Er, why?

Hell, even to get elected I wouldn't work on a ranch:



But then again, I'm a real pansy.

My latest at the Victoria Politics Examiner

Christy Clark edition:

• BC First on Christy Clark victory: Congrats, Premier Clark. Now get to work.
• BC Tories on Clark victory: doom, doom, and gloom for the Liberals.
• BC NDP on Clark victory: Same old, same old.
• Bill Bennett: "I voted for George Abbott"
• Will John van Dongen jump ship after Clark victory?
• Welcome to the top, Christy

Let real judges decide hate cases

Alan Shanoff FTW.

Making the legal illegal

A while back on this blog I got all upset over the way that the Canada Revenue Agency was trying to bleed some extra tax dollars from a Compassion Club in BC. Why were they trying this? Well, because the pot in the club had to come from somewhere, and, thanks to Canada's crazy pot laws, even though selling marijuana for medicinal purposes is legal it's still illegal to grow pot and sell it to these clubs. The CRA figured this out and they wanted a piece of the action: after all, even criminals should have to pay their taxes, right?

The reason I got upset over this is because one of the main benefits of - and thus one of the best arguments for - marijuana legalization would be increased tax revenues. But if the government is going to fore-go legalization and collect the tax revenue anyways, it kind of kneecaps the whole argument.

Really, it's fundamentally unfair. I'm not particularly advocating for - or against - growing pot illegally, but one of the benefits for taking that risk is that you get some money under the table, tax-free. If the government horns in on that while still making your activity illegal, there's something wrong with that equation. It's acknowledging at the same time that a) this activity is being conducted regardless of the law, meaning that these laws have ultimately failed to rein in the activity they were created to rein in, and then b) ignores addressing this problem - say, through decriminalization and/or legalization - and tries to get its cut of the profits. This is government gaining money from illegal activity, while at the same time ensuring that this activity remains illegal.

In other words, it don't make no sense.

Well, last Tuesday we got another example of this sort of craziness. Brennan Clarke reports, for the Globe and Mail:

The RCMP raid – the third in a decade – came late Friday afternoon, but two members of the North Island Compassion Club deny police allegations that the Courtenay-based marijuana dispensary is a front for illegal drug dealing.

Bill Myers and Ernie Yacub, the club’s long-time manager, were arrested on the weekend and police have recommended they be charged with possession for the purpose of trafficking marijuana. Both deny the allegations, saying the club is strictly for users of medical marijuana.

“There is absolutely no illegal drug dealing going on, none, and I can verify that,” said Mr. Myers, 56. “We dispense medical marijuana to people who really need it, and both Ernie and I spend enough time with everybody to know if they’re coming in on a straight edge.”

RCMP executed a search warrant on the society’s Sixth Street headquarters around 4 p.m. Friday, arresting Mr. Yacub, Mr. Myers and two other club members who were questioned and released without charges.

Police seized several pounds of dried marijuana, as well as unspecified quantities of cookies, hashish and cash.

“We recognize there are conflicting views on the medicinal value of marijuana but it remains illegal to sell in the manner in which they were conducting business,” said Comox Valley RCMP Constable Tammy Douglas.

I obviously can't confirm or deny these police allegations, but this situation seems to follow a kind of logic that we've seen before: the club sells pot, therefore the club must be getting its pot from criminals, therefore the club must be a part of some kind of illegal activity.

Again, if the activity were simply legalized this wouldn't be a problem. There would have to be no more raids, there would be no more legal gray areas - or less, at least.

Then again I might be getting ahead of myself. After all, prostitution in Canada is legal, but the legal structure surrounding pretty much any other activity related to prostitution pretty much guarantees that the government is going to make a prostitute's job as miserable and unhappy as it possibly can. Like the crusade against pot, it makes no real sense, and in many ways is fundamentally unfair. The government is saying that it both condemns and condones a behavior is has no business giving an opinion on in the first place. And as always, changes are too few and far between.

Alcohol, caffeine, and death

Yesterday I talked a little about the madness behind the War on Drugs - a fairly common theme here at the Blog of Walker.

Today, let's look at the madness behind bans on alcohol and caffeinated alcoholic beverages.

So it doesn't stop at alcohol and caffeine?



*Via Reason.

You see, a little while back there was some furor over mixed caffeine-alcohol beverages. Not only did the United States Food and Drug Administration ban the drink Four Loko ( thankfully there's a home-brew ), a legislator in Iowa actually wants to make it illegal for establishments with a liquor license to sell drinks that mix alcohol and caffeine together ( so no more rum and cokes in Iowa ).

This is one of those areas where you either think these sorts of bans are a great idea or a terrible one. Three guesses where I come down on that one. But you see, the craziness doesn't end there, as it never seems to do. Now the true danger to public health is, you guessed it, energy drinks.

Profits and hysteria

Now, when it comes to any number of banned substances, you can count on two factors to take something from publicly-enjoyable substance to the devil's nectar in nothing flat: worrying statistics, no matter how overblown they might be in reality, and established industries that stand to profit from losing competition.

When it comes to alcohol, always a favorite target for our moral overlords, let's take a couple of examples. First, the overblown statistics. Ronald Bailey writes:

Certain alarmists (you know who you are MADD) have claimed that toll that drinking in college includes as many 1,700 students killed annually in drunk driving accidents. The main study from which this figure is derived is a near perfect example of how to conjure any conclusion one wants from the thinnest of data. In this case, the study found alcohol-related traffic deaths was 15.2 per 100,000 college students. The Daily Progress, the local paper in Charlottesville, Virginia, where I spend most of my time, reports that a new study by James Turner at the University of Virginia finds that the earlier estimate is about ten times too high.

Next, the established industry trying to stick it to the competition. Jacob Sullum writes:

But when it comes to direct shipments by out-of-state retailers (including wine-of-the-month clubs and online auctions), the picture is much different: Thirty-seven states ban such transactions, insisting that the wine go through government-appointed wholesalers, who vigorously resist any regulatory changes that would cut into their artificial profits. Wine blogger David White notes that legislators in Maryland, one of the states that bans all direct-to-consumer wine shipments, are considering a bill that would legalize direct sales by out-of-state retailers as well as wineries. The bill has broad support, with 83 co-sponsors (out of 141 members) in the state House and 32 co-sponsors (out of 47 members) in the state Senate. But White warns that the politically influential wholesalers may yet block full liberalization

[...]

It's a familiar theme in alcohol regulation: Rules ostensibly aimed at promoting public health and safety create vested interests that resist change even when the official rationale no longer seems persuasive. Public employee unions fight liquor store privatization, liquor stores try to stop supermarkets from selling beer and wine, and convenience stores complain that bars are illegally horning in on light beer sales. One of my favorite examples is South Carolina's itty-bitty bottle requirement, which mandated that all liquor in bars and restaurants be served from the 50-milliliter containers you see on airplanes and in hotel mini-bars. The restriction, which was enacted by constitutional amendment in 1973, was meant to discourage strong cocktails. But it accomplished exactly the opposite, since South Carolina bartenders were required to use 1.7 ounces of liquor per drink, compared to the 1 or 1.25 ounces that became typical in other states. By the time the rule was repealed in 2004, its opponents included Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the South Carolina Baptist Convention. Its main supporters were mini-bottle wholesalers and retailers.

Another example? Alright. Katherine Mangu-Ward writes:

In 1979, the Connecticut Supreme Court called shenanigans on mnay of the state's remaining blue laws. But more than 30 years later, it remains illegal to sell liquor, beer, or wine on Sundays or late at night. Once again this year, drinkers and shoppers have rallied to loosen the laws. And once again, they have come up against opposition from the very businesses they long to patronize.

