I tried to kill off Winston last spring, but it proved harder than I thought. I hope that the second time works. Geoff Meeker has prompted a discussion that (while at once depressing and interesting) gives me a good opportunity to downsize Orwellian News and lay off its entire staff.
This blog was born in frustration with the Telegram, so it's only fitting that it dies in frustration with the Telegram. I have already had my say about the relationship between newspapers and blogs, so there's nothing to be gained by making that argument again. And reading professional journalists pour gas on flame wars, and then haughtily slag bloggers when they object, is just too much to stomach when you're writing for free. As I wrote today in an email to another blogger, I have said most of the things I wanted to say, so it's time for Winston to take a walk in the snow (or a long walk on a short wharf, depending on your metaphorical inclination). I see that Peter Jackson has already pounced on Geoff's blog; he wasn't funny last summer, and he's still not funny, but that's what passes for wit in the newsroom, I suppose.
The point I made on Geoff Meeker's blog is the same one I'd like to end on: there is a reason why the blogs critical of the Williams regime are so much better than the pro-government commentary.
Showing posts with label Tely Trouble. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Tely Trouble. Show all posts
Monday, November 9, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Of Horses and Newspapers
From today's front-page news:
'He still hopes to make the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project a reality before leaving office. "I'm definitely going to hang around to see if I can get it done," said the premier. But Williams said he's not going to stick around forever "to beat a dead horse" if a deal cannot be sealed, nor will he sign a bad deal for the sake of getting one done while in office.'
Look at the front page of today's Telegram (you may need to re-focus your eyes to take in all of the photo), and tell me that's it not all about him. Try and stomach the tired references to his business life and his accomplishments and, if you can, read and reflect on the last line of the article. Makes you wonder just who is beating a dead horse.
'He still hopes to make the Lower Churchill hydroelectric project a reality before leaving office. "I'm definitely going to hang around to see if I can get it done," said the premier. But Williams said he's not going to stick around forever "to beat a dead horse" if a deal cannot be sealed, nor will he sign a bad deal for the sake of getting one done while in office.'
Look at the front page of today's Telegram (you may need to re-focus your eyes to take in all of the photo), and tell me that's it not all about him. Try and stomach the tired references to his business life and his accomplishments and, if you can, read and reflect on the last line of the article. Makes you wonder just who is beating a dead horse.
Monday, June 15, 2009
The Tide of Public Discourse
If there is a dominant trend at the Telegram these days (aside from the proliferation of emotive, human-interest stories on the front page), it's the reaction against criticism of the Williams regime.
Like Russell Wangersky, Peter Jackson wants to play "devil's advocate" and chide those who blow problems "out of proportion."
Jackson starts with an overstatement: "Here's a thought. Is it possible Ross Wiseman is not the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history? The idea goes against the overwhelming tide of public discourse lately."
Exaggerating the opposite position (i.e., setting up the proverbial straw man) draws on one of the most common logical fallacies.
In Jackson's case, he caricatures the debate over Wiseman's tenure by opening with two extreme assertions that misrepresent the public debate, giving the false impression that,
A) People critical of Wiseman believe that he is "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history."
B) Belief in A is part of an "overwhelming tide of public disourse lately."
With his straw man neatly set up, Jackson chides the reader to "give the man his due," since Wiseman is not causing the problems at Health, which is not really in a state of crisis anyways but rather "still chugging along, wheels intact." "Cancer tests notwithstanding," Jackson claims, "most of the problems in health care boil down to a perpetual lack of funds."
It's hard to know where to start. First, if the extensive reporting by the CBC has demonstrated anything, it's that the problems are not all due to a lack of funds. Ineffective management -- including poor communication and inept leadership -- has led to poor morale among physicians. If anything, the media's focus on the Cameron Inquiry has obscured the larger problems beyond oncology. The recent exodus of specialists in a number of critical areas is, pace Jackson, evidence of systemic crisis in the system. Ask the NLMA, and they will tell you that it's not all about money.
Second, the only person I know who is publicly stating that Wiseman is the "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history" is Jackson. In an earlier post, I called Wiseman the "most incompetent member of cabinet," and other blogs have made similar claims. I suspect that Wiseman is trying his best, and chances are that he's a nice enough fellow who is out of his depth; but that's not good enough for the Health portfolio. I'm not sure what hospital Jackson has been visiting lately, but anyone who has a loved one needing heart surgery can tell you just how bad things are.
Third, just where is this "overwhelming tide of public discourse"? Where is the avalanche of public criticism of the Williams government? Where are the marchers and the protesters? Where are the devastating debates in the House of Assembly? Where is the large Official Opposition waiting to take power? Where are the newspaper columnists rallying public opinion against the provincial government? Where are even the low poll numbers?
Most of the sustained criticism of Williams has been restricted to a handful of blogs and the online comments sections of the CBC. Hardly an overwhelming tide. The latest CRAPoll showed that Williams still enjoys strong popular support. The House of Assembly, which sits as infrequently as possible, is now closed.
