It has been a busy week, so expect a rash of posts because I have a lot on my mind!

First off, this post should probably be an addendum to my previous post about Canada’s Justice System.  For those who are unaware, Graham James is a convicted child sex offender.  Three years ago, he was granted a pardon for those crimes.  His current whereabouts are unknown.

I am catagorically against granting a pardon to any individual convicted of any sex crime whatsoever.  You have to shake your head at our country and how well we treat people after they leave the prison system.  I am a fan of second chances, but this is ridiculous.  Sex offenders should be forced to submit a DNA sample and put on a list for all to see.

Yes – I agree that it makes them notorious.  Nobody wants these people in their community.  It affects their ability to get a job and integrate into society.  Well, guess what?  You were abusing little children and they have to live with that stigma for the rest of their lives.  Because your life is inconvenienced somewhat really doesn’t bother me too much.

When contacted about this particular instance, the Prime Minister’s office was not aware of it but pledged to investigate.  Stephen Harper himself was apparently outraged.  Hopefully, they review how pardons are done in this country and clamp down on them.  Almost all pardons that are applied for in this country are granted, unless you are a murderer or a dangerous offender.

One of these days I’m going to figure out a way how to become the Prime Minister, just to clamp down on all of this stupid shit.  Mind you – I probably don’t stand a chance because I am not terribly politically correct.

The Canadian Justice System needs a complete overhaul.  It is a mess, not only with how lax criminal convictions are treated but also how we manage the business of keeping criminals under lock and key.  The motivation of this article is because of the recent news that Craig Munro, a convicted cop-killer, has been granted unescorted passes out of prison.  To be very blunt, this makes me sick to my stomach.

Munro was convicted of murdering Constable Michael Sweet during a botched robbery thirty years ago.  In that time, he has not had any remorse for his crime, and he has continued to manipulate the facts of the case.  He constantly implies that he was not responsible for the murder of Constable Sweet.  Yet the facts paint a very different story.

Constable Sweet was on patrol when he came across a robbery in progress at George’s Bourbon Street Tavern in the early morning hours of March 14th, 1980.  He was shot twice, once in the chest and once in the shoulder.  He fell to the floor of the tavern bleeding to death while the Munro brothers negotiated with police officers.  To add insult to injury, Craig Munro repeatedly taunted the dying Constable Sweet, telling him how he was going to die and that he would never see his wife and kids again.  One of his exact quotes was, “I’ve been in ’Nam, pig.  Put your hand over the holes and you won’t bleed to death.  Take it better, will you.  You’re getting on my nerves.”

Ninety minutes later, thanks to the heroics of Officers Eddy Adamson, Gary Leuin, and Barry Doyle, Constable Sweet was loaded into an ambulance and taken to Toronto General Hospital, where he had emergency surgery.  Unfortunately, the doctors could not save his life and he succumbed to his injuries.

Jamie Munro was tried and convicted for second-degree murder and sentenced to twelve years in prison.  He was released in 1992 and now lives in Italy under the name of Massimo Marra.  Craig Munro was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life in prison.  Less than four years prior, Canada had abolished the death penalty.

I am unabashed in saying that I support the death penalty in cases such as Craig Munro’s.  In capital murder cases, where there is no question that the perpetrator is guilty, they should be executed.  Other criminals that fit this profile are Paul Bernardo and Clifford Olsen.  In some cases, I tend to become extremely right-wing when I start theorizing on how I would overhaul the Justice System and rewrite the Criminal Code, but please bear with me.  Perhaps it is the philosophy behind incarceration itself.  People who lean towards the left view incarceration as a tool to rehabilitate, whereas those who are politically right tend to view being behind bars as punishment.

I see building the system as an effective tool to do both.  Let us face facts here.  You are never, ever, going to be able to release men like Clifford Olsen, Craig Munro, and Paul Bernardo into society again.  There is no way to rehabilitate them, and their crimes are so severe that they deserve nothing less than the harshest punishment that we can provide.  As a society, it is our responsibility to make sure that these men suffer for their crimes as much as the victims left behind in their wake.  To me, it’s an eye-for-an-eye mentality when dealing with the worst of the worst.

