In Today's Other News Headlines...

Kate,

The link is broke.

Sorry - should be fixed now!

And I'm sure there will be the usual talk of the "determinants" of health being poverty and lack of education. This problem will never be addressed until we look at the determinants of poverty and lack of education, and try to correlate them with poor health. In a city where immunization is free and its value universally understood, how does one explain an immunization rate of 45%. Perhaps there should also be a correlation with smoking, gambling, and other behaviours that are "risk taking". Education is not the issue; motivation and attitudes are.

Here we go again!

Next thing we know the MSM will be sensationally trumpeting a study that purports to have conclusively proven a direct causal linkage between the consumption of beans and flatulence.

Astonishing the things the MSM posts as if it was "news".

Then there's the blatant biased spinning I've been reading in the MSM about the fact that the homicide rate rose in Canada in 2005: they're having the standard self-proclaimed "experts" from some universities telling us to believe that simply having more social programs will reduce the homicide rate and that taking murderers off the street won't prevent them from killing on the streets again. They claim that it's "known", but that's it... "It's KNOWN that this and that are so... don't question me or else you're insane..." Well, you know what I mean. The MSM is doing it again!

Something tells me that the MSM does this stuff because it wants to influence not only public perceptions but also gov't legislation... and always in a liberal-left way which we rational folks know won't work. We've had liberal policies for 13 years... and the homicide rate went up... so the left is wrong. Spin that.

As for this specific post's topic re poverty and health problems: Again we have the MSM demanding the feds throw money around as if this is a communist nation... I thought we already did that... it's called Medicare, isn't it?

dogs bark.

Shouldnt Ralph apologize to Peter McKay for refering to his flesh appendage as a bone.?

- Suicide attempts --16 times higher

- Chlamydia --14.9 times higher

- Diabetes --12.9 times higher

- Mental disorders -- 4.3 times higher

Sounds awful...yet which comes first the chicken or the egg?

Of course it's not PEECEE to suggest that the weak of spirit, weak of mind, weak of body and weak of character are congregating in a common territory.

Water not only runs downhill it finds it's own level.
And birds of a feather do flock together.

Of course this is really all because of "disparity of wealth" right?

So, are they sick because they are poor and can't get good healthcare because of The Man stickin' it to the poor,

or,

are they poor because despite the free healthcare, free education, free counselling and etc. they still get sick all the time?

Can't work much when you're sick (or clinically depressed, or an un-trainable retard), which leads to being poor.

Just sayin'.

We've had liberal policies for 13 years... and the homicide rate went up... so the left is wrong. Spin that.

The policies we've had in place for the past 13 years may have been Liberal, but not necessarily liberal (that is, progressive/social-democratic). Here in Ontario, the Mike Harris "Common Sense Revolution" had the effect of severely retrenching social welfare and community programs. Paul Martin was also complicit in slashing similar policies and programs at the federal level. Wait a few years while these retrenchment policies do their damage on the community fabric, and voila!, in Toronto last year, we experienced elevated gang activity and "the summer of the gun". How's that for a direct association (albeit an oversimplified one)?

The current CPC crime-control plan--tougher sentencing, more jails--has been shown internationally to have a limited deterrent effect on "hot" crimes such as firearm homicide. What they do is put away offenders after the fact. As we in Canada have few repeat killers (that is, those who kill, go to jail, come out, and kill again), this policy will likely do little to reduce homicide rates in the long-term.

Also, construction and maintenance of these new jails is projected to cost a quarter-billion dollars, plus an additional $40 million annually. This is hardly in keeping with the conservative principle of smaller government (though it is in keeping with the Conservative principle of prioritizing individual responsibility over community empowerment, as well as the non-partisan political principle of appeasing the middle-class in order to get reelected).

Hi, I am the overtaxed underappreciated middle class. Go Harper!!!!

If I hear one more word about how Mike Harris is at fault for everything that went wrong in Ontario, I'm gonna hurl!

Go Tory! Go Harper!
Hell, Go Harris too!

