Wild Bill

Some stats may indeed come from the experience of many. Perhaps even most! Still, with any political premise I don't think it wise to accept any and all stats as gospel! You have to look carefully at the source of such stats. You have to examine for any bias or hidden agenda. There is an old axiom in business that also applies to politics. "A consultant is someone you pay to tell you what you want to know!" In politics that would read "A poll is something you commission to back up whatever you were doing anyway!" That's why I credit personal direct experience! It's too easy to get into "stat wars", hurling stats at each other when the real world experience is plain.

This is a poser, Nicky. There is much truth in your scenario. However, it's also true that judges overwhelmingly tend to issue the MINIMUM sentences, carte blanche! So what do you do when the judges use their flexibility to give EVERY perp the minimum? Take it a step further. Suppose you are a model inmate of a prison. You want to earn time for good behaviour. Yet you can't help but notice that EVERYBODY gets a third off their sentence, or more, regardless. (Unless they knife a guard or something, of course!) What does that do to your motivation? What life lesson does that teach you? These arguments always go back and forth, with merit on both sides. The real problem seems to always come back to the judges! We all want a system with some built-in intelligence, where someone makes the hard decisions for hopefully sensible reasons. I submit that many of our judges fail in this capacity. Our system seems to lack any control over a judge after he is appointed, unless he gets caught in a sex scandal or something. What's more, a good portion of our citizenry LIKES it that way! They have absolute faith in the way judges are handing out sentences right now and don't want it changed, regardless of the wishes of the majority of their fellow citizens. They believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Even more, even if they are in the minority they should still get their own way! I don't see an easy solution for this one. Certainly not a quick one!

I see. So the 'system' does not actually have to be improved. It's enough to simply say it is and publish some statistics that can be cited in a discussion board as proof. Now, the people who actually make an ER visit may experience times that are directly contrary to those that have been published! And it doesn't matter! Repeated similar experiences also don't matter! Okay! I give up! " The State says there are 5 fingers, Winston!" "Yessir! That's what I see!"

So it never happened? NONE of the visits were as I remembered? My wife's experiences were also imaginary? It seems to me that to brand direct experience as merely anecdotal and dismiss it is a cheap debating trick! It's the equivalent of calling your opponent crazy instead of dealing with his points. Something that I would expect of someone who calls logic a delusion but I had thought better of smallc. Perhaps I was wrong. Anyhow, here's more fuel for the fire: http://nationalcitizens.ca/cgi-bin/news.cgi?rm=display&articleID=1225721400 "Tom Closson, president and chief executive officer of the Ontario Hospital Association, which has been gathering the data from its members, found that on any given day in July of this year, 2,800 patients were in acute-care beds waiting to be placed elsewhere. And 694 patients on average were waiting in emergency wards for an acute-care bed. "They can't get into the inpatient unit," Mr. Closson said. "...It's a clear indication why something needs to be done."

Then you would disagree with my recollections of officers responding to burglaries, patrolling streets and highways to give warnings as well as tickets, cops walking beats, the seeming lack of danger to hitchhiking and so on? Is it still the same in your neighbourhood or am I imagining all of that?

Well, let's wait and see! We've heard the song before. I've posted before my experiences with ER waiting rooms here in Hamilton, Ontario. I don't disagree that the case in other parts of Canada may be different but to dismiss my actual direct experience as a "mere anecdote" is ridiculous! It happened and is still happening everyday! Anyone can go and see for themselves! It all depends on how you measure things. Change the yardsticks and you can easily claim improvements that are imaginary. I wrote of how one hospital put in electronic "numbers" like at a supermarket deli that sped up the time to see a triage nurse only to then put you into yet another waiting room! Your time for an ER visit was not improved but if you measure your improvement by the time from entry to seeing the triage nurse you can make the claim that things are dramatically improved! More smoke, less mirrors please! I will agree that things have gotten better when I next pay an ER visit and I see for myself that the process is indeed faster. Being a "tech" personality, one visit will not do it. You can't plot a curve from one point of data. However, if I have 3 such visits and they all show improvement I will be perfectly willing to post the experiences here and admit to them!

