Did i miss something? Why are they opposing the appointment exactly?

Apparently you missed ten years of him and Stevie’s slow speed train wreck . Fast train wreak in Quebec . Etc.

Chancellors are figureheads of a University.

When compared to previous appointments, Moore does not fit the model of a typical Chancellor.

His claim to fame is that he is a UNBC graduate in Political Science and has served as an MP since he was 24. That is his “claim to fame”.

In addition, he went through the Alliance, the Reform, and finally the Conservative parties, and was part of a party which silenced government scientists, had little compassion for the poor in the country, and appeared to have little empathy for those First Nations who had to contend with deaths along the Rupert to PG highway.

Those are all traits which none of the previous Chancellors displayed.

I would not elevate Moore to any of the levels which previous Chancellors brought with them. In fact, I would go so far that to appoint Moore would trivialize those who came before him.

As I wrote previously, this tells me more about the quality and wisdom of the current UNBC Board of Governors than about James Moore and I am very sorry that James Moore has to go through this embarrassing ordeal.

Ataloss, don’t immediately assume that anyone asking why James Moore is a bad choice “missed the last decade”… Moore was elected when our youngest voters were 3 years old. The first comment very well could be from one of these newer voters, since not everyone on 250News is a baby-boomer.

Thanks gopg2015 for an actual response.

Universities are supposed to be about truth and the freedom to espouse that truth. Tenure is also given to encourage this. Moore and his train wreck of conservatives preferred to base their decisions on a 2000 year old belief system that is becoming less relevant by the day. They denied scientists funding and the opportunity to make public their discoveries, in that regard having more in common with Popes burning scientists at the stake than with any Chancellor before. As a former student I feel shame at thisappointment. Moore is at best a yes man and at worst an idealogue.

“They denied scientists funding and the opportunity to make public their discoveries, ”
————————————————————————-

‘Scientists’ that want to play politics with their so-called ‘discoveries’, and feather their own nests with perpetual well paid employment courtesy of the public purse, (bloated salaries that they believe they’re entitled to simply because they have some Degree from somewhere and call themselves ‘scientists’), should either resign from their employment if they don’t agree with the policy of their employer, and run for office themselves if they want to promote changes based on their ‘discoveries’. Many of their so-called ‘studies’ have been shown to have no relevance to anything of any interest to anyone. They collect dust, in other words, while they find something else just as useless to further ‘study’.

Many of their so-called ‘studies’ have been shown to have no relevance to anything of any interest to anyone. They collect dust, in other words, while they find something else just as useless to further ‘study’.

========================

They are obviously of interest to the people who paid them to undertake the research, or it wouldn’t have been done . . .

If the findings are collecting dust, them blame the people who have the power to actually use those findings to drive better policy decisions (that would be the government). Don’t blame the people who are actually doing what they are paid to do.

“gopg2015:-“In addition, he went through the Alliance, the Reform, and finally the Conservative parties, and was part of a party which silenced government scientists, had little compassion for the poor in the country, and appeared to have little empathy for those First Nations who had to contend with deaths along the Rupert to PG highway.”
————————————————————————-

Government scientists work for the government. Just as DuPont’s scientists work for DuPont. They are employed to conduct studies to determine certain limited things ‘scientifically’. It’s not their call to release what they discover to the general public while they are still in their position of employment with their employer, be that employer DuPont or the government. If they want to make their findings public, they need permission from their employer. If they disagree with that, then leave that employment, and if they’re so sure what they’ve discovered is of broad public interest and warrants further study, solicit funds from the public to study it further themselves.

As for Moore, we had ‘poor’ that received as much, or as little, “compassion” under other governments, too. And why should First Nations receive any MORE “empathy” when their members disappear or are murdered than any other group of people who’ve also had members suffer the same fate?

NMG:-“They are obviously of interest to the people who paid them to undertake the research, or it wouldn’t have been done . . .

