Agnostic666
4:00 PM on July 31, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Agnostic666. Show DetailsHide Details
How about changing the title to just "Drop the Charade"? If someone truly opposes all forms of statism then they must oppose any state run military or any state run police force as well as any other government function, essentially only wanting anarchy. Otherwise the argument is what amount of statism is acceptible. If you accept some form of government (statism) is required then you must decide how effective you want the government to perform its required functions.
My Response:
You don't have to think all forms of statism are wrong to think this one is. One Canadian doesn't tell anyone how much he has in the bank, another tells the world. Both are an expression of freedom. What is privacy for one may not be the same for all. Since Revenue Canada has pried most of that data from us anyhow, let them get it there. I will be joining the ranks of the Jedi Knights this time round. I will make up every answer.
What statisticians won't admit, is that the census data is not pure. They want people to think it is. The mandatory form theoretically creates a random distribution so prized by statisticians. BUT it presupposes those responses will be absolutely true. That is the problem. After this scrap, a lot of Canadians are going to join the ranks of the Jedi Knights. Let Stats Can take that and smoke it. Is that valid enough for you all you sheeple?
Read more: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/31/george-jonas-drop-the-census-charade/#ixzz0vJmBBhiU
Joe Shmoe
7:01 PM on July 31, 2010
This comment is hidden because you have chosen to ignore Joe Shmoe. Show DetailsHide Details
At the risk of sounding indelicate, this is a “steaming pile.” Who knows, perhaps at 75 Jonas has just run out of ideas; or he was working his way through his third keg of “Borsodi Barna” when he came up with this clunker?
In fact, if one of my students had handed this in as an essay justifying the Harper Tories denuding the mandatory long-form census, I would have given it back for a re-write. You know an essay with factually correct information and evidence of research. And lighter, much lighter with the “red herrings,” erroneous examples, straw men, and the unnecessarily emotive language. I think we call it lacking in “substance.”
a) Jonas makes no mention of the fact a voluntary long-form census will almost certainly contain significant sampling bias, as well as being incomparable with previous long-form data.
b) Jonas fails to mention that the new voluntary long-form will cost Canadian taxpayers between $30-40 million due to the bigger sample and need to “sell it” to Canadians.
c) Jonas fails to mention that virtually every economist and statistician in Canada is against Harper’s decision. (Jonas is neither a trained economist, nor a statistician.)
d) Like most right-wingers, Jonas incorrectly assumes that anyone who disagrees with Harper’s unilateral decision to change the census is “statist,” or a “social-engineer.” (Check with Colby Cosh, or Andrew Coyne!)
e) The only actual “evidence” Jonas presents is “a lady from a small community” who wrote him 14 years ago. Yikes!
f) Jonas makes no mention of the fact that Canadians are almost certainly going to be bombarded with all sorts of aggravating and intrusive marketers and polling companies vying to fill in the data void resulting from this decision.
g) Jonas makes no mention of the fact that 18% of the 2006 long-form censuses were filed electronically; and that Statscan was expecting that number to approach 50% in 2011. So, a long form census “for nosy neighbours to gloat or salivate over,” is probably a thing of the past anyway.
Jonas’ website describes him as “a master of subtle provocation and reasoned defence.” Alas, this sophomoric tripe represents the polar opposite of his biographical notes
______________________________________
I understand what you are saying, Joe. I am trying to say this with unfeigned respect: I am an old man by some measures. I have had a little bit to do with Universities over my years. There are many great things they contribute to our society. However, personal liberal bias is absolutely abysmal in most of the Canadian Universities I know.
Would a student who might try to write a paper from a different perspective than the crowd in your class clearly would have to pass through the eye of a needle? After a few F's on his test he will learn either to morph into your world view, or will likely drop out--Profoundly discouraged, maybe never returning to learn something meaningful he will love for the rest of his life.
I have young students that call me all the time with people like that installed in the university they are studying at.
That said, you have made some good points as well. For example being able to respond to the census online will help protect unanimity for the most part. There is the probability that without the *free* stats Can data, companies may be forced to pay their own way for a change, --and that could be intrusive. Lets hear it for Canada's Do Not Call list!
Jonas takes a step on the wild side, somewhat like a blogging troll, stirring up a segment of Canadians who have felt dumbed-down, under-classed, and otherwise suppressed by elitists who give no quarter to an opposing view.
I only ask one thing. Go back and read your post. How many absolutes do you employ? How many labels? How many straw men? I can see a few.
The problem of a teacher is pulling off practicing what we preach.
No comments:
Post a Comment