No place for political attack ads

In the most recent election, the BC Liberals have clearly displayed that attack ads are not necessary in an election campaign. Their “Keep BC Strong” slogan, along with Premier Gordon Campbell’s personal ads addressing current issues to be addressed and what the party deemed important was a clear display of a good strategy. The NDP did nothing but attack the BC liberals through their ads (such as “8 years of Gordon Campbell is enough,” or “take back your BC”) and it was never clear as to what the NDP would do if elected, nor what they thought were important issues. They lost an election that they had a good chance of winning if they had focused on what British Columbians cared about. Namely, the economy. 

Further, the ever-improving federal Conservatives have unleashed a new ad campaign: attacking the new Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. Apparently, Ignatieff is “just visiting.” Yes, it is true that Ignatieff has spent around 30 years living and working in the United States, but he is a Canadian citizen. These ads claim that if he isn’t elected as Prime Minister, he will move back to the United States. Is any of this true? The real question, as so wonderfully described by the muppets, is: who cares?

The Conservatives have just recently won an election, so only an irrational leader would assume another election is in the works anytime soon (considering we just had four in the last few years). So, what is the purpose of attacking the opposition leader at this very moment? If there is indeed good reason for ads against the opposition, then why not attack his policies or views, much like the BC Liberals have just successfully done? The smear campaign worked against Dion back in November 2008, but doing nothing also would have worked in that election considering the absurdity of Dion’s proposed Green Shift plan. 

As everyone is aware, partisan politics will never die (although it should, for obvious reasons); however, these ads don’t accomplish anything short of an attempt at being more popular than the other guy. These ads seem to slander the very individual or party that approved and/or created them. I’ve never once seen an attack ad and agreed with it; I’ve always been annoyed with the ad being created in the first place. To me, they make it seem as if they have no idea what they are doing. If all else fails, just make yourself look better than the next best alternative.

Insite: life, liberty, and security of the person?

Insite has been the subject of major debate across the country for some time, with some claiming it has saved lives, others that it wastes money that could be used elsewhere.

B.C. Supreme court Justice Ian Pitfield ruled that the laws preventing addicts from injecting themselves “…were inconsistent with sections of the charter guaranteeing the right to ‘life, liberty and security of the person’”. What I would like to know is why people who break the law are guaranteed these rights described in the Charter. As per Robert Frater’s argument regarding this matter, there is no difference between an addicted person having the law bent in order for them to inject illegal drugs or a pyromaniac needing to light fires or a kleptomaniac needing to steal. To push it even farther, why can’t a pedophile go to a building where the laws against pedophelia are exempt and the can do as they wish? An addicted person can break the law legally while everyone else who breaks the law gets punished. Seems fair…

Now, I don’t disagree that addicts need help (granted, they obviously made an irrational decision to try an illegal substance in the first place). Furthermore, these people know that help programs exist and don’t need an injection safe haven to find out what they are.  All of the funds put into staffing and running Insite could be transferred to help programs themselves. The only argument I can find worth listening to is that Insite prevents the spread of AIDS and other blood-born pathogens. However, with the small percentage of addicts actually using Insite, I don’t imagine it would make much difference  if it were closed, especially if the funds went to legals means of assisting in the spread of disease.

Why is it that Insite is the only apparent solution for a lot of people? It doesn’t send any good messages to anyone. The drug problem is major on the downtown eastside, but having a place where addicted people can be above the law doesn’t solve any problems except perhaps that of advertising the detox and methadone programs available to those that enter the facility. But as I said before, it would be absurd to think that those people don’t know about detox and where they can find it. 

Does it save lives? Arguably, yes. Can this be proved? Well, indirectly. Insite has had over 900 overdoses within the facility, and not one fatality. Would these individuals have overdosed if they had been outside the facility? Perhaps. 

As I said before: I am all for helping these people, but only because there is no other choice. Does this make me a bad person? I don’t think so. Everyone surely can admit that aside from the true medically ill, many of these people that are drug addicted made a terrible choice at some point in their lives, and the rest of society has to pick them up and carry them back. And quite honestly, they are not light. What’s even worse is how many Canadians have warped back to the sixties and started up with drugs again. Only this time it’s not just an experiment. The manufacturers have designed ways to keep you there. Frankly, I am terrified for humanity.

