Stephen Harper and Federal Conservatives War on Science

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

In addition to this, I'm questioning our departure from a friendly, neutral observer in the global politics sphere to an opinionated, partisan mouthpiece. Harper's current visit to Israel and his speech to the Knesset yesterday is a good example of that, and I am sickening that he thinks Canadians feel the same.

This goof can't get replaced soon enough.

Question is, is anyone else competent to take over? History does not make me confident.

The world needs less neutral and more countries that take a stand. Enough of the nonsense. If people simply said enough violence, there would be no tolerance. Instead we have a world where Hezbollah launches rockets and people condemn Israel for defending itself. This has to stop. Harper was right.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by octothorp

The middle east is much more complex than to lump one side together as 'others'. It is possible to support the communities in Palestine without supporting Islamic terrorists or governments in neighbouring countries. Can't we be staunchly opposed to Islamic terrorism, and staunchly opposed to the continued ghettoization of Palestine? Honestly the way both sides have behaved in recent years, I don't see why anyone involved deserves Canada's friendship.

edit: to stay on topic: yeah, war on science bad too.

I was with you until the comments on ghettoization and behaviour.

There is only one place to point a finger in regards to ghettos, and that is Palestinian leadership. They are basically unable to make anything positive happen. The people are captives of terrorist groups who depend on misery. There will be no chance for Palestinians until the terrorists are done for good. Palestine seems to be very similar to Syria or Afghanistan. It is much easier to blame Israel. All the opportunities have been provided.

Regarding behaviour, this issue would have been resolved a long time ago, except for the fact places like Iran depend on the vilification of Israel. Israel simply keeps on doing what it has to do to survive while much of the world has become apologists to terrorists. There has been very little other option for Israel since there is no true partner for Israel to negotiate with for a peaceful solution. Absolutely no one. The people in charge don't dare make peace or concessions or they are dead.

The losers in all this? Palestinians. Israelis want peace. Palestinians want peace. Terrorists? They don't want peace. Don't throw Israel under the bus in all this, it doesn't help.

[puckluck2]

How did science turn into Israel talk? Maybe start another thread if you're going to derail it this much.

[Nage Waza]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

How did science turn into Israel talk? Maybe start another thread if you're going to derail it this much.

Ozy Flame derailed it with some nonsense. I should ignore it?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Nage Waza

Ozy Flame derailed it with some nonsense. I should ignore it?

You can always PM me if you want to have a debate. But I made my point earlier and I'm done.

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Why not split the Harper Israel issue from the Harper Science issue?

I'm still waiting to see any evidence supporting the fact that the facilities being cut by the Harper Government are in fact being absorbed by universities and the net loss is actually zero. (This may in fact be true, but I'd like to see some evidence supporting that).

[Rathji]

I would also like to see some stats on how many of these personnel loses are due to retirement etc. Obviously it doesn't change much, because if they are not being replaced then the policy is still problematic, I just hope they are not laying off too many people.

[Ex libris]

As someone who works in the library/information field, this makes me sad.

Dozens of federal departmental libraries across the country have been closed or are destined for closure within the next year. No studies were done to assess the impacts of these closures, and for many of the libraries affected there is no clear plan for what will be down with their collections. Where plans have been developed, departments indicate that their libraries’ historically valuable material will be relocated to Library and Archives Canada (LAC). However, given that acquisitions at LAC have been dramatically diminished, the likelihood that it will be able to cope with a massive influx of material from departmental libraries is small. Library material qualified as “non-mandate” by departments will be offered to other departments or employees, sold through Crown Assets Distribution, or destroyed.

http://canadaspastmatters.ca/public-...-closures.aspx

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Then it should be the duty of every political party to provide a candidate worth voting for. I've never liked Harper, and while I identify myself closest with the Liberals in my views there's no way I could vote for fools like Dion or Ignatieff in good conscience. Trudeau is better than them at least, but if it wasn't for Harper's continued war on common sense I still wouldn't be compelled to vote.

I think you answer is a cop out. In the 12 years you have been of age to vote there has not been one candidate that you could vote for?

I am sure you will come back with a response, but to be clear, you don't have to, it is not expect or needed.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

I think you answer is a cop out. In the 12 years you have been of age to vote there has not been one candidate that you could vote for?

