Scotty

The Globe and Mail reports on what it calls a "landmark ruling" in defense of battered women. Three judges on the Nova Scotia court acquitted a woman for hiring a man to murder her ex husband on the basis that she was justified. Basically. Think about it. The court said that since her ex husband was out of control, she was justified in trying to have him murdered. According to the article: At her trial last year, Ms. Ryan testified that her estranged husband had virtually no control over his explosive temper. He repeatedly pummelled her with his fists, held guns to her head and screamed threats at her. She said Mr. Ryan’s explosive fits of temper escalated to a point where he was sexually assaulting her weekly, threatening her life and specifying where he would bury her. So basically, what the judges did was shrug and say "Yes, the legal system is not competent to protect her so she's right to try and have the guy killed." Am I nuts to ask how come the police in Nova Scotia couldn't arrest and detain someone who is sexually assaulting and beating a woman weekly? Not to mention threatening her with a gun to the head? Is there something odd about my suggesting that arresting the guy is the way the system ought to go, as opposed to legalizing vigilante murder? As one of the comments on the story stated Since hiring someone to kill another person is now legal under certain circumstances, the state will have to define what constitutes legal grounds for a private individual to unilaterally apply the death penalty. Globe and Mail

I grant you the point, though if we scattered the electors across a broad strata of society, but insisted they be men and women of known wisdom and integrity, would that not produce an electorate more capable of selecting those in office and keeping an eye on them? Who's to say ten thousand such people wouldn't produce better politicians than universal suffrage. They could hardly do much worse. I would say that in a smaller nation, or perhaps, a nation and culture where people took the time, and had ready knowledge at hand, so that they made informed choices, democracy could be quite optimal. I don't think those conditions exist here. I don't think we have a very informed electorate. And the type of media which that electorate relies on is not adequate to the task, and easily manipulated.

Yes, but democracy is not an end, but a means to an end. Who's to say that restricting voters to a few thousand land owners wouldn't actually produce a higher quality of government than what we now have?

I'm not nuts. I'm indignant, angry, even somewhat outraged, perhaps. My sense of order and justice are offended. This kind of thing is by way of the expense that people don't think about when they talk about not wanting to spend more on police, on courts and on prisons. When fraud is so widespread that the perpetrators of it don't even fear exposure, how much money is stolen every year? Is there any doubt that auto repair shops steal far and away more than any spate of armed robberies or muggings? We wouldn't tolerate muggings if they happened dozens of times a day, so why do we tolerate this with such equanimity? They're not alone, of course. How many people are robbed every year by contractors, or by used car salesman? Who is even bothering to try to police these people, when their fraud is so openly demonstrated? Not the police, that's for sure. They don't have the time, and they know the courts won't impose anything much but a fine anyway.

I'm not sure why you feel this is a source of amusement unless it's that you've given up any hope of honesty or integrity in this country and find it amusing that anyone else is still affronted by in-your-face fraud and theft.

That might have been YOUR problem, but I've seen and heard much worse, including students who had no idea how to differentiate between an adjective and an adverb. And remember these are the high scoring graduates going on to college and university. What about the ones who know their high school marks are too low for that, and have no such ambition? What do you think their literacy skills are like? The thing is, reading and writing is the bedrock upon which everything else rests. If you can't read and write well then you are unlikely to be successful in any of your other subjects either. It doesn't take an educational professional to know that. So poor literacy is a sign of poor academic performance throughout public schools - which again leads right back to your statement about the wonderful professionalism of teachers.

Politically motivated behaviour on the part of public entities is a different order of magnitude. The APTN is a public entity in my opinion in that its existence is decreed by the government which ensures its funding. If the government didn't insist on the APTN being funded by people like myself who never watch it, the network would not exist. It might as well be funded through taxes. No real difference.

