Scotty

I've actually seen studies which peg it much higher, at closer to $100 billion. The costs are the cost of lost, damaged and destroyed property, medical costs of injuries, time off work, and additional costs imposed on consumers and government due to such things as insurance fraud, shoplifting and forgery. university of ottawa

I hear ya. It goes against human nature, though. You pay $10 for a stock, the emotional thought is that's what it's worth. You don't want to sell at $9 or $8 or $7 because you figure you're not losing money until you sell ,and it'll come back. Because it's worth $10, right!? But it's like the death of a thousand cuts. Each by itself stings a bit and you can ignore it. Well, fortunately, I didn't exactly throw myself into them. I only bought a couple of thousand in RIM and Manulife. And most of that is gone now, so not much point in leave. Inmet, well, that's a different story. I have more in that, but it's got great copper mines, and it's fall is in tandem with the fall in the price of copper, which in turn is driven by fears of recession, and thus lower demand. It'll come back up as the recession fears ease and demand for copper pushes the price back up. Right now the indexes are tracking emotions more than fundamentals, and then you've got all those damned computer trading things going on which are really screwing things over. They don't care about fundamentals either. I think the only reasonably safe stocks are dividend paying ones, now. Although I have concerns there too. Canadian banks? Well, sure, very healthy, but banks are going to get hammered if the Euro situation goes south. Canadian telecoms? Not sure how they'll be affected, particularly cable and satellite TV, as the delivery means moves to the internet. I think energy stocks have been beaten down a lot, and long term, hey, you know they're coming back. I'd have to say they're just about as safe a play as there is in the long term. Though of course I'm far from an expert. Right now I have the most money in bond funds which are doing reasonably well compared to stocks. TD Bonds and TD RR bonds are both up for the year. (7% and 8.7%). The only stock I have which is doing well is Enbridge, which again, seems a pretty safe play.

Aboriginal crime is not much of a factor in central Canada. It's very big out west, though. You've got broken communities with lots of young people with nothing to do but drugs and sex. That equals lots of addicts and lots of single mothers on welfare with punkasses for fathers. And over the last ten or fifteen years the aboriginal have been forming drug gangs which are as violent as any of the minority street gangs in downtown Toronto. In Toronto, in Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, the gangs are immigrants. And what can you do about that? Kids grow up in a welfare house, surrounded by welfare houses. Their parents aren't much to write home about, and neither are the parents of their friends. That's going to produce a group of kids who are unlikely to be growing up to become class valedictorians. A once a week visit from a social worker isn't going to change that. Used to be, kids who grew up to dirt poor families could always find some crappy job to do. But now the low skill jobs are fading, and going to immigrants, and there's always welfare. So that's what they do. They grow up until they're old enough to apply for welfare themselves, and go on it. And as the say, the devil finds work for idle hands. So a number of them turn to crime. Mostly that's low level, but the nastier ones find a way to prey on others. Education is the only answer, but the quality of schools in some of these areas isn't very good, in large measure because the student body is not terribly interested in what they're being taught, nearly completely undisciplined, and has little pressure from parents to succeed.

Someone told me Research in Motion was a great stock with plenty of upside. It's worth about a quarter of what I paid for it now. Manulife was way down, and had, according to some people, solved many of its problems and was way oversold. It's down about 50% since I bought it. I heard Inmet mining was a steal at the prices it had fallen to. It's dropped about 20% THIS WEEK. My mother bought Nortel after it had dropped almost 20% - down to about $95. She said buy and hold long term. Well, guess what? She rode it all the way down to the ground. It's easy to say buy when a stock is hit hard, and easy to say hold on while it drops -- when it's someone else's money. When it's yours and you're not rich and had to work for that money it's a hell of a lot more difficult. The market was down over 400 points on very little hard news. If Greece defaults I'm betting the market plunges at least 1000 points.

Famous last words, huh?

Most poor minorities are immigrants, so there's lack of education, communication skills and job skills, and there's a cultural factor in that they come from hard and nasty cultures which makes it easier for them to commit violence. Maybe we should stop bringing losers into Canada, maybe? Maybe we should make them wait longer, like we used to, before they can apply for citizenship? Maybe we should boot their asses out the door when they turn into failed immigrants? You've written that ass backwards. What you mean is there are a variety of factors which CAUSE poverty. A guy is a lazy, good for nothing punk, and so he doesn't study, doesn't graduate, doesn't get any job skills, and can't work. That's why he's poor. So blaming his ensuing criminality on poverty is a mistake. His criminality is because he's a lazy, good for nothing punk. We all knew guys like that in high school. They were out back smoking pot behind the gym, or partying, doing coke, or hash or a variety of pills instead of going to school. They took high school as a joke, and dropped out early. Big surprise their lives turned to crap. Especially when you add in drugs. True enough, but when it's too late once they've turned out badly and decided crime is the way to go. They're not going to quit at that point until you make it not worth their while any more. Being kind and gentle and understanding isn't going to do a damn thing. Kicking their asses might, or might not. But hey, if they're in jail they're not breaking into my house.

