Showing posts with label neil reynolds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label neil reynolds. Show all posts

Monday, May 7, 2012

Another Fatuous Neil Reynolds Column

Despite the fact that I hold The Globe and Mail in very low esteem, I do periodically check its website to find out the latest in right-wing thinking. Such was the case today when I read Neil Reynolds' latest, entitled, Why the ‘sacred’ still matters to voters.

Like his colleague Margaret Wente, Reynolds rarely seems to be visited by an original thought, content instead to rely on the scribblings of others to form the basis of his own pieces. In his latest effort, drawing extensively upon the work of University of Virginia psychologist Jonathan Haidt, Reynolds echoes his thesis that conservatives possess “a broader set of moral tastes” and that liberals are embarrassed by talk of sacred things – such as Ronald Reagan’s patriotic reverence for God and country.

Nowhere in his 'analysis'/summary does Reynolds attempt to explore the implications of that alleged disdain for the sacred. Nowhere does he attempt to understand why a progressive thinker, as opposed to a conservative one, feels impelled to question the objects and traditions that are frequently simply a means to extort mindless and widespread obeseisance to authority. Indeed, in the same vein as Reagan we can see the Harper regime trying to cultivate a more complacent populace as it elevates the prominence of certain symbols heavy with mythological import: the military, the monarchy, sports, the North and Diefenbaker.

And of course we already know that to question the actions of something as 'sacred' as the military is to invite denunciation from the Harper crowd. So While Mr. Reynolds may be happy to imply the superiority of an unquestioning acceptance of things, I and countless others will continue to think for ourselves.

Friday, November 19, 2010

We've Finally Cut the Cord

It is with some sadness that I announce the termination of our subscription to The Globe and Mail, a paper that we have subscribed to continuously since our return to Ontario in 1988. Prior to that, in the 70's my wife was a Globe reader.

This was not a spur-of-the-moment decision, since we wanted to give every chance to the 'new and improved' Globe. Unfortunately, our vision of a good paper sharply diverges from John Stackhouse's, in that it has become obvious to us that the paper is trying to ensure its long-term viability by appealing to a younger and more politically conservative demographic. The most recent inkling of the latter came with the dismissal of long-time columnist Rick Salutin, who had a unique and original perspective on the people and events that make the news. With his dismissal came the elevation of Neil Reynolds, whose libertarian views seem tiresomely repetitive and predictable - he clearly lacks the wide-ranging intellect of Mr. Salutin.

In terms of the Arts and the Life section, the fact that most of the topics are of little interest to my wife and me seems to confirm the shift to a younger demographic. Personally, I think the Globe's strategy is a mistake, given that it is we baby boomers who have the most disposable income. It also ignores the fact that young people today tend to get most of their news from the Internet in general and social media in particular.

On a final note, I think we also recognize that as we get older, we inevitably have less and less influence on the world around us. That is, I suppose, the natural progression of things, and while I hardly begrudge younger generations the opportunity to exert their own influence on things, I wish, in the case of the new Globe and Mail, a better balance had been struck.

Thursday, August 12, 2010

How Do We Assess Information?

The other day I had an interesting and spirited discussion with a colleague at the food bank where I volunteer. Initially the conversation revolved around the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and the possible loss of the team with City Council's decision to proceed with the West Harbour as the site of the new stadium over the objections of team owner Bob Young.

The discussion then progressed to how we evaluate the information we receive. My position, using two illustrations, was and is as follows: Because whatever personal expertise we may possess is usually very limited in scope, it becomes incumbent upon us to be very much influenced by experts in any given field.

Take, for example, the Conservative Government's decision to abandon the mandatory long census form. To be quite honest, the topic of the census, until the controversy erupted, was of no interest to me. The subject of statistics is like a foreign language to me, and seemingly of no pertinence to my life. However, after the almost universal condemnation of the Harper decision by a wealth of experts, critical thinking demands that I accept as true that it is a very bad decision that should be reversed.

We then went on to talk about, and disagree upon, climate change. Her position was that she wants to decide the truth for herself, through research on the Internet. That may well be a sound approach if she has enough time and the ability to evaluate the sources of her information, something that is very hard for a lay person to do on issues with a high degree of technical information.

Nonetheless, I have already accepted the truth of climate change, not just because of the worldwide evidence of something happening at an unprecedented rate of change, but also because, again, the overwhelming majority of experts in the field say that it is essentially indisputable. I italicized the word experts because a favorite ploy of climate change deniers is to have people whose credentials lie elsewhere to call into question the analyses of the real experts, thus sowing doubt amongst the lay people.

In fact, that is the tack regularly employed by Globe and Mail writer Neil Reynolds who, in his last column on climate change, cited the opinion of some environmental economists to support his thesis, and in a previous piece used the 'expertise' of a Nobel Prize-wining physicist.

Bringing these issues into sharp relief is writer Antony black, who had a column in today's Hamilton Spectator. I urge those of you interested in critical thinking to take a few moments to read it, as the evidence he presents to undermine the climate change deniers is quite interesting. I urge those of you interested in critical thinking to take a few moments to read it, as the evidence he presents to undermine the climate change deniers is quite interesting.