Project Hero - reply from Joyce Green

I sent a letter to the professors at the University of Regina who signed an Open Letter to U of R President Timmons in regards to its Project Hero program. That open letter can be found here: .

This is the reply I received from Joyce Green, Professor of the Poli-Sci department at U of R:

Dear Mr. Van Lane:

Thanks for your note; we appreciate the support.

We are aware of several facebook groups, some of which appear to have the same creator, an individual involved with the Conservative and Saskatchewan parties.

Our position is as follows:

The letter we signed was intended neither to criticize individual soldiers, nor to deprive or deny anyone of financial support to pursue post-secondary education. The criticism was directed against one scholarship program, the “Project Hero” program, and not at any other support for, or scholarships targeted to, veterans or their families. We note that the federal government can and does provide for education assistance for families of soldiers, and thus, there is no policy need for Project Hero. The benefits provided under the "Children of Deceased Veterans Education Assistance Act C-28" provides for educational expenses. (Please consult Veterans’ Affairs Canada for more information.)

At issue here was our perception that “Project Hero” was designed for essentially partisan political purposes, as a way of using the Universities, as institutions, to endorse Canada’s current military presence in Afghanistan. As the “Project Hero” program requires the Universities themselves to bear the costs of the tuition waivers it offers (in contrast to privately or externally funded scholarship programs, in which the costs are borne by third parties), it requires the Universities to treat one particular subset of students as different from all others, including those students who are children of wounded soldiers, as well as the children of any number of other risky and honourable professions.

This compromises the political neutrality of the University; at its worst, it potentially makes the institution into a cheerleader for the policy of whichever government happens to be in power. It is our view that a distance should be maintained between universities and governments (whether conservative, liberal, or social democratic), and that this program compromises that distance, making it that much more difficult to have open and unconstrained conversations in our universities about Canadian foreign policies.

Sincerely,


Joyce A. Green
Professor
Department of Political Science
University of Regina
Regina, Saskatchewan S4S 0A2
Canada

2010 Vancouver Olympics - a Gift That Keeps On Taking

Thanks for the Olympics, Santa - but what I really wanted was a public daycare system

In May of 2007 the provincial government released a 'business plan' in which the ultimate cost of the Olympics to the public wasn't revealed.

As Chris Shaw wrote in his book, Five Ring Circus, the IOC refuses to allow any city to host the Olympics unless public money is guaranteed. This is because the Olympics are such a colossal business risk that no sensible business person would underwrite it.

So, public inputs are taken from hospitals, schools, and daycares so a few people can chase each other around an ice rink or zip down an icy course in a bobsled while thousands of others watch live and billions watch on TV.

Why spend money removing the 100 million landmines in the world or retooling the economies or fighting poverty when you can vicariously experience the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat. That kid in Afghanistan, who stepped one of those landmines and is now hopping around on one foot, is thinking the same thing. "Bobsledding, mom. Quick, quick, come look!"

Then why is the public taxpayer 'investing' in this fucking orgy? Because we were told that in the worst case scenario we'd 'break even' and in the best case scenario we'd make $200 million. Now, in my books (and remember I'm coming from a loonie left POV - you know, the people who couldn't manage a hot dog stand) 'breaking even' means the income is equal to the expense. So, if the expenses are $12 then the income is $12 and the result is no gain - but no loss either. When my mom breaks even in at the slots in Reno it's because she left home with $300 and she returned with $300, which doesn't happen very often such is the nature of gambling.

So, how do we the taxpayer recoup public money, or investment? Well, through taxes silly. And where do we collect taxes? We collect income tax and sales tax.

It appears the cost of the Olympics to taxpayers will be closer to $3 billion than to $600 million. The cost of security alone ballooned from $85 million to $1 billion - the same ratio as if I said "It's gonna cost you 85 bucks" and then once the contract was signed I revealed "plus another $915."

The Olympics span a period of 13 days.

The taxpayers don't share in any revenue from the broadcast rights or from the licensing of the games, etc. The public didn't make any money in the development of properties, etc.

Yes, we're going to collect taxes from ourselves, in the form of taxes on our income. If our income increases by massive amounts the taxes will reflect an increase in provincial revenue.

Mostly we hope to recoup our investment in the games from the visitors to Vancouver who come for the Olympic experience who will leave behind massive amounts of money in the form of sales taxes.

Now here are some basic calculations:

Let's say $3 billion is the target (our break even).

PST is 7%.

Therefore $3 billion represents 7% of the total expenditures during the 13 days. Thus the Olympic experience has to generate an extra $42,857,142, 857 in taxable sales. Or almost $3.2 billion dollars a day.

