Bourgeois, Dr. Martin wrote:
>
> Interesting. The opposite happened here- the NIH is getting much more
> money as part of our stimulus package. Are we in some kind of
> Seinfeldian Bizarro World?
I think that there is little doubt that this government will use every
opportunity it can find to make cuts that they want to make for
ideological or political reasons while attributing them to the
exigencies of the current economic situation. (In this particular case,
the claim made was that money was being transfered from research to
student aid. But since a large chunk of research money actually goes to
support student research assistants...) Although this gov't has been on
its best "moderate" behavior because it is in a minority situation, it
is no secret that it is chock full of people who despise the academy,
whether it is about evolution ("anti-religion"), climate change
("anti-oil industry"), family issues (they replaced a pending national
daycare program with a tiny tax credit), crime (they denounce all those
pesky criminologists, sociologists, and law professors who note that
longer prison terms do not deter crime), etc.
William Scott wrote:
> Chris Green sez:
> ------
> "I think the major reason that attention has suddenly become focused on the
> Science Minister is that his government just cut the budgets of the major
> research funding agencies as part of their "economic stimulus" package. Go
> figr."
> ----------
> But he, himself, objected to those cuts!!
>
I must have missed that part. When did he say that?
> I'm taken with the following comments by Lorna Dueck in the Toronto Globe &
> Mail:
>
> "He made a defensive stumble in an environment he assumed would not allow the
> breadth of questions needed to explore Christianity and science. He drew the
> line around his faith tightly, with what appears to be a "Don't ask, don't
> tell" policy. The fact that we cannot intelligently explore a science
> minister's personal beliefs in God because it's deemed political suicide in a
> sound-bite culture should alarm us all about the erosion of our freedoms."
>
> While I agree that it is important to know his beliefs, I do understand the
> defensiveness which led to his statements.
>
I'm not sure why you are "taken" with this. The question is, "Is he the
kind of person who, as Science Minister, will actually defend science in
Cabinet?" If he is caught out being opposed to one of the very legs upon
which modern science stands, then we can be pretty sure he is not going
to be an effective spokesman for science, in Cabinet or anywhere else.
Then again, that concern harkens back to a time when Cabinet members
actually had some measure of responsibility for their portfolios. This
government has been so thin on front-bench talent that the Prime
Minister has resorted to gagging virtually all his ministers, and speaks
alone for the government on nearly all issues (the Finance Minister
seemed to be coming out from under wraps a few months ago, but the day
that he and the PM openly contradicted each other on the economic
crisis, leading to the near-fall of the gov't, all that ended). I
suppose the really surprising part here is that the Science Minister was
allowed to speak in public at all. And now we know why is normally
isn't. :-)
Chris
--
Christopher D. Green
Department of Psychology
York University
Toronto, ON M3J 1P3
Canada
416-736-2100 ex. 66164
chri...@yorku.ca
http://www.yorku.ca/christo/
==========================
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