As mentioned, I really do not have a big issue with respect to re-instating capital punishment.  Why should we, as taxpayers, pay good money year in and year out to keep these monsters behind bars?  Do you know that it costs the government nearly $70,000 per year to house a prisoner?  That number factors in everything from wages for guards to the cost of heat and hydro.  I’m going to wager that it would  not cost near as much to hang them.  The caveat, of course, would be the fact that indisputeable proof would have to be provided prior to that sentence being handed down.  Of course, the law would have to be re-written to accomodate the strictest definition of indisputeable.

Taking a look at the system itself, the punishment must always fit the crime and in many cases in Canada it does not.  Death penalty aside (because really, you can’t go around killing marijuana users), the deterrents to commit crime are so lax that many police officers probably do not want to charge anyone, because there are no reprecussions!  If I was a cop, this would bother me terribly.  Ergo, if I was a politician, my mission would be to get tough on crime.

You hear that old adage over and over again with every new government, be it provincial or federal.  Yet – if I had my way – it would come true.  Now, I’m not talking about sending someone to prison for life because they were jaywalking.  No, no, no…let’s be sensible before everyone brands me a conservative wingnut.  That comes later.

Start with the Youth Criminal Justice Act.  This act addresses many of the glaring concerns in the Young Offenders Act, which it replaced.  However, it does not go far enough.  I do not necessarily agree with the fact that maximum sentences are still enforced, nor are they strong enough deterrents.  In so saying that, given that the crime or crimes were committed by those under the age of eighteen, more provisions to rehabilitate have to be included.  I think that we have a much better chance of turning around a younger life than that of a career criminal.

When people are younger, they do stupid things.  I myself am guilty of that.  Thankfully, things worked out well for me because my sentence (and the consequences thereof) were both a deterrant and a punishment.  Serious offenses, such as those of capital murder, are the exceptions to the rule.  If you commit such a crime, then you deserve to be locked up forever (or executed).  Lesser crimes, such as mischief, theft, and even drug abuse are correctable crimes.  I sometimes think of the kid in California who was sentenced to life in prison under California’s Three Strikes Law because he stole a slice of pizza.  That is a good example of the law being too harsh.  He was not stealing to buy drugs or get rich, he was stealing because he was hungry.  These are the people that we need to help. 

They need to pay for their crime, of course.  But they can pay for their crime by volunteering in the community, getting an education, and doing positive things as opposed to hard time.  As an aside, the government should be stepping up to help those in need so that they do not feel that they need to resort to crime to make ends meet.  However, that would be a workfare/education concept that I have also touched on in the past and will likely discuss in greater detail in a future article.

Where I have little sympathy are for those who commit serious offenses such as weapons violations, rape, and murder.  There should be serious minimum sentences for these crimes with no maximum sentence.  The sentences should not run concurrently, but rather consecutively.  So, for example…if you commit a robbery, you get two years.  If you commit a robbery with a gun, you get two years for robbery and you get seven years for illegal possession of a handgun.  That’s nine years total.

Neither am I a fan of getting time chopped off of a sentence for good behaviour.  In fact, if you are not on your best behaviour in prison then we just add more time!  However, I do believe in giving time off if the individual in prison is volunteering, learning a new skill, or undergoing education.  If that person can prove to the powers that be (ie, the parole board) that they are well on their way to being rehabilitated, then perhaps that individual deserves a second chance.  Again, with respect to capital murder cases or multiple repeat offenders, second chances do not apply.

I am not sure what the current penalties are with respect to certain crimes, but I am going to state here what I think the minimum punishments should be.  When looking at what I have written, please keep in mind that these are not even near as severe as some other countries, whose punishments are far harsher and whose prison systems are a lot worse.  There are many criminals who would love to come and serve out their sentence in Canada, as opposed to countries such as Mexico, Bulgaria, China, or Russia.  In those countries, prisoners are offered neither rights nor dignity.  They are treated worse than animals, starved and put to work in hard labor camps.

