So . . . the report has come in and it was found that the "climategate" researchers had not done anything too wrong. All of the hubbub about manipulated results and bad science proved to be not entirely warranted. I know that it's hard to believe that the newspapers would make something into a bigger deal than it was, but I guess we just have to consider that possibility.
But this issue does highlight an important point that is central to this debate. The report on the conduct of Phil Jones and his colleagues in East Anglia found that they did, in fact, act contrary to the spirit of scientific discovery. By supressing dissent and selectively presenting data, they made it clear that they were more interested in providing the perception that they were right than in providing hard evidence.
If the findings out of East Anglia were so convincing, why wouldn't the scientists there welcome dissenting opinion? Why the schadenfreude at the death of a climate-change skeptic (over e-mail, no less! I can picture it: "Dr. Skeptic died - LMAO"). The problem here wasn't (only) bad science, it was science with a political agenda. Just like how the science of evolution has been taken over by politics, reducing it to a with-us-or-against-us debate, climate change science has been made into a political hot button. And this makes it difficult to do good science.
This topic, whether you are a believer or a skeptic/heretic/unsure individual, has profound implications for the future. And I'm not talking about snow-less winters or summer heat waves (I could do with less shoveling in winter), but rather policy implications and money, tons of money, that will be devoted to this issue. Therefore the fact that it is oversimplified into a religious cause is troubling, because what we need is good data. Good data isn't always crystal clear, incontrovertible, and 100% right or wrong. No one cause determines an effect (at least not in a complex system like this).
So when data is cherry-picked to make the "hockey stick" graph of rising temperatures, I am concerned. When the review process for articles is hijacked such that contrary findings are supressed, I am concerned. I would rather know less about what is going on but be sure in my lack of knowledge than to supposedly know more but have serious doubts about the veracity of the claims. All good science is couched in debate. Scientific research was once defined to me as a conversation, where one researcher says "this is how I see things, and here is some support for my argument," and another says, "well, I see things this way, and here's my support." A one-sided conversation where the other person made mute does not create reliable findings.
So while the report has found that the East Anglia researchers may not have done bad scientists, their agenda makes them bad scientists.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
A Crotchety Old Man
So . . . apparently the title of this blog post refers to me. In the past year or so I have been the target of a seemingly-coordinated series of attacks designed to make me feel old (for the record, I’m not old – I’m 35). What bothers me most of all about this is that it bothers me.
You see, I’m generally not a vain person. Anyone who knows me personally can see that – I dress pretty sloppily, don’t often iron my clothes, wait a week too long to get a haircut and only shave when I have to (lest you get the wrong idea, I do shower and brush my teeth. I’m not a slob, just a little lazy in the self-presentation department). It’s probably because I feel that my natural handsomeness combined with my laissez-faire fashion sense gives me a devil-may-care charm that is ever so winning.
But for some reason it really gets under my skin (my wrinkled, sere old man skin, I guess) when I am mistaken for older than I am. Here are some recent examples of this happening:
- Some colleagues of mine were trying to figure out who was the youngest person in our department (slow week, I guess) and they asked my age. I answered with the question (that I have learned I should not ask) of how old they thought I was. The answer they gave? 40. When pressed for explanation after I revealed they overshot the mark, one of them said I looked “mature” and “seasoned.” I am not a bag of chips or a well-cooked steak; I don’t want to be seasoned.
- In class last semester I gave the students a group exercise for which they were to determine a promotional strategy. One group was discussing using Facebook to spread the word about their product. A group member brought up the point that the desired customers were older (about 40-50), and whether Facebook was the right medium; his exact words were “Do old people use Facebook?” A different group member said that she didn’t know, and then turned to me and asked if I used Facebook. Ouch (on an unrelated note, I have recently joined Facebook).
- This week I was in the cafeteria at the University (where I work – and an environment where you’re surrounded by 20-year-olds is not the best place to be if you don’t want to be made to feel old) and there was a larger than usual crowd, owing to one big group that was there. One of the guides for this group asked if I was with them, which I wasn’t. Once I got in line I asked a different guide what the group was. It turns out that every day a different group of incoming students (aged 17-18) came in with their parents for a tour. Which means that the first guide thought that either a) I was an incoming student (uh, unlikely hardly seems to sum that one up) or b) the parent of an incoming student. Now I know that it is possible that I could have an 18-year-old child, but it’s not exactly likely. Which means that he thought I looked older than I am. Dagnabit! These kids today.
