The funny thing about the pro- and anti-Trudeau partisans is how their positions seem based primarily in emotion, not fact. Talk to anybody with a “F*ck Trudeau” logo, and they’ll tell you how much they dislike the guy and maybe name some specific “feels” about what he’s doing that they don’t like, but there’s no real detail or depth. The pro-Trudeau people seem to have a mirror reaction: he promotes some good feelings in them, he seems like a symbol of things they like. When challenged, they’re hard-pressed to actually back that up with accomplishments. Is this the end point of our political culture - everything is determined by how something makes us feel rather than tangible results?
Most people are digesting 88 headlines in 48 seconds on some social media app and so there is no possibility to sit down and think . So it’s all confirmation bias feeding pre conceived feelings . That goes for pro and anti on any issue . Most people can’t even relax and read this typed out dispatch . We are truly outliers now .
"From the carbon tax to COVID-19, its otherwise good policies are consistently undermined by a total inability to explain them to Canadians.” That's one of the most elitist, tone deaf, progressive Citiotism's I have ever read. Perhaps, just perhaps, Canadians aren't understanding how good these policies are because the policies are in fact, crap.
I think the point is the Libs are still so arrogant that all they can do is blame the people for not understanding them ! They are no where near being self aware . It’s beyond even what most governments have been in my lifetime .
Definitely elitist, also arrogant. I have been guilty of that before; that if only I explained it better, the person would understand and agree. That was a hard lesson. Two people, with perfect understanding, can disagree on whether something is good or bad based on the priority of their values. Not even different values, just which values are more important than others.
I mean, it actually could be due to an inability to explain it. But it's probably just a bunch of good people who don't think exactly alike. Nothing wrong with that.
"He noted that 30 advertisers had threatened to pull out of Meta/Facebook, led by the federal government, B.C. and Quebec."
A key point that every media outlet reporting on this aspect has missed is that Meta is not really "losing" that ad revenue. Those ad spots are not "lost". They are still there. They just go to the next highest bidder. And the difference isn't much between the bidders typically. This really should be highlighted.
Re the covid scandal: it was better when we locked scientists into their ivory towers and unplugged their internet. A time when no one even knew what they looked like unless they won a Nobel prize. That was a period when they published credible science and were in no particular hurry to ever 'settle the science'. The focus was aimed at 'updating the science' and not some arrogant mission to control the narrative and play the role of interventionist.
In fact, what right thinking scientist would ever want to 'settle the science'? That would de facto put them out of a job or, best case, get their own funding cut. This is why bombshell science papers should always be shrugged off first until the claims can be independently repeated and verified. Even Einstein, after dropping the mic on special, and then general relativity, invited the science community to prove him wrong. He was fully open to admitting his theory had not 'settled the science' even to his end.
Andersen et al. appear to have abandoned their credibility and commitment to discovering the truth for a bout of people pleasing with the 'higher ups' and now their reputation is well fucked. A classic tale of good people who have a weakness for striving toward recognition and praise. It's sad to see but if a professional scientist can't stand his ground when a political shitstorm rolls through then they are not spending enough time locked in their ivory tower trying to update the science instead of settling it.
This whole issue about gender ideology in schools is just plain wrong. The majority of grown ups in the room fully support an adult’s right to identify however they choose to do so. But when impressionable young kids are now being taught by teachers that sex doesn’t matter (lie) and that it’s more important how you feel (identity), that should send shivers down you r spine. Not only are we allowing for misinformation to replace basic biology in the classroom, we now have the double whammy in Canada that precludes parents from being informed about conversations their child might be having with their school about their own sexuality. So if you don’t think it’s really no big deal that the State supersedes the parent in matters of their child’s education and sexual orientation, then you must also be in support of residential schools. Many on the sidelines, such as Matt and Jen here say “what’s the big deal?” And that in itself is the biggest crime of all.
“Generally speaking, everyone is pretty content to let adults live and let live, but when you bring kids into any ideological agenda, expect matters to get ugly quickly.”
I understand what you are saying and I agree that if any or all go in with their backs and fists up, power suits on we are all in for a world of hurt.
What I was trying to get across was referring to this situation as an ideological agenda leaves no room for discussion, or history or science or someone’s humanity. That is true for both adult and child. I hope I explained that better.
At any rate, all the more reason for some respectable non-governmental organization (and I don’t mean an NGO like the WHO!) to hold an unbiased inquiry into what caused the whole mess. Just for when something happens again we might be able to believe the science.
Overall I am very disappointed that neither of you nor your associates have offered any insight into the evolving mega rebuild of the cabinet. It really doesn’t matter who is leaving . It matters who is staying and the total disaster of who is being reassigned. Unless you are persuasive it seems the Liberal Cabinet has officially collapsed!
