Herald Column: A Tale of Two Cheap Shots (Swann's Was Worse)

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly examines two sets of controversial remarks last week: some cheap shots on Twitter from the chief-of-staff to the Wildrose Alliance leader and some provocative remarks from the Alberta Liberal leader.

 

I argue that it was David Swann who went over the line in accusing the province of being directly responsible for H1N1-related deaths: 

...It's worthwhile, though, to contrast the remarks from Mr. Carter and from Dr. David Swann, leader of the Alberta Liberals. As far as I can tell, no apology has been offered from him, and as of this writing no apology has been sought.

Not that I spend copious amounts of time assessing and ranking the sorts of insults I might wish to be hurled my way, but I'm pretty sure that being called a stammering yokel might be slightly less grievous that being accused of having blood on my hands.

Dr. Swann has certainly made himself more relevant as of late with his sharp criticism of how the government handled its vaccination program. Frankly, much of his criticism has been spot-on.

I fear, though, he may have overplayed his hand here: if you're going to accuse someone of having blood on his hands, you'd better be able to demonstrate that the blood is indeed there.

Late last week, Dr. Swann accused the Stelmach government of being responsible for deaths linked to H1N1 flu.

The rationale here is that because the vaccination program was poorly run, its possible that those in high risk groups were not vaccinated and it's then possible that some of those individuals who might have been vaccinated through a properly run program instead contracted H1N1 influenza and subsequently died.

It's a plausible scenario. Unfortunately for Dr. Swann, he has put forth no evidence to suggest that it occurred.

In fact, Swann has all but admitted that he doesn't know: rather than presenting evidence he is the one asking for it. It's almost like a police officer charging someone with murder and then asking the suspect if he has any evidence that could help make the charge stick.

By all means, let's look into whether at-risk individuals fell through the gaping cracks in the early days of the vaccination program.

However, there are several problems with a simple narrative like this. And being a medical doctor, Swann ought to be aware of them.

First of all, vaccinations didn't begin until late October and could not have begun any sooner - by that point, this flu season was well under way.

Secondly, it can take up to two weeks for the vaccine to take effect, so any death prior to mid-November could not realistically be attributed to a poorly planned vaccination campaign.

Furthermore, we're not exactly talking about a tetanus shot - flu shots can decrease your likelihood of getting the flu, but it's not a guarantee. It's less effective in the elderly and those with weakened immune systems: the very people who may have succumbed to flu-related complications.

It should also be noted that Alberta's death toll includes those who died from other causes but also tested positive for H1N1.

Bottom line: we don't know if any of the flu-related deaths in the last two weeks involve anyone who was unable to get vaccinated. We also can't say for sure if the vaccine would have made enough of a difference.

All in all, it's a pretty flimsy basis for saying the government is directly responsible for any deaths.

None of this is to say the government deserves a pass - quite the contrary.

However, if the opposition is going to resort to over-the-top, unproven allegations, then in lieu of any serious criticism, the government will effectively have been given a pass.

Those tasked with holding the government to account need to rise above such cheap shots.

However, the initial reaction to Swann's comments from the government side has been disappointing. It would seem as though the government not only feels its unfair to blame them for any deaths, but that it's unfair to blame them for anything. Here's my on-air editorial comment from today: 

I must admit, whatever sympathy I felt for the Stelmach government is quickly evaporating. Last week, Liberal leader David Swann accused the government of being directly responsible for H1N1 deaths. To me, that was an over-the-top and unsubstantiated allegation. It's unclear exactly how many people have died solely as a result of H1N1, and given the two weeks it takes for the vaccine to kick in, we're talking about a very narrow period of time. That, of course, does not absolve the government of responsibility for how the rollout of the vaccine was handled. The health minister, though, would rather not speak of responsibility. According to Ron Liepert, really no one is to blame He accused others in politics and in the media of being, quote, not happy unless you can blame somebody. Try to imagine the opposite scenario, where the government flawlessly executed a vaccine plan. Would the minister really say no one was deserving of credit? Would he really be upset that people were trying to give his government credit? Of course not. This is a government that wants all the credit when things go right, but demanding accountability when things go wrong is some sort of cruel and petty blame game. It's a sign of a government that's been too comfortable in power for too long

Neo-Prohibitionists in Alberta

Wetaskiwin, to be precise, where the temperance movement seems to have a firm grasp on city council.

 

Civic politicians in Wetaskiwin have decided that they don't like the idea of people purchasing alcohol in the late evening: 

The matter came to a head Nov. 9 during the second reading of the controversial proposed bylaw 1753-09, which originally called for the closing of all Wetaskiwin liquor stores by 8 p.m. daily.

Following last month's public meeting, which attracted a standing room-only crowd of more than 250 people at the Memorial Arts Centre, council made several amendments to the proposed bylaw, including extending hours to 10 p.m. daily, as well as a clause, which includes the potential of revoking business licences, and issuing a stop work order for those businesses, which fail to comply with the bylaw, if it is indeed passed into law by city council. 

 

 

More here:  

"You talk about democracy. Let's have a democracy where we open liquor stores 24 hours because someone wants to? I don't think so."

(Ald. Bill Elliot) pointed out he has spoken to a number of people about the bylaw, and there aren't many who purchase alcohol after 10 o'clock at night.

Elliot said he also spoke to a liquor storeowner, who told them the amount of sales made after 10 p.m. was less than 10 per cent.

