Harper manipulating the scientific process

[Cannuck]

Thing is, I want to get back to the topic, but I don't mean that you should have to do that too.

That's good because I wouldn't listen to you anyway. If you want to get back on topic, by all means get back on topic. You can do that all by yourself or continue on if you wish...or don't.

BTW, I do see why you feel others are so pissed off all the time. It's called projecting.

 

[Cannuck]

I see that the fact that most of the addicts down on Hastings are mental health patients that were turned out of institutions because the government didn't want the expense of taking care of them.

Very interesting. Do you have a link?

 

[Cannuck]

Good gawd people!!!! Can we try and keep the posts under 5 million words each. I had to take a nap half way through some of those.

 

[Cliffy]

Very interesting. Do you have a link?

East Hastings | NowPublic Photo Archives
Mental Illness » matthewgood.org

 

[Unforgiven]

Based on the amount of taxes I pay every year, I doubt that very much.

Me too but there you have it. You aren't in Alaska?
If it saves money by reducing the amount of people and resources used to treat over doses along with other ailments suffered by addicts then it's saving you money on your tax bill, yes?

 

[Unforgiven]

Look, if you can't take the heat, don't volley hunny.

Hell I agreed with your idea about aborting the mentally challenged. What more do you want.

At what point do you choose who is going to live and who is not?

 

[JLM]

Excellent post Ton, to bad I could give a rats ass about a bunch of hop heads. I hope the appeal turns in the Gov'ts favour.

That used to be my feelings too, until the problem got close to home. Then emotions got into it. I think different solutions work for different people. From personal experience I know that a lot of addicts are very intelligent people with a lot of talents (but not very much wisdom).

 

[Unforgiven]

That used to be my feelings too, until the problem got close to home. Then emotions got into it. I think different solutions work for different people. From personal experience I know that a lot of addicts are very intelligent people with a lot of talents (but not very much wisdom).

As I said, Jimmy Page was a Herion addict for years. I don't understand Bear's assertion that they are bad people that need to be killed or thrown in jail and punished.

We would miss out on a lot if that sort of thinking were allowed to get popular once again.

 

[Nuggler]

:-?

Who Runs This Town?

Stumble on over to Ethan Baron of The Province for the light treatment. If you want to see the ugly side of some of the people of greater Vancouver, scroll through the comments.
Some of Baron’s assertions are interesting, but one thing that he completely fails to touch upon is the fact that the black hole that is the Downtown Lower Eastside wasn’t created out of thin air. It wasn’t as if a bunch of junkies one day decided that it would be a fantastic place to be homeless drug addicts. Like anything, there are several factors involved that no one wants to talk about.
One of the most vital statistics missing from Baron’s piece is the number of mentally ill individuals that constitute what he characterizes as those that turn “…downtown Vancouver into a showcase of urban blight.” The reason why that statistic is so important is because consecutive Provincial governments decimated the mental healthcare system over the last two decades because the very same people that are now complaining about the $1 million dollars a day that is sunk into confronting the problems of Canada’s poorest urban neighbourhood are the very same people that didn’t like the fact that their tax dollars were being used to subsidize a system – albeit one that needed reform – that provided long-term care for the mentally ill.
The dismemberment of that system cost my best friend dearly. Not because he was one of those displaced, but because he was a part of the apparatus of displacement. His role was simple – to relocate patients to slum hotels on the Lower Eastside. Once there, he secured them a room, provided them with a cheque, gave them their medication, and went over a short checklist of things to remember – such as ‘this is your room key’ and ‘remember that you have to take your medication’. Lacking some of the most basic life skills, those individuals would have had a difficult time had they been supplanted in an area in which people were honest, understanding, and helpful. But the Lower Eastside is anything but. Slum lords preyed upon them, offering to cash cheques for fifty cents on the dollar, often renting out their rooms mere hours after they ventured out of the hotel. Without a support system in place they often forgot that they had medication, and when the demons came calling the deceptive grins of drug dealers, fully aware that they were easy marks, offered them an alternative.
In the end, my best friend would suffer a debilitating nervous breakdown because of what he experienced and years of relentless guilt. Ultimately, he, like those he once shepherded into oblivion, now relies on anti-anxiety medication to live a normal life.
But that isn’t the whole story. Were the problem that easy to fix then someone with half a brain in Victoria, if there is someone with half a brain in our Legislature, would have realized by now that one significant aspect of tackling the problem is to place a serious onus on the reformation of this Province’s mental healthcare system. That said, I’ve purchased a ticket for a snowball I keep in my freezer to visit hell on the off chance that it ever happens.
Returning to Baron’s article, his main premise is that drug addicts should be forced into penal treatment because they lack the ability to seriously make that decision themselves…

