dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
1718
share rss forum feed


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2

Thank you for not talkng.

Once again, Mercer manages to use comedy to make a great point.

»www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl···h4xb6gRQ

Expand your moderator at work


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

1 recommendation

reply to elwoodblues

Re: Thank you for not talkng.

So Rick Mercer is upset that government employed Canadian scientists can't issue public statements without passing through the government?

You referred to comedy... the only comedy I found in that video was... well, the entire video, where Rick Mercer exaggeratedly cries about a situation while leaving out relevant details.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5
reply to elwoodblues

I am sure scientists in Canada can say anything they like - just stop expecting the government to pay the freight for their work. Get off of the gov't gravy train if you want independence.
--
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders.



Hydraglass
Premium
join:2002-05-08
Kingston, ON

said by FFH:

I am sure scientists in Canada can say anything they like - just stop expecting the government to pay the freight for their work. Get off of the gov't gravy train if you want independence.

I think what he's trying to point out is the difference between what US "government researchers" expected compared to Canadian "government researchers" when lumped into the same working situation. In the US, generally any government commissioned non-military research is considered the property of the public at large, and is free to be shared if it wouldn't compromise national security. Canadian "government researchers" on the other hand are by default gagged and have to ask for permission to share their results. This is bad (or at least that's what he's saying, and I agree). WE are paying for this research - why should it have to run through government sensors before being shared with us? After all these researchers work for us...


Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:5

1 edit
reply to FFH

said by FFH:

I am sure scientists in Canada can say anything they like - just stop expecting the government to pay the freight for their work. Get off of the gov't gravy train if you want independence.

Sadly your mistaken and in fact US scientists are really pissed that the Canadian govt is making them sign no talkie clauses if they do any work up here. Its called subtle fascism but if that floats your boat you should have been born in Europe say 90 years ago. [deleted]
Ain't nuthin but the blues! "Albert Collins".
Leave your troubles at the door! "Pepe Peregil" De Sevilla. Just Don't Wifi without WPA, "Yul Brenner"

LlamaWorks Equipment


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to urbanriot

Relevant details such as this : Censorship is alive and well in Canada – just ask government scientists

Or perhaps this one : Harper-controlled DFO is censoring federal scientists with research rules, critics say

Or maybe this is more relevant : The Inquisition also censored scientists
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......



loosedobbs

join:2006-06-13
Toronto
reply to elwoodblues

not bad Rick.

Now only you make money and fame outside CBC or not on CBC payroll.

"to sign "restrictive" new research agreements that limit how they share information."

Now only CBC will share the information about how they spend the tax dollars.



urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to elwoodblues

said by elwoodblues:

Relevant details such as this [link to globe and mail address with commentary in the link]

I like how you refer to a blog as 'relevant details'.

Next up, a thread by elwoodblues that the employers of truck drivers are forcing them to drive within the lane lines... and how Harper's to blame.

HoboJ

join:2008-03-27
Cornwall, ON
kudos:1
reply to elwoodblues

I just don't understand why people defend the concept of gagging publicly funded scientists. Their research is paid for by mine and yours tax dollars. All non-military research paid for by taxpayers should be made public automatically with no questions asked.



digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
kudos:2

Because it's part of the Civil Service Act and a condition of employment. All large organizations, public or private, do not allow just anyone to speak on their behalf, or to issue reports or comments on reports or research on behalf of the organization.

And, any research done and its reports are the property of the organization that funded them. Ownership is 9/10ths of the law.
--
Logic requires one to deal with decisions that one's ego will not permit.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke.



urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable
reply to HoboJ

said by HoboJ:

I just don't understand why people defend the concept of gagging publicly funded scientists. Their research is paid for by mine and yours tax dollars.

Then why even employ scientists if they're going to provide us with their opinions publicly?


andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario
kudos:1

We wouldnt probably have half of what we do if everything was gagged.It doesnt take much thought to think about instead of defending a political party just because



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to urbanriot

You are missing the big picture. Let's use a possible scenario (which you pro muzzlers will shoot down).

Say tommorow federally employed scientists discover an a chemical used in extracting the tar sands will cause cancer to those directly involved in the extraction process.

This chemical is dirt cheap to use, and a safe replacement will increase costs significantly. If this gets out , it will be devastating for the Alberta economy , not to mention the Canadian one. On top of all that the oil companies will be sued, and as these workers contract cancer , due to ongoing exposure , a massive strain on health care resources .

Bad news all the way around. Now the government decides to "muzzle" the scientists and sit on the news.

Would you approve of this? Allowing people to get sick and/or die, not to mention what it will do to their families, because it's effectively "bad for business"?

Or would you rather have the government put a smiley face, a "dont worry be happy" filter on it?

In the real life muzzling , it could be just as bad, but we dont know, because the government isn't telling us (or telling us half truths), and scientists are being censored.

So many times I hear from the same pro muzzle group about "it's my money", and as Hydraglass put it, it's our money that funded the research and consequently have a right to know what it bought.