If Jackson wants to be an apologist for Danny Williams and Ross Wiseman, so be it. But he should be honest about his agenda and not hide behind some phamtom tide of public discourse.
When journalists believe that Danny Williams, of all people, needs protection from public criticism, you know that we're living through strange days indeed. Joey Smallwood faced Ray Guy. Brian Peckford faced the Sunday Express. Danny Williams faces...well, I leave that for you to determine. For those of you who like to blame everything on the internet, check this out in today's Slate.
And for those of you who, like Jackson, believe that the problems at Eastern Health are, "the price we pay for universal health care," keep in mind that the U.S. pays far more per capita on health care than we do, yet tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and the U.S. has a lower life expectancy rate than Canada. If money were the only probem, then the US would have the world's best health care system.
Definitely Not Ray Guy Update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=261187&sc=86
Like Russell Wangersky, Peter Jackson wants to play "devil's advocate" and chide those who blow problems "out of proportion."
Jackson starts with an overstatement: "Here's a thought. Is it possible Ross Wiseman is not the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history? The idea goes against the overwhelming tide of public discourse lately."
Exaggerating the opposite position (i.e., setting up the proverbial straw man) draws on one of the most common logical fallacies.
In Jackson's case, he caricatures the debate over Wiseman's tenure by opening with two extreme assertions that misrepresent the public debate, giving the false impression that,
A) People critical of Wiseman believe that he is "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history."
B) Belief in A is part of an "overwhelming tide of public disourse lately."
With his straw man neatly set up, Jackson chides the reader to "give the man his due," since Wiseman is not causing the problems at Health, which is not really in a state of crisis anyways but rather "still chugging along, wheels intact." "Cancer tests notwithstanding," Jackson claims, "most of the problems in health care boil down to a perpetual lack of funds."
It's hard to know where to start. First, if the extensive reporting by the CBC has demonstrated anything, it's that the problems are not all due to a lack of funds. Ineffective management -- including poor communication and inept leadership -- has led to poor morale among physicians. If anything, the media's focus on the Cameron Inquiry has obscured the larger problems beyond oncology. The recent exodus of specialists in a number of critical areas is, pace Jackson, evidence of systemic crisis in the system. Ask the NLMA, and they will tell you that it's not all about money.
Second, the only person I know who is publicly stating that Wiseman is the "the most incompetent health minister since the dawn of recorded history" is Jackson. In an earlier post, I called Wiseman the "most incompetent member of cabinet," and other blogs have made similar claims. I suspect that Wiseman is trying his best, and chances are that he's a nice enough fellow who is out of his depth; but that's not good enough for the Health portfolio. I'm not sure what hospital Jackson has been visiting lately, but anyone who has a loved one needing heart surgery can tell you just how bad things are.
Third, just where is this "overwhelming tide of public discourse"? Where is the avalanche of public criticism of the Williams government? Where are the marchers and the protesters? Where are the devastating debates in the House of Assembly? Where is the large Official Opposition waiting to take power? Where are the newspaper columnists rallying public opinion against the provincial government? Where are even the low poll numbers?
Most of the sustained criticism of Williams has been restricted to a handful of blogs and the online comments sections of the CBC. Hardly an overwhelming tide. The latest CRAPoll showed that Williams still enjoys strong popular support. The House of Assembly, which sits as infrequently as possible, is now closed.
If Jackson wants to be an apologist for Danny Williams and Ross Wiseman, so be it. But he should be honest about his agenda and not hide behind some phamtom tide of public discourse.
When journalists believe that Danny Williams, of all people, needs protection from public criticism, you know that we're living through strange days indeed. Joey Smallwood faced Ray Guy. Brian Peckford faced the Sunday Express. Danny Williams faces...well, I leave that for you to determine. For those of you who like to blame everything on the internet, check this out in today's Slate.
And for those of you who, like Jackson, believe that the problems at Eastern Health are, "the price we pay for universal health care," keep in mind that the U.S. pays far more per capita on health care than we do, yet tens of millions of Americans have no health insurance and the U.S. has a lower life expectancy rate than Canada. If money were the only probem, then the US would have the world's best health care system.
Definitely Not Ray Guy Update:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=261187&sc=86
Saturday, June 13, 2009
The Trouble with "Balanced" Journalism, II
Russell Wangersky is at it again this morning, offering another excuse for Danny Williams.
After discussing his own penchant for jokes and then moving to the Raitt scandal, Wangersky raises the "public vs. private" binary and says this about Williams:
"Premier Danny Williams recently said in public that people at Eastern Health "should be shot" for putting out a press release on cancer testing errors late on a Friday afternoon, and without making anyone available to comment on the information in the news release.
Williams used a pretty common colloquial expression - but it wasn't so much the language he used, as it was where he decided to use it.
And he's worn it ever since - even though it's something plenty of other people have said, and that plenty of other people will say again."
