solutions defining the problems... both interesting notions.

Edited September 19, 2010 by Molly

[wyly]

2. Second, to say that the media should "just report the facts" ignores the obvious elephant: "just the facts" are what is spoon-fed the media from the government, with the help of PR experts who usually know exactly what they're doing in terms of manipulation and propaganda. The PR industry (the same institution as the advertising industry) does not run through tens of billions of dollars a year just to give us straight and honest information. The notion is preposterous.

To ask the media to simply be stenographers, when there's far too much of this already, is jaw-dropping.

if this government had it's way the media be reduced to photo-ops and government proclamations only, and no questions asked...sounds all very North Korean...

[segnosaur]

my reply to you reflected your specific, slightly emphatic, statement that, "Goodyear does indeed believe in evolution"... his initial unwillingness to respond and his eventual rambling disjointed "high heels" clarification, one reflecting a non-common descent understanding/acceptance of evolution, does not foster any degree of confidence that, yes, Conservative Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, believes in evolution.

You know, I'm a skeptic and a strong believer in science. In fact, I'd probably have to say I've done more to debunk creationists than anyone else on this forum. (I've challenged the false claims made by creationists, both here, in other forums, and in my personal life.) As such, I'm very familiar with the tactics used by the creationist movement.

I have never heard a creationist say they "believe in evolution" without ever qualifying it by saying its "micro-evolution" that they actually accept (a bogus term, but one that they tend to favor.) To me, the "ramblings" make him sound like someone who is more likely just not familiar with the particulars of evolutionary theory (which of course doesn't preclude it from accepting it).

Like I said, I don't necessarily support Goodyear (more because of his background as a chiropractor shows a lack of scientific credibility and skepticism), but I still stand by my claim that at this point nobody can claim they actually know about his true "beliefs" over evolution.

if, as you say, other parties have members displaying questionable scientific beliefs, those scenarios could/should be elaborated on... particularly if the members are in positions of accountability and influence...

Ummmm... I already pointed out:

- The Liberals appointed a former Chiropractor (Ruby Dhalla) as health critic. Chiropractic treatments are sham medicine, and the basis of chiropractic treatments is based on faulty reasoning. Yet the Liberals actually placed such an individual in the position of health critic

- I cannot point to individual members of the NDP who hold false beliefs, but in previous elections, the party platform included support for "complementary and alternative medicine" (Sorry, tried to find their platform from the previous election but haven't been able to.) Obviously, if its party policy, then a significant portion of the party must believe in such sham cures.

You strangely continue to dwell on the red-herring concerning publishing... that wasn't mentioned in the original linked article

Ummm... why do you consider it a 'red herring'? The original linked article mentioned that the scientist who was "censored" had already had their results published in the journal Nature (a very highly regarded interdisciplinary journal). The exact statement from the referenced article is: NRC scientist Scott Dallimore coauthored the study, published in the journal Nature on April 1....

So, yes - the Harper Conservative 'war on science' is on full display in terms of limiting media access to government scientists...

Yet the scientist in the original article was still able to get his paper published in an academic journal.

...along with the reduced funding for pure scientific research...

I see.... so was it also a "war on science" when the Liberals were in power and Paul Martin: cut funding for the granting councils by $77-million over three years. At the same time, the National Research Council's budget was cut by $76-million over three years.? (See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/silver-powers/ornithology-would-drive-liberal-science-policy/article976303/ )

Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the cuts in science, but I can understand the rational, given the current budget deficit. And while there's no guarantee that other parties would make similar cuts today, historically the Liberals had no problems making the same sort of cuts the conservatives did, all in the name of "fighting the deficit".

[Dave_ON]

Wyly, maybe Harper and the Conservatives wouldn't be so distant if the media slowed down on trying to turn everything they say as a hidden agenda, a scandal or an opportunistic political ploy. Sensationalism sells I know, but oftentimes the media thinks and acts as if it's the opposition. Parliament returns Monday, maybe if the opposition parties take their role seriously we'll get some straight talk from this insular Conservative government.

Cap I'm sorry I have to disagree on this. Considering the CPC ran on a platform of transparency and accountability this is an unacceptable answer. They should be embracing the media to show how very transparent and accountable they are. As it stands their hiding from the media, and clamping down on their MP's only serves to further incite the media in to a bigger frenzy. In short this has been the least accountable and transparent government we've had in a very long time. The big bad media makes me this secretive isn't a good enough reason.

[segnosaur]

I suppose if preventing federal scientists from talking to the media about 13,000 year old floods and other research findings inconsistent with Harper's beliefs were the only example, this would not constitute a war on science. Unfortunately, there are more examples.

Yet those same scientists were able to publish their results in the journal Nature. Not a very effective act of censorship.

The percentage of qualified researchers in Canada being funded by Tri-Council grants, i.e., CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC,

has been steadily eroding during the dark Harper era.

Funding for things like NSERC also decreased when the Liberals formed the government (see my previous post). Were the Liberals having a "War on science" too?

Since his election, Harper has been in a constant war with medical scientists and physicians at Insite:

http://www.straight.com/article-141083/harper-government-has-no-love-science

Ummm... that particular article was written by people supporting the Insite "safe injection site". Yet the authors of that particular article have failed to acknowledge the existence of at least some evidence indicating that such injection sites might be causing harm.

From: http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/reprint/157/3/275.pdf

Needle exchange programs clearly are attracting a higher risk clientele. These findings give rise to concern that large needle exchange programs in metropolitan centres may be bringing together people who otherwise might not meet, thereby creating new social networks and fostering the mixing that has been shown to increase HIV transmission.

Complaining that Harper is anti-science just because he disagrees with one researcher sounds more like sour grapes.