Tough. If these doctors are so concerned let them go cry to the provinces. They're the people in charge of health care, including mental health and addiction treatment. The feds are in charge of dealing with criminals, and that's what they're doing. There is addiction treatment in prisons. But most of these people don't want it anyway.

Hey, it's not the crime bill I would have designed. But I'm all for harsher sentences for criminals, especially repeat criminals. Let's look at some of the stuff in it, courtesy CBC. Additional penalties to combat serious and organized drug crimes, particularly when they involve youth, including increasing the maximum penalty for possession and production of drugs such as marijuana from seven to 14 years, factoring in security, health and safety concerns arising from marijuana grow-ops. Barring legalization, which isn't going to happen, I'm all for harsher penalties for drug crimes. I know you guys think grass is fine. I'm kind of a big shrug on that. I don't care one way or another really, as long as you're not smoking on my property. But grow-ops are run by some seriously hostile people. Anything that puts them away longer is fine with me. An increase in mandatory minimum penalties and sentences, including those for child exploitation. I'm not generally much of a fan for minimum sentences. I wish we could instead appoint judges that don't have their heads up their asses and aren't more concerned with the criminal than with the welfare of society. The elimination of house arrest (conditional sentences) for a new list of serious offences. I've seen people get house arrest for violent offenses. I don't consider being housebound to be a real punishment. It was a naive (stupid) idea and should only have been used for the most minimal of crimes - shoplifting, for example. I'm in support of eliminating it. Get creative in sentencing, but telling someone to stay home is not good enough. Further, its existence means that judges consider it on the low end of sentencing scales, so that means a minimal sentence in actual jail convinces some of these puddinghead judges that they're being tough, when in actuality they're giving out a minimal sentence. A higher cost and more strict eligibility criteria for applying for a criminal pardon, and an elimination of pardons for some serious or repeat offences. This is basically political. I don't think it really matters one way or another. New offences concerning the distribution of pornography or the use of telecommunications to facilitate sexual crimes against children. Another political one. It's unnecessary, but thumping the pulpit about the evils of porn are always good sound bytes for politicians. Measures to protect the public from violent young offenders, including in some cases adult sentences and the lifting of publication bans on the names of violent young offenders. Definitely in favour of this. I know that teenagers are morons, which is fine, until they stick a knife in someone. I'm not so old I don't remember that at sixteen I knew damn well not to stick knives in people. Expanded criteria for the public safety minister to consider when granting a transfer for a Canadian offender back to Canada. Probably based on Khadr. Shrug to me. Support for victims of terrorism by providing the means to launch a lawsuit in a Canadian court against an individual or organization that carried out a terrorism attack, including listed foreign states known to have sponsored terrorism. Another one I don't care much about. Sue Al Quaeda if you want. Good luck with that. Changes to the parole system to give victims a greater role and "increase offender accountability" with new sanctions and powers for police when release conditions are broken. Parole is too easy. It used to be for exceptional cases. Now it's routine, even if you've made no real effort at rehabilitating yourself. With a high recidivism rate I see no point in letting a lot of these guys back on the streets sooner just so they can commit more crimes. I'm in favour of this. Immigration reforms to combat the exploitation and abuse of foreign exotic dancers, sex trade workers, low-skilled labourers and other potential victims of human trafficking. I don't know that this is a major problem, but I don't see how this harms, and it could help in a number of cases.

Olson isn't mentally ill. Nor is Bernardo. I don't buy poverty as the root of crime either, not in Canada. I'm not saying no one is stealing stuff to feed himself or pay the mortgage, but I don't think it's the norm. Besides, violence isn't necessary if all you're doing is trying to alleviate your poverty. And cruelty, what explains that? Some people are just assholes. What do you call it when some guy brushes against another guy's shoulder in a club, and the guy who gets brushed thinks he's being 'dissed', starts a fight, and winds up stabbing or shooting people? Poverty? Addiction? Stupidity? Drugs are the big problem. Hard drugs sap you of the ability to work even while demanding large sums of money. We ought to be forcing people into rehab, locking them up, and not letting them go until they're over whatever drug they're addicted to. But we've never put nearly as much money into rehab as we ought to have. That's a provincial responsibility, though.

I'll bite. What caused Clifford Olson to kill all those children? Not enough federal transfer payments for social services?

