Tony Speaks from the Wrong Orifice Again

And it ain't the one in his head...

Public supports shutting injection site, Ottawa says

MEXICO CITY -- Ottawa is determined to shut down Vancouver's safe-injection site because it's necessary to "draw a line" about which public health measures are acceptable, Canada's Health Minister says...

"You have to draw the line somewhere and we feel we're drawing the line in a place Canadians are comfortable," Mr. Clement said in an interview in Mexico City, where he is attending the 17th International AIDS Conference.

Now, granted the headline of the Globe article isn't quite what he said, but he certainly does seem to be implying that he has some special insight (pardon the pun) into public opinion in Canada regarding safe injection sites.

Eh, not so much...

Two-thirds support safe-injection site, poll says

VANCOUVER - Only a quarter of people in the Metro Vancouver region support shutting down the city's precedent-setting supervised-injection site, according to a poll done this week by AngusReid Strategies.

The poll of 400 residents showed that about a third of people overall oppose its operations, 10 per cent aren't sure and almost 60 per cent support the site, which is the only one of its kind in North America.

But hey, that's just those dirty hippies out in BC, right? I'm sure if you asked all Canadians what they thought...

Majority supports safe-injection sites
Ipsos Reid poll shows 55% of Canadians think centres like Insite 'a good idea'

Most Canadians say it's "a good thing" heroin addicts in Vancouver have a safe, legal place to shoot up, according to a poll conducted this week for Canwest News Service and Global National.

An Ipsos Reid poll made public yesterday found that 55 per cent of Canadians say the Downtown Eastside centre Insite is "a good thing" and 54 per cent say it should remain exempt from the country's drug laws, despite a Conservative government appeal to shut it down.

Yeah, but I'm sure those hardworking rural folks are all totally against it, right? Or maybe the results are skewed by those bastards in Eastern Canada...

Quebecers were the most likely to say safe injection is "good," with 66 per cent of the province agreeing, followed by Alberta (58 per cent), Atlantic Canada (55 per cent), British Columbia (54 per cent), Ontario (49 per cent) and Saskatchewan and Manitoba (45 per cent)...

The poll also found a split between rural and urban populations. Those in urban settings (57 per cent) have a higher tendency than those in rural settings (50 per cent) to agree that Insite is a "good thing."

I think what really annoys me about the Globe article isn't the headline - it's that they didn't spend the same ten minutes I did looking up past poll results to see if Tony actually had a point, or if he was just talking out of his ass again.

Dear America: Congratulations on your Upcoming Divorce!

Dear America,

We, your friends and family, are all thrilled to bits that you're finally dumping that asshole you married seven and a half years ago.

I know, we probably should have said something before. Believe me, we wanted to because honestly - we always thought he was a moron. Some of us tried to drop some subtle hints, but by then you were so gaga over the guy that there was just no talking to you.

The trouble is, we've heard that your ex has been sniffing around again, and that part of you has actually been considering getting back together with that son of a bitch. I find that hard to believe, but I have to tell you that if it's true then there really is no hope for you at all.

I know, I know. He says he's changed. He says he's a different man. He tells you he loves you, and promises to shower you with gifts and make all your problems go away and to never, ever hurt you or your kids ever again.

You cannot possibly be that stupid. You know he's lying, right? You know that as soon as he's back in your house that it's just going to be the same old shit all over again, right? Just because he's comfortable and familiar, or reminds you of your dad, or whatever the hell the appeal is, is no excuse for you to keep going back for more abuse again and again.

Please. I know you're torn, but you just can't put us all through this again. Just dump the chump for good and try to put it all behind you.

With love and respect,

The World

(P.S. - We all really like that new guy you've been seeing. I think he'll be good for you.)

Tony, Tony, Tony...

I don't know about you, but I for one am getting tired of our government's ministers embarrassing us abroad.

The latest Harper minion to trip over his own shoelaces on the world stage is Tony Clement. Seems our Health Minister spoke at the XVII International AIDS Conference in Mexico yesterday and used the opportunity to once again slam safe injection sites like Vancouver's Insite, even calling the policy "a form of harm addition".

Oops.

While the minister's views on Insite are well known, Mr. Clement repeated them Tuesday at an event where he was endorsing and promoting a new WHO “how-to” guide on battling the epidemic, which promotes needle exchange and safe injection sites. The Health Minister's comments left officials from the agency flummoxed and red-faced.

Teguest Guerma, associate director of the HIV-AIDS department at the WHO, who was clearly uncomfortable about the exchange between the minister and reporters about the apparent contradiction in Canada's position, would only say: “The WHO supports harm reduction.”

Canada's Not-So-New Government: Making Us All Look Like Idiots Since 2006.

(H/T to Rolling Back the Tide of Extremism)

Sunday Sundries

BREAKING NEWS: CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN FINDS BLASPHEMY ON THE INTERNET!

A B.C. man has filed a human rights complaint alleging religious discrimination after a TV comedian flew a plane pulling a "Jesus sucks" banner over Toronto. Dean Skoreyko of the northern B.C. town of Coldstream filed the complaint against Kenneth Hotz and Showcase TV. Mr. Skoreyko, who viewed the stunt online, said in a form filed with the B.C. human rights tribunal "my Christian beliefs and upbringing were publicly ridiculed."