The ban on Sunday sales is essentially a legally-protected day off for liquor store owners, and a guarantee against competition from grocery stores and other shops with longer hours and more convenient locations. Sure, mom and pop package stores might make a little more money if they were open 7 days a week. But then they'd have to work...7 days a week.

Yet another example? Alright. Jacob Sullum - again - writes:

Here is another crazy, anti-competitive regulation to blame on alcohol wholesalers: Under Texas law, brewpubs may serve beer or sell it directly to the public for home consumption, but they are prohibited from selling it via distributors or retailers. A brewpub coalition known as Texas Beer Freedom is supporting a bill, H.B. 660, that would lift those restrictions. But as The Texas Tribune notes, "the small brewers have to overcome some opponents with big names and deep pockets: the powerful beer distribution lobby." Said lobby resists any erosion of its privileges under the "three-tier" alcoholic beverage distribution system, the pure version of which decrees that producers, wholesalers, and retailers should never be the same businesses.

Again and again, these sorts of things tend not to reflect what the public itself wants, but what certain special interest groups ( prohibitionist types ) want, coupled with a status quo that certain business interests are quite happy to keep in place. It's an odd mix of energy and inertia. Throw in public tolerance, or general disengagement, and bam: you've got a ban here, there, and everywhere.

Sometimes, though, wet wins over dry, and we're left wondering why it is that such changes took so long to come into being.

Meanwhile: When Booze Was Banned but Pot Was Not

Don't advocate jury nullification in New Jersey

Why? 'Cause if you do, you'll be arrested. Seems the courts don't like it when people educate jurors about the process they're involved in.

Earlier, this.

My latest for the Victoria Politics Examiner

Check it out, Liberal leadership vote edition:

• The Liberal leadership vote: meet the candidates.
• The Liberal leadership vote: the vote that almost wasn't.
• The Liberal leadership vote: weighing the outcomes.

A war on whistleblowers in the States

Is this going to be part of Obama's legacy?

My latest

Here's my latest content...

...at the Victoria Politics Examiner:

• David Schreck's submission to the HST panel.
• Ed Mayne, in retrospect.

...at the Libertas Post: The Liberty Summer Seminar and property rights in Ontario.

...and there will be more updates at Defend Geert Wilders later today, if possible.

The Liberal legend of balanced budgets

My latest at the Victoria Politics Examiner:

All too often, the BC Liberal Party manages to keep its reputation for being the party of business, the party that fiscal conservatives and fans of balanced budgets should rally behind.

This isn't true, of course. As Adrian Dix has pointed out during his campaign for the NDP leadership: "Their economy has grown at two percent a year for the last ten years. The economy grew three percent a year under the NDP, and three percent a year under Social Credit before that."

And, as I've pointed out here, between an increasing dependence on P3 infrastructure projects and their mismanagement of crown corporations - even their departures from general accounting principles - the BC Liberals should not be seen as a party for fiscal responsibility. And if anything, the latest budget from the BC Liberal Party should in and of itself - in a just world - put an end to this reputation. It won't, but it should.

Check it out, eh?

Meth, and other drugs

Here at the Blog of Walker I often find myself talking about the War on Drugs. This isn't just because I'm interested in drugs - which I am - but also because I find the whole rationale for the War on Drugs to be not only intrusive, but misguided in so many ways. Above and beyond my libertarian politics, the War on Drugs just isn't sensible policy. It's nice when both belief and pragmatism can work together like that.

Examples? Alright. Let's look at fake psychoactive drugs, which have themselves led to death in the people who take them. As Jacob Sullum notes:

While Nichols blames himself (a little) and the rogue chemists who profit from his work (a lot), he does not even mention the role that drug prohibition plays in creating this sort of hazard, and neither does the A.P. story prompted by his Nature commentary. Under a saner legal regime, companies would openly and transparently compete to provide the psychoactive effects people want at the lowest possible risk. Instead we have laws that criminalize production and possession of well-known substances that can be consumed in appropriate doses with minimal risk, encouraging "laboratory-adept entrepreneurs" to seek out unfamiliar (and therefore quasi-legal) substitutes that may turn out to be substantially more dangerous.

Sullum expands on this theory here.

Another example? Alright. Let's look at laws that restrict the purchase of cold medication - used to make crystal meth - in the States, which have only served to create an entirely new kind of black market business: people who buy these cold medications over the counter and then sell them to meth producers. Radley Balko ( at the link ) writes: "But perhaps we should go easy on the politicians who passed these laws. I mean, it's not like anyone could possibly have predicted any of this."

Meanwhile, Mark Thornton at Mises.org explains the crystal meth phenomenon:

The answer is that crystal meth is a cheap date; it has been referred to as the poor man's cocaine. Cocaine and meth are both stimulants, so it is reasonable to assume that they appeal to the same subset of drug users. During cocaine's heyday, meth was nearly extinct on the illegal market.

This changed with Reagan's "War on Drugs," which was effective in raising prices for illegal drugs by imposing greater risks and thus higher costs on production, distribution, and consumption. The initial shock of the war on drugs sent black-market entrepreneurs back to the drawing board; they needed to reduce their risk and their costs. What they came back with included highly potent marijuana, crack cocaine, and crystal meth.

As I promised, economics provides the best explanation for the surge in popularity of meth despite the disproportionate danger of its use. Increased enforcement of drug laws, backed by increased penalties, led to higher prices and decreased availability of preferred recreational drugs such as marijuana and cocaine. High prices and periodic shortages led drug dealers and consumers to find substitutes — ersatz goods that would produce similar results but at a lower cost.

The scourge of crystal meth is another example of the "potency effect" or what has been called the "iron law of prohibition." When government enacts a prohibition, increases enforcement, or increases penalties on a good such as alcohol or drugs, it inevitably results in substitution to more adulterated, more potent, and more dangerous drugs.

As Frederic Bastiat wrote: "In the economic sphere an act, a habit, an institution, a law produces not only one effect, but a series of effects. Of these effects, the first alone is immediate; it appears simultaneously with its cause; it is seen. The other effects emerge only subsequently; they are not seen; we are fortunate if we foresee them."

These spikes in dangerous drug consumption, and the growth of black markets and criminal activity surrounding the drug trade are the direct result of government action trying to curb drug use. This isn't some nefarious plot by the criminal element: this is what happens when we go on crusades.

I'll leave the last word to Brian Doherty, in response to an LA County Supervisor's disparaging remarks about his own county's Public Health Department, after it started to distribute flyers about staying safe while using street ecstasy: "The 'spirit of the country's anti-drug policy': fuck off and die, druggie, and if you don't, you're under arrest!"

That about says it.

Update: Via Eowyn, in the comments:



Fun stuff.

My latest at the Victoria Politics Examiner

Check it out: Farewell, Moira Stilwell.

Your taxes pay for this

More specifically, for this.

Also, this.

I'll be in a study

Thanks to the wonders of email, I'll be participating in this study:

The Political Communication Research Lab (GRCP) at Laval University would like to
invite bloggers to participate in a ground-breaking study of the Canadian political
blogosphere (Research Ethics Board file number : 2010-289/16-12-2010).

Participants must be at least 18 years old, must live in Canada, must have the right
to vote in Canada and must have a blog where they mostly or frequently post (more
than once a week) on Canadian, international or Quebec politics.