I won't disagree that society was not as strict about some crimes back then as they should have been. Perhaps today we are better about it but still atrocities keep arising in the news. We had a case here in Stoney Creek where a family had kids of their own and also took in "wards of the province", i.e. children from criminal homes. Despite years of visits by CAS workers nobody noticed until one child learned how to dial 911 that the court-sponsored children were being kept in a basement in filth, feces and rats! Still, a better record than the 60's, I'll admit. However, I've been burgled twice. The first time a cop came out to write the report. The second was some years later and they had switched to a new system where they just gave you a report number for your insurance claim over the phone. It was then I discovered that one more claim would put my premiums up! My sister-in-law had two accidents when she was away from her car as it was parked. In both cases the other driver was charged. One morning she had a problem trying to merge from a highway ramp and caused some damage to another car's bumper. Her insurance company promptly told her that she now had a total of 3 accidents. One more and she would be put into the "facility" category along with all the drunks and high-risk cases. The fact that the previous two occurred while she was parked didn't matter. Only the total number was relevant! Since then she has been dented a couple of times but did not report the accident, even though she was not at fault. I suppose smallc would tell her not to worry, as what happened to her was just an anecdote! I'm getting confused here. Is an anecdote a synonym for direct life experience? My premise is not that the 60's were some kind of "Pleasantville" movie set, the home of the Cleaver family. However, my generation routinely hitchhiked from coast to coast with cases of harm being extremely rare. That doesn't seem to be the case today. What I do know, from direct experience, is that police used to come out for home burglaries. Often they caught the burglar! Today they make almost no effort at all. Police used to patrol the streets and highways! It was quite common to be pulled over and given a warning for not driving properly. As a young man I and my friends experienced this quite often, appreciating being given a warning and not often a ticket! Today this is unheard of! Police NEVER are on patrol! They man radar traps and they respond to an accident when you call them. Actually, here in my area on the highway between Hamilton and Toronto they don't even do that much. If your car is still mobile you are expected to drive yourself to the nearest accident reporting station where you can fill out the paperwork. We used to have a couple of cops walking a beat at night in our neighbourhoods. Perhaps this was also why burglaries seemed less common. It was smallc who first made the claim that the "vast majority" of crimes are reported. Maybe in his town, I dunno. Possibly that is the reason for our difference of opinion! The scene in Toronto and southern Ontario is hardly the same as in Manitoba. All I know is that anybody who stands as a witness to a club shooting or a driveby in Toronto is a damn fool, especially if they have a family! The danger is very real and the protection non-existent. And anybody who reports a burglary is just wasting their time and asking to have their insurance premiums jacked up!

How can I cite evidence for non-reporting? It's impossible! Still, I feel my reasoning stands. You didn't rebut my reasoning in any way. You simply declared the entire debate to consist of anecdotes and cited personal anecdotes to cancel anecdotes. My anecdotes were never personal. They were gleaned from the mainstream media and personal contacts with victims over the years. It is obvious that you have zero personal experience in running a retail business, unless it was located next door to a police station. You never answered why witnesses to a Toronto club shooting fear coming out and reporting what they saw. You expect us to believe that they ALL do just because YOU had an anecdotal experience? Neither of us can prove an anecdote but simple logic says that if they did it your way they would be beaten up or even dead! The premise to the thread was whether or not crime is down. This led to the question of crime being truly down or simply under-reported. I give logical reasons why victims would choose NOT to report crimes, given that they would experience negative consequences for no positive good. Again, you don't answer my reasoning at all! To hear you tell it, everyone reports all crimes because it is so easy today. No one fears any retaliation, no one gets hit with insurance premiums higher than they can afford, no businessman becomes unable to even get insurance and is forced out of business. Man, it must be the perfect Garden of Eden where you live! You are extremely fortunate!

Once again you seem to lack "real world" experience! Many people don't report crimes because they don't expect the criminals will actually be caught but they DO expect negative consequences for themselves! A woman who has been sexually assaulted may feel that she will have the aggravation and embarrassment of being "run through the system" for no positive result. She will endure shame and perhaps time off of work while the perp will never be identified or worse yet, if he is and there is a court trial the defense attorney will attack HER for her own sexual history and the perp will get off! Homeowners who have been burglarized may have little confidence that the police will get their belongings back, particularly if it was loose cash. They DO know that filing a report more than once will almost certainly dramatically increase their insurance premiums! What's more, the law usually says that as homeowners they MUST have that insurance! Or at least, theft must be included with any fire or calamity policy! The premiums can become more expensive than the victim can afford. There have been many cases here in Ontario where shopkeepers who have been robbed a number of times have been DENIED any insurance, forcing them out of business! So when they are robbed they tend to weigh the losses of the actual robbery with the consequences of reporting the crime. I should also mention that often trials can drag out for months if not years. Victims are expected to appear yet they are paid only a pittance for showing up. I had to show up for 3 appearances over a traffic accident and never even had my parking paid! This is time away from work. Many businesses will not pay their employees in this situation. Many small businesses with a single operator have to shut down in order to appear in court. The "system" rarely talks about these aspects, smallc. Why would they? It's embarrassing! It also attacks the credibility of their stats. How often do we hear the police in Toronto complaining that no witnesses will come forward after a shooting in the street or at a club? What they never mention is that the fear of the criminals doing harm to witnesses is absolutely justified! They have and DO harm witnesses or their families! The police CANNOT protect them and there is no budget for a "witness protection program". Even if there was, it is a hardship for a family to be removed forever from their roots! These are the "real world" details, smallc. If you were ever in such a situation you would likely immediately understand. Suppose you were a witness to a murder? One where you knew that the defendant or some of his compatriots might very well try to kill you or at least intimidate you from appearing. Perhaps you would be noble and brave enough anyway. Good for you! Now, imagine how easy it would be to take that stand if you had a wife and some small children, who would also be targets! Details. It's always the details.