I don’t think this situation is going to improve anytime soon. After all, I ain’t getting any younger. And while we’re on the subject of clichés related to age, I’d like to disagree with a classic: “You’re only as old as you feel”? Nope – I’m only as old as I’m made to feel.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Uruguay, Soccer, and Disproportionate Response
So . . . semi-final matches in the World Cup begin today, and there is a whole lotta controversy over Uruguay's path to this point. In the waning seconds of the Uruguay's quarterfinal match against Ghana with the score tied 1-1, Luis Suarez (of Uruguay, despite his typically Ghanaian name) used his hand to block a shot that was clearly headed into the net. This would have been fine, but Suarez is not the goalkeeper and therefore not allowed to use his hands. Ghana missed the penalty kick they were awarded, and then lost the game on free kicks. As for Suarez, he was immediately ejected from the game for his infraction plus banned from the next game (which is today's game).
(As an aside about today's game, given the back story to Uruguay's presence, there should be a good show of retrospective storytelling going on. If Uruguay loses, then the commentators will all say how it was bad karma and they reaped what they sowed. If Uruguay wins, then the stories will be about how they took that negative attention and channeled it into a win. What's interesting to me about this is that both of these explanations are antecedents to the outcome of the game, yet we don't know what led to the outcome until after. Which means that the explanations are worthless.)
The furor over this situation is that Ghana would have almost certainly won the game had Suarez not used his hands. Therefore there have been calls upon FIFA to mete out some greater punishment than they have, and to somehow right this wrong. Suarez has been called a cheater and a poor sportsman. He admits to having intentionally broken the rules to win the game (though his coach said that what he did was instinctual, not intentional - somehow, I think Suarez knows better in this case).
While what Suarez did defines poor sportsmanship, I hesitate to call him a cheater. To my mind, there are two parts to any rule - the rule itself, and the punishment for breaking it. If the punishment is an insufficient incentive to produce the desired behaviour, the rule or the consequence needs to be changed. If Suarez had not blocked the goal, Uruguay would have lost and their tournament would have been over. There is no incentive for him to let the goal go past. If he blocks it, the probability of them advancing is infinitely higher (given that it is zero if the goal counts), and all that is lost is he is ejected (from a game that is nearly over) and banned for one game (that they wouldn't be playing if he didn't break the rules). The benefits far outweigh the costs in this scenario. To set up rules like this is to make a law such that if you steal $100, you get to keep it but are fined $50.
For this reason, the consequences for rule-breaking have to far outweigh the costs. For example, in the NBA, if you flagrantly foul (attack the player and not the ball) a player who has a clear path to the basket (often done during the playoffs to prevent sure points), the player gets two free throws plus his team retains possession. So breaking the rule to prevent two certain points gives the opposing team the opportunity to score four points (though these will be uncertain) plus the possibility of further punishment (it may lead to the ejection and/or suspension for the fouling player, depending on circumstances). Continuing the above example, this would be equivalent to an uncertain fine of $0 to $300 for stealing $100 - might be worth the risk, but on the whole, probably unprofitable.
In the case of the World Cup, a suitable response (should FIFA actually want behaviours like this to stop), would be to create some sort of inevitability rule; if a ball was inevitably going to go in and a non-goalkeeper blocks it with his hands, the goal counts and there is a penalty kick. Now no one will do this (unless they think the official will not see the handball) because the costs far outweigh the benefits. Of course, this raises a host of other problems, such as placing judgment calls in the hands of (what have been proven to be) incompetent referees.
In my estimation, Uruguay didn't cheat, because they broke the rule fully intending to accept the punishment. If the rule itself is broken, fix it, but don't blame a player for taking advantage of the existing system. In fact, Suarez probably would have been vilified (at least by his fans) if he hadn't lent a hand to his team.