“Having judges lock them up to clean them up would save us a pile of money, improve thousands of tortured lives and boost the economy.”
​

Mind you, we’re only talking about drug addicts on the Lower Eastside, those that represent a blight on this town’s otherwise sterling image. Never mind the countless ass-hats that snort mountains of cocaine in the washrooms of upscale Yaletown lounges or do lines off their desks at investment firms. They drive expensive cars and expensive cars look good parked on this city’s sterling streets.
The point is that drugs are drugs, and when you stop and actually bother to look at all of it in perspective the question quickly becomes – who actually runs this town?
The Vancouver police department has a major station on Main Street between East Hastings and Cordova. Two blocks west of it on Cordova is a drug house that, while I was a resident of the neighbourhood, operated without interference as far as I could tell. On welfare Wednesdays there would be a line up in front of it in the morning, and almost every night, at about four in the morning, an Escalade would pull up, two men in suits would go inside the building, another would wait, and about ten minutes later they would walk out.
Simple as that. Two blocks from a police station.
You want to talk about the drug problem on the Lower Eastside? Then it’s time the people of this city started talking about the fact that the drug trade is so enormous that authorities have absolutely no real idea how to address it. One need only look at the rash of drug related violence this year to see how in the dark they actually are.
Vancouver is one of the largest heroin ports in North America. How does heroin get into Vancouver in such quantities? It largely comes in by sea, which means that people are paid off, which means that money is being made, which means that it’s far more complicated than dealing with pot heads selling weed to other pot heads. Heroin isn’t produced in North America, getting it here costs money and takes time. Make no mistake, moving that sort of weight demands assurances, and for the right price assurances can be bought. Were that not the case then the global drug trade would not be estimated at a staggering $400 billion dollars a year, a figure second only to that of the global arms industry, with the two largest international destinations for drugs being North America and Western Europe. Add to that the fact that right now enormous amounts of marijuana are exchanged pound for pound across the border to keep the city’s cocaine lovers happy and you have some serious problems, ones that have, in truth, become intertwined with this Province’s economic stability.
Forcing addicts into penal treatment is about as viable a long-term solution as the armed forces of Costa Rica threatening to oust the Americans from Iraq – were Costa Rica to actually have a military. I agree with Baron’s assertion that most addicts are not in a position to make realistic choices for themselves, but the drug industry is. And until you deal with the hand that feeds there will always be hungry, desperate mouths waiting to take solace in the escapism offered them, especially those that have been cast to the fringes of our society. ""


Above author seems to have it nailed pretty much.............?

8O..........all about money?..............NO!!! Not in Kanada. Pity.

 

[Cliffy]

Yes, the drug trade is huge and goes all the way to the top in Ottawa. The Lower East Side is just the bottom of the barrel. It is sexy, though, to the media and keeps the focus off the real problem and the real abusers who do run this country. The police are powerless to do anything real about it because their bosses are the problem. They make token arrests just to keep up appearances. Ultimately, if you follow the money trail, you will find that the real problem with the Lower East Side is in the high rises of the upper echelon.

 

[Cannuck]

East Hastings | NowPublic Photo Archives
Mental Illness » matthewgood.org

Who's A-Train?