The participants will complete an online survey on their socio-demographic profile,
their political practices and their motivations for engaging in political blogging. The survey is made up of 76 questions, the majority of which are closed-ended. However, there are also open-ended questions that will allow participants to freely reflect on the themes of the survey. The survey can be completed in about 30 minutes.

All participants are invited to complete the online survey available from the website of the Political Communication Research Lab:
www.grcp.com.ulaval.ca/blogscan_en

Just in cast any of y'all are interested. Here's some more background.

Binks has done it again

Steynian 438. Read it. Seriously.

Pump it up

Check it out.

The dumbest thing ever said by Hillary Clinton

It's hard to know where to begin with this:

Maerker: In Mexico, there are those who propose not keeping going with this battle and legalize drug trafficking and consumption. What is your opinion?

Clinton: I don't think that will work. I mean, I hear the same debate. I hear it in my country. It is not likely to work. There is just too much money in it, and I don't think that—you can legalize small amounts for possession, but those who are making so much money selling, they have to be stopped.

Sigh...

Reason Mag provides the necessary smack-down:

My latest for The Propagandist

Here it is: The Process on Trial:

The issues at hand include Islam and freedom of speech, yes, but ultimately this trial is about the battle within Holland's court system. It is about the direction that this court system will take in the years to come: will it regulate speech and involve itself in matters of religion and politics? Will it continue to mire itself in situations where it can be accused of bias? Or will it go the other route, toward a more dignified, less intrusive judicial process?

Read the rest, if so inclined.

Adventures in privacy

Chad Skelton ( again ) writes:

B.C. Lottery Corp. did not take adequate steps to protect gamblers’ privacy when it launched its PlayNow.com online gambling site last summer, according to an investigation by B.C. Information and Privacy Commissioner Elizabeth Denham.

However, Denham concludes, BCLC has since taken steps to address the problem and the site now adequately protects users’ privacy.

Well, then. Everything's just fine.

Adventures in Freedom of Information

Chad Skelton writes:

B.C. NDP leadership candidates Adrian Dix and Mike Farnworth both promise to make major changes to the province's Freedom of Information laws if elected premier, including reducing fees and narrowing the grounds on which government can withhold records.

[...]

Horgan wrote that he supported some changes to the Act, such as making university spinoff companies subject to FOI requests.

But he was less enthusiastic about reforming the Act's policy-advice exemption, saying it had "stood the test of time." He made no commitment to reduce fees.

While Farnworth and Dix support creating an "open data" portal immediately, Horgan is more cautious.

"The civil service is currently experimenting with open data portals, but it is important not to force the development of new websites before the data processes that can support them exist," he wrote.

I'm not entirely impartial here, since I support John Horgan's bid for the NDP leadership ( I'll get to that later ), but I actually think that his approach is the best of all three - in a way. While Dix and Farnworth are proposing broader reforms, Horgan seems to be the only one saying that, just maybe, there's a downside to reforming the entire system.

As in, maybe the FOI system is a little more complicated than people like to think. And it is.

Because low legal bills are for suckers

Ian Mulgrew writes:

Canada's top judge is warning that the legal system doesn't work for ordinary people and courts are fast becoming the domain of the rich - or the indigent.

In a startlingly frank speech at a University of Toronto legal conference, Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin last week was especially critical of high legal fees -now averaging nearly $340 an hour.

If I were to play devil's advocate, I might say that going to court shouldn't be fun, and there should be some considerable cost involved - otherwise, we'd have even more frivolous suits flying around than we already do.

But point taken: the rich and the indigent.

Update: On a related note, via Sean Holman at Public Eye Online: Legal aid agency sends out a distress call.

Well, this doesn't look good

Bill Cleverley reports:

Questions are being raised about a $203,000 "consideration" a marine contractor sought when he successfully bid for the $1.1 million Sooke public boat launch contract.

Whoops.

Thanks for the memories

Gordon Campbell won't be writing a memoir any time soon:

But Mr. Campbell says he has no interest in a “rehash” memoir of his years in B.C.’s top political job.

“I don’t think I need to spend time on that kind of therapy,” Mr. Campbell told The Globe and Mail.

That's a pity. There are years' worth of scandals, rush jobs, broken promises, and general neglect to document. I don't think I'm alone in saying: I'd read that book.

The Geert Wilders controversy machine

My latest piece for The Propagandist, and it's a long 'un: Geert Wilders. Holland's Never-Ending Scandal:

The trial process grinds along, leaving confusion in its wake and threatening the reputation of Holland's judicial system. The Dutch parliament maintains its piece-meal arrangement with the PVV, but the opposition isn't thrilled to see a right-wing coalition in power. Geert Wilders remains at the centre of a storm of controversy.

Business as usual, in other words. The Wilders phenomenon continues unabated.

Check it out.

Update: Thanks, Blazing Cat Fur!

Victory for the Liberty Summer Seminar

My latest for the Libertas Post, talking about the Jaworski family's legal victory in Clarington County, Ontario:

Gerry Nicholls writes: "sometimes the best way to stand up for freedom is just to show a willingness to fight. Bureaucrats and politicians often don't expect us to fight for our rights. And when we do, they will sometimes back off." Tasha Kheiriddin in the Post muses, "Perhaps there is hope for common sense, and personal freedoms, after all."

Meanwhile, Andrew Phillips, in an email sent out to his mailing list, writes: "A great blow for property rights and all Canadians who wish to use their property, and the privacy it assures Canadians, to their own best interests and not that of the state."

This is all very true. But, as Hugh MacIntyre notes: "This vindication of course does not make up for the months of strain that municipal officials put on this innocent family. It doesn’t make up for the threat to their future that the $50 000 fine represented."

Still, despite the high cost of this victory, it's a victory nonetheless. Or, as Marta and Lech Jaworski's son, and one of the Liberty Summer Seminar's organizers, Peter Jaworski, wrote in an email distributed to a mailing list of supporters and those following the case: "We won! We won! [...] Thank you so much to all of you who supported our cause, who gave to our defense, and for your moral support as well. Without your help, support, and encouragement, we couldn't have done it."

It sounds like Peter and his fellow directors at the Institute of Liberal Studies are getting right back into the swing of things, with another Liberty Summer Seminar in the planning stages for this year. The Jaworskis seem to be taking to heart what Peter said after I emailed him for comment: "What great news. It's good to see that we have the freedom to celebrate freedom in the Municipality of Clarington."

Check it out, eh?

Neil Gaiman, FTW

Via Boing Boing:

Indie cred

Tom Fletcher reports:

Yes, Huntington has been approached by the B.C. Conservatives, and no, she’s not interested in joining them.

They've seriously approached her? Why? I have a lot of respect for Vicki Huntington, but I have serious doubts that she would see eye-to-eye with the BC Conservatives on much of anything. Props to them for approaching her, but it would have blown my mind to see her join their team.

Meanwhile:

Bennett allowed that in retrospect, he “went too far” with his personal criticisms of Premier Gordon Campbell when he engineered his firing as energy minister. Kootenay Bill didn’t retract anything, however.

Here's what I had to say about Bennett's comments way-back-when:

There have been some attempts to discredit the bulk of what Bennett had to say after he was booted from cabinet, particularly his accusations that Gordon Campbell is, well, a bully. But aside from a rather regrettable comment about a "battered wife syndrome" inside caucus, I tend to think that Bill Bennett was largely truthful in what he said. As Vaughn Palmer points out, between the fact that Bennett actually complimented some of his former fellow ministers, and Gordon Campbell himself, the fact that Bennett kept fairly mum on topics like the HST, and the fact that the story coming from the Liberal Party regarding his firing has changed...well, it's enough to make one want to believe what Bennett had to say. Sure, he might have been slightly exaggerating and blowing off some steam - but that doesn't mean that he was at the same time incapable of highlighting an actual problem in the Liberal Party's leadership.

