Rational Radical

The reason so many seeming intelligent people appear really stupid when discussing controversial issues is that most people lack “reflective judgment,” which is a part of critical thinking (and vice versa). That is, research shows that most people are unable to get past their emotions and pre-established beliefs in order to look at a controversial or provocative issue from more than one perspective. Similarly, most people are able to really examine and consider only one or two elements of complex issues.

So, I wonder how people are reacting to the Maxime Bernier affair. He’s the former Minister of Foreign Affairs (assigned to that post by PM Harper in August of 2007) who has caused more controversy in his nine months in that position than most Canadian politicians cause in a lifetime (the preceding link takes you to a summary of some of the problems). I personally thought it was silly that the cabinet was in an uproar over the revealing attire of his girlfriend at the time, ex-model Julie Couillard (the dress shows off her bread and butter; not sure how long this link to a picture of her and the dress will remain active).

Then the inexperienced politician made several embarrassing political gaffes. Okay, I’m used to that from Harper’s troops, no matter how hard they try to cover up their well-documented racist and extremely right-wing history.

I then found it amusing that Maxime never thought that his gf’s “risque” past–she was married to one high-ranking biker and lived with or dated two more pretty hardcore criminals–might become an issue to such a high-ranking politician as himself (in interviews, she suggests that he knew all about her past). In fact, it’s become clear that he started dating her “to cause a media blast.” It’s also been revealed that he chose the sexy dress for her to wear during that fateful first public appearance together.

So the guy has no judgment, that’s pretty clear. And Maxime is also obviously incompetent, based on a) his aforementioned gaffes, b) the fact that he left classified NATO documents at Ms. Couillard’s place recently, several months after she dumped him in December of 2006 (but she agreed to make appearances with him to “fulfill her part of the arrangement”), and c) he apparently had no clue he had done so for five freaking weeks!

The interesting question now is, who are people going to look at with sympathy, who will they laugh at, who will they despise, and who will they let off the hook?

Ms. Couillard is presenting herself as some poor, naive woman who’s now had her life destroyed by Maxime, who apparently never loved her. He simply saw this as a (business) “transaction.” Oh come on. Sh’s been married to, lived with, and dated at least three notorious criminals as recently as 2004! And she knew what Maxime expected of her during their “agreement,” so why is she whining about it now? For nearly a year she got to live the high life to which she believes she’s entitled. Get over yourself, woman.

Maxime–What more can be said about him? He’s been pretty silent around all of this, and rightfully so. I wouldn’t care about his lack of judgment with respect to his choice of gf nor his apparently un-sexual relationship with her–again, she was there mostly for show. But when you have no idea you’ve lost classified documents for five weeks, well… And even though I don’t care about his gf, he had to know that her past would come back to haunt him because most people would have a problem with her past. What a maroon…

And what about PM Harper? This is just one more example of his own bad judgment and belief that it’s wise to appoint an inexperienced and unproven politician with apparently little knowledge of his job to such an important position as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Why did Harper do this? Because he thought Maxime had the looks and charm to con people into swallowing Harper’s lies and misinformation–style over substance.

And you know what the saddest part is? Unless Harper and his goons continue to screw up as badly as they have been doing since they got elected as a minority government, chances are that most of the Conservative supporters who are only now expressing displeasure at the job Harper and his government is doing–about 60% disapprove now–will forget about all of this come election time. Why? Because people are stupid and have selective memories.

Many Canadians remember all of the lies, scandals and arrogance of the Liberal government over many recent years, which is fine. Why did they keep them in power for so long? Because before Chretien came into power (and then Martin), the Conservatives were led by perhaps the most hated PM of all time, Brian Mulroney–for good reason.

It took 13 years (coincidental unlucky number?) for Canadians to let another Conservative into office after Mulroney, so I really hope that we don’t have to wait that long until Canadians get tired of the Orwellian manner in which Harper has been ruining our country for the past two years. And I hope that Canadians realize that we have at least one more “major” party in the NDP, not to mention the Green Party–which will not exert any influence for many years to come, especially since the government refuses to change the rules to make it easier for groups with popular support to gain a bit of a financial foothold in our messed up and unfair election/parliamentary system.

