Ideology and statistics

[ShadowHM]

I am appalled at my government's latest announcement.

Crime statistics not accurate, Day suggests
Treasury Board president questions value of census data older than a year

And, of course, there is an axe to grind here. Our PC government promised more prisons. So....

If you don't like the stats, just ignore them? Claim they *must* be inaccurate? After all, if people voted you in because you claimed to be tough on criminals, why admit you have a declining crime rate? Build the prisons anyway. After all, if you build them, surely they will be populated?

Oh, and this is the same ideologically driven lot who think that the census is just too damn intrusive and people should not be forced to actually complete and return those forms. Hell no! They really don't want to know what the demographics of the rest of us are, just those who write in and pat them heartily on the back and tell them what good little boys and girls they are.

No, I have no point, other than to rant a bit. Thank y'all for the opportunity!

[--Pete]

Hi,

No, I have no point, other than to rant a bit. Thank y'all for the opportunity!

"Y'all"? I knew you are from southern Canada, but eh?

Ranting is a point in itself, and especial on an issue like this.

Of course, you're preaching to a board that has a majority (I think) of its members from a country where scientific 'facts' are determined by political ideology, and have been, on and off, for some time. In a mind that worships power, money, political pull, it is difficult to find room for truth.

--Pete

[Jester]

Just goes to show, don't try to mix science and Stockwell Day.

Come to think of it, just don't mix anything with Stockwell Day.

-Jester

[ShadowHM]

Come to think of it, just don't mix anything with Stockwell Day.

And on that note, let me share yet another rant-worthy link:

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day said he'd consider removing the veritable gag on federal public servants that's been in place since the Conservatives introduced a potent messaging tool called the Message Event Proposal four years ago.

The concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office didn't start with our beloved PC's, but they certainly have elevated it to new and gawdawful heights. So nice of Mr. Day to admit that he might *consider* toning it back a bit! Fat chance, when he also is barely allowed to open his mouth in public (although in his case, perhaps rightfully so. )

[kandrathe]

Come to think of it, just don't mix anything with Stockwell Day.

And on that note, let me share yet another rant-worthy link:

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day said he'd consider removing the veritable gag on federal public servants that's been in place since the Conservatives introduced a potent messaging tool called the Message Event Proposal four years ago.

The concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office didn't start with our beloved PC's, but they certainly have elevated it to new and gawdawful heights. So nice of Mr. Day to admit that he might *consider* toning it back a bit! Fat chance, when he also is barely allowed to open his mouth in public (although in his case, perhaps rightfully so. )

"How do you feel about this Census issue?" "Let me look that up in the system... We feel confident that a voluntary Census will be sufficient."

"All the news you need to know!" © brought to you by the Langevin Block, scripted by the Privy Council Office and edited by CRTC.

[Jester]

The concentration of power in the Prime Minister's Office didn't start with our beloved PC's, but they certainly have elevated it to new and gawdawful heights.

Nit: They're not Progressive Conservatives anymore.*

-Jester

*Unless you're Kandrathe. Then they probably are.

[ShadowHM]

Nit: They're not Progressive Conservatives anymore.

Good point. They are progressive in niether name nor spirit nowadays, eh?

[Concillian]

Part of my job is interpreting and reporting statistics on engineering experiments.

It doesn't take much training in statistics before you can identify easy ways to misuse statistical data to skew results. It's pretty easy to do on accident if people have "just enough training to be dangerous." And even easier to do on purpose. And once you are experienced, it's pretty easy to do on purpose in a way that a layman won't realize the "mistake."

I guess what I'm saying is that statistics in politics should be approached like an advertisement. Look first at who is paid for the statistical data to be generated, then at who will benefit if the data were skewed. Then make your assessments on the data with the appropriate grains of salt.

You pretty much have to be a statistician with access to the raw data and how it was collected to understand the validity of any given statistic, which means that pretty much any statistics you see publicized can generally be assumed invalid in some way or another. If honest and objective, and trained people interpreted all data and statistics, there would not be "lies, damn lies, and statistics." However, the reality is that most people dealing with statistics are not honest, or objective, and many who think they're trained are really only trained enough to be dangerous, and make frequent fatal errors.

[kandrathe]

*Unless you're Kandrathe. Then they probably are.

Only if they believe the government is an instrument for improving humanity "Progressively". As much as you might want to define it in the modern sense, you are also saddled with the historical goals of the movement in general.

Ultimately I see that as... "to use the power of the government as a tool to improve the society as a whole".

And, it seems a noble cause, until you dig deeper to see what is sacrificed in order to attempt to bring about this government run nirvana. I find the philosophy tends to be at odds with individualism, self sufficiency, frequently ignoring individual liberties for the "greater good", and in many ways at odds with laissez-faire capitalism, unless it be the means to fund the governments mission (through high taxation).

It's worst perverted expressions were eugenics, forced sterilizations, "Manifest Destiny" and other racist imperialism exhibited by the likes of Teddy Roosevelt in the Philippines, and in Central and South America during the 1880's through 1930's. For example, at the World's Fair in 1904, dubbed the Louisiana Purchase Exposition, there was the 'parade of evolutionary progress', where amongst other "primitives", filipino's were on display as 'tameable'.

"As one pleased visitor commented, the human zoo exhibit displayed "the race narrative of odd peoples who mark time while the world advances, and of savages made, by American methods, into civilized workers."

In modern progressivism, I see it as also equally bigoted to expect less of people based on race or gender. What we all deserve as equal citizens, and equal people is blind equality in opportunity.

Edit/addendum: "The war on terror" may be a modern example of progressivism exhibited by the majority of political parties across many nations. Why are we still in Afghanistan? Is it to endlessly attempt to drive Al Queda and the Taliban back into the border region caves for all time (until they stop hating us, and/or bearing children that hate us)? Or, are we loathe to leave for fear that a corrupt and weak Afghan national government will collapse and allow fundamentalist Islamicists to rebuild the theocracy we tore down, returning the region to the extreme barbarism exhibited before our "rescue" of their people. Are we there to win, and if so, what does that look like? Or, are we there for generations, such that we can transform them from their backwardness?