It seems so long ago...

For those of you who are interested, I've written about BC's independent MLAs before, too.

Members, numbers, fraud, and money

The BC Liberal leadership race seems to be plodding along nicely. Nothing too interesting - except for weird people like me - and nothing too out of place. What we've got is pretty much what could have been expected.

Let's take a look at a few issues that have cropped up lately as things move along.

The new voting system

Other than the squabbling between candidates during the campaign - which has been relatively muted, considering the venue - it has been interesting to follow the BC Liberals as they have moved toward a new internal voting system.

On Saturday, the BC Liberals held an extraordinary convention to decide on two issues: whether or not to add a 'second-choice' to the leadership vote on February 26th - which would force convention delegates to select two of their favorite candidates, instead of just voting for one - and whether or not to adopt a points-based weighting voting system that would give ridings with smaller member counts an equal ranking with those ridings that have high-member counts.

The first proposal - the 'second-choice' option - was passed by 751 votes to 606. The second proposal - the weighted voting system - also passed, almost unanimously, by 1,319 votes to 23.

Sean Holman live-blogged the proceedings at Public Eye Online, and Jonathan Fowlie reports for PostMedia on the adopted changes.

By all rights, these new voting methods seem to be in leadership candidate George Abbott's favor. As Michael Smyth notes for The Province:

Party members voted overwhelmingly to adopt the new regional system, massively boosting the voting power of the small-town and rural Liberal members on whom Abbott is counting heavily.

Delegates to a special Liberal convention also endorsed a new rule requiring party members to vote for at least two different candidates on the preferential ballot that will be used on Feb. 26. That increases Abbott's chances of a come-frombehind victory on a second, third or even a fourth round of voting.

All in all, it was a good day for George Abbott, who sorely needed one after last week's damaging dustups with front-running rival Christy Clark.

Les Leyne agrees: "He stands a much better chance under this system than if the party had stayed with the old one."

Indeed, despite a lot of leadership candidate support ( publicly, at least ), there was some doubt before about not only the fate of the weighted voting system, but the fate of George Abbott's campaign should weighted voting not be adopted by the BC Liberals. As David Schreck noted:

Even with the revised, lower, number, just three Surrey ridings have approximately seven percent of the membership. Adopting the weighted vote system would make each of those votes worth half of the average value.

Someone has spent a lot of time and effort to sign-up thousands of members in Surrey. Are they going to be happy with diminishing the value of those votes?

Considering the overwhelming vote in favor of this voting system, these concerns may have been over-blown, but then, who ever said speculation had to be accurate?

No more Mr. Nice Guy?

There was also a leadership 'debate' of sorts at the extraordinary convention on Saturday ( as well as one on CKNW Friday morning ), although it sounds like a pretty contained spectacle. Sean Holman live-blogged those proceedings as well. On this, the consensus seems to be that Kevin Falcon was the hero of the day - if only because he didn't screw up too badly and Christy Clark and George Abbott were too busy sniping back and forth to shine too brightly.

By the way, haven't you heard? George Abbott isn't nice anymore. He's lost his place as the compromise candidate, and he's "going negative."

How did that come about? Well, it all started with Christy Clark's campaign. You see, one of her campaign volunteers apparently signed up her cat, Olympia, as a Liberal member.

Shortly after this came to light, a website called Kitties4Christy went online to mock the Clark campaign. Funny stuff. Then it came to light that George Abbott's campaign was behind this website, whose domain name was registered three days before 'Whiskergate' became public, and has connections to a political consulting company that also did work on the Rob Ford campaign in Toronto.

Abbott's campaign asked for the website to be taken down, saying:

"I have learned this afternoon that this website was created by a vendor who works for my campaign when they learned through the media that a story regarding Ms. Clark's campaign sign-ups was under development.

"Neither I nor the members of my senior campaign team were aware of this decision. While I understand that it was done to bring additional attention to an important issue in a satirical way using new technology, I have now asked the vendor to take this site down,"

But Team Christy had a line of attack: they could wage a war on "negative campaigning," and send out star supporter Pamela Martin to change the channel, and send out the message that, in Michael Smyth's words: "Let’s stop the negativity, let’s stop the fighting, and let’s work together for a positive future for the province."

In other words, to distract from the fact that the Clark campaign got busted for - alleged - membership fraud. There are some questions about Abbott's tactics worth asking - like how long he knew about Clark's fraud before it came out to the press - but Clark is still the one perpetrating membership fraud. In fact, this whole thing does more to expose the problems in the BC Liberal membership process than it does about Abbott.

I tend to agree with Alex Tsakumis' take, in the wake of the CKNW debate:

Abbott blew it on not hammering Clark when she shamefully went after him for, of all things, being political in a political battle (so they cancelled each other out), and all Falcon had to do was lay up and two putt for par on every issue, winning the debate as much because he actually sounded good as much as for the paucity of substantive answers from his colleagues.

Exactly. Christy Clark stands accused of fraudulent mass-membership sign-ups. Supporters of the Kevin Falcon campaign have, apparently, been signing people up as Liberal members without their knowledge and offering goodies in exchange for high-performing membership enlisters. Say what you will about George Abbott's campaign style of late, he is at least running a clean campaign ( as far as we know ). Why is he the one getting in trouble when it is other candidates - like Christy Clark - who stand accused of committing outright fraud?

It don't make no sense.

Elections BC? No thanks

In the wake of these sign-up mishaps and scandals, BC NDP leadership candidate Harry Lali floated a rather interesting idea: give Elections BC the authority to oversee leadership campaigns, and party nominee selections.

Interesting, but, as Les Leyne points out, not the taxpayer's responsibility:

Changing the law to bring Elections B.C. into the picture would require expanding that office and adding millions to its budget. The agency already has enough to do running elections, registering voters, overseeing initiative efforts and regulating recall campaigns.

Elections B.C. already regulates leadership campaign donations. Bringing the office farther into party politics would create a mammoth, expensive new field of enterprise.

Exactly.

The membership surge

According to membership estimates, this leadership campaign has swelled the BC Liberal ranks by almost 50,000 members - although Brian Kieran places the number more around 55,000. Mike de Jong is claiming to have signed up around 10,000 members alone; Falcon is claiming 17,500, and Christy Clark is claiming a whopping 20-25,000 members. George Abbott has declined to play along with the "numbers game."

Of course, just because you signed someone up doesn't mean that they're going to vote for you. And, as Les Leyne points out, the whole idea of mass membership sign-ups is rather farcical:

It's not that the figures are completely made up. The Liberal party is really processing thousands of applications following the deadline Friday afternoon. And the NDP has enjoyed an abrupt membership boost.

What's phoney is the idea that these are all individuals who made spontaneous decisions to get involved. The bulk of the new party members are the result of cynical cattle calls engineered by the various leadership camps. The fact that a lot of the recruiting was done in ethnic communities just makes it worse.

So new members could be good, could be bad, could be fraudulent, and, thanks to the new voting system and depending on where they were signed up, could have almost no internal voting power individually. Dark horse, anyone?