Yes, it may be rather hard to prove, considering how time has passed and a lack of cites for so long ago. That being said, there are many of us alive today with direct experience of those times in the 60's. We lived it! We are well aware of what crime levels appeared to be and how often we heard about violent crimes. It was indeed a time of less crime and certainly less violent crime. Even carjackings hadn't been invented yet! Youth disputes were solved with fists. Occasionally knives were used. Hearing about a gun shooting or a driveby was like hearing about a man landing on the Moon...

Here we see how the bureaucratic mind thinks differently, Angus. The ad did not say "No White people need apply". However, it did say that only non-white categories will be accepted! Simple logic says that this statement means exactly the same thing! There are no other explanations or possibilities, after all. To the bureaucrat or lawyer, logic is a delusion and math is something they dropped as early as possible in their education, likely Grade 9. They would have no idea of the answer if you integrated e to the xth! To such a person, the Binomial Theorem has something to do with sexual equality.

You really don't place any value on logic, do you? The world to you is all mysticism. It runs by magic and anything can be whatever you want, if the magic is strong enough.

Your "check on judges" doesn't seem to function very well in the real world. When's the last time you saw a judge over-ruled for being too lenient and ruling against the morality of the common people? A check that is never used is merely a facade. As for your first paragraph, it is obvious that we can never agree. You could not have more firmly declared yourself an anti-populist and an elitist. You are certainly entitled to your own views but you have left us with no room for agreement.

I am not making things up. I am being logical. I realize that to you logic is a synonym for delusion but I just can't help it! Some of us think logically and some of us don't, I guess. How is it relevant that the inquiry said the natives were not armed? Even if they were correct, that's not my premise! As usual, you address things I didn't say and ignore what I did write. Makes it easier for your arguments, I will admit. What I had said was that after OKA authorities have to ASSUME that any native protesters are armed until and unless it is PROVEN they are not, afterwards! This is only common sense. If Lasagna and his friends would travel up from the States to OKA there's no reason to assume they would not be willing to join a protest in Ipperwash or Caledonia. If YOU were one of those cops at the Ipperwash protest are you seriously telling me that they had absolutely no reason to believe the protesters may have been armed and willing to shoot? Any human being with half a brain cell and a trace of a survival instinct would have been anxious in that situation! I have NOT said it would be any particular native's fault! What I HAVE said is that OKA established a precedent and now authorities dare not assume native protesters are not armed! Again, only common sense. One thing's for sure, if we were part of a group in a dangerous situation, you would be the LAST person I would feel confidence in for defending me or my family! You would tell me that a protester's bullet or baseball bat was merely a delusion!

Define "successful"! Give me your opinion! The word means nothing by itself. You have to provide some context. What is the yardstick? What factors are important to your opinion of what's successful?

