Dave Ng is a scientist, not a political scientist, and doesn’t actually know too much about the candidates, but decides to review them anyway (First up: Stephen Harper).

That would go something like this:

STEPHEN HARPER: Voting for a harpist would be cool. I mean, I’m no classical musician, but that Stephen Harper seems downright magical on the harp – a real virtuoso. His fingers just seem to glide over the strings. His technique and speed are unmatched, and his concentration, you can see it in his eyes. It’s like he’s Eddie Van Halen, but on the harp, and with a sweater vest I guess.

– – –

Well, it’s election time, and I probably fit in that category where I know a bit, but probably not as much as I need to about the candidates. So as a public service, I’m going to have a little fun and review each of the candidates myself as if I know nothing about them. More importantly (plus hopefully, a bait to cull some much needed comments to this blog), I’d like to hear what you think about Mr. Stephen Harper.

Should we vote for him? Why? Or why not? Thumbs up? Thumbs down? Leave some comments, serious or otherwise. Links about his good or bad deeds would also be good.

(Other reviews: Stephen Harper | Stéphane Dion | Elizabeth May)

Related Topics

terryman

David (@ng_dave) is Faculty at the Michael Smith Labs. His writing has appeared in places such as McSweeney's, The Walrus, and boingboing.net. He plans on using Terry as another place to highlight the mostly science-y links he appreciates. In fact, if you liked this one, you might also like his main site generally - this can be found at popperfont.net.

7 Responses to “Dave Ng is a scientist, not a political scientist, and doesn’t actually know too much about the candidates, but decides to review them anyway (First up: Stephen Harper).”

  1. Ian

    As a scientist, this article beautifully summarizes all I need to know about Harper:

    http://www.dangardner.ca/Coljan3008.html

    This is a truly amazing statement. Mr. Harper implicitly acknowledges that his claims about crime are not supported by data. But that doesn’t matter, he says. What matters is subjective perception. Rational inquiry isn’t the best way to discover the truth. Feeling is.

    This is much bigger than the debate about crime policies. It is an epistemological claim of staggering primitiveness.

    Ignore statistics. Forget rational inquiry and science. Damn the Enlightenment. Our feelings reveal what is true.

    Coming from an 18th-century king, this would be an appalling defence of ignorance. From a 21st-century prime minister, it is much worse.

  2. crf

    Tape Harper in his ads wearing a sweater, and emoting. Turn down the volume and put on Meryn Cadell’s “the sweater”.

    OMG, I have such a crush on him.

    WEAR. THE SWEATER. TO PARLIAMENT.

Leave a Reply

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.