I am sure you will come back with a response, but to be clear, you don't have to, it is not expect or needed.

No, there wasn't. And expecting people to cast a vote regardless if there's anyone they actually support is stupid, if you honestly expect that then you should move to Australia where voting is legally mandated. Until that comes to pass in Canada though I will exercise my right to not vote until there is someone I can fully support or until a time where the current government is bad enough that there needs to be any kind of change (like now)

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

No, there wasn't. And expecting people to cast a vote regardless if there's anyone they actually support is stupid, if you honestly expect that then you should move to Australia where voting is legally mandated. Until that comes to pass in Canada though I will exercise my right to not vote until there is someone I can fully support or until a time where the current government is bad enough that there needs to be any kind of change (like now)

Oh good lord.....

Why would I move to Australia.

Perhaps you should move to North Korea where you don't have to worry about you right to vote......

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

No, there wasn't. And expecting people to cast a vote regardless if there's anyone they actually support is stupid, if you honestly expect that then you should move to Australia where voting is legally mandated. Until that comes to pass in Canada though I will exercise my right to not vote until there is someone I can fully support or until a time where the current government is bad enough that there needs to be any kind of change (like now)

I'm very much of the philosophy to spoil your ballot if there isn't a candidate that deserves your vote. You're still voting but not for any particular candidate.

I also am annoyed when people say they have the right not to vote. There is no right not to vote. You have the right to vote but that does not equate the opposite is also true. You have the right to life but you do not have the right to suicide. I understand the point you're making, and I'm nitpicking on rhetoric but you're trying to say you don't have a requirement to vote.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

I'm very much of the philosophy to spoil your ballot if there isn't a candidate that deserves your vote. You're still voting but not for any particular candidate.

I also am annoyed when people say they have the right not to vote. There is no right not to vote. You have the right to vote but that does not equate the opposite is also true. You have the right to life but you do not have the right to suicide. I understand the point you're making, and I'm nitpicking on rhetoric but you're trying to say you don't have a requirement to vote.

I have to agree with Hemi.

There are a lot of rights that we have as members of a democratic society. We have the right to peacefully assemble and protest our government, the right to form political parties, and the right to contact our MPs and MPPs directly to advise them, but people hardly ever exercise those rights. Then there is voting.

We can choose our level of involvement as free people. I have actually participated in 2 or the things mentioned within the last election besides voting and would consider myself to have a higher level of democratic involvement than just someone who drops a ballot every 4 years. Not that it matters though, because like I said, it's up to us how involved we want to be.

[kevman]

Originally Posted by Maritime Q-Scout

There is no right not to vote.

There may be no "right not to vote" but individuals certainly have the right to not vote....

I've voted in every election at every level since I was old enough to vote but certainly have no beefs against others if they chose not to vote. There are a lot of reasons to not vote, some better than others, but at the end of the day some people just don't care and there is nothing we can do about that.

I had a buddy that when asked about why he didn't vote last federal election said "I'm not too concerned and I'd probably just vote for Harper anyway". Is that the kind of hands off voting you'd like to encourage?

People claim Harper wouldn't have a majority if voter turn out was 100% or that Nenshi wouldn't have won in a land slide but in reality mandated voting would likely result in similar results or perhaps strengthened support of incumbents. Like it not some people are content with the status quo.

Besides, with less people voting it just means our votes have more sway!

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Just because you have the ability to do something doesn't mean that you have the RIGHT to do it.

Just because you have the ability to not do something doesn't mean that you have the RIGHT to do it.

I'm referring to a right in a legal sense. A right is something that can't be legislated away. Could a Canadian government mandate voting be mandatory? If they can, then you don't have the right not to vote.

I'm not saying that because you have a right you have to exercise it. I'm saying that just because you have the right to do something, you don't automatically have the right not to do it.

This is a rhetorical pet peeve of mine. A right carries a heavy connotation, one beyond a privileged such as driving.

Individuals have the ability to not vote, you can argue that there should be a right not to vote (one that I may not be opposed to). But there is no recognized "right" not to vote under Canadian law, at least none that I've ever been made away of.

Originally Posted by kevman

There may be no "right not to vote" but individuals certainly have the option to not vote....