Mr. Hotz is half of the Kenny vs. Spenny show, which turns on two rivals' attempts to compete with one another. The offending stunt was part of a contest between Mr. Hotz and co-host Spencer Rice to see who could offend the greatest number of people. Mr. Skoreyko, who once sought the federal Conservative nomination in Okanagan-Shuswap, told the National Post he filed the complaint on behalf of the silent majority that would object to such antics. He said he wanted to make the point that the human rights system applies double standards, favouring only minority interests.

When I first read about this stunt, I suppose I expected indignation from those sensitive types who had somehow managed to read the banner from the ground while on their way to church with their binoculars. And I suppose there's a point in there somewhere about minority vs. majority rights, although it has always been my understanding that the rights of the majority are automatically protected by the fact that they are... well, the majority (i.e. would this guy have been offended if they had flown a banner saying, "White Guys Suck"?)

But to claim that you were shocked and offended by a video on the internet that you would have had to have gone out of your way to find and download? Pulease. But hey, good on him for defending the sensibilities of those who would have objected. If they had seen it. Which they didn't.

Seriously, if this is the most offensive thing this guy can find on the internet, or for that matter on Kenny vs. Spenny, then he obviously isn't trying hard enough.

(and anyone care to bet on how long it takes for Charles McVety or his pals to point out that KvS gets Canadian tax credits?)

________________________

HARPER'S "WAR ON COLLECTIVISM" FRUSTRATED BY ANNOYING FACTS

While Gerry Ritz and the entire Conservative free-market propaganda machine continue to try to convince western farmers that "marketing choice" will make them far more money for their crops, this rather inconvenient bit of news makes it into the media:

Canadians got more per bushel than U.S. farmers, wheat board says

Prairie farmers earned a record $7 billion from grain sold through the Canadian Wheat Board in 2007-08 — a 57 per cent increase over the previous year, the agency said Thursday in its annual report. [...] Western Canadian farmers got better prices than many U.S. farmers who sold their grain before prices spiked earlier this year.

Stupid facts.

(h/t to Buckdog)

Worst. Headline. Ever.

There's article today in the New Brunswick Times & Transcript talking about a Green Shift Road Show meeting between Liberal MPs and representatives of New Brunswick's agricultural community.

Here's how it went:

Yesterday's discussion was certainly lively, as the Liberals' plan was met with its share of criticism by the gathered agricultural community.

"What farmers are facing as a result of the Green Shift is a considerable increase in input costs, whether it's a result of fuel that farmers use or even as a result of how much their input costs may go up as a result of this carbon tax," says Bob Friesen, CFA president. "What we're basically saying is look, agriculture already provides a lot of carbon sequestration, farmers have done all kinds of things to create more carbon sinks... We're saying, look, there's got to be some calculations here that agriculture provides this -- they're the solution providers, so why tax them?"

Easter says a carbon tax exemption isn't likely to happen.

"I was on a series of meetings in the farm community last week and had farmers say to me if there's an exemption made for us we would be looked down on by the rest of society," Easter says. "Let's find the way of recognizing the cost impact on the farm community of this program and ensure that on the benefit impact at the end of the day there's economic opportunities for farmers and they receive their just due."

Easter says the platform will include other incentives for alternatives such as carbon sinks, biofuels, anaerobic digesters and wind power.

Despite his concerns, Friesen says he was still pleased the Liberal MPs came to speak with the industry.

"I think it was a positive thing that they came here and are prepared to listen to the farm leaders across Canada and they are prepared to go back and to analyze where they could improve (the plan) for agriculture," he says.

And here's the headline:

Agriculture industry opposes Green Shift

Groan. Honestly, did anyone even read the article before coming up with that one? Or maybe someone was just trying to put their own spin on things.

The effect of a carbon tax on farmers concerns me as well, but the fact is, modern agriculture just isn't as 'green' as people like to think. Large industrial farms go through a huge amount of oil and gas for both equipment and fertilizer, not to mention the negative environmental effects of excessive irrigation and pesticide use, soil depletion, etc., etc. Smaller farms are better, but are still frequently at the mercy of hybrid seed suppliers pushing sterile seeds that require massive amounts of water, fertilizer and pesticides just to survive.

(Yes, I confess - I'm in the middle of reading "The End of Food". Shut up.)

But really, the industry needs to find a better way. It needs to go smaller, with more diversification. It needs to get off this obsession with "yield" and recognize the true costs of the Monsanto school of farming. The cost of carbon, the cost of fertilizer and pesticide, the cost to the land, and the cost to the actual nutritional value of these so-called "high yield" crops, which is making them bigger but almost completely devoid of nutrients.

Putting a price on carbon is a start, but there needs to be a far more comprehensive plan to transform agriculture in this country and wean it away from the current unsustainable system. Not necessarily promoting full-on "organic" farming per se, but certainly a program of incentives towards the more traditional family farm would be in order, and would ultimately be financially beneficial to the farmers themselves.