Don't forget, it's hard to have a perfect public face." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=260535&sc=86
As I said at the time, the problems with Williams' hyperbolic language is not just its offensiveness but rather the fact that he let himself off the hook: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/politics-of-hyperbole.html
Far from having "worn it ever since," Williams received fairly light criticism, with the bulk of negative commentary restricted to bloggers.
I wish Wangersky would stop trying to justify Williams' bullying, but he seems determined to impose a balanced interpretation on imbalanced actions. There are, of course, always two sides to a story -- the proverbial "he said, she said" -- but that does not mean that both sides are equally correct or equally justifiable. Trying to find a balanced explanation for why Williams said health care officials should be shot only serves to justify his verbal bullying and public scapegoating of civil servants.
The problem is not, as Wangersky would have us believe, a question of where Williams made his remarks. This incident cannot be written off as an accident of geography.
It was the deadly serious way he uttered the threat: this was not meant to be funny and no one laughed.
It was the deadly serious subject -- cancer testing -- and the highly emotional environment in which he spoke publicly before the cameras.
It was the important issue of responsibility, and the effort to deny that the provincial government should shoulder any blame. As I noted at the time, Williams insisted on calling Eastern Health "them," while he freely uses "us" for other analagous agencies: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/political-teflon.html
It cannot be written off as a common local colloquialism, either. The phrase "someone should be shot" is not as common as Williams' defenders like to pretend. It cannot be excused as a facet of some unique local dialect, used frequently in the East End. I spent most of my life in St. John's, and I cannot think of a single time (other than out hunting with my father), when I heard someone say that something should be shot. The phrase is no more common -- and is no more acceptable -- than on the Mainland.
It cannot be excused as a simple slip-up, something that we should overlook because no one can be expected to be perfect in public. If this was simple mix-up -- if Williams' misspoke, as it were -- then all he needed to do was say that he misspoke. A simple explanation that he misspoke in the heat of the moment would mitigate the seriousness of the incident. Politicians slip up verbally all the time and apologize all the time when they do. We don't expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to own up to their mistakes.
When weighing the type of neat public/private formula that Wangersky lays out, we need to keep a couple of things in mind.
First, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the target and think about how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of such a verbal threat.
Second, we should think about the effects: what did the verbal shooting incident accomplish? It focused attention towards Williams and his anger and away from the actual chain of responsibility.
It was only after tenacious investigative reporting by CBC that the truth began to come out, months after Williams insisted that Eastern Health alone was entirely to blame: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/02/eastern-health-memos-602.html
In the meantime, the problems with cancer testing continue: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/11/missed-cancer-tests-611.html
Finally, we need to address the question of identity. Wangersky makes it seem that it's just a question of public versus private, not one of who is doing the talking. This may hold water when we're talking about private citizens, but it does not apply when we're dealing with elected officials, particularly the premier when he is speaking as leader of the provincial government.
No one expects perfection. We expect and deserve accountability.
After discussing his own penchant for jokes and then moving to the Raitt scandal, Wangersky raises the "public vs. private" binary and says this about Williams:
"Premier Danny Williams recently said in public that people at Eastern Health "should be shot" for putting out a press release on cancer testing errors late on a Friday afternoon, and without making anyone available to comment on the information in the news release.
Williams used a pretty common colloquial expression - but it wasn't so much the language he used, as it was where he decided to use it.
And he's worn it ever since - even though it's something plenty of other people have said, and that plenty of other people will say again."
Don't forget, it's hard to have a perfect public face." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=260535&sc=86
As I said at the time, the problems with Williams' hyperbolic language is not just its offensiveness but rather the fact that he let himself off the hook: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/politics-of-hyperbole.html
Far from having "worn it ever since," Williams received fairly light criticism, with the bulk of negative commentary restricted to bloggers.
I wish Wangersky would stop trying to justify Williams' bullying, but he seems determined to impose a balanced interpretation on imbalanced actions. There are, of course, always two sides to a story -- the proverbial "he said, she said" -- but that does not mean that both sides are equally correct or equally justifiable. Trying to find a balanced explanation for why Williams said health care officials should be shot only serves to justify his verbal bullying and public scapegoating of civil servants.
The problem is not, as Wangersky would have us believe, a question of where Williams made his remarks. This incident cannot be written off as an accident of geography.
It was the deadly serious way he uttered the threat: this was not meant to be funny and no one laughed.
It was the deadly serious subject -- cancer testing -- and the highly emotional environment in which he spoke publicly before the cameras.
It was the important issue of responsibility, and the effort to deny that the provincial government should shoulder any blame. As I noted at the time, Williams insisted on calling Eastern Health "them," while he freely uses "us" for other analagous agencies: http://orwellianspin.blogspot.com/2009/04/political-teflon.html
It cannot be written off as a common local colloquialism, either. The phrase "someone should be shot" is not as common as Williams' defenders like to pretend. It cannot be excused as a facet of some unique local dialect, used frequently in the East End. I spent most of my life in St. John's, and I cannot think of a single time (other than out hunting with my father), when I heard someone say that something should be shot. The phrase is no more common -- and is no more acceptable -- than on the Mainland.