"A", that sounds like leftist talking points. Heard it before. The left has no credible ideas to offer other than more and more socialism, which we did indeed experience under the Liberals. But we know also that the problems in society only got far worse. None of the leftist parties proposed anything meaningful- more gov't spending on community centers and the like, which bad guys with illegal weapons won't care about anyway. I mean, come on.

We simply need to remove the violent people from society and stop turning them loose in a hurry to murder more people. Duh. Not hard to understand. After all, when dogs attack people, they're shot. When wild animals attack people, they're shot. Why shouldn't people who attack and murder people be incarcerated? If people are dangerous, then it's wrong to allow them to walk freely amongst the population, like ticking time bombs.

We cannot get rid of guns. But we can incarcerate those who use them to kill so they can't do it again. We do indeed know that doing so does save lives! Anyone who denies it is incredibly ignorant of all the murders committed by murderers who were released from prison!

The contention that more socialist stuff will reduce murders committed by murderers who aren't taken out of social circulation is total hogwash. The left never bothers to prove what they claim; no surprise there.

The left also contends that incarceration isn't a deterrence against murder. But the left cannot then claim that no-incarceration will deter murderers, either. Plain intellectual sensibility tells one that when the average person knows that there's a severe penalty for doing something severe, that person will be motivated to not commit that severe act. Even leftists must agree to this. Laws backed with visible enforcement do deter unacceptable actions. Not always, but without laws and their visible enforcement, then there'll be a helluva lot more unacceptable actions. Duh-duh!

You know, if laws and punishment don't deter bad things, then why do leftists want more laws and punishment for those who do things leftists don't like? Like use illegal language, for example, or for refusing to conduct a gay wedding ceremony on religious grounds...

"A", you said: "...construction and maintenance of these new jails is projected to cost a quarter-billion dollars, plus an additional $40 million annually..."

Uh huh. As compared to the Liberal's gun registry, which cost $2 billion and has yet to prevent any crime at all.

Yeah, gun owners sure don't get any warm & fuzzy treatment from liberals if we should break any law. Society isn't to blame in our case, it all becomes 'personal responsibility' and 'punishment to deter' then.

With free new schools, free new housing, free healthcare, free government handouts, unlimited social programs, no oppressive traditional family values, no stifling religious beliefs, no ruthless capitalist exploitation, no evil influence by globalization, and all the sex drugs and rock and roll your heart could desire there's one place in Canada that should be lib/left paradise on earth. It's called Davis Inlet and the suicide rate is through the roof. Hmmmmm . . . couldn't be that the whole leftist formula for human happiness is flawed???? Naw, it must be GEORGE BUSH and THE CIA!!!!

The Phantom: As compared to the Liberal's gun registry, which cost $2 billion and has yet to prevent any crime at all.

Two things: first, my point was simply that Big Government comes in all shapes and sizes, on both sides of the political spectrum (as libertarians in the US have been discovering of late).

Also, criticisms of the long-gun registry almost always invoke the $2 billion price tag. I suspect that a registry that costs, say, $78.50 per year to operate would be far less controversial, the point being that the utility of a national gun registry itself should not be conflated with the bureaucratic, technological, and logistical failings of its implementation.

Phantom, you have insulted more cdns than Ralph did re his bone remark with your reference to the untrainable. Maybe you were speaking of yourself.
BS is saying she is hearing from women who will not go into politics because of the sexist remarks etc. Hey, BS, if they are not home wreckers, adulteresses, available to anyone if the price is right and have positive values, they wouldn't have any problem. It is you, not the remarks that have lowered the standard for female politicians. And, it was a woman who wrote Kleins speech.

Whenever I read stories like this, I think of the Star Trek episode "Dagger of the Mind." You know, the one where Kirk and crew go to the last maximum security prison in the Federation where Lord Garth is?

Remember Kirk makes a speech about how prisons are no longer hell-holes, but hospitals for sick minds?

I wonder how long it will be before our society can be like that. When social welfare is in place not just to assuage consciences in soccer mom territory, but actually (a) takes care of those who really can't take of themselves, (b) assists those who have some, but not enough, skills, and (c) gets people with temporary problems back into the mainstream. Why don't I hear about any research being done about how to put the proper incentives into the system in order to get this done? (Do I have to do everything myself?)