You’re never happy about somebody’s criminal convictions, but he had spent 20 or 25 years since then in the public service, including working for Joe Clark, Jean Charest, Peter MacKay, and the Library of Parliament. You balance [his criminal record] against a 20-or-so-year public service career after that, and you think, ‘Okay, well we’ll see what the [Privy Council Office] professionals say about his secret clearance.’ And all I got back was a note that he had cleared. I don’t know what considerations [the Privy Council Office] put into that because, to tell you the truth, once people were cleared, I didn’t ask any other questions. In fact, on the odd occasion that people had problems with the security clearance process, I never asked for the details then either. How Carson Was Hired

You're inferring there isn't politically motivated behaviour by the CBC or other media entities? What about politically motivated behaviour on the part of individual editors and journalists?

Last night I came upon an episode of W5. Together with the Automobile Protection Association, they planted perfectly good cars in dozens of automotive repair shops in Toronto and Calgary. There were hidden cameras in the cars, and they recorded, as expected, the level of deceit, fraud and illegality common to this industry. Basically, from this and previous such 'secret shopper' efforts I've seen it's safe to say most mechanics are fraud artists. And it's not like they need to care either. It's not like they need to worry about the police marching in and arresting them. They don't care that they're exposed. They're not embarrassed by it. They're like "Yeah, so what? Get lost." Nor is this simply a few individuals at work. It's clear that their managers, and that the bosses at HQ, including Canadian Tire, couldn't care less that their blatant fraud is shown in all its dank truth. They know that they can lie, cheat and steal from customers with impunity. They know they face no problems from the law, despite the fact they are, unquestionably guilty of fraud. This is the kind of things that drives me nuts, where society deteriorates to the point that not just individuals, but organizations and corporations routinely, day after day, break the law without the slightest fear of anyone doing anything about it. In a well run society, every one of those mechanics would have been marched out in handcuffs by police to be charged with theft and fraud. So yes, we do need more prisons. And we need more police and more judges. Because if you're not willing to pay the taxes for a system to keep people like this in check, well, you're going to pay anyway, every time you take your car in to be checked or repaired. As fraud and theft is ignored, it grows in scope and poisons a society. And the answer to that is to kick people like this in the ass so that their brethren get the message. Close down shops which routinely defraud customers. Don't tell me you wouldn't love to see bailiffs move in and close down an entire Canadian Tire store on the basis of repeated fraud. I know I'd love to see it. Locally, the Canadian Tire's have had a reputation for fraud for years. That's why I never take my car there and never shop at their stores. But it's not like there's any real alternative. Repair shops are mostly crooks, and the dealerships are just as bad. And that's what happens when as a society we simply ignore fraud, telling ourselves its too small-time to bother about.

In the CCL's report, "Post-Secondary Education in Canada 2008-2009," 20 per cent of university graduates in 2006 were below Level 3 on the prose literary scale (see page 63 for the stats). A Level 3 is considered the minimum literacy level necessary for coping in our society. Below Level 3 means struggling to understand even the simplest text. And the numbers are expected to get even worse. University Graduates Who Can't Read Nearly 15 per cent of Canadians can't understand the writing on simple medicine labels such as on an Aspirin bottle, a failing that could seriously limit the ability of a parent, for example, to determine the dangers for a child. An additional 27 per cent can't figure out simple information like the warnings on a hazardous materials sheet, the kinds of warning that set out workplace dangers such as risks to the eyes and skin. In total, 42 per cent of Canadians are semi-illiterate. The proportion is even worse for those in middle age. And even when new immigrants are excluded, the numbers remains pretty much the same. Canada's Shame

I think you're probably older than me, and you're crabbier too, just about different stuff! All I'm saying is you judge worker by the product they put out. Was everyone lauding how great Ford workers were when their cars were blowing up on the highways? So what exactly is great about teachers given they're end product is an ignorant schmuck who's often barely literate enough to read the instructions on the anti-depressants he's taking?

So Stephen Harper is paying off all the media executives?