Here's the thing. Unless they can prove China released it on purpose; an act of war, nothing is going to happen. Because i doubt there is anyone living with the "smoking gun" that proves it came from the lab. Which China isn't going to do anything ever. That we aren't doing a basic screening of every passenger who gets on a plane in China is insanity, because that's where the next one is coming from too...not matter what its genesis is.
Trudeau has earned a ton of criticism. He's paralysed, without vision, and his cabinet shuffle is irrelevant since all governing appears to come from the PMO. Until that changes....like he resigns..dare to dream, nothing will change. But he and no other politicians deserves the cap that happened in Belleville. That was just an embarrassment that did benefit JT, and make the Conservatives look like idiots for not speaking out against it. Don't get me started on "Spinny Pete" who I consider the most easily detestable politicians I've ever seen in Canada. But if we're shuffling the chairs, Omar deserves a seat outside the COmmons. He's a useful as a screen door on a submarine.
Make no mistake that a culture war is brewing is Muslims are going to try and dictate what is taught in classrooms(regardless of one bat-crap crazy teacher). The rise of fundamentalist religions of any type mixed with autocratic government is the greatest danger Western civilisation has faced since 1939.
When you said you felt like you had talked enough about Trudeau, I felt like cheering, yet pointing out that it might have been nice to have said that earlier in your piece. But that might not have helped as you then went on to talk some more about Trudeau. Would be nice if you could rein in your obsession with Trudeau, and hammering him for doing things that are commonplace for all parties (I can't help wondering what your coverage of the Harper government might have looked like).
One other point. When I listen to and watch the two of you discuss your topics for your weekend wrapup, I am often impressed by your largely thoughtful approach. I don't always (or often) agree with your viewpoints, but admire the fairly even-handedness of your opinions--in fact that is why I subscribed to your news outlet in the first place. But then when I read the product of your discussion, it seems to be a lot less balanced and, despite the occasional caveat, reads more like the more opinionated columnists of the far right. Would be good if your written opinions resembled more the nature of your discussions. (I recognize the tendency for written opinions to be rather more strident than those expressed in a face to face discussion, something quite common in the scientific writing in my field in biology).
To be honest, I think it’s the opposite. Our verbal opinions are far more off-the-cuff, and our written opinions hew more closely to our considered view.
I’m a long-time reader, but a new listener to the podcast. I enjoy the off-the-cuff feel of the podcast banter. But I enjoy the precision and sharp observation in your written pieces more. That’s where the rubber hits the road.
Being accused of being on the far right is something that's an unavoidable part of my job, and I don't mind it, because it always tells me a lot more about where the accuser sits on the political spectrum than it tells anyone else where I am on it.
Gender issues are ideological issues end of story? The writing gives no indication that they could be otherwise. As much as I’d like to buy in that adults can do whatever they like and nobody is going to have a problem I just can’t. An adult, identifying other than all male or all female, by merely existing can be accused of “indoctrination”. So those opposed to a child identifying as non-binary are not even willing to entertain that it may be true. What if you (collective you) are wrong?
I think one of the issues with children and gender is kids are highly suggestive. A girl who wants to work on cars with her dad may be led to think she is a trans boy ( for example ) by an over exhuberant teacher , and it may not be true. I think that locking this in with kids can lead to many waking up as adults realizing they are not trans and that is a pretty serious thing to reverse if medical procedures have been done . I am pro trans without question but I think casting this wide net on kids can lead to mistakes and a suggestive child who is trying to understand themselves going down the wrong path. There is a solid argument to maybe leave it be until high school and not allow surgeries until some age , say 16 or 18. Just to make sure yih are not taking someone with body image issues and leading them to think they are trans when they are not . Just how I see it . I loathe all the hatred and words like “grooming “ and that ruins the discussion.
The funny thing about the pro- and anti-Trudeau partisans is how their positions seem based primarily in emotion, not fact. Talk to anybody with a “F*ck Trudeau” logo, and they’ll tell you how much they dislike the guy and maybe name some specific “feels” about what he’s doing that they don’t like, but there’s no real detail or depth. The pro-Trudeau people seem to have a mirror reaction: he promotes some good feelings in them, he seems like a symbol of things they like. When challenged, they’re hard-pressed to actually back that up with accomplishments. Is this the end point of our political culture - everything is determined by how something makes us feel rather than tangible results?
This is bang on. The ferocity with which both sides would find the comparison mortifying further confirms it. Mirror images.