The environment wants in

Sean Holman reports at Public Eye Online:

If you want to be eligible vote in the provincial Liberal leadership race, you have until tomorrow to become a member of the party. But its contestants aren't the only ones encouraging British Columbians to sign-up before that deadline. The environmental group Organizing for Change sent an email yesterday encouraging "environmentally-minded British Columbians to make their voices heard" in that race - specifically targeting those who "live in a provincial riding with very few Liberal Party members, probably less than 400." The reason: "If the BC Liberals change their voting rules as expected, a vote for leader in your riding will likely carry at least 5 times more weight than one in a riding with 2000 members. Enough people are receiving this email to carry the vote in most of your ridings."

As Sean Holman also reports, one of the members of Organizing For Change, the Dogwood Initiative, was also encouraging its members to sign up for the BC Liberals: "In an email sent today, Dogwood's No Tankers director Eric Swanson states the initiative can't endorse a particular candidate because it's a "non-partisan organization. Our goal is to get as many leadership candidates as possible to support a federal legislated tanker ban on BC's north coast."

As Sean notes, this sign-up drive could have cut both ways: on the one hand, the obvious benefits of organized involvement in the leadership process, on the other hand the prospect of blowback should candidates be seen as a puppet for environmentalists.

Bill Tieleman delivers a punch to the gut:

The idea was that these new members could tip the balance of votes in favour of the most environmentally-conscious candidate - hard as that is to believe for some who have studied the BC Liberal government's atrocious record.

But regardless of your analysis, yesterday it backfired badly as a leading BC Liberal candidate came out strongly in favour of proceeding with the controversial Prosperity Mine in northern BC - a project even the federal Stephen Harper Conservative government rejected in an environmental assessment as too damaging to allow.

In other words: good idea, wrong party.

Grapes of Wrath - 2011

Check it out.

Our man Harper

Murray Dobbin highlights the Tories' rather autocratic nature:

The issue ruled on by the Speaker involved a document prepared by the senior staff of CIDA recommending that the government provide KAIROS -- which has been providing development aid to the Third World since the 1970s -- with a $7 million grant over four years. At issue was the fact that someone had inserted the word not into the final line of the CIDA report, which read: "Recommendation: That you (Minister Oda) sign below to indicate that you approve a contribution of $7,098,758..." The word not was inserted before the word approve. Oda had already signed the document, which would have made the contract legally binding. The almost universal assumption is that the crude and illegal action was taken after Stephen Harper and Jason Kenney, his point man on Israel, decided that KAIROS was anti-Israeli and had to be punished.

Speaker Milliken stated that because of a technicality he could take no further action against Oda, but made clear he would like to, stating there were "...profoundly disturbing questions that evidently remain unanswered." Ruling that the document had been "doctored," he wrote: "Any reasonable person confronted with what appears to have transpired would necessarily be extremely concerned, if not shocked."

I'll be the first to admit that I have done not a smidgen of research on this topic, other than to read the article above. But from what little I've read, this sounds pretty serious. This would seem to fit right into Lawrence Martin's theme as well, which makes me give it at least some credence.

Meanwhile, Tasha Kheiriddin tries to make sense of the Tories' strategy:

Perhaps this is a depressingly natural state of affairs. After being out of power for 13 years, which they largely spent redefining themselves, Canadian Conservatives are now so enamoured of being in power that they no longer care what they are: They just want to stay there. A cynic would say that the Tories are governing like Liberals – and not just because they have only a minority government and need to make some compromises.

Remember: it all comes down to who Stephen Harper surrounds himself with.

Update: More from Aaron Wherry at Macleans.ca.

Behold, the townships

Are municipalities the new frontier in activist legislation? Tara Lohan at AlterNet writes:

From big cities like Atlanta, Georgia to small towns such as Felton, Calif., communities have fought back to regain public control after water privatization deals went sour. But it's not just drinking water infrastructure that has towns concerned -- water bottling companies, run by multinationals like Nestle, have also been targeting rural communities' spring and well water.

In the small town of McCloud, Calif., a former logging town in the shadow of Mount Shasta, Nestle quietly signed a 100-year deal to bottle 200 million gallons of spring water a year and unlimited amounts of groundwater without any public input and without an environmental impact statement. Concerned community members joined together to fight back, and six years later they succeeded in sending Nestle packing. While residents may have been successful in McCloud, their battle was resource- and time-intensive. Across the country, similar fights were also going on, as small towns worried about depletion and degradation of their water resources fought back against bottling companies, but only sometimes emerged victorious.

Thomas Linzey knows of an easier way to do things. Instead of trying to beat out corporations by fighting the regulatory system, Linzey has helped people to see a different path forward. A founder of the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund, Linzey and his colleagues help "communities to draft and adopt legally binding laws in which they asserted their right to self-govern," according to the organization's Web site.

"We think today's contemporary activism is the wrong frame, and in addition it is aimed at the wrong thing," Linzey said. "Most of it's federal and state activism. We think those things are pretty much dead. The only place where there is a window to operate is at the local level and then that can be used to up-end the state and federal to build a new system of law, which I think our communities are recognizing is needed."

I'm not quite sure what I think of this yet, but it's a fascinating idea: circumventing State and Federal law by going direct to municipal law. Could this be the new arena for activism? Not one, sustained campaign on the large scale, but a series of skirmishes at the local level?

Binks has done it again

Steynian 437. Check it out, eh?

Global food myths

Veronique de Rugy debunks three myths about global food supply:

So long, Kash Heed

I know I'm coming a little late to the party on the Kash Heed scandal, but here's my understanding of recent events:

The RCMP warrant

First, the biggest issue of them all: spending money that wasn't his to spend, among other offences. Jonathan Fowlie reports, for the Vancouver Sun [ emphasis mine ]:

VICTORIA — Former solicitor-general Kash Heed is under investigation for alleged breach of trust and other related offences, a recently unsealed search warrant reveals.

[...]

In the search warrant, police allege that Heed used $6,000 in public funds to pay two key players for work they did during his campaign: campaign manager Barinder Sall and Sameer Ismail, who police say helped to draft the anti-NDP pamphlets.

Police say Heed paid the two using money normally given to new MLAs so they can purchase furniture and start up an office.

But Heed took over an office from former MLA Wally Oppal, so did not need to use the money for its intended purpose. Because of this, police refer to this $6,000 in the warrant as “free money.”

Police say Heed signed the cheques — $2,000 for Ismail and $4,000 for Sall — himself, despite telling police he did not pay Sall for anything after the election.

[...]

In the warrant, Taylor alleges that Heed committed two counts of breach of trust for writing the cheques to Sall and Ismail, both of which were dated June 24, 2009.

Taylor also alleges two counts against Heed of filing a false report — a contravention of the Election Act.

No charges have been laid in relation to these allegations and none has been proven in court.

[...]

The search warrant also alleges that Peter Dhillon — head of one of Canada’s largest cranberry farming operations and a recipient of the Order of B.C. — paid for the anti-NDP pamphlets through his company.

In the warrant, police allege that Dhillon “made a political contribution in support of the campaign to elect Kash Heed, without making such contribution to the financial agent” — an offence under the Election Act.

I only highlight that charges have not been laid to emphasize the point that these are all allegations. Nothing has been proven so far, and this is all speculative. Indeed, most of these allegations are much less telling than Heed's response to them after the fact.

Some background on those infamous anti-NDP pamphlets here. For his part, Peter Dhillon, who allegedly bankrolled these pamphlets, denies any wrong-doing. Jonathan Fowlie again, in the Vancouver Sun:

In an interview with The Sun, and in his statement to police, Dhillon agreed he gave the cheques to Heed's campaign manager Barinder Sall, but said it was for an unrelated job, and had nothing to do with the election.