It cannot be excused as a simple slip-up, something that we should overlook because no one can be expected to be perfect in public. If this was simple mix-up -- if Williams' misspoke, as it were -- then all he needed to do was say that he misspoke. A simple explanation that he misspoke in the heat of the moment would mitigate the seriousness of the incident. Politicians slip up verbally all the time and apologize all the time when they do. We don't expect them to be perfect, but we do expect them to own up to their mistakes.
When weighing the type of neat public/private formula that Wangersky lays out, we need to keep a couple of things in mind.
First, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the target and think about how we would feel if we were on the receiving end of such a verbal threat.
Second, we should think about the effects: what did the verbal shooting incident accomplish? It focused attention towards Williams and his anger and away from the actual chain of responsibility.
It was only after tenacious investigative reporting by CBC that the truth began to come out, months after Williams insisted that Eastern Health alone was entirely to blame: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/02/eastern-health-memos-602.html
In the meantime, the problems with cancer testing continue: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/newfoundland-labrador/story/2009/06/11/missed-cancer-tests-611.html
Finally, we need to address the question of identity. Wangersky makes it seem that it's just a question of public versus private, not one of who is doing the talking. This may hold water when we're talking about private citizens, but it does not apply when we're dealing with elected officials, particularly the premier when he is speaking as leader of the provincial government.
No one expects perfection. We expect and deserve accountability.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
The Trouble with "Balanced" Journalism
Russell Wangersky's column in today's Telegram offers an excellent example of the problem I discussed yesterday. Wangersky offers a thoughtful analysis of Williams' condescending attitude towards Lorraine Michael, but near the end of the column he pulls back to offer this balance: "It's a nasty trait, and one that is not an attractive side of a type-A provincial politician who has otherwise managed to use his combative personal approach to serve this province quite well." http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=259007&sc=86
Wangersky didn't follow up on this assertion, so we're left with no evidentiary basis on which to judge his claim that Williams' combative personal approach has served NL well. But Williams' ability to bully Paul Martin in 2005 is the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps there is a rich body of evidence out there to demonstrate that Williams' combination of hyperbole, rage, bullying, name-calling, threatening, and recklessness has worked where a less combative approach would have failed. But journalists, like historians, labour under the burden of positive proof. If Wangersky wants to assert that Williams' "combative personal approach" (a sanitized term for bullying) is largely effective, then he should provide evidence for this claim. If there is a way to justify a style of leadership that invokes death threats and charges of treason, I'd like to see it. If there is a way to provide a balanced justification of why Williams can say "someone should be shot over there," it speaks volumes about the sorry state of NL's political culture.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Williams' politics of rage and revenge has not served the province well. From the so-called fiscal "shaft" to the failed foreign policy initiative, Williams' combativeness has hurt NL. With health care and the fishery stumbling from one crisis to the next, it's hard to imagine how personal combativeness has helped to do anything except distract the public from policy failures. Not only that, but in a number of cases, Williams' combative approach has actually created new problems, such as the ongoing leadership crisis at MUN, the unresolved issues with the NLMA, the refusal to investigate electoral irregularities, the failure to pass whistleblower legislation, et cetera.
In trying to provide a balanced approach to Williams' bullying, Wangersky undermines the very point that he is trying to make: Williams' condescending attitude toward Michael is unnacceptable. By claiming that this combative personal approach has otherwise served the province well, Wangersky seems to be suggesting that the problem here is not with Williams' behaviour but with his target. He seems to be saying that while it's unacceptable to bully Lorraine Michael, it's acceptable (indeed, it serves the province well) for Williams to wage personal war against others.
Most of the time, I admire Wangersky's journalism. While I find his meandering metaphorical style sometimes irritating, I respect his judgement. And I know it's easy for bloggers to criticize journalists who have to be careful not to burn political bridges. But there is something wrong when professional journalists feel compelled to balance criticism of Williams by justifying his pattern of bullying. Williams' treatment of Michael was not an isolated incident but rather part of a long, well-documented pattern of abuse that includes public death threats.
We need to recognize that we're facing a public choice. Either Williams' histrionics matters or it doesn't. Either it's a serious public issue or it can be dismissed as mere political theatre. I believe that it's a serious issue, and I think many journalists do, too. But I also believe that we cannot cherry-pick incidents and overlook everything else. There are times in political history -- and we're living through such a time right now -- when trying to balance criticism with defence actually perpetuates and enables the very problems that journalists seek to remedy. By claiming that Williams' histrionics has otherwise served the province well, Wangersky is feeding the pernicious myth that bullying is acceptable because it delivers results.