Well, lets see if we can come up with some concrete items;
Lying- electoral reform, not banning hunting rifles
Transparency- Winnipeg lab leak, redacted documents galore
Ethics- 3 violations
Incompetence - "I don't think about monetary policy" , inflation
Hypocrisy- black face
Condescension- unacceptable views
Negligence- military
Embarrassing behaviour - India trip
And of course there is Mark Norman, SNC, electoral reform, election interference, overspending on trips, etc etc.
That seems like more than just "feels" to me. And that's the short list.
Most people are digesting 88 headlines in 48 seconds on some social media app and so there is no possibility to sit down and think . So it’s all confirmation bias feeding pre conceived feelings . That goes for pro and anti on any issue . Most people can’t even relax and read this typed out dispatch . We are truly outliers now .
"From the carbon tax to COVID-19, its otherwise good policies are consistently undermined by a total inability to explain them to Canadians.” That's one of the most elitist, tone deaf, progressive Citiotism's I have ever read. Perhaps, just perhaps, Canadians aren't understanding how good these policies are because the policies are in fact, crap.
I think the point is the Libs are still so arrogant that all they can do is blame the people for not understanding them ! They are no where near being self aware . It’s beyond even what most governments have been in my lifetime .
Definitely elitist, also arrogant. I have been guilty of that before; that if only I explained it better, the person would understand and agree. That was a hard lesson. Two people, with perfect understanding, can disagree on whether something is good or bad based on the priority of their values. Not even different values, just which values are more important than others.
I mean, it actually could be due to an inability to explain it. But it's probably just a bunch of good people who don't think exactly alike. Nothing wrong with that.
"He noted that 30 advertisers had threatened to pull out of Meta/Facebook, led by the federal government, B.C. and Quebec."
A key point that every media outlet reporting on this aspect has missed is that Meta is not really "losing" that ad revenue. Those ad spots are not "lost". They are still there. They just go to the next highest bidder. And the difference isn't much between the bidders typically. This really should be highlighted.
Re the covid scandal: it was better when we locked scientists into their ivory towers and unplugged their internet. A time when no one even knew what they looked like unless they won a Nobel prize. That was a period when they published credible science and were in no particular hurry to ever 'settle the science'. The focus was aimed at 'updating the science' and not some arrogant mission to control the narrative and play the role of interventionist.
In fact, what right thinking scientist would ever want to 'settle the science'? That would de facto put them out of a job or, best case, get their own funding cut. This is why bombshell science papers should always be shrugged off first until the claims can be independently repeated and verified. Even Einstein, after dropping the mic on special, and then general relativity, invited the science community to prove him wrong. He was fully open to admitting his theory had not 'settled the science' even to his end.
Andersen et al. appear to have abandoned their credibility and commitment to discovering the truth for a bout of people pleasing with the 'higher ups' and now their reputation is well fucked. A classic tale of good people who have a weakness for striving toward recognition and praise. It's sad to see but if a professional scientist can't stand his ground when a political shitstorm rolls through then they are not spending enough time locked in their ivory tower trying to update the science instead of settling it.
How about this example of the first grade teacher telling students that there’s no difference between boys and girls?
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/grade-1-teacher-who-said-boys-and-girls-no-different-in-gender-fluidity-lesson-cleared-by-rights-tribunal/wcm/e0fdab6d-87a4-48c3-8654-04b55eea0dd0/amp/
This whole issue about gender ideology in schools is just plain wrong. The majority of grown ups in the room fully support an adult’s right to identify however they choose to do so. But when impressionable young kids are now being taught by teachers that sex doesn’t matter (lie) and that it’s more important how you feel (identity), that should send shivers down you r spine. Not only are we allowing for misinformation to replace basic biology in the classroom, we now have the double whammy in Canada that precludes parents from being informed about conversations their child might be having with their school about their own sexuality. So if you don’t think it’s really no big deal that the State supersedes the parent in matters of their child’s education and sexual orientation, then you must also be in support of residential schools. Many on the sidelines, such as Matt and Jen here say “what’s the big deal?” And that in itself is the biggest crime of all.
Thank you for your thoughts.
“Generally speaking, everyone is pretty content to let adults live and let live, but when you bring kids into any ideological agenda, expect matters to get ugly quickly.”
I understand what you are saying and I agree that if any or all go in with their backs and fists up, power suits on we are all in for a world of hurt.
What I was trying to get across was referring to this situation as an ideological agenda leaves no room for discussion, or history or science or someone’s humanity. That is true for both adult and child. I hope I explained that better.
“Believe the science.”
