Mediaboss Marketing

The outrage over Trumps rejection of the Paris accord raises a number of issues.

1. There is a distinction between three types of opinions. There are our personal and social biases.

Chocolate ice cream may be preferable to vanilla. There are scientific opinions which are generally created by research or the conclusion of mathematical manipulation. Then there are opinions that might be called religious. A person may say, I have never seen an angel, and you have never seen an angel, but I believe angels exist.

As demonstrated by the climate change debate, it is easy for scientific opinion to become doctrinaire and begin to fall into the religious category.

When a person or organization picks out individuals who do not appear doctrinally pure and charges them with being unscientific or science deniers, then you know you are not only dealing with ignorance, but those making the accusation are doing so in a mindset indistinguishable from religious fervor.

2. Science and politics dont mix well. Carl Popper claimed mixing the two created something akin to astrology. This is especially true when politicians are out in front of the movement followed by a mass of true believers, with scientists bringing up the rear.

The political solution to climate change demands one of the largest transfers of wealth in human history. Where do you think it will go? Of course, you already know the answer to that. How much difference in climate change will be experienced by the hundreds of millions of small people sacrificing to pay the bills? The scientists have told us we shouldnt expect much. The priests of the new religious orders have already decreed that because of our environmental sins, we are all going to a purgatory that looks remarkably like Beijing. The last time we checked, Beijing may or may not abide by the Paris accord, at least in the near future.

3. The ruling elites who were defeated last election were banking on climate change doctrine to fulfill several essential functions. It creates a religious-type motivation that unifies their rank-and-file followers. It is a cause that can be used to consolidate wealth, power and influence. Think of Al Gore if an example is necessary. And last, but certainly not least, it is an issue that can successfully be used to defeat and maybe even destroy their enemies.

Losing power creates a temper tantrum, but for the true believers marginalizing the elites ability to manipulate the apparatus of climate change creates an existential crisis.

4. Will the left now see the wisdom of not having an all-powerful president with pen and a phone? When they are in power, they act like nothing could be finer than a president who can do anything he wants as if he ruled some banana republic. But Trump has demonstrated they are not always in control, and what one president can do, another can also do.

Having constitutional restraints on power is a very, very good idea.

Dennis Clayson is a marketing professor at the University of Northern Iowa.

Original post:
Liberals' climate hysteria - Waterloo Cedar Falls Courier

Toronto Sun

Wynne's Liberals have lost touch with reality Toronto Sun Never mind that while the Liberals boast about having invested billions of dollars upgrading the province's electricity system, Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk, another independent, non-partisan, spending watchdog, said in her 2015 annual report that ...

View original post here:
Wynne's Liberals have lost touch with reality - Toronto Sun

New York Times

Religious Liberals Sat Out of Politics for 40 Years. Now They Want in the Game. New York Times Frustrated by Christian conservatives' focus on reversing liberal successes in legalizing abortion and same-sex marriage, those on the religious left want to turn instead to what they see as truly fundamental biblical imperatives caring for the poor ...

View original post here:
Religious Liberals Sat Out of Politics for 40 Years. Now They Want in the Game. - New York Times

Now that a minority NDP government is poised to take office with Green Party support, the question must be asked where does the future of the B.C. Liberals lie?

While the party came within a hairs breadth of gaining a majority in last months election, there was a palpable sense of voter exhaustion in several key strongholds.

Back in 2001, when the Liberals were elected, their emphasis on discipline was welcomed. The preceding decade of NDP rule, at times chaotic, had created a desire for stability among voters.

But as time passed, discipline turned into rigidity. Iron budget management became an excuse for ignoring other legitimate interests.

And the policy of accepting large corporate donations fed a suspicion that the party was more attached to big business than working-class families.

After 16 years in office, the Liberals appeared increasingly tone-deaf and out of touch. Voters wanted change, and not just in policy, but in style and empathy.

Fairly or not, any such change has to begin with the premier. Christy Clark, for all her strengths, is unavoidably a voice from the past. As long as she remains leader, everything the public has come to dislike about the Liberals lives on.

Then there is the matter of timing. Some in the Liberal caucus might believe there is no hurry. Wait long enough, they might think, and the NDP/Green alliance will self-destruct.

But that would be an error. We have been promised a referendum on electoral reform in October 2018. The Liberals stand to lose if such a reform were made.

Over the past four elections, the partys share of the vote lagged well behind the NDP/Green total. Had some form of rep by pop been in place, the Liberals would have lost all of those contests.

However, if the party means to dispute the need for change, it must first regain its standing as a government in waiting. That means overhauling its platform.

And it must do this in little more than a year. Time, in other words, is not on the Liberals side.

So what might a new platform look like? Certainly, it should continue to emphasize competent management. This is the partys main claim to govern, and it need not be abandoned.

But in two areas, major changes are needed. First, the Liberals must re-forge a connection with voters on social issues such as child care, support for low-income families and affordable housing.

