Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Scientists Protest Political Sandbagging of Evidence-Based Policy
New submitter sandbagger writes "Stephen Harper and the Canadian government have made headlines several times for stifling opinions that dissent with their own. This also applies to respected, peer-reviewed science. Canadian scientists have chafed at being gagged and having evidence take a back seat when forming policy, so they're grabbing their slide rules and marching in protest. 'Hundreds of participants gathered in 17 cities for rallies on Monday. In Toronto some donned lab coats while in Vancouver protesters were seen wearing gags adorned with the Conservative Party logo – a reference to the alleged muzzling of federal scientists by political overseers. ... Dr. Gibbs and colleagues said they hoped the rallies would alert the public to scientists’ concerns that the federal government has shifted funding markedly toward commercially driven research at the expense of public-interest science. ... Dr. Gibbs said her group would consult with the Canadian research community and look to other countries in trying to craft recommended policies for science in government. In recent years explicit scientific integrity rules have been adopted by many U.S. federal departments and agencies, after accusations of censorship and politicization of science during the administration of former president George W. Bush. 'Canadian scientists are where American scientists were maybe a decade ago,' said Michael Halpern, a Washington, D.C.-based program manager with the Union of Concerned Scientists. 'They're trying to figure out how to protect themselves from a government that’s increasingly focused on message control over a more open discussion of the facts.'"
I think we're rubbing off on them, my fellow americans!
Don't they have corporations in Canadia to tell the scientists how the studies should turn out?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
> Canadian Government Muzzling Scientists
> Canadian scientists protest Tory's sandbagging of evidence-based policy
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
Stephen Harper and the Harper government...
He demanded it, and it should be used in all articles, not just positive ones.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
You can't trust politicians, and scientists are just a bunch of whiney atheists. Its time to let our clergy take over.
Couldn't they just solve this problem with some sort of "laser"?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
This is Canada, they use a chicken cannon.
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
what is this muzzled science? Why isn't that obvious let alone seemingly never mentioned.
getting the word out in this day and age isn't exactly the problem it was 20 years ago.
god knows I'm not sticking up for that cretin harper, but seriously, what's the deal?
Need Mercedes parts ?
Here in Australia the Minister for science role has been scraped, effectively removing scientific opinion from the decision making process.
What the hell does evidence have to do with science? according to the current government, scientists using facts and evidence are wrong and should stfu if their results differ from the feelies of the regime. its called the scientific method, and scientists should know this :P
No.
Just.... no.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
In this case, a friend's husband is very pro-global cooling, because he is logical and looks at facts. He is being shunned and muzzled by the people that buy the global warming religion. Canada is in the right to shut-up that guy because not believing in global warming doesn't lead to reducing consumption which makes it morally wrong. The facts don't really matter. The belief in global warming is better for the environment so that is what is morally right.
Mostly because they use the NSA spy program to identify the ACs and send the mounties to snowboard them.
(caveat - they don't waterboard except in summer)
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
"evidence based ----" has become a code phrase for corruption, political control in govt sponsored "science". Look at "climate science" which is rapidly sinking on the shoals of physics, statistics and total lack of prediction. Look at medicine, bankrupting the country with a lot more sick people. I can get a much better science based result plus a 98% cost discount myself. Atlas is shrugging.
I'm really perplexed by this, and I think the world is going to continue to get suckier and suckier the longer it goes on. At some point, we all will have to accept that Nature has it's own way of self-assembling as well as self-regulating, and that it is far superior to what man is capable of. Science has a place in politics, but politics has no place in science.
"Success" itself differs when viewed from a political standpoint vs. a scientific standpoint. Science is for everyone, it's universal. Politics are for politicians. Scientists are regular people that want to understand how the universe works. Politicians are regular people that want to manage how the universe works. One of them are a sensible people, the other are a silly people.
Until the sensible people have more ability to express their understanding, then our species is stuck, only evolving to the point of failing to manage ourselves in a sensible manner.
Why is it so hard to just accept Mother Nature as God, and let it rule...?
Hundreds of participants gathered in 17 cities for rallies on Monday
That's not a protest. That's at best one more person in the Tim Horten's line up on a Monday morning. A lab coat wouldn't even look out of place.
Harper has proven himself an ignorant, unworthy, corporate-serving and ego-driven jackass. Too bad he can't be thrown out of the PMO via non-confidence in the same way his party rose to power.
I would hope that the state of Canadian Science isn't still relying on Slide Rules. I learned with a slide rule but a good old calculator or crap, a cell phone these days with the right app kicks butt over a Slide Rule.
