That's extra-special. Lorrie has to go back to the 1960s? Someone has to look up the word "trend". Do we really trust crime stats from the 1960s? Did police even have procedures for recording crimes properly back then? Sheesh.
And we in the "hug-a-thug" crowd don't use the post-1991 drop in crime as evidence that "tough on crime" nonsense doesn't work. We actually use the stats from the U.S. dept of justice to show that it makes things worth.
Rational Reasons has an excellent post on this right now.
I think Lorrie Goldstein must believe that violent crime is up, since everyone he meets with (and I'd include his close friends and family) probably threatens to kick him in the teeth after a few minutes.
What unscholarly drivel. There are certain types of violent crimes (those involving spousal abuse and sexual assault, for example) that were waaaay under-reported even in my lifetime.
Anyway, Goldstein can take his hug-a-thug fuckwittery and choke on it.
Can't say as I believe that a Conservative government, especially a majority one, is likely to have a positive impact on shrinking the income gap so its unlikely they'll have any positive impact on crime rates either.
What is with you people? Crime affects ethinic minorities, immigrants, and low-income people the most! Are you saying that this current level of crime is okay, just because it doesn't affect you in your lily-white segregated comfortable Toronto suburbs? You should be ashamed of yourselves! The level of ZERO murders is the goal here, not to hold it steady, or keep it increasing slightly. It means THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG when people murder each other. Can't you get that through your skull? ANY crime is bad, and blaming any party for trying to reduce crime is an unbelievable display of ignorant political partisanship.
Auntie, with whom are you arguing exactly? We all agree that crime is bad, especially violent crime.
What we disagree about is how to fix it. The conservatives want to try "tough on crime" measures that are known not to work. The rest of us prefer to stick to rehab and prevention (via education and opportunity).
Well, if Canadians feel that crime is up, isn't that the Liberal way to decide something - based on feelings instead of facts? You should be supporting any policies which make people feel better without being effective, as you have a rather long track record of doing just that. It sends the message that you're against crime, it's called moral leadership. We hear that phrase time and again when the Liberals are clamouring for gun control, Kyoto targets, not stealing from the government, etc. We know it won't be effective, but words matter more than deeds, don't they?
Ha. The left doesn't know how to fix it either. Impotence in the face of violence is all they offer.
"The conservatives want to try "tough on crime" measures that are known not to work. The rest of us prefer to stick to rehab and prevention (via education and opportunity)." - Greg
"Tough on crime" measures often do work. Especially on crimes of physical violence. All you offer Greg is more of the left's "blame the law abiding" strategy.
13 comments:
You mean he actually wrote a column that wasn't about Al Gore, Kyoto or Dion? Wow, it's like somebody who just discovered stereo.
If there is a bigger waste of time than a Goldstein column, I haven't found it.
That's extra-special. Lorrie has to go back to the 1960s? Someone has to look up the word "trend". Do we really trust crime stats from the 1960s? Did police even have procedures for recording crimes properly back then? Sheesh.
And we in the "hug-a-thug" crowd don't use the post-1991 drop in crime as evidence that "tough on crime" nonsense doesn't work. We actually use the stats from the U.S. dept of justice to show that it makes things worth.
Rational Reasons has an excellent post on this right now.
I think Lorrie Goldstein must believe that violent crime is up, since everyone he meets with (and I'd include his close friends and family) probably threatens to kick him in the teeth after a few minutes.
What unscholarly drivel. There are certain types of violent crimes (those involving spousal abuse and sexual assault, for example) that were waaaay under-reported even in my lifetime.
Anyway, Goldstein can take his hug-a-thug fuckwittery and choke on it.
Someone should show Goldstein the figures on the gap between rich and poor and the perceived impact on crime rates:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/National_Office_Pubs/2006/Growing_Gap_Growing_Concerns.pdf
1960 gap was 21%
1996 gap was 316%
Can't say as I believe that a Conservative government, especially a majority one, is likely to have a positive impact on shrinking the income gap so its unlikely they'll have any positive impact on crime rates either.
Deb, is this the document you are referring to:
http://www.policyalternatives.
ca/documents/National_
Office_Pubs/2006/Growing
_Gap_Growing_Concerns.pdf
I couldn't find any of the stats you referred to.
What is with you people? Crime affects ethinic minorities, immigrants, and low-income people the most! Are you saying that this current level of crime is okay, just because it doesn't affect you in your lily-white segregated comfortable Toronto suburbs? You should be ashamed of yourselves! The level of ZERO murders is the goal here, not to hold it steady, or keep it increasing slightly. It means THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG when people murder each other. Can't you get that through your skull? ANY crime is bad, and blaming any party for trying to reduce crime is an unbelievable display of ignorant political partisanship.
Auntie, with whom are you arguing exactly? We all agree that crime is bad, especially violent crime.
What we disagree about is how to fix it. The conservatives want to try "tough on crime" measures that are known not to work. The rest of us prefer to stick to rehab and prevention (via education and opportunity).
The rest of us prefer to stick to rehab and prevention (via education and opportunity).
Yes, but Big Daddy Harper told his flock that evidence is misleading; Canadians feel crime is getting worse and that's all that counts.
How we ended up with this delusional maniac as a Prime Minister is will be an exciting question for the next few years.
Stats Can statisticians are the same variety of Commie as Climate Scientists
I read the Goldstein's column. I didn't see where he alleged this. Perhaps you could quote the passage where he did.
Well, if Canadians feel that crime is up, isn't that the Liberal way to decide something - based on feelings instead of facts? You should be supporting any policies which make people feel better without being effective, as you have a rather long track record of doing just that. It sends the message that you're against crime, it's called moral leadership. We hear that phrase time and again when the Liberals are clamouring for gun control, Kyoto targets, not stealing from the government, etc. We know it won't be effective, but words matter more than deeds, don't they?
"What we disagree about is how to fix it." - Greg
Ha. The left doesn't know how to fix it either. Impotence in the face of violence is all they offer.
"The conservatives want to try "tough on crime" measures that are known not to work. The rest of us prefer to stick to rehab and prevention (via education and opportunity)." - Greg
"Tough on crime" measures often do work. Especially on crimes of physical violence. All you offer Greg is more of the left's "blame the law abiding" strategy.
Ah, the good old days. Goldstein, meet Warren.
"Tough on crime" measures often do work. Especially on crimes of physical violence.
And how do you know this?
Post a Comment