Appeal the Safe Injection Site Ruling

The federal government is right to appeal the BC Supreme Court decision that stated closing the Vancouver safe-injection site would be unconstitutional. The judge, Mr. Ian Pitfield, felt that it violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to deny addicts the site for safe injection-drug use. The addicts' Charter rights guarantee life, liberty and security, and the court felt that closing the site and forcing these people into the streets and alleys would violate those rights and put them at risk. Justice Pitfield stated in court that "there is much to be said against denying addicts health care services that will ameliorate the effects of their condition". The court got this one wrong and the government should move to appeal this immediately, not because of the injection site itself, but because of the precedent this ruling sets and the preposterous claim that injecting illegal drugs with immunity from the law is a Charter right. The fact is that there are many services available for addicts and the health care system is open to them if they need any medical attention whatsoever. Contrary to what the judge believes, drug addicts are not being denying health care services. They can go to a walk-in clinic, they can go to a hospital, they can go to a detox program, they can get any number of services if they so wish. Perhaps there would be a case for arguing that there should be more money spent on such services, but equating a cubicle used for injecting drugs with vital health care services is a flawed assessment. 'Insite', the safe-injection site, is not a constitutional right. Society should not be bound to enable and assist drug addicts by the court's interpretation of our Constitution. That being said, 'Insite' should be granted another year-long exemption from drug laws. It is a noble experiment that is saving lives, slowing disease and reducing harm while we search for better solutions. But it is not a Charter right and the government is right to move quickly to appeal the decision that it is.

The Absolutely Despicable Uproar Over the RFK Comment

Despite the words that will follow, I am speechless. Hillary Clinton recently commented that the non-stop calls for her to quit the race are unprecedented, noting that her husband's last competitor didn't drop out until June in 1992 and that Robert Kennedy was still actively campaigning in June when he was assassinated. These are just two examples of nomination races continuing into June. There are many more examples of such and other exaples of nominations that went to the convention with a much greater difference in delegates than exists today between Obama and Clinton. From this simple, innocent explanation, the media, the rabid Obama supporters and the mindless pundits have discerned that Hillary made a gaffe: she exposed that she's staying in this race because Obama may get killed.
This is sick. To twist and distort this statement to seem like Hillary Clinton is simply awaiting the assassin's bullet is disgusting. I can not believe the reaction to this. This is not a gaffe, it's not a mistake. It's history. Since when is mentioning that RFK was assassinated unacceptable? It happened. We all know it. To outlaw mentioning it is nonsense.
The less-vicious media argued that it was distasteful that she mentioned it in light of the recent health news regarding Ted Kennedy, Robert's brother. Well, why is there no anger over Vanity Fair's current cover which is emblazoned with Robert Kennedy's face. Where is the anger over all the politicians and pundits who gave eulogies despite the fact that Ted Kennedy is still alive? Why was CNN not equally angry that Sanjay Gupta went through a brain scan to illustrate exactly what Ted Kennedy's tumor looks like. But there was no anger over those. The anger, the resentment, the coverage was reserved for Hillary Clinton. She was the one to be crucified for this and the media, the Obama supporters, the pundits, were ready and eager to do so. I can only shake my head in disgust and despair.
I refuse to waste any more energy discussing this mind-boggling display. I am ashamed. I am angry. This is despicable.

Exaggerating Caucuses

John McLaughlin of The McLaughlin Group raised an interesting point last week. He said that the way the Democrats award delegates favours the winner of the small caucuses. For example, McLaughlin illustrated how in Idaho, Obama won the caucuses by a margin of 13,000 votes, and as a result picked up a net gain of 13 delegates over Hillary Clinton. But in the Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton won by a margin of 200,000 votes and only picked up a net gain of 10 delegates. So that 13,000 voter advantage resulted in more net delegates going to Obama than Hillary gained by winning Pennsylvania by 200,000. And that's just the tip of the iceberg regarding the conflated, bizarre and backwards caucuses. Let's not forget how the caucuses favour those voters who can spend 4 hours of their evening arguing and campaigning for their candidate. Have to work the night shift? Too bad! Sick and can't make it? Tough luck! Can't find a babysitter? Suck it up! The caucuses are overrun by the wealthy, the young and the activists who can afford to go and who live for such a partisan event. Caucuses thus result in strange outcomes. Washington state holds both a primary and a caucus: the caucus saw Obama win by 37 points, but the primary saw Obama win by just 5 points. Funny how when everyone is allowed to vote the results are incredibly different than when only those activist caucus-goers' votes are counted.