The population of the Metro Vancouver area is close to 2 million people. Let's assume that we'll get 2 million people during the 13 days visiting us. They will have to spend $1648 per day for the full 13 days. So a family of four will have to spend nearly $6600 a day (and that doesn't include food since it's not taxable).

You can massage the numbers by increasing the number of touristy days to a month or double the number of people or say the increase of income tax will account for greater revenues. On and on.

But if I came to you and said "I have a great business opportunity for you" and I gave you these numbers I'm sure it'd be a difficult moment for both of us. Unless, I wore a tie. Then you'd probably think, "he's got loads of experience and he wears a tie. And he says things like 'traction', 'inputs' and 'aggressive'".

And by the way, if we don't get the sales tax from those visitors, that means an increase in our property taxes (that $100 million bill we plopped into the developer's bank account for the Olympic Village means an increase of about $2000 in property tax for Vancouverites - and if you spread it over the several years there will be financing costs).

And doubling the population of Vancouver (2 million people i) is going to lead to massive delivery problems, consumption costs, etc.

Had we used the money to develop a public day care program each family would be relieved of between $8000 and $12000 per child per year in expenses and it would have employed about 64,000 people in good paying jobs and it would have done a lot of other things almost equal in goodness as bobsledding.


xo

M

Old Barry Goldwater and the young me

What do we want? Freedom! When we do want it? Soon!

Ah, youth. The newness of life, the excitement of fresh ideas, the certainty. I was strolling recently amoung my book collection and came across an old friend and influence sitting there ignominiously nestled between Marx and Engels on one side and Trotsky on the other, Senator Barry Goldwater.

Goldwater was the Senator from Arizona and the Republican nominee for the US presidency in 1964. He was a true, state's rights, limited government conservative. He wrote a book in 1960 in the last days of Dwight Eisenhower's tenure in the White House called Conscience of a Conservative. This book, a manifesto of conservatism, introduced me to the ideas of the honest right; it explained a creed of freedom against an oppressive government, the principled position taken by the writers of the American constitution, and an individual's and state's rights vs. federal rights. Its language was clear, simple, direct. I read it at 15 and still remembered phrases as I reread them 30 years later.

"Conservatism...puts material things in their proper place - that has a structured view of the human being and human society, in which economics plays only a subsidiary role" he writes in his introduction. Socialism, he says, subordinates all other considerations to man's material well-being. People are social, creative and spiritual. Conservatism, he believes, understand this; socialism does not.

In those youthful days I read Ayn Rand, Barbera Amiel. I read Gary Allen's None Dare Call It Conspiracy and John Stormer's None Dare Call It Treason. The ideas were fresh and influential the first time I came across them and they stayed with me for years.

When Gov. Ronald Reagan entered the White House, he came to power speaking the words that Senator Barry Goldwater had written and campaigned on 16 years earlier (Reagan gave the keynote at the RNC 1964). I was 17 years old and steeped in the conservative philosophy.

Seeing Reagan in action for the next eight years, then four years of Bush, plus our own unctuous Prime Minister, Brian "Pay-Me-Cash" Mulroney, the AIDS crisis, and neo-conservatism disabused me of the certainty a better world would be made from the efforts of the honest right.

I began to see a 'marketplace' that, left to its own forces, brought infected milk to market, poisoned watersheds, gave thalidomide to pregnant mothers. The marketplace ignored (and lied about) smoking and cancer, about the contraindications of SSRIs. People would be forced to work at the lowest wage in the worst conditions possible using the strange Orwellian argument that it necessary to 'create wealth'. Moneymen lied about the true nature of the financial instruments they created and we're seeing the economic fallout of that. Poverty increased. The governments grew its military and had no hestitation of using it against its own citizens. I saw the war-on-drugs as an excuse to militarize the urban centres.

In short, the problem of keeping the individual, or classes of individuals, from cheating, lying and stealing became apparent. How do people exercise protection, keep themselves from being enslaved, abused or marginalized except through the powers of the state.

I came to realize that Barry Goldwater's politics let me down in every aspect. There isn't a page in Conscience of a Conservative with which I can now completely agree. Ayn Rand turned out to be a political philospher divorced from reality. Gary Allen and John Stormer were...well, they're fucking Birchers, man.

I have to say that, as I wistfully read Barry Goldwater again, the idea of a political philosophy in which the people, equal before the law, with clean hearts and honest minds come together to help each other as needed, who resist coercing or being coerced, still appealed to me. But the fact is the strong will kill and eat the weak because strength and decency are not always coincident in the same person, because we've created a society of 'getting our own' instead of helping each other. We don't think of the human wants and hurts of others when we make our choices. We're more Amway than St. Matthew.

