790...Mikey I Makes The New Yorker

The New Yorker is a magazine that serves that town and Barbara Jaffe in this morning's Calgary Herald and Vancouver Sun doesn't think that being profiled in said rag benefits the next Prime Minister of Canada.

She posits that being profiled in MacLeans is a good thing, sells Michael Ignatieff at the Tim Horton's and the Legion; being profiled in The New Yorker in an article called "The Return of the Native; A public intellectual remakes himself as a public servant" is not so saleable.

Still, the next PM makes a good point in the story, as reported by Ms. Jaffe, and that is, I am paraphrasing, Canadians don't really care about the intellectual capacity of their leader, their PM, as much as they care about his trustablility and integrity.

Who would you rather have babysit your kids?

I thought so.

WFDS

634...Olden NDP Disses Jack Layton

Reading the letters to the editor in this morning's Vancouver Sun, I came across this piece by old warrior Harry Greenwood from the worker's paradise of West Vancouver.

He is a wee bit cranky it seems. With good cause I may add.

Mr. Greenwood points out that he was at the original convention back in 1961 when the CCF, Canadian Commonwealth Federation, decided to change its name to the New Party under Hazen Argue or perhaps something with a socialist twang. As is wont to happen, during the convention the supporters of Mr. Argue moved to The Greatest Canadian Tommy Douglas and inserted Democratic into the New Party.

Their national vision was clear though, Tommy Douglas' "...proclaimed that when the economy was being debated, we should focus on health care and make sure it never strayed far from the table." Mr. Greenwood remarks that Jack Layton has lost that vision and that to debate a name change is merely an academic exercise. He rightfully says that "...the passion is gone..." I say "...a spent force..."

The passion is gone in the CCF/New Party/NDP. They have, on the national level, become the party of the chattering classes insulated in their West Vancouver, Glebe, Outremont bubbles.

A rose by any other name.

WFDS

512...Barack Obama

"Obama fast becoming Canada's best friend; President's economic policies could put U.S. in tailspin" reads the headline in this morning's Vancouver Sun‏.

Barbara Jaffe writes that the man who we Canadians overwhelmingly wanted to be President of the United States may inadvertently be our very best friend. Just not for the reasons we thought he would be.

It is kind of ironic too, because what is happening is that Obamanomics equals big government and big government is not attractive to big business; in Canada the Conservatives and the latter stages of the Liberal regimes of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin, were parsing down our government footprint making the Great White North more attractive to investors.

Who'd have thunk it, eh?

WFDS

378...Conservative Get Tough Crime Laws Cheered

David Karp in this morning's edition of the Vancouver Sun writes that a majority of British Columbians approve of what federal Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada Rob Nicholson and the Tory government are planning to do to fight crime.


You know, stiffer sentences and all that.


Like they have in the States.


The crime free United States.

No surprise here.


An Angus Reid Strategies poll found that a majority of Canadians supported including all sex offenders in the national sex-offender registry, ending conditional sentences for non-personal injury crimes, and implementing mandatory minimum sentences. Throw in ending the faint hope clause that gives convicted murders a chance to get out early, not that early of course, they still have to serve 15 years, but earlier and you have the kit.

Simon Fraser University criminology professor Neil Boyd said he wasn’t surprised by the results. “It’s quite discouraging, because the best available evidence doesn’t support any of [the Conservatives’] initiatives,” he said. “I think what it reveals is the fact that we have really not educated the Canadian public about evidence-based social policy in the realm of crime and justice.” The majority is high, 82 per cent in British Columbia for example.

Here is why the policy/policies are 1/ popular and 2/fail miserably. They are popular because God fearing, hard working, non criminal types, who don't break the law, really, really wouldn't break the law if the penalty was higher than it is today. They fail because, instead of reducing crime they reduce the amount of people who are willing to take the risk associated with being a criminal and select out those who are smarter. Smarter people have options, they can run a grow op or use their education to make something of themselves in a non criminal world. If you make the penalty for running a grow op prohibitive the smart criminals will de criminalize. But the demand will remain and that void will be filled by individuals who are less intelligent and not deterred, probably not aware even, of the mandatory sentences and what not.

Plus, it doesn't work. We have many American jurisdictions that have severe penalties for drugs and still have the plague of drugs. Mayor Michael Bradley of Sarnia, Ontario, made that very point on yesterday's The Point [CBC One] when discussing this very issue. He pointed out that Michigan has super tough drug laws, mandatory sentences and so on and a severe, non relenting drug problem. He also, and here is a guy who has been mayor of his border town since the 1980's, is on the Police Services board, is a pretty even dude, he also pointed out that the never ending war on drugs is expensive, uses up tons of police resources and is futile.

Bottom line is these get tough laws look great on paper but reality shows that they are anything but.

WFDS