You may have heard the story from a few days ago, involving several Past, Recent and Ongoing Arguments for Birth Control. I leave it to you to determine which part of the story makes you the most sick:

1) A 32 year-old Ontario “man” in 1999 receives only a seven-year sentence for killing four people while driving drunk in a stolen car.

2) Our legal system–can’t really call it a “justice” system, can we?–grants him parole after serving only five years for killing four people while driving drunk in a stolen car.

3) Despite being on a lifetime ban from driving, this animal decides to apply for a driving permit about 18 months ago AND GETS IT!

4) Even though he uses his real name, the courts apparently messed up his birth dates, thus he gets the permit because no red flags were raised at the name.

5) The only reason this inhuman scum gets caught is due to a traffic stop, during which a competent officer finds the driver’s permit suspicious, given that the piece of shit is now 41 years old.

6) Although the reprobate is charged with “driving while disqualified,” we can pretty much be guaranteed that he will receive a slap on the wrist and will not have to serve out the rest of his original sentence, despite having violated his parole conditions–obviously not driving.

7) It’s a known fact that people who get caught for drunk driving almost always have a (long) history of drunk driving. Yet, our government is so concerned about protecting their rights–fuck the rights of innocent victims–that it still does very little to such criminals; I believe the person now has to get caught three times in order to have a special instrument installed in the car that requires the driver to blow into it to prove sobriety before the ignition will start.

8 ) Seriously, check out the laws. In Canada, repeat offenders are treated very nicely by the courts, despite the fact, as alluded to above, that for every time they get caught, we know there have usually been many instances of drunk driving for which they didn’t get caught.

A first-time commenter, Lee, raised/expanded on some points relevant to the recent stories posted here regarding the Good Samaritan who helped out a random stabbing victim and then the OTHER Good Samaritan who got the cold shoulder by the media and police. I thought I’d post (and slightly edit for space) some of Lee’s comments here, since they do raise some possible issues regarding what really happened during the near tragedy:

1. After reading the piece on Mackenzie Siren, I think Margot Hines should be referred to as “the kind of person who TELLS THE MEDIA that…she had been handing a hamburger to a homeless man.”

2. After the stabbing, Hines’s picture and “story” were all over TV and the papers. Live interviews. Next day photo op visiting the victim in the hospital. “I” did this and “I” did that. She even said she knew what to do coz she took first aid as a camp counsellor and learned what to do from Grey’s Anatomy. Cute.

3. Then - like 5 days later - we find out it was this 23-year old Mackenzie Siren who was standing beside the victim when she was stabbed. It was Siren who called 911. Hines said it was a “passerby” who called. But this Siren kid did not “pass by.”  She had the good sense (or maybe the 911 dispatcher told her) to pull her office clothing out of her gym bag and use it as bandages. She said “WE lifted up her shirt and saw the stab wounds,” so I guess by now the Hines woman was on the scene. (Mackenzie, everyone in the neighbourhood ought to take up a collection to buy you a really cool outfit!)

4. I don’t want to sound mean here about the Hines woman. She did a good thing, for sure. But she was the one who put her own face in the media cameras and gave no credit to anyone else. Meanwhile, Siren was collecting her things and waiting in the background to give her witness testimony to the police. I call that class.

5. So yah, the media decided what the reality of that situation was - but, come on, they got a lot of help from Margot Hines, didn’t they?

6. Kudos to Siren for questioning the shoddy treatment she was given by the cops afterwards. I can’t believe they didn’t tell her the stabber had been caught before they sent her to walk home alone in the rain.

7. It creeps me out to think that while I was watching the beaming Margot Hines on the news that night, Mackenzie Siren was at home alone trying to scrub the victim’s blood off of herself.

8. Curious that there’s been nothing in the media about Mackenzie since Sunday. Maybe it’s because all that good samaratin hype around Hines has scared her away from putting herself out there. But could it be that the media is simply embarrassed about handing that title so easily over to someone else and they just want the whole thing to go away now?