Goldwater's political philosophy, despite his denial, is all about money in the end. His arguments for personal freedom never carried with it an equally forceful argument for responsibility. By removing responsibility from the equation he paved the way for deregulation, inaction, injustice and the 'redistribution of wealth' into the hands of the few instead of the many.

When one doesn't contribute to help the poor, to help the halt, to build community, or defend justice one can't enjoy freedom. We're all in this together. We live or die based on the decisions, great and small, we make towards each other.

Still, being young was fun, even if I was an idiotic, mouthy right-wing punk. And I loved Barry Goldwater so much I stole his glasses.

Peace.

MVL

I'll see your Milton Friedman and raise you four John Kenneth Galbraiths

Economic swordsmanship is sexy

John Kenneth Galbraith, Canadian born, Harvard professor, economist, advisor to President Kennedy, speechwriter for Adlai Stevenson. In the 20th century whenever something interesting was being done in the world of economics or public policy Galbraith was never too far away if he wasn't in the centre of things.

Of all intellectuals and public policy people I can't decide whether it is Keynes or Galbraith I like most.

Here are some JKG quotes from Wiki-quote (I went there to remind myself where I pulled a quote from):

Relevant for the these days of economic 'bailouts' and the nitpicking debates.

In the usual (though certainly not in every) public decision on economic policy, the choice is between courses that are almost equally good or equally bad. It is the narrowest decisions that are most ardently debated. If the world is lucky enough to enjoy peace, it may even one day make the discovery, to the horror of doctrinaire free-enterprisers and doctrinaire planners alike, that what is called capitalism and what is called socialism are both capable of working quite well. "The American Economy: Its Substance and Myth," quoted in Years of the Modern (1949), ed. J.W. Chase

A great response to the so-called 9/11 paradigm shift. The principle holds even if he was speaking specifically about economic models.

When you see reference to a new paradigm you should always, under all circumstances, take cover. Because ever since the great tulipmania in 1637, speculation has always been covered by a new paradigm. There was never a paradigm so new and so wonderful as the one that covered John Law and the South Sea Bubble — until the day of disaster. Quoted in Ben Laurance and William Keegan, "Galbraith on crashes, Japan and Walking Sticks", The Observer (1998-06-21)

A note to the doctrinaire left and, especially these days, the doctrinaire right. When you have 15 million children starving to death annually and a billion people hungry you should be looking for economies and public policies that work. To be deaf to the cries of the poor in order to keep your cherished beliefs from being contradicted is cruel.

I react to what is necessary. I would like to eschew any formula. There are some things where the government is absolutely inevitable, which we cannot get along without comprehensive state action. But there are many things — producing consumer goods, producing a wide range of entertainment, producing a wide level of cultural activity — where the market system, which independent activity is also important, so I react pragmatically. Where the market works, I'm for that. Where the government is necessary, I'm for that. I'm deeply suspicious of somebody who says, "I'm in favor of privatization," or, "I'm deeply in favor of public ownership." I'm in favor of whatever works in the particular case. from Bookends interview with Brian Lamb (1994)

From Age of Uncertainty (1977). This is one of my favourite quotes from a book that is almost completely quotable.

All of the great leaders have had one characteristic in common: it was the willingness to confront unequivocally the major anxiety of their people in their time. This, and not much else, is the essence of leadership.

A bonus quote from Money: Whence it came and Where it went. The first Galbraith book I read with chapters on John Law, coin sweating, gold standards, and paper money. It also has the best summary of American attitudes towards government and policy.

It is well-known that Americans are opposed to taxation without representation. It is equally true that Americans are also opposed to taxation with representation.

xo

MVL

Pfizer and Off-label Marketing

Oh, no you didn't!

This article was pulled from the New England Journal of Medicine. It is reprinted in full. The text formatting is my own and was done on the fly.

The article's overview is this: Pfizer had an agressive marketing campaign to increase sales (use) of Neurontin for conditions for which it was not approved (off-label). They bumped Neurontin's US sales from $98 million to over $3 billion using these tactics.

The question is: if the Conservative government passes legislation that allows medical marketing like this (as they tried with C-51) then what restrictions will they put in place to protect public health and the public purse from being abused like this?

Pfizer settled part of the suit out of court with a $500 million payment.

It's a fairly easy read so I encourage you to dig into it.

These marketing methods were not found to be illegal in themselves; they were illegal insofar as they promoted off-label prescription.

Landefeld CS, Steinman MA.

The Neurontin Legacy - Marketing through
Misinformation and Manipulation. 2009; 360: 103-6 (8 January)

Old drugs usually fade away. Sometimes, however, they leave surprising legacies. In 1997, for example, a study comparing the effects of brand-name and generic formulations of levothyroxine led to an uproar over the discovery that the manufacturer of the brand-name product suppressed publication of the result that the two formulations were equivalent.

