<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sherwin Arnott &#187; Ayn Rand</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sherwinarnott.org/tag/ayn-rand/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sherwinarnott.org</link>
	<description>Media, Design &#38; Epistemology...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 23:53:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Freedom of scientific speech</title>
		<link>http://www.sherwinarnott.org/politics/freedom-of-scientific-speech/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sherwinarnott.org/politics/freedom-of-scientific-speech/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Mar 2010 17:05:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sherwin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[science]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Andrew Cuddy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ayn Rand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[climate change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[evil-overlord]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Fraser Institute]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[George Koch]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[global warming]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John Weissenberger]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mark Mullins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stephen Harper]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth and fairness]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sherwinarnott.org/?p=1077</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[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&#8217;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 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3><span class="dropcap">O</span>ne 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&#8217;re all probably a little challenged by science and research that refutes our own beliefs. But when I followed a link to <a title="Government of Canada muzzling scientists" href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/18/climate-change-canada">this article by the Guardian</a>,<sup class='footnote'><a href='#fn-1077-1' id='fnref-1077-1'>1</a></sup> I suddenly had some recurring bad thoughts about folks that are science-challenged:</h3>
<blockquote><p>Canada&#8217;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&#8217;s government&#8230;</p></blockquote>
<p>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&#8217;t work for Big Oil. I guess that&#8217;s why Harper decided to <a title="Harpers Muzzle on scientists" href="http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2010/03/25/HarpersMuzzle/">just muzzle them</a>. A scientist from Edmonton, <a title="Scientists must be free to speak" href="http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Scientists+must+free+speak/2699836/story.html">writing in the Ottawa Citizen</a>, said this:</p>
<blockquote><p>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.</p></blockquote>
<p>The report that got this all started was written by the Climate Action Network and can<a title="Troubling Evidence: The Harper Government’s Approach to Climate Science Research in Canada" href="http://www.climateactionnetwork.ca/e/news/2010/release/index.php?WEBYEP_DI=18"> be found here</a>. 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 <em>selecting</em> and <em>denying</em> applications for funding. Not everyone&#8217;s research gets funded and not all research gets the green light. So the significance of Harper&#8217;s appointments to the board, is very very real.</p>
<p>One of these appointments is Mark Mullins. Mark Mullins was the Executive Director of the Fraser Institute for four years.</p>
<p>Another one of the appointments (to CFI) was John Weissenberger. He&#8217;s a geologist from Calgary who worked in oil and gas for twenty years. He&#8217;s actually a friend of the evil-overlord himself and was a chief of staff for the evil-overlord&#8217;s government. The author of the Climate Action Network report, Andrew Cuddy, took the time to include a quote by John Weissenberger and I&#8217;ll sign off by quoting the quote. But first, you should know that Weissenberger didn&#8217;t write the following soundbite alone. He was joined by George Koch, who I&#8217;m assuming is from the <a title="Koch Family politics" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch_Industries#Political_activity">Koch family</a> of Koch Oil. The Koch family are all pious followers of Ayn Rand even, I believe, requiring that their employees and executives read Rand&#8217;s books. The Koch&#8217;s, in short, are libertarians and conservatives.</p>
<blockquote><p>“[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</p></blockquote>
<div class='footnotes'>
<div class='footnotedivider'></div>
<ol>
<li id='fn-1077-1'>Link provided by the Tyee: <a title="Harpers Muzzle, by the Tyee" href="http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2010/03/25/HarpersMuzzle/">http://thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2010/03/25/HarpersMuzzle/</a> <span class='footnotereverse'><a href='#fnref-1077-1'>&#8617;</a></span></li>
</ol>
</div>
<p><!-- PHP 5.x --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sherwinarnott.org/politics/freedom-of-scientific-speech/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A random note on &#8220;I&#8217;m not a joiner&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.sherwinarnott.org/branding/a-random-note-on-im-not-a-joiner/</link>
		<comments>http://www.sherwinarnott.org/branding/a-random-note-on-im-not-a-joiner/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:48:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Sherwin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[branding]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[activisim]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ayn Rand]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[I'm not a joiner]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sherwinarnott.org/?p=1063</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The phrase, &#8220;I&#8217;m not a joiner&#8221; is one that I&#8217;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. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h3><span class="dropcap">T</span>he phrase, &#8220;I&#8217;m not a joiner&#8221; is one that I&#8217;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 <em>joining</em> is <em>conforming</em>. 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 &#8220;I&#8217;m not a joiner&#8221;. It&#8217;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&#8217;ve formed our societies, then they might want to reconsider what role <em>joining</em> has in making changes. &#8220;I&#8217;m not a joiner&#8221; ought to be the slogan of the Ayn Rand Libertarian&#8217;s club.</h3>
<p><!-- PHP 5.x --></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.sherwinarnott.org/branding/a-random-note-on-im-not-a-joiner/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
<!-- This Quick Cache file was built for (  www.sherwinarnott.org/tag/ayn-rand/feed/ ) in 0.67325 seconds, on Feb 5th, 2012 at 11:34 am UTC. -->
<!-- This Quick Cache file will automatically expire ( and be re-built automatically ) on Feb 5th, 2012 at 12:34 pm UTC -->