"I absolutely did not send that money to be used in the Kash Heed campaign. It was for other work that was supposed to be done for me by Mr. Sall and that's the truth," said Dhillon.

"That's what happened and I have no knowledge of my money being misappropriated," he added.

Kash Heed himself has chosen to go on the offensive, saying, in effect, that the RCMP are out to get him. Michael Smyth, in The Province:

Former top cop Kash Heed says he believes there's a connection between the RCMP's explosive criminal allegations against him and his recent criticism of the federal police force, including his suggestion that the Mounties should possibly be replaced by a provincial force.

In exclusive comments Wednesday to The Province, the former solicitor-general said he has made enemies in the RCMP who are angry with his criticism, including his condemnation this week of the Kelowna Mountie caught on video kicking a man in the face. The video triggered a recommended assault charge against the officer involved.

Alex Tsakumis responds:

Kash Heed is a handsome, muscular throw back to the days when Arnold Schwarzenegger was fondly fondling breasts in public (sometimes his own). Heed isn’t particularly bright, as evidenced by the megalomaniacal, misogynistic idiots he has surrounded himself with–nor the manner with which he has comported himself since emerging from the dawg squad of the VPD to serve the drug squad and eventually as Superintendent.

Nor, for that matter, is he particularly ingenious considering the absolutely tragic comments he’s made about the RCMP in B.C. Instead of admitting that he’s played the role of chief agitator and serial anti-RCMP propagandist where the Mounties are concerned, he’s now tried to turn the tables and claims he is a target of their scorn.

Ouch.

The threat from Elections BC

It doesn't stop there. Not only are the RCMP hounding him, but Kash Heed has also been involved in a dispute with Elections BC, which recently upped the ante and threatened to remove him from his seat in Vancouver-Fraserview. Andrew MacLeod, at The Hook:

Heed's campaign manager Barinder Sall and two others were charged criminally in May, 2010, but Heed was not.

The file has since been given to a second special prosecutor to consider after the first, Terrence Robertson, resigned citing a conflict of interest as his law firm had donated to Heed's campaign.

The investigation led to an Elections B.C. audit of Heed's campaign expenses that showed "that the total campaign period election expenses for the Kash Heed campaign were $74,135.70, which was in excess of the legislated spending limit of $70,000."

By Dec. 2, 2010 the supplementary report was yet to be filed and acting chief electoral officer Craig James wrote to Heed, "Should you fail to comply with the provisions of the Act or fail to seek to obtain Court relief therefrom, within the extension period, then without further notice I will feel compelled to forthwith present a report to the Speaker informing him that you have ceased to hold office and that your seat has thereby become vacant."

Heed has filed with the BC Supreme Court, asking that he not be forced to file the updated report, which could buy him some breathing room. But some people are already asking: will there be a by-election in Vancouver Fraserview?

Meanwhile, Vaughn Palmer makes mince-meat of Heed's stalling on his expenses reports.

Catherine Urquhart

The damage has even managed to spread to Global TV, whose BC branch recently found that one of its reporters, Catherine Urquhart, breached journalistic principles in an email exchange with Kash Heed's campaign manager, Barinder Sall. Ian Bailey, in the Globe and Mail:

“Global News has full confidence in Ms. Urquhart,” the broadcaster said, outlining the results of an internal review into the matter.

The statement said Ms. Urquhart will face undisclosed discipline over the June 10, 2009, exchange with Barinder Sall, which came to light with the unsealing of a search warrant filed as part of an investigation of Mr. Heed, a former B.C. solicitor-general, for alleged breach of trust related to 2009 election campaign financing.

“I can honestly say Kash would not be SG [solicitor-general] today if it hadn’t been for some key people behind the scenes,” Mr. Sall wrote on June 10, 2009, to Ms. Urquhart.

“There were only truly 3 people that played a major role: Me, Peter Dhillon and yourself and Kash knows this,” he added.

“Peter was the money guy, I’m the brown tanned James Bond strategy girl-chasing guy and you were like the communications director . . . your stories, coverage and timing gave Kash a lot of profile and built him a following from day 1 at West Van and then leading into the election.”

Ms. Urquhart’s replied: “Hey . . . that’s really sweet of you. Have to say — there were a number of people along the way (cops and reporters — mostly cops) who seemed to have it out for Kash. But I always believed he was a good guy. I’m truly glad it worked out! C”

In the statement, Global says it encourages its reporters to “continually work relationships with their sources” to find stories beyond press releases.

However, the statement said the review concluded Ms. Urquhart “created the appearance of a partisan conflict of interest and thus put at risk the reputation of Global News for balanced reporting” by failing to “negate or dispute” Mr. Sall’s comments.

For the review period, Urquhart was taken off the air, but went back to her job as of January 31st.

The endorsement game

Meanwhile, the blowback from Kash Heed's problems has even managed to impact on the BC Liberal leadership race. Heed had previously endorsed candidate George Abbott to take over as leader of the BC Liberal Party, support that, as of January 19th, Abbott was "honoured" to have. That was back when Heed was just fighting the RCMP. But, when it was revealed that Heed was also squabbling with Elections BC, he apparently decided to rescind his support for Abbott. Justine Hunter in the Globe and Mail:

BC Liberal leadership hopeful George Abbott is distancing himself from government backbencher Kash Heed, after new revelations show the MLA could lose his seat over alleged campaign spending improprieties.

“Kash has called me in respect of that, to advise that his intention is to no longer participate in the campaign,” Mr. Abbott said in an interview. “He wants to ensure that while the allegations are unresolved, that he doesn’t want to detract from the leadership campaign.”

Considering Abbott's other campaign problems, this probably doesn't even rank in the top ten. Still, it's interesting to see how wide-spread the political damage from Heed's imploding career has become.

The teaching gig

What makes all of this brouhaha rather ironic is that, at the same time he's duking it out with the cops, Kash Heed is teaching "Criminology 131-3: Introduction to the Criminal Justice System" at Simon Fraser University. Michael Smyth writes, in The Province:

The cops may be breathing down Kash Heed's neck, but that doesn't bother Simon Fraser University administrators, who hired him to teach an introductory course on the criminal justice system.

As Sean Holman reports at Public Eye Online, Heed apparently gets rave reviews from his former students.

Conflicts, conflicts everywhere

Last, but not least, another chapter in the Kash Heed saga appears to have come a close. Terrence Robertson, the special prosecutor who cleared Kash Heed of charges related to his campaign's anti-NDP pamphlets ( although some of Heed's campaign staff got nailed ), found himself resigning from the case after finding out that his law firm, Harper Grey LLP, had donated $1,000 to Kash Heed's campaign in the 2009 election.

Earlier this month, it was reported that Robertson would not be facing a sanction from the BC Law Society for not disclosing this potential conflict of interest. So, good news for him. An entrant into The Kash Heed show actually got off rather lucky, albeit reputation rather tarnished.

But, just as one conflict seemingly resolved itself, another reared its ugly head. As it turns out, one of the people on the Law Society panel that let Robertson go without a sanction has connections to the Liberal Party himself. Andrew MacLeod, for The Hook:

A former Liberal cabinet minister and a Liberal Party donor sat on the Law Society panel that considered disciplining the special prosecutor who exonerated former Solicitor General Kash Heed before revealing his law firm had donated to Heed's campaign.

