BREAKING: Don Cherry Says Something Controversial

It's been a while since CBC commentator Don Cherry got people this worked up, but it's certainly something he has a history of. Coming off the heels of the controversy involving Chicago Blackhawks defenceman Duncan Keith, Cherry used his Coach's Corner segment on Saturday to pontificate about female reporters and male locker rooms - namely that the former has no place in the latter:

Amid the outrage, Ron Maclean - who clearly took exception to his colleague's remarks - is defending Cherry.
More here, here, here, and here.

Political Puppetmasters or Wealthy Donors?

Local developer Cal Wenzel today fired back at those criticizing him for comments made in a recent speech - the video of which was leaked to Global Calgary.
Here's some of what Wenzel had to say today:

Now, it may well be that Cal Wenzel is looking out for his bottom line. It may well be that he is arrogant enough to think that his bottom line and his interests should be of importance to those on city council.
But even if all of that is true, is that really enough to condemn the founder of Shane Homes, as so many have been doing this week? For that matter, are we so naive to think that there aren't hundreds of others just like him?
It didn't help that Wenzel used words like "control" or "having" when talking about politicians - it certainly plays into the hands of those looking to portray him as a would-be puppetmaster. But at the same time, Wenzel is free to donate money to whichever politician he likes, and he must - like everyone else - adhere to the donation limit rules.
If that means Wenzel is trying to buy candidates, then the same goes for anyone else who makes a large donation. The suggestion that legal donations are akin to "buying" an election are absurd. If people want to have a conversation about donation limits then by all  means we can have that conversation.
In the meantime, if Wenzel has done anything illegal or improper, then the evidence should be laid out and it should be investigated. But there's no crime in wanting to help certain politicians win or wanting to help defeat certain candidates.
What we need most of all is transparency, so that voters know who's giving money to which candidates, and we can then judge them accordingly.

Momentum Grows for Marijuana Legalization

My latest Calgary Herald column looks at the 4/20 protests from the weekend and how momentum seems to be on the side of marijuana legalization:

For reasons that still seem elusive, April 20th (4/20) is an annual day of marijuana activism. To some it’s a call to rally for legalization, while to others it’s merely a day to enjoy a toke.
Activism and consumption were both in abundance this past weekend in the annual 4/20 celebrations. That included a gathering of some 10,000 people on Parliament Hill Saturday, calling on the federal government to reconsider its drug laws.
While such demands on Ottawa may be as futile now as they were 20 years ago, in many other ways the event has taken on a much greater significance and legitimacy. Momentum is clearly on the side of those opposed to the status quo.
Support for legalization has never been higher. A Forum Research poll done last November found that 65 per cent of Canadians support either legalization or decriminalization of marijuana. Around the same time, an Angus Reid poll found that 57 per cent of Canadians (and 54 per cent of Americans) support legalization. Just last week, a poll found that almost three-quarters of voters in B.C. support taking a closer look at the regulation and taxation of marijuana.
While such polls may be - for now - merely academic in the Canadian context, in the U.S. it has meant actual change. Ballot measures to legalize marijuana passed in both Colorado and Washington. Voters in other U.S. states may soon get the same opportunity. It’s hard to see how this genie will ever be rebottled.
Mind you, it’s difficult to see why we’d want to maintain the status quo. Marijuana prohibition is at its core anti-freedom and anti-liberty. Why should we need the state to protect consenting adults from themselves? Furthermore, our hypocrisy is highlighted every day as consenting adults legally consume alcohol and tobacco.
Instead we squander billions of dollars in a futile and counterproductive war on drugs with little or nothing to show for it.
For example, a UNICEF report released earlier this month found that Canada has the highest rate of youth marijuana use amongst developed countries – 28 per cent of young people say they’ve used marijuana in the past year. Interestingly, countries with a much more liberal approach to drugs - such as Portugal, where all drugs are decriminalized – have much lower usage rates.
Conversely, teenage use of tobacco - a legal substance – is far lower. Only four percent of teens report smoking at least once a week. Thus, the argument that prohibition is needed to “protect kids” is exposed as an empty façade.
Yet still so many of our leaders cling to that façade, and not just in Ottawa, either.
Here in Alberta, the government is engaged in “stakeholder consultations” as part of their plan to make Alberta “grow-op free”. Not to reduce the number of marijuana grow-ops, but a pledge to eliminate them altogether.
This sort of rhetoric is really no different that the sort of rhetoric we’ve been hearing from drug war hawks for the past 40 years – merely another version of the “we’ll-get-tough-and-make-this-problem-go-away” approach that has failed so spectacularly.
True, there are indeed many problems associated with illegal grow-ops – other illegal activities, health hazards, and safety hazards are some of the problems identified by Justice Minister Jonathan Denis.
But the minister fails to acknowledge that this is all a by-product of prohibition, and without acknowledging the source of the problem, how can we hope to tackle it? Denis has suggested those who might notice that connection take the matter up with the federal government, for drug laws are of course federal jurisdiction.
We might recall, though, how the minister and others in the provincial government previously spoke out against the gun registry. If a federal law or policy is creating difficulties here in Alberta, it is certainly incumbent on the provincial government to speak up.
There is also the fact that legal, authorized grow-ops exist in Alberta – those facilities which are licensed to grow medicinal marijuana. If a subset of grow-ops exist free of the very problems we’re trying to eradicate, why would we ignore that?
As more and more Canadians are coming to the conclusion that we need smarter drug policy, our politicians are giving us anything but.