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
As a Candian, I feel compelled to say that all of my fine slides rules are all in my museum collection.
One thing to keep in mind is that government scientists are pretty much in the same position as scientists who work in industry: they are there to serve the interests of their employer.
In the case of government scientists, their role is to conduct research that relates to policy or to support the civil service. For example: environmental scientists may be conducting research into acceptable harvest levels for fisheries or how to manage land in a flood plain. It is unfortunate when a government distorts that research to support their policies rather than using the research to inform policy, but that shouldn't be unexpected.
More concerning is the cutbacks to academic research, which has been more independent in the past. Academic scientists have not, traditionally, been tied to the interests of government so they have had much more leeway to express their results independent of external pressure.
But we can't allow science to undo its own good work. That's why we so carefully limit the scope of its researches--that's why I almost got sent to an island. We don't allow it to deal with any but the most immediate problems of the moment. All other enquiries are most sedulously discouraged.
Brave New World
If you look at New Zealand (current PM replaced leader of party after 'email leaks scandal' drove out the previous party leader). The current PM of New Zealand is now ultra NSA friendly. Pushing through surveillance laws against fierce opposition.
Harper is a right wing military man who keeps tight control of the party to prevent others challenging him. Are you sure he wasn't assisted in getting into power by the Stasi? An email here, a tip off there? Canada is in 5 eyes, if you read the PRISM leak, it shows US/Canada as *one* entity in the surveillance world, as if it makes no difference which side of the border you are.
Once you have domestic spying you have the spooks picking the leadership. I don't see Murdoch with anywhere near the same kind of power.
Lets see......
- individual's have been prevented from speaking on behalf of the government like every other department.
- evidence taking a back seat to what? What does that even mean? Example?
- shifting to commercial research? Because we don't do enough in this country and commercial research leads to jobs which leads to tax revenue which leads to funding for other research. Win-win
- please indicate how conservatives are controlling facts. List an actual case.
- The government laid off 14 scientists and the media declared the death of science.
See, for example "Nix V. Hedden" (1893 wherein the US government declared tomatoes to be a vegetable, for the convenience of collecting taxes, even though those pesky scientists said it was a fruit.)
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
I wish critical thinking were taught in schools, with a special emphasis on finding logical fallacies in things politicians say.
I wish more people understood why we have so few choices in elections.
And I wish the Union of Concerned Scientists had a political party arm so I could vote for them.
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
This is exactly what we need in the US. Unless and until they stand up to these corporate/government censors, public opinion will continue to be lead by whomever has the most cash.
I'm a Canadian, and if there's one thing I've learned living in this country for more than 3 decades, it's that there's only two parties that run the country. The red party (liberals) and the blue party (conservatives). Oddly enough, this is identical to the US party colours. Both those parties do horrendous and idiotic things.
Canadians will claim to you that we have more than 2 choices, but those extra choices really bring about the choice of "do you want red or blue to the majority or minority governments".
There are better options, but nobody will select them. :(
Don't believe me? Proof:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Prime_Ministers_of_Canada
Well Canada is heavily involved with oil sands, and that is 'probably' disastrous for the environment and climate. Scientific fact-finding is not convenient because then it 'probably' becomes clear that the future costs to our habitat and repair work for the populace outweigh current profits...
Oops, sorry that was 1974, not 1973
and
... on the non-Murdoch side ...
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I'm a leftist. I'm upper middle class, and I believe that my taxes ought to be higher so as to help people who need it. I also believe your taxes should be higher in order to help people who need it. The world isn't so simple that we can just lump all poor people into one label (that is, "lazy") and say that they, as a group, deserve to starve and die. That is immoral. It is far more immoral than raising the income tax on the wealthy by a few percent.
I'm a leftist. I am aware of the fact that corporate profits are up while wages are down. I don't believe that people should live off of the government; I just wonder where all those jobs are now that the "job creators" are doing so well.
I'm a leftist. I am aware of the fact that the reason abortion was made legal in the first place was because people did it anyway, and many many people died from it. I also think it's funny as hell that you're this big conservative yet you expect young people to take care of your selfish ass in your old age. Save up some money like a good fucking responsible self-sufficient capitalist and pay those immigrants to take care of you, dipshit.
I'm a leftist. I'm no expert on climate change, but I know that people who study the climate for a living are more reliable sources on climate change than people who really really want climate change not to be true. That said, like every other leftist, I hope we are wrong about climate change, because if we're right about it, we're all fucked. Also, unlike with climate change, there's a lot of actual scientific debate on the merits of pot.