(As an aside about today's game, given the back story to Uruguay's presence, there should be a good show of retrospective storytelling going on. If Uruguay loses, then the commentators will all say how it was bad karma and they reaped what they sowed. If Uruguay wins, then the stories will be about how they took that negative attention and channeled it into a win. What's interesting to me about this is that both of these explanations are antecedents to the outcome of the game, yet we don't know what led to the outcome until after. Which means that the explanations are worthless.)
The furor over this situation is that Ghana would have almost certainly won the game had Suarez not used his hands. Therefore there have been calls upon FIFA to mete out some greater punishment than they have, and to somehow right this wrong. Suarez has been called a cheater and a poor sportsman. He admits to having intentionally broken the rules to win the game (though his coach said that what he did was instinctual, not intentional - somehow, I think Suarez knows better in this case).
While what Suarez did defines poor sportsmanship, I hesitate to call him a cheater. To my mind, there are two parts to any rule - the rule itself, and the punishment for breaking it. If the punishment is an insufficient incentive to produce the desired behaviour, the rule or the consequence needs to be changed. If Suarez had not blocked the goal, Uruguay would have lost and their tournament would have been over. There is no incentive for him to let the goal go past. If he blocks it, the probability of them advancing is infinitely higher (given that it is zero if the goal counts), and all that is lost is he is ejected (from a game that is nearly over) and banned for one game (that they wouldn't be playing if he didn't break the rules). The benefits far outweigh the costs in this scenario. To set up rules like this is to make a law such that if you steal $100, you get to keep it but are fined $50.
For this reason, the consequences for rule-breaking have to far outweigh the costs. For example, in the NBA, if you flagrantly foul (attack the player and not the ball) a player who has a clear path to the basket (often done during the playoffs to prevent sure points), the player gets two free throws plus his team retains possession. So breaking the rule to prevent two certain points gives the opposing team the opportunity to score four points (though these will be uncertain) plus the possibility of further punishment (it may lead to the ejection and/or suspension for the fouling player, depending on circumstances). Continuing the above example, this would be equivalent to an uncertain fine of $0 to $300 for stealing $100 - might be worth the risk, but on the whole, probably unprofitable.
In the case of the World Cup, a suitable response (should FIFA actually want behaviours like this to stop), would be to create some sort of inevitability rule; if a ball was inevitably going to go in and a non-goalkeeper blocks it with his hands, the goal counts and there is a penalty kick. Now no one will do this (unless they think the official will not see the handball) because the costs far outweigh the benefits. Of course, this raises a host of other problems, such as placing judgment calls in the hands of (what have been proven to be) incompetent referees.
In my estimation, Uruguay didn't cheat, because they broke the rule fully intending to accept the punishment. If the rule itself is broken, fix it, but don't blame a player for taking advantage of the existing system. In fact, Suarez probably would have been vilified (at least by his fans) if he hadn't lent a hand to his team.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Ten Thousand Hours
So . . . Malcolm Gladwell introduced to popular culture the idea of the outlier, the data point that lies outside the regular distribution, the exceptional. In his well-written and highly interesting book he puts forward the idea that there are identifiable reasons why the exceptional are, well, exceptional. One concept that has already made it into the zeitgeist (I saw it on The Good Wife) is that of ten thousand hours: in order be exceptional at something, you need to practice for ten thousand hours. The Beatles played for that long in a basement strip club in
(P.S. I seem to be having trouble with the font and spacing today. Sorry. I keep correcting it and it keeps coming back to this smaller font with no spaces between paragraphs. I'm tired of trying to fix it, hopefully things will be back to normal tomorrow).
I take exception with the ten thousand hours idea because it ignores a key consideration. The book Outliers makes it seem like if you log the hours, you will be successful. This is just untrue. There are way, way more musicians, athletes, and nerds who put in their time than are successful. The Beatles succeeded because they were lucky, they were discovered by a (also lucky) guy named Brian Epstein who put them in the right place at the right time. After all, if they were so polished and great, why did nearly every record label reject them? NBA players are lucky that they avoided injury, other mishaps, that they played for the right coaches and right teams and go the right attention. Bill Gates was only one of many aspiring tech entrepreneurs, and he happened to get the contract with IBM.
