Muzzled and mad Canadian scientists

---

Read More

What do you think of Brian Pallister's statement?

Brian Pallister is the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba. Here's a statement he made the other day. I'm not particularly offended by what he say about atheists. I think it demonstrates that he is really stupid and probably should have kept his mouth shut but that's actually good for secularism, no? It's pretty clear that he doesn't know any atheists, or, even more likely, none of of the atheists he knows want to tell him that they are nonbelievers.

… I wanted to wish everyone a really really Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, all the holiday… all you infidel atheists out there, I want to wish you the very best, also. I don’t know what you celebrate during the holiday season — I myself celebrate the birth of Christ — but it’s your choice, and I respect your choice. If you wish to celebrate nothing and just get together with friends, that’s good, too. All the best.

(I think I understand why his parents gave their farm to his brother. )

---

[Hat Tip: Friendly Atheist]

Read More

The Green Party (of Canada) vs Science

The Green Party of Canada is led by Elizabeth May who has a seat in parliament. The Green Party (of Canada) advocates many positions that are anti-science [Do Not Vote for the Anti-Science Green Party].

The National Post is a major Canadian newspaper that leans to the right so it has never been a friend on the Green Party. In spite of this bias, they got something right when they wrote, Elizabeth May’s Party of Science seems to support a lot of unscientific public policies.

The article was written by Tristin Hopper. Here's what he says in the opening paragraphs.

Two months ago in Halifax, Green Party leader Elizabeth May appeared at a Stand Up For Science rally; one of many demonstrations held across the country to protest, among other things, a Canada-wide “muzzling” of government scientists.

“You may not like the opinions you get from science, but you have to listen to science,” Ms. May told Halifax radio.

Only a week before, however, Ms. May had been at a town hall meeting in her Saanich, B.C. riding telling her constituents not to trust federal science — albeit from a different agency than the ones being defended on the streets of Halifax.

“Agriculture Canada is increasingly a corporate model for profits, for Monsanto and Cargill, and certainly not to help farmers and certainly not to ensure safe food for Canadians,” said Ms. May.

The point needs emphasis. There's really no serious scientific debate over the safety of GM food. It is safe to eat. That does not mean that every single scientific paper that has ever been published proves that GM food is safe. You can always find some paper somewhere that backs up your preferred view of a scientific issue. Most Sandwalk readers know that real science is determined by the consensus views of the experts in the field and not by the rogue scientists who disagree. If you've been reading my blog, you will also know that in any debate that involves science both sides have to appear to have science on their side because, if you don't have science on your side in the 21st century, you've lost the debate.

Here's how Michael Kruse puts it. (He is quoted in the National Post article.)

“I really think the Green Party is just doing the same things everybody else does, which is to make up an idea that matches with your ideology, and then go looking for evidence to support it,” said Michael Kruse, chair of Bad Science Watch, a non-profit devoted to rooting out false science in public policy.

Michael has it right. The Green Party is doing exactly what a long list of groups do when their favorite beliefs aren't supported by the scientific consensus. They cherry-pick. Then they make up conspiracy theories to explain why climatologists, evolutionary biologists, nutritional scientists etc. are misleading the general public about the real science in their field.

In a July essay, Aaron Larsen, a Canadian-born Harvard post-doctoral fellow publicly called out the Green Party—his preferred choice at the ballot box—for its platform declaring that genetically-engineered crops are a “potentially serious threat to human health and the health of natural ecosystems.”

“Just to be clear, there has never been a single reputable, peer-reviewed study that has found any link between the consumption of genetically modified foods and adverse health effects,” he wrote.

That's why the Green Party is anti-science. There are many other examples of Green Party policies that are anti-science. You should not vote for the Green Party if you value science. I hate to think what might happen to science if it ever became the governing party of Canada.

---

[Hat Tip: Canadain Atheist]

Read More

The Happiest Countries

Why do the people of these countries think they are happy? Why isn't the USA in the top ten? [World’s Happiest Countries In 2013, According To The UN]

I recently visited #1, #2, #5, #7 and #9 and I can confirm that the citizens of those countries do, indeed, think they are happy. I also visited #17 a few months ago and the citizens of that country do not seem happy. It's probably worse today than it was a few months ago.

---

Read More

Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria

From the Onion: Poll: Majority Of Americans Approve Of Sending Congress To Syria

WASHINGTON—As President Obama continues to push for a plan of limited military intervention in Syria, a new poll of Americans has found that though the nation remains wary over the prospect of becoming involved in another Middle Eastern war, the vast majority of U.S. citizens strongly approve of sending Congress to Syria.

The New York Times/CBS News poll showed that though just 1 in 4 Americans believe that the United States has a responsibility to intervene in the Syrian conflict, more than 90 percent of the public is convinced that putting all 535 representatives of the United States Congress on the ground in Syria—including Senate pro tempore Patrick Leahy, House Speaker John Boehner, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and, in fact, all current members of the House and Senate—is the best course of action at this time.

---

Citing overwhelming support from the international community—including that of the Arab League, Turkey, and France, as well as Great Britain, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Japan, Mexico, China, and Canada, all of whom are reported to be unilaterally in favor of sending the U.S. Congress to Syria—the majority of survey respondents said they believe the United States should refocus its entire approach to Syria’s civil war on the ground deployment of U.S. senators and representatives, regardless of whether the Assad regime used chemical weapons or not.

Sounds like a good idea but shouldn't Barack Obama and John Kerry go with them?

---

Read More

The Purpose of the United Nations

After two devastating world wars, the nations of the world got together in San Francisco in 1945 to form the United Nations. The goal was to prevent further wars by pledging to resolve conflicts peaceably or, if that were not possible, to act collectively to reign in rogue nations. The fundamental idea was that no one nation could decide on its own to act as judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to making war. This applies especially to powerful nations whose self righteous attitudes often led them to believe that they could ignore the views of other nations.