 

[CDNBear]

Just because all the apples you've ever seen are red, doesn't mean that all apples are red Bear. We're talking about a specific case here, or at least I am. The thread wasn't intended to be a debate about the merits of harm reduction or supervised injection sites, but that's what it's become. There is one such place in Canada, scratch that, North America. I've shown that crime hasn't increased as a result. I'm asking you to prove your assertion that this somehow is going to negatively effect property owners in a drug denizen enclave already. Put up.

Like I siad, I'm not wasting my time, if you don't believe me Ton, I really don't care. Anyone that thinks these types of places don't effect property values, present and future, doesn't own a home and has much commonsense about that particular aspect of the issue.

There is no other supervised injection site Bear. Not on this continent.

I know that Ton, but in the course of reading your article, it is said that they are eying Tdot for another site. I don't mean to sound snarky with you, but you really should research your cause' better.

Placing another one, in any other place than a known drug ghetto will fail miserably. The whole point of these clinincs is to attract high risk users. High risk users aren't known for large migrations.

But they do migrate to certain areas.

If they were putting it in an area where it isn't already a problem, then you might have a point. But tis not the case now, and I doubt very much it would be so in the future.

There are bureaucrats involved, don't count it out.

It's not an outreach center Bear. If it was, they wouldn't need an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

I used the term broadly. They are essentially an outreach center, if they seek to reach out and help.

You haven't even shown that more users are migrating to the place. There's a lot of assumptions you haven't shown here. This is a unique situation, no matter how you try to lump it in with other community centers.

It adds to the draw of an area.

Whatever Bear. It's bigger because the goals are bigger.

The goals are the same Ton. I really hate to use the "I;m older seen more" BS line on you, but this is just another feelk good measure that is in contradiction to the law.

You seek to eradicate the addicted. You haven't shown anything that is rooted in reality.

It's not reality, because no one has the guts to do what's right. Take a hard line.

You haven't addressed the public health issue.

600 hardly makes any serious dent in the issue.

You haven't addressed the reduced public consumption.

Because it's periferal, they still use, it doesn't matter if they're behind closed doors. If cops didn't bust drug dens, they would all be behind closed doors.

What have you addressed. You've admitted to being too lazy to back up anything you say with but one single link...

Because I can't be bothered Ton. Even if I went and researched how outreach type centers lower property values, it would change your mind, so why would I even try?

It does, though as I said already, if you read the links you'll see that crime rates have not gone up. Insite, which attracts the local users acts like a sorbent. You're making points for Insite here..

Stats mean little to me, they are easily manipulated.

ROFL

On what planet is 1000 to 0400 banking hours. Perhaps you've been out of the military too long Bear, that would be 10 am to 4am. They are open for 18 hours a day...:lol:, closed from 4:01am until 9:59 am.

You got me, in my defense, it was late and was tired, lol. My bad.

That's 1 million needles that didn't get discarded on the street Bear, since 2003. drop in the bucket, how about denigrating something you don't agree with?

And I still don't care. If the problem was being dealt with as severely as it should be, by the courst and law enforcement, insight wouldn't exist.

No, so in other words, with the reductions in dirty needles and infectious diseases, referrals to addictions services, lowered pressure on local emergency departments, and reduced public consumption of illicit drugs, there still has been no rise in crime.

Still drop in the pond Ton.

This is the definition of harm reduction, and is why the VPD was on board as a group fighting to get this program.

It's minimal. Why is it the VPD is lauded when they endorse this, and they're used as such, but the rest of the year, they're chastised? :lol:

It's not supposed to evoke passion. These are findings of fact. They're meant for you to temper your opinion once you realize the things you think are concomitant here, well they really aren't at all.

Again, stats don't impress me.

You just like the arguing.

Please tell me you didn't just come to this conclusion Ton?

I like educating.

Not always.

Some people when confronted with situations that conflict with their pre-conceived notions can have moments of epiphany. I just like to be there when they happen. Doesn't happen much, which is why I'm not going for a Bachelor of Education. Happens far less on the net. But I also like the debates.

But when your 'facts' endorse criminal activity, you lose many. Sorry Ton, I'm one of them.

When the title isn't long, I reprint the title from the publication it originates from. That would be an Op-Ed in The Star.