I'm a leftist. My car gets 45 miles to the gallon, and I'm in favor of pushing for stronger efficiency and emissions standards rather than stopping them. Every leftist in the world could shiver in the dark, but that wouldn't solve our emissions problem. Change needs to happen on a global scale, or we're fucked.
I'm a leftist, and I don't even know where the fuck to go with this one. We gave the rich their money? Are you fucking high? We want to tax it all back? Are you really, really fucking high? Fuck, I'd settle for having the investor class taxed at the same rate I am rather than at 15 percent.
I'm a leftist, and I understand that science starts out wrong about a lot of things, but when their observations don't fit their hypotheses, they refine their conclusions to fit the data rather than dogmatically repeating the same claims over and over again in the face of overwhelming evidence the way conservative economists do. You don't like science?
part of that is because it took Murdoch longer to penetrate and take over enough of the Canadian media
Actually Rupert has been synonomous with Aussie/UK newspapers since he busted the Fleet St unions in the 80's. If there's a recent shift then the Aussie shift has been the slowest since Canada and the UK have had conservative governments for a while now, whilst we've only just flipped the government a couple of weeks ago. We also have coss-media rules, meaning that since Rupert controls most of the Aussie print media, he is automatically banned from owning a significant portion of radio or TV. Their main print rival is Fairfax (Age/SMH) who (surprisingly) gave their editorial vote to the conservatives this time around. The only significant publisher to give the left the thumbs up was (oddly) "Bussiness week".
We also have our own rat pack of rich independent miners headed up by the world's richest spoilt brat, Gina Reinheart. Rupert just prints whatever keeps his customers happy, and here in Oz independent miners are amoungst his biggest customers. For example "Australia's most popular column" is written by a mining shill who goes by the name of Andrew Bolt, sort of a right wing "shock jock" who can write with something other than a crayon. Murdoch doesn't actually agree with many of Bolt outrageous propoganda. Bolt is Gina's personal mouthpiece, Rupert keeps him on the payroll because Gina pays the bill. Gina loves him so much that she bought him his own Sunday show on channel 10. She also tried to buy herself a seat on the board of Fairfax but she failed the board's "character test".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
In 2003 When GW Bush was riding VERY high in the polls, the left in the US was desperate to find ways to drag him down so their guy would have a chance in 2004. They came up with three big themes: "War on Women" (at tactic they'd used before) "Bush Lied Us Into War" (a lie, but they knew all their buddies in the press would say it over and over again) and "War on Science"
The "War on Women" has always been a lie. First, women are not paid less per hour as a form of gender discrimination (if they were, anybody starting a business could hire all women and wipe-out their competitors because of much lower labor costs). Women tend to get less per hour because they (statistically, not as individuals) make different life choices preferring things like schedule flexibility and also because they tend to take time out on their careers. It's also NOT a "war on women" to say "you do not get to kill your child" (one could easily flip it and screech that "pro choice" == "war on children")
Bush did not lie us into war; If you look at the actual words he said in his speech to Congress, he was truthful (he did NOT say Saddam had WMD, he said our allies had intelligence to that effect... and indeed he was in possession of just such intelligence reports from our allies at the time) The left KNEW those intel reports would never be made public within that election cycle, or indeed even during a 2nd Bush term. The "Big Lie" propaganda technique worked well however and now all the same stupid morons who think Sarah Palin said she could see Russia from her house as evidence she knew foreign policy (she DID NOT say this... the Saturday Night Live comic impersonator said this) are are convinced that Bush lied in his speech to congress
There was an organized effort to get left-leaning scientists in the Bush years to claim they were being muzzled... also a lie. A well-known global warming fanatic at NASA held something like 100 press events telling people he was being muzzled (the insanity of this should logically be obvious... but it is not if you are a left-wing journalist). This was the same guy who helped kick-off the climate scares in congress years earlier by participating in a rigged hearing (he and his friends in congress had arranged for the air conditioning to be off during those hearings so that everybody in the room would be hot, sweating and uncomfortable). The right is in many ways more pro-science than the left... the left is anti-nuclear (generally out of irrational fear and mis-trust of science), anti frakking (when all available science says its safe) the left hated the moon program (saw it as spending money on elite science-y stuff when it should be spent on poverty programs instead). The left is terrified of GM crops, no matter what the science says. The left has generally been anti-technology as well (opposed supersonic jets, hates hydro-electric dams, opposed nuclear-powered ships and subs, fought against many plastics and chemicals, fought against robots in factories, etc. Luddites to the core... they'd like us all to live in caves (and NOT to even warm ourselves with fire (which emits the EVIL global warming gas CO2)). The ONLY science that the left tends to like is any science that says "the world will end if people don't give more money and more power to big government". ANY "scientific" paper (no matter how thoroughly-manipulated the peer-review and publishing was) that supports left-wing beliefs is trumpeted as "SCIENCE" which everybody must bow down to... but of course any science that they do not like is denounced as phony or tainted. When Freeman Dyson (world-famous physicist) did not go-along with them on global warming, they screeched that we was not a climate scientist... but (as leftists ALWAYS do) they COUNTED on the public not knowing that their favorite NASA expert on global warming was, himself, also "just" a physics guy...