The goals of the United Nations have not always been achieved. We have plenty of examples of nations acting unilaterally by going to war and many examples of groups of nations that ignored the United Nations. In spite of these examples, most nations still profess allegiance to the principles that led to the founding of the United nations.

Here's Chapter 1 of the Charter of the United Nations.

Article 1

The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;
2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and
4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.
2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.
3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.
5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.
6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.
7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

Today we are dealing with the possibility that the most powerful nation in the world will attack a much weaker nation in spite of the opposition of many other nations, especially important permanent members of the Security Council. No peaceful resolutions are being explored and very few politicians in that powerful nation are expressing concern that they are ignoring the United Nations. All the rhetoric from that nation seems to be based on the idea that their leaders are judge, jury, and executioner when it comes to policing weaker, more vulnerable, nations. Most of those politicians do not see a problem with bombing another nation in order to punish it for a wrongdoing. Violence and war are viable options and, in this case, the first choice.

To those of us who live in other countries, that is not the kind of behavior one would like to see in the most powerful nation in the world.

I think it's about time that the United States of American quit the United Nations since it clearly has no intention of living up to its commitment to peaceful resolution of conflicts and collective action in cooperation with other nations.

---

Read More

Michele Bachmann Lies About Socialized Medicine

Michele Bachmann is an IDiot but I try to avoid commenting on the fact that she's a duly-elected congresswoman from Minnesota. If Americans want to elect someone like her to run their country then that's up to them.

People in the civilized world outside of the USA are puzzled by some of the things she says—they wonder how she can get away with such statements and still be elected. Her recent speech on "Obamacare" in Congress is a case in point. You can see it in the video below. This is the speech where she says, ""Repeal this failure [Obamacare] before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens."


Later on her spokesman, Dan Kotman, issued the following statement.

Obamacare is forcing doctors into the employ of cost-cutting hospitals, gives government the authority to determine services that will and will not be covered, has a board independent of Congress that can cut payments for care, and allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to force all health plans to eliminate any doctor that doesn't practice medicine the government's way. The history of government-run health care systems around the world is a history of denial, delay and sadly even death.

It's one thing to attack "Obamacare" but when she attacks healthcare in Canada and all other civilized countries, that's a different issue.

Let me remind you that there's tons of data showing that people live longer in other countries and they survive cancer better. Infant mortality is lower in other countries. And this success is achieved at lower cost than health care in the USA. In other words, Michele Bachmann is dead wrong when she says that socialized medicine is a "history of death."

As I was preparing this post I stumbled across a video of Senator Jeff Sessions of Alabama defending American health care in the Senate of the United States Congress. Are Americans embarrassed by speeches like this or is this typical of Americans who have been elected to the Senate? Is it the best that Alabama has to offer?

Sen. Jeff Sessions: 'So We've Got People Who Die Sooner'

---

Read More

What Does the Liberal Party of Canada Stand For?

I've long been a supporter of the Federal Liberal Party of Canada. It's the party of Mike Pearson and Pierre Elliot Trudeau—two Prime Ministers that I greatly admire. I even like Jean Chrétien!

Lately I'm having trouble understanding what the Liberal Party stands for. They've just had two leaders (Michael Ignatieff, and Bob Rae) who are complete mysteries to me. I really don't know what they stand for, or what they're passionate about.

Apparently I'm not alone. Here's the view of Thomas Walkom from a column in the Toronto Star a few days ago [Do Canada’s, or Ontario’s, Liberals matter any more?].

On the other hand, it’s not clear what the Liberals represent any more. They would like voters to think of them as the non-Conservatives — the alternative to Stephen Harper federally or to Tim Hudak in Ontario.

But are they?

Paul Adams, an astute political observer writing in iPolitics, argues that the federal Liberals have transformed themselves into the old Progressive Conservatives, socially progressive but fiscally to the right.

I’d go further. I reckon the old PCs of Joe Clark would find federal Liberal leadership candidate Martha Hall Findlay’s talk of dismantling farm marketing boards a bit too right-wing for their tastes

Similarly, Liberal front-runner Justin Trudeau’s enthusiastic embrace of the Alberta oilsands would probably be seen as a tad naive by the Red Tories of former Ontario premier Bill Davis, most of whom believed that strong business required equally strong regulation.

As a party, the Liberals haven’t had a new idea since the 1980s. Individual party members have (Stéphane Dion’s green shift comes to mind).

But the party, as a whole never signed onto Dion’s environmental agenda. Nor has it signed onto anything else.

The Liberals talk of holding policy conventions that would replicate that golden period of the 1960s, when the party embraced medicare, public pensions and welfare reform.

But they never do. Former federal leader Michael Ignatieff hosted a thinkers’ conference that headlined prominent conservatives. Nothing came of it.

The conventional wisdom among Liberals is that strong policy positions should be avoided at all costs in order to avoid alienating voters. Instead, Liberals prefer to talk about what they call values.

We've been discussing this issue with our former Liberal MP, Omar Alghabra, who happens to be a member of Justin Trudeau's team. Justin, for those of you who don't follow Canadian politics, it the son of Pierre Elliot Trudeau and he's running for the leadership of the Federal Liberal Party. We want Justin, and all the other candidates, to speak out on what the Liberal Party stands for.

Omar sent us a link to this video. It's obvious that Justin is avoiding the question. He stands for some trivial issues like legalizing marijuana but what about the bigger issues? How do I tell the difference between the Liberal Party and Conservative Party or the New Democratic Party? I don't think I can vote for Justin Trudeau or for any of the other leadership candidates. In fact, I'm not sure I can vote for the Liberal in the next election. The NDP is looking very attractive.

---

Read More