Let me tell you the story of the F-35. One day, the Air Force put it to McKay that they need a new fighter plane and he then put it to Harper. Now Harper knows about as much about fighter jets as I do, which is to say precious bloody little. So he says, fine, what plane do they want. The Air Force wants this plane, and produce a nifty report explaining how they have, under the Liberals, already contributed close to $200 billion to develop this plane. Fine, says Harper, present that to cabinet. Sounds like that's the plane we ought to buy, and I guess the Liberals can't complain since it was clearly the one they were planning on buying too. And that's basically it. Of course, the Liberals, smelling political advantage, immediately began to attack the intended purchase. That caused the Tories to dig in their heels. Now they're committed to the plane no matter what. If I was Harper, I'd explain it just that way, very offhand and casual, and then I'd shake my head and say, "Of course, they told us the price would be $75 million. If the price really is going to go up to double that or so maybe the cabinet would want to have another look at it under those circumstances. But we'll need reassurance or new cost estimates from the manufacturer and the Air Force. But this is politics, so you know that positions which have any degree of uncertainty don't play with the 10 second sound bites the media devotes to each issue. So instead we get Ignatieff jumping up and down and screaming "Rolls Royce Fighter Planes!" over and over and Harper pointing at Ignatieff and saying he doesn't want to defend Canada.

This is just delusional paranoid ranting without substance - or sanity. Barring this recession, and the attempted coup by the opposition, the Conservatives might or might not have had a very small deficit, but likely not. In any event, no party can escape blame for the deficit since all three Opposition parties were demanding a huge incentive program - hysterically, as I recall.

And sometimes, some of our high school graduates are even able to read! They mostly don't know any history, and kind of suck at geography, and, well, science, but they can do math pretty well... as long as they have their calculators. Yessir! What a bang-up job our teachers are doing!

The debt was piddling, and made up largely of temporary measures taken during a bad year. I believe that was the year of SARS, the mad cow thing, and the big blackout, among others. Then along came McGuinty, raising spending by something like 60%, and the deficit kept growing and growing and growing, despite tax hikes, BEFORE the recession arrived! What was it last year, $20 billion? And you think anyone is going to look back and worry about Eves or Harris and their piddling little $2 billion? McGuinty has done the impossible. He's made Ontarions long for the sound fiscal management of Bob Rae!

Well, such a process will take YEARS, and thus greatly increase the eventual cost of whichever fighter we buy. Also, the Liberals have already paid close to $200 million to help develop the F35. I don't know why they did that if they didn't intend to buy the plane...

Because Harris cut our taxes so much? Harris had a balanced budget. It was Eves who went into deficit, and not very far. Then came Dalton McGuinty, who first exagerated the size of the deficit, then built it to the highest point in Ontario history. Congratulations Bob Rae supporters. Thanks to Dalton, nobody really thinks back on Rae's era as all that bad.

Are you saying that Dalton McGuinty is a conservative?

Do you really think HARPER decides what the media covers???

I'm uncomfortable with political activism by unions. And I'm a shop steward. I know that our union is opposed to Harper, which is not really surprising. I can even see how a majority Tory government might be seen as against the interests of our membership. Just as I can see how a Conservative government in Ontario could be against the interests of the Teachers unions, since, let's face it, McGuinty has been the teachers obedient lap dog since day one. But politics is a personal thing. For my part, even though I'm wary of what a Harper majority could possibly do I'm supporting him because I think he'd be a better government than the others. I would definitely not appreciate my union taking more money off me so they could support Ignatieff. And three million bucks is a sizable amount in a provincial election. One wonders where all those people who are so strongly opposed to the rich, entitled interests interfering in elections are with this. Clearly this is an entitled group wanting to use their funds to influence the election to their own benefit and profit. Isn't that something we have said, as a society, we don't believe in?

Honestly. What has that got to do with anything here today? The use or misuse of firearms is as much a cultural thing as anything else. That's why virtually every Canadian had a firearm at one point but almost none of them used them on each other. Canadians grew up with firearms and knew them as a tool, especially in rural areas (still do). The misuse of firearms is a cultural artifact of big city life filled with strangers who neither know nor respect each other, and the criminal element that breeds in that sort of environment.

She's wearing a black towel on her head! That makes her a religious fanatic!

Woo hoo! Yay me!