The right has disdain for this crap NOT because we are "anti-science" but because we are onto your political tactics and your selective love for only the bits of
"The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science." - Carl Sagan
Back in the seventies and the eighties, the colors in the US were red for Democrat and blue for Republican... but RED is universally recognized as the color of Marxists and the (left-leaning) US press corps started to think this might be harming (via subtle association) the Democrats, so they flipped the colors. It was a funny admission that the left-wing economics and politics they normally embrace were not very popular with some portion of swing voters (leftists everywhere else are not ashamed of red, but what the hell... the ends justify the means...) and at this point the press likes to pretend they did not flip the colors (that would be like admitting they stack the audiences and the questioners in the debates they run.... they do it, but they insist we not notice)
In the US, when James Hanson was screaming that he was being muzzled, NOBODY from the Bush administration was muzzling him. He was engaged in a political act (arguably a violation of the Hatch act that is supposed to block federal government employees from tainting their taxpayer-funded work with politics) of pretending Bush was "anti-science" (which by happy accident helped Al Gore (One of whose organizations had awarded Hanson some funding) in his efforts to unseat Bush). At the time, the policy Hanson claimed was muzzling him was a policy that required government scientists to alert their supervisors BEFORE holding press events and to provide those supervisors with a "heads-up" as to the content. (NO content was being blocked, this was just the usual case of insecure management level people hating being caught flat-footed by press questions about what some underling has said... and being seen on-camera with nothing to say and no information)
As to your point about suppressed travel (the reason my subject line is "Bull") there have been MANY cases of government employees (in many agencies, not just in science) scheduling such travel as a form of junket/paid-lavish-vacation. Every dollar spent on this stuff either [a] was taken at gun point from a taxpayer (if you are a conservative) or [b] was taken from a much more important poverty/health/housing program (if you are a liberal). Both conservative and liberal government leaders have been embarrassed to be sandbagged by journalists with pictures/videos of partying government workers. The meetings just never seem to happen in unpleasant places and cheap run-down hotels... in the US (for example) the GSA is sitting on empty available office spaces in nearly every major city and that space could be used to host any needed government meetings at no cost. Tell me... is Obama "anti science" now that he is restricting the travel of his NASA people????? (I KNOW you'd say Bush would be if HE was doing this...)
Scientists wants to keep their jobs, so have to do what they're told, or else they lose all possibility for a job, ever?
Basically, shut up or starve.
It's always been like this.
So they got rid of all the advisers who were pushing nuclear power, spaceflight, GM crops, advances in plastics and petrochemicals, etc??? wow. that's too bad... oh, wait, they just got rid of the guys pushing "green" (unaffordable/inefficient) "science"? oh, ok,
Congratulations! Economic improvement and better human conditions are in your future!
In the west in the 1950s, scientists were looked-up-to as heroes and intellectual giants who were inventing new plastics, new chemicals, discovering new secrets of the atom, finding new ways to help engineers build faster planes, bigger rockets, more-capable ships and submarines, etc and the standard of living for the average person was rising rapidly. Then the leftists luddites stepped-in and started making things up about the chemicals (like DDT) and spooking people about all things nuclear (starting with "ban the bomb" which would only have disarmed the west, and then moving to anti-nuclear power) The modern leftists version of "science" has killed uncounted thousands with Malaria (which DDT had nearly eliminated while never having harmed a single human being) and so completely stalled progress in nuclear power that all current plants are primitive designs from decades ago and electricity is now more expensive than it used to be. Their anti-plastic moves are leading to policies that ban clean, healthy plastic bags in grocery stores (and have lead to an up-spike in bacterial problems as shoppers move to cloth bags which get contaminated and are not sterilized between uses) The list luddite "accomplishments" is much longer. The simple fact is that we have so many political people with science degrees now who have the political view that "the ends justify the means" that you can get somebody to write a "scientific" paper that finds a problem with nearly anything (these are NOT actual scientists doing actual science... they are political hacks manipulating statistical "studies" for public policy reasons.)