If the findings are collecting dust, then blame the people who have the power to actually use those findings to drive better policy decisions (that would be the government). Don’t blame the people who are actually doing what they are paid to do.”
=========================================================================

How do we know the findings of these studies have any relevance to anything that those who originally commissioned them want to know? I don’t think it’s very hard to imagine how someone could make a lifetime career out of doing ‘studies’ that only come to the conclusion that further studies are then needed. And in some instances this no doubt suits governments just fine. They don’t have to make any decisions, because the matter is still under ‘study’. Permanently, though they’re not going to tell us THAT.

socredible: No, like other government employees, government scientists don’t work for the government-they work for the people of Canada. Their job is to do the research on the basis of which the people, through their elected representatives, can make informed decisions. The politicians have the right to make decisions but not to hide or distort the information on which they are based.

apoliticalgeek:-“Universities are supposed to be about truth and the freedom to espouse that truth. ”
———————————————————————-
I can think of a whole number of things where what may well be “truth” will never be freely examined by ANY university. Simply because it isn’t ‘politically correct’ to those who’ve managed to get themselves into a position where THEY believe THEY are the sole arbitrers of the type of “truth” THEY want accepted. Whether, it’s actually ‘true’, or not. And when you’re the Party of the ‘debt dealers’, and have the “power of the purse” on your side, that goes a long ways to deciding what will be classed forevermore as “truth” and what won’t be.

billposer:- “No, like other government employees, government scientists don’t work for the government-they work for the people of Canada. Their job is to do the research on the basis of which the people, through their elected representatives, can make informed decisions. The politicians have the right to make decisions but not to hide or distort the information on which they are based.”
————————————————————————

That’s a very nice theory, billposer, but it’s flawed on several counts. First of all government scientists do not know anything more than a limited amount of information about the object of their studies. Those scientists that worked for the US government’s Manhattan Project during World War Two could certainly voice their concerns about their discoveries regarding the explosion of an atomic bomb ~ to the government. But as employees of that government (and yes, indirectly of all the American people), it certainly was not their purview to warn the American public about what might happen if such a weapon were used. For one thing, neither they, nor anyone else, really knew. It was up to the government, those elected to office, to make the call as to whether to use that weapon or not. And they did. They had far more overall information than the scientists could ever have. And that’s the information that was used to make the final decision.

billposer:-“No, like other government employees, government scientists don’t work for the government-they work for the people of Canada”
========================================================================

When was the last time YOU got to decide which government employees YOU wanted to keep in YOUR employ? Or how much YOU felt they should receive in wages and benefits for all that they do for you? Does CUPE and other public sector Unions seek ratification of their contracts from ALL of us, as the employers of their members? Might be interesting if they had to. But they don’t. They work for the ‘government’, which, in theory, is supposed to be us. But in practice is actually at least one step removed.

Just sour grapes by pathetic liberals.

“And why should First Nations receive any MORE “empathy” when their members disappear or are murdered than any other group of people”

Simple, because from the accounts there are a disproportionate number of them killed.

If Aboriginals are 10 to 15% of the population of a geographic region and 60+% of those murdered are Aboriginals, something is wrong.

If you fail to understand that, socredible and others who may support his comment, then something is wrong. Maybe you mother kicked you out of your crib a few times too often. I am sure Freud would have had a theory. :-)

I was a critic of the conservatives under Harper. I also have issues with Moore defending Harper policies. But we have to consider that Moore probably represented this area in Ottawa more than even our local MP’s did, and also that he has history with the area getting his education here and filling in for Ben on his radio show.

I think considering what he has accomplished he is probably the most successful graduate of UNBC. I like the idea of them going into their own ranks for this kind of posting and I think we need to judge the man for his own actions and how he conducts himself as a Chancellor and promoter of the university.

If the opposition to him is purely partisanship; then I don’t see how this does any good service for the university. Vague insinuations will only undermine the university IMO.

Socredible wrote about the Manhattan project:
“For one thing, neither they, nor anyone else, really knew. It was up to the government, those elected to office, to make the call as to whether to use that weapon or not. And they did. They had far more overall information than the scientists could ever have. And that’s the information that was used to make the final decision.”

Do you make these things up as you go along? Sounds like revisionist history to me.

The scientists and engineers knew exactly what the project was – to build an atomic bomb before the Germans did. Simple! How the heck could anyone work on a project when they did not know what the objective was.

According to writings of the history of this period, even though it was not the mandate of the scientists and engineers, they reasoned that if the United States was the first major power to wield atomic weapons, then peace could be brought to the world and Hitler’s reign stopped short of attacking Americans.

