When I heard that Stephen Harper was going to “deal with” the gang violence in Vancouver, I assumed it would be a typical conservative solution. Unfortunately, he didn’t surprise me.
Punishment, and yet more punishment, to “deter” the bad guys. Tougher drug laws. An automatic first degree murder charge for any gang-related killing.
There is one major problem with this: it doesn’t work. It doesn’t work because the killers never intend to get caught. They never think “I could get life in prison instead of 25 years if I get caught for this, so I won’t do it.” Ever. Harsher laws have been tried before, over and over, and they have failed every time.
So what is the solution? First, leave the murder law as it is. Most gang killings are already pre-meditated (first-degree) murders, so nothing needs to change there.
Second, legalize drugs. That’s right: marijuana, cocaine, heroin, all of them. Make them legal, sell them through legitimate retailers similar to the Liquor Control Board, and tax them heftily.
This would solve several problems. It would remove the main purpose of most of the gangs, causing many to disband. It would eliminate, or at least minimize, disease and death caused by badly cut drugs and dirty needles. It would add tax money our economy could certainly use. And studies in the few countries that have done this have shown that it does not cause an increase in drug addiction.
Finally, some of that additional tax money can be used to fund programs to give kids things to do with their time other than joining gangs – sports, after-school programs, etc.
It may not be as obvious a solution, or as fulfilling in the short term as throwing people in prison, but if we want to prevent crime and not just punish it after it is too late, this is the way to go.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
Rights vs. Fear
I think I am going to start stocking up on rotten tomatoes to use on the next person who uses the word "terrorism" as an excuse to attack basic freedoms.
I have known one person in my life who was killed in a terrorist attack. That was a horrible situation, and one that I would prefer never happen again.
However, everyone I know has been affected by the attack on their rights and freedoms by their own governments under the excuse - and that is all it is - of preventing terrorism.
Everything from disallowing a tube of toothpaste in a carry-on bag on a plane, to intercepting telephone calls without a warrant is done under the claim that it will stop terrorists. It won't. What it will do is complicate the lives and remove the freedoms of innocent people. The terrorists, if they are out there, will find a way.
Why am I talking about this now, when it is essentially old news? Because I had been hopeful that things would start to improve when the paranoid Bush regime was gone from power. Yet I found two new "anti-terrorist" activities in the news just today.
The Americans are launching unmanned (and, for the moment, at least) unarmed drones to fly along the Manitoba border. There goes that whole concept of "the world's longest undefended border" that we were taught about in school.
And in England, the powers that be have decided that people should no longer be allowed to photograph police officers, because the photographers might be terrorist groups taking reconnaissance shots. Not only will there be a lot of disappointed tourists, but this would also mean that bad cops could assault people without the risk of exposure.
When does this stupidity stop? When are people going to stand up and say "my rights are more important than my fear"? Because until we do, the governments are going to use this excuse to do all of the things they always wanted, but were never allowed.
We have more to fear from our own governments than from some threat from the middle east.
I have known one person in my life who was killed in a terrorist attack. That was a horrible situation, and one that I would prefer never happen again.
However, everyone I know has been affected by the attack on their rights and freedoms by their own governments under the excuse - and that is all it is - of preventing terrorism.
Everything from disallowing a tube of toothpaste in a carry-on bag on a plane, to intercepting telephone calls without a warrant is done under the claim that it will stop terrorists. It won't. What it will do is complicate the lives and remove the freedoms of innocent people. The terrorists, if they are out there, will find a way.
Why am I talking about this now, when it is essentially old news? Because I had been hopeful that things would start to improve when the paranoid Bush regime was gone from power. Yet I found two new "anti-terrorist" activities in the news just today.
The Americans are launching unmanned (and, for the moment, at least) unarmed drones to fly along the Manitoba border. There goes that whole concept of "the world's longest undefended border" that we were taught about in school.
And in England, the powers that be have decided that people should no longer be allowed to photograph police officers, because the photographers might be terrorist groups taking reconnaissance shots. Not only will there be a lot of disappointed tourists, but this would also mean that bad cops could assault people without the risk of exposure.
When does this stupidity stop? When are people going to stand up and say "my rights are more important than my fear"? Because until we do, the governments are going to use this excuse to do all of the things they always wanted, but were never allowed.
We have more to fear from our own governments than from some threat from the middle east.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
The Soap Opera - an endangered species?
The soap opera has been around for over 70 years, pre-dating television. Even people who have never watched one are familiar with the genre, and very likely familiar with some of the characters. Who hasn’t heard of Erica Kane?
In the early years of TV, soap operas really were sponsored by soap companies, and their earnings helped support the prime-time programming.
But times have changed. Prime-time shows are now the ones that bring in the money, and soaps have decreased drastically in recent years, both in absolute numbers and in ratings. Days of Our Lives, which has run for 44 years, recently laid off stars Deidre Hall and Drake Hogestyn (Marlena and John Black), and other shows have required their top actors to take pay cuts.