This is not to say that the ten thousand hours don’t help – of course they do. In fact, I would say they are nearly necessary to success (in order for them to be completely necessary, then every successful person must have put in their time, which is not the case). But they do not guarantee success. It’s like the lottery – if you own a ticket, it’s not a sure thing you will win; but if you don’t own a ticket, you definitely won’t win. The practice is your ticket.
I’m hoping to be an exceptional blogger. Over the past month I’ve been doing this, I have probably put in about 20 hours. Only 9,980 to go!
Saturday, July 3, 2010
You Look Great in Those Genes
So . . . researchers have identified a set of genes that appear to predict longevity, specifically that a person will live to 100 (with 77% accuracy). So some people, possibly as many as 15% of the population, have the genetics to lead a very long life. Apparently a test will be available to buy by late summer, so that you can check if you’re among the lucky ones.
Say I: big effin’ deal. So what? Guess what the leading cause of death isn’t? Old age. More people die of disease, injury, accident, homicide, suicide, etc. than live to their full potential life. So it really doesn’t matter if you can live longer, because to be blunt, chances are you won’t. It ultimately comes down to our friend luck, deciding where someone goes first – centenary or cemetery.
It’s great that we have science that can tell us what our genes are for, so that when we’re building our futuristic cyborg army we can make sure they only have the best genes. But in real terms, what will we know? That longevity is hereditary? We already know that. That very few (about one in six thousand) actually live to 100? We already know that. That people don’t live (or live up) to their full potential? Not news to me.
Back to this test that will be available – what would you do with the results? Let’s say you found out that you could possibly live to 100. Would you do anything differently? Maybe change your diet, exercise a little? My personal take on it is that I would rather do the things I enjoy (e.g. eating ice cream) and not make the triple-digits than doing things I don’t (e.g. eating soy cream) just so I could do the things I don’t enjoy a little longer. Plus (running theme of blog alert), seeing as we don’t really know what causes what in the first place, changing my behaviour is an exercise in random chance.
And if you found out that you weren’t going to live longer, what would you change? Don’t we already live more or less based on our own personal priorities? If you want to have the best life possible (however you happen to define that), you do the things that you think will make that happen.
Now, if they had a test for genes that meant that ice cream made me healthier, sign me up.
Say I: big effin’ deal. So what? Guess what the leading cause of death isn’t? Old age. More people die of disease, injury, accident, homicide, suicide, etc. than live to their full potential life. So it really doesn’t matter if you can live longer, because to be blunt, chances are you won’t. It ultimately comes down to our friend luck, deciding where someone goes first – centenary or cemetery.
It’s great that we have science that can tell us what our genes are for, so that when we’re building our futuristic cyborg army we can make sure they only have the best genes. But in real terms, what will we know? That longevity is hereditary? We already know that. That very few (about one in six thousand) actually live to 100? We already know that. That people don’t live (or live up) to their full potential? Not news to me.
Back to this test that will be available – what would you do with the results? Let’s say you found out that you could possibly live to 100. Would you do anything differently? Maybe change your diet, exercise a little? My personal take on it is that I would rather do the things I enjoy (e.g. eating ice cream) and not make the triple-digits than doing things I don’t (e.g. eating soy cream) just so I could do the things I don’t enjoy a little longer. Plus (running theme of blog alert), seeing as we don’t really know what causes what in the first place, changing my behaviour is an exercise in random chance.
And if you found out that you weren’t going to live longer, what would you change? Don’t we already live more or less based on our own personal priorities? If you want to have the best life possible (however you happen to define that), you do the things that you think will make that happen.
Now, if they had a test for genes that meant that ice cream made me healthier, sign me up.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Let the Pandas Die Off Already
So . . . I like panda bears, I think they’re cute and all. I have no personal vendetta against them and do not have a bad panda experience in my past. But I’d like to tell you a few facts about pandas that might make you feel differently about them.
Adult pandas eat about 20-30 pounds of bamboo shoots a day. They only eat the tender new-growth leaves, not the stalks (which are far more abundant than the leaves), because the leaves have higher protein content (though not a high protein content, which is why they eat so much). Pandas need a lot of protein, because they are naturally carnivores. Unlike most carnivores, however, they don’t eat a lot of meat.
