poochy Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Posted November 13, 2015 No, Tories have just become hateful jerks who try to shield their general loathing of humanity behind "we're just being honest." But at every turn, Tories have become the party that lumps people into "taxpayer" and "non-taxpayer", or a hundred other ways that amount to dehumanizing the poor and impoverished, throwing those people bizarre crumbs like tax credits for hockey skates, even as their supporters demonstrate contempt for just about everyone. Honestly, you standard rants are incredibly boring. Fyi, you aren't a better person than Argus, or me, or anyone, no matter how much your liberal arrogance has lead you to believe otherwise. You are simply incapable of defending your little rants, and run back to this well every time. So this woman is clearly not very scientific, and is now a minister of science, your response to that is just derision about conservatives not caring about science anyway, which of course is utter garbage, your modus operandi, so tell us, Mr Science, what are your credentials, just what expertise do you have that allows you to judge who knows or cares about science? Quote
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Honestly, you standard rants are incredibly boring. Fyi, you aren't a better person than Argus, or me, or anyone, no matter how much your liberal arrogance has lead you to believe otherwise. You are simply incapable of defending your little rants, and run back to this well every time. So this woman is clearly not very scientific, and is now a minister of science, your response to that is just derision about conservatives not caring about science anyway, which of course is utter garbage, your modus operandi, so tell us, Mr Science, what are your credentials, just what expertise do you have that allows you to judge who knows or cares about science? My credentials are that I don't reject scientific theories because they make me feel angry or fearful. Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Since when did Ministers have to be experts on their porfolios? There are so many counter examples to pick from. This MS treatment sounded dodgy to me from the start but was backed by a lot of doctors in Canada. Quote
kimmy Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 She is bringing one more warm female body to the cabinet table so that JT can say its 2015. It's not necessarily a do-nothing position. The US Congress has a House Science Committee. It's not inherently unreasonable that there be a Ministry of Science in Canada. I recall that in the past we've had similar notions folded in with the Industry portfolio. I'd just like to understand what this person will actually be doing. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
poochy Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Posted November 13, 2015 Since when did Ministers have to be experts on their porfolios? There are so many counter examples to pick from. This MS treatment sounded dodgy to me from the start but was backed by a lot of doctors in Canada. Right, the new evidence based decision making liberals now get a pass when the minister of SCIENCE chooses to believe in a medical treatment without their being any evidence to give reason for that belief. Who are the unscientific ones now? Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Right, the new evidence based decision making liberals now get a pass when the minister of SCIENCE chooses to believe in a medical treatment without their being any evidence to give reason for that belief. Who are the unscientific ones now? You don't need me to go back through all the clueless Ministers of Health we have had in this country etc. etc. Quote
poochy Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Posted November 13, 2015 You don't need me to go back through all the clueless Ministers of Health we have had in this country etc. etc. Two wrongs, etc, you haven't noticed the liberals new and sunny ways, the fact and evidence based decision making promises? Anyway, the conflict here between the promises the liberals campaigned on and the realty of this woman's beliefs and credentials is so strong i have to question the sanity of anyone who either can't see it or who refuses to accept the stupidity of it. Quote
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Two wrongs, etc, you haven't noticed the liberals new and sunny ways, the fact and evidence based decision making promises? Anyway, the conflict here between the promises the liberals campaigned on and the realty of this woman's beliefs and credentials is so strong i have to question the sanity of anyone who either can't see it or who refuses to accept the stupidity of it. It certainly isn't as bad as putting a Creationist in charge of science. Quote
Argus Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 No, Tories have just become hateful jerks who try to shield their general loathing of humanity behind "we're just being honest." Hyperbolic drivel from an extremist political partisan who probably has an alter to Justin Trudeau by his bedside and cries tears of joy every time he looks at Justin's shiny hair. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Hyperbolic drivel from an extremist political partisan who probably has an alter to Justin Trudeau by his bedside and cries tears of joy every time he looks at Justin's shiny hair. Speaking of hyperbole.... Quote