The Canadian Sentinel: None of the leftist parties proposed anything meaningful--more gov't spending on community centers and the like, which bad guys with illegal weapons won't care about anyway. I mean, come on.

The purpose of investing in community resources is to prevent vulnerable populations from being "bad guys" in the first place. "Leftists" have never called for the emptying of prisons, nor have they ever called for the softening of sentences for violent offenders. But they have also sought to balance criminal justice with social justice, punishment of offenders with the prevention of vulnerable populations from slipping into crime.

We simply need to remove the violent people from society and stop turning them loose in a hurry to murder more people. Duh.

That's the appropriate short-term solution, to be sure. But one need also ask how society produces violent people in the first place. A good century of theory and research in economics, sociology, criminology, law, etc. indicates that much of "popular crime" (i.e., violence against the person; theft, robbery, and other non-white-collar property offenses) arises from social marginalization, lack/denial of opportunity, desperation, and so forth. Fixing those problems through resource-building, empowerment, social investments, etc., is a valid long-term solution to violent crime. It'd be great if those with the means to make these investments would do so voluntarily; since they usually do not, government must step in, for the collective good of society.

Note that I'm not denying personal responsibility. Whatever one's circumstances, once one robs or kill someones else, they should rightly be punished. But you should also consider that people exist in a social environment, and their behaviours and values are shaped and constrained by the circumstances in which they find themselves. Note also that, at the national level, lower inequality is associated with lower rates of violence crime.

Plain intellectual sensibility tells one that when the average person knows that there's a severe penalty for doing something severe, that person will be motivated to not commit that severe act.

This statement assumes that all actors and their actions are rational. This may be attractive in its conceptual simplicity, and appealing to those who support individualist-oriented ideologies, but it is not true in reality. Take smoking or not putting on a seatbeat (the severe penalties here being a painful death from lung cancer, and being thrown headfirst through the windshield of one's car, respectively). The point is, people may understand the consequences of homicide in an abstract, intellectual sort of way, but in the heat of the moment, people will do what they feel compelled to do. Also, few criminals plan on getting caught, which also undermines much of your rational deterrent theory. If capital punishment--death itself, about the most severe punishment around--has failed as a deterrent of violent crime, what makes you think a long prison sentence will?

You know, if laws and punishment don't deter bad things, then why do leftists want more laws and punishment for those who do things leftists don't like? Like use illegal language, for example, or for refusing to conduct a gay wedding ceremony on religious grounds...

Because laws are also expressions of a society's values. Canada, like much of the West, endorses equality and tolerance (I assume by "illegal language," you mean hate literature). These laws may not deter offenses, but it allows for legal action when offenses do occur. In fact, deterrence of hate crime is best achieved through--wait for it--"socialist stuff" like community/cultural investments and other outreach initiatives. Which reflects the same "leftist" strategy as for violent crime prevention. Huh.

Also, "refusing to conduct a gay wedding ceremony on religious grounds" is not a crime. Indeed, religious freedom is enshrined both in the Charter and in section 3 of the Marriage for Civil Purposes Act.

Marco,

If you can borrow it, there's a few blurbs about such systems in "Leadership" by Rudy Guiliani.

RL

Who amongst you belive that giving money to the people in these situations will make their problems go away? I'm sure no one on this board believes that, unless of course the NDP have someone monitoring it.

Face it....if you give a young woman prone to multiple unwed pregnancies, veneral disease, drug addictions, alcoholism, mental breakdowns, and various other character traits.....$100,000 dollars a year, what do you get?

Well.....you get a semi-wealthy young woman who will be prone to unwed pregnancies,venereal diseases, drug addictions, alcoholism, mental breakdowns, and various other character traits.....only now, she'll have enough money to buy the REALLY GOOD drugs. And she'll be broke in two months.

Same with a young man prone to violence, robbery, and drug addiction. Giving him money won't improve his character. It will just allow him to buy better guns, drugs, and impress his friends with his new rims.

Save the social programs for those who will benefit from them. Single mothers trying to improve their lives so that their children will succeed, or young men looking for guidance or training so they will succeed and feel proud.