A bastion of commonsense and unbiased reading material...:lol:

The correct word is process. Research is only one part of the scientific process. It's the process he is manipulating. They said more research was needed to justify keeping the Insite clinic open, and then put a moratorium on all such sites. They say there is growing academic debate, where there is not. That is manipulating the scientific process. It's also manipulating public comprehension, by creating false controversy.

No it's not, it's dealing with an issue that is in contravention to the law and they have to tread lightly. I don't really care if there is a 'concensus'. I've seen them before, I don't buy them.

Manipulation is manipulation. See above.

Hyperbole is hyperbole.

I don't have to excuse you for denigrating the ones I'm providing, with you having none...

:lol:

You know that's the other half of the phrase "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Most people think it means that you can show anything with statistics. The other half of that phrase is attributable to people who do as you do, and crap on statistics when they don't fit your well with your position.

I've always crapped on stats Ton, and I never use them to bolster my position either. I stand firm on certain things. Like that and the law.

It's not illegal. See my post where I linked to the Act. That they try to do so with whatever means necessary, is precisely what I'm talking about.

It is, hence their attempt to get an exemption Ton.

I don't know if you're old, but what you submitted fits the definition of fascist! :lol:

Well ya it does. In some respects, a little facism works. Even the Nazi's kept the trains running on time...;-)

It isn't criminal, and money from Alberta pays for healthcare in Quebec, and money from Nova Scotia pays for Ontario's nuclear power. It all goes around. Some people resent having their tax money spent on roads and military. So what?

The two latter aren't aiding in criminal acts.

The BC portion of the Health transfer is their's to do with as you wish. If you really care that much, write to Harper and tell him he's doing a good job. Or try to claim an expense of $0.01 from Revenue Canada every year, or go for broke and ask for the retroactive amount. Don't spend it all in one place!

:lol:, I will do no such thing. Lying isn't my strong suit and I certainly wouldn't want to lie to the PM.

I wouldn't know. I doubt the fetus expects anything.

Lets not go there.

You have yet to say how you would prevent drug addicts. I'm all ears, but I don't think it's going to be something I'd agree to given the past exchange.

Ya think? I'm a hardliner on the subject Ton.

And why they wouldn't build a clinic like Insite there. :lol: Who would show up!

Bingo!

They have an exemption under the law. The law is being upheld. The VPD still is making arrests for possession of narcotics...

:roll:..I think you're missing the point, or I've just annoyed you all to hell, lol.

Not at all.

I disagree.

Not on my tax dollars. LMAO.

See, we're coming from different views.

No, it means that when a thousand incidents (n) of this one event (i) take place, there is a probability (P) of another event (j) happening. You can change j by altering conditions in i.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up Ton, it still comes out "maybe".

What it means Bear, is that drug users are using drugs anyways. They already purchased them. The folks in Vancouver charged with public health and order can't stop it all, but they can focus on the highest risk, and try to limit the damage to the public good.

:roll:...And my idea, although quite facist, is still a better method. IMHO.

The same goes for me if you should end up with Heart Disease as a result of a a diet you shouldn't be eating. I don't gripe about that though.

Good, because my taxes from cigarette smoking would have paid for any life saving measure I may use.

That works for the ones you can arrest...you also said you could eradicate the problem, though I don't know how you plan on getting them all.

Jeezus Ton, junkies aren't hard to find. Neither are dealers. Give me ten minutes in any new city and I'll be supplied.

The people at Incite would probably help you shoot up some fish too. :lol:

:lol:

What PR? You mean the plummeting values of real estate? Why would they want that? :lol:

:roll:

Every place produces messed up people. It's human nature, not geography, except where local contaminants interfere with regular population ecology.

Truro? Just kidding, lol.

So you say, we still don't know how you plan on finding all of the drug users. Erosion of personal liberties isn't harm reduction.

You see it as erosion of personal liberties. I see it as securing the personal liberties of law abiding citizens.

Except Harper, through any means necessary, as you said. Even if it is sure to increase crime rates, as the link NIf supplied points out.

