Archive for the ‘Nutwatcher’ Category

Ms. Smith earlier on Tuesday wrote a letter to the Calgary Herald extolling the benefits of saving the Health Resource Centre.

Two doctors wrote letters to the editor calling her out on her twisted viewpoint and twisting of the truth. They are posted below with links to their original pages on www.CalgaryHerald.com.

Letter #1

Ask the experts

Re: “Province must intervene to save HRC,” Danielle Smith, Opinion, Aug. 24.

I think Steve Miller and his orthopedic and anesthesia colleagues do a very good job of the hip and knee arthroplasties they perform at the HRC. So I agree with that sentiment in Danielle Smith’s piece. What she did not state, however, is that arthroplasty at the HRC is confined to the healthiest patients. The higher-risk patients are all done at the AHS hospital sites. It is typical for private facilities to provide care only to the healthiest patients who have the fewest complications and the lowest hospital costs. If Smith wishes to use superlatives to describe care in private facilities, she needs to compare similar populations of patients. Perhaps if Steve had limited the size of his new facility, and done a better job of managing his investors, without biting off more than he could chew, then AHS would not have had to intervene legally to protect the patients who were committed to HRC. Smith might start to educate herself on this topic by reading the account by Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of

Medicine (Google: Marcia Angell, Privatizing health care is not the answer: lessons from the United States. Canadian Medical Association Journal, Oct. 21, 2008.) What Angell may have forgotten about this topic is more than Smith will ever know. I encourage Albertans to listen to people who know what they are talking about.

Charles MacAdams, MD, Calgary

Read more

And letter #2:

One Sided

Re: “Province must intervene to save HRC,” Danielle Smith, Opinion, Aug. 24.

I have not made up my mind whether private surgical clinics such as the HRC are good for Albertans or not. However, I find Danielle Smith’s column interesting. To me, it is most telling that Smith seems to throw her support completely behind the HRC while condemning the Alberta government when she states: “The facts of this case are yet to be determined in court, however, HRC’s version of events is as follows . . . . ” So it seems like she has made up her mind after only hearing one side of the story. One must ask if Albertans would want the leader of a political party, much less someone who aspires to be the leader of the province, to lack such basic skills as fact gathering and the patience to hear both sides of the story before making up her mind on an issue.

Ken Cheung, MD, Calgary

Read more

Recently a website has come to my attention called Chandlerlist.info (Twitter). The author of that website writes of a conspiracy being committed by a Craig Chandler (Twitter, organization), specifically in that Mr. Chandler is trying to influence politics by creating “proxy candidates” to run for him because, in theory, he himself cannot run because of past public relations issues.

Three quick points for the anonymous writer:

1. The legal problems you just created for yourself are legion. You made a good choice by getting your domain name done by proxy and hiding your private details, but eventually you’ll be found out. You’ll definitely be found out if you continue to write about Mr. Chandler seeing that (a) he’s a smart guy and (b) he has smart people with him in his posse. I suggest you consult a lawyer and be prepared for the legal eventuality.
2. Understand that calling Mr. Chandler a “snake,” a “fiend,” leader of a “cult,” or a possessor of “fringe” beliefs does not help you or your argument. Rather, show how he’s a fringe person, show how he’s a fiendish law-suit junky, and show how he is duplicitous. Most people do not know who Mr. Chandler is or how active he has been in Albertan politics, and you’ll likely be the first contrarian voice to him that they will find. If they find a mean-spirited rant they’ll skip your opinion. If they find logical, cited, and informative content they’ll continue reading. Make your presentation count.
3. Please, oh please, understand that Chandler has different politics than you but he does have body of people with him that shares his beliefs. To downgrade and insult him is to insult a great many Albertans, albeit they’re in the minority. But being in the minority does not matter since all Albertans and all individuals should command respect and dignity from people. Respect is key here.

Finally, while you might just find that Craig Chandler is evil incarnate or what-have-you… he does want a better Alberta. It might not be like the better Alberta in your vision, or in many others, but he sees something on the horizon and he’s reaching for it. He is training people, getting people together, and trying to achieve something here. He is leading.

He has also been one of the only political guys in Alberta–nay, in the country–that have actively sought out young Canadians to teach them the campaign craft and inclusion into politics. As an example, for his Leadership Institute event on political campaigning that he had a two months ago (I wrote about it, actually, here) he posted numerous times to the University of Calgary’s Wildrose and Conservative campus club facebook groups, contacted dozens of young politicos, bugged professors and teachers to plug his event, and even gave me–an ‘evil’ Liberal–a $65 discount so that a young, curious politically-minded young man could attend the two-day training seminar.

Personally, I find a lot of his ideas illogical and based on false assumptions. At the end of the day I can recognize he’s invigorating people and getting people involved, though. And that there, of engaging people, is worth quite a bit and should be noted in anyone’s appraisal of Mr. Chandler.

Attending her Calgary speech was interesting to say the least. Notable things include her denying evolution, making fake debates about climate change, declaring women shouldn’t vote, and that everything west of Calgary should be taken over by the USA.

Personally, I would sooner die than become American. And denial of suffrage to women and the denigration of science are simply horrid policies.

Although her positions may boggle the mind: that’s the point. She is aiming, in an almost tactical and academic matter, to attack the things that would rile people and gather attention toward her books. She referred to her books almost eight times during the entire escapade so, honestly, it’s quite obvious why she was there–to sell and sign books.