I don't feel any sadistic pleasure in punishing people like Clifford Olson and Paul Bernardo. I think perhaps you're telegraphing too much about your own psychosis. I do feel that justice sometimes requires stiff punishment for offenders, especially violent offenders and repeat offenders. And I really could not possibly care less if limp-wristed left wing academic and media hand-wringers claim that's unfair or counter-productive. The soft sciences, otherwise known as the 'limp' sciences, are only science by the broadest of generous interpretations. Generally their studies represent the left-wing ideological viewpoint of the authors, people who weren't smart enough to take the more difficult and challenging courses in university.

Justice has estimated the figure at about $47,000,000,000 per year, not counting the $11,000,000,000 spent on security. On top of that is the not insubstantial sums spent on tracking down and arresting, representing, convicting, processing, and jailing the same guys over and over and over and over again. Not all criminals are repeat offenders, but those who are tend to use up vast amounts of resources as they go through the revolving door of the judicial system.

Let's examine the suggestion by your 'experts' for a moment. Put druggies in hospital instead of jail, where they can get support for their addictions(?) I'm going to assume you mean 'support to combat their addictions'. Can they not get that now? I'm guessing they can. So they choose not to. Or perhaps there are waiting lists - but that's a provincial responsibility. Are hospitals set up to hold people against their will while they get training? Nope. So since they evidently don't want it now, how are we going to make them get it in hospitals? Furthermore, and I'm sure you'll correct me here if I'm wrong, but if you don't want treatment then it's not going to help. You can't force someone to get help with kicking their addiction. And oh by the way, while they're in jail, shouldn't they be able to get help with addiction problem? Oh wait, they can! Corrections Canada Substance Abuse Programs Note that 80% of criminals have some form of addiction problem. Do we send them all to hospitals? Hospitals which are crowded already?

I have noticed a growing tendency towards loutish behavior among the herd of dissafected youth who have no jobs, little education, and little interest in obtaining either. The years of easy Labour party welfare and very relaxed policing (also due to labour party policies) have left huge numbers of young people whose only concern in life is getting drunk and watching football -- and where possible having fights with others. This is even worse among the mass of minorities Britain imported. Most of those doing the looting (though by no means all) are Blacks, Arabs, and East Indians.

The UK only have 6 water cannon and they're all in Northern Ireland for the marching season. They've never been used in England, nor have rubber bullets. Everyone seems concerned about what sort of image that would present.

The Toronto police acted like goons, attacking entirely innocent people. A lot of those cops should have been arrested themselves. The London police are acting like pansies, and incompetent pansies at that. There should be three thousand arrests by now. But the complexities of arrest procedures in the UK are such that the police are mostly not bothering except in the most obvious cases of assault and arson. The rioters are clearly not the least worried about police (and have said so in interviews) and just having fun.

I have a low tolerance for vermin. Surely you must have realized that in my previous responses to you...

Oh let's not. You're nothing but a bloody pest and you're boring the hell out of me.

Would you like them to do something about the hatred directed at those on the right.. given you direct it?

You are willing to rely on the intelligence of POLICE to safeguard us from inappropriate and unjust prosecutions!?!? I'm certainly not! It's interesting to note that what little I've seen of the sentencing hearing of that Bishop caught with "Child pornography" on his laptop found he had something like 150,000 pornographic images on his laptop (!!) of which something like 600 were considered "Child pornography" and almost all of that was soft core poses of teenage boys -- in other words, not little kids, not something a pedophile would likely be interested in at all. I thought these laws were supposed to protect children, not punish dirty old men for looking at teen porn. "Well, we judge that 5% of these gay porn pictures you have are underage, so it's off to prison for you. Too bad, so sad. Bye bye now!" Sexual assault is what you get charged with if you get drunk and grab someone's ass. I don't think a one year minimum sentence is appropriate, even if the ass is fifteen.

If it makes you feel any better I understand that there are some Turks alongside the Blacks doing the rioting and burning...

Issue the cops with guns. Shoot the scum down in the streets. Presto, not only no more riots, but welfare costs will be lowered.

Can't believe people are selling NOW. The market is down over 1000 points over the last three days and people are trying to get out NOW!?

Sputter-sputter-sputter. Keep on lying. It's not convincing anyone. Your words are pretty explicit. But by all means, just keep on lying. It's not like anything you have to say is taken seriously around here anyway. You're barely worth the back of my hand, you little bitch.

Yeah, keep backpedalling, and now, so bloody cliche'd, start making wild, personal accusations. You don't like what you said, that's sad. But you said it. I don't recall anyone ever saying they were 'locked away every month" but okay, if you think that distances you more from your own words. If people quoting you make you uncomfortable, well then maybe you should just leave. I doubt anyone here will miss you and your learned, mature discourse.