Rumours have been circulating for some time that the soap opera is about to go the way of the dodo bird, to be replaced by cheaper talk shows and “reality TV”. The audience of its heyday – stay-at-home mothers who passed their love of the show on to their daughters – is gone, and the networks’ attempts to lure new, young, viewers appears to be a failure.
And it is quite possible that they are right, that we are witnessing the end of an era. But I wonder if this recession, depression, whatever you want to call it, could actually end up saving the soaps.
Every day we hear of thousands more people losing jobs. And certainly many of them will be out looking for more work. But a number, who really don’t need to work, will decide to stay home until things get better. And, since men still earn more than women, and since women are still considered to be responsible for child care, most of those will be women.
This is not a good thing. But it may be a cloud with a silver lining for the soap opera. We could be back to a time when there are women with free time in the afternoon to watch the soaps, and to pass this on to their daughters as our mothers did.
What the networks do with this is up to them. If they fire their best actors and writers, and end up with shows no one wants to watch, it won’t matter. However, if they put together fun, interesting shows, they will have an audience just looking for a little escape and love in the afternoon.
In the early years of TV, soap operas really were sponsored by soap companies, and their earnings helped support the prime-time programming.
But times have changed. Prime-time shows are now the ones that bring in the money, and soaps have decreased drastically in recent years, both in absolute numbers and in ratings. Days of Our Lives, which has run for 44 years, recently laid off stars Deidre Hall and Drake Hogestyn (Marlena and John Black), and other shows have required their top actors to take pay cuts.
Rumours have been circulating for some time that the soap opera is about to go the way of the dodo bird, to be replaced by cheaper talk shows and “reality TV”. The audience of its heyday – stay-at-home mothers who passed their love of the show on to their daughters – is gone, and the networks’ attempts to lure new, young, viewers appears to be a failure.
And it is quite possible that they are right, that we are witnessing the end of an era. But I wonder if this recession, depression, whatever you want to call it, could actually end up saving the soaps.
Every day we hear of thousands more people losing jobs. And certainly many of them will be out looking for more work. But a number, who really don’t need to work, will decide to stay home until things get better. And, since men still earn more than women, and since women are still considered to be responsible for child care, most of those will be women.
This is not a good thing. But it may be a cloud with a silver lining for the soap opera. We could be back to a time when there are women with free time in the afternoon to watch the soaps, and to pass this on to their daughters as our mothers did.
What the networks do with this is up to them. If they fire their best actors and writers, and end up with shows no one wants to watch, it won’t matter. However, if they put together fun, interesting shows, they will have an audience just looking for a little escape and love in the afternoon.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
NAFTA and "Buy American"
I am having mixed feelings about Obama’s “Buy American” program. I can understand why people support it, and if I were an American, I would quite possibly feel the same way. In the short term, at least, it will likely be good for them, although the international anger they are courting will probably come back to haunt them in the long run.
I guess what I find most irritating, other than the obvious fact that Canadians will lose jobs, is the NAFTA issue. I was never a fan of the North American Free Trade Act, but we signed it, and so did the Americans. And I haven’t heard that they have any specific plans to back out of it. And under NAFTA they can’t “buy American” – all NAFTA countries have to be given the same treatment.
We are constantly told here that Canada cannot keep our oil for ourselves, even if we need it. We have to sell much of it to the U.S. under NAFTA rules. The Mexican economy has been devastated by NAFTA. Yet apparently the United States doesn’t even take into account the fact that, under NAFTA, the whole Buy American program is simply not allowed.
I am not sure what I would think without NAFTA. Certainly a large amount of our trade is with the U.S., but keeping things closer to home uses less fuel and decreases pollution. And we are going to have to become less of a consumer society in the future – the earth simply can’t support the strain we have been putting on it. And, of course, protectionism goes both ways – we really could use that Alberta oil.
But I am royally sick of the Americans imposing rules on everyone else, and believing that they don’t have to follow them. I was hoping that had ended with Bush, but I think it is bigger than one government. Maybe they should replace the American Eagle with something more appropriate – an American Ego.
I guess what I find most irritating, other than the obvious fact that Canadians will lose jobs, is the NAFTA issue. I was never a fan of the North American Free Trade Act, but we signed it, and so did the Americans. And I haven’t heard that they have any specific plans to back out of it. And under NAFTA they can’t “buy American” – all NAFTA countries have to be given the same treatment.
We are constantly told here that Canada cannot keep our oil for ourselves, even if we need it. We have to sell much of it to the U.S. under NAFTA rules. The Mexican economy has been devastated by NAFTA. Yet apparently the United States doesn’t even take into account the fact that, under NAFTA, the whole Buy American program is simply not allowed.
I am not sure what I would think without NAFTA. Certainly a large amount of our trade is with the U.S., but keeping things closer to home uses less fuel and decreases pollution. And we are going to have to become less of a consumer society in the future – the earth simply can’t support the strain we have been putting on it. And, of course, protectionism goes both ways – we really could use that Alberta oil.
But I am royally sick of the Americans imposing rules on everyone else, and believing that they don’t have to follow them. I was hoping that had ended with Bush, but I think it is bigger than one government. Maybe they should replace the American Eagle with something more appropriate – an American Ego.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