And the best way to sell books? Controversy.

That Ottawa stunt was planned. There were not 2,000 but only 170 that showed up to protest her. The police didn’t advise her to leave Ottawa but stated simply that it was a single option out of many and that her organization was terribly inadequate to handle the attendees. Also, the change of venue in Calgary was too quick, too easy–it tends to take a month to register an event for the Red & White club and, obviously, she had booked it well in advance. As noted by Ezra Levant (who introduced Coulter) after Ottawa the attendance for the Calgary event doubled. It’s a set up. It’s faked. It is that simple.

But that’s not the point, really. To sell books is the aim of her game, and she stirred up enough controversy to get that attention and get those sales. There. It’s still not her words or how ignorant she is, either.

These are  not the core of what she represents. (Side Note: You can still be only in it for the book sales and make some form of a point.)

Free speech, even at the cost of common decency, is her showcased ideological bent. Ethics of free speech doesn’t matter to her and only the gain of controversy is her aim. There is nothing more to it. When I asked her a question during her Q&A period tonight I asked about her thoughts on 1 Timothy 6:12 where the bible informs the reader that people have to keep their promises and make good on their commitments along with “fighting the good fight”. Coulter said that it wasn’t her duty, nor the politicians’, to answer for their promises or be held to any standard. She then went into a diatribe on how the USA wasn’t founded on any responsibility to others–which was odd, considering that the locale of this speech and this question was in Canada.

(As a side note: I rarely use the bible in political arguments. In this case I did so I could circumvent the howling that would have went on by the polarized audience if I used secular reasonings. Also, self-described conservatives tend to have a tough time refuting the premises of the bible and that makes a whole subsection of ‘dodging the question’ both out of order and political dead ends. Using the bible forces them to answer the question, really, albeit Ms. Coulter still dodged it none-the-less by babbling on about the ‘greatness’ of the USA.)

There is no duty to common sense and common decency in her book. It’s not there.

The Conservative Party of Canada have constantly called for the destruction of the Human Rights Commission, a policy that Ann Coulter heartily endorses. Wait a second, however–although Coulter’s steadfast, definitely outlandish, wish for abuses for free speech to be allowed is unquestionable the Conservative’s wish for open communication and free speech is not. Our Conservatives (note the upper-case lettering) are not as crass as she. However,  they are as malign and in the opposite direction with regards to speech. Instead of book sales they want votes (like any other party) and (here’s where the anti-Coulter comes in) shut down freedoms.

Oh, and I should probably make the argument that the Conservatives are anti-freedom of speech and anti-open government. This is easy. Frightfully easy, in fact. To make such an argument  is simple since Harper is rather brazen in his actions. Just check out the following list:

• The Conservatives shut down Dr. Tushingham from promoting his book on climate change over ideological qualms.
• Gagged Rights and Democracy staff.
• Fired Linda Keen of the Nuclear Safety Commission when she spoke out, after weeks of roadblocks set up by the Conservatives, on the topic of nuclear safety. Medical isotopes, needed for cancer treatment and other medical procedures, were to become scarce according to her (and did so) and, well, the Conservatives couldn’t have that scandal and fired her.
• Smeared and silenced Richard Colvin for providing testimony under subpoena.
• Hiding our brave dead soldiers from the public.
• Shutting down the Military Police Complaints Commission.
• Conduct overt exercises in sabotaging parliamentary committees (they even made a printed guide for mass consumption amongst their aids!)
• This above noted handbook also teaches people how to hide reports, shut down Access to Information requests, and sabotage the spread of documentation on Afghan detainees
• Cut KAIROS funding.
• Then, on top of all of this, the Tories are shutting down the only the offices for the Human Rights Commission in Vancouver, Toronto, and Halifax, where almost 70% of the human rights complaints are filed. So expect the number of complaints to drop dramatically since the Conservatives are shutting down access to these offices.
• Also (as noted in the above linked to article), in 2006 the Conservatives shut down the Court Challenges Program and close Status of Women Canada offices across the country as their first orders of business.

So lets recap: Coulter is interested in her personal gain. The Conservatives are in politics for their own  gains, votes or otherwise. Coulter showcases unfettered free speech. Conservatives want to clamp down on such endeavours. Note the similarities in the first two and the conflict of the last two. So before anyone tries to tie Coulter to the Conservatives (or conservatives) they should make clear this distinction in their standpoints on freedom of speech (amongst other freedoms).

So if you see any Conservatives argue that Coulter is a Canadian conservative, or that Coulter is something to look up to as a conservative… Well, obviously that’s not the case. If at any time you see a Conservative thump their chest over freedom of speech, and how the HRC harms it, re-examine the situation because their words and their actions are not one and the same. It’d be blatant hypocrisy since Coulter is diametrically opposed ideologically to the Conservative Party of Canada, and the acts do no line up with the words of the Conservatives.

Something is definitely rotten in the state of Denmark.

Who else is talking?

An enlightened savage is talking quite enlightened about Coulter.

Big City Liberal talks big. (1) (2)

Jim Currie pokes Coulter in the eye.

Lawrence Martin, of the Globe and Mail, writes on ‘A capital where freedom’s in short supply’ (fixed)

CBC video (Interview), Power & Politics interviews Coulter

Ann Coulter talks about Vice-President-Provost of the University of Ottawa’s Tuesday night bikini wax escapades.