Stop pissing it away on those who want all of the benefits of a wealthy society, but don't want to contribute.

MaryT, clearly you've never worked construction with casual labor.

In the winter you find them clustered around the heater, in summer around the water pail. Never seem to find them where the work is being done. That's what keeps them poor.

Who amongst you belive that giving money to the people in these situations will make their problems go away? I'm sure no one on this board believes that, unless of course the NDP have someone monitoring it.

Face it....if you give a young woman prone to multiple unwed pregnancies, veneral disease, drug addictions, alcoholism, mental breakdowns, and various other character traits.....$100,000 dollars a year, what do you get?

Well.....you get a semi-wealthy young woman who will be prone to unwed pregnancies,venereal diseases, drug addictions, alcoholism, mental breakdowns, and various other character traits.....only now, she'll have enough money to buy the REALLY GOOD drugs. And she'll be broke in two months.

Same with a young man prone to violence, robbery, and drug addiction. Giving him money won't improve his character. It will just allow him to buy better guns, drugs, and impress his friends with his new rims.

Save the social programs for those who will benefit from them. Single mothers trying to improve their lives so that their children will succeed, or young men looking for guidance or training so they will succeed and feel proud.

Stop pissing it away on those who want all of the benefits of a wealthy society, but don't want to contribute.

maryT at 3:38 pm. You said it. I just couldn't believe what I read this morning what apparently was Belinda's reaction to the Klein comment.

Doesn't she ever find it curious that most women MPs don't seem to have had her problems? Did she ever think about why Kim Campbell or Barbara McDougall or Flora or even moonbats like Alexa and Audrey didn't have to put up with stuff like this?

A little introspection and reflection could go a long way here, but I guess it will be a long time coming.

DrD: It's called Davis Inlet and the suicide rate is through the roof.

Do you think the high suicide rate among Innu in Davis Inlet maybe had something to do with their forced relocation, the complete decimation of their traditional culture, the absence of genuine economic opportunities in Davis Inlet, and the denial of their attempts at self-governance?

JamesHalifax: Save the social programs for those who will benefit from them....Stop pissing it away on those who want all of the benefits of a wealthy society, but don't want to contribute.

And how do you propose we distinguish, a priori, members of the two categories (those with character and those without)? And I'm curious what you think the proportion is of each?

A said: What they do is put away offenders after the fact. As we in Canada have few repeat killers (that is, those who kill, go to jail, come out, and kill again), this policy will likely do little to reduce homicide rates in the long-term

A, you lost your credibility after this statement. The incident in Mayerthorpe regarding the murder of police officers was committed by a repeat offender who got off lightly all too often. Apparently, the incident in Halifax where a US sailor was stabbed was committed by a repeat offender. So, repeat killers? Perhaps not, I haven't done the studies but here are two off the cuff who should have been sitting in jail instead of out murdering people.

How about your poor disturbed friend who kidnapped two young boys in Saskatchewan? Again, a fine citizen with MANY previous crimes. Hmmm... A, I think the idea that if they are sitting in a jail cell, they can't be out murdering or assaulting children should factor in somewhere, particularly after numerous offenses? The longer criminals like these are off the streets, the safer we are. The existing social programs and lax justice system seem to be aiding and abetting escalation of crime.

Do you think the high suicide rate among Innu in Davis Inlet maybe had something to do with their forced relocation, the complete decimation of their traditional culture, the absence of genuine economic opportunities in Davis Inlet, and the denial of their attempts at self-governance?

No.

JamesHalifax said: "...unless of course the NDP have someone monitoring it."

The left moonbat/trolls are monitoring/commenting on these boards.

Are they sent from rabble, the NDP, moonbat central, the Democratic Underground; from where? Their appearance is not due to casual surfers. ...-

For the record, my entire family is involved in the construction business. What that response had to do with phantoms statement about being untrainable is beyond me. He insulted a large group of people, both those with Downs and their families. Phantom, were you ever in a tv series. Did you watch that series. Having worked with children with various disabilities for 20 years, your remarks are disgusting.

