The day I have waited for 10 years.

[Buster]

"deserves" is a rather loaded word.

Considering that Public Unions don't use market determinants to establish their compensation, but rather an elaborate combination of political machinations and outright extortion....I'm not sure you can argue "deserves" is the right word.

[Coach]

There are very few people that actually deserve what they get (whether its good or bad). The market doesn't necessarily allocate anything in a "deserving" way.

Deserve is a loaded term for sure. The public sector should be getting what it needs, not deserves (whatever that means).

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Ever seen Newsroom?
"Snark is the idiot's version of wit, and we're being polluted by it."

I've said what I think. What do you think?

Several things.

First, I think your definition of "snark" seems indistinguishable from "sarcasm I don't like".

Second, what I think is that given your posts to date, I'd rather spend my time talking to someone worth said time rather than a vacuous ideologue.

Third, I think calling people idiots is a good way to get banned from this forum.

EDIT: Oh, and fourth, I think the best thing here would be to add each other to each others' ignore lists. I'll do my part.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Buster

"deserves" is a rather loaded word.

Considering that Public Unions don't use market determinants to establish their compensation, but rather an elaborate combination of political machinations and outright extortion....I'm not sure you can argue "deserves" is the right word.

And this is exclusive to public unions?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Buster

"deserves" is a rather loaded word.

Considering that Public Unions don't use market determinants to establish their compensation, but rather an elaborate combination of political machinations and outright extortion....I'm not sure you can argue "deserves" is the right word.

True, poor choice of words on my part.

I guess I would say it receives an amount of money that is in line with what it requires to function effectively, but whether it uses that money properly is a different (but entirely connected) issue.

[Armchair Quarterback]

It is disappointing to read all of the mischaracterizations on here of what the public service does. Understanding how the public service works is fundamental to understanding how Canadian parliamentary democracy works.

The public service exists to deliver services, but also to advise the Executive (and Parliament). Technically the civil service will do exactly what the Executive tells it to do; however, a much better, and healthier relationship, occurs when the Executive asks the civil service for advice on complex policy questions. After all, the civil service is comprised of very intelligent, experienced people (a Master's degree is necessary for even lower positions now; a PhD or over 20 years experience for anything higher). Gee, imagine that. Intelligent, experienced people who care about their country. The lazy ones are few and far between, and if you actually knew anyone who worked in the public service you would know that. Perhaps they deserve a modicum of respect, rather than the bullying and mistreatment they have experienced over the past few years. As a very wise man once wrote, 'Tis no sin for a man to labour in his vocation.

Big and small-c conservatives are traditionally very suspicious of civil servants, which is fine. That is their ideology and they are entitled to it. But to believe, as the CPC did, that the bureaucracy is simply there to spin partisan initiatives is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the civil service does. And to not allow civil servants to discuss their work with the public (they work for the PUBLIC, not the ruling party!) was also wrong.

Anyone who wants to really understand the Canadian civil service should check out the numerous works of Donald Savoie.

[northcrunk]

The public service controls the politicians. Just watch "yes minister". It's fairly close to how government operates. I think we need to get rid of all the middle managers and directors in the AHS who are sucking up the majority of salaries and have more nurses and doctors.

[Yamer]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

To be clear, though, it's obvious that there is such a thing as anti-muslim bigotry. The problem is that the term "Islamophobia" has become so confused that it now ties in actual anti-muslim bigotry (which in Canada, it seems to me, is largely a matter of xenophobia as Yamer suggests) and simply taking issue with specific doctrines in Islam and they way those doctrines are interpreted by certain adherents.

Thing is, nearly all of them(that is, those muslims espousing illiberal views based on religious doctrine) reside somewhere other than North America, which completely undercuts any sort of "purpose", as Yamer puts it, that might be served by xenophobia. Which I don't really know is legitimate to begin with.

I worded it funny. I meant the term xenophobia, rather than the concept in relation to the discussion, serves well enough in this instance (over Islamaphobia)

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Yamer

I worded it funny. I meant the term xenophobia, rather than the concept in relation to the discussion, serves well enough in this instance (over Islamaphobia)

Xenophobia is a better word for sure. I find both islamaphobia and anti-semitism to be used as a political term to stiffle valid criticisms.

[Flash Walken]

As a pretty conservative voter, I feel the Harper conservatives were poor for the country's long term economics.