Recently, lawsuits alleging damages from illegal marketing of another old drug, gabapentin (Neurontin), have yielded remarkable discoveries about the structure and function of pharmaceutical marketing.

Patented in 1977 and approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993 in doses of up to 1800 mg per day as adjunctive therapy for partial complex seizures, Neurontin became a surprise blockbuster for Parke-Davis, a division of Warner-Lambert, which was purchased by Pfizer in 2000.

U.S. sales rose from $98 million in 1995 to nearly $3 billion in 2004 before Neurontin faced generic competition and lost most U.S. sales.

The rise of Neurontin would have been unheralded except for a quirk of fate: a young biologist, David Franklin, went to work for Parke-Davis on April 1, 1996. Fresh out of postdoctoral training at Harvard, Franklin soon grew concerned that he was participating in illegal marketing. At a training seminar for "medical liaisons" on April 16, 1996, Franklin and his peers were told that FDA regulations required a fair and balanced presentation and prohibited promotion of a drug for off-label uses, selling by medical liaisons, and soliciting of inquiries from physicians. Six days later, a Parke-Davis executive reportedly told Franklin: I want you out there every day selling Neurontin. . . . We all know Neurontin's not growing for adjunctive therapy, besides that's not where the money is. Pain management, now that's money. Monotherapy [for epilepsy], that's money. . . . We can't wait for [physicians] to ask, we need [to] get out there and tell them up front. Dinner programs, CME programs, consultantships all work great but don't forget the one-on-one. That's where we need to be, holding their hand and whispering in their ear, Neurontin for pain, Neurontin for monotherapy, Neurontin for bipolar, Neurontin for everything. I don't want to see a single patient coming off Neurontin before they've been up to at least 4800 mg/day. I don't want to hear that safety crap either, have you tried Neurontin, every one of you should take one just to see there is nothing, it's a great drug.¹

Three months later, Franklin left Parke-Davis and filed a suit (ultimately,United States of America ex rel. David Franklin vs. Pfizer, Inc., and Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Company) alleging that off-label marketing of Neurontin constituted "false claims" designed to elicit payments from the federal government. On May 13, 2004, Warner-Lambert agreed to plead guilty and to pay more than $430 million to resolve criminal charges and civil liabilities. A class-action suit was filed the next day in federal court on behalf of private parties who had paid for illegally marketed Neurontin; this case (now known as In Re: Neurontin Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation) remains active.

The Franklin case placed more than 8000 pages of corporate documents in the public domain; these documents are now available in a searchable digital library at the University of California, San Francisco. The class-action suit also generated detailed testimony and reports that are available through the Federal Judiciary's Public Access to Court Electronic Records Service Center.

The Neurontin cases have revealed the mechanisms of action of a comprehensive marketing campaign - its goals and strategies, tactics and programs, and the participation of particular physicians and institutions.2 The campaign involved the systematic use of deception and misinformation to create a biased evidence base and manipulate physicians' beliefs and prescribing behaviors. These marketing methods were not found to be illegal in themselves; they were illegal insofar as they promoted off-label prescription. Thus, the importance of the cases lies largely in the light they shed on marketing methods that may be widespread but remain unseen because companies are rarely prosecuted for illegal marketing.

The Neurontin marketing plan consisted of both general strategies - such as the promotion of Neurontin use among high-prescribing physicians and cultivation of thought leaders - and tactical programs.2 Local physicians were recruited, trained, and paid to serve as speakers in "peer-to-peer selling" programs, which the company saw as "one of the most effective ways to communicate our message." Academic leaders were solicited with educational grants, research grants, and speaking opportunities; some received up to $158,250 over a 4-year period. Advisory boards and "consultants" were convened so that the firm could cultivate relationships with them and deliver "a hard-hitting message about Neurontin."

Marketing "tactics" included education, publications, and research whose promotional intent was disguised, in addition to more transparent activities, such as advertising and sales visits.² "Educational programs" reflected the belief that "medical education drives this market!" Teleconferences involving practicing physicians were moderated by physicians who were paid as much as $176,100 over 4 years. Parke-Davis formed speakers bureaus and sought "strong Neurontin advocates and users to speak locally for Neurontin." "Unrestricted educational grants" were made to for-profit medical-education companies that produced programs to discuss unapproved uses of Neurontin and to grant credit approved by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education.

A "publication strategy" was designed to increase the use of Neurontin for neuropathic pain and bipolar disorder, off-label indications with great revenue potential. Parke-Davis contracted with medical-education companies to produce articles on prespecified topics, target journals, titles, potential authors to be "chosen at the discretion of Parke-Davis," and "a consistent message" in keeping with promotional goals; some articles were ghost-written.