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-55450626/public-perceptions-courts-examination.html "Despite the decline in both property and violent crime in Canada over the last five years (Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics 1996), policy makers and the general public continue to express heightened concern about crime. One of the main concerns for policy makers is maintaining public support for the criminal justice system. This may become more difficult as the public continues to express dissatisfaction with various aspects of the criminal justice system. For instance recent research reveals that Canadians believe that court sentences are too lenient (Sprott and Doob 1997) and that racial minorities believe that racial discrimination is a serious problem within the criminal justice system (Wortley 1996). Research in both Canada and the United States indicates that the public has become increasingly critical of the criminal justice system (Flanagan, McGarrell, and Brown 1985; Doob and Roberts 1988). Researchers also point out that public support for more punitive sentences and support for the death penalty has increased over time (Warr 1995; Flanagan et al. 1985; Doob and Roberts 1988). " http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-002-XIE/0120085-002-XIE.pdf "Canadians’ views of the courts are not as favourable as their views of the police. In particular, in 1999, less than one-quarter of the population felt the criminal courts were doing a good job of determining whether or not the accused is guilty (21%), helping the victim (15%), and providing justice quickly (13%, see Table 1). Canadians were most likely to rate the courts positively at ensuring a fair trial for the accused (41%). When compared to assessments of police performance, more people felt that the courts were doing a poor job. Between 11% and 17% of Canadians did not have an opinion concerning the performance of the criminal courts (see Table 1)." http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/2004-05-pub-conf-eng.aspx "Considerable variation emerges when the public is asked to rate the performance of criminal justice agencies with respect to specific functions. For example, performance ratings for the courts are relatively high with respect to ensuring a fair trial for accused persons, but quite low for providing expeditious justice. The police receive higher performance ratings for being approachable than for responding to calls promptly. Finally, correctional authorities are seen to be doing a better job at controlling prisoners than supervising offenders in the community." http://www.bouckslawblog.com/bouckslawblog/2009/03/canadas-criminal-justice-system-productivity.html "2. Public dissatisfaction Christie Blatchford wrote an article in the 26th March 2009 edition of the Globe and Mail commenting on the “egregiously glacial pace of Canadian (criminal) justice.” She went on to remark that it is a subject “which no one much wants to discuss, let alone fix.” There are many examples of unpardonable delay. One B.C. example is the Basi and Kirk case. It began around 28 December 2003. No trial date has been set. Possibly, it may begin in late 2009; six years after the arrests: see posting this site, 12 December 2008. Another is the murder of Rena Virk on 14 November 1997, allegedly committed by Kelly Ellard. On 5 September 2008, the B.C. Court of Appeal ordered a fourth trial. Depending on the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada, the trial will likely begin around the end of 2009; twelve years after the arrest: see posting dated 21 January 2009. Then, there is the recently concluded case in Ontario commercial fraud case involving Garth Drabinsky and Myron Gottlieb. It was a judge alone trial. Reportedly, it took seven years to get to trial." There are pages and pages of similar sites from just one vague google! It would appear that I am not alone in my beliefs. There appear to be HUGE numbers of dissatisfied Canadians! BTW, I would take the logical consequence of your argument about how judges must be independent is that there is NO check or balance on their judgements! In effect, we have to assume that all of our judges are perfect in their interpretation of what's just and moral. Where is the REALWORLD check or balance on an imperfect judge? We already know. There isn't one! The deal for Karla Homolka proved that some years ago.

"Broadbent is a man of integrity. Chretien was a successful politician." Man, there you go again! You deliver your OPINIONS as if they are FACTS! The last person I knew who thought like that was an aunt who had to be committed for shock treatments. As for Harris being "partly responsible for murdering Dudley George", how do you know this? Is it true simply because you don't like him and personally consider him to be evil? From my perspective, the sad death of Mr. George was partially his OWN fault and that of the native protesters! You see, OKA was still fresh in everyone's mind at the time of the Ipperwash protest. After OKA, authorities could no longer assume that native protesters were not armed. The image of "Lasagna" was too vivid in everyone's memory! The truth is that it is only logical to assume that EVERY native protest will contain arms, now and forever! That is the price natives paid for the actions at OKA. So you have a bunch of cops alone in the dark, in open forest, near native protesters who could well be keeping a bead on each and every cop in the line. Frightened people do stupid things. Firing at Mr. George was stupid and unnecessary in hindsight but for a cop there at the time it would be impossible to have that perspective. Many of us might have done something equally stupid if we were in that situation. Did Mike Harris tell the cops forcefully to get the natives out of there? Probably. Did he tell them to shoot them? Extremely unlikely! Still, again we go back to that nervous cop in the dark, feeling the pressure from "on high" and feeling a very justified fear of being shot by a native protester! I don't know if there's anyway now for native protesters to recover credibility about being unarmed. Perhaps it's possible but I truly don't see a way. It has nothing to do with them being natives. If ANY protest group had once shown arms at a protest it is only common sense that forever more they will be treated as if they have them at any future incident.

Your lack of logic continually astounds ME! I never said that the system doesn't follow MY morality! I said it often doesn't represent the morality of the majority of its citizens! Do you even realize that the logical outcome of your statement is that the system should NOT represent the morality of the common view? That somehow judges are superior to most of us? That they have an inside scoop on what is moral and the views of the citizens of Canada are irrelevant? Now who's arrogant! Talk about elitism! You either believe in democracy or you're just another elitist. There are no other categories. Go on! Tell me how what you said doesn't actually mean what you said! This should be great fun!

