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.