"Research" was designed and commissioned specifically to promote Neurontin use. A large seeding trial was conducted to "teach physicians to titrate Neurontin to clinical effect" and "to give neurologists the opportunity to titrate to higher doses [up to twice the FDA-approved limit] when needed."

In a recently unsealed 318-page analysis of research sponsored by Parke-Davis, epidemiologist Kay Dickersin concluded that available documents demonstrate "a remarkable assemblage of evidence of reporting biases that amount to outright deception of the biomedical community, and suppression of scientific truth concerning the effectiveness of Neurontin for migraine, bipolar disorders, and pain."³ For example, publication was delayed for a report on a multicenter, placebo-controlled study that found no effect of Neurontin on the primary outcome measure for neuropathic pain because "we [Parke-Davis employees] should take care not to publish anything that damages neurontin's marketing success."

Ultimately, ghost-written manuscripts downplayed the lack of effect on the primary outcome and emphasized other outcomes and subgroup analyses that favored Neurontin. Although guest authorship and commercial bias in research are a well-recognized threat to scientific integrity, the documentation of comprehensive manipulation of research and publication related to Neurontin is remarkable.

What is Neurontin's legacy? First, we have learned that pharmaceutical marketing can be comprehensive, strategic, well financed, disguised as "education" and "research," influential, and very effective. Promotion of Neurontin was neither discrete, compartmentalized, nor readily apparent; instead, it was intercalated in nearly every aspect of physicians' professional lives, from the accoutrements of practice to lectures, professional meetings, and publications. Although some pharmaceutical marketing may be less opaque, deceptive, and manipulative, evidence indicates that drug promotion can corrupt the science, teaching, and practice of medicine.⁴

Second, such comprehensive marketing involved many people and institutions that apparently failed to recognize the serious ethical and legal problems with their actions. Employees of Parke-Davis, the medical-education companies it hired, and many physicians (consultants, advisors, educators, and researchers) all participated knowingly. Universities, hospitals, professional organizations, and foundations also participated, and oversight agencies such as the FDA and the Department of Justice did not intervene quickly. Apparently, there was a shared acceptance that Parke-Davis's marketing was simply business as usual.

Finally, these cases substantiate the emerging conviction that "drastic action is essential" to preserve the integrity of medical science and practice and to justify public trust.4 We believe that such action should include the routine placement of legally discovered documents in the public domain, the study of such documents to inform strategies for minimizing abuses, the establishment of penalties that eliminate the profit to be gained through illegal marketing, and the independent public funding of peer-reviewed pharmaceutical research through a National Institute for Pharmaceutical Research that might be funded by a tax on all drug sales.⁵

Will our profession soon feel compelled to advocate for such actions to preserve our integrity, our social contract, and ultimately our privileges? Neurontin's most important legacy may be promoting our discussion of these issues and perhaps pushing us beyond the tipping point to action.

Drs. Landefeld and Steinman report serving as unpaid consultants to the plaintiff's attorney in United States of America ex rel. David Franklin vs. Pfizer, Inc., and Parke-Davis Division of Warner-Lambert Company and participating in the creation of the Drug Industry Document Archive by the University of California, San Francisco, Kalmanovitz Library, an effort that was funded in part by Thomas Greene, whose law firm represented David Franklin in the case.

Dr. Steinman also reports receiving support from an educational grant funded by the Attorney General Settlement Fund that arose from the Franklin case. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official views of the Department of Veterans Affairs.


Source Information
Dr. Landefeld is a professor of medicine and chief of the Division of Geriatrics at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), San Francisco; associate chief of staff for geriatrics and extended care at the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center (SFVAMC), San Francisco; and a fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.

Dr. Steinman is an assistant professor of medicine at UCSF and a staff physician at SFVAMC.


References

1. Disclosure of information by relator David P. Franklin pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3730 b(2), page 11. (Accessed December 16, 2008, at
http://dida.library.ucsf.edu/pdf/rab00a10.)

2. Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chren MM, Landefeld CS. The promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Intern Med 2006;145:284-293. [Free Full Text]

3. Dickersin K. Reporting and other biases in studies of Neurontin for migraine, psychiatric/bipolar disorders, nociceptive pain, and neuropathic pain. August 10, 2008. (Accessed December 16, 2008, at
http://www.pharmalot.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/neurontin-dickersin-2.pdf.)

4. DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB. Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence. JAMA 2008;299:1833-1835. [Free Full Text]

5. Landefeld CS. Commercial support and bias in pharmaceutical research. Am J Med 2004;117:876-878.

John Baird Lacerates My Ears

Democracy requires your complete obedience

I am listening to John Baird wax abusive over the NDP-Lib marriage of convenience in an interview with Peter Vandusen on CPAC's Primetime Politics.