As it happens MaryT, I'm not talking about the disabled, and had you an ounce of sense you'd know that.

The word "retard", as you well know, is used in common parlance to indicate someone who behaves stupidly and makes stupid choices. An untrainable retard then is someone who not only behaves stupidly, but also refuses to learn better.

If I'd meant Downs, I'd have said Downs.

Your agressive misunderstanding and emotionaly loaded, relavence free argument are everything I've come to expect from the Canadian Left.

Congratulations, you are a Liberal.

A asked:
"And how do you propose we distinguish, a priori, members of the two categories (those with character and those without)? And I'm curious what you think the proportion is of each?"

It's not hard A (eh). If you have a 23 year old woman with 4 kids from 4 different men and she relies on welfare offer her a choice. In one hand, you hold up Depo-provara, and in the other hand you hold up the welfare cheque. Let he know, you don't get this (wave the check) unless you get this (wave the birth control). If she's prone to veneral diseases or prostitution, you make a similar offer. Get counselling, go into rehab, or whatever other program could help, or you get squat. We're tired of paying for your bad judgement.

Same for the dudes.....if they steal shit and get caught, they go to jail. They don't get out of jail until they get a High School Equivalency, or similar trades training. If they refuse to play...then they stay there and rot.

It may cost a lot in the process, but at least they are off the streets, and not in your living room while you're wife is asleep in the bedroom.

JamesHalifax writes: In one hand, you hold up Depo-provara, and in the other hand you hold up the welfare cheque. Let he know, you don't get this (wave the check) unless you get this (wave the birth control).

Hmm, tying welfare distribution to birth control among poor single women. What an ingenious plan! I wonder why no democratic society in the history of all mankind has ever implemented such a program. Out of curiosity, where do you suppose the government will come up with the money--easily in the tens of billions of dollars annually--required to, say, hire the 50,000 or so social workers and/or nurses needed to clinically monitor Depo-Provera use among welfare recipients, or create the massive new state bureaucracy needed to administer your idea of an effective and just social program? Oh, there's also the small detail of throwing out section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (especially that bit about ensuring the right to security of the person), since you are now effectively advocating for state control over individual women's reproductive cycles. I'm sure your program will survive the Constitutional challenge.

Same for the dudes.....if they steal shit and get caught, they go to jail. They don't get out of jail until they get a High School Equivalency, or similar trades training. If they refuse to play...then they stay there and rot.

Also brilliant. Now, what about those rare cases ("rare," since everyone knows that, with minor exceptions only, only people with less than a high school education ever commit crimes) involving dudes who already have a bachelors degree? Should we keep them in jail until they successfully defend their PhD dissertation, or perhaps--in the spirit of judicial compassion--grant day parole upon submission of a completed Masters thesis?

A, why can't we just shoot 'em during the robbery? Cheaper, faster and less chance of a mistake that way.

Bring back intelligent gun laws, including concealed carry, and you'll put a nice dent in the problem. Start with the military. Right now a serving soldier is expected to know how to use everything from a knife up to a heavy caliber machinegun and anti-tank weapons, yet once on civvie street the same person cannot even own a hunting rifle without first completing the mandatory civilian training. That's just a wee bit silly. If we brought back logical weapons laws, you'd have a handful more dead criminals and a LOT less crime.

As for the social services nonsense, it's simple. You want a government check, you're either in school, or you're working for the government. If you chose school, your attendance records get monitored as long as you're collecting our money. This could be automated in order to save the hassle of your "50,000 social workers". Yes, computers are a wonderful thing - you could even set them up to automatically pay a percentage of the nominal sum based on attendance. For example, you only attend 50% of your classes for a given month, the computer automatically deducts 50% of the money. That should encourage people not to skip. Also, in addition to attending, you need to show sign of progress. Say, pass 75% of your classes for any given semester. Fall below that average two semesters in a row, and you get punted out of the program. Which would lead to option 2: Workfare! Ofcourse, forced employment programs would be more costly simply due to the extra supervision which would be required to keep them viable. But the revenue generated by otherwise useless people would go to pay for their supervisors, while the money we're paying those individuals would be basically what we're spending now. So, while the cost to the government wouldn't go down, it wouldn't increase either, and it WOULD generate some new jobs, as well as maybe encouraging these people to get off of government assistance and get a real job.

