Archive for March, 2010
Freedom of scientific speech
One problem I have with so many conservatives and libertarians is their attachment to their untested (and often inconsistent) theories and ideas. To be fair, we’re all probably a little challenged by science and research that refutes our own beliefs. But when I followed a link to this article by the Guardian,1 I suddenly had some recurring bad thoughts about folks that are science-challenged:
Canada’s climate researchers are being muzzled, their funding slashed, research stations closed, findings ignored and advice on the critical issue of the century unsought by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government…
Harper is the guy that once claimed that global warming was nothing but a socialist conspiracy after all. And Harper is from Calgary. But, in defense of Calgary, there are many scientists that live there and there are even a few that don’t work for Big Oil. I guess that’s why Harper decided to just muzzle them. A scientist from Edmonton, writing in the Ottawa Citizen, said this:
It is clear that muzzling under the Harper government is the most oppressive in the history of federal government science. Incredibly, some of the most eminent scientists in Canada have been forbidden to speak publicly on scientific matters where they are recognized as world experts, ranging from climate change to pollution of lakes and rivers. Instead, the public is referred to media-savvy spin doctors, who usually know very little about the science of these topics, spouting the party line.
The report that got this all started was written by the Climate Action Network and can be found here. There is much that is interesting in this report and one detail that I found particularly interesting was the fact that Harper has appointed climate change skeptics to the boards of two super important granting bodies: NSERC and CFI. So just to explain how this works, students in Universities that are working at the graduate level in the sciences are funded by granting agencies like NSERC. In fact, I believe the National Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) is responsible for the funding of all of the PhD scientists I know. And NSERC has the difficult position of selecting and denying applications for funding. Not everyone’s research gets funded and not all research gets the green light. So the significance of Harper’s appointments to the board, is very very real.
One of these appointments is Mark Mullins. Mark Mullins was the Executive Director of the Fraser Institute for four years.
Another one of the appointments (to CFI) was John Weissenberger. He’s a geologist from Calgary who worked in oil and gas for twenty years. He’s actually a friend of the evil-overlord himself and was a chief of staff for the evil-overlord’s government. The author of the Climate Action Network report, Andrew Cuddy, took the time to include a quote by John Weissenberger and I’ll sign off by quoting the quote. But first, you should know that Weissenberger didn’t write the following soundbite alone. He was joined by George Koch, who I’m assuming is from the Koch family of Koch Oil. The Koch family are all pious followers of Ayn Rand even, I believe, requiring that their employees and executives read Rand’s books. The Koch’s, in short, are libertarians and conservatives.
“[T]he great weakening of the Stalinist intellectual monument of global warming theory continues in regular increments.” — George Koch (from a blog published jointly with Weissenberger), September 13, 2008
- Link provided by the Tyee: http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2010/03/25/HarpersMuzzle/ ↩
The future of cities
This conversation with Paul Saffo is interesting in part because these two middle age white executives are speaking so nonchalantly about the relative likelihood of nation states breaking up into city states. And don’t forget about the rise of robots. And don’t forget about surviving climate change. And what about the cost of housing on the bay?
A random note on “I’m not a joiner”
The phrase, “I’m not a joiner” is one that I’ve heard a number of times, spoken by folks who are claiming not to be into joining groups. What is implied, I think, is that they are free thinking individuals and that joining is conforming. And I think they also suggest that conforming is a problem. So when I spoke, for example, about the mandate and effectiveness of Amnesty International all they said was “I’m not a joiner”. It’s a little insulting. And it overlooks the ways in which we are members of many groups by default. And unless they think all is right with the way we’ve formed our societies, then they might want to reconsider what role joining has in making changes. “I’m not a joiner” ought to be the slogan of the Ayn Rand Libertarian’s club.
Experimenting with embedded fonts
How cool is it to be using embedded fonts on the web! This paragraph, if the experiment goes well, is expressed with a font called Chunk.
Very much fun! This paragraph is hopefully Chopin Script.
Two good online resources, for doing this sort of thing, include Font Squirrel and also The League of Movable Type. I bow down to both of these organizations! 1
- I also am extremely thankful to Hugh Stimson, for pointing me in this direction and who will hopefully comment on the readability of these font selections. ↩
Good research and racist comments
The study that inspired the racist comments, and this post, is interesting because it helps folks who have a hard time seeing racism understand that it’s rampant in Canadian culture. The researchers sent off over 6000 resumes to potential employers in Toronto. Among many other findings, it was found that those resumes with English sounding names received interview requests 40 percent more often than applicants with Chinese, Indian, or Pakistani sounding names. You can download the whole paper or it’s brief, here.1
It’s a good study with significant social relevance. And Maclean’s Magazine wrote an article about it. 2
But the comments on this Maclean’s article tell the story of racism in Canada, as much as the research itself. This comment by “Julie LaFlamme” might constitute hate speech. Apparently she thinks all people with racialized minority names are immigrants. Wow. And apparently she thinks it’s acceptable to discriminate on the basis of race. Wow. And apparently Maclean’s thinks this kind of comment is acceptable. Heck.
Comment by “Julie LaFlamme” to MacLean’s article on 22 May 2009:
So this is a surprise? Funny I thought that if a company was paying its employees a fair wage, submitting their taxes on time, and generally behaving in an acceptable way, it could consider the type of employee it would choose to hire also based on the ability to fit in with the culture of th business ( how many .A.S.P.s do you see working at retail establishments in Chinatown?)
If people don’t want to hire immigrants, why should they be obligated to interview them? This is taking political correctness just a little too far. Why should an immigrant get a job over a natural citizen, whose parents & grandparents have built the country up.
I am so tired of catering to immigrnats – who seem to think nothing of trying to bring their conflicts & screw-ups from their old homes here with them.
Hopefully those who work in immigration will grow a set & start doing their jobs screening undesirables who end up being citizens of convenience, not contibutors to our society.
- Why Do Skilled Immigrants Struggle in the Labor Market? A Field Experiment with Six Thousand Resumes by Phil Oreopoulos, UBC – Policy Briefing Note ↩
- I found the article online and they may not have published it in their print magazine. It doesn’t appear to be signed by an author, instead it’s signed: by Maclean’s on campus - The Canadian Press ↩