Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Um ... what?


Apparently, the Progressive Bloggers of Canada are getting a bit lax in their membership criteria again. For example, the requirement that you have to be, you know, progressive.

Or educated. That, too.

22 comments:

mikmik said...

Yeah, just like it is nobody's business if a (church)minister or pastor understands what Jesus's word is.

Paladiea said...

Maybe the blogger in question is missing the point? Why just write them off if thy misunderstand something. No one's perfect.

wv = "unese" as in your willingness to dismiss an blogger for a post (that isn't even that non-progressive) causes me "unese".

The Jurist said...

From the post:

"Is our Finance Minister Keynesian or a Smith-ite?

Is our Foreign Affairs minister a realist or an idealist?

Is our Health Minister for private or public?

I don't know what they personally think, nor do I really care."

Tack an "as long as they can help me win power" on the end, and you have the Libs' philosophy in a nutshell (and doubly so under Ignatieff). So the main problem is that they're somehow considered a progressive party.

CC said...

Pal:

It's always possible that that blogger is missing the point. But it's one thing to be that inestimably off the mark. It's quite another to hang out a shingle as a "progessive" blogger and expound on something of which you know so frighteningly little and make such ill-informed pronouncements.

See the difference?

CC said...

By the way, Pal, I love the fact that that blogger doesn't allow comments. Always the best way to insulate yourself from what would have been an inevitable smackdown.

A couple more years and I'm betting we won't be able to tell the PBs from the BTs. At least that'll save time.

Southern Quebec said...

"young, dumb and full of glum..." sound like RagingTory...

LuLu said...

Far be it for me to defend a Conservative Minister, but this story is getting a bit out of control and I call out the Liberals, Dippers, and every lefty pinko crying "Barney" for being ignorant and offensive in their criticisms.

Lefty pinko? Seriously? That's hardly what one would call "progressive", mais oui?

jj said...

"Not only is it none of our business whether or not Goodyear believes that we as a species evolved from apes"

It was none of our business until Goodyear made it our business by answering a question about science (a no-brainer question, no less) as if it had something to do with religion. Given that there are many people of faith who can answer the same question with a concise "Yes", and not feel at all conflicted, this should set off major alarm bells coming from someone in charge of the science portfolio. Any other portfolio, I wouldn't care.

"Loser fascists"? Huh??

CC said...

Not meaning this personally, Pal, but your perpetual, knee-jerk defense of the Progressive Bloggers of Canada is starting to wear a bit thin.

It's one thing to have a big tent, or something like that. It's quite another for that tent to include bloggers whose attitude towards scientifically illiterate federal ministers of science is, "Hey, chill out, they just have a different point of view, ya know?"

Not quite the same thing, Pal. Not quite the same thing at all.

P.S. And that lack of a comments section. Yeah, that's kind of irritating, too.

Paladiea said...

Not meaning this personally, Pal, but your perpetual, knee-jerk defense of the Progressive Bloggers of Canada is starting to wear a bit thin.

Well considering that I help moderate PB and I remember approving this blog specifically, I can't help myself. If you would prefer me to read your blog less I will do so.

Furthermore, and this is the main point, the moderators at PB are not responsible for posts after the blogs are approved. We did a review of the content before and it was acceptable. It's not our fault if they come up with something that offends your sensibilities after.

That is all I will say on the matter.

wv = "shism" a delicious irony.

KEvron said...

progressive4evr?

KEvron

mikmik said...

If you want to be white bread, then you call liberals pinkos, and you call neo-cons reactionaries.

You try to pretend you are the face of reason by insulting pinkos and fascists.

No progressive I ever read does that. No reasonable person does.

If you are claiming middle of the road, but using inflectives, you are
a)full of shit
b)full of yourself
c)both of the above

This blog is a fraud.

I am a)...

mikmik said...

I meant this blog: http://paretascene.blogspot.com/2009/03/rhetoric-police-goodyear-and-loser.html

Cameron Campbell said...

Umm.. the views of the Health Minister on public versus private health care are none of anyone's business?

That's the analogy that this person wants to go with?

That's a political policy question, I can't think of a question that is more the business of Canadians...

As to the whole Goodyear thingy: I think what happened was that he thought he was going to get his knob shined via a puff piece and somehow the Globe didn't send him the memo that goes "Dear Politicians, sometimes we relocate our stones and remember how to do our jobs".

Also, if a person is going to be in charge of Science and in charge (however tangentially, and given this government's predilections for meddling) of Science funding I think finding out where he or she stands on one of the foundations of modern science seems pretty reasonable.

And to anyone saying "omg it's just gotcha journalism boo hooo!" I say this to you "Fuck you. That's their god damn job. They aren't meant to fucking bow down to you, they are meant to make your life difficult and keep you honest and anyone who doesn't like it is a coward and clearly has something to hide.".

liberal supporter said...

Goodyear provided ample evidence of his anti-science bias. Simply his statement he "believes in" evolution.

We hear that Islam allows you to lie to infidels, and I don't think Christianity has a problem with it either. Other than not bearing false witness against your neighbour, you can lie if you want, especially if it is for a "greater good". Goodyear is lying, and his wording is the evidence.

Had I been asked such a question, I would answer "I do not 'believe in' evolution." I would then explain that evolution is not a deity, so "believing in" it is not appropriate. I accept evolution as the current best explanation of what we observe. That is because it is science, which constantly examines the data. It's not just "knowing" something, it's "knowing that we know", which is done by supporting evidence, seeing that everything in the theory fits.

To "believe in" something is a matter of faith. His response demonstrates that this is how he sees it. Instead of demonstrating he understands the difference between faith and science, he shows he considers them one and the same.

Chet Scoville said...

It was none of our business until Goodyear made it our business by answering a question about science (a no-brainer question, no less) as if it had something to do with religion.

Yeah, the real problem with Goodyear's response (as I see it) is that he reacted to a question about science as if it were a question about religion. That's a category error, and a very problematic one at that.

Cameron Campbell said...

Chet, actually you've probably put your finger on it...

if you can't separate the two and you're supposed to be the science minister... well that is quite troubling..

WV: reditick

sooey said...

Plus he's obviously an idiot.

Cameron Campbell said...

Sooey, there's that as well...

Sheena said...

Holy shit! There's a big tent party? Where!!11!!!!

Frank Frink said...

They even have tiki torches, Sheena.

Stimpson said...

Apparently Pareta's just waiting for proof that Goodyear's ignorance will "negatively impact" his performance as Science Minister.

Well, then.