Stephen Taylor

Brett Skinner is the Director of Pharmaceutical & Heath Policy Research from the Fraser Institute. He spoke at Peter Jaworski’s Liberty Summer Seminar and gave an interesting talk on a current issue that should contain a lot more facts in the place of a failed ideology.

Healthcare is a perennial issue in Canadian elections and while the Liberal Party merely points to another party and says “not like them”, they do not propose any fresh ideas for providing service to Canadians.

As Brett muses, the opponents of liberty in healthcare (the Liberals) do not care about the viability of the public system. They instead care about equalitarian socialism. For Canadians living under this government however, this has little to do with the delivery of a high quality service to Canadians.

Now, to be fair, at an earlier speech to the Fraser Institute, Stephen Harper surprised some by declaring that the Conservative Party of Canada would not be changing the current overall system to include a private tier. Harper attributed this decision to an overwhelming Canadian aversion to changing healthcare in such a way.

However, this came before the Chaoulli SCC decision, and perhaps some experimentation by a few provincial governments will begin to turn the tide.

Did you know that the average age of a hospital in Canada is 40 years while the average age of an American hospital is 9 years?

Did you know that Canada delays the approval of certain drugs by about six months in order to wait for the price of a newly released drug to fall to a comfortable level for the Canadian government?

The healthcare debate in this country is a contentious one and the talking points often fall along ideological lines. If we are to fix an unsustainable system however, we need to measure the benefit of an egalitarian socialism where we pay more and get less against another system of delivery.

The Fraser Institute asks important questions and answers many of them in a way that goes against the grain of the current stagnant mindset. If you ever wanted to understand the private side of the healthcare debate beyond the superficial and demonizing Liberal talking points, I’d encourage you to listen to Brett Skinner (even if you are a public system proponent) and try to keep an open mind to the facts.

To subscribe to the Blogging Tories podcast click here (instructions are here)

To download the MP3 directly click here

I have a technical question. Does anyone know if there is a way to get accurate RSS statistics on subscribers? I can’t tell how many times an XML file has been accessed on my server, however, subscribers can request an XML file at various frequencies.

I guess I’m looking for an easier way to count the number of IPs that request XML files on a regular basis. Is there such a program/method?

I’d like to know how many people have subscribed to the Blogging Tories podcast feed (there’s a new one coming today!)

Yesterday I wrote a post of which I am now not particularly proud. In that post I wrote about a Globe and Mail article in which Brian Laghi and Gloria Galloway quoted Carol Jamieson as a “Party Organizer” for the Conservative Party of Canada.

First, let me provide the context:
The quotation, as it stood, implied that a senior party organizer was livid about the party and its leadership. When you continuously read about anonymous “senior party sources” placed in national newspapers which have an arguable bias against Conservatives, you get angry and question the sources.

“Who questions leadership at a time like this?”
“How senior is this source?”
“What’s the agenda here?”

I received a request from a “senior party source” of my own which asked me to clarify this error. “She’s not even a member!”, my source claimed.

This claim was even backed up with what appeared to be compelling evidence that now appears to be misinterpreted.

Carol Jamieson is no friend of the current folks who call the shots for the CPC in Ottawa. She worked in Joe Clark’s office and ran Belinda Stronach’s CPC leadership bid. It wasn’t evident at the time but I later remembered that I had even seen Carol at the national convention in March. The things that come to light when I should have double-checked…

The Globe and Mail still crafted the quote in a dishonest way by suggesting implicitly that Carol Jamieson works in senior circles and that there is turmoil among the senior staff. Juxtaposed with the news of the “shakeup” in the OLO, this had the effect of dishonestly amplifying an outsider’s perception of a situation which existed in a much smaller sense. Jamieson is not a top-down organizer for the party and this should have been made clear by the Globe and Mail. While she supports the party (yet not the leader), she could be referred to as a bottom-up organizer. There is a clear distinction and it is very important. I am also a “bottom-up” organizer and while I have friends in the OLO, I still feel as though my opinion about OLO internal politics isn’t valid for consumption by the entire readership of a national newspaper (for numerous reasons).

With that being said, I received a copy of a membership receipt for one Margaret Jamieson. Carol’s legal name is Margaret Carol Jamieson. The compelling evidence of an expired membership was for “Carol Jamieson”. While “Carol Jamieson’s” membership had expired, “Margaret Jamieson” started a new one. Both my source and I got everyone in this mess by one clerical detail: Carol signed up as Margaret this time around and left us all with egg on our faces.

In an OLO where staff are being axed and where the Leader is constantly under fire from every facet of the media, the occurance of such a mistake is understable in such a frantic atmosphere. Yet I have no excuse for leaping to a defense which I wanted to be true, and for compromising whatever integrity my readers have come to perceive of me during the life of my blog. I admit that yesterday I let my own bias cloud my judgment. Compound this with my still strong belief that the media isn’t giving Stephen Harper a fair chance; I felt compelled to defend a good man and a great leader. While I am openly partisan, I should never let that hinder the pursuit of the truth, wherever it may reveal itself.

I’d like to apologize first to Carol Jamieson, for asserting that she was without party membership. I don’t agree with Carol, but we are a grassroots party and her input is necessary (even when it’s not helpful).

I’d like to apologize to Angry and Kate for taking them along on this wild ride.

I’d like to apologize to my readers who don’t need to stop by and read about my latest belly-ache. I’d like to thank any of you who will stick around.

Finally, I’d like to apologize to my parents who raised me properly and told me to own up to my mistakes. (thank you)

There are also a few lessons that I’ve learned which I hope will guide me in the future.

1) Never hatchet other Conservatives. I became a hypocrite yesterday by doing exactly what I was criticizing someone else for doing.
2) No matter how attractive the prize, always be cognizant of where the truth may actually reveal itself (if not in your original assumption).
3) Don’t jump to conclusions.
4) Always double check your sources.

Whenever a mistake like this is made, a good blogger should own up to it. I regret labelling Carol a non-member of the Conservative Party and hope that while I’m unlikely to have such an influence, that I haven’t injured Carol’s reputation or soured her day. While I question her practices and methods, I don’t doubt that Carol shares the wish of all Conservatives to elect a Conservative government and improve this great Canadian country.