Terrorism.  The punishment should be death.  Those who would plot terrorist acts against our nation, regardless of the role they played, would be executed.  Domestic terrorists would be treated in the same manner as foreign nationals.

Sexual Assault.  Sexual assault to me is a serious and deviant crime.  I do not see any possible way to rehabilitate sexual offenders, especially those that prey on children.  These monsters I would lock up behind bars forever.  I would never give them a second chance to re-offend.  Even when released, they pose a grave danger to society.  Ergo, they would never be released.  Unfortunately, western society would not allow me to castrate them, or I would make that mandatory as well.

Rapists.  Rapism is the ultimate sexual assault.  Therefore, rapists would fall under the same category as those who committed sexual assault.  They would be put in jail for life.  There would be no possibility of parole.

Gun Crime.  This one is a tricky one.  Gun crime almost always preceeds another crime, or is committed in conjunction with a crime.  The sentences would, as previously stated, run consecutively.  Simple possession of an illegal weapon would be an automatic five year prison sentence.  Possession of a weapon used to commit a crime would be seven years.

Illegal Immigrants.  With respect to illegal immigrants, I am not talking about the people who sneak over the border and try to make an honest living for themselves.  I am talking about those who are in Canada illegally, but commit crimes.  I would have them serve their full sentences in this country, and then they would be immediately deported.  If they return into the country and are apprehended, they would be given an automatic life sentence with no possibility of parole.

Drunk Driving.  The fines and the losing of your licence penalties are stiff, but there is no punishment or proper programs in place to help these people out.  Yes – they are drinking and they made the conscious (albeit inebriated) decision to get behind the wheel and drive.  A first time offender would have to complete a treatment program, would not be able to drive for two years, and would have to spend at least six months in jail (likely to be served on weekends so as not to cause financial hardship).  Second time offenders would receive two years in jail, and a five year ban.  The third time, five years with a lifetime driving ban.  The fourth time they would get ten years, and the fifth time twenty years.  Any further incidents and the individual would then receive life in prison.

Should someone commit vehicular manslaughter while under the influence, that changes things entirely.  Unfortunately, intended or not, that is something that should carry a very stiff sentence.  In my opinion, at least ten years, with no possibility of parole.  It goes without saying that their licence would be revoked forever.

Drug Abuse.  Drugs are an interesting subject because they take so many different forms.  For example, I would have no problem legalizing small quantities of marijuana for personal use.  To me, the drug is less harmless than cigarettes and since its use is so widespread, we may as well cultivate it ourselves, tax it, and sell it.  We have done the same thing with cigarettes and cigars, and god only knows what chemicals are in them.  On the flipside, we could ban both cigarettes and marijuana in their entirety, but I think the government would face a public revolt if it did.

Hardcore drugs would be handled differently.  I would impose a mandatory five year sentence on hardcore drug abusers, with credit towards their sentence given if the proper substance abuse programs are completed.  However, this would be a not necessarily be one time chance to get clean.  Second offenders would receive a harsher sentence, but the same programs would still apply.

Traffickers are another story altogether.  A mandatory ten year sentence would be imposed with no possibilty of parole.  For those selling to minors, the sentence would double to twenty years.

One thing that I admire about the United States’ justice system is their accessory law.  If you are an accessory to a crime, you are held accountable to the standard that you actually committed the crime.  I fully support this and I would have no issues implementing it in Canada.

Under my system, I’m sure the prisons would fill up very fast and we would likely have to build more, as well as hire and train many new personnel.  The capitalist in me is always looking for ways to make money.  Call this section The Business of Prisons.  As it happens, I have some ideas on how we could adapt the prison system to cover the costs of its responsibilities.  The first idea, obviously, is to trim the fat.  Government entities are always overloaded with excess, and to that end all around it has to become more efficient at what it does.  I do not mean cutting manpower necessarily, but rather the tendering of services and supplies as opposed to going with “preferred” suppliers.  Make it illegal to tender a service contract for a duration longer than three years, which would ensure that the company providing the services offered up the best value to the government.