In the process, several hatchets must be buried, in particular with the teachers union, and with the childrens representative. Near-endless warfare on these fronts damaged the Liberals and contributed to their reputation for picking the wrong fights.

Second, a way must be found to articulate a middle ground between protecting the environment, and protecting jobs and the economy.

Tilt too far in the green direction, and you breath life back into the B.C. Conservative party. Fixate on the economy, and you lose support in suburban communities where the environmental movement is strongest. It was here that the Liberals surrendered their majority.

Still, in the end, it all depends on who becomes leader. True, the Liberals have never possessed a particularly strong caucus, and some contenders, such as the outgoing health minister, Terry Lake, retired or lost their seats.

Nevertheless, it is essential that a fresh new face be found. Justin Trudeaus revival of the federal Liberals comes to mind.

Will any of this happen? To date, Clark has expressed every intention of staying.

Her strength of will is commendable. But if she persists in this view, the Liberals might be consigned to the backbenches for a very long time.

Original post:
Editorial: Liberals must rebuild quickly - Times Colonist

Kirsty Duncan, Justin Trudeaus Science Minister, is on the rampage against Canadas leading universities. Shes told them to improve diversity or else. Unless they meet their gender quotas for new research chairs, the federal government will yank their funding. Despite a decade of concerted hectoring, Canadas most prestigious researchers are still too non-Indigenous, too white, too abled and, especially, too male. Frankly, our country cannot reach its full potential if more than half of its people do not feel welcomed into the lab where their ideas, their talent and their ambition is needed, she sermonized.

At stake is hundreds of millions in grant money as well as the ability of expert hiring committees to make their own decisions. (Universities must sponsor the grant applications, which are nearly all approved by the federal funding bodies.) From now on, these committees will be overseen by phalanxes of bureaucrats whose job is to ensure that they come up with the right answers.

The governments emphasis on equity and diversity is central to its branding. Its 50-50 cabinet has won universal praise. But now it has embarked on a campaign of reverse discrimination that deeply undermines the concepts of fairness and excellence.

Academia isnt the only target. Since last fall, the Trudeau government has named 56 judges, of whom 33 or 59 per cent are women. (Women made up only 42 per cent of the applicants.) Its clear the Liberals will keep it up until the balance of judges is more to their liking. But at what cost? In the old days, it was offensive that people got judgeships just because they were Liberals or Tories, Ian Holloway, law dean at the University of Calgary, told The Globe and Mail. That helped breed contempt for the judiciary. What we dont want to do is replicate that in a different form.

The definition of equality has changed dramatically in recent times. Equality used to mean fairness. It meant that everybody should be treated equally, and that discrimination is not acceptable. But the new definition of equality is equal outcomes. And if outcomes arent equal, they must be adjusted until they are.

No one disagrees that our institutions should broadly reflect the society we live in. No one disagrees that disadvantaged people and underrepresented groups deserve a helping hand, and sometimes preferential treatment. Many businesses and public institutions have an unwritten rule: If all else is equal, hire the minority candidate.

But what if it isnt? What if fair hiring practices produce disparities in outcome as they inevitably do? For example, its mainly men who like hard sciences despite a generation of effort to encourage women. This effort has borne fruit. But it has not produced a massive change in womens career choices, which are overwhelmingly on the soft side. Theres also a sizable body of research showing that even women who are highly career-minded are less intent on attaining senior positions than men are.

On the face of it, the Canada Research Chair numbers dont look great. Women hold only 30 per cent of the 1,615 filled positions, a number that Ms. Duncan regards as dismal, and at some universities its much lower. Among the new applications, she notes disapprovingly that twice as many come from men. But these positions are heavily skewed toward hard sciences. Forty-five per cent are for natural sciences and engineering; 35 per cent are for health sciences; and just 20 per cent are for the social sciences and humanities.

But fair is no longer good enough. Only outcomes matter. The new quotas for Canada Research Chairs are: 31 per cent women, 15 per cent visible minorities, 4 per cent disabled, 1 per cent aboriginal. And woe to you if you do not comply.

Other institutions have gone much farther. At St. Michaels Hospital in Toronto, a document called Gender Equity Guidelines for Research Search Committees states, We are hoping to achieve recruitment of 50 per cent female scientists in the next 3-5 years, as well as to achieve 50 per cent female faculty in leadership positions in the next 5-7 years. Given the natural gender imbalance in science research, they might as well just post a sign saying: Men, dont bother! The document further states that all search committee members must take training in unconscious bias (an increasingly discredited idea), and that their work will be closely scrutinized by the diversity police to ensure the proper outcomes.

Im all for diversity. But these future researchers have important work to do. They could save lives. Dont we want people who can research and teach, instead of prove how diverse we are? I guess not. Weve got quotas to fill.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

View original post here:
Liberals' reverse discrimination comes at a cost - The Globe and Mail