Their lead on the environment and pipelines is likely something that will impact Canada for decades to come.

I simply cannot get behind ideologically supported arguments against science, information and data, and am not prepared to sweep these things under the rug in an attempt to preserve Harper's legacy.

It is simply indefensible to muzzle Canada's scientists and restrict the Canadian public's access to information. All other negative aspects of Harper's tenure aside, I don't think you can give an honest appraisal of his government without specificly mentioning these negative aspects.

Those that want to pretend like those things didn't happen to me are hopeless ideologues.

You simply can't run a country effectively when operating without the necessary information/data to govern. Full stop.

SeeGeeWhy has posted it numerous times without any sort of rebuttal. Harper's conservatives were in my opinion disastrous for Albertans and anyone else associated with Energy sector.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I ended up voting liberal but seriously, this was such bull####, dog-whistle politics from both sides. No, his campaign had nothing to do with anti-muslim bigotry. The niqab issue may have some of that tied up in it, but it is not the basis of the issue. Also, ideally, please stop using the word "islamophobia".

[Coach]

Flash, ideologues only exist as NDP or Liberal supporters. All Conservative policy and action is rooted in only rationality.

[Regorium]

I simply cannot get behind ideologically supported arguments against science, information and data, and am not prepared to sweep these things under the rug in an attempt to preserve Harper's legacy.

It is simply indefensible to muzzle Canada's scientists and restrict the Canadian public's access to information. All other negative aspects of Harper's tenure aside, I don't think you can give an honest appraisal of his government without specificly mentioning these negative aspects.

In what country are random low level government employees allowed to represent themselves as spokespeople for the government? Are you allowed to do this at your job?

But sure, let's use the word muzzle, rather than standard operating procedure.

People totally were on board when they fired the Calgary Transit anti-gay pride driver for speaking out. But I guess scientists are okay? What if there is an pro-creationism scientist that says something like "the government of canada has found that evolution is questionable"?

Those that want to pretend like those things didn't happen to me are hopeless ideologues.

Those that over-emphasize standard procedure and make them all scary sounding (like MUZZLING), aren't any better than the jihad terrorist going to kill us all types.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Regorium

In what country are random low level government employees allowed to represent themselves as spokespeople for the government? Are you allowed to do this at your job?

But sure, let's use the word muzzle, rather than standard operating procedure.

People totally were on board when they fired the Calgary Transit anti-gay pride driver for speaking out. But I guess scientists are okay? What if there is an pro-creationism scientist that says something like "the government of canada has found that evolution is questionable"?

If they have evidence to back it up and are able to show why it is interpreted as such, go for it.

[Armchair Quarterback]

In what country are random low level government employees allowed to represent themselves as spokespeople for the government? Are you allowed to do this at your job?

A friend of mine who works for the feds in the Official Languages Commissioner's office was threatened with dismissal because (horrors!) he spoke to the Saskatchewan francophone media about a kids French initiative here. Muzzling is absolutely right, and it wasn't standard until Harper came in.

More stories will be trickling out I imagine, as the new government starts up and we begin to hear the extent to which the civil service was bludgeoned into doing what the CPC wanted. Civil service works for the PUBLIC, not for the ruling party (proof of Harper's wrongness in this regard was changing Canadian Government to Harper government in all gov't communications). This seems like a very difficult concept for you to understand.

People totally were on board when they fired the Calgary Transit anti-gay pride driver for speaking out. But I guess scientists are okay? What if there is an pro-creationism scientist that says something like "the government of canada has found that evolution is questionable"?

The fact that you compare those of us who have dedicated our entire lives to the pursuit of knowledge, truth, and the betterment of humanity, to an anti-gay crackpot bus driver with no education, is obscenely idiotic.

Here's a brief list of what the intellectual class has faced under that government:
- closing of over a dozen major research libraries for biological/marine sciences (used not only by gov't but researchers across the world);
- equating of scientists with terrorists;
- funding cuts to scientists whose work contradicted what industry said (esp. petroleum industry);
- firing of over half of Library and Archives Canada staff, and cutting archival services back, farming out essential archival services dealing with national history to American companies.

Please. Enough. Flash said it best, the reason the CPC lost is that it pushed its ideology way too far and oppressed anyone who disagreed with it.