Our federal continues to prove it deserves the title of BIGGEST Argument for Birth Control with this Toronto Star article (edited by me) from yesterday. In short, the government refuses to accept that all of the research on the matter indicates that “safe injection sites” or “harm reduction” programs–including “safer sex” programs at school rather than the PROVEN TO BE TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE “abstinence only” programs–are effective in many ways.

That fact is, if we KNOW that (certain) people are going to engage in certain behaviours (e.g., sex, drugs), it makes far more sense to introduce programs that minimize the harm that might be associated with such behaviours. The opposing–and again, proven to be wrong–view is that if someone objects to the behaviours, then we should pretend that “just say no” actually works and go ahead and punish the 90-99% of people who will continue to engage in certain behaviours despite seeing/hearing “just say no.” I can’t repeat it enough: THIS APPROACH HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE TOTALLY INEFFECTIVE. Yet governments continue to promote it because of their ideology, which blinds them to the fact that they are doing far more harm than good to the people they are supposedly trying to help!  Here’s the edited story:

Canada’s federal health minister said his government is “obviously very disappointed” with a British Columbia court ruling that struck down laws prohibiting possession and trafficking of drugs by those accessing help at supervised injection sites. This decision grants a one-year reprieve for Vancouver’s controversial injection facility.

“We disagree with the judgment,” said Health Minister Tony Clement. “Our government believes that the best way to deal with the health issues of drug addicts is to offer treatment and indeed to prevent people from getting on to illicit drugs in the first place.” Clement also strongly suggested the Conservative government was opposed to the facility’s continued operation. “We don’t consider it the best health outcome to keep people in a position where they continue to use the illicit drugs, to inject the illicit drugs.”  Clement said the federal government is “examining our options” and any decision to appeal would be announced by Justice Minister Rob Nicholson.

The facility–INSITE–began as a pilot project and has been allowed to continue to operate because of exemptions granted by the federal government under a section of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, which can now continue to operate at least until June 30, 2009.

Justice Ian Pitfield said in the ruling released yesterday that denying access to the site ignores the illness of addiction and violates drug addicts’ rights – enshrined in Section 7 of the Charter – to life, liberty and security.  “While there is nothing to be said in favour of the injection of controlled substances that leads to addiction, there is much to be said against denying addicts health-care services that will ameliorate the effects of their condition,” he wrote. “I cannot agree with Canada’s submission that an addict must feed his addiction in an unsafe environment when a safe environment that may lead to rehabilitation is the alternative.”

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association called the ruling a “major victory for social justice in the Downtown Eastside.”  “The court has decided that the government cannot deny drug addicts access to the health care that they desperately need and that Insite provides,” the association said in a prepared statement.

Nancy Grace is a despicable, immoral, and unethical monster who is a Constant Argument for Birth Control. She’s the big mouth ex-lawyer who has her own show (if you check out the preceding link you can see some of her more notorious cases. Type her name into Youtube and you can see how horrible she is). However, I was channel surfing and saw her ranting about some people even more shameful than she: Hulk Hogan and his creepy clan.

“Baby Hogan,” Hulk’s 17 year-old demon child was recently incarcerated for only 8 months after his third arrest for street racing, in a drunk-driving “accident” that nearly killed a young Iraqi war vet–he was left severely brain damaged and likely unable to walk for the rest of his life. Well, the other day, Hulk and his wife revealed how scummy they are, as they BLAME THE VICTIM for the accident and the mom is sobbing angrily at the fact that the young victim’s mother is angry at Punk Hogan Jr instead of feeling sorry for him!!!

Moreover, all the Hulk and his son can think about–besides whining about how tough it is in jail, despite being isolated and protected from the rest of the inmates–is how to turn this tragedy (not for him, of course, but for the victim) into a freaking reality show!  It’s supposed to be how he “turns his life around” after prison.  WTF?!?!

That family is so messed up that they can’t tell fantasy from reality.  And they think they’re entitled to “special treatment” of course.  Hulk, any time you feel like leaving the planet, please feel free to do so and take your delusional family with you.  Please?