So, on May 5, 1943, five members of the Military Police Committee, including director General Leslie Groves, met to discuss possible targets of the developing weapon. Germany was instantly ruled out for fear of the bomb malfunctioning and Hitler gaining control of the precious fissionable material. Consequently, from May fifth until the end of World War II, Japan was the sole target of nuclear strike, a fact everyone was ignorant to.

Your example was from war time. Hardly the event to compare to when one is talking about DFO and peacetime scientific research which may have reached conclusions which the Government did not accept without evidence to the contrary and refused to implement strategies to protect fisheries over a long term sustainable period, such as overfishing, for example.

Socredible wrote about the Manhattan project:
“For one thing, neither they, nor anyone else, really knew.”

Do you make these things up as you go along? Sounds like revisionist history to me.

The scientists and engineers knew exactly what the project was – to build an atomic bomb before the Germans did. Simple! How the heck could anyone work on a project when they did not know what the objective was.

According to writings of the history of this period, even though it was not the mandate of the scientists and engineers, they reasoned that if the United States was the first major power to wield atomic weapons, then peace could be brought to the world and Hitler’s reign stopped short of attacking Americans.

So, on May 5, 1943, five members of the Military Police Committee, including director General Leslie Groves, met to discuss possible targets of the developing weapon. Germany was instantly ruled out for fear of the bomb malfunctioning and Hitler gaining control of the precious fissionable material. Consequently, from May fifth until the end of World War II, Japan was the sole target of nuclear strike, a fact everyone was ignorant to.

Your example was from war time. Hardly the event to compare to when one is talking about DFO and peacetime scientific research which may have reached conclusions which the Government did not accept without evidence to the contrary and refused to implement strategies to protect fisheries over a long term sustainable period, such as overfishing, for example.

Sorry for the double post…. mea culpa. :-(

socredible@Your example of the Manhattan Project hardly rebuts what I said. Yes, there are some government decisions, mostly military, that cannot be publicly debated. The great majority of government decisions, however, can and should be subject to public debate. Few if any of the environmental and health issues on which the Harper government muzzled government scientists required secrecy.

Furthermore, the decision whether to use the atomic bomb was of unusual complexity and required expertise in an unusual range of areas, from engineering and physics to estimation of casualties from military operations and the psychology of the Japanese leadership. I agree that individual scientists were not in as good a position to make the overall decision as were people like President Truman. But the position stated in my post above does not call for scientists to make such decisions, so I do not understand why you think this example is relevant.

How long is his tenure ? Let’s hope it’s shorter than ten years . Nice deflection notsocredible ! James Moore !atombombs ! All in the same paragraph ? If he’s reading your stuff , he must be absolutely radiant by now . I can hardly wait for his first words from the hill . Not the Ottawa hill , the other one , in Prince George .

Socredible – you seem to have a bias against education, but here is a ‘very’ brief primer as to why truth and openness (in science at any rate) is valuable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants

The history of western civilization owes most if not all of its discoveries and growth due to the public discussion and dissemination of those ‘facts’ that were discovered and demonstrated through the scientific method. China had gunpowder, and calculus around the time of Jesus Christ. But those who discovered it kept it secret.

It is accepted by almost all scholars that this openness is what is responsible for the amazing discoveries that we now take for granted. Think on it. We made it to the moon only 66 years after the discovery of flight. That is amazing. And a direct result of the scientific method and open discussion.

Your ‘hero’ openly squashed this dissemination of truth for petty political truths. I put him and his party in the same category as those who burned other scientists at the stake for daring to question the status quo.

That is how progress is made. Openness. Fair comment and questioning. Something the editors of this website don’t believe in as all this statement was deleted previously. As was the link to the change.org petition to remove him as chancellor.

I have been trying to locate the UNBC policy on the selection process for Chancellor. It seems one needs to be a member of UNBC with a password to access that information. Secretive as I am used to with UNBC.

So looking at some other such policies from some larger universities, the norm seems to be to have a very broad selection committee including member of the Senate, Faculty, Undergraduate and graduate students as well as alumni, general staff employee of the university as well as a member of the university foundation.