C'mon Ton, I don't buy anything pol's sell, you know that.

Not really. I know what chemical dependence can achieve. I know my biochemistry adequately enough to fill in the blanks.

Good.

The person who thinks they can cure it all, or them all rather.

Ton, one day you might figure out what I'm talking about, and where I'm coming from.

Oh don't be so intellectually lazy. If you're going to call bull ****, you could at the very least try to show one program that someone called proactive which could be described as pragmatic that didn't work.

Naw, I am that lazy Ton. But I must ask if you actually believe all the 'proactive' programs have worked?

Have you ever seen science that didn't involve stats? All science involves stats. This specifically is a interdisciplinary approach by medical professionals, law and order, and humanities. Social science, medical science and stats.

Your point? I don't buy stats as Insight or any other special interest group uses them.

Ahhh. Well I have that. Thanks. Maybe some of mine will boost yours someday :lol:

Doubt it. But I appreciate the though Ton. How about we agree to disagree?

 

[CDNBear]

At what point do you choose who is going to live and who is not?

In the split second you have to put the reticule on their upper lip.

 

[AnnaG]

Some other recent examples of unfriendly Harper Government actions concerning science and scientists:

-appointing unqualified pro-industry persons to federal science bodies.

-censoring government scientists.

-insinuating that medical doctors who work at the clinic lack ethics.

-axing the national science adviser position.

Should I bring up the falling budget devoted to R&D and Canada's lagging productivity numbers as well?

You can if you like. lol
It appears as if this government is like the rest of the governments we've had in the past: an indifferent or hostile attitude towards science. In a few years our medical system will collapse unless something changes, Canada hasn't done much in any scientific breakthrough for quite a while now, this government seems intent on driving any people involved in potential breakthroughs to other countries to do their research, cities will likely play home to a lot more slums than ever before, etc.
All in all I'd say politics has made Canada what it is today - regressive.

 

[CDNBear]

OK, since Anna went there, I guess I'll actually have to address these.

-appointing unqualified pro-industry persons to federal science bodies.

First off, this is a "blog" not a news source, then you have the fact that Mitchell Anderson isn't exactly an unbiased source of review. His complaints smack of bias. His opinion of Mullin's appointment is nothing more then ideological hyperbole. Appointing Mullin's to the NSERC, adds an element of objectivity. A balance if you will.

His background in economy, will give a sound representation of said philosophy, to an organization that undoubtedly will require it. As they formulate policy that will effect the economy greatly.

How is that wrong?

As for Weissenberger, a Geologist, who once managed Husky Oil's north western exploration. Why wouldn't he be an acceptable appointee to CFI?

His expertise in exploration and research, and his opposing views on climate change, bring a balance to the CFI, as to add to it's objectivity. CFI's mandate is science oriented, it is not a scientific body. It doles out funding to researchers and educational institutions. Thus, his appointment is in no way contrary to their mandate.

-censoring government scientists.

Although I fail to agree with this policy, I have no misgivings as to why the Gov't would take such steps. It would be embarrassing to have EC spouting off about the Environment, while the Gov't stands in contrary to their findings. Not to mention the fact that EC has been know to err, and should have some restrictions place upon them. I mean hey, they did issue a drilling permit to Chevron, to do exploration drilling in a bird sanctuary...:roll:

-insinuating that medical doctors who work at the clinic lack ethics.

You are kidding right?

Do you know the basic tenet of the Hippocratic oath?

I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect.

Though they may not be physically giving a deadly drug to the patients of Insight. They are facilitating the use thereof. Thus showing a lack of moral athics in regaqrds to their Oath.

His comment was spot on.

-axing the national science adviser position.

Dead link, but I did find enough on the net to back up the following...

First off, the man was a Liberal appointee. His loyalties lied with Martin. Secondly, the position was created for patronage, and was redundant Not to mention, the PM has Ministries to advise him, as well as a litany of Agencies to do so as well, thus had no need of a separate advisor.