"And I said, 'Who is that less than 10 per cent sold to?' People coming out of the bars. That doesn't sound like a very safe city to me.

"Currently, we have liquor stores, liquor stores selling to intoxicated people, we have under aged people. I've seen it and had it reported to the city, so we'll ask the liquor commission come down and inspect to make sure people are within the law," said Elliot.   

Where to start? First of all, yes, in a democracy we could have 24-hour liquor stores. If our elected politicians wished to change the regulations we could indeed have that. I'm not aware of many businesses clamouring for such a change, but it's hardly the terrifying concept Mr. Elliot makes it out to be.

 

It's ironic that in attacking the liquor stores, Mr. Elliot is acting as though he's doing them a favour: you don't really want to be open past 10pm.

 

It's really not the concern of government: if this business feels there's little reason to stay open past 10pm, then they can make the decision on their own to close at or before 10pm. If they have clients who are coming in later, it's the store's decision to remain open to serve them.

 

There are already laws about serving to intoxicated individuals, so beyond that, it is not really the business of the state if a person wishes to buy a bottle of wine at noon or at midnight.

 

There are, of course, laws dealing with the sale of liquor to minors - the answer, therefore, would seem to be enforcing the current laws rather than create new ones.

 

As for "people coming out of the bars", Mr. Elliot makes it sound as though everyone "coming out of the bar" is now poised to embark upon a crime spree. I suppose someone "coming out of the bar" and stopping to buy a six-pack is probably on his way home to drink it.

 

Although, if we're now assuming the worst about people inclined to purchase liquor, then isn't it possible that with this new law, thirsty troublemakers will drive to, say, Millet, Ponoka, or Leduc, thus creating new problems?

 

If Wetaskiwin or any other community has a crime problem, the answer is to target those committing the crimes, not to punish everyone.

 

Yes, Wetaskiwin may have a crime problem - it lives right next door to a community with a severe crime problem - but do they really think it's all going to go away by closing liquor stores a little earlier?

 

We, of course, once had a government monopoly on liquor sales where early closing times was the norm. Are we now operating under the illusion that those were wonderful crime-free times?

 

There is an assumption - common among neo-prohibitionists - that alcohol turns normally law-abiding folks into raging criminals. I dare suggest that those committing crimes in and around Wetaskiwin might be doing so regardless of what time the beer store closes.  

 

Now, I don't live in Wetaskiwin (though I once did for about 18 months or so), and the city isn't exactly in Calgary's backyard.  So why does this matter?

 

It matters because this sort of neo-prohibitionist ideology seems to be spreading in this province - this is only the latest example. See here, here, here, and here for more on this trend.

Herald Column - Scapegoats & Strawmen: Ed vs. The Media

This week's Calgary Herald column from yours truly has a look back at the weekend Tory convention, and specifically Premier Stelmach's declaration that the media is "the biggest problem we're facing as a government":

...Although, if I may be so blasphemous, perhaps the reality of the situation is not quite as the premier frames it.

After all, it is possible that the media bears no responsibility whatsoever for the Tory malaise.

Perhaps the media has simply reported accurately on the government's shortcomings and missteps.

Perhaps the media has reported accurately on the building enthusiasm for the Wildrose Alliance.

Perhaps the premier's comments represent an arrogant and desperate government refusing to acknowledge that Albertans are quickly losing faith in them.

To expand on the old saying: don't shoot the messenger and don't shoot the messaging. Shoot the policies and shoot the governing.

When you get right down to it, it is quite pathetic for a government in control of a massive, multi-million dollar PR machine to be complaining about its failure to communicate.
If anything, it serves as further evidence of their own ineptitude.

Stelmach indicated that part of this new strategy would be to bypass the media and communicate more directly with Albertans.

Trouble is, they've tried that, with underwhelming results to say the least.

You'd be forgiven for not remembering, but it was only last month when we were all subjected to "The Way Forward", the premier's heavily promoted televised address.

Here is a perfect example of what the premier claims is missing from his communications strategy: a direct connection to voters, a platform unfiltered by the media.

What did we get? Very little beyond warm and fuzzy platitudes. The premier demanded a stage and then didn't know what to do with it.

Given that wasted opportunity, it remains a mystery as to what it is that the Premier is being prevented from sharing with all of us.

In Red Deer Saturday, the Premier claimed, "I really do feel that the policies we have are the right ones for Alberta, but it's difficult to get it through the present media that's available to us."

For now, we'll just have to take his word regarding these fantastic-though-unspecified policies. However, here's a question to ponder: if indeed this government has the "right policies for Alberta", why the need for "change"?

"Changes are coming," the Premier himself declared this past weekend.

How can it be simultaneously true that the Stelmach government has the right policies and that we need change?

Do they really inhabit a world where logic allows for such a contradiction or is the premier simply just making it up as he goes along?

No wonder this government has communication issues. Although, even the slickest of communications strategies cannot mask this amount of confusion and disarray.

Before revising their plan for dealing with the media, or crafting new infomercials and websites, this government might want to figure out what exactly it stands for and where exactly it intends on taking this province.

The government would have you believe that more favorable media coverage would simply be correcting an imbalance - the end of a malicious anti-Stelmach agenda.

What it really would amount to is a complete abdication of the media's responsibilities. An expectation that the media pass on the spin rather than cut through it - creating an echo chamber for the empty boasts of a party in denial.

While the government lashes out at strawmen and invisible conspirators, Albertans continue for wait for real leadership.