In assessing Williams' leadership, yesterday's editorial in the Telegram asked, "Wasn't it Lady MacBeth who doth protest too much?" http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=258567&sc=80
A more apt Shakespeare reference would have been to "Hamlet," when Marcellus says "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
Wangersky didn't follow up on this assertion, so we're left with no evidentiary basis on which to judge his claim that Williams' combative personal approach has served NL well. But Williams' ability to bully Paul Martin in 2005 is the exception that proves the rule. Perhaps there is a rich body of evidence out there to demonstrate that Williams' combination of hyperbole, rage, bullying, name-calling, threatening, and recklessness has worked where a less combative approach would have failed. But journalists, like historians, labour under the burden of positive proof. If Wangersky wants to assert that Williams' "combative personal approach" (a sanitized term for bullying) is largely effective, then he should provide evidence for this claim. If there is a way to justify a style of leadership that invokes death threats and charges of treason, I'd like to see it. If there is a way to provide a balanced justification of why Williams can say "someone should be shot over there," it speaks volumes about the sorry state of NL's political culture.
On the other hand, there is ample evidence that Williams' politics of rage and revenge has not served the province well. From the so-called fiscal "shaft" to the failed foreign policy initiative, Williams' combativeness has hurt NL. With health care and the fishery stumbling from one crisis to the next, it's hard to imagine how personal combativeness has helped to do anything except distract the public from policy failures. Not only that, but in a number of cases, Williams' combative approach has actually created new problems, such as the ongoing leadership crisis at MUN, the unresolved issues with the NLMA, the refusal to investigate electoral irregularities, the failure to pass whistleblower legislation, et cetera.
In trying to provide a balanced approach to Williams' bullying, Wangersky undermines the very point that he is trying to make: Williams' condescending attitude toward Michael is unnacceptable. By claiming that this combative personal approach has otherwise served the province well, Wangersky seems to be suggesting that the problem here is not with Williams' behaviour but with his target. He seems to be saying that while it's unacceptable to bully Lorraine Michael, it's acceptable (indeed, it serves the province well) for Williams to wage personal war against others.
Most of the time, I admire Wangersky's journalism. While I find his meandering metaphorical style sometimes irritating, I respect his judgement. And I know it's easy for bloggers to criticize journalists who have to be careful not to burn political bridges. But there is something wrong when professional journalists feel compelled to balance criticism of Williams by justifying his pattern of bullying. Williams' treatment of Michael was not an isolated incident but rather part of a long, well-documented pattern of abuse that includes public death threats.
We need to recognize that we're facing a public choice. Either Williams' histrionics matters or it doesn't. Either it's a serious public issue or it can be dismissed as mere political theatre. I believe that it's a serious issue, and I think many journalists do, too. But I also believe that we cannot cherry-pick incidents and overlook everything else. There are times in political history -- and we're living through such a time right now -- when trying to balance criticism with defence actually perpetuates and enables the very problems that journalists seek to remedy. By claiming that Williams' histrionics has otherwise served the province well, Wangersky is feeding the pernicious myth that bullying is acceptable because it delivers results.
In assessing Williams' leadership, yesterday's editorial in the Telegram asked, "Wasn't it Lady MacBeth who doth protest too much?" http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=258567&sc=80
A more apt Shakespeare reference would have been to "Hamlet," when Marcellus says "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark."
Monday, March 9, 2009
Duffy, George & the Tely
Not a red-letter day for the Tely's Cheers & Jeers. They beat a couple of dead horses and offer some humour-challenged jokes: http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=229667&sc=80
This one in particular stood out:
"Jeers: and while we're talking about Senators and hot air, can someone please convince Conservative Senator Mike Duffy to stop talking until he has something to say worth hearing? When asked about Senator Baker's "separatist" comments about in Ottawa last week, he made a crack to the effect that Baker's hair dye must be seeping into his brain. Is this what we're paying these people for? Gee, Senator Duffy, that's an intelligent, insightful observation. And your mother wears army boots."
I've already posted my response on their web site:
How is an unelected senator making a crack about hair dye worse than a newspaper editor making a crack about a senator's mother wearing army boots? Senators wield extremely little real power and are usually ignored by the Canadian public. If nothing else, Duffy has accomplished the rare feat of generating attention to what goes on in the chamber of sober second thought. In just a few weeks, Duffy has done more for the cause of Senate reform (if not outright abolition) than a whole newsroom full of wise-cracking editors.
But then I got to thinking...maybe the Duffster is on to something. Maybe there is a possible link between the use of hair dyes and a whole host of health problems.
It turns out that there is. And we still know remarkably little about the long-term effects of heavy hair-dye use. According to a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2007:
"Previous studies have suggested an association of personal hair dye use with bladder and hematopoietic cancers. Risks for brain tumors are not well understood. The authors investigated associations between use of synthetic hair dyes and risk of brain tumors in a hospital-based case-control study. The study included adults newly diagnosed with glioma (n = 489), meningioma (n = 197), or acoustic neuroma (n = 96) between 1994 and 1998 at three urban US hospitals and 799 controls. Odds ratios were estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using unconditional logistic regression. Detailed exposure histories were obtained by interview. There was no consistent pattern of elevated odds ratios for glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma with use or prolonged use of permanent, semipermanent, temporary, or gradual hair dyes. Although use of permanent brown hair dye for 20 or more years was associated with glioma among women, the estimate was imprecise (odds ratio = 3.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.2, 12.5) and was based on just 13 exposed cases; thus, this could be a chance finding. Overall, there was little consistent evidence for an association of synthetic hair dye use with glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma. However, prolonged use of dark-colored permanent dyes warrants further investigation given the high prevalence of hair dyeing."