The panel reviewing Terrence Robertson's conduct included former Kamloops MLA Claude Richmond, accountant Peter B. Lloyd and lawyer Richard Stewart. Richmond served as a speaker of the legislature and as the minister of employment and income assistance, but did not run in the 2009 election.

The saga takes another turn.

Bye, Kash

In the end, it doesn't really matter if the RCMP's allegations are correct or not. In the end, it doesn't matter whether Kash Heed gets his seat yanked out from under him by Elections BC. The Heed gong-show has gone on long enough that his reputation, and his career, have been damaged irreparably. Whether he will be able to salvage something from this mess remains to be determined. But enough people have been hauled into the scandal that the damage has already been done. He's becoming bad for the BC Liberals' image: an NDP talking point who does little to dispell the image of the Liberals as out of touch and tainted with corruption. Or, as Michael Smyth writes in his column for The Province:

It's time for Heed to co-operate with the investigation. It's time for the government to come clean on his legal bills, before taxpayers get burned to a crisp again.

And it's time for the leadership candidates to back up their lofty talk about doing politics differently. Because what we're seeing now is just the same old garbage.

In short, it doesn't look good for Kash Heed. He's a likeable enough guy, and by all rights it looks like his greatest faults have been vanity and not riding herd on his campaign staff enough in the last election. It could happen to anybody - but it happened to him. Expect to see a smoking crater any day now.

I'll leave the last word to Vaughn Palmer in his column for the Vancouver Sun:

The issue is not the presumption of innocence.

Heed hasn't been charged with anything in any event. But that shouldn't prevent Abbott or any other Liberal from acknowledging that their self-styled stallion turned out to be a jackass.

Indeed.

Why Citizens United was necessary?

I've talked a little about the Citizens United decision in the States over the past while - even though Citizens United is an old decision, it's still part of a larger debate that, it seems, will never end.

Continuing on this theme, I thought this post from Jacob Sullum at Reason's Hit & Run was worth highlighting:

Yesterday I noted Wendy Kaminer's criticism of a Katrina vanden Heuvel column in The Washington Post that described former Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) as "a victim of Citizens United spending." Kaminer pointed out that Feingold himself, in the very Nation interview that Vanden Heuvel cited to support her assertion, explicitly denied that his defeat was due to a flood of newly legal corporate spending. Vanden Heuvel responds to Kaminer's point by citing 1) the Feingold campaign's objections to Chamber of Commerce ads criticizing him and 2) Feingold's general complaints about the influence of corporate money on politics. Neither piece of evidence, of course, proves Feingold was defeated because he was outspent as a result of Citizens United—a claim he himself disavows.

Check it out.

Go ahead, smokers can take it

Jacob Sallum writes, at Reason's Hit & Run:

In any case, these objections, however sincere, strike me as fundamentally
misplaced. Employers may well have sound financial reasons for declining to hire
smokers. Although smokers seem to have lower lifetime medical expenses than nonsmokers do because they tend to die sooner, they may be more costly to insure during their working careers and more likely to take sick days. In addition, medical businesses such as hospitals may see modeling healthy behavior as part of their missions and therefore may want to avoid hiring nurses or orderlies who smoke. Whatever their reasons, they should be free to apply the criteria they consider appropriate; freedom of contract means people should not be forced to hire smokers, any more than they should be forced to hire nonsmokers.

The real slippery slope threat comes not from increasingly nosy employers but from an increasingly intrusive government that considers promoting "public health" part of its mission and interprets that concept broadly enough to encompass everything people do that might increase their own risk of disease or injury. That totalitarian
tendency is reinforced by the government's ever-expanding role in health care, which transforms a moralistic, pseudo-medical argument into a fiscal imperative by giving every taxpayer a stake in his neighbor's lifestyle. A smoker or fat guy turned away by one employer can always look for work elsewhere, but citizens subject to the state's coercive health-oriented interventions cannot easily pick a different government.

The whole thing is well worth the read.

Sweet, tolerant Europe

Yep, this happened:

‘Repeat offenders should be forcibly removed from their neighbourhood and sent to a village for scum,’ Wilders said. ‘They will then be put into converted containers as homes. If juveniles are involved, their families should be moved too. Put all the trash together.’

They would only be allowed to return after working or studying for at least a year, Wilders said.

According to the Telegraaf, the idea comes from Denmark, where several cities have set up ‘skaeve huse’ to house people who cause a public nuisance.

I have to say, that's one of the worst ideas I've ever heard.

Cops

Two headlines:

• The Times Colonist: RCMP complying with Taser recommendations: watchdog.
• The Hook: RCMP agrees to look into BCCLA report.

Go away and leave us alone

Tory MP Nina Grewal wants to save us from the scourge of loud commercials:

Surrey MP Nina Grewal says Canadians are "sick and tired of having to reach for the remote control every time a commercial comes on their TV."

Bill C-621 would require broadcasters to make sure the volume of commercials is consistent with the programs they accompany.

She's from Surrey, too, which is not quite in my backyard, but close enough that I feel I should distance myself from her.

Put simply, Mrs. Grewal: f*ck off. We'll reach for our own goddamn remotes on our own goddamn time.

Deregulate food safety

Could work:

There is little or no incentive for me to create a remarkably safer production system because my processes are effectively in the hands of our state inspector. The incentive among producers is to win the race toward the bottom, where you can most cheaply and easily meet the minimum standard. Imagine for a moment what the food world would look like if we made food safety a competitive advantage. What if I could demonstrate (through third-party quality assurance, a sophisticated testing regime, or something completely unthought of) that my beef was quantitatively safer than my competition? I suspect that the maligned self-interest of “money-grubbing capitalists” would be instantly harnessed toward the greater public good. I for one would probably behave considerably differently if I were continually striving for the next-higher grade on a “Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval” scale instead of aiming simply for the “Inspected — Passed” stamp.....

Naked self interest is a powerful tool.

Do we need more cameras to monitor red lights at intersections?

Some say yes. Others say no:

Actually, the argument is that there's good evidence showing that lengthening yellow times is a far better way to prevent intersection accidents than red light cameras. It's more effective, and doesn't come with the creepy surveillance state vibe. Somehow, that doesn't seem as appealing a policy to city governments. Another reason we critics have impugned the motives of public officials is that several cities have been caught shortening yellow times at intersections after they've been outfitted with cameras. That would seem to be a pretty good indication of a government that values revenue more than safety.

Reefer evil

A few notes on the war on pretty-much-the-softest-of-drugs: pot.

Taxation without representation.

The argument that pro-legalization folks like me have been spreading around for time immemorial is that if you were to legalize even soft drugs like pot, you'd open up an entirely new revenue stream to the government through taxes on drug sales. You'd remove an entire segment of the black market and move it into the free market. Everybody wins: the consumer, the seller, and the regulators. The only ones losing are the criminal groups that currently profit from drug sales.

However, it seems that the Canada Revenue Agency has decided to start taxing soft drug sales anyway, without the government having even bothered to legalize the business. From the Globe and Mail, Jan. 5th:

The Canada Revenue Agency is trying to smoke out some income tax from
marijuana growers who supply B.C.'s Compassion Club.

Medical marijuana may be legal, but the club's suppliers don't grow it
legally.

When Canada Revenue demanded a list of its growers for income tax
purposes, the club went to court claiming CRA would scare off its
suppliers.