When meat is available, they’ll eat it; but in general, they would rather forage for lots of bamboo leaves then hunt prey. In this way they are rather lazy and lackadaisical. Young pandas nurse for quite a while, robbing the mother of whatever protein stores she may have and making survival of the young difficult.
Furthermore, there aren’t that many young, because pandas don’t seem to enjoy mating.
So here you have a species that is highly inefficient with its resources and doesn’t readily reproduce. It’s no surprise that there are fewer than 3000 pandas left in the wild. Yet we seem to want to keep this species going for some reason.
This is not a species that has dwindled in number because it lost its habitat, or deforestation, or hunting; this is just a sucky species. It is not designed for long-term survival – in fact, pandas pretty much do everything wrong, survival-wise. Lots of species go extinct, and not all of them at the hands of humans. It is likely that even if homo erectus never came along, pandas would still go extinct. So lets stop trying to play god.
We like to think of ourselves as custodians of the earth and its creatures, but in reality we have no clue what we’re doing. We decry the negative effects of our actions, but we don’t really understand them – so why do we think we can understand the so-called positive actions? We’re all for species extinction when it comes to polio and smallpox, attempting to wipe them out of existence (or at least trying), but when nature tries to kill off a species, we fight it. I’m not saying we should load up the guns and go a-huntin’ panda, but let’s not force them to stay at the party, either.
So don’t save the panda. Go to a zoo and see one while they’re still around. Take pictures to show your grandkids when they ask what a panda was.
Adult pandas eat about 20-30 pounds of bamboo shoots a day. They only eat the tender new-growth leaves, not the stalks (which are far more abundant than the leaves), because the leaves have higher protein content (though not a high protein content, which is why they eat so much). Pandas need a lot of protein, because they are naturally carnivores. Unlike most carnivores, however, they don’t eat a lot of meat.
When meat is available, they’ll eat it; but in general, they would rather forage for lots of bamboo leaves then hunt prey. In this way they are rather lazy and lackadaisical. Young pandas nurse for quite a while, robbing the mother of whatever protein stores she may have and making survival of the young difficult.
Furthermore, there aren’t that many young, because pandas don’t seem to enjoy mating.
So here you have a species that is highly inefficient with its resources and doesn’t readily reproduce. It’s no surprise that there are fewer than 3000 pandas left in the wild. Yet we seem to want to keep this species going for some reason.
This is not a species that has dwindled in number because it lost its habitat, or deforestation, or hunting; this is just a sucky species. It is not designed for long-term survival – in fact, pandas pretty much do everything wrong, survival-wise. Lots of species go extinct, and not all of them at the hands of humans. It is likely that even if homo erectus never came along, pandas would still go extinct. So lets stop trying to play god.
We like to think of ourselves as custodians of the earth and its creatures, but in reality we have no clue what we’re doing. We decry the negative effects of our actions, but we don’t really understand them – so why do we think we can understand the so-called positive actions? We’re all for species extinction when it comes to polio and smallpox, attempting to wipe them out of existence (or at least trying), but when nature tries to kill off a species, we fight it. I’m not saying we should load up the guns and go a-huntin’ panda, but let’s not force them to stay at the party, either.
So don’t save the panda. Go to a zoo and see one while they’re still around. Take pictures to show your grandkids when they ask what a panda was.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Canada Day Prime Ministerial Factravaganza
So . . . it’s Canada Day today, the anniversary of when we (kind of) threw off the yoke of the empire and (sort of) established our independence from England (though the Queen is still technically our head of state). How very Canadian of us. In honour of Canada’s 143rd birthday (has it been that long? It seems like only yesterday Canada was 117) I have compiled some interesting and lesser-known facts about our 22 Prime Ministers.
John A. MacDonald: Big drunkard. Met his wife (and first cousin) on a trip to London paid for by winnings at a card game called “Loo.” He’s the guy on the $10 bill. Because of a physical resemblance, he was mistaken for Benjamin Disraeli’s ghost at the British P.M.’s funeral.
Alexander Mackenzie: A stonemason, and some of his buildings still stand today. Anti-drinking. Oversaw the building of the Parliament, and included an escape staircase so he could avoid constituents.
