O'Connor Still Wears Clownshoes

On March 13th I posted an article entitled "O'Connor Wears Clownshoes". Mr. O'Connor and Canada's not-so-new government continue to prove that they are not fit to run a lemonade stand, never mind our country or a Middle Eastern war. Gordon (I can't believe I'm still Defense Minister) O'Connor continues to embarrass his boss by making statements in the House that are later contradicted. O'Connor said that since becoming Minister he directed his staff to cover the "full cost" of soldiers' funerals. Lincoln Dinning, father of Cpl. Matthew Dinning, found this offensive and was compelled to hold a press conference to announce that he had, in fact, not been reimbursed for his son's funeral. Obviously Mr. O'Connor wants Dinning to get his money, this is probably more bureaucratic bungling than it is bad policy. But it is symptomatic of a government that likes to make announcements but has very little idea how to implement their agenda. O'Connor and his department have dropped the ball again. He and General Rick Hillier said today that the department will do "what has to be done" to ensure families are reimbursed. No kidding! Everybody from every end of the political spectrum who is not an asshole thinks the government should pay for these final expenses. Like Mr. Dinning said, "it's a no-brainer". So make it happen!

Szabo gets it. Why not other social Conservatives?

Liberal MP Paul Szabo is considered by many to be among the more socially conservative members of the Liberal party. He's pro-life, anti-divorce, anti-gay marriage and worst of all, he supported Michael Ignatieff for the leadership of the Liberals. He did however vote against extending the mission in Afghanistan. I thought this was his only saving grace until I watched him on CPAC today. Mr. Szabo is an exceptionally good orator and a very convincing debater. Members were being heard on one of the Conservatives' new law and order bills. Bill C-10 I think but I could be mistaken. The conservatives have so many law and order bills it's hard to keep track. This one involved mandatory minimums for offences involving firearms. I, of course am completely against mandatory minimums of any kind. I think Judges are the ones best left to decide sentences and shouldn't have their hands tied by politicians. Mr. Szabo isn't against minimums altogether. He supports the idea of using them as a deterrent but rightly points out that long minimums have no more deterrent value then short minimums. This sounds odd until you consider that for those who are going to be deterred, a short time, say, 2 years is enough to do the trick. Most people are not thinking about the consequences and act out of passion or rage or desperation, or for many other reasons. Mandatory minimum sentences have zero affect on their thought process. ( My words, not Szabo's) Mr. Szabo thinks they should be used to deter but not be so long as to interfere with the judges' discretion. He also points out that these are only minimums, the judge is free to sentence bad dudes to much longer. Judges should be allowed to make the sentence fit the crime. I would think many of the law and order types out there would agree with me when it comes to the case of that Saskatoon father who shot his daughter's drug dealing boyfriend. Probably think the judge should have given him a medal. Unfortunately he will be spending the next ten years in jail without parole. A mandatory minimum. Minimums have been in place for years in the U.S. and they have much higher crime rates. Many groups have formed in opposition to them and the Supreme Court of the U.S. has ruled them unconstitutional. Those guys aren't exactly bleeding hearts. Szabo also pointed out the importance of rehabilitation and how our system is pretty good at it and how our contrasting system to that of the Americans seems to be working better. Crime is down and and has been for awhile. All this bluster about getting tough on crime is getting tiresome and it's about time those of us who recognise it speak out. The Democrats in the USA decided to give up this issue in the 90's in order to win centrist voters. It worked, they won, then they passed a completely Republican crime bill helping to turn the U.S. into the police state we now know it as. More people went to jail for smoking pot while Clinton was president than under Reagan and Bush the first combined. I, of course am not speaking for Mr. Szabo and I'm sure he and I would agree on very little. Here is something he and I and every reasonable person should agree on. Mandatory minimums should be used very carefully if used at all.

Love that Elizabeth May

Boy oh boy did the Conservatives have a bad week. Their massive incompetence in Afghanistan and their lies to cover up their massive incompetence have been getting them in trouble all week. They are down 10 points in the polls with only their base left supporting them. The opposition parties and for once the press have not let this scandal die, so in an effort to change the channel Conservatives across Canada tried to manufacture their own little scandal. Last Sunday Elizabeth May delivered a sermon in a church she was invited to speak at. During that sermon Miss May quoted an environmentalist who compared the Conservative government's lack of real action to address climate change with Neville Chamberlain's infamous appeasement of Adolf Hitler in 1938. Tories across the country seized on this and immediately tried to turn it into a scandal. Miss May was comparing Stephen Harper to Hitler. Miss May was invoking the holocaust and using it in the context of Canadian politics. What an insult to the Jewish people and blah, blah, blah. There are only two problems with these ridicules accusations. Number one, Miss May never said a word about the holocaust. She quoted someone else who quite rightly compared Conservative inaction on climate change with English inaction on Hitler taking over his neighbor. Secondly, if it is so wrong to use the Neville Chamberlain incident to illustrate a modern point why do Conservatives do it constantly? Conservatives in Canada and the US compared people who were against the Iraq War to Neville Chamberlain. Peter McKay and Stockwell Day have both been caught by Hansard using the Chamberlain analogy in the House of Commons. Miss May pointed this one out herself on Mike Duffy yesterday. I guess Mr McKay and Mr Day have no respect for the magnitude of the holocaust either. What hypocrisy. Nice try guys but this scandal is not going away yet.