Ministries,

Agriculture and Agri-Food...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Fisheries and Oceans...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Human Resources and Social Development...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Industry...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Natural Resources...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Environment...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Health...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Then there's the agencies, numerous in quantity. Some of us like less Gov't Ton.

Ton, I find this to be a startling error on your part. Over the years, I have hung on to many of your words, learned a great amount of new information, even changed my position on a thing or two, do to your writings. But you seem to using someone else' opion, to formulate your own here. You're far better then that Ton. This current format of OP/ED piece support, is troubling.

 

[Unforgiven]

Like I siad, I'm not wasting my time, if you don't believe me Ton, I really don't care. Anyone that thinks these types of places don't effect property values, present and future, doesn't own a home and has much commonsense about that particular aspect of the issue.

I know that Ton, but in the course of reading your article, it is said that they are eying Tdot for another site. I don't mean to sound snarky with you, but you really should research your cause' better.

But they do migrate to certain areas.

There are bureaucrats involved, don't count it out.

I used the term broadly. They are essentially an outreach center, if they seek to reach out and help.

It adds to the draw of an area.
The goals are the same Ton. I really hate to use the "I;m older seen more" BS line on you, but this is just another feelk good measure that is in contradiction to the law.

It's not reality, because no one has the guts to do what's right. Take a hard line.

600 hardly makes any serious dent in the issue.

Because it's periferal, they still use, it doesn't matter if they're behind closed doors. If cops didn't bust drug dens, they would all be behind closed doors.

Because I can't be bothered Ton. Even if I went and researched how outreach type centers lower property values, it would change your mind, so why would I even try?

Stats mean little to me, they are easily manipulated.

You got me, in my defense, it was late and was tired, lol. My bad.
And I still don't care. If the problem was being dealt with as severely as it should be, by the courst and law enforcement, insight wouldn't exist.

Still drop in the pond Ton.

It's minimal. Why is it the VPD is lauded when they endorse this, and they're used as such, but the rest of the year, they're chastised? :lol:

Again, stats don't impress me.

Please tell me you didn't just come to this conclusion Ton?

Not always.

But when your 'facts' endorse criminal activity, you lose many. Sorry Ton, I'm one of them.

A bastion of commonsense and unbiased reading material...:lol:

No it's not, it's dealing with an issue that is in contravention to the law and they have to tread lightly. I don't really care if there is a 'concensus'. I've seen them before, I don't buy them.

Hyperbole is hyperbole.

:lol:

I've always crapped on stats Ton, and I never use them to bolster my position either. I stand firm on certain things. Like that and the law.

It is, hence their attempt to get an exemption Ton.
Well ya it does. In some respects, a little facism works. Even the Nazi's kept the trains running on time...;-)

The two latter aren't aiding in criminal acts.

:lol:, I will do no such thing. Lying isn't my strong suit and I certainly wouldn't want to lie to the PM.

Lets not go there.

Ya think? I'm a hardliner on the subject Ton.

Bingo!

:roll:..I think you're missing the point, or I've just annoyed you all to hell, lol.

I disagree.

See, we're coming from different views.

It doesn't matter how you dress it up Ton, it still comes out "maybe".

:roll:...And my idea, although quite facist, is still a better method. IMHO.

Good, because my taxes from cigarette smoking would have paid for any life saving measure I may use.

Jeezus Ton, junkies aren't hard to find. Neither are dealers. Give me ten minutes in any new city and I'll be supplied.

:lol:

:roll:

Truro? Just kidding, lol.
You see it as erosion of personal liberties. I see it as securing the personal liberties of law abiding citizens.

C'mon Ton, I don't buy anything pol's sell, you know that.

Good.
Ton, one day you might figure out what I'm talking about, and where I'm coming from.

Naw, I am that lazy Ton. But I must ask if you actually believe all the 'proactive' programs have worked?

Your point? I don't buy stats as Insight or any other special interest group uses them.
Doubt it. But I appreciate the though Ton. How about we agree to disagree?