For the full article, see: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/165/1/63
And here I was thinking that the Duffster's only contribution was bringing attention to the antics in the august chamber of Parliament. Not only has he (along with Curious George, of course) made a compelling case for Senate reform, he has also made a case for further research into the health effects of hair dye.
This one in particular stood out:
"Jeers: and while we're talking about Senators and hot air, can someone please convince Conservative Senator Mike Duffy to stop talking until he has something to say worth hearing? When asked about Senator Baker's "separatist" comments about in Ottawa last week, he made a crack to the effect that Baker's hair dye must be seeping into his brain. Is this what we're paying these people for? Gee, Senator Duffy, that's an intelligent, insightful observation. And your mother wears army boots."
I've already posted my response on their web site:
How is an unelected senator making a crack about hair dye worse than a newspaper editor making a crack about a senator's mother wearing army boots? Senators wield extremely little real power and are usually ignored by the Canadian public. If nothing else, Duffy has accomplished the rare feat of generating attention to what goes on in the chamber of sober second thought. In just a few weeks, Duffy has done more for the cause of Senate reform (if not outright abolition) than a whole newsroom full of wise-cracking editors.
But then I got to thinking...maybe the Duffster is on to something. Maybe there is a possible link between the use of hair dyes and a whole host of health problems.
It turns out that there is. And we still know remarkably little about the long-term effects of heavy hair-dye use. According to a study published in the American Journal of Epidemiology in 2007:
"Previous studies have suggested an association of personal hair dye use with bladder and hematopoietic cancers. Risks for brain tumors are not well understood. The authors investigated associations between use of synthetic hair dyes and risk of brain tumors in a hospital-based case-control study. The study included adults newly diagnosed with glioma (n = 489), meningioma (n = 197), or acoustic neuroma (n = 96) between 1994 and 1998 at three urban US hospitals and 799 controls. Odds ratios were estimated and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using unconditional logistic regression. Detailed exposure histories were obtained by interview. There was no consistent pattern of elevated odds ratios for glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma with use or prolonged use of permanent, semipermanent, temporary, or gradual hair dyes. Although use of permanent brown hair dye for 20 or more years was associated with glioma among women, the estimate was imprecise (odds ratio = 3.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.2, 12.5) and was based on just 13 exposed cases; thus, this could be a chance finding. Overall, there was little consistent evidence for an association of synthetic hair dye use with glioma, meningioma, or acoustic neuroma. However, prolonged use of dark-colored permanent dyes warrants further investigation given the high prevalence of hair dyeing."
For the full article, see: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/165/1/63
And here I was thinking that the Duffster's only contribution was bringing attention to the antics in the august chamber of Parliament. Not only has he (along with Curious George, of course) made a compelling case for Senate reform, he has also made a case for further research into the health effects of hair dye.
Sunday, February 8, 2009
Tely Trouble IV
I don't see much difference between Wangersky's logic and the VOCM callers who, before daring to voice anything beyond the party line, always preface their comments with an obligatory genuflection towards DW.
Wangersky's assumption about the causal link between personal gain and corruption is not his only faulty premise. He seems to assume that DW is endowed with special, super abilities -- hence the vapid Hockey Phenom metaphor -- ergo, DW should have been able to use those amazing abilities to break with the errors of his inferior, corruption-loving predecessors. Just because DW was a wealthy lawyer/businessman does not mean that he was on the verge of being a successful premier in 2003.
It's like assuming that a wealthy plumber would be a great psychiatrist. Governing in a democracy is, in important respects, radically different from ruling a law office. And those differences may very well lie at the heart of the "disappointment" that seems to perplex Wangersky.
It's a sign of how far down the rabbit hole we've gone that poor old Lord Acton has been turned on his head. In this dystopian world, the maxim seems to be that power corrupts but absolute power does not.
And, for the record, none of DW's less-wealthy, more poll-challenged predecessors got rich from corruption during their premiership. Moores and Tobin may be the exceptions, but their wealth came from contacts after they left office.
Wangersky's assumption about the causal link between personal gain and corruption is not his only faulty premise. He seems to assume that DW is endowed with special, super abilities -- hence the vapid Hockey Phenom metaphor -- ergo, DW should have been able to use those amazing abilities to break with the errors of his inferior, corruption-loving predecessors. Just because DW was a wealthy lawyer/businessman does not mean that he was on the verge of being a successful premier in 2003.