Typically, a number of people are nominated and up to as many as 5 interviewed.

I was curious about the process since a member of the Senate questions the appointment when a significant number of Senators are usually involved with the selection committee.

The sad hyper partisanship displayed by the people signing those letters goes to show how out of touch a lot of highly educated people are. James Moore is a wonderful choice and anyone who does any reading beyond towing the partisan attacks of the last election will see the wisdom of the move. James Moore is going to live to see the day their witch hunt is exposed for what is.

Well, lets move on to a different kind of example then. ‘Economics’ has long been called the “dismal science”, inferring that it is a ‘science’. And I wouldn’t doubt that our governments employ more of these kind of ‘scientists’ than any other. Some decades ago the Federal government pondered what would be the effects of paying people, all people, a universal basic income separate from anything derived from employment. It would be enough to live on ~ just ~ about the same as welfare. But not means tested, or subject to the same kind of restrictions, etc. that welfare is. No one knew what the effects would be of doing this. Would the recipients quit working, or slack off, would it make them lazy and irresponsible and uncaring about whether they held a job or not? Nobody really knew. So an experiment was conducted, in an area of Manitoba, where the residents were all given this basic income, so the results could be observed. Those conducting the experiment, the ‘scientists’, so to speak, recorded the results over time. And they found that receiving this basic income didn’t have any of the negative effects that had often been imagined. In fact, what was positive about it was that everyone who received it was more prosperous than they had been before. They still worked, were still just as responsible, didn’t slack off or become lazy layabouts. But the government never moved towards implementing a ‘basic income’ either. Now what if those who had conducted the experiment started publicly calling for its implementation, quoting the findings of their studies as reasons why such a move would be highly desirable? And it may have been. But then again, it might not have been. Did THEY have ALL the information necessary to insist on such a course of action? or might there not be other factors that weigh into any decision like that? Do they have a duty, or even a right, as public employees to insist on what findings they’ve made been acted upon WHILE THEY’RE STILL public employees?

Socredible > DuPont is not a public organization. The Government is and subject to the freedom of information act. Unless the information is classified for military or similar reasons, it is a public document.

Socredible wrote: “How do we know the findings of these studies have any relevance to anything that those who originally commissioned them want to know?”

You do not seem to know the process used to hire independent researchers or manage in-house researchers.

If the findings are irrelevant, then it is those who manage the researchers or hire the researchers who are to blame.

Cred , I’ve lived in manatoba , it ain’t that friendly . I really need a back up on that one . I can’t believe I read your whole post , absurd , but most enjoyable . Thanks , you made my minute .

From the standpoint of public relations, this appointment is another disaster. But not surprising given the string of bonehead decisions that have been made at UNBC in recent years. Everything from the Cozzetto half million dollar giveaway to the ongoing alienation of UNBC’s faculty and staff.

UNBC’s BoG and senior executive might actually scuttle that ship.

Ataloss, the CBC (would they EVER lie to us?)did a documentary on this little experiment a number of years ago. It re-airs occasionally. If I recall correctly, the ‘basic income’ experiment was conducted somewhere around Dauphin, likely back in the 1960’s sometime. Jean Chretien, when he was Prime Minister, once floated the idea in the Commons, where Stockwell Day, then Leader of the Opposition jumped all over it as being ‘unaffordable’. Whether it would have been or not, no more was said about it.

gopg2015:-“Socredible > DuPont is not a public organization. The Government is and subject to the freedom of information act. Unless the information is classified for military or similar reasons, it is a public document. ”
————————————————————————-

Perhaps so, but if ‘scientists’ on the government payroll want to advocate for some particular cause then get off the government payroll and go advocate for it. We do not pay them to be politicians, and determine public policy on the sole basis of some narrow field of research they’ve been engaged in. In a democracy the expert is supposed to be “on tap”, not “on top”.

apoliticalgeek:- “It is accepted by almost all scholars that this openness is what is responsible for the amazing discoveries that we now take for granted. Think on it. We made it to the moon only 66 years after the discovery of flight. That is amazing. And a direct result of the scientific method and open discussion.

Your ‘hero’ openly squashed this dissemination of truth for petty political truths. I put him and his party in the same category as those who burned other scientists at the stake for daring to question the status quo.