Which begs the question: if your ideas are so wonderful, and you are so certain of that, why bother undermining and crushing those who oppose you?

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by northcrunk

The public service controls the politicians. Just watch "yes minister". It's fairly close to how government operates. I think we need to get rid of all the middle managers and directors in the AHS who are sucking up the majority of salaries and have more nurses and doctors.

I actually had a professor in a forth year policy class show us an episode of "Yes, Minister" at the end of every lecture to illustrate examples from the lecture. He said it was pretty much how government ran.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Armchair Quarterback

A friend of mine who works for the feds in the Official Languages Commissioner's office was threatened with dismissal because (horrors!) he spoke to the Saskatchewan francophone media about a kids French initiative here. Muzzling is absolutely right, and it wasn't standard until Harper came in.

Why didn't he just go through the appropriate channels to talk about this initiative? Seems innocent enough, I'm sure it'd have been vetted and cleared in a day.

The fact that you compare those of us who have dedicated our entire lives to the pursuit of knowledge, truth, and the betterment of humanity, to an anti-gay crackpot bus driver with no education, is obscenely idiotic.

There are uneducated people within civil service as well. I apply this equally across the entire spectrum. Just as you (and I) would be frustrated if an official government scientist came out with a report that states that climate change is fake. I feel like results being vetted (vetted is not the same as changed or faked) prior to public consumption is completely normal.

Here's a brief list of what the intellectual class has faced under that government:
- closing of over a dozen major research libraries for biological/marine sciences (used not only by gov't but researchers across the world);
- equating of scientists with terrorists;
- funding cuts to scientists whose work contradicted what industry said (esp. petroleum industry);
- firing of over half of Library and Archives Canada staff, and cutting archival services back, farming out essential archival services dealing with national history to American companies.

See, I don't agree with this rhetoric at all. Harper chose a particular path for R&D - explicitly choosing to fund industry research (including O&G, manufacturing, finance, etc.) rather than basic science. I'm sorry we don't have infinite money. I don't agree with it, but this is not an "attack on the intellectual class."

As an aside, the arrogance I'm feeling from calling yourself the intellectual class, and how you've so selflessly dedicated your life to pursue truth is palpable. Newsflash: Scientists are human beings, with human flaws, like being subject to bias based on personal beliefs.

Please. Enough. Flash said it best, the reason the CPC lost is that it pushed its ideology way too far and oppressed anyone who disagreed with it.

Which begs the question: if your ideas are so wonderful, and you are so certain of that, why bother undermining and crushing those who oppose you?

That's fine. I'm okay with the CPC losing - I didn't vote CPC. I think your (and Flash's) wording is just as hyperbolic as the OP, which is why I responded.

And seriously, if anti-CPC ideas were so oppressed, would we be seeing a majority Liberal government? Wouldn't we be seeing a CPC majority with 140% of the popular vote?

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Why didn't he just go through the appropriate channels to talk about this initiative? Seems innocent enough, I'm sure it'd have been vetted and cleared in a day.

This is complete conjecture on your part and is in no way accurate. This is just what you want to believe. "i'm sure it'd have been vetted and cleared in a day" is made up nonsense that you are choosing to believe to paint things as being standard operating procedure.

Here's an example of the actual procedure for an actual scientist looking to share their actual research with actual media:

In one instance from 2014, a request from The Canadian Press to speak to federal government scientist Max Bothwell about his work on algae led to a 110-page email exchange to and from 16 different federal government communications officers.

In the end, Bothwell was not interviewed before the Canadian Press article was published.

A 2014 study of media policies from 16 federal departments concluded that current policies place far more restrictions on Canadian scientists when it comes to talking to media than is the case with their U.S. counterparts.

There have also been reports of restrictions on scientists being able to travel to conferences to share their results. Some international scientists have also voiced concerns that working with Canadian scientists will affect their own ability to speak freely about research results.

Originally Posted by Regorium

There are uneducated people within civil service as well. I apply this equally across the entire spectrum. Just as you (and I) would be frustrated if an official government scientist came out with a report that states that climate change is fake. I feel like results being vetted (vetted is not the same as changed or faked) prior to public consumption is completely normal.

Is it normal to completely deny scientists from discussing their work with the Canadian media?

In 2010, Natural Resources Canada scientist Scott Dallimore was not allowed to talk about research into a flood in northern Canada 13,000 years ago without getting pre-approval from political staff in the office of then-Natural Resources minister Christian Paradis. Postmedia News said requests were only approved after reporters' deadlines had already passed.

In 2011, Department of Fisheries and Oceans scientist Kristina Miller was blocked from speaking to the media about her research suggesting viral infections may be linked to higher salmon mortality.

Environment Canada's media office granted no interviews after a team published a paper in 2011 concluding that a 2 degree C increase in global temperatures may be unavoidable by 2100.

Postmedia science reporter Margaret Munro requested data from radiation monitors run by Health Canada following the earthquake and nuclear plant problems in Japan. Munro said Health Canada would not approve an interview with one of its experts responsible for the detectors.

Originally Posted by Regorium

As an aside, the arrogance I'm feeling from calling yourself the intellectual class, and how you've so selflessly dedicated your life to pursue truth is palpable. Newsflash: Scientists are human beings, with human flaws, like being subject to bias based on personal beliefs.

This is a demonstration that you don't understand how science works.

Originally Posted by Regorium

And seriously, if anti-CPC ideas were so oppressed, would we be seeing a majority Liberal government? Wouldn't we be seeing a CPC majority with 140% of the popular vote?

Interesting that you view opinions based on science to be 'anti-CPC ideas', which is basically the crux of my entire point. CPC Ideology is opposed to scientific inquiry because it conflicts with said ideology.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Regorium

In what country are random low level government employees allowed to represent themselves as spokespeople for the government? Are you allowed to do this at your job?

But sure, let's use the word muzzle, rather than standard operating procedure.

People totally were on board when they fired the Calgary Transit anti-gay pride driver for speaking out. But I guess scientists are okay? What if there is an pro-creationism scientist that says something like "the government of canada has found that evolution is questionable"?



Those that over-emphasize standard procedure and make them all scary sounding (like MUZZLING), aren't any better than the jihad terrorist going to kill us all types.

Are you seriously using this for your argument? The two are completely different. Highly educated people working within the bounds of their job to share information and improve our world, vs an ignorant uneducated person using his job as a soapbox for his personal views.

And for the last time, he wasn't fired for voicing his views anyway. That's what he said, that's not what happened. He was fired for lying, and for advertising the CT brand with nazi imagery on his Facebook page. Had he simply voiced his view, he'd probably still have his job, but he purposely used his position to promote his values while dragging his employer into the mud. No employer would allow you to do that.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

This is complete conjecture on your part and is in no way accurate. This is just what you want to believe. "i'm sure it'd have been vetted and cleared in a day" is made up nonsense that you are choosing to believe to paint things as being standard operating procedure.

Right. It is. You've found one example where there was inefficiency. What was in that 110 page email chain? What was so difficult? I really want to know the answer.

Is it normal to completely deny scientists from discussing their work with the Canadian media?

Before it's vetted? Yes. When CERN found the Higgs-Boson, no scientist was allowed to talk about it until they all got together, figured out their results, ensured that their messaging was consistent, and THEN they held a press conference to announce this. Why should we not expect similar vetting?

The examples you posted show that the Harper government probably went too far - not allowing their scientists to give interviews after the report has been released is not something I agree with. In my opinion, it is a mistake on their part, but again, it is not "an attack on the intellectual class."

This is a demonstration that you don't understand how science works.

Science is infallible. Scientists are not.

I can provide you many links of scientists doctoring data. Environmentalists that use junk science. Statisticians that can make the data say anything. Scientists that are influenced by funding (whether from the Sierra club, or Exxon Mobil). The list goes on.

Armchair paints scientists as infallible selfless beings that pursue science selflessly and only for the betterment of humankind. I portray them as human.

Interesting that you view opinions based on science to be 'anti-CPC ideas', which is basically the crux of my entire point. CPC Ideology is opposed to scientific inquiry because it conflicts with said ideology.

How is what we are discussing "opinions based on science"?

I think the discussion whether scientists should be allowed to freely talk to media is an interesting one that doesn't have as obvious of an answer as you think it does. There's no opinion based on science.

When you say that "It is simply indefensible to muzzle Canada's scientists and restrict the Canadian public's access to information," that is not a science-based statement (especially with the context behind it). That's your own ideology whether you want to admit it or not. I don't particularly agree with it, but we can have a discussion about it.