He's pulled out the 'separatists' and 'socialist' taint that will work wonders in Buttfuck, Alberta forgetting that his party also works with the 'separatists' whenever convenient. I remember Harper's promise to straighten out the fiscal imbalance situation with Quebec (a BQ demand), to give Quebec a seat at the UNESCO (a BQ demand), declared Quebec a 'nation' and used their 2006 budget to give Quebec what it wanted in exchange for the BQ support.

As for 'socialist', what could that mean? Universal health care? Social services? State funded education? Progressive income tax? Yeah, baby, it's fucking frightening what the 'socialists' might do if they got hold of the levers of power.

Bob Rae insisted to Peter Vandusen that the letter of agreement with the BQ includes only a promise of support on fiscal measures introduced by a Lib-NDP coalition government. It in no way means a BQ veto over legislation, says Rae; neither does it guarantee support for legislation (which means that the parties will have to work together to come to an agreement on points in common - I suppose the Conservatives would be welcome to add their acidic 2 bits to any proposed legislation). Rae said that the BQ has agreed in writing to support fiscal policies for the next 18 months giving a coalition government stability.

John Baird counters with his insistence that the 'real' agreement (the secret one, the one they're not talking about) between these parties is way more sinister; the evil BQ are working their black arts to suck the political life out of Canada (perhaps possibly going as far as demanding a seat for Quebec as a special delegate to UNESCO).

He says that he is stunned that a 'small band' of 'leftists' and 'separatists' would steal parliament and overturn the recent federal election. When Vandusen countered that they aren't such a small band since they form a majority Baird did not even pause; the velocity of sentence didn't change but it's trajectory did. He was stunned, stunned, he said. This is carte blanche for the 'leftists' to drive the Brinks trucks up to Parliament Hill and start loading up the money.

Poor John. Democracy never looked so confusing for him.

Email exchange between Chuck and I

Charles Adler doesn't appeal to me as much as it does to Chuck

Chuck,

I disagree almost completely with this...what is it...article? [Ed. note: it's a blog entry that Chuck emailed to me]

In our parliamentary system all MPs are elected to the House. Some MPs form into groups and alliances before or after their election.

The Governor General offers the reins of government to those groups or alliances she feels has the confidence of the House.

It's not a coup if she offers the reins to another party or alliance if the first group fails to build consensus to hold the confidence of the House. (And there is no guarantee she won't simply dissolve the parliament and trigger an election.)

It's not an autocracy but a cooperative democracy we run in Canada.

A minority government, by definition, must govern with the consent and cooperation of opposition members in the House.

What the fuck is this sudden horror over 'separatists'? In a calculated political move Prime Minister Harper acknowledged Quebec as a 'nation' during the last parliament. He campaigned in 2006 and 2008 in Quebec with the statement, "Les Liberaux ne veux pas et le BQ ne peut pas former un gouvernment federal pour les Quebecois" which means essentially that the Liberals won't and the BQ can't form a government for Quebec. Harper offered himself as the Federalist option.

With the help of the BQ the Harper Conservatives, who were a minority government, passed the 2006 budget.

But now that the BQ are actually on the verge of forming part of a coalition government he (and others) are complaining that they're 'separatists' - you know, people who think they form a 'nation' within Canada. Once you eat your cake like that, you've got to shit it - you can't have it both ways.

The BQ are elected to the House by the people in Quebec, the majority of who chose to remain Canadians; there is no appetite within Quebec to reopen the question of sovereignty. Yet, nevertheless they chose to elect MPs from Le Bloc. Perhaps because they feel that the BQ represent their social values better than the Harper Conservatives, the Liberals or the NDP. Therefore it's natural the BQ form part of a coalition government as the government is supposed to represent all of Canada and all Canadians. What sort of 'representational democracy' would it be if it were otherwise?

And what if Ontario and Quebec said BC and Alberta MPs couldn't participate as members of the government? British Columbians would all be constipated with unexpressed anger and Albertans would all divorce their spouses.

The Conservatives received 37% of the popular vote during the last election; the remaining parties received 63%. It's the 63% that are pulling off this so-called 'coup'.

This is what a democracy looks like. I'm not big on authoritarian fucks like Harper telling me what is democratic and what isn't; what's the "biggest political gamble in history", or who's self-serving. I read history. I'm familiar with the look-and-feel of democracy. I know what self-serving smells like.