It's a conservative government after all. It is more or less their self-description that they cater to the needs of companies and not the people ...
He is destroying Canada for the sake of his Jewish masters. Mass immigration is genocide, plain and simple. Whatever is good for the Jews, is all that matters to these worthless parasites. Who prints all the money out of thin air? Why, it's the JEWS. And thus, the corrupt politicians do whatever the Jews tell them, including genociding their own people by FORCING them to accept millions of non-white INVADERS into their country. What's not to like?
Quick, better mod me down, can't have a factual discussion on Slashdot can we?
WHOO UP THERE!! I mod you up for being FUNNIER THAN HELL! Sounds like you are wearing a pointed white hat while you watch fox news. Either that or you live somewhere in the BUSH with all sorts of toys like ak 47s and the like. If you actually believe the crap you just wrote then I suggest you had better get a vasectomy because any off spring you might conceive deserve better.
But this is a discussion about how a government that essentially controls Canadian research is deliberately trying to edit the results of their research. This is the very same government who has let individuals take huge amounts of the economy off shore and has privatized many things in the name of free enterprise. The same said government has to a great extent devalued labour to such an extent with policies like allowing the wholesale export of natural resources at fire sale prices instead of investing in industry through materials science. The very method that made our country great and a world leader in things like the forest industry.
Funny but it has gotten so bad that the individuals that have essentially raped the economy of this great country have created a counties of their own. Much the same as the Mafia did with Cuba in the 1950's. It is a group of offshore islands called the Cayman Islands where many companies and individuals have to only have a small office to deposit obscenely huge amounts of cash in the banks. In fact in these off shore tax havens in the Caribbean have the largest gold reserves in the world held in the name of the individuals who have raped Canada and elsewhere. This has been going on unabated since the founders of the offshore tax havens, the friends of ex-prime minister Brian the First established Canadian Banks off shore in their little tax haven fiefdoms. My suggestion is that Canada should invade Belize and the Cayman Islands the same way Regan invaded a little island once upon a time. It might even bring Canada and the US out of the recession!
Fracking. It's spelled fracking. When you've cashed your astroturfing cheque you might want to consider a dictionary.
Hi there fredprado. It looks like you forgot to sign in before you posted your little rant, as you often do in any thread mentioning the left (I'm sure you don't want to lose any posting karma for your main account).
I fucking hate that bitch Harper. He's Canada's W.
One thing to keep in mind is that government scientists are pretty much in the same position as scientists who work in industry: they are there to serve the interests of their employer.
Which is good because Canada's citizens employ public servants such as government scientists.
So, since you believe that your taxes should be higher, I assume that you do not take any deductions when you file your income tax (or only those that bring your taxes down to what you think they should be)? If such is not the case, you are a hypocrite and what you really believe is that MY taxes should be higher, even though you are willing to pay more as long as I am paying more.
As to your point on why abortion is legal, it does not seem that making it legal has helped the problem of people dying from it (google Dr Gosnell if you do not know what I am talking about).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Makes me curious. What are the 51st and 52nd states?
"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)
For Americans, democrats are considered Left. But if you take a look at what happen outside of U.S.A. they have politics that could be what the Extreme Right parties have out there.
No hypocrisy in saying they should be higher (or lower) provided that means higher (or lower) for everyone.
How old are you, nine?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
" Are you implying that more jobs is a bad thing?"
You're begging the question: Do businesses making profits hire more people and give better wages? The evidence suggests no and no.
"The right wing will defend all human life"
Unless it's poor or ill. Or immigrant. Or female. You DO know that giving birth is not only expensive (see "poor people") but can also kill the adult female, right?
Moreover, define "life". Hell, define "human". Because a 3-week old foetus looks the same as a lizard foetus. It's not a human yet. It's not alive. Pull a 12-week foetus out of the mother's body (why the hell should she have to give freely to this other human? That's YOUR opinion on sharing with humans when they're alive, right?) it will die. It's not a human life, it's a parasite. You're insisting that the mother no longer be allowed to do with her body as she ought. Slavery. A big thing for the right wing. As long as they get to be the slave owners and not the slaves.
" Like salt on your food, regulation is a great thing in small amounts but too much of it will destroy an industry."
However it appears that any regulation is too much. Every single time the market has fallen down, libertarians and USian right wingers insist it is the fault of government regulation. ALWAYS.
"We consider the rich as having a "tax cut" when they are still paying a higher percentage than we are"
No we don't. We consider it a tax cut when their tax is cut. Given most of their wealth is from the actions of other people, they damn well SHOULD pay more tax. Moreover, you think "A tax rise" means the removal of a special short-term tax break if it happens to the rich.