The Canadian government could profit by offering to host (the worst of the worst) convicts from other nations.  People who are never going to be released from prison.  It would be akin to providing a service.  Obviously, we are not going to do it for free, but if we estimate that it costs $120,000 per year per prisoner, why not charge $135,000 a year?  Or more, if you can get it.  Some (mostly third-world) countries would not pay this fee, but other developed nations may consider this a deal.  Even if the charge is more than they can do it themselves for, there is the factor of being able to wipe your hands of any mess in the event that something untoward happens (for example, the prisoner tries to escape, kill another prisoner, etc…).  As the facilitators of the prison, our government would be ultimately responsible.

Not that I would expect any of this to happen.  To steal a page from the United States, you have to have SuperMax prisons.  This is where the business gets a little complicated, because we branch out into different areas here.  Do we build the prison with taxpayer money and then run it ourselves, knowing that we will eventually reap a profit?  Or, do we outsource the construction and day-to-day operations of the prison to a private contractor?

Personally, I would rather spend the money up front and reap the profit at the end.  The government has lots of time and there is plenty of crime.  There is also plenty of crown land, as we are the largest (land-wise) country on the planet.  I think that building these SuperMax prisons in urban areas is foolish.  I would begin construction of these prisons in the northern settlements.  Specifically, Banks Island, Baffin Island, Ellesmere Island, and Victoria Island.  Given the northern population is primarily Inuit, prison construction and staffing would provide an excellent employment resource for those communities that deperately need it.

I once had a radical idea (even for me) to make money, or more aptly, pay money to the victims of crime.  It was based on the Stephen King novel The Running Man, where convicts would fight to the death and people would wage on who would survive the longest.  Now, I wouldn’t suggest going that far, but I would not have a problem televising the executions of condemned prisoners on pay per view.  Of course, this idea really appeals to those people who do not see the moral denigration of society, or who wish to do anything to curb it.  And in that aspect, it would never, ever become a reality if I ever had that kind of power.  I am merely wondering out loud what the revenue potential would be.

I’m sure I’ve missed more than my share of things, and opened up a huge can of worms with respect to the “what if” debaters out there.  The simple fact is that writing a universal law is best left to lawyers (who in their own right, should be shot for being lawyers).  The trick is to make the Criminal Code clear, simple, and understandable by all.  These are the laws, and if you break them, this is the minimum sentence you have to look forward to.  Any extrenous circumstances can be interpreted by the judges, who would have the ability to increase a sentence should they feel the need.

Additionally, and I guess as a final note, all appeals would be run concurrently in cases where the sentence was death.  There would be no ability to tie the case up in the courts for years on end.  The prisoner would be able to choose the method of execution, however.  Lethal injection, hanging, or firing squad.  Of course, they would be allowed a last meal as well.  I am harsh, but I am fair.

Today is the Ides of March.  March 15th.

The Ides of March was the day on which Julius Caesar was stabbed to death in 44 B.C.

“Beware the Ides of March,” the soothsayer said to Julius Caesar.  Too bad that there were not any more Brutus’ in the world, as our current politicians should follow the path of Caesar.

I sit back and I look at the likes of David Miller and Dalton McGuinty and I think to myself that the people of Toronto and Ontario deserve better.  Thankfully, Miller is on his way out and hopefully McGuinty will follow soon thereafter.

Miller is guilty of mismanaging the City of Toronto.  He has cut services and raised taxes.  The TTC is a mess.  All of this under his watch.

McGuinty is a liar.  A bold-faced liar.  He promised one thing and delivered another.  More than once.  He, without the prior consultation of the people, has introduced the HST.  No future government could ever hope to repeal it given the complexity of the act.

I hope that the people of Ontario come to their senses and elect somebody other than McGuinty.  Is it too much to ask for an elected official who is honest and lives up to his promises?  Whether or not you liked Mike Harris or his policies, at the very least you had to respect the man for doing exactly what he said he was going to do.

Ontario needs a lot of help.  It leads leadership and direction.  Miller and McGuinty are not the answer.  Hopefully Tim Hudak is.  If he is not, or if McGuinty manages to win another election, Ontario is in for another long five years.