Your discourse on the Nature Medicine revelations, and especially the link to Nate Silver’s take on it, triggered me back to the SubStack interview by Andrew Sullivan (The Weekly Dish) with science writer Nicholas Wade that quite convinced me we’ve been badly mis-info’d away from that rather obvious explanation: https://open.substack.com/pub/andrewsullivan/p/nicholas-wade-on-the-lab-leak-covid?r=1g4myu&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
At any rate, all the more reason for some respectable non-governmental organization (and I don’t mean an NGO like the WHO!) to hold an unbiased inquiry into what caused the whole mess. Just for when something happens again we might be able to believe the science.
it certainly seems to be the case, does'nt it
Overall I am very disappointed that neither of you nor your associates have offered any insight into the evolving mega rebuild of the cabinet. It really doesn’t matter who is leaving . It matters who is staying and the total disaster of who is being reassigned. Unless you are persuasive it seems the Liberal Cabinet has officially collapsed!
We had this weird notion that we should let it happen first.
Here's the thing. Unless they can prove China released it on purpose; an act of war, nothing is going to happen. Because i doubt there is anyone living with the "smoking gun" that proves it came from the lab. Which China isn't going to do anything ever. That we aren't doing a basic screening of every passenger who gets on a plane in China is insanity, because that's where the next one is coming from too...not matter what its genesis is.
Trudeau has earned a ton of criticism. He's paralysed, without vision, and his cabinet shuffle is irrelevant since all governing appears to come from the PMO. Until that changes....like he resigns..dare to dream, nothing will change. But he and no other politicians deserves the cap that happened in Belleville. That was just an embarrassment that did benefit JT, and make the Conservatives look like idiots for not speaking out against it. Don't get me started on "Spinny Pete" who I consider the most easily detestable politicians I've ever seen in Canada. But if we're shuffling the chairs, Omar deserves a seat outside the COmmons. He's a useful as a screen door on a submarine.
Make no mistake that a culture war is brewing is Muslims are going to try and dictate what is taught in classrooms(regardless of one bat-crap crazy teacher). The rise of fundamentalist religions of any type mixed with autocratic government is the greatest danger Western civilisation has faced since 1939.
When you said you felt like you had talked enough about Trudeau, I felt like cheering, yet pointing out that it might have been nice to have said that earlier in your piece. But that might not have helped as you then went on to talk some more about Trudeau. Would be nice if you could rein in your obsession with Trudeau, and hammering him for doing things that are commonplace for all parties (I can't help wondering what your coverage of the Harper government might have looked like).
One other point. When I listen to and watch the two of you discuss your topics for your weekend wrapup, I am often impressed by your largely thoughtful approach. I don't always (or often) agree with your viewpoints, but admire the fairly even-handedness of your opinions--in fact that is why I subscribed to your news outlet in the first place. But then when I read the product of your discussion, it seems to be a lot less balanced and, despite the occasional caveat, reads more like the more opinionated columnists of the far right. Would be good if your written opinions resembled more the nature of your discussions. (I recognize the tendency for written opinions to be rather more strident than those expressed in a face to face discussion, something quite common in the scientific writing in my field in biology).
To be honest, I think it’s the opposite. Our verbal opinions are far more off-the-cuff, and our written opinions hew more closely to our considered view.
Ooh, too bad.
Respectfully, I disagree with Jan.
I’m a long-time reader, but a new listener to the podcast. I enjoy the off-the-cuff feel of the podcast banter. But I enjoy the precision and sharp observation in your written pieces more. That’s where the rubber hits the road.
Far right? It’s more like, right so far.
Being accused of being on the far right is something that's an unavoidable part of my job, and I don't mind it, because it always tells me a lot more about where the accuser sits on the political spectrum than it tells anyone else where I am on it.
Gender issues are ideological issues end of story? The writing gives no indication that they could be otherwise. As much as I’d like to buy in that adults can do whatever they like and nobody is going to have a problem I just can’t. An adult, identifying other than all male or all female, by merely existing can be accused of “indoctrination”. So those opposed to a child identifying as non-binary are not even willing to entertain that it may be true. What if you (collective you) are wrong?
I think one of the issues with children and gender is kids are highly suggestive. A girl who wants to work on cars with her dad may be led to think she is a trans boy ( for example ) by an over exhuberant teacher , and it may not be true. I think that locking this in with kids can lead to many waking up as adults realizing they are not trans and that is a pretty serious thing to reverse if medical procedures have been done . I am pro trans without question but I think casting this wide net on kids can lead to mistakes and a suggestive child who is trying to understand themselves going down the wrong path. There is a solid argument to maybe leave it be until high school and not allow surgeries until some age , say 16 or 18. Just to make sure yih are not taking someone with body image issues and leading them to think they are trans when they are not . Just how I see it . I loathe all the hatred and words like “grooming “ and that ruins the discussion.
I didn’t hit reply after I went back to quote from the article. My reply is below. Sorry.