And additionally, the tax break for the rich was paid of of social security funds. And now that those funds aren't there any more, having been hoovered up by the rich, the poor now have to pay more for social security for less benefit "because it's not funded enough". Meanwhile the tax breaks cannot be removed because as far as you're concerned, they were already funded therefore would be a tax rise. Given that the funding is coming from the SS fund and that's not funded enough to pay SS AND the tax breaks, you're insisting that the poor pay more.
That's a tax.
But against the poor therefore absolutely allowed.
"As far as the ignoring evidence, please tell me you dont believe that the left wing doesnt do that too."
So you admit that you ignore evidence.
What you need to know about "For The People" vs. "Attached To Government Tit" can be summed up by Contact:
Drumlin: I've always felt science should be done to benefit The People.
Scientist: Not unlike my [work on] L-band globular clusters.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
there's a word for forced charity....slavery
If you think that YOUR taxes should be higher and you take every deduction that you can, thus minimizing how much tax you pay, you are a hypocrite. Because that means that you do not really think your taxes should be higher (if you did, you would pay more). If you truly believed that your taxes should be higher, you would pay more while working to get the tax rate changed. If you are paying the least you can, while claiming that you think your taxes should be higher, I am going to conclude that you want MY taxes increased while figuring that you will be able to sneak some provision into the code to keep yours from going up.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
investment income is too broad a term to simply lump it all in as "tax the same as other income". for example:
for the capital gains tax, the rate is determines by the length of time the asset was held before sale; the longer you hold it, the lower the rate. This s because it causes a clear incentive to hold onto investments longer, to invest wisely and for the long term, giving the market more stability.
for dividends, they are taxed at either the going income tax rate, or the capital gains rate, and again its tied to how long you've owned the stock. the reason for dividends being allowed to fall under a lower rate is two fold: again, to incentivize long term investing, and also because dividends are money that has already been taxed. its not quite fair to not tax it as income, but its also not quite fair to fully tax it twice. this is the compromise.
I find the reactions inspiring. I don't recall any significant number of people wearing lab coats and blindfolds on the streets in the US during the worst of the silence-scientists days (could be I just wasn't aware).
Good write :)
There's also a word for a person who only cares about him or herself: sociopath.
There are real slaves in the world who have to do what they're told 100% of the time and make no money. Paying a portion of your income in taxes doesn't make you a slave -- you are still free to choose what to do, and you are free to choose not to do anything at all. Your misuse of the word slavery is pathetic and laughable.
Otherwise known as: tu quoque.
So, since you believe that your taxes should be higher, I assume that you do not take any deductions when you file your income tax (or only those that bring your taxes down to what you think they should be)? If such is not the case, you are a hypocrite...
Um, no.
...and what you really believe is you are willing to pay more as long as I am paying more.
That's more like it. Paying more taxes as an individual accomplishes nothing. It's like a one-man boycott of a store; it doesn't work. If everyone in a certain bracket is paying more, then something can be accomplished. And, for the record, I have voluntarily paid a higher tax rate (you can do that in Massachusetts).
"What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
They did not make an argument. They made a statement of belief. They said , "I believe that my taxes ought to be higher..." If such was is the case, they have the option of paying more in taxes (which option they may be taking advantage of). If they are not taking advantage of that option, they are a hypocrite.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
If you believe that your taxes should be higher, but do not pay that higher rate, you are a hypocrite. More over, I believe that you are a liar (in your case, kilfarsnar, I accept your claim to paying more than required by law and do not consider this to apply to you), who expects that they will be able to get special exemptions written into the law so that while my taxes go up, yours remain the same or go down.
Those who, as kilfarsnar, pay more taxes than they are required by law are consistent and, while I disagree with their policy prescription (increased taxes), I respect them.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
He said his and yours. In a democracy we all have to play by the same rules; that's basic fairness. Fairness is nothing to do with whether you agree with them or not. In a democracy, there will always be laws that somebody doesn't agree with, and everybody will find some of its laws disagreeable. Grow up and live with that, or fuck off to Somalia.
Sports analogy: A football coach may think field goals are overvalued, and that the game would be improved if they were only 2 points. He may actively campaign for the rules to be changed and go on about it endlessly in post-match interviews. In the meantime, does he order his team to intentionally miss one out of three?
It's not inconsistent at all to play within the rules as they are while wishing they were different.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It isn't just the Harper government. If you think it is one side then please explain how 3 scientists were fired from Health Canada in 2004 under a Liberal government?