It has been a whirlwind couple of days for Mixed Martial Arts in Ontario.  The Premier of Ontario, Dalton McGuinty, stated yesterday that legalizing Mixed Martial Arts in Ontario is not a priority for his government.  I am not quite sure what is gained here by making such a bold statement – especially in the light that the province of Ontario is not in the best of financial shape, and all of those tourist dollars will certainly help contribute to its coffers.

Perhaps McGuinty is ignorant about the sport.  Perhaps he is just being Premier Dad – by this I mean he has banned other things that he thinks are dangerous, such as pitbulls and using cellphones in cars.  The bottom line is very simple.  The sport is safe compared to many other sports out there.

The obvious comparison is to boxing.  How many boxers have died due to trauma suffered in the ring?  Let’s look at some other sports.  Pro Wrestling.  While very few wrestlers have actually died in the ring, how many have gone on to meet their maker prematurely.  The answer is surprising – over one hundred at last count.  Professional football.  Did you know that the likelihood of players being injured at some point during their career as a professional footballer is 100%?  Yet all of these sports remain legal in Ontario.

There have only been two recorded deaths in mixed martial arts since its inception (as vale tudo in Brazil) in the 1950′s.  Both of these fighters who died has previous trauma prior to entering the arena and should not have been cleared to fight in the first place.  While I will grant that the refereeing in a mixed martial art event may be somewhat dubious at times, all referees know and understand that protecting the fighters safety is their number one priority.  If a fighter is unable to intelligently defend himself, they will stop the fight.  If a fighter taps out (which, by the way, is considered an honorable thing to do), the fight is stopped.

Mixed martial arts initially had shaky beginnings when it was introduced to the United States in the early 1990′s.  The contests were unregulated, the fighters (for the most part) were single disciplined, and the referees were new to the sport as well.  There were few, if any rules.  Truly, as Senator John McCain put it, it was “human cockfighting” and was nearly outlawed entirely.  The UFC was relegated to broadcasting shows from abroad and in backwater towns.  They were nearing bankruptcy until they were purchased by Dana White and the Fertita brothers.  They established a parent company, Zuffa LLC., and subsequently put the UFC banner under it.

They realized, that in order to salvage the company and begin to make money, they had to become regulated by the various athletic commissions within the individual states.  Doing so would require the drafting of a unified set of rules.  While a lot of people like to bash the UFC regularly (and sometimes, some of that criticism is well deserved), the fact is that Zuffa spent millions lobbying and becoming certified in New Jersey and Nevada.  There was a point in time that they considered folding the company.

Once the athletic commissions were on board and regulating the fights, the sport started to slowly grow and become more and more accepted.  Zuffa, to their credit, began to market the sport aggressively and finally turned the corner in the Spring of 2005 with the launch of The Ultimate Fighter TV Series.  That show – and the final fight between Stephan Bonnar and Forrest Griffin – thrust mixed martial arts into the eyes of the mainstream public for the first time.  Less than five years later, it is expanding at a geometric rate.

Now – here are the facts as the sport relates to Canada, and Ontario specifically.  The man who gets bashed the most in Ontario is the athletic commissioner, Ken Hayashi.  He is a lightening rod of criticism for those people who want mixed martial arts legalized in this province.  Safety issues aside – which we have already debunked for the most part – the simple fact is that the federal criminal code prohibits prizefighting.  Below is the text from the Criminal Code of Canada:

Engaging in prize fight
83. (1) Every one who
(a) engages as a principal in a prize fight,
(b) advises, encourages or promotes a prize fight, or
(c) is present at a prize fight as an aid, second, surgeon, umpire, backer or reporter,
is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Definition of “prize fight”

(2) In this section, “prize fight” means an encounter or fight with fists or hands between two persons who have met for that purpose by previous arrangement made by or for them, but a boxing contest between amateur sportsmen, where the contestants wear boxing gloves of not less than one hundred and forty grams each in mass, or any boxing contest held with the permission or under the authority of an athletic board or commission or similar body established by or under the authority of the legislature of a province for the control of sport within the province, shall be deemed not to be a prize fight.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 83; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 186.

