The Good, The Bad, The Spin

How a consumer protection law may be defeated by a faux consumer watchdog campaign

By Daniel Loxton

[Editor's note: This is republished from The Skeptic. The intention with this post is to illustrate how 'grass-roots' campaigns, activist causes and the like don't have play by the rules of transparency, accuracy and the free flow of information.]

Is it possible for a vested business interest to derail national legislation by posing as a consumer watchdog? We’ll soon learn whether a shadowy mail order drug company’s fierce, artificial grassroots campaign will rob the Canadian people of an important public safety law.

In April 2008, Canada’s federal Parliament began considering a proposed law¹ — Bill C-51 — that would revise the body of laws regulating food and drugs in Canada (the Food and Drugs Act). Of particular interest to skeptics, C-51 would finally allow Canadian federal health authorities (Health Canada) to enforce existing laws² that require substances sold under the multi-billion-dollar “natural health products” umbrella to be safe, unadulterated, honestly labeled, and marketed with supportable claims. (more…)

I’m no Buddha*. And likely, neither are you.

The amount of perfection expected for people is unrealistic and often contradictory. The world’s noted scandals are often the results of character flaws of familial, biological and sociocultural origins, of which most of us possess.

Yet the bar is raised particularly high for public figures. It’s at the point of being unrealistic, so much so that I get a sense of cynical, voyeuristic enjoyment from the Peter Dohertys and Dennis Rodmans of the world. People like them, who relish in their careless, destructive behaviors, are refreshingly honest even while being distasteful to some.

Not giving a shit, when compared with the uppity expectations placed on many public figures, or just about anyone who screws up and is publicly exposed for it, is a healthy perspective. Suspending judgment of others is even healthier because the levels of expectation we place upon one another is, on some level, dependant upon our own mistakes and misjudgments. (more…)

I purposefully avoid discussing local matters for two reasons: 1. there’s ample material of which I often know too much, and 2. in light of number one, I try to maintain a decent amount of good juju with my colleagues. I admit I’m not always successful. Thus, this blog’s emphasis has rarely been about matters related to Nevada.

This one is too good to pass up, however. My friend and colleague, Ryan Jerz, is one of Reno’s best bloggers and is certainly one of the most read. He recently had the audacity, as he often does, to comment in the negative. This time, it was about a lawsuit being filed against the local university by a former disgruntled employee*. It seemed harmless enough at the time.

He underestimated the wrath of said disgruntled employee, however, who has since attempted all manner of trying to silence him, up to and including visits over coffee, threat of a lawsuit and, most recently, a cease and desist letter.

Jerz did the right thing, in my opinion. I said if it were me, I would post up everything. He did. And it’s a delicious read.

Transparency, as I’ve mentioned before, is a two-way street. Fortunately, most have seen through the wrath, now put in a more open context by Jerz’ coming out (as it were). Many are offering up donations to his legal defense fund. I donated to him the time of my virtual assistant, who is a paralegal. (Thank you, Kimberly.) (more…)