They are both owned by special interests. The longer you go along with the "it's those bad right wing governments" BS or "it's those bad left wing governments" the longer you perpetuate the lie. The truth is they are both owned, bought and paid for several times over.
The same people that defend higher taxes are those that thing we should not play by the same rules. That some people should have special grants, that certain groups should be benefited by quotas, etc. And that is just a small part of the hypocrisy you defend.
In your example the football coach does not have the power to directly change parts of the game or a given match on his own, without waiting for "the rules to be changed". He must stick to the rules until they are changed if his campaign is successful.
On the other hand a person that thinks he is paying to little of his income in taxes and thus depriving or great government from the money he could and should give can already give all his money even donating in excess of current taxes while still trying to change the laws and force everyone else to do the same. It is actually the only non hypocritical way of acting.
As I saw on the CBC
Leader: What do we want?
Crowd: Evidence-based decision-making!
Leader: When do we want it?
Crowd: After peer review!
He said that he believed that his taxes should be higher. He then said that he believed that mine should be as well. The problem with your example of the football coach is that the football coach does not have the option of getting the scorer only count his teams field goals as two points, while everyone who believes that their own taxes should be higher does have the option of paying more in taxes, either by not taking all of the deductions they are eligible for or by writing a check to the government for the additional amount that they think they should be paying. So your football example does not apply here.
What this discussion generally comes down to is that some people think they are being generous by giving those in need someone else's money. That is not generosity, that is theft (and don't compare it to Robin Hood, Robin Hood stole from the tax collectors and other government officials in order to give to the poor).
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
No, I believe our taxes should be higher. Not taking deductions myself will do precisely jack squat. The difference is that if I just do it myself, nothing will happen. There's no hypocrisy there, and you know it.
Just to clarify, you're saying that the fact that this one guy exists and was arrested for this proves that people still die from abortions on a massive scale?
I am saying that people NEVER died from abortions on a massive scale and that they are STILL dying from abortions on the same scale that they always did. Legalizing abortions did nothing to reduce the dangers from abortions because those who are pro-choice oppose all attempts to regulate them. Dr. Gosnell only got stopped because one of his workers was selling prescription drugs on the side and the DEA raided his clinic. Those who were supposed to ensure that he was running a safe clinic were aware of the problems and refused to take any action until DEA agents, who were horrified by what they found, reported it to the press. How many other abortion clinics are just like Dr. Gosnell's clinic?
As to taxes, since you take the maximum deductions that you can, what you really mean is that you think other people should pay more taxes and you will take the risk that you will have to as well. Basically, you think that you, through the government, can make better use of my money than I can. I do not favor higher taxes because I believe that I can make better use of my money to help others than the government can. The fact of the matter is that I think that you can as well. Whether you choose to do so or not I will leave as up to you. I do not think that I have any right to force you to help others and since I think I, and you, can do a better job of helping those in need with our resources than the government can, I see no benefit to giving my money to the government in order for the bureaucrats to take a cut of money I would rather see help those in need.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
It's interesting. The people who bitch the most about affirmative action are the same people who feel very very strongly that discrimination by private companies should be legal. Here's a thought: make discrimination illegal, and then maybe we can talk about getting rid of affirmative action.
Discrimination kind of throws the whole "personal responsibility" thing right out the window, doesn't it? Hey, look at me! I was born white and wealthy, but I got where I am with hard work. If other people worked as hard as I do, they'd be right where I am. The fact that it's harder for minorities to get jobs even when they have the same qualifications doesn't enter into it, right?
I believe in personal responsibility. We have a personal responsibility not only to take care of ourselves if we're lucky enough to be able to do so, but also to take care of others who are not. Again, it's time we started admitting that this warped view people have of the phrase "personal responsibility" where it means "take care of me, and fuck everyone else" is a serious moral issue with American society.
The hell it isn't. Try Googling Dick Cheney and the Clean Water Act before you embarrass yourself. Whoops, too late.
Obama's energy policies are utterly indistinguishable from his Republican predecessor - "all of the above". Why do you think he appointed Ken Salazar? Sad thing for you wingers is that all the honest criticism of Obama comes from the left.
Actual statistics contradict your bogus claims about abortion deaths.
I get to state my own argument. You don't get to make it for me. Much like I said above, how one person happens to allocate their funds means precisely jack. What I am saying is that this is everyone's responsibility. That includes yours and mine, but it is not, as you imply, limited to you and me.
Also, while we're making assumptions about how other people use their money, I assume that, since you seen to believe so much in private charity, you donate a significant portion of your money to charity in order to help people in need? What portion? Who knows, really. It's just like arbitrarily saying that because I take tax deductions, I'm a hypocrite.