As PM had Harper spent more time building on points of agreement with MPs instead of creating conflict he'd have the support of the right-of-centre members of both the BQ and the Liberals. Harper is politically smart and a gifted strategist but he's flawed by being a sour man who leads a sour band of politicians; a leader must, by definition, be a team player. The when-I-say-jump-you-say-how-high kind of leader is the sort that gets fragged; people who want to be that kind of 'leader' should get a fucking dog; real people, honest people, don't put up with that sort of shit.

I'm enjoying this spectacle. Maybe a Prime Minister Dion, a man who certainly doesn't deserve the vitriol and disrespect spat on him over the last 24 months, will find Harper a nice job as Rat-catcher General.

Cheers,

M

PS: What out-ethics are involved in secretly taping a private caucus meeting and then broadcasting it as proof that people in Ottawa are 'cooperating' and 'working together' and 'building consensus' - all the things that people generally do when they work together for a common goal and cause.

The root word for parliament is 'talk'. It's sad that communication is held in such disdain around this country.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Adler" To: "Chuck" Sent: Tuesday, December 02, 2008 3:16 AM
Subject: Re: Coup


The Three Stooges of Coupscam
by Charles Adler Dec 1/08

Let's be clear about something. The ECONOMY has NOTHING to do with the not so silent coup that is taking place as we watch history...need a name for it? remember Adscam? Call this one COUPSCAM. It's a perfect name for what's happening on several levels and it is so Canadian..So bilingual. So au bilingue. COUPSCAM. A coup that is dressed up as a bid by the opposition to help the economy. Of course it is not anything close to that, as we learned over the weekend when we heard the tape of Jack Layton telling his caucus, that he had a deal in place way back when with Gilles Duceppe, to strike when the iron became hot. The economy would simply be the rationale used to hit, and to hit hard. One needs to forgive anyone who regular votes Liberal if they feel some shame listening to Jack Layton the of the architects of the coup, who along with Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe, leading the Liberals into the corral. The Liberals were at one time known as the natural national governing party. They now have become the sheep being herded by the two great sheep herders of Canada, the two men who are motivated by their love of country? Now to quote from Sheep herder Layton from his weekend NDP
caucus meeting..."We’re in the middle of a very historic time, *and we’re
playing a key role in it, in some ways a catalytic role actually, because as
we think back, we’ll realize that nobody really imagined that it would be
possible for the Bloc Quebecois, the Liberal party of Canada ever to enter
into any kind of a discussion around the future of the country and it turned out that we were the glue*, and spotted and prepared for the opportunity, and had taken the steps that were required so that when that opportunity arose, which was when Mr. Harper made his disastrous strategic error, by not providing stimulus to the economy, and instead playing political games, we were able to move, and things began to move very quickly, however, many obstacles remain in our way, and so we’re in a real battle now. The negotiating process, I am, by the way in very regular touch with the leader of the Liberal party, and the leader of the Bloc, frequently every day."

So there you have it Sheep Herder Layton saying that they were preparing for the opportunity and it arose last week. This is known in polite circles as opportunism. Many of you who have emailed me in the last few days have been calling it treason. For the record this is not legal treason. But one would not be on shaky ground in calling it ethical treason. Nobody doubts that this plot is undermining confidence in Canada and nobody doubts that this will sew seeds of resentment in various parts of Canada. Nobody doubts that it will make this a less unified country. Imagine the reaction in Western Canada if a coup led by the the Toronto based NDP of Jack Layton and Quebec separatists manages to succeed and in doing so , immediately does damage to their number one economic target the ENERGY industry. Does anyone doubt that the pols in the east who want to hit the Conservatives will, if given power, hit the energy industry? The can do with carbon taxes and other schemes designed to attack Western Canadian wealth. These sheep herders know that the flames of Western Separatism will immediately be ignited and how could that possibly damage the fortunes of Quebec Separatism? A growing western separatist movement is Quebec sovereignty's best friend. Is it any wonder that Gilles Duceppe acts like a guy who knows he will have one very Merry Christmas? Does anyone find it ironic that people like Jean Chretien and
Stephane Dion who made reputations for themselves as staunch federalists would now in the lust for naked power lie down with the separatist lion. Coupscam has many consequences. And a damaged confederation is just one of them. Those who thrive on chaos, people like Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe and Bob Rae are loving this. One of the big questions today is What is Michael Ignatieff thinking? If he is using that big brain of his, as opposed to the little brain some of the plotters are using, he will understand that a Liberal government dog that is being wagged by a NDP/BlocQuebecois tale is a dog that will be euthanized by the Canadian voter.