What's Up Joe?

A question I have been pondering for a while and which has never been answered is why has Joe Biden not endorsed Hillary Clinton. For this entire primary process, a process he droped out of early, he has sat firmly on the fencepost, never making a decision to go one way or the other. But Biden and Clinton clearly have a good relationship, both have served in the Senate together, and much was made of their sitting together during the state of the union address. The bait was there, but Biden never bit. Why not? Biden seems to mesh well with Hillary and his recent habit of coming to the defense of Obama on foreign policy issues rings insincere to me. We'll likely never know why Biden didn't endorse. It likely doesn't matter. None of the democratic drop-outs were able to make much of a splash with their endorsements, especially Edwards. I don't care what the pundits say about the headline-stealing power of his late move, it would have been much more effective if he had chosen earlier and perhaps driven some of his white, working class supporters to Obama. Oh well, most endorsements don't matter. Biden's likely wouldn't have. It's just funny why he never made the move, never made a commitment one way or the other. Decisiveness is a quality Joe, and it's certainly one we look for in a President.

Ending High and Ending Low

Who would have thought that as the primary season in America winds to a close, that the candidate who looks most likely the become the presidential nominee would be ending shakily while the loser would be closing on a high? It still looks likely (but not certain) that Obama will be the presidential nominee but his campaign is ending on a much lower note than Hillary's. Where there should be excitement, jubilation and celebration, the Obama campaign has lost 5 of the 6 most recent contests and is trailing Hillary in match ups with John McCain. And as Maureen Dowd points out, "Obama may have started the primary season with an inspiring win in 94-percent-white Iowa, but he is winding it up with a resounding loss in 94-percent-white West Virginia." There doesn't seem to be as much confetti and balloons lining his path to the nomination now that it seems unobstructed.
Meanwhile, Hillary is riding high, emerging from her campaign alight and alive, a phoenix-like rebirth that has granted her a convincing populist image, the adoration of millions of voters, and the respect of her competitors on both the left and the right. A day doesn't go by that CNN doesn't mention her tenacity; superdelegates, out of sheer respect, are no longer calling for her to drop out; and there's a flood of articles and blogs hailing her fortitude, her composure and her strength.
It's interesting to watch the nomination process close and see Hillary ending so positive, so upbeat, with a blowout win in West Virginia in her pocket and two more crushing victories in Kentucky and Puerto Rico on the horizon. Look out if Hillary upsets in Oregon, Montana or South Dakota, and if the Democratic Party Rules Committee seats Florida or Michigan's delegates. If those happen, then this interesting close to the primary season may get a little more lively yet.

The Dark Confessions of a Hillary Supporter

While watching the results come in from North Carolina and Indiana last night, I was struck by a sinking feeling that I had not felt since Iowa. With the polls showing a tightening race in North Carolina and a possible 5 point win by Clinton in Indiana, the actual results were disappointing. And in my gut, I realized that my candidate would probably not win the nomination. I am not ruling it out and I am not rescinding my support, but the path to victory is looking mighty dim right now. Perhaps I had gotten too used to Hillary pulling it out, winning when the chips were down and her back was against the wall. I was expecting another New Hampshire, another Ohio, another Pennsylvania. It's too bad that's not what we saw.
With this sinking feeling came a second realization, that Barack Obama would most likely be the democratic candidate come November. And here's my dark secret that I feel the need to confess to you now: I kind of hope he loses.
I know the differences between Obama and Clinton are small compared to the differences with McCain, and I know this sounds like "sour grapes," but deep down (and by 'deep down' I really mean simmering just below the surface) I hope Obama loses, to justify my support for Clinton, to legitimize Clinton's continuing her campaign when Obama supporters we calling for her to quit week after week after week. There has been an aura of smugness about the Obama campaign for some time now. But that coupled with the constant accusations of "old style politics" and the condescending dismissal of the 15 million Clinton voters by the media and Obama's supporters and surrogates has given birth to this dark secret that I am confessing now. I'm sure that my genuine belief that Obama will lose against McCain and my honest opinion that Clinton is the democrats' best chance to win the White House had something to do with it as well, but whatever the source of this deep dark desire, I can't ignore it, and unfortunately for the democrats, come November, I suspect that a big chunk of Clinton supporters won't be able to either.