When taxes on the wealthy go down and assistance programs are cut, charitable donations never go up enough to make up the difference, so honestly, your whole point is complete bullshit, even on the off chance that you do donate a significant portion of your money to charity as you imply. Yes, I believe that tax funded government assistance programs are more effective than private ones, precisely because they have an adequate budget to make a difference.
Discrimination kind of throws the whole "personal responsibility" thing right out the window, doesn't it?
It certainly does not. Discrimination is actually desirable in many cases. For example when you are hiring people to be picture models you want them to be handsome. When you are hiring people to be scientists you want them to be intelligent. When you are hiring someone to play the role of Martin Luther King in a movie you want him to be black.
What is not desirable is discrimination for the wrong motives, based on prejudices, but that harms the discriminator far more than it does to the people being discriminated in any competitive field. If companies decide not to hire black people, for example, because of prejudice, those that do decide to do so will pay less because there will be more offer and less demand. If they pay less and get the same work they will be more competitive and win the competition. Those that, by prejudice, refuse to adapt will lose and fail, and the system will reach an equilibrium eventually where nobody that lasted will hire discriminating by prejudice and where the amount paid equalizes.
That is simple logic and has worked very very well in the last decades, at least anywhere the government hasn't applied affirmative action, as affirmative action transforms discrimination by prejudice in discrimination with good motives very quickly,
We have a personal responsibility not only to take care of ourselves if we're lucky enough to be able to do so, but also to take care of others who are not
You may have as many responsibilities as you wish to carry, but do not try to push them to me. Personal responsibility is the responsibility to take care of yourself and to deal with the consequences of your own wrong decisions and nothing else.
It is not my problem if the wealthy do not choose to give to help those in need. I am not being charitable by sticking a gun in their face to take the money to give to the needy (which is really what taxing is). I do NOT believe that tax funded government assistance programs are effective (unless you mean at taking people's money and giving it to those who are politically connected), let alone being more effective than private ones. Basically, you think that you get to feel like you help the poor because you want to take other people's money to help them. That way, you don't have to bother to spend your own time and money figuring out what they need and help them get it. It is so much easier to just vote for the government to take other people's money and do something with it and count that as helping. You are right in one thing as a general rule, one person does not have enough money to pay for the kind of corruption that a government program can.
And the answer is, yes, I give a significant portion of what I earn to charity. The thing is that I DON't make assumptions about how other people use their money because it is THEIR money.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You sure as hell do:
I missed your "statistics" on abortion. If you look, they are "estimates" but nowhere do they tell you what they based those estimates on. The article gives lots of numbers (including talking about "legal, safe abortions" in the Soviet Union, at the same time that they say that the biggest cause of the danger of illegal abortions in the U.S. was the fact that penicillin had yet to be developed. The Soviet Union did not have penicillin then either), but no source for any of them. I am supposed to take the word of a publication that thinks the Soviet Union under Stalin was a paradigm of women's rights? The article which is the source for your link goes into great detail about the horrors that women of color faced when they tried to get abortions...it sounds a lot like Dr. Gosnell's clinic.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
You made the statement that you thought your taxes should be higher, so I assumed that you acted accordingly. So, yes, I guess I do make assumptions. I assume that people are not hypocrites until informed otherwise. At this point, I am beginning to think that you are a hypocrite, although you never quite come out and admit that you take all of the deductions you legally can, that seems to be what you are saying.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Truth be told, I just take the standard deduction. I'm not sure what kind of deductions I'd get if I itemized, so I can't be absolutely certain that I take the maximum -- I probably don't. I doubt it's a significant difference, though, and I didn't get into it because it's beside the point. Whether I happen to be a hypocrite by your convenient and warped standards is irrelevant.
This is the primary issue with your philosophy. "It's not my problem." Poor are in trouble? Fuck them. If they worked hard, they wouldn't be in trouble, because the world is just and all poor people are lazy.
Young child has poor parents who can't afford to put adequate food on the table? Fuck that kid. Not my problem. Should have been smart enough to be born into a wealthy family. I donate to charity (interestingly, Internet libertarians must be an incredibly generous group, since they all donate to charity even though poverty is Not My Problem).
Someone gets cancer and loses their job and health insurance? Fuck them. Not my problem. Dude should have been smart enough not to get cancer.
Charity alone has never solved these issues, no matter how much you really, really want it to. And yet, there are other civilized first world countries where everyone has health care and enough to eat, even if they're dumb and lazy enough to be born into a poor family or get cancer, because their governments can and do deal with these issues effectively.