You can't say that someone doesn't have the right to do something, but they certainly have the right to do it. They have the ability, option, or privilege, but not the right, despite the end result being the same.

[Joborule]

I don't understand what the difference between not voting, and spoiling your ballot, or voting for someone you don't actually support, with no purpose other than to vote for the sake of voting. If anything, the last one enables what the voter is dissatisfied with within the candidates at the time.

If someone doesn't like anyone, then them not voting doesn't make a difference since spoiling a vote is the same result. A non-vote.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Ex libris

As someone who works in the library/information field, this makes me sad.

http://canadaspastmatters.ca/public-...-closures.aspx

Maybe I'm a little confused, but is there much difference between physical and digital libraries now? I mean, I've done a lot of research through the U of C and I needed to visit the actual library once (very specific data in a massive 16 volume handbook...and the handbook actually didn't contain the data I needed). In theory, I think I get what they're are trying to state: that a digitized library may be more efficient than a standard one. But I'm not sure I fully understand the consequences of removing physical libraries.

Certainly, the physical assets of the library need to be better handled; wasting material like that is atrocious. Getting them a home is important. But, again, I'm wondering if having an online database is much different from the physical (aside from the obvious aspect of it being inaccessible if you don't have a computer).

The one net negative I could think of is how easy it is to get lost if you're not technically competent and how much misinformation by poorly written articles could crop up. Any Google Scholar trip can show you the latter's impact.

[Red Slinger]

I think the only advantage of forcing people to vote (like in Australia) is that it encourages people (likely more than if not forced to vote) to look into the candidates and their platforms. This would probably result in a (at least slightly) more engaged electorate.

Regarding Harpers war on science: it's been a disturbing trend for quite some time now and it seems to follow along some of the US right-wing talking points, which is worrisome.

Either way, I think it's time for Harper to go. I think one advantage of the US system is term limits. With almost every Canadian federal party we've seen the corruption and scandals grow the longer they are in power. This includes Trudeau, Mulroney, Cretien/Martin and now Harper.

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Red Slinger

Either way, I think it's time for Harper to go. I think one advantage of the US system is term limits. With almost every Canadian federal party we've seen the corruption and scandals grow the longer they are in power. This includes Trudeau, Mulroney, Cretien/Martin and now Harper.

This got me thinking: would it be better to introduce more parties to split the vote? One thing I've felt for a while is that, while more unstable, the minority governments seem to do a better job at not becoming complete asshats as much as majority governments, which is basically 5 free years of whatever they want.

I've never liked Canadian majority governments (the PC seems on a slow train to being outed in Alberta, all the above I think had majorities during their corruption years), so that may influence my opinion, but it always seemed to me that too much power is given to parties with 50%+ of the seats and preventing that would help reduce the sort of problems we have now.

[Ex libris]

Originally Posted by kirant

Maybe I'm a little confused, but is there much difference between physical and digital libraries now? I mean, I've done a lot of research through the U of C and I needed to visit the actual library once (very specific data in a massive 16 volume handbook...and the handbook actually didn't contain the data I needed). In theory, I think I get what they're are trying to state: that a digitized library may be more efficient than a standard one. But I'm not sure I fully understand the consequences of removing physical libraries.

Certainly, the physical assets of the library need to be better handled; wasting material like that is atrocious. Getting them a home is important. But, again, I'm wondering if having an online database is much different from the physical (aside from the obvious aspect of it being inaccessible if you don't have a computer).

The one net negative I could think of is how easy it is to get lost if you're not technically competent and how much misinformation by poorly written articles could crop up. Any Google Scholar trip can show you the latter's impact.

Well one thing is, libraries pay for the subscription to those online databases, so if the physical library is closed, there is no access - which means paying upwards of $30 or $60 or even more for the right to view/use one article.
Also, like you said in your last paragraph - we are trained to do online research...so without library staff there would certainly be some 'lost' people. It really depends on how comfortable you are with doing research. I work in an academic library, so it's a bit different than these (federal) ones, but I am amazed at how many people don't know how to do even a basic search...like they have no clue where to even start.
So that is one big advantage - even though most of our physical collection is online, we are still there to teach people how to use it.