Our Chat With "Weird Al" Yankovic

Once again the Calgary Comic & Entertainment Expo has a star-studded lineup of guests. Amongst the big names appearing at this weekend's show is the one and only Weird Al Yankovic, the biggest selling comedy recording artist of all time.
If you missed it last Thursday night on the show, here's our interview with Weird Al:

It's been 30 years since Weird Al released his first full-length album, and it's remarkable how adaptable he's been over the years:

Hugh Howey's "Wool"

There's been no shortage of attention for Hugh Howey's book "Wool" - both because it's a fascinating story (reviews here, here, and here) of a dystopian future where society's surviving inhabitants are forced to live underground in massive silos and because it's turned the publishing industry on its head. The book was self-published as a short story back in 2011, and grew into a full novel in response to fan demand. In fact, it was already a best-seller when Simon & Schuster swooped in to grab the publishing rights. Famed director Ridley Scott has also acquired the movie rights to the book.
More here, here, here, and here.

We spoke with Hugh Howey last week about "Wool" and about all the attention he's now receiving: 

Interest Ebbs as Science Weakens for "Liberation Treatment"

My latest Calgary Herald column:

A recent admission from the New Brunswick government would seem to be indicative of a much broader waning of interest in the so-called liberation treatment for multiple sclerosis.
In 2009, Italian surgeon Paolo Zamboni published research suggesting that blocked neck veins (a condition dubbed CCSVI) caused MS and that removing those blockages (the liberation treatment) would reduce or even eliminate MS symptoms.
Amid the resulting clamour, New Brunswick offered to pay for patients to go abroad and have this unproven treatment. In the first four months, only 25 people were approved. The government says there have been no applications in the past two months.
While it’s difficult to pin down the exact reasons, it may have something to do with the fact that several studies have now been published casting great doubt on the validity of the CCSVI theory.
In fact, several studies have been published in the past few years that have failed to duplicate Zamboni’s findings. Many have shown a low prevalence of CCSVI in MS sufferers and an often equal prevalence of the condition among those without MS.
We see such findings yet again in research published last month that found no statistical difference in CCSVI prevalence among those with MS as compared to those without.
But more significant has been the first published results from a clinical trial at the University of Buffalo into liberation treatment. The results show that the procedure did not improve patient outcomes, and in some cases, actually made symptoms worse.
As the researchers note, this is not and should not be the final word on CCSVI, but it should certainly prompt a rethink on those who bought into the initial hype and acted as though Zamboni’s research was the final word.
While the Liberal leadership candidates have avoided the matter, others in the party — in particular, MPs Kirsty Duncan and Carolyn Bennett — have been vocal. Duncan was behind a defeated private member’s bill to establish a national CCSVI strategy, and has been harshly critical of what would appear to be a lack of enthusiasm on the government’s part for the theory and the procedure.
While the government’s apprehension may now prove to have been completely justified, it did still move to establish a Canadian clinical trial and patient registry.
Meanwhile, there has been nothing from either Duncan or Bennett acknowledging this new published research or admitting that their own enthusiasm may have been premature and misplaced.
The dwindling enthusiasm among politicians has corresponded with a similar drop in interest on the part of the media, though it’s unclear which has led to the other.
It is certainly true that many in the media presented Zamboni’s findings with great enthusiasm and a glaring lack of skepticism. It’s not unfair to say that the coverage played a major role in the attention from politicians and the fact that so many MS patients sought out the procedure.
By creating a narrative around Zamboni as a saviour to those with MS, we blinded ourselves to other research in this area and, by extension, misinformed the public about the state of MS research.
We now have, for example, the potential of a major new breakthrough in treating MS that might give us another opportunity to get the story right. It’s a study that’s been ongoing in Canada for over a decade now. Parts have been published, including a study last month, and it’s hoped that the entire research will be published soon.
It involves MS patients for whom traditional drug therapies have proven ineffective and instead employs a riskier approach with chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants. Essentially, researchers were rebooting the immune system with the hope of watching how the disease returns. But the disease didn’t return, which was an enormous and unexpected surprise.
Researchers are being cautious so far, and want to make sure everything is in order for when the final results are published. There is potentially much to be learned about MS from this study, but many questions remain.
Hopefully, though, as the case weakens for CCSVI and the evidence around MS takes us in different directions, we’ll all have learned some important lessons from the past few years.
(Note: you'll find links to the aforementioned studies here and here)