It's like assuming that a wealthy plumber would be a great psychiatrist. Governing in a democracy is, in important respects, radically different from ruling a law office. And those differences may very well lie at the heart of the "disappointment" that seems to perplex Wangersky.
It's a sign of how far down the rabbit hole we've gone that poor old Lord Acton has been turned on his head. In this dystopian world, the maxim seems to be that power corrupts but absolute power does not.
And, for the record, none of DW's less-wealthy, more poll-challenged predecessors got rich from corruption during their premiership. Moores and Tobin may be the exceptions, but their wealth came from contacts after they left office.
Tely Trouble II
Well, here's the start of the column, in case you missed it: "There's nothing quite as discouraging as watching someone squander an opportunity. You know the feeling: watching someone have all the tools, and decide to waste the chance.The hockey phenom who could take his skills all the way to the NHL, but who never grasps the concept that even the very, very good have to work very, very hard to be at the top of their game.The kid who has all the skills needed to make his way through grad school, but focuses on recreational drugs instead.The politician who has enough credibility to clean up the shop, but decides to let his minions dive face-first into the porkbarrel instead.And that's why, to me, Danny Williams has been something of a disappointment."
Why a disappointment? The answer:"Unlike so many former politicians in this province, he has nothing to gain or fear from his party. He is the main driving force of their popularity - leaving aside the lame presence of an opposition clearly unequipped for power - and the Tories could no more oust Williams than they could single-handedly bring back the cod fishery.He's wildly fiscally independent, and will never need a sinecure to keep the financial wolf from the door.In other words, he will never need to call on favours, so he should be able to break the chain of governments filling seats with friends, family and acquaintances."
What is Wangersky arguing here, if not that the fact that DW's wealth is a principal reason why he is a veritable hockey phenom who had an amazing opportunity because he was wealthier than previous premiers? Yes, Wangersky then goes on to explain his "disappointment," but I reject the premise on which he bases this disappointment. Most former premiers rode a wave of popularity into office and had little to fear from their caucus or the electorate, at least in their first term.
Wangersky's thesis is that DW is special and somehow less inherently prone to corruption than his pedecessors because he's rich, popular, and has a weak cabinet. You can believe this if you want to, but I think it's based on faulty reasoning. The fact that DW has "nothing to gain or fear from his party" does not, in itself, mean that he is less prone to be corrupt. One could argue that the lack of an opposing power base in the PC Party actually mitigates the checks against corruption.
DW is no more of a "phenom" than Peckford or Tobin were in their prime. Wangersky qualifies his argument by saying that DW has been merely "something of a disappointment," so perhaps he's holding out hope that the true "hockey phenom" will somehow show his inner virtue after all. Where is the evidence that DW has somehow tried "to clean up the system," beyond blasting away at the Liberals when he was in opposition?And, as for the conclusion to the column, in case you also misread this part, too:"Premier Williams is powerful enough not to have to worry about that - powerful enough to say that the system ends here.Instead, the chain of patronage stuffing goes on - and if anything, it's gotten worse.It's an opportunity lost."
Interesting use of the passive voice, as if corruption is something that just happens and that not stopping it is a lost opportunity. If DW is so uniquely powerful, wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that he is either actively or passively engaged in patronage, especially since he's now into his second term? Why is it that absolute power, in this instance, is supposed to act as a check against corruption? Is this another instance of NL's exceptionalism?
Why a disappointment? The answer:"Unlike so many former politicians in this province, he has nothing to gain or fear from his party. He is the main driving force of their popularity - leaving aside the lame presence of an opposition clearly unequipped for power - and the Tories could no more oust Williams than they could single-handedly bring back the cod fishery.He's wildly fiscally independent, and will never need a sinecure to keep the financial wolf from the door.In other words, he will never need to call on favours, so he should be able to break the chain of governments filling seats with friends, family and acquaintances."
What is Wangersky arguing here, if not that the fact that DW's wealth is a principal reason why he is a veritable hockey phenom who had an amazing opportunity because he was wealthier than previous premiers? Yes, Wangersky then goes on to explain his "disappointment," but I reject the premise on which he bases this disappointment. Most former premiers rode a wave of popularity into office and had little to fear from their caucus or the electorate, at least in their first term.
Wangersky's thesis is that DW is special and somehow less inherently prone to corruption than his pedecessors because he's rich, popular, and has a weak cabinet. You can believe this if you want to, but I think it's based on faulty reasoning. The fact that DW has "nothing to gain or fear from his party" does not, in itself, mean that he is less prone to be corrupt. One could argue that the lack of an opposing power base in the PC Party actually mitigates the checks against corruption.
DW is no more of a "phenom" than Peckford or Tobin were in their prime. Wangersky qualifies his argument by saying that DW has been merely "something of a disappointment," so perhaps he's holding out hope that the true "hockey phenom" will somehow show his inner virtue after all. Where is the evidence that DW has somehow tried "to clean up the system," beyond blasting away at the Liberals when he was in opposition?And, as for the conclusion to the column, in case you also misread this part, too:"Premier Williams is powerful enough not to have to worry about that - powerful enough to say that the system ends here.Instead, the chain of patronage stuffing goes on - and if anything, it's gotten worse.It's an opportunity lost."