This post is in response to some comments/questions made recently by a very valued reader/contributor, Lily, with respect to the post I wrote regarding what to do about a mentally unstable man who had stabbed at least two people (one last week and one five years prior, for which he served no time in prison but was briefly hospitalized). I’ve edited it slightly for ease of presentation:

I think that the issue of committing someone to a psychiatric hospital is very complex and not so clear cut.

Definitely. Legally, you can only commit someone against their will if they pose an immediate and identifiable danger to themselves or others. Determining whether this is true is not easy and doctors are afraid of malpractice and/or civil suits if they make “the wrong choice.”

Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing one can determine only after the fact, and there have been many tragic examples of wrong choices, such as the seriously mentally ill actor/comedian Tony Rosato being locked up in prison for 2.5 years instead of getting the help he needed. Or Martin Kruze, the man at the centre of the Maple Leaf Gardens Sex Scandal, who tried to kill himself 4 or 5 times in the week before he finally succeeded by jumping off of the Bloor Viaduct in Toronto the day after learning that the perp would get off very lightly after sexually abusing Mr. Kruze and other boys for years; police had talked him down from the bridge each of those previous attempts that week but psychiatrists deemed he wasn’t a risk to himself (Martin Kruze’s suicide is the one that compelled the city to erect the barriers on the bridge after many years of discussion).

My understanding is that, in the case of schizophrenia for example, the person needs the medication to control his/her behaviour. In a medical setting, it is a given that the patient will be monitored closely and as a result the illness will become regulated, so he/she is bound to show “significant improvement.” But if you send that person home, won’t he/she fall back to where he/she was?

If they stop taking meds and lack adequate social/professional support, yes, unfortunately. See below…

From what I’ve been reading, patients suffering from psychosis are often unwilling to take their medication, especially if they are not monitored closely. How can you monitor someone out of the hospital effectively?

When psychotropic meds were first introduced on a large scale in North America, the majority of long-term hospital beds were occupied by people suffering from mental disorders. Meds allowed them to be discharged and to re-integrate into society. However, the plan from the start was to have sufficient resources–doctors, psychologists, nurses, social workers, group homes, etc–on the outside to monitor the patient, to help ensure they kept taking their meds, and to help them and their family adjust to their return to society.

Unfortunately, our Ongoing Arguments for Birth Control–Canadian and US governments–apparently forgot that part when they cut the (mental) health care budgets dramatically and, IMO, criminally. Therefore, for the last 4 or 5 decades, countless mentally ill patients have been released from hospital with little or no supports, stop taking their meds, get re-admitted to hospital, and the process keeps continuing. This is called the “Revolving Door” phenomenon and, sadly ironically, it costs far more money than it would cost to maintain the proper supports for people once they were released from hospital.

I resent any doctor who will discharge a mental patient who is at risk to harm himself/herself or others, and I would hold him/her responsible (as in the case on the Danforth).

I agree.

And by the way, discharges often occur because doctors can no longer substantiate the reasons that got the patient committed involuntarily in the first place. And the problem with that, is that in most cases, when there is a review of the case, they rely on reports written by the nurses, rather than based on their own interaction with the patient. To me, that’s negligence.

In fact, interactions with the patient are insufficient, even (or especially) those done by doctors or psychiatrists. They need a proper assessment done by a psychologist, perhaps in tandem with a psychiatrist. Check out the hospitals in Ontario, however. The number of psychologists on staff has been cut dramatically by our Ongoing Arguments for Birth Control–the government.

When I hear involuntary commitment, I cannot help thinking of the right everyone has to refuse treatment. I understand the rationale for both and I agree, but in a case like this, which takes precedence? I honestly don’t know but I’d love to see what’s your take on it.

Although I am strongly and vocally opposed to the over-prescription of medications for mental and even physical ailments, as I’ve said previously there are instances when such treatment is required. Schizophrenia is one such case and bipolar disorder is often another. Like you, I understand the rationale for the right to refuse treatment. However, just as we allow criminals to escape imprisonment if they can be shown to be incapable from knowing right from wrong, I think a person who has demonstrated clearly that (s)he cannot take care of him/herself to the point that (s)he poses a clear, predictable risk to others should be forced to comply with treatment and/or hospitalization.