He permanently eliminated his National Science Advisor:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/quirks-blog/2008/01/no_science_in_the_pms_ear.html

Yet according to that article, the position of National Science Adviser was only created a few years ago. Was Trudeau, Mulroney or Chrietien "anti-science" for not having such an adviser?

And anyone with even a first-year college or university undergraduate knowledge of the science of statistics would know that a voluntary census makes no sense in terms of scientific validity.

Ummm... I've got both a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in science. I've even taken multiple statistics courses (although I have to admit, I am fuzzy on some of the math, since it has been several years.) And at no point did they ever say voluntary survey's were "invalid". You do have to ensure proper sample selection but that applies to all surveys/census, mandatory or not.

[waldo]

my reply to you reflected your specific, slightly emphatic, statement that, "Goodyear does indeed believe in evolution"... his initial unwillingness to respond and his eventual rambling disjointed "high heels" clarification, one reflecting a non-common descent understanding/acceptance of evolution, does not foster any degree of confidence that, yes, Conservative Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, believes in evolution. The fact his current position is that his personal beliefs... are his personal beliefs... that the public has no need to know them... and that they won't affect his decision making, about closes the book on Goodyear's non-belief.

I have never heard a creationist say they "believe in evolution" without ever qualifying it by saying its "micro-evolution" that they actually accept (a bogus term, but one that they tend to favor.) To me, the "ramblings" make him sound like someone who is more likely just not familiar with the particulars of evolutionary theory (which of course doesn't preclude it from accepting it).

Like I said, I don't necessarily support Goodyear (more because of his background as a chiropractor shows a lack of scientific credibility and skepticism), but I still stand by my claim that at this point nobody can claim they actually know about his true "beliefs" over evolution.

no –whether you’ve personally, as you say, “heard a creationist” make that distinction for you… is irrelevant - the micro vs. macro delineation is one rife within the creationist dogma… google is your friend here. Goodyear’s initial avoidance in responding, his eventual convoluted response that brought forward scrutiny, his attempt to clarify with an even more ridiculous “high heels on cement” clarification (bringing forward even greater scrutiny), his refusal to respond further, his abject rejection of the need for anyone to know his personal beliefs… all this draws a conclusion you choose to simply dismiss as his ignorance of evolutionary theory. Really, how accommodating of you… that you would be more willing to suggest the Conservative Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear, is simply ignorant of one of the fundamental foundations of modern science - evolution theory… rather than accept that he appears to have creationist beliefs.

You strangely continue to dwell on the red-herring concerning publishing... that wasn't mentioned in the original linked article.

Ummm... why do you consider it a 'red herring'? The original linked article mentioned that the scientist who was "censored" had already had their results published in the journal Nature (a very highly regarded interdisciplinary journal). The exact statement from the referenced article is: NRC scientist Scott Dallimore coauthored the study, published in the journal Nature on April 1....

again, the article’s focus is on the Harper Conservative policy that denies media access to government scientists. It has nothing to do with publishing within scientific journals… however, it is interesting that you continue to beat that drum. You would expect/presume that media sources would be in a position to interpret highly complex scientific papers and draw out appropriate understandings for public delivery. Really? It’s a rare treat to actually have a mainstream media correspondent in a position to understand the basics, the fundamentals, of any science related topic… to even be in a position to ask the right questions! As it stands, the state of mainstream journalism is abysmal, science related writings, doubly so – basic cost-cutting measures have eroded the base of qualified journalists… in many cases, those that remain are biased hacks willing to simply pass-off, verbatim, the releases of industry funded and agenda driven sources. So ya, I guess, to you having the Harper Conservative government deny media access to government scientists make perfect sense! Why would anyone want an avenue open for media sources to hear directly from scientists… to have an ability for media sources to ask questions and have scientists respond in a way that the general public can easily and readily understand. What a concept!

So, yes - the Harper Conservative 'war on science' is on full display in terms of limiting media access to government scientists... along with the reduced funding for pure scientific research, notwithstanding the most visible and prolific areas of research that had their funding cut. There is a most significant raised alarm from scientists about the potential for a coming 'brain-drain'... all that 2009 Conservative budget focus on 'bricks & mortar' will seem quite irrelevant if there are no scientists around to do research within those infrastructure upgrades.

I see.... so was it also a "war on science" when the Liberals were in power and Paul Martin: cut funding for the granting councils by $77-million over three years. At the same time, the National Research Council's budget was cut by $76-million over three years.? (See: http://www.theglobea.../article976303/ )

Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with the cuts in science, but I can understand the rational, given the current budget deficit. And while there's no guarantee that other parties would make similar cuts today, historically the Liberals had no problems making the same sort of cuts the conservatives did, all in the name of "fighting the deficit".

oh right – Tim Powers… now there’s a ready go-to Conservative source – hey? I see he had to go all the way back to 1995. Since you’ve opened up the source bag, let’s see what we can find… I kind of like this one from Hansard, that went unchallenged:

Beginning in 1997, the Chrétien and Martin governments committed $12 billion in new funding to support research. They more than doubled the budgets of the research granting councils to a total of $1.6 billion in 2004-05. As a result, Canada is now a Group of 7, G7, leader in terms of university research and development. Under the Liberal governments, Canadian gross domestic expenditure on research and development, as a percentage of gross domestic product, GDP, rose significantly to just over 2 per cent, well above the average of 1.5 per cent for the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

One publication, Re$earch Money, said last year, on February 25, 2008, that "the Liberal governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin engineered the largest increases to university-based science funding in Canadian history.

"

now… you could continue to spout off partisan-like Tim Powers commentary… or… you could counter that reference from the most reputable ‘Research Money’ publication: