|
Fine-able Offense posted:Greg Rickford in cabinet is a loving travesty. That dude is the weirdest, So perfectly suited for the science portfolio then 
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 16:47
|
|
-est, most awkwardly antisocial OCD dude I ever had the displeasure of meeting with in Ottawa. 
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
Canuckistan posted:So perfectly suited for the science portfolio then I mean, perhaps moreso than Goodyear was, who doesn't believe in evolution (among other things).
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 16:49
|
|
|
Canuckistan posted:According to his wiki he doesn't have much background in science. Not sure what to think here. I don't really understand this reasoning or expectation that they need some kind of expertise in order to manage or represent a particular section of the government. Wouldn't the minister have people under him making the necessary proposal and a case for fundings (allocation of or additional)? And then the minister would make the necessary decision based on the information provided to him instead of going, "welp, I have a phd in insects therefore I know everything" Maybe I'm missing something here? E: Has Goodyear done anything that represents his personal belief during his stint as Minister of Science? quaint bucket fucked around with this message at 16:52 on Jul 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
klockwerk posted:Shelly Glover @ShellyGloverMP Minister of Heritage and Official Languages She's also been under investigation for failing to disclose financial documents that might show that she exceeded campaign spending limitations in the 2011 election. I guess Harper is pretty confident that nothing will come of it if he's giving her a cabinet spot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
I think the preference is for the Minister to, perhaps, have some kind of knowledge of the subject of their portfolio. Basically, for me, so long as the Science Ministry isn't headed up by an anti-science YEC shitlord, I'm good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:E: Has Goodyear done anything that represents his personal belief during his stint as Minister of Science? Never change, quaint bucket.  Edit for content: I think the problem with your post is that you don't seem to know what a Minister of State does, or why it's dumb to appoint one who flat-out does not support the mandate of his portfolio. Franks Happy Place fucked around with this message at 17:00 on Jul 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Has Goodyear done a goddamn thing to promote science as minister? His major accomplishment is shifting the focus of the NRC to industry partnerships and dumping basic research altogether, which makes him a solid candidate for the most terrible outgoing minister or science minister ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 17:01
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Never change, quaint bucket. Muzzle scientists so we can further oppress the poor because freedom of speech is a small sacrifice to ensure the balance of relative wealth is tipped to the True Class of Wealth and Prosperity at all times. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
Honestly, a MoS is mostly an internal advocate for a particular sub-portfolio within a larger ministry. So Small Business and S&T are both inside Industry, and their job is to keep abreast of their sub-constituency and pass interesting/useful ideas they get from advocacy groups etc. up the chain to the big minister and/or PMO. So basically your only job as MoS is to care about your file, take an active interest in the issues, talk to constituents, and understand what's important. Making a YEC chiropractor basically the worst possible choice for MoS of Science and Technology... pretty much imaginable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 17:10
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:I don't really understand this reasoning or expectation that they need some kind of expertise in order to manage or represent a particular section of the government.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:I don't really understand this reasoning or expectation that they need some kind of expertise in order to manage or represent a particular section of the government. Is this a joke post? Having some (doesn't have to be a PhD) background in the field in which the minister is going to direct national policy isn't important to you? Especially considering the Conservative cabinet ministers have a nasty habit of getting their grubby hands in the inner workings of their departments. As expected, the cabinet shuffle is just stirring the poo poo around the toilet, no flushing involved. Sad that these are the best people they can come up with for these jobs, and that their talent pool is shallower than a little-league B team. mik fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jul 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
If Harper gets hit by a bus or something, who would be the next CPC leader of the party? No one is really jumping out at me
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
It would just be Stephen Harper again. What is already dead can never once more die, and his phylactery is well-hidden.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:I don't really understand this reasoning or expectation that they need some kind of expertise in order to manage or represent a particular section of the government. And this is part of the problem. Having a background in science, any science, leads to a greater understanding of science as a whole. This is an understandable and common misunderstanding in the general public. Most people think science is "knowing things" and that if you have, for example, a phd in insects, then you ONLY know insects because you've just spent the last 15 years doing nothing but memorizing insect stuff. It's understandable because this is how science is taught until the second half of undergrad university (and that's an entirely different rant). Having even a minor background in any science will help you to understand the way in which data is gathered and interpreted, and allow you to make informed decisions. What is the point of having a minister of anything at all if the only people who actually understand any of it are the advisers? The position might as well not even exist. It would be like having an economics minister whose concept of money is the same as a 3-year-old's.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Alctel posted:If Harper gets hit by a bus or something, who would be the next CPC leader of the party? Lots of variety to choose from!      
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:20
|
|
|
Alctel posted:If Harper gets hit by a bus or something, who would be the next CPC leader of the party? Short summary, Conservatives have a hard on for the foreign affairs portfolio, but Chris Alexander being named to Citizenship and Immigration, depending on what he does with it, is interesting.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
Alctel posted:If Harper gets hit by a bus or something, who would be the next CPC leader of the party? Harper keeps himself stationed as bus driver, ride with him long enough he'll throw you under eventually, just sit still in back, shut up and read the transit map.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Speaking of buses, I think Kenney just got thrown under one. That new portfolio is just a fancy rename of HRSD, which is a lovely job and often involves getting yelled at by all kinds and types of people. For those of you who watched The Thick of It (should be ALL of you fuckers  ), HRSD = DoSAC.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:28
|
|
|
Yeah, I mean, considering the Harper Government's Laser Focus on the Economy and Job Creation, you'd think HRSDC/Employment would be an important file, so I didn't read it as a straight demotion, but Kenney's job is going to suck for the next two years and I have to think that was intentional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:35
|
|
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:And this is part of the problem. Having a background in science, any science, leads to a greater understanding of science as a whole. This is an understandable and common misunderstanding in the general public. Most people think science is "knowing things" and that if you have, for example, a phd in insects, then you ONLY know insects because you've just spent the last 15 years doing nothing but memorizing insect stuff. It's understandable because this is how science is taught until the second half of undergrad university (and that's an entirely different rant). Having even a minor background in any science will help you to understand the way in which data is gathered and interpreted, and allow you to make informed decisions. What is the point of having a minister of anything at all if the only people who actually understand any of it are the advisers? The position might as well not even exist. It would be like having an economics minister whose concept of money is the same as a 3-year-old's. That's a fair point, but again, wouldn't the minister in question have people under him to guide him what to advocate for with the PM and Parliament? So far, I'm understanding the Minister to be responsible for general policy and advocacy. What constituent as an minor background? A science 101 course in college or actual experience in the field? Help me out here to understand where the goal post is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 18:54
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 19:32
|
|
|
Honestly I don't think I'm qualified to give you a hard and firm goalpost, but I don't necessarily think a college degree is necessary. Or hell, any education at all. You simply need to understand science, which is entirely possible to get just on your own by reading enough literature. The education certainly helps though. If you were to put a gun to my head and force me to pick something, I'd probably go with a bachelor's degree in some science faculty. This is certainly something that would have to be hammered out with lots of thought and various viewpoints, and also probably from people who, you know, are actual experts in this kind of thing. My problem is with the idea of the minister himself not having an understanding, especially if any sort of contention arises. Let's go back to my mythical economics minister who thinks that money comes from wallets. Two authorities are telling him two different and antithetical things about what legislation should be proposed and what actions should be taken by the government. Without having a clue about the nuance and complications of economics, how can he make an informed decision? How can he sift the truth from the bullshit? Advisers under him or no, he IS the guy in charge, and he SHOULD know what he's doing, or why wouldn't we just elevate one of the advisers to his position, who apparently DOES know what he's doing?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 19:34
|
|
|
Having a background in science doesnt mean you're not an idiot. See the opinions of every geologist that works in the oil and gas industry
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
Rumors has it that Rob Ford has the votes at city council to scuttle the already funded and under construction Transit City plan *this week*, and will change the topic back to trying to build an unfunded, unplanned subway line instead. *sigh* e: I know everyone outside Toronto is probably tired of reading about this, but it's just sooooo disheartening. Reince Penis fucked around with this message at 20:16 on Jul 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 20:13
|
|
|
THC posted:Having a background in science doesnt mean you're not an idiot. See the opinions of every geologist that works in the oil and gas industry Hell, ask Harrison Schmidt. That dude was smart enough to go to the moon, but somehow thinks climate change will be loving awesome because plants will grow faster. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 20:24
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
THC posted:Having a background in science doesnt mean you're not an idiot. See the opinions of every geologist that works in the oil and gas industry Have you met any geologists? Majuju fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Jul 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 20:28
|
|
|
I love it when people go on about how global warming will benefit Canada so it's good, but then if you bring up what it will do to India and the rest of the world suddenly climate change isn't real or won't be as severe and they want to change the topic. Also it's a stereotype for sure but there's something about geologists working for oil and gas and engineers that attract some of the worst political and scientific idiocy. Geologists NOT working for oil & gas though have been some of the biggest marxist hippies I've ever met though. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 20:34 on Jul 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
THC posted:Having a background in science doesnt mean you're not an idiot. See the opinions of every geologist that works in the oil and gas industry Allow me to enumerate what I believe is a preferable goal for cabinet appointments. Idiot: No Educated idiot: No Non-idiot: maybe Non-idiot with background in field: probably Educated non-idiot: probably (learning skills are key here) Educated non-idiot with background in field: yes
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I love it when people go on about how global warming will benefit Canada so it's good, but then if you bring up what it will do to India and the rest of the world suddenly climate change isn't real or won't be as severe and they want to change the topic. The fact they dont understand that thawing the tundra is a Bad Thing will always make me cringe.  No, that wont turn it into a magical
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:Allow me to enumerate what I believe is a preferable goal for cabinet appointments. Well, the problem with your method is how do we get these educated non-idiots with backgrounds in applicable fields to run for office in some riding somewhere in the nation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
ZShakespeare posted:Allow me to enumerate what I believe is a preferable goal for cabinet appointments. If we award cabinet positions based on merit what carrot will we have to enforce party loyalty? What do you think of that smart guy?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
THC posted:Having a background in science doesnt mean you're not an idiot. See the opinions of every geologist that works in the oil and gas industry No, but dumbass with an education is better than a vanilla dumbass. Unless the plan is simply to throw our hands in the air and say gently caress it all, everybody loses. Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Well, the problem with your method is how do we get these educated non-idiots with backgrounds in applicable fields to run for office in some riding somewhere in the nation? Yeah the problem is that anybody who fits that bill will run right the gently caress away from the government position specifically because they are NOT idiots. That right there is the inherent problem I guess. Oh well, throwing my hands in the air. gently caress it all. Everybody loses.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
Even the ones that run would probably be unelectable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:29
|
|
|
THC posted:Having a background in science doesnt mean you're not an idiot. See the opinions of every geologist that works in the oil and gas industry I don't really think it's a good idea to call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot. Remember that saying about when it's the most difficult to get someone to understand something? when their salary depends on them not understanding it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
What we should really do is just only ever elect lawyers because they're the best at arguing, and then have lawyers in charge of every ministry. Oh wait.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 22:55
|
|
|
Isentropy posted:I don't really think it's a good idea to call everyone who disagrees with you an idiot. When your position is that evolution created human beings, and human activities are causing climate change, and the Earth is more than 6000 years old, you totally can.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Well, the problem with your method is how do we get these educated non-idiots with backgrounds in applicable fields to run for office in some riding somewhere in the nation? Didn't a climate scientist run for the greens in the BC election and win? There's still part of me that isn't cynical enough to believe that it could happen!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
 Climate science: literally worse than Hitler
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 00:53
|
|
|
I remember the first Kyoto convention on eugenics, when all of the top scientists of the world gathered to reach a consensus on the relative value of each race, submitting recommendations to the leaders of the developed world who then became signatories of the first international treaty on the Aryan race. If only we had listened to the eugenics deniers then, World War II might have been avoided. Maybe Hitler wouldn't have been born in the first place, hmm?
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:36 |
|
|
I say we go for a system where our officials do not run for office, they are merely elected. They are then brought into custody and and made to serve their term in office until society's debt to them has been repaid.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2013 01:22
|
|