John Abbott: Great-grandfather of Christopher Plummer. Signed a manifesto calling for Canada to join the U.S. (before he was PM). Famous for saying “I hate politics.”
John Thompson: Not the same guy as the Georgetown basketball coach. Originally declined the post of Prime Minister because he was Catholic, and anti-Catholic prejudice was strong enough to make his ascendance unrealistic. 5’7”, 225 pounds.
Mackenzie Bowell: I always thought he should have had a movement named after him. Was undone by his own cabinet, members of which set up his political demise. He called them a “nest of traitors.”
Charles Tupper: Didn’t invent the ware. Oldest person to become PM, at 74, and only held the post for 68 days, shortest on record. Which is ironic, because he was the longest-lived PM (94 years).
Wilfrid Laurier: He’s the dude on the $5 bill who looks like Leonard Nimoy when you draw in a Spock hairdo. Once when in Saskatoon on official PM business, he tried to have a conversation with a young John Diefenbaker (later a PM himself, at that time a newsboy) and was dismissed by the kid, who said he had work to do.
Robert Borden: PM during WWI. Once ran on the campaign slogan “A White Canada” (yes, that’s what he meant). Almost managed to get Canada to take over administration of the West Indies and Belize.
Arthur Meighen: Somewhat responsible for the Governor General having no power (via the King-Byng affair). Practiced debate by giving speeches to empty rooms.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Crazy as a loon. Communed with spirits, such as his dead mother and several of his dead dogs (all named Pat, except the one named Bob), and asked them for political advice. His diaries hint that he enjoyed prostitutes. PM during WWII, he admired Hitler and initially thought he would win.
R.B. Bennett: A teetotaller, except when he secretly drank alcohol. An ardent anti-communist and free-market idealist, until he copied FDR’s New Deal. Despite being criticized for not caring about the poor, he gave away a lot of his personal fortune to the poor.
Louis St. Laurent: Nicknamed Uncle Louis during the 1949 election campaign. Was coerced into politics at the age of 60. First PM to live at the official residence at 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa.
John Diefenbaker: Crazy eyes. Hated JFK, who called him a boring son of a bitch. Sent home from the army after being hit in the head with a shovel, though it was suspected that the injury was psychosomatic. Tried to get elected to parliament for 16 years before succeeding in 1940.
Lester B. Pearson: Nobel Peace Prize winner who was held midair and threatened by LBJ after he metaphorically “pissed on his rug.” Semi-pro baseball player.
Pierre Trudeau: Wrote a dissertation on communism and Christianity. Decriminalized gay sex. Hung out with John and Yoko, and was friends with Castro. His wife slept around and hung out at Studio 54. Said “fuddle-duddle” when he meant something harsher that starts with F and ends with “off”.
Joe Clark: Failed out of law school. Had his luggage lost on an official state visit to the Middle East – on the same trip, he accidentally bumped into the wrong end of a bayonet. Youngest PM ever (40 at the time of swearing-in) but only lasted 9 months.
John Turner: Qualified for the 1948 Olympic team in the 100 meters. Saved the life of John Diefenbaker in Barbados.
Brian Mulroney: Most successful Conservative PM ever, but now widely hated. Big chin. Sang for tips in his early years. Possibly corrupt. Though conservative, he opposed capital punishment and was pro-choice, and also introduced new taxes.
Kim Campbell: Never presided over a sitting parliament, because of the timing of her leadership. Only PM to pose naked in a widely-circulated photo (to my knowledge).
Jean Chretien: Paralyzed at an early age by Bell’s palsy. Possibly corrupt. Shoved a protester.
Paul Martin: Shipbuilder and son of a politician. Mr. Dithers. Possibly corrupt.
Stephen Harper: Had a 95.7% high school grade average and was on Reach For the Top. Played the piano and sang a Beatles song in front of an audience. Is the first PM to employ a personal stylist. On a related note, he rocks the vest and hat.
Hope you enjoyed this and have a happy Canada Day!
John A. MacDonald: Big drunkard. Met his wife (and first cousin) on a trip to London paid for by winnings at a card game called “Loo.” He’s the guy on the $10 bill. Because of a physical resemblance, he was mistaken for Benjamin Disraeli’s ghost at the British P.M.’s funeral.