“It comes down to this: If I violate the law so persistently that I become incapable of complying with it, the law has to adjust itself to me…We say it’s not reasonable accomodation, it’s capitulation of the criminal law.” – Robert Frater

Obama’s got it together

Having watched Obama on 60 minutes this past Sunday evening, I was pleasantly surprised by his take on everything from the financial crisis, to Afghanistan, to torture on places such as Guantanamo Bay.

As long as viewers didn’t take his laughing over financial problems and criticisms of his work as insensitive (as Steve Kroft pointed out), it was actually refreshing to see a global leader who explicitly shows how absurd he thinks the whole situation on Wall Street has become.

He has made perfectly clear his take on Iraq, but it was Afghanistan that he had focused on this time. Against all Bush doctrine, he has claimed that the solution does not simply lie with the military, and that the mission is to eliminate individuals and organizations that pose a physical threat to the United States. Democracy is not mentioned (as Bush attempted in Iraq-the effects of which are still causing major sectarian violence and civil war). As Obama points out, the thrusting of United States military and policy (and imprisonment) around the world has not helped the United States be a global leader, but rather destroyed any good reputation it did have. Cheney was utterly drilled over a long speech about Guantanamo Bay and Cheney’s blatant opposition to closing the facility. As far as Obama is concerned: Cheney is WRONG, and he “fundamentally [disagrees]” with Cheney’s doctrine.

Now, if we can all get passed this stupid teleprompter oops, we should all see a man that is determined, but most importantly, capable. I had a discussion last night about the history in making here. Not about the first black president, but about a man who is seemingly able to pull the United States out of a slump second only to the Great Depression. I’m hopeful.

Where did Canadians learn economics?

Today the Canadian Autoworkers Union seconded Layton’s “buy Canadian” idea. Honestly, has our country gone mad? Harper (being the only economist among our country’s leaders) sees like anyone who has taken Econ 101 should: long into the future. I understand that people are worried about themselves as Canadians, but what about the future of our economy and its relationship with the rest of the trading world? This would no doubt instigate a trade war among the most powerful nations, and we would all lose dramatically. The bulk of our goods are imported, and the bulk of what we create is exported. We survive off of commodities (particularly oil, at over 50% alone), and if other nations decide to drop trade relations for, say, our commodities, we would not survive. 

Just as a reminder, the Smoot-Harley Tariff Act was  signed into law on June 17, 1930. This act raised tariffs on thousands of imports to record levels in order to promote domestic products. Economist after economist opposed this legislation, and many countries retaliated by doing the same thing. Naturally, imports and exports decreased by more than half. This act is argued to have instigated the Great Depression. It’s no wonder why our economist Prime Minister is against such legislation. History has taught us, and some important people haven’t learned from it.

Finally!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There has been much talk and fear regarding the “Buy American” rule imbedded in the economic stimulus legislation that was passed by Congress last week and is now being read by the Senate. Not to get too far off of my topic, Obama today announced that, being a world trade leader, no such language will be included in the legislation in an effort to avoid trade wars.

In Canada today, the budget passed, with amendments made to the budget by the liberals passing along with it. Only the Blocs and the NDP (and 6 Liberal MPs from Nova Scotia) voted against it. This, however, was not even the best part! During question period, NDP leader Jack Layton stood up, and said that it would be a good idea for Canada to have a “Buy Canadian” clause in its economic stimulus package! Naturally, Harper stood up and, being world trade leaders also, openly rejected this idea. I honestly believe that Harper (being an economist himself) had to choke back remarks towards Layton on this subject.

The first thing that I thought when I heard this bit of news: finally! The NDP show their true colours! We less ignorant bunch know that these types of ideas are at the heart of their economic policies, and it was about time one of them slipped up and showed how horribly bad their understanding and use of economics is.

I am so glad it was the leader of the federal NDP. It’s about time the country sees what he truly believes in: bad economics and instigating trade wars (if he even realizes that that is what would happen if such legislation was passed). Bottom line: the NDP are irresponsible, and cannot be trusted to run a hot dog stand.

