What's the "end" to the "ends justify means" strategy of RCMP?

Public safety, deterrence, restitution, and rehabilitation. I think those were the four purposes of the Canadian criminal justice system that we talked about in high school law class.

The RCMP "Mr. Big" strategy, has been running since 1997 and is beginning to gain the attention of the public.

Ian Mulgrew, yesterday published an article in the Vancouver Sun arguing that the strategy is "anathema to our judicial history." Despite what he thinks, the RCMP and the Supreme Court seem to think that saying "fuck" a whole bunch of times and playing bad in the presence of a suspect is to be endorsed.

I'd like to be really open to the idea of this strategy and would like to further study it. My preliminary thoughts, written in response to Mulgrew's article was published today in the Sun, cannot see how this helps anything but public safety.

RE: So-called 'Mr. Big' confessions bad situation

Dostoevsky's novel Crime and Punishment makes a great critique of the RCMP's 'Mr. Big' confessions. The novel would inquire into the principles behind the pragmatics. The RCMP may consider it an "ends to justify the means" strategy, but what exactly is the end? Crime is a social construction. The novel illustrates this by showing how anyone can be convicted of murder through enticements similar to that used by the RCMP. The novel also shows how far removed accruing a confession from the real murderer can be from the purposes of deterrence, restitution and rehabilitation. For progress to be made here, I infer from the novel, the consciousness of the suspect ought to be affirmed and personal development to self-realization of guilt encouraged. Perhaps immediate public safety and job satisfaction are served by 'Mr. Big' confessions, but is that all we want?

Student of law gets web-award for being greatest theologian

Pro-life rids world of dictators

Where have all the criminals gone? argues quite well that abortion cuts crime.

But to support that fact, the authors take a look at the Romanian Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu and argue that it was his pro-life policy that was his undoing. It was the kids who were likely slated for an abortion, they argue, that executed Ceausescu 23 years later.

Therefore, because a dictator's pro-life policy killed that same dictator, abortion should be legalized as it helps to cut down on violent crime... like dictator killing.

Abortion cuts crime, but pro-life cuts dictatorships?

A Christian's duty to vote for the dictator?

Even within the pseudo-democracy of Zimbabwe where a less dictatorial opposition could potentialy be elected in to power, this man of faith finds it his duty to vote for Mugabe.

"I encourage them to read their lessons from the Bible, for that will give them the strength to continue.

And I tell them stories about how I fought in the liberation struggle. I feel the young have forgotten how Zanu-PF brought us our freedom.

I teach them that in African culture, we respect our elders.

For this reason, I explain, I could never support the opposition for I remember what our president has won for us, even if I don't agree with everything he's done since."

- from From BBC Online.

Who is responsible for this?

One boy was kept in a chicken coop, and parasites ate out his eye. Another was found living in a toilet pit. One was accused of being a witch after his parents died of Aids - he is HIV-positive too.

BBC Online has posted a report on Angolan children who are victims of exorcisms and religiously and medically excused maltreatment.

Who is to blame for this atrocity?
> religion?
> the state?
> a western sensitivity towards non western views?
> me or you?

The Pill... for Men.

Researchers at the University of Kansas are testing a number of different chemicals on men to see which one could potentialy be produced into an oral contraceptive.

The complexity of the research would not appear to be great and therefore raises the question: why has this not been done sooner? Even the 8 million dollars that's going towards this research would seem to pale in comparison to the 30 million that had been invested into producing a female oral contraceptive.

When rationalists used to wait on gravity

From a review on Andrew Janiak's new collection of Sir Isaac Newton's philosophical writings:

How is gravity, key to the entire achievement of the Principia, to be understood? Leibniz charged that it was an occult quality, occult in the sense that it purported to explain but did not explain, at least as Leibniz understood that term. To attribute a "dormitive virtue" to a particular substance (to recall Voltaire's later taunt), does not explain how the powder (sic?) acts as its does.

[Newton] had discovered, to his own satisfaction and to that of his followers, a complex form of agency that linked pendulum to moon, to planet, to comet. Admittedly, the manner in which it operated was mysterious. But he had been able to weave a tight mathematical web that made the action of gravity entirely predictable, both as the power to attract and the capacity to be attracted, the same measure applying to each.