So in the real world scenario
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......



urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

Your gross bias against the Conservative government is causing you to grossly exaggerate the truth of the situation. Basically... you're not telling the truth.

This procedure ensures that the government, as in these scientists, are making the appropriate statements. Government paid scientists making statements = government statements, so it's logical for the government to ensure the appropriate information is released by their employees.

The term 'muzzling' isn't accurate unless there's a proven and confirmed discovery that's continually stifled.



FFH
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ
kudos:5

said by urbanriot:

Your gross bias against the Conservative government is causing you to grossly exaggerate the truth of the situation. Basically... you're not telling the truth.

This procedure ensures that the government, as in these scientists, are making the appropriate statements. Government paid scientists making statements = government statements, so it's logical for the government to ensure the appropriate information is released by their employees.

The term 'muzzling' isn't accurate unless there's a proven and confirmed discovery that's continually stifled.

And in those abuse cases, you can bet your life a whistleblower will go to the press and blow the whole scheme sky high.
What the government wants is not to stop the data, but to put their own spin on it before the opposition try's to twist it to their own advantage.

--
I will be perfectly happy if the budget cuts specified in the Budget Control Act go into effect. 3 cheers for the sequester. Take the money from the drunken federal spenders.


urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

1 recommendation

I wouldn't even call it a spin, I'd call it professionally disseminating information. I'd have the same response if we had the NDP, Liberals or whoever the fuck in power, it's the way things should be done.

Government employees shouldn't be spouting off about whatever they please and claiming this is the results of their studies.

This is just another excuse for elwoodblues to go on about Harper and the Conservatives. This thread belongs in Canpol.



Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS
kudos:5

On that we agree LOL - location of thread part.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2
Reviews:
·VMedia
reply to urbanriot

At what point did I mention ONCE "The Harper Government" you did, but i did not.

At no time in my made up scenario (which I correctly assumed you would dump on) did bring up the "The Harper government" I used generic terms on purpose.

Anav, no, I fucken sick of hiding shit in Canpol,where you have to "apply" to get in. I peruse the Red room and occasionally post in the Blue Room, neither are behind a "apply here" sign, there is no reason why Canpol shouldn't be wide open.
--
No, I didn't. Honest... I ran out of gas. I... I had a flat tire. I didn't have enough money for cab fare. My tux didn't come back from the cleaners. An old friend came in from out of town. Someone stole my car. There was an earthquake.......



urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3

1 recommendation

1. You continually derail threads with your issues concerning Harper or The Conservatives. This isn't once or twice, this is all the time.

2. You linked to two anti-Harper blogs and one that blames "the Harper government".

Expand your moderator at work


elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2

1 edit
reply to urbanriot

Re: Thank you for not talkng.

1) too bad you are so blinded by your ideology you can't see what's happening
2) I'm sure the people of Victoria will be pleased to hear you calling their newspaper a "blog"



urbanriot
Premium
join:2004-10-18
Canada
kudos:3
Reviews:
·Cogeco Cable

1) Blinded by what ideology? A proper procedure ideology? The expectation of government employees ideology?

2) I didn't call any newspaper a blog. I was referring to the opinion piece you linked. When people write opinions online, that falls under blog.

blog
[blawg, blog] noun

a Web site containing the writer's or group of writers' own experiences, observations, opinions, etc., and often having images and links to other Web sites.

You linked to two blogs which contain exaggerated opinions, not facts.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2

Not when "procedures' wilfully withhold, or "adjust" the findings to their liking.
As for the "blog" the first one is a news paper article, the 2nd is an opinion piece and I'll give you that one.


DanteX

join:2010-09-09
kudos:1
reply to elwoodblues

Scientists have a moral responsibility to provide the facts and it is there job to benefit society. What right does a Government with an agenda have to stop Scientist from exposing truths that if kept hidden will harm the people they strive to better?

IF Scientists have evidence to prove such things as the Canadian Oil Sands are screwing over our countries environment then the public has the right to know this.



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2

Dante I was just using a made up scenario, it has zero do with life except to provide an example of why muzzling scientists is not in the public interest.


booj

join:2011-02-07
Richmond, ON
reply to elwoodblues

Dispatches from behind enemy lines:

»unmuzzledscience.wordpress.com/



elwoodblues
Elwood Blues
Premium
join:2006-08-30
Somewhere in
kudos:2

That's hilarious!!

Expand your moderator at work

MaynardKrebs
Heave Steve, for the good of the country
Premium
join:2009-06-17
kudos:4
reply to Anav

Re: Thank you for not talkng.

said by Anav:

.... in fact US scientists are really pissed that the Canadian govt is making them sign no talkie clauses if they do any work up here.

Any non-classified research which is publicly funded in the US must be published. Hence any US gov't scientist or university scientist (whose salary is paid whole/in-part) by public funds must make the results public.

For as many things the US fucks up, they got this one right.