Once again I am struck by your lack of perspective. I won't say logic, since you have already defined logic as a delusion. Still, your entire post is predicated on the assumption that yours is a majority view! Harris won the two largest majorities in our history. There is still much debate as to whether Ontarioans turned from Ernie Eves because they were tired of a Mike Harris style party or if they simply didn't have much faith in Ernie Eves. Citing how he pleased First Nations peoples only means he made one group happy. The group is not very large and is very spread out. What's more, how many votes could come from that demographic? Since then McGuinty has enjoyed a Chretien-like advantage of his opposition having weak leaders. John Tory flamed out magnificently! Still, he has been slowly pissing more and more people off. With moves like the changes to our electricity bills with "smart" meters, his attempt to sneak in the 'Eco-fee' even though forced to backtrack and innumerable tax grabs under names like 'user fee', McGuinty has been becoming more and more expensive for some citizens to want to have around! If you want to state that YOU like McGuinty that would be a valid view but when you flat out make the claim that that McGuinty will achieve another majority then that could only occur if a large majority of voters share your view. If you expect people to treat your premise as valid you certainly could do a better job of backing it up! How about citing some polls that show Ontarioans overwhelmingly LOVE McGuinty and promise to vote for him?

I guess it depends on how you define "fair trial". We constantly see examples of judges making rulings and casting sentences that are contrary to the values of many Canadians. If Khadr were to have a Canadian trial many folks believe that it would just be a rubber stamp. Khadr would be declared innocent, because of being too young to understand the consequences of throwing hand grenades at people and of having had a tough father. He would have some free counseling courtesy of the Canadian taxpayer and would be back out on the street. This would happen despite any evidence to the contrary or any contradiction to the values of Canadians, even if it represented a clear majority. If someone were to do a poll, it would be dismissed because "Canadians just aren't capable of clear thinking on such a complicated subject!" In order to believe that he would get a fair trial you first have to have confidence in the judicial system in such cases of high moral profile. Our system seems to work reasonably well if the case is to settle a property or contract dispute. Where it so often falls down is when it is asked to arbitrate a question of morality.

Oh, I dunno. Polls consistently have shown that MORE than 50% of Canadians have no use at all for Khadr and couldn't care less if he rotted forever in Gitmo yet still a minority on the left feel that their view should prevail and that evil bag of Islamist fundamentalist skin should receive all the benefits of Canadian citizenship.

You aren't likely to get an answer, AW! Most of those who criticize Black do so simply because he was a very rich man. They see him as some kind of simplistic "bourgoisie" target. Not surprising. So did the army of American DA's who convicted him! It obviously had nothing to do with how he ran his company. How do we know this? The people appointed by the court to manage the company in his absence ran it into the ground! The stockholders lost millions! Little old ladies lost their pension money! The lobby out to get Black could not possibly have been acting for "the good of society", assuming that meant that those investing in Black's businesses had been wronged by criminal actions. If they were, they would not have destroyed those businesses! It's like the old Viet Nam war quote from some general or other "We had to destroy the village in order to save it!" No, it's just envy and anti-capitalism cliches, all over again. Black created an empire that employed a LOT of people so they could feed their kids! A lot of folks got a good return on their investment. He is hated by so many because he is a man of standards. Witness his spat with Chretien. Black was never a supporter of the Chretien Liberals. So when Britain offered Black a peerage Chretien couldn't resist digging up some old law at the last minute that said a Canadian could not accept. The fact that Canadians had accepted such peerages before in our history was ignored by the Chretien Liberals. It was really just a very, very petty gesture. So Black threw it back in Chretien's face and dropped his Canadian citizenship! I don't blame him. In his place I might have done the same. Black had directly benefited far more people with a good income than Chretien ever had in his life of politics. Meanwhile, we are now witnessing the hypocrisy of those who would champion a citizen of convenience like Khadr, a terrorist thug from a family of terrorist thugs, to be allowed to return to Canada yet who would deny the same opportunity to Black. It is just totally, ridiculously absurd! It is like preferring Charles Manson over Martin Luther King. The comparison is so mindboggling it simply shouldn't be allowed.

Perhaps someone could answer a more basic question for me. Why are people using Hotmail or Gmail at all? I've been active since before the days of dialup bulletin boards. When the Net and the Web hit my server offered email as part of the package. Later I switched to the Bell system for my provider and have used their email offering ever since. Is there some advantage in using an email provider different than your basic internet server? Security perhaps?

Well, one things for sure. After reading some of your points in other threads I won't bother coming to you for your math skills...