Leibniz still had one further cogent objection to raise. When Newton spoke, as he often did, of the sun attracting or being attracted by a planet, the only sort of agency left open (it seemed) was that of action at a distance. And this was, by general agreement among philosophers from Aristotle's time onwards, simply inadmissible, as Newton himself indeed felt forced to concede. So the appeal to attraction was worse than mysterious, it could not even in principle succeed.

The only possibility left was some kind of non-mechanical agency, taking the term 'mechanical' in the contact-action sense demanded by the "mechanical" philosophy of the day.

Newton had, in effect, pioneered a new form of explanation, dynamic explanation, with the notion of force as its anchor.

So, if I have this straight historically, forces could not accurately have been described as mechanical in the contact-action sense, therefore the notion of the mechanical had to be expanded to accomodate the spirit of the day that demanded that all things be, in the contact-action sense, rational.

The cost of nostalgia: 40% of EU Budget goes to farmers

According to No End to Subsidies in Sight By Julio Godoy

The EU spends roughly 40 percent of its budget (some 50 billion euros/60 billion dollars) in subsidies for farmers.

The 230 billion dollars in subsidies that OECD countries pay to their farmers -- at a conservative estimate -- is the main bone of contention in the Doha round and in the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

A new report to be published by the OECD later this year confirms that most developing countries have long ceased to pay out heavy subsidies to their farmers. The report's preliminary findings, to which IPS had access, underlined that the producer support estimate (PSE) in France and in the United States amounts to 31 and 16, while the Brazilian value is less than 10.

More optimisitcally The Economist acknowledges that progress may occur at the WTO with regards to this issue as long as countries find domestic support for change. But at the national level, the issue isn't as clear.

[For many on the domestic level agricultural subsidies, says the Economist,] provides social benefits not valued by the market: environmental protection, food security and the maintenance of rural communities, for example. The most important (and the least cited) factor, however, may be psychological.

Forging a common vision isn't easy when nostalgia or some sort of "psychological" reason captivates developed countries for the time being. And it isn't just the farmer lobby that is captivated by the scent of cow dung, consumers fancy the homegrown enough to be willing to pay more for it through their taxes.

Since it is not the pocketbook that rules the consumer in their compliance with the farmer lobby, it is more viably their vision of the nation. Yet, at what cost does support for this vision come? It costs the consumer more and it hurts foreign farmers that depend monetarily on agriculture. It is my suspicion, therefore, that this issue will not be addressed unless the nostalgia of nationalism is somehow substituted for a captivating notion of the Next.

Pull down the lines that divide

Today an estimated 10 million or more people reside in the United States without legal documentation [in Canada the number is 120 000]. Increased border enforcement has only succeeded in pushing immigration flows into more remote regions. That has resulted in a tripling of the death rate at the border and, at the same time, a dramatic fall in the rate of apprehension. As a result, the cost to U.S. taxpayers of making one arrest along the border increased from $300 in 1992 to $1,700 in 2002, an increase of 467 percent in just a decade.

Douglas S. Massey from Princeton University, in his article Backfire at the Border, recommends that Congress should build on President Bush’s immigration initiative to enact a temporary visa program that would allow workers from Canada, Mexico, and other countries to work in the United States without restriction for a certain limited time.

Qukkr Dose

Yesterday's Dose newspaper (June 1) had a terrible spree of spelling mistake on the front cover. All the e's mysteriously were k's in their "gay Canadian anthem". I wonder if anyone noticed, or just thought that's how gay folk talk.

BC hospital refuses to treat man in hospital parking lot; told to call 911

Reported by the CBC. Ah, this makes me pretty irate. How in the name of all things good, clean and serene, can this happen? How could the folks at the hospital be so insensitive as to demand the adherence of policy (defunct policy at that) over dealing with a human?

Senator Amidala was right

Am I just missing out? Is everyone enjoying a joke that I'm too naive to get? Hey guys, if it is true, wait up for me!

But if the days are really becoming dimmer and democracy and religious freedom really are being sold out for with a laugh and an applause, then I'm becoming concerned.

Canadians want a democracy, but yet they don't to go to the polls.

Canadians, like Warren Kinsella, want Stephen Harper to hijack the riding nominations process by refusing to sign papers.

He says it "Kills two birds with one stone: gets rid of a bunch of single-issue troublemakers. And gets you Ontario"

On the contrary. I think it kills two other birds: grassroots democracy and religious freedom.