————————————————————————
First of all, I would hardly describe Stephen Harper as my “hero”. I think he did a good job overall as PM. Some things he did I do not agree with, many others I do, either entirely or in part.

I don’t doubt for a moment there is great value in ‘open discussion’ ~ and that we may well have advanced far further than we already have if we truly did have just that. If we were ‘allowed to’, that is, which we unfortunately are not. Some subjects, it would seem, are ENTIRELY “off limits” to public discussion and open discourse. They may contain what some might describe as “inconvenient truths”. I think you’ll find much to do with ‘money’ itself in that category. It’s a subject that’s largely “taboo”, or as if what is thought to be known about it has been “written in stone” and completely unchangeable and unchallengeable.

Be that as it may, I do not think it is proper for government employees to pre-empt the making of public policy just because they may have done some research in a certain area and think they know everything there is to know about it. Not while they are still government employees, that is.

Socredible I tip my hat to you on this exchange.

Sorry but having an exchange with the indoctrinated who lack any critical thinking abilities what so ever can give one a head ache.

How do we know the findings of these studies have any relevance to anything that those who originally commissioned them want to know?

=========================

Well for starters, the research findings could be released into the public and/or scientific domain for others to critique and/or analyze. Of course, you seem to be completely against this so I have no idea why you are even asking the question in the first place.

On one hand, you seem to be against people doing the research and on the other, against the results of that research being released. You then question how we can determine if the research is relevant in the first place.

I can only conclude that you haven’t really thought this through . . .

@ socredible.

I’ll ignore the anti-zionism.

“Be that as it may, I do not think it is proper for government employees to pre-empt the making of public policy just because they may have done some research in a certain area and think they know everything there is to know about it. Not while they are still government employees, that is.”

So you honestly believe that if the government wants to ban vaccinations, or legislate that the world is flat, or deny global warming, that government scientists, who know better, should just shut up?

You don’t get that science is not a judgement call, it is not an opinion. The scientific method is beyond that. It just is. It is truth.

apoliticalgeek:-“I’ll ignore the anti-zionism.”

“You don’t get that science is not a judgement call, it is not an opinion. The scientific method is beyond that. It just is. It is truth.”
————————————————————————
What ‘anti-zionism’ are you imagining I’m talking about that you’re going to ‘ignore’? You know this is the sign of a very weak argument when you imply that someone is saying something against some group they haven’t even mentioned. If I wanted to attack ‘zionism’, or even explain to anyone else what I believe it really is and why I’m attacking it, then I’d do just that. In none of the posts above have I said anything whatsoever about that subject. So it’s good you’re going to ‘ignore’ it, I suppose, even though there’s nothing there for you TO ignore.

A great deal of so-called science is very much of what you describe as a ‘judgement call’. All of it based on ‘deductive’ reasoning, in fact, that can not be totally confirmed by ‘inductive’ reasoning as well. And so we have such things as Darwin’s THEORY of Evolution, or Einstein’s THEORY of Relativity, which latter, by the way, disproved the ‘truth’ that Isaac Newton had previously established as science.

Darwins “theory ” has been proven . Only theologians don’t get it . Einsteins theories have all but one been proven . Gravity wave theory . However gravity wave theory is also about to be proven as two interferometer like sensors are about to be deployed for the search .

NMG:-“On one hand, you seem to be against people doing the research and on the other, against the results of that research being released. You then question how we can determine if the research is relevant in the first place.

I can only conclude that you haven’t really thought this through . . . ”
=========================================================================

I can see how you could arrive at that conclusion, and I doubt whether anything I could say would dispel it. People doing research for the government are dependent on ’employment’, their continued employment, for their economic well-being. This puts them, I believe, in a sort of ‘confict of interest’ situation.

They’ve gone to school, to university for several years no doubt, and have been told, as many are still told by their parents, and teachers, and society as a whole, that they will have a well paid ‘job’ at the conclusion of their studies. That they’ll ALWAYS have work, because they are ‘educated’ and the world needs such people. They have expectations, in other words, and society has done a great deal to create those expectations. But they are not all Einsteins, nor Pasteurs, nor Madame Curries. Much of their research is mundane.