I've seen the results of these policies. When I was in highschool I knew a guy who spent most of his days smoking weed and hanging out in his parents basement. Now he's 26, still living with his parents, working 6 months out of the year and then intentionally getting fired so he can collect an unemployment check for the other 6 months, while drinking and getting stoned at their cottage. Even one such individual is too many. We need to turn around our nanny state or before we know it the majority of our adult population will have the mindset of children.

A, although I don't think that having a bachelor degree is somehow significant (saw too many idiot BS and BA in my life), I suggest that you look at stats and see how many BS/BA committed violent crimes in Canada. I bet my boots that you'll find zilch. But you'll find quite a few crimes committed by those in financial area (adscam...). I'll try to keep it simple, so that you can understand: we are concerned with violent (re-)offenders here.

Gee this "A" guy seems to me to be David Brown in disguise.

Please remember people DON'T FEED THE TROLLS.

Alex: Are you actually advocating giving private citizens the right--nay, the civil duty--to organize into armed vigilante gangs? By the way, in your lifetime, how many crimes-in-progress have you accidentally walked in on, such that you would have intervened if only you had your gun on you?

Aaron: I suggest that you look at stats and see how many BS/BA committed violent crimes in Canada. I bet my boots that you'll find zilch.

First, I never meant to say that only educated people commit crime either. The association between higher educational attainment and lower criminality (especially conventional crime) is well-documented. I do not deny it. Mostly, I was just being sarcastic, so as to mock JamesHalifax's moronic proposal even more.

Anyway, re: finding zilch--never say never, my friend. Sadly, StatsCan doesn't seem to have that particular cross-variable table handy, so I can't cite you Canadian data specifically. However, assuming that the nature of violent crime and violent criminals in the US are even remotely like Canada's, then you might want to take a look at Table 13 on page 9 of this. I'll save you the trouble of doing the math yourself--2.2% of 492,398 = 10,832 college grads doin' time for violent crime. Table 15 tells us that quite a number of these folks have priors too.

Since it's not Canadian data, though, I guess you can keep your boots.

FREE: Who's David Brown?

"Are you actually advocating giving private citizens the right--nay, the civil duty--to organize into armed vigilante gangs?"

Negative. Vigilante justice is the concept of armed gangs enforcing the law by chasing down and punishing criminals based on nothing but their own judgment. I'm not a fan of that. I'm advocating the idea that an armed citizenry can prevent crimes in progress, not chase down criminals afterwards. That's a big difference.

"By the way, in your lifetime, how many crimes-in-progress have you accidentally walked in on, such that you would have intervened if only you had your gun on you?"

Two. Even one would have been too many. But the entire point is that concealed carry laws don't only stop crimes in progress, they'll prevent many crimes before they even commence.

"Are you actually advocating giving private citizens the right--nay, the civil duty--to organize into armed vigilante gangs?"

Negative. Vigilante justice is the concept of armed gangs enforcing the law by chasing down and punishing criminals based on nothing but their own judgment. I'm not a fan of that. I'm advocating the idea that an armed citizenry can prevent crimes in progress, not chase down criminals afterwards. That's a big difference.

"By the way, in your lifetime, how many crimes-in-progress have you accidentally walked in on, such that you would have intervened if only you had your gun on you?"

Two. Even one would have been too many. But the entire point is that concealed carry laws don't only stop crimes in progress, they'll prevent many crimes before they even commence.

Alex: But the entire point is that concealed carry laws don't only stop crimes in progress, they'll prevent many crimes before they even commence.

Interesting. What, then, do you make of the US, which has the most liberal gun ownership and concealed carry laws of any Western nation, and yet also experiences a consistently far higher violent crime rate than in Canada?

Another interesting point: Firearms were involved in about 2/3 of US homicides (compared with 1/3 in Canada) and 41% of US robberies (compared with 16% in Canada). Do you suppose those vaunted concealed carry laws played any role--however small and indirect--in enabling these higher rates of firearm-related violent crime?