Folks what you need to remember the most about COUPSCAM is that it could not happen without an incredible amount of blood lust coming from ancient liberal party hacks who have seen the set on their empire. One of those hacks is Scott Reid. He used to be a Paul Martin guy, his communications guy, during the decline and fall of Liberalism in the wake of ADSCAM. Scott Reid took his bitterness and blood lust to his computer key board on the weekend and tapped out the following. If you have some tiny shreds of doubt about what motivates Liberals to get on board Coup Scam, this will shred the shreds.

"After all, Stephen Harper is the most dangerous animal lurking in the
jungles of Parliament, writes Scott Reid. Kill him. Kill him dead. Do not,
whatever you do, provide him with an opportunity to extend his hold on
power. Because you can be damn certain he will never again be so reckless as to give you a chance to finish him off. ..The other elephant in the room is leadership. Stephane Dion has bargained his way to the drive wheel of the new government. Good for him, but only if it suits the greater good. If Mr. Dion can make his case, then great. If he can't, move to an alternative - and do it fast.

Mr. Harper knows that his greatest advantage lies in Mr. Dion's weakness.
The coalition can't let that impulse triumph. Don't permit the defeat of Mr. Harper to depend upon Mr. Dion's personal credibility - or that of any
single individual, for that matter. There's too much at stake."


Those are the words of former Paul Martin communications director Scott
Reid. They tell you 2 things. 1) Coup Scam is not about serving the public
interest. It is about putting hemlock in Stephen Harper's orange juice. It
is not about economic satisfaction. It is about political assassination. 2)
Reid points out while Harper is the target, Dion needs to be either a useful dunce or an expendable nuisance. The plotter who wishes to kill Harper could care less about whether or not Dion is collateral damage. There's too much at stake says the Liberal hack. No single individual matters. No single individual can be permitted to get in the way. And so the man who was part of the plot to overthrow Jean Chretien,not for economic reasons or patriotic reasons but for the most partisan of reasons, now wishes to destroy Stephen Harper.

There are a few things I'd like to say personally to the major players in
Coup Scam.

To Jack Layton:

Jack a couple of months ago you said you wanted to be prime minister and that was the job you were applying for. You had to know at the time that you would not get that job going through the front door and that was confirmed with the election results. But since Harper was a dozen seats short of a majority, you saw your move and you made it and over the weekend, you confessed it. It's now on tape as historical record. I guess if you are looking for a seat at the cabinet table, this is as good as it gets. Bet you're disappointed as hell that Svend Robinson is no longer a member of your caucus. Bet you think he would make as good a foreign affairs minister as you would a finance minister. Good luck with that Jack. And wish us all good luck. The Stock Market is just above 8 thousand 4hundred today. I guess from your perspective that is still 8 thousand four hundred more than your favorite number for Capitalism, ZERO.


To Gilles Duceppe:

Well I have to admit you must be laughing all the way to the bank these
days. When it come to fund raising your separatist brothers are more
bankrupt than Lehman Brothers. But over the last few years the Canadian
taxpayer has sent you more than 5 million dollars. You sit in the hammock.
We send you millions. It's a great deal for you and about to get a lot
better. While you won't likely have a seat at the cabinet table, you will be
an armed guard at the door, and if they don't do the right things at the
table, I suppose you can take them hostage, or to use Scott Reid's words,
just kill them all. Who knows? Maybe since you are holding the gun, maybe you can negotiate yourself a cabinet portfolio. May I respectfully suggest Minister of National Disunity.


And finally to Stephane Dion:

It must be a great disappointment to you Mr. Dion that as someone who prided himself on being an arch enemy of separatism, that your final political act is to become it's lap dog. Hard to believe you are doing this. At one point these bums characterized you as a rat. That graphic of you as a rat with the long narrow nose and the rat whiskers, was plastered everywhere in Quebec. You betrayed Quebec they said. You were a rat. These creeps and and thugs even blamed you for your own father's suicide. They said he killed himself because he was ashamed of you. And now you are willing to break bread with them and break the democratic will of the Canaidian voter. And all for what? So that you can have an asterisk in the Canadian history books. You can get the get the tax payer to pay for your six month lease on 24 Sussex Drive. Is this worth it to you Mr. Dion. Is this the way you want to go out, as a dog on a leash held by Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe?

People over the years have told me that you are an honest man, a
compassionate man, an earnest man. I now find it hard to think of you as a man. A man faces the voters and honours their decision. Now you have chosen to dishonour their decision, to dishonour democracy, to dishonour Canada.

Canada will survive Coupscam. I always have faith in the inherent decency of the Canadian people. But we will pay a heavy price. Our loony will get
plucked. Our wealth will get plundered and at times our faith in Canada and pride in its people will be tested. But we will survive. Canada has had much tougher opponents than Jack Layton, Gilles Duceppe and Stephane Dion, the Three Stooges of Coup Scam.

Charles Adler