No one is asking for your support or consent Bear. Insite works at reducing the harm caused by a social problem. It was never the intent to solve all the problems, solve problems that aren't addressed by the mandate or any of the other ridiculous claims you say it should.

Something that does concern me is the use of force you're so adamant about. It doesn't work, you know that and yet here you are calling for it in no short measure. From the read of this you don't want to find a better way, you're looking to be the one doing the beating for a while.

 

[CDNBear]

No one is asking for your support or consent Bear.

I realise that, hence my concern. I don't want my tax dollars going to assist in criminal activity.

Insite works at reducing the harm caused by a social problem. It was never the intent to solve all the problems, solve problems that aren't addressed by the mandate or any of the other ridiculous claims you say it should.

That's a matter of opinion. As stats usually are.

Something that does concern me is the use of force you're so adamant about. It doesn't work, you know that and yet here you are calling for it in no short measure.

Like training a dog, constancy makes for a positive out come.

From the read of this you don't want to find a better way, you're looking to be the one doing the beating for a while.

Not at all. It would eat in to my sexcapades and outdoor activities. Not something I wash to do, lol.

 

[Unforgiven]

I realise that, hence my concern. I don't want my tax dollars going to assist in criminal activity.

But it's not a vote. You don't get to choose what the taxes you pay into the government goes to. You get to vote for someone who is in the party that comes closest to what you want.

That's the choice you get to make.

That's a matter of opinion. As stats usually are.

Not at all. Stats are fact it's the interpretation that is an opinion. The reasoned opinion that comes from the collection of data that makes up these stats show exactly what impact Insite has compared with the goals in it's mission statement.

Like training a dog, constancy makes for a positive out come.

Yep but you have to be correct to begin with. Tossing dogs off a cliff isn't going to teach them to fly. Ever.

Not at all. It would eat in to my sexcapades and outdoor activities. Not something I wash to do, lol.

Yeah right you can't even skate let alone have sex on ice skates and call them sexcapades!

 

[CDNBear]

But it's not a vote. You don't get to choose what the taxes you pay into the government goes to. You get to vote for someone who is in the party that comes closest to what you want.

That's the choice you get to make.

Yep, which is why I applaud Harpo and company for their stance on this one.

Not at all. Stats are fact it's the interpretation that is an opinion.

:lol: Stats are manipulated facts.

The reasoned opinion that comes from the collection of data that makes up these stats show exactly what impact Insite has compared with the goals in it's mission statement.

And the fact that thye wish to act in contrary to the criminal code. I think I'll stick with my opinion.

Yep but you have to be correct to begin with. Tossing dogs off a cliff isn't going to teach them to fly. Ever.

:lol:, there'ld be fewer strays.

Yeah right you can't even skate let alone have sex on ice skates and call them sexcapades!

:lol:

 

[Tonington]

First off, this is a "blog" not a news source, then you have the fact that Mitchell Anderson isn't exactly an unbiased source of review. His complaints smack of bias.

So what if it is a blog? Follow the links the blogger makes to news agencies if you don't like reading a blog. Yes his complaint is biased, nobodies is without a bias. I have a bias too. I happen to think that positions on the Board at NSERC should be filled by scientists familiar with the process, or administrators with some background directing science funding. I don't think it should be given to folks who deny science. There is a wide gulf between scientific disagreement and science denial.

It's kind of like this: "You don't need to be an anti-Semite to be anti-Israel, it just so happens though that you're both."

His background in economy, will give a sound representation of said philosophy, to an organization that undoubtedly will require it. As they formulate policy that will effect the economy greatly.

NSERC doesn't formulate government policy, they follow it. They do so by giving grants to researchers.

How is that wrong?

The title of the thread is manipulating science. A science denier...influencing where science funds are spent...I think it's wrong.

As for Weissenberger, a Geologist, who once managed Husky Oil's north western exploration. Why wouldn't he be an acceptable appointee to CFI?

I don't happen to think that any appointee with their head in the sand over any particular issue germane to the role they will fill is a good idea. He's Harper's campaign manager... I don't think science requires anymore politicization. It requires the opposite.