This law dates back to the mid-1800′s, a time when the only combat sport around was boxing!  The strict interpretation of the law would indicate that Mr. Hayashi is right, and that participation in mixed martial arts events in the country of Canada is illegal.  Regardless of any municipal or provincial laws, federal laws superceed them.  However, in so saying that, it is my opinion that Mr. Hayashi has chosen to ignore the spirit of the law.  This is, however, his choice.

As it stands, Ontario is the only province that has outlawed mixed martial arts.  Every other province has chosen to adhere to the spirit of the law, rather than its strict interpretation.  These events are safe, have a proven track record, and are regulated.  Furthermore, they bring in millions of tourist dollars to the province.  The provinces reap the rewards from the monies spent, but they also make money off of the gate (in some cases, as much as 4%), and it means that there will be more jobs for contractors and commission employees.

The UFC held its first event in Canada in April of 2008.  The Bell Centre sold out in less than two hours.  The gate was in excess of five million dollars with over twenty thousand seats sold.  The event was regulated by the Quebec Athletic Commission.  They assigned the referees and the judges, and were responsible for any pre and post fight drug tests.  Ontarians, it is estimated, spent 1.4 million dollars in the province of Quebec that weekend.  The second event, in April of 2009, generated just as much revenue.  These numbers do not include the many smaller events and promotions that take place monthly around the province.

The City of Vancouver recently licensed MMA competition and their first event will be held in June.  Tickets are not on sale as of yet, but it will be interesting to see the demographics and how fast they sell out.  On a personal note, as I have been to every UFC in Canada, I wonder if I can catch a cheap flight out to British Columbia?

As for solutions, I think that the UFC is correct in lobbying the federal government to update the criminal code.  This removes any impediment that the Ontario government may have in legislating MMA in this province.  The UFC is smart; they do not want to stage unregulated shows on Indian reservations.  They want to do it right, by the book.  They want regulation for the sport, because without it mixed martial arts cannot grow safely.  They also are willing to spend the money to get this done because they know how much money and interest will be generated by an event in this province.  Mark my words – when the sport is legal in Ontario – the UFC will have no problems holding an event in the Rogers Center.  75,000 people cheering on their favourite fighters.  It will be crazy.  It will be insane.  It will be fun.  It will be very profitable, for both the province and the Ultimate Fighting Championship.

The Ontario Government is suing the large tobacco companies for fifty billion dollars.  They want to recoup the costs of healthcare for the past fifty years.  The government has accused the companies of misleading people about the health risks of the product.

Now – first and foremost – I have never been a big fan of smoking.  I can see absolutely no positive benefits of taking up this habit.  It makes people stink.  It’s addictive.  It’s unhealthy.  It’s expensive.  However, in so saying that, I also believe in an individuals right to choose.  If that person chooses to smoke and by doing so is not offending anyone else or subjecting them to any health risk, then by all means light up.

It does seem very hypocritical of the government, however.  They could just ban smoking outright, ridding themselves of the health care costs.  However, they choose to educate the people, restrict advertising, and otherwise legislate the industry.  They also collect taxes from the sale of cigarettes.  They do the same with alcohol, yet there is no lawsuit pending.  Why?  If you go after one industry, then why not all of them?

There is precedent, however.  All fifty U.S. States successfully sued the U.S. tobacco industry and won an out of court settlement for $247 billion dollars.  A significant amount of money, but you have to take into consideration that the United States has ten times the population of Canada.  Ontario represents about a quarter of the Canadian population.  Doing some quick math, Ontario could expect about six billion dollars if the case is settled out of court.

To ease the burden on the health care system, my solution would be to have smokers sign away their right to free health care for any medical issues resulting from their smoking.  As it should be their right to choose whether or not to light a cigarette, it should be our right to choose to not have to pay for the consequences of their actions.

The Liberal Party of Canada is threatening to force an election in Canada, with the vote to be held sometime in the fall.  To hold an election in Canada, it costs the taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 million dollars.  Even if the country was not in the midst of a recession, that’s still a lot of money.  Ergo, I wonder – with the outcome likely to be a minority Liberal or Conservative government – is this such a good idea?