It may play a part in some public policy decision, or it may not. The reality is they need continued employment regardless. And the further reality is, aside from being employed by a government, there’s precious little else out there in the field of study they’ve specialised in. So there is an incentive, an economic incentive derived from the desire to maintain their personal well being through continued employment, to try to maintain that employment for as long as possible.
And that, I’m afraid, is just what many of them do.

ataloss:-“Darwins “theory ” has been proven . Only theologians don’t get it . Einsteins theories have all but one been proven . Gravity wave theory . However gravity wave theory is also about to be proven as two interferometer like sensors are about to be deployed for the search .

=========================================================================

The big objection to Darwin’s Theory by the theologians probably comes from that passage in the Bible where it says, “Man was created in the image of God.” If Darwin was right, that must mean God was an ape! I’ll leave it to ‘science’ to reconcile that one!

I think the image would be more akin to a bacterium , virus . Or perhaps a tardigrade .

Playing chess with pigeons.

In Latin, the language of the bible, imago Dei—means image, shadow or likeness of God

It means we alone are imprinted with godlike characteristics. Thus we occupy a higher place in the created order.

Theologians have long debated this question of what this passage means. There are those, like Socredible, who take it the simplest way possible as a literal interpretation. You can rest assured that no educated theologian takes it that way.

An easy way is to remind ourselves that we are creative as well as being spiritual beings, both of which characteristics are attributed to God. We also communicate, the same as God. We are also very intelligent compared to animals. The emergence of symbolic language – speech and writing – is the sharpest difference between humans and animals.

The real question is; did we think of God that way because we know that we have those characteristics thus God must have those characteristics?

So, now for the $64,000 question, which came first? The chicken or the egg?

Socredible says People doing research for the government are dependent on ’employment’, their continued employment, for their economic well-being. This puts them, I believe, in a sort of ‘confict of interest’ situation.

That is why there is no scientific method used or debate about AGW. If there was a lot of scientists would be out of work.

Socredible.

My son has a PhD in Biochemistry. He is a researcher working at the RNA level of biochemical research. On his way in the post graduate studies level and then two 3 year terms at post doc research at the McGill’s Montreal Neurological Institute, he has worked on projects such as congenital heart defects, alzheimers and prostrate cancer research.

As with all other private researchers, he has to put together proposals to a variety of organizations, most of which are not government funded. There are no guarantees. He, like many other researchers, is virtually a freelancer who has no guarantees.

Canada has never been a country known for funding research as many of the other countries. If he moved to the USA he could easily double his mid level 5 figure income.

I find your view of researchers very offensive and can only come from an uninformed person.

Have any of you read the comment section of the online petition ? Up to eleven hundred people have signed . It’s going viral . What a way to get notice by the world . The BoG has brought unbc into disrepute .

On more thing, socredible. Researchers who are working in advanced fields typically end their findings with comments that they look for others to work further in the area of the published research because, unlike people like you one approach is not enough on which to base definitive conclusions. They assume that they may have overlooked something, have not looked at all aspects of the issues under study and have left areas untouched.

Verification of findings is the most fundamental aspect of any research. In my mind, it is drudge work. In the eyes of my son it is the most interesting work he can think of and shuns going to teach at a University, for instance, with a considerable raise in pay because that is what he finds to be drudge work.

To each their own.

“The BoG has brought unbc into disrepute”

That all depends how many read it and who those readers and signatories are.

If it gets serious, then two things might help.

1. Moore shows he is a man and bows out before his official appointment. If done properly, it will give him some big point, for no at least.

2. The BoG contacts at least a couple of previous Chancellors who would be prepared to speak to endorse Moore and the BoG decision.

“for no at least” = for now at least.

I still want to know what the selection process is. Where does the representation on the selection committee come from?

If you read the petition comments ,you will read the musings of many unbc alumni that are spread across the world and in canada . As far as JM have the class to bow out ? This is the same guy that slithered into the terry fox run to make political hay and smeared the terry fox family in the process . They have no shame . #unbc #takebackunbc

I still want to know what the selection process is. Where does the representation on the selection committee come from. Search unbc board of governors . On Twitter some are pointing to christys office for this appointment .