In other words, selling pot for medical purposes is legal. Growing pot to supply to medicinal distributors isn't. It's a bizarre legal quagmire that's beneath a country like ours, but it exists, and so the Canada Revenue Agency, upset with this legal loophole, has decided to hit these 'criminals' with a double whammy: not only are they risking prosecution for their 'crimes', but they don't even get the benefits of working off-the-grid. They still have to pay taxes.

The CRA is a self-interested organization, and its job isn't to set drug policy in Canada. But the whole situation should leave a sour taste in our mouths. It certainly does in mine.

Meanwhile, this sort of logic plagues legal pot stores in Los Angeles.

Wide-spread support for pot legalization in the United States.

Yesterday, Jacob Sallum reported at Reason's Hit & Run that, according to a YouGuv poll conducted for The Economist, a majority of Americans support the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana:

Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they agreed, while only 23 percent
disagreed. The remaining 19 percent had no opinion. This is the strongest
support for legalization that I can recall seeing in a nationally representative
poll. A Gallup poll in late October found that 46 percent of Americans favored legalization, a record for that organization's surveys.

For a pro-legalization libertarian like me, this is music to my ears. Pity nothing will come of this. Since when did public opinion have anything to do with drug policy?

Pot reaches the BC NDP.

Not only is pro-pot activist Dana Larsen running for the BC NDP leadership - with the endorsement of Tommy Chong, no less - but the legalization issue has managed to reach one of the NDP's own, Guy Gentner. You see, Gentner, on a personal trip down to the States, also took a couple of hours to visit extradited pot activist Marc Emery in prison. Gentner said that the trip wouldn't lead him to endorse Larsen as the new leader of the BC NDP, but he seems pretty on-board for legalization: "I do understand there is a need for us to look at, I would say, regulating marijuana. I think it's a necessity. We have to look at that. It's an issue that's not going to go away. I don't think prohibition's working."

Prop. 19, in retrospect.

Brian Doherty of Reason Magazine explains the politics behind Proposition 19 in California, which would have legalized growth and possession of small amounts of marijuana:

Yet reformers are still optimistic. Prop. 19 won a higher vote total (and higher vote percentage) than any previous attempt to legalize pot in the United States. It made legalization—not medical marijuana, not decriminalization, but full legalization—a legitimate political debate in the country’s biggest state. And it forged a coalition that stretched far beyond the usual axis of antiprohibition activists, notwithstanding some dissension within the ranks. The opposition, meanwhile, conceded some important arguments to the reformers, suggesting that public opinion has moved further along than ever before. The legalization of marijuana, activists argue, is a matter of when, not if.

It's well worth checking out. And so is this, if you're interested.

Meanwhile.

Cliff Kincaid's Reefer Madness, the Wal-Mart of weed, and it's a veritable hurricane of Mary Jane.

Real men like cats

Real men like this guy:



Update: Welcome Blazing Cat Fur readers.

How do you say 'hemp' in Arabic?

You don't.

Six pot plants will not equal a mandatory minimum sentence

The Liberals have effectively killed a Conservative bill - S-10 - that would, among other things, impose mandatory minimum sentences on people for possessing six marijuana plants or more.

Good. The Tories' tough-on-crime agenda, especially its drug policy, would just be a continuation of the United States' hapless War on Drugs. The Liberals, despite their previous support for such bills, seem to have come to their senses...for now.

It's worth noting that the Senate previously fast-tracked this bill, thanks to Stephen Harper stacking the upper house with his people - although of course, senate reform remains an important priority, right?

Keep it up, Iggy.

As corporations go, so goes the New York Times?

In the wake of the Citizens United decision in the United States, New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak argues: if other corporations were not supposed to have free speech rights as per McCain-Feingold, then why did the New York Times, and other corporate media entities, enjoy such freedoms?

He's right. It don't make no sense.

Educating a jury about its duties

Nope. Can't have that.

Copyright troll fail

Read all about it.

BC's deficit, round II

Still high, but lower than we thought.

Let's see how long it takes before someone takes the surplus and over-rides the government's finance committee and its budget consultation process again.

*Here's round I.

My interview with Peter Jaworski

If you can get over the shocking sight of my pale, fat head, check out my interview with Peter Jaworski for the Libertas Post, talking about the Liberty Summer Seminar and the problems that his parents have been having with local bylaw officials.

Here's part one:

Libertas Post interview with Peter Jaworski - part one of four from Walker Morrow on Vimeo.

Update: Welcome, readers of The Volunteer.

Review: Harperland: The Politics of Control, by Lawrence Martin

Harperland: The Politics of Control, by Lawrence Martin ( Viking, 2010 ), is a detailed exploration of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's increased control over Canada's politics through the government's executive branch. It follows his steady descent into partisan politics, and his continual abandonment of old Reform Party ideology in the wake of the Reform/Alliance - PC merger.

In short, it catalogues years' worth of political disappointment and abandoned principles.

We here at the Libertas Post have not exactly been kind to Stephen Harper. There's a reason for it: Stimulus spending and prorogues, increased messaging control and an iron grip on caucus, moving away from grassroots input and ignoring core supporters ( like those in Alberta ), making a mockery of freedom of information and government transparency...the list goes on.

In Harperland, Lawrence Martin follows the career of Stephen Harper, from his involvement in the Mulroney Progressive Conservatives and his defection to the Reform Party, to his days in the National Citizens Coalition and his campaign for the Reform Party leadership, to the merge between the Reform/Alliance and PC parties after a disastrous PC leadership convention. It looks at Stephen Harper's time in opposition, his election campaigns, and his invasion of Ottawa as minority PM.

Most importantly, Harperland looks at how Stephen Harper and his team in the PMO have kept themselves in a perpetual opposition mindset, always on the defensive, exercising an immense amount of message control and internal discipline. It follows the rather vicious, partisan war that Harper has waged on the Liberal Party of Canada, his occasional mistakes, going too far for the electorate's comfort - Coalition crisis, anyone? It follows the Harper PMO's lack of openness, its disregard for freedom of information and transparency, things which it once declared were important for good government. It examines the change in the Conservative Party's politics, the simplification of policy and focus on national values - support for the military, support for Israel, being tough-on-crime, family values - and the Conservative Party's constant justification for all of these things by claiming that these tactics are necessary for the sake of staying in power. Or, alternatively, that the Liberals beat them to it in years past.

I have doubts that Lawrence Martin could be considered a Conservative ally - or a Liberal ally, for that matter. But he does an excellent job of documenting a distinct pattern of undesirable, sadly political behavior on the part of the Harper Tories, regardless of the occasional glimpses of personal ideology that shine through in his narrative. Martin characterizes Harper as a brilliant politician, cold, tactical, vindictive. As Martin writes, on page 176 of Harperland: "'It's unusual,' Tom Flanagan observed of Harper one day, 'to have someone who is by nature a strategist as leader.' Put him in the confines of a minority government, said Flanagan, and 'everything becomes survival and tactics.'"

Perhaps this is the right characterization, and perhaps not. Stephen Harper is somewhat of a riddle, wrapped up in an enigma. But what is certain is that the Conservative Party now is not nearly what it was back in its early days of formation. And it most definitely is not the party of the Reform/PC days. This is something new, and something that should concern liberal and conservative supporters alike. This is the politics of control, and things are not the way they used to be.

I'll leave the last word to Martin, in one of Harperland's final paragraphs: "For Stephen Harper the end justified the means, almost any means. It was what troubled so many Canadians about him. He was caught up in his own internal war. The forces of old grievances and narrow ideology pulled him in one direction. The forces of broader enlightenment pulled him in the other. The former won too many of the battles."