Argus Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 My credentials are that I don't reject scientific theories because they make me feel angry or fearful. You do in fact. You praise the the census as the most important social tool government has ever had, but when I point out a statistical study from the same government department which contradicts your world view you dismiss it as "pseudoscience"." Like other partisan zealots you will accept only arguments, statistics and studies which do not conflict with your own narrow minded world views. Which, ironically, was exactly the complaint you have about the Tories and science. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Two wrongs, etc, you haven't noticed the liberals new and sunny ways, the fact and evidence based decision making promises? Anyway, the conflict here between the promises the liberals campaigned on and the realty of this woman's beliefs and credentials is so strong i have to question the sanity of anyone who either can't see it or who refuses to accept the stupidity of it. Ten, twenty wrongs. People should be qualified for the jobs they hold. I'm not defending this person's qualifications but she surely ain't the first. Jane Philpott is the first MD ever to hold the MoH job in this country. That is quite the feat. Here's a list of recent incumbents. Much connection with health care I do not see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Health_(Canada) Edited November 13, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote
The_Squid Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Unlike you and this science minister I actually have scientific credentials I don't believe you. You selectively believe the science based on your political leanings. Anyone with any real science credentials doesn't do that. Quote
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 You do in fact. You praise the the census as the most important social tool government has ever had, but when I point out a statistical study from the same government department which contradicts your world view you dismiss it as "pseudoscience"." Like other partisan zealots you will accept only arguments, statistics and studies which do not conflict with your own narrow minded world views. Which, ironically, was exactly the complaint you have about the Tories and science. Fertility rate of 2.1 to stabilize population; we only have a fertility rate of 1.6. That is an incontrovertible fact. Quote
overthere Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 It certainly isn't as bad as putting a Creationist in charge of science. Yet that Minister- and many others in our history- did not translate personal beliefs into action. Harper is a Christian, yet did nothing to affect access to abortion. Same for Chretien and Martin, both lifelong churchgoing Christians who did the same nothing on this file. Those two Liberals even changed their minds on same sex marriage. Actually Chretien and Martin both changed their votes on SSM- first voting against it, then later voting for it. So it matters less what you think, and matters more what you do. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Yet that Minister- and many others in our history- did not translate personal beliefs into action. Harper is a Christian, yet did nothing to affect access to abortion. Same for Chretien and Martin, both lifelong churchgoing Christians who did the same nothing on this file. Those two Liberals even changed their minds on same sex marriage. Actually Chretien and Martin both changed their votes on SSM- first voting against it, then later voting for it. So it matters less what you think, and matters more what you do. So there shouldn't be a problem with someone who was previously an advocate of some crap science theory then, right? Quote
Bonam Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Fertility rate of 2.1 to stabilize population; we only have a fertility rate of 1.6. That is an incontrovertible fact. A fertility rate of ~2.1 to keep a constant population is only true under the assumption of constant life expectancy. But that assumption is not correct. Continually increasing life expectancy means each subsequent generation can be fewer in number than the previous while the total population remains stable, because more generations overlap in time. Pretty basic math there. In fact, as lives become prolonged indefinitely, which will probably happen within the next 50-100 years (ignoring the occasional accidental death), no new births will be necessary at all to maintain a stable population. Quote
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 A fertility rate of ~2.1 to keep a constant population is only true under the assumption of constant life expectancy. But that assumption is not correct. Continually increasing life expectancy means each subsequent generation can be fewer in number than the previous while the total population remains stable, because more generations overlap in time. Pretty basic math there. In fact, as lives become prolonged indefinitely, which will probably happen within the next 50-100 years (ignoring the occasional accidental death), no new births will be necessary at all to maintain a stable population. Demographers take into account lifespan increases, but those increases come nowhere near bridging the gap. And we don't have immortality yet, so that's about as useful to demographic studies as faster-than-light travel is to space space research. Quote
overthere Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Ten, twenty wrongs. People should be qualified for the jobs they hold. I'm not defending this person's qualifications but she surely ain't the first. Jane Philpott is the first MD ever to hold the MoH job in this country. That is quite the feat. Here's a list of recent incumbents. Much connection with health care I do not see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minister_of_Health_(Canada) But what does 'qualified' mean when the job is to run a large organization ? Does the person in charge of General Motors have a vast knowledge and deep background of assembly lines, or car design, finance or marketing? What do you think a high level manager actually manages? Money? Projects? research? I'll make it easy for you. What the CEO manages or should manage is two things: people and strategy. Every corporation or govt department has many layers of subject matter specialists who are deeply involved in the minutiae of issues. A CEO (Minister) must be able to grasp the issues and devise strategies to address them. The other task is to recruit and retain the very best people to execute those strategies. In this of course a govt minister is hampered by having to , for the most part, take a staff of people that are hard to hire and fire. The prime requisite for the top jobs is not detailed and specific knowledge of the subject matter, it is management abilities. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 I'll make it easy for you. What the CEO manages or should manage is two things: people and strategy. Every corporation or govt department has many layers of subject matter specialists who are deeply involved in the minutiae of issues. A CEO (Minister) must be able to grasp the issues and devise strategies to address them. The other task is to recruit and retain the very best people to execute those strategies. In this of course a govt minister is hampered by having to , for the most part, take a staff of people that are hard to hire and fire. The prime requisite for the top jobs is not detailed and specific knowledge of the subject matter, it is management abilities. Yes, that's modern management theory, and it has its advocates, but it also has its critics. I think Apple is a good example of where you need someone with management abilities, but having some knowledge of the department and/or organization a manager is overseeing is important. I was at a seminar a couple of weeks ago (yes, on the same day as the demographic seminar) that explained how the traditional way in which managers were found; usually through internal promotion, has been disrupted over the last few decades by "professional managers", and that has lead to some loss of in-organization expertise. That all being said, we have to be careful here. We're not talking about CEOs or department heads. Fundamentally, modern government is largely run by the senior levels of the civil service, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and various other department heads. The purpose of a Minister, particularly in a Westminster style parliament, is to be the conduit between Parliament and the "functional executive". You're no more going to get a large number of MPs with MBAs, or even more informal management training, than you will MPs who are scientists, doctors, or any other professions. The point of the Minister is to be the political element of government, so they are not quite managers in the corporate sense of the word. Quote
Argus Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Fertility rate of 2.1 to stabilize population; we only have a fertility rate of 1.6. That is an incontrovertible fact. And entirely irrelevent, but grats on mastering the fine art of decimal points. Edited November 13, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Demographers take into account lifespan increases, but those increases come nowhere near bridging the gap. And we don't have immortality yet, so that's about as useful to demographic studies as faster-than-light travel is to space space research. Why are you even bringing up demographic studies when you consider them to be 'pseudosciene"? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 Why are you even bringing up demographic studies when you consider them to be 'pseudosciene"? No, I consider your interpretations and cherry picking pseudoscience. Quote
SpankyMcFarland Posted November 13, 2015 Report Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) But what does 'qualified' mean when the job is to run a large organization ? Does the person in charge of General Motors have a vast knowledge and deep background of assembly lines, or car design, finance or marketing? What do you think a high level manager actually manages? Money? Projects? research? I'll make it easy for you. What the CEO manages or should manage is two things: people and strategy. Every corporation or govt department has many layers of subject matter specialists who are deeply involved in the minutiae of issues. A CEO (Minister) must be able to grasp the issues and devise strategies to address them. The other task is to recruit and retain the very best people to execute those strategies. In this of course a govt minister is hampered by having to , for the most part, take a staff of people that are hard to hire and fire. The prime requisite for the top jobs is not detailed and specific knowledge of the subject matter, it is management abilities. I disagree. Both management expertise and knowledge of the subject are highly useful. Most great CEOs have both. Look at high tech. The vast majority of successful CEOs have not been blow-ins - they have been intimately involved in making products. The person in charge of GM has usually known quite a bit about making cars before they took the job. They had a few recent ones who didn't but Mary Barra's story is more typical: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Barra Ditto car companies in Japan. And what expertise did Leona Agglukaq have for the job? A lack of knowledge will betray you constantly in press conferences. Even somebody as clever as Jason Kenney struck an odd note by talking about the front line in the conflict with ISIS when that sort of language has been bypassed long ago in the field. Edited November 13, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland Quote
poochy Posted November 13, 2015 Author Report Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) Again I question the sanity of people who ignore that this new and sunny government promised a new fact based way of doing things and then they immediately appointed someone as minister of science, who believes strongly in unscientific things, and not only that, appears to have some other, issues. This is akin to the conservatives having appointed Stockwell Day Minister of evolution, but of course the conservatives didn't pretend that everyone else was anti science and then promote themselves as the beacons of facts and evidence like the liberals have, while then immediately proving that to be entirely untrue. O, People should be qualified for the jobs they hold...how can the minister of science be qualified if she promotes medical therapies without scientific evidence? She isn't, and the liberals are proven to be liars once again, how many days/lies has it been? There is obviously no concern for science in her appointment, the concern for appearances to be sure, but that is what they are always best at. Edited November 13, 2015 by poochy Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.