Alexander Mackenzie: A stonemason, and some of his buildings still stand today. Anti-drinking. Oversaw the building of the Parliament, and included an escape staircase so he could avoid constituents.
John Abbott: Great-grandfather of Christopher Plummer. Signed a manifesto calling for Canada to join the U.S. (before he was PM). Famous for saying “I hate politics.”
John Thompson: Not the same guy as the Georgetown basketball coach. Originally declined the post of Prime Minister because he was Catholic, and anti-Catholic prejudice was strong enough to make his ascendance unrealistic. 5’7”, 225 pounds.
Mackenzie Bowell: I always thought he should have had a movement named after him. Was undone by his own cabinet, members of which set up his political demise. He called them a “nest of traitors.”
Charles Tupper: Didn’t invent the ware. Oldest person to become PM, at 74, and only held the post for 68 days, shortest on record. Which is ironic, because he was the longest-lived PM (94 years).
Wilfrid Laurier: He’s the dude on the $5 bill who looks like Leonard Nimoy when you draw in a Spock hairdo. Once when in Saskatoon on official PM business, he tried to have a conversation with a young John Diefenbaker (later a PM himself, at that time a newsboy) and was dismissed by the kid, who said he had work to do.
Robert Borden: PM during WWI. Once ran on the campaign slogan “A White Canada” (yes, that’s what he meant). Almost managed to get Canada to take over administration of the West Indies and Belize.
Arthur Meighen: Somewhat responsible for the Governor General having no power (via the King-Byng affair). Practiced debate by giving speeches to empty rooms.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Crazy as a loon. Communed with spirits, such as his dead mother and several of his dead dogs (all named Pat, except the one named Bob), and asked them for political advice. His diaries hint that he enjoyed prostitutes. PM during WWII, he admired Hitler and initially thought he would win.
R.B. Bennett: A teetotaller, except when he secretly drank alcohol. An ardent anti-communist and free-market idealist, until he copied FDR’s New Deal. Despite being criticized for not caring about the poor, he gave away a lot of his personal fortune to the poor.
Louis St. Laurent: Nicknamed Uncle Louis during the 1949 election campaign. Was coerced into politics at the age of 60. First PM to live at the official residence at 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa.
John Diefenbaker: Crazy eyes. Hated JFK, who called him a boring son of a bitch. Sent home from the army after being hit in the head with a shovel, though it was suspected that the injury was psychosomatic. Tried to get elected to parliament for 16 years before succeeding in 1940.
Lester B. Pearson: Nobel Peace Prize winner who was held midair and threatened by LBJ after he metaphorically “pissed on his rug.” Semi-pro baseball player.
Pierre Trudeau: Wrote a dissertation on communism and Christianity. Decriminalized gay sex. Hung out with John and Yoko, and was friends with Castro. His wife slept around and hung out at Studio 54. Said “fuddle-duddle” when he meant something harsher that starts with F and ends with “off”.
Joe Clark: Failed out of law school. Had his luggage lost on an official state visit to the Middle East – on the same trip, he accidentally bumped into the wrong end of a bayonet. Youngest PM ever (40 at the time of swearing-in) but only lasted 9 months.
John Turner: Qualified for the 1948 Olympic team in the 100 meters. Saved the life of John Diefenbaker in Barbados.
Brian Mulroney: Most successful Conservative PM ever, but now widely hated. Big chin. Sang for tips in his early years. Possibly corrupt. Though conservative, he opposed capital punishment and was pro-choice, and also introduced new taxes.
Kim Campbell: Never presided over a sitting parliament, because of the timing of her leadership. Only PM to pose naked in a widely-circulated photo (to my knowledge).
Jean Chretien: Paralyzed at an early age by Bell’s palsy. Possibly corrupt. Shoved a protester.
Paul Martin: Shipbuilder and son of a politician. Mr. Dithers. Possibly corrupt.
Stephen Harper: Had a 95.7% high school grade average and was on Reach For the Top. Played the piano and sang a Beatles song in front of an audience. Is the first PM to employ a personal stylist. On a related note, he rocks the vest and hat.
Hope you enjoyed this and have a happy Canada Day!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)