Although I fail to agree with this policy, I have no misgivings as to why the Gov't would take such steps. It would be embarrassing to have EC spouting off about the Environment, while the Gov't stands in contrary to their findings. Not to mention the fact that EC has been know to err, and should have some restrictions place upon them. I mean hey, they did issue a drilling permit to Chevron, to do exploration drilling in a bird sanctuary...:roll:

Some restrictions? What kind of restrictions? You think it's a good idea for bureaucrats to proof read what their scientists are answering to direct media questions? Again, I refer you to the thread title.

That is manipulation. I wonder if they needed to hire new staffers to do the proof reading...

You are kidding right?

Do you know the basic tenet of the Hippocratic oath?

Not kidding. Do you think they take that oath literally?

To do no harm. Those Doctors are involved in harm reduction, and treating the addicts for diseases they carry. Medical ethics is not constrained by some ancient rite of passage...

Though they may not be physically giving a deadly drug to the patients of Insight. They are facilitating the use thereof. Thus showing a lack of moral athics in regaqrds to their Oath.

The drug is only deadly if they overdose, which thus far not a single client has died from. I have been given morphine for pain in a hospital, some of the Insite clients are there for that addiction.

Would you like to start a list of other drugs given by medical professionals which are deadly, if the dosing is wrong? There would be no such thing as an anesthesiologist if that were the case.

His comment was spot on.

No, not really. For the logic to that comment, I'll refer you back to the beginning of the thread:

I cannot agree with the submission that an addict must feed his addiction in an unsafe environment when a safe environment that may lead to rehabilitation is the alternative.

Dead link, but I did find enough on the net to back up the following...

Funny, I can access it just fine.

First off, the man was a Liberal appointee.

Ad Hominem. I don't care who appoints anybody. I just care that they are appropriate.

His loyalties lied with Martin.

Proof that he was loyal to Martin? He was President of the National Research Council for ten years prior to that, amongst a stellar career in chemistry.

Secondly, the position was created for patronage, and was redundant Not to mention, the PM has Ministries to advise him, as well as a litany of Agencies to do so as well, thus had no need of a separate advisor.

Ministries to advise him...yeah, like more revenue to create a bigger bureaucracy.


Ministries,

Agriculture and Agri-Food...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Fisheries and Oceans...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Human Resources and Social Development...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Industry...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Natural Resources...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Environment...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

Health...Has a branch devoted to the science thereof.

And every single one of those agencies would jump at the chance to advise the government to make their budget larger...

A Science Advisor would be an impartial person, who could raise skepticism of each of those Department's claims over new research. Do you not think there is a chance, that any one of those department's might overplay their hand? Like Maybe DFO with aquaculture research, AGRI-FOOD with GMO research?

Most modern nations have science advisors, and there is a good reason for them. They are not at all a redundant position.

Then there's the agencies, numerous in quantity. Some of us like less Gov't Ton.

Yeah, I kind of mentioned that a few times above.

How about your cure for the addiciton slight? That is definitely going to require a growth of Government.

Ton, I find this to be a startling error on your part. Over the years, I have hung on to many of your words, learned a great amount of new information, even changed my position on a thing or two, do to your writings. But you seem to using someone else' opion, to formulate your own here. You're far better then that Ton. This current format of OP/ED piece support, is troubling.

Don't you find this the slightest bit ironic or hypocritical?

You have hung onto many of my words, but I can't possibly agree with the words of other writers without it being troubling?

I happen to agree with the material I posted here, as you have of stuff I posted in a similar context and format to op-eds or blogs... I think Harper is using every option available to suppress science that clashes with his ideology, or manipulate it where he can. In fact, this is supported by his own hypocrisy. He knows that the climate change issue isn't polling on his side. It hasn't for some time here in Canada. So he talks out one side of his mouth, making nice platitudes, but then gives positions to people who would do their best to see anything related to climate change molded to fit a pro-industry bent. Not at all in the interests of the guiding principles of NSERC, or of the CFI.

Just because I agree, doesn't mean I'm using someone else's opinion to formulate my own.