GLOBE&MAIL: Christian activists capturing Tory races

Here we've got a pretty good article with a horrendous introduction:

Christian activists have secured Conservative nominations in clusters of ridings from Vancouver to Halifax -- a political penetration that has occurred even as the party tries to distance itself from hard-line social conservatism.

Penetration rarely conjures up a pretty picture.

The bulk of good observations honoured, albeit they are buried in the article:

That said, [John Reynolds - the retiring Conservative MP], is offended by attempts to paint the Conservative party as a harbour for religious zealots.

"There were three dozen Liberals who voted with us on the same-sex thing," he said. "Nobody is going after them and saying, 'Look at these far-right Christians that got into the Liberal Party.' "

Ms. Silver, a lawyer in the federal Justice Department, objects to being labelled a Christian candidate. "That's a form of discrimination," she said. "That's putting them in a class of people and ascribing to them the characteristics of that class without ever giving them a chance to stand on their own merits."

Execs question Stronach's motives

National Post on what business execs think about Belinda's jump:

Some 63% of business leaders contend Ms. Stronach left the Conservatives after she realized she would not win the party's leadership and was offered a Cabinet position by Paul Martin, the Liberal Prime Minister.

A further 26% believe the switch was necessary because her personal political views are more in line with those of the Liberal party. Only 8% of business leaders believe the move was motivated by a sense of public service.

Christians can't represent

"A christian can’t represent the vast swathe of the Canadian public.” – Keith Brownsey, professor of political science at Mt Royal University in Alberta, BC speaking on CKNW 980's Nightline.

They were laughing at your Prime Minister

A CTV article picture caption reads:

"Prime Minister Paul Martin shares a laugh with reporters during the press conference Tuesday in Ottawa."

Reporters weren't laughing with him, they were laughing at him for attempting to earnestly say that Belinda's move to the Liberals had nothing to do with Thursday's vote.

How does this move really help the Liberals, asks the Western Standard:

This is, I've heard, incredibly frustrating to loyal Liberals who have toiled in the backbenches since 1993 and with no reward or recognition. I'm told a few are seriously considering ways to embarass their prime minister including possibly being back in their ridings on Thursday. I still find it unlikely to unfold this way but it is more believable than it would have been 24 hours ago.

I wonder what more conservative liberals like Paul Szabo think of his party. I suppose job security is important to him though.

A face lift that rivals MJ?

What's with the glossy eyed, puppy dog face of Martin on CBC News' website (currently at 12:00 AM PST)?

Is someone trying to emphasize that Martin is all about the children?

time for the queen to step in

The Queen should step in - she shouldn't come to Canada. What if she decided to stall her visit to Canada in order that the PM could deal with his laundry? That would send a message and the great thing about it is, she could decide to not come and just not mention the reasons why. For her sake, better that she doesn't come. Coming would allow Mr Martin to hide behind her skirt.

Coren no Qur'an on the Crusades

Forgive the title.

Michael Coren in yesterday's National Post (May 5, 2005) blames the Crusades on the Muslims, he says they started it by invading the holy land and starting wars with Europe. But I find this conclusion rather unfair and quite arbitrarily chosen. If Coren is looking for a cause to crusade his pen through paper, why stop with the Muslims? Why not blame the Israelites for invading Jericho in the first place - better yet, blame God for delivering the Holy Land to the Israelites, catapulting mankind into an endless series of seriously passionate skirmishes over a ridiculously small tract of land. Perhaps this is more accurately the truth about the Crusades - God started it.

The one group Christians hated even more than the Muslims are fellow Christians. Millennia of experience attest that the Christian's zeal for barbarous hatred toward fellow Christians has always been much worse than for anyone else. When Pope Urban II declared the first crusade with the words, "Men of God, men chosen and blessed among all, combine your forces!" he was saying "quiet down, violently happy princes, and stop your infighting; for God's sake you're Christian, men; here, focus your energies on something else and go play in the backyard." Trying to solve the bloodlust of princes, I think, is more accurately the truth about the Crusades.

GM industry to legalize cannibalism - puts human gene in rice

hmm, succulent human liver genes...

Japanese researchers have inserted a gene from the human liver into rice to enable it to digest pesticides and industrial chemicals. - The UK Independent

For the most part I've not been too concerned about genetically modified foods. Viewing it as similar to grafting I've subscribed to the view the Economist has held for a number of years. However, genetically grafting cacti into maize is one thing, genetically grafting humans into rice is quite another.