Interesting use of the passive voice, as if corruption is something that just happens and that not stopping it is a lost opportunity. If DW is so uniquely powerful, wouldn't it be more logical to conclude that he is either actively or passively engaged in patronage, especially since he's now into his second term? Why is it that absolute power, in this instance, is supposed to act as a check against corruption? Is this another instance of NL's exceptionalism?
Tely Trouble I
As for the root cause of the Danvirus, don't look to the Telegram for answers. Wangersky's column in today's paper is a depressing statement of how the media have bought the Dangovt brand every bit as much as the corrupt bagmen whom they blame for everything.:
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=215406&sc=86
By arguing that DW's wealth makes him immune from corruption, Wangersky shows an almost comic lack of analytical insight or knowledge of how political power actually operates. Whether DW is personally wealthy does not, for a second, mean that he is less liable to engage in corruption than a premier with a smaller bank account. Numerous academic studies, which can be read in popular books by Malcolm Gladwell and others, shows precisely the opposite: when given the opportunity, wealthy people will steal and cheat just as much (and, in some studies, even more) than poorer people. The reasons are unclear -- some scholars specular that it's part of a mentality of entitlement (and there is no lack of stories from corporate America to illustrate this) -- but the underlying cause is beside the point.
The point is that Wangersky, et al., need to rid themselves of the false notion that DW is somehow special because he is rich, that he is somehow less inclined to be corrupt because he doesn't need the money. One could, in fact, argue directly the oppposite: DW's wealth and sense of privilege make him less sensitive to democratic niceties, such as freedom of information legislation or a functioning legislative assembly. And, finally, someone tell Wagernsky that corruption in politics is as much about enriching your friends as about getting rich yourself. Wealth is, in the end, all about status, and there is no better way to enhance your status than taking care of your buddies.
http://www.thetelegram.com/index.cfm?sid=215406&sc=86
By arguing that DW's wealth makes him immune from corruption, Wangersky shows an almost comic lack of analytical insight or knowledge of how political power actually operates. Whether DW is personally wealthy does not, for a second, mean that he is less liable to engage in corruption than a premier with a smaller bank account. Numerous academic studies, which can be read in popular books by Malcolm Gladwell and others, shows precisely the opposite: when given the opportunity, wealthy people will steal and cheat just as much (and, in some studies, even more) than poorer people. The reasons are unclear -- some scholars specular that it's part of a mentality of entitlement (and there is no lack of stories from corporate America to illustrate this) -- but the underlying cause is beside the point.
The point is that Wangersky, et al., need to rid themselves of the false notion that DW is somehow special because he is rich, that he is somehow less inclined to be corrupt because he doesn't need the money. One could, in fact, argue directly the oppposite: DW's wealth and sense of privilege make him less sensitive to democratic niceties, such as freedom of information legislation or a functioning legislative assembly. And, finally, someone tell Wagernsky that corruption in politics is as much about enriching your friends as about getting rich yourself. Wealth is, in the end, all about status, and there is no better way to enhance your status than taking care of your buddies.
Tely Trouble III
Today we're treated, again, to the Telegram lavishing a huge front-page photo of His Glorious Self with the insipid headline "Williams Drops the Gloves," with a generous heap of direct quotations from Himself, straight to the end of the article. Aside from the annoying habit of using sports analogies, the coverage is as devoid of contextual analysis as it is replete with faux psychodrama.
It's all about His feelings, the fact that He missed His hockey game, the fact that now He is forced to do battle again with the great satan. What we're left with is the sort of ad hominem human interest piece that would do Entertainment Tonight proud. While everyone seems to be bemoaning the decline of newspapers, which are supposedly the bastion of hard investigative journalism, the real analysis is left to the non-polemical blogosphere. As for the bully politics of shifting blame, He may have overplayed his hand this time. It's hard to imagine Iggy voting against Harpo on the budget, so there won't be any more ABC election games for a while. In the meantime, at some point, surely, the melodromatic ranting, macho photo-ops, vapid sports metaphors, and indulgent collective psychosis will no longer be sufficient to cover up the fiscal ponzi scheme.
It's all about His feelings, the fact that He missed His hockey game, the fact that now He is forced to do battle again with the great satan. What we're left with is the sort of ad hominem human interest piece that would do Entertainment Tonight proud. While everyone seems to be bemoaning the decline of newspapers, which are supposedly the bastion of hard investigative journalism, the real analysis is left to the non-polemical blogosphere. As for the bully politics of shifting blame, He may have overplayed his hand this time. It's hard to imagine Iggy voting against Harpo on the budget, so there won't be any more ABC election games for a while. In the meantime, at some point, surely, the melodromatic ranting, macho photo-ops, vapid sports metaphors, and indulgent collective psychosis will no longer be sufficient to cover up the fiscal ponzi scheme.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