Stop Griping Over Bill C-50

There's been much griping from the opposition parties and immigration activists recently in response to the changes proposed to Canada's immigration system included in the 2008 budget implementation bill. People have levelled charges against the government that it is racist, xenophobic and the like. But the NDP, some Liberals, and the immigrant-lobby need to stop foaming at the mouth and get a grip of reality. First, Canada has long been generous in its welcoming of immigrants, so the charges that Canada's government is racist are unfounded. If any country should be able to tinker with its immigration system without being subject to such insults it is Canada. Second, our immiragtion system needs repair. There's almost a 6 year, 1 million person backlog. We have no way of prioritizing immigrants based on skills and expertise. We can't even successfully deport immigrants who break the laws as we've seen over and over again (most recently with the Laibar Singh case - http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=407204)
So the changes proposed by the government are long overdue. These changes would allow the Immigration Minister to give orders to agents and officials to prioritize certain classes of immigrant claims. For example, Canada is starving for doctors and nurses, so let's bump those immigrants who are doctors and nurses to the front of the line. The Canadian economy can't find enough masonry workers or welders? Why not prioritize those immigrants who have those skills? Immigration should work for both the immigrant and the country, and its been a one way street for too long--it's time the Canadian economy and Canadian society got more out of this deal.
Canada has every right to decide to fast-track immigrants with relevant skills who are looking to start a new life and build new Canadian families. And if this comes at the expense of immigrants in line for family-reunification (those are the grandparents, parents, spouses, partners, children, and orphaned nieces and nephews that every Canadian can sponsor) than too bad. There will still be plenty of room for those type of immigrants, as there has always been. I just see no problem with Canada granting citizenship to a few more surgeons and a few less grandmothers. Is it not fair to say one will contribute more than the other? Are we all too afraid to point that out? Let's foster those immigrants who are the best and brightest, those who want to contribute to building a better Canada, rather than those who feel entitled to transplant their entire social network here.
Canada has every right to prioritize its immigrants. It has every right to decide who gets to immigrate, how many, and how long it will take. The opponents of these changes are the same activists who think immigration is a right and demand that Canada must accept everyone, all the time, without exception. Canada is a country that welcomes immigrants from around the world and has been for decades. It's too bad our elected officials can't propose changes and reforms to the system without being attacked and berated. But for what it's worth, the government's got my vote on this one.

The Turning of the Tide

When Hillary Clinton won the Pennsylvania primary on April 22, she claimed that the tide was turning in the race to be the democratic presidential nominee. Now, a week and a half later and only 5 days before the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, it seems she may have been right.
Polls have been showing a tightening of the race between Obama and Clinton. Clinton is now only 1 point behind Obama in a new national poll by CNN http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/01/cnn-poll-obama-losing-support/
And according to a new Gallup poll, Obama trails Clinton by 4 points and Clinton does better in a direct match up with John McCain. http://www.gallup.com/poll/106945/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-49-Obama-45.aspx
Finally, over on realclearpolitics.com their poll average for Indiana now has Clinton up by nearly 5 points and Obama's lead in North Carolina has shrunk to just over 7 points from 15 points in early April.
If these trends continue, the tide has certainly changed in Clinton's favour. And if she is able to tighten up the N.C. race, it will be seen as a victory. But if she somehow manages to win North Carolina then the Obama campaign would be in real trouble and I mean ship-hits-an-iceberg-and-there's-not-enough-lifeboats kind of trouble.