This is where governments fail their constituents.  When you look at the population as a whole, most people are moderate.  They have some conservative tendencies, and some liberal ones.  Some people lean towards the Green Party or the NDP.  It’s a very small percentage of the population that are completely right-wing or left-wing.  Ergo, when a government is elected, and they try to implement their policies, they can rarely please the majority of people.  This is even further complicated when the sitting government is a minority one.

When you stand back and watch the constant fighting and bickering between the four major politcal parties, I often ponder if they want power merely to impose their ideas upon Canadians or if they truly think that they can manage the country better than the incumbent?

Personally, I’m not a fan of any party.  Nobody strikes me as wanting to work in the best interest of Canadians and Canada.  They all seem to be interested in the power, or providing for their friends.  I guess the old adage of “power corrupts” is true.  But, you have to scratch the backs of the people who helped get you elected.

Did you know that under Ontario’s Civil Remedies Act, the police can confiscate anything in your possession if they suspect that you are committing a crime?  Most sane people would not have a problem with this…except for one mitigating factor.  They do not have to actually charge you.

This law was recently challenged as unconstitutional and the law was held up by the Supreme Court of Canada.  I understand the reasons as to why, but the application of the law must be handled with great care.  This law was designed with the intention to allow the authorities to dismantle criminal organizations.  However, given the way the law is written, if the perception exists that you are acting in an unlawful manner, the police can sieze your property and you have absolutely no recourse to get it back.

Six other provinces have enacted legislation similar to that in Ontario.  In British Columbia, within two years of being operational, the Civil Forfeiture Office was self funding.  This office is funded by the sale of confiscated goods.

It is frightening to think that the government has put this kind of power into the hands of the police.  Uncle Ben (from Spider-man) once said to Peter Parker, “With great power comes great responsibility.”  We can only be hopeful that the authorities do not abuse this power, as they do in the United States, where it is not uncommon to see law enforcement officials driving around in confiscated cars.

To read a copy of the law, click here.

Fox News is at it again.

President Obama like Dijon mustard on his burgers and they have a problem with this.  What a complete waste of time.  Who give a flying fuck if the mustard is not made in the United States?  It’s mustard!

Already I have wasted far too much precious time and space on this nonsense.

Grow up Fox News.  Constructive criticism please.  Stop wasting valuable newspace on shit like this.

AIG is in a lot of trouble right now.  Despite borrowing billions from the Federal Government (making them 80% Government owned), the company paid out $165 million dollars in bonuses, mostly to employees who were responsible for the collapse of the company.  This is just the tip of the iceberg.  Total bonuses for the financial unit could reach up to $450 million.  The total bonuses for the company itself is projected to be as high as 1.2 billion.

The response of the U.S. Government was swift.  Today they passed legislation taxing 90% of these bonuses to employees making $250,000 per year who work for any company that has received over five billion in bailout money.

While I applaud the action, I do not agree with the methodology used.  Last month, a provision banning all bonuses was stripped out of the stimulus bill by the Democrats.  Why did they do this, then when the public backlash over the AIG bonuses reached their lofty ears they rushed this bill through?  Sadly, this is another example of partisan politics currently being played in the Government.  This economic crisis is the worst since the Great Depression and everyone has to work together for the benefit of the country.

The current CEO of AIG, Edward Liddy, is working at the behest of the Government for $1.00 per year.  This is commendable, but he was brought in to change the corporate culture at AIG as much as to turn the struggling company around.  His credentials are impressive.  He is the former president, CEO and Chairman of Allstate Insurance.  Unfortunately, he is old-school blood and know only how things were done, not necessarily how things should be done.

In October 2008, he defended a $440,000 corporate retreat by stating to Congress that these retreats “are standard practice in our industry.”  He also defended the bonuses prior to asking the recipients to return them by saying that the employees are entilted to them and AIG could face legal reprecussions should they not honor their contractual obligations.  Fair enough, but when a company loses 61.7 billion dollars in a quarter, how do you justify a bonus payment to anybody?

To quote the late Owen Hart, “Enough is enough and it’s time for a change!”