That would be a real "Green Shift".

The Dark Knight

There is so much to say about 'The Dark Knight' that I find myself wishing for unlimited space to write about it (oh, wait - I have a blog! well, maybe later...).

First, everything you have heard about Heath Ledger's portrayal of The Joker is true. His performance is profoundly disturbing, partly because of his extraordinary acting abilities and partly because writer/director Chris Nolan has quite purposefully provided him with conflicting back stories and omitted any hint of a motive, making the character less of a human villain and more an elemental force of chaos. The result is chilling and truly Oscar worthy.

If you have ever seen Nolan's earlier films ('Following', 'Memento', 'The Prestige'), you know that this is a man with a twisted and intricate mind who tells stories in a way that no other filmmaker does. If anything, he is even more deserving of an Oscar that Ledger, both as a director and a writer.

I have to stop now, but please - go see this movie. If 'Iron Man' was worth five stars, this one is a six.

(And Murray thought it was too long. Meh.)

Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics: Punk & Thug Edition

The latest Conservative promotion of their 'law and order' agenda seems to be meeting with a rather lukewarm response. Except, of course, from the likes of Sun columnist and global warming curmudgeon Lorrie Goldstein:

Today let's take a break from the BS we're being fed about global warming to examine the BS we're being fed about crime statistics.

Specifically, about how "low" they are today compared to the past, how anyone who believes otherwise is paranoid and how the best way to make the crime rate even lower is to go even softer on criminals than we already are.

First, let's examine what the crime rate actually is compared to years ago, as opposed to what we've been told it is.

Here are some figures you probably didn't see widely quoted in the media earlier this month when Statistics Canada released its 2007 data on falling Canadian crime rates.

- First, violent crime is up 320% since 1962, when modern records first started being kept.

- Second, property crime, which many victims don't even bother to report anymore, is nonetheless up 75%.

- Third, the overall crime rate is up 152%.

Shock! Horror! And of course the fact that crime rates have been going up around the world for one hell of a lot longer than that is quite easy to dismiss when you've got a point to make - and when you pick a rather convenient year to measure against.

Happily, the Fraser Institute has a handy chart of some of those 'pre-historic' crime statistics:



Damn those Depression and Eisenhower era hoodlums!

But ok, sure, let's look at those post-1962 numbers in a little more detail, shall we?



Apparently things are a little more complicated than Goldstein's simplistic analysis. Violent crime had been on a slow but steady increase until 1991, when the trend reversed itself and began an equally steady decline. Property crime, on the other hand, has gone through some pretty wide swings over the past 45 years, with huge spikes in '81 and '91 and lesser jumps in '71 and '75. Gee. What could it possibly mean?



Yes, Lorrie, those grey bars there are economic recessions. Which would seem to indicate that there just might be a link between socio-economic conditions - like poverty - and crime.

Ya think?

Then there's also this bit of information that Goldstein has conveniently left out:

The rate of violent crime increased at essentially the same pace as rates of property crime between 1962 and 1983. Thereafter, following a comprehensive expansion of the laws against assault and sexual assault, the rate of violent crimes known to the police continued a sharp growth that peaked in 1992 but have since declined.

And yet, Goldstein professes bewilderment at these trends. Which doesn't stop him from blaming (you guessed it) weak-minded, 'soft-on-crime' policies.

Whatever happened, the hug-a-thug crowd today uses the relatively small post-1991 drop in the crime rate to argue that since crime is going down, we don't need to toughen laws or impose stiffer sentences. In fact, they say, we should do the reverse.

Nonsense. One could just as easily argue the skyrocketing crime rate we experienced throughout the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s to levels which essentially still exist today for violent crime, was the result of the soft-on-crime attitude of both federal Liberal and Progressive Conservative governments.

Yes, one could argue that, were it not for the overwhelming evidence, from both sides of the border and even on the Government's own Justice website, that "getting tough" on youth crime by increasing sentences and funnelling them into the adult system, actually increases recidivism rates. But I'll let Rational Reasons tell you all about that.

None of this makes even the slightest impression on Lorrie Goldstein of course, nor on his political idols. Because it's not about facts or a rational understanding of cause and effect - it's about ideology. It's not about the truth - it's about how we perceive the truth. It's about our rosy, dimly remembered view of the past when compared to the oh so dreary present. And first and foremost, it's about making people afraid so you can do... well, pretty much anything you want to them.

Perhaps Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said it best.

"We don't govern by statistics in our government. We're governing by what we told and promised Canadians."

Good for you, Rob. We wouldn't want to let a few facts get in the way of the Relentless Implementation of the Conservative Agenda, now would we?

In the grand scheme of things, it might actually be a good thing if Harper were to put his "tough on crime" laws into practise as soon as possible. Because if that chart of economic trends when compared to crime rates is any indication, we are probably in for a rather sharp uptick in crime - particularly property crime - sometime very soon. And if that happens on Harper's watch, especially if it's after he's purged the justice system of all those namby-pamby Liberal policies, then that just might bring his whole ideological house of cards tumbling down.