Israel and Gaza

Nobody is a winner. Isreal has so many excuses for the most absurd things that it’s beginning to sound a lot like Bush. Mortars fired at a school where they say Hamas militants were firing from? Honestly. Two UN aid workers killed? How did that happen? Was an imaginary militant sitting on the front of the forklift firing rockets? As far as I’m concerned, that whole area is a mess, and they’re all killing innocent people for absolutely nothing. Children never deserve to die. to get them caught in any kind of crossfire is beyond moral comprehension and has no place in any world.

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was asked whether she thought if Isreal was living up to its human rights obligations, which everyone and their dog should be able to answer. She replied that  “…it was hard for Israel to safeguard civilians because Gaza was very densely populated” (BBC News). And the media is surprised that Stephen Harper is mum on the issue? Better to say nothing on the subject than something that ignorant. Instead of being concerned about innocent people being caught in the crossfire (and there are many more innocents in Gaza City than hostiles), they choose to fire in this “densely populated” area with no concern for everyone else?  I admit Isreal can’t stand by and continue to accept rockets being fired into their territory, but this has gotten out of hand. There is no concern for civilians, and in modern warfare this is unacceptable.

Canadian budget

Harper has his work cut out for him, but I don’t think it will be as stressful as when Dion was leading the Liberal party. Obviously, Dion and Harper do not like each other, and Harper refused to listen to anything Dion suggested. Now, however, Ignatief is leading, and Harper has already consulted with him a number of times. Considering the shaky ground Harper has found himself on within the Commons, I don’t think he’s dumb enough to ignore what Ignatief proposes for the budget. Likewise, Ignatief is not as ignorant as Dion, and he won’t vote against the budget unless it is really bad (which is won’t be because Harper likes his job). Furthermore, Ignatief has yet still to gain popularity within the country, and Canadians won’t like a coalition with Layton any more than the previous coalition plan.

So what will happen this month? The budget will be proposed, passed, and then we can all move along towards a time where there is no longer a recession. This will indeed take time, because as long as the U.S. is frantically searching for the surface, Canada will be right there with them, drowning in all of the U.S.’s past and current financial blunders.

When you fire a rocket into the lion’s den…

So what happens when you fire rockets at Isreal? They take it like Oliver, asking “please sir, I want some more?” Not bloody likely. So now we have Isreal surrounding Gaza city, dropping leaflets by plane explaining how Isreal is going to take care of Hamas, while more and more innocent people are dying. As much as I understand Isreal’s need to fight back, the bombing of homes they claim (with no proof) contain Hamas weapons is pushing it. Fair enough, Isreal is better than Hamas in its ideals, but they are both stooping to the same level and actively engaging in warfare when none is needed. In all honesty, when is war ever needed anyway? The only time war is needed is to prevent some crazy person from taking over and attacking other sovereign nations; however, these crazy people are individuals that should never have been granted power in the first place. Thus, war should not be needed.

George W. Bush guilty of murder

I have been reading Vincent Bugliosi’s The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder and it is safe to say I agree with him. There has never been such astounding lies and crimes conducted by an American president, and it is interesting that he has not been impeached, especially considering that Clinton was impeached for having a consensual affair with a woman outside of marriage, which has nothing to due with crimes against the country.

Bugliosi does repeat himself a considerable amount (which actually gets a little annoying), but the underlying case is strong when considering the laws surrounding murder and conspiracy. It will be truly interesting to see if anything does happen after Bush leaves office in the new year, but a big part of me doubts anything will come of his crimes. His administration has lied and propagated almost everything presented to the country to support going to war, and even Hussein himself was surprised when Bush kept pushing it, even as Hussein was completely complying with UN inspections; he was doing everything possible to prevent hostilities, but that really didn’t matter to Bush in the slightest.

For those of you who haven’t read the book or are unfamiliar with the current administration’s propaganda and lies, I would suggest reading this book. At least there’s one person out there who wants to see him go down (well, one that is courageous enough to publish it).

Well, at least we got something.

Even though California turned into a devil state that stomps on fundamental rights, Connecticut comes out on top. I give my congratulations to them, and hope this will set some precedents for places that deny same-sex marriage. This California thing has raised voices across the country. It’s so great to see what good can come out of something bad.