About the government… yes, I think they should invest more money but the health system also needs a serious overhaul. There are so many flaws… I think they are equally responsible. Everyone seems to put the blame on someone else when something terrible happens, no one seems to take responsibility, and it’s just as wrong.

I agree 100%.

In all deference to the Mighty Mr. Colbert, I CALLED IT!  Over three weeks ago, I wrote about how PM Harper has been eroding Free Press / access to information in Canada in an unprecedented manner. 

Now, The Star is running a multi-part series on how quickly Canada is deteriorating into something worse than a banana republic when it comes to control over the media.  I don’t know how long this link will be active, but I highly recommend that everyone read it so that you can see the future of our country–a bleak future under the rule of this Increasingly Horrible Argument for Birth Control, who acts as if his government has a majority, rather than the minority it is.

As a nice example of what we’ve discussed recently regarding how the media decide what is news–which some might argue is similar to deciding what is “reality”–The Star published a story today about the other Good Samaritan who helped the victim of a random stabbing in a nice neighbourhood a few days ago.

In any event, the other Good Samaritan is 23 year-old Mackenzie Siren. Unfortunately, unlike the other hero, Ms. Siren got some pretty crummy treatment, as you can read below:

Paramedics arrived in five minutes, and once MacDonald [the victim] was taken away Siren was left alone among firefighters and police officers. “Someone asked me in a surprised way if I was okay. I started hysterically laughing and crying at the same time because I didn’t know what to do. And apologizing because I was hysterical.”

She was directed to “a very nice fireman” who gave her hand sanitizer to try and remove the now-drying blood from her hands and arms. With blood stuck under her nails and between her fingers she was told to gather her belongings and wait for questioning, she said.

After 15 minutes an officer came over and they spoke for about 30 minutes. “He was nice. I felt he didn’t talk down to me, he didn’t hurry me.” Siren said the officer introduced himself, but did not give her a card or any contact information. A detective was present and he did not introduce himself, she said.

“After questioning, their nonchalance with the situation made me feel like to ask for anything more would be out of the ordinary, or inappropriate. … I was in shock obviously so I didn’t know what else to do. I didn’t know who to seek out.” So she walked the few blocks home. It was after 9:30 p.m. and raining. She didn’t know police had arrested the alleged attacker blocks away soon after the stabbing.

Yesterday, the papers carried the story of the conviction of a 27 year-old pimp who made 90% of $5,000 ($4,500) that his 17 year-old “girlfriend” brought home after working for an “escort agency” for three to four weeks, going on 15-20 calls. What’s interesting is the background story of the young woman. Before you read further, think to yourself about her background.  Then read below.

-

-
Okay, so did you think she might come from a broken home?  Or was she a strong, proud, enterprising woman who happened to get tricked by some guy who was older/craftier than her?  Or was she some naive, innocent country girl who came to the big and got taken in by a slick, charming pimp?  Or was she some immigrant who came to Canada on a promise of a new life, a good job, maybe a future husband, etc., but was then forced to work for the pimp to pay off some ridiculously inflated debts she incurred being brought over here?

-

Everyone has their own ideas about what makes a woman prostitute herself.  Everyone has their own ideas about the business of prostitution itself.  There are no easy answers when it comes to these issues–e.g., should we legalize it?  I say yes.  But most people’s views on the topic are pretty black and white and over-simplified.  This case is interesting because it doesn’t fit too easily into any particular stereotype.  And it raises a lot of questions about the young woman, her family, and her experiences.  There’s no question about the pimp, however, since they are truly the scum of the earth and Constant Arguments for Birth Control.

Here’s the story on the girl and how she came to become a prostitute:

The “victim,” testified she met Mfizi (the scumbag pimp) in February 2007 during her first visit to an after hours-club when she was 17. The honours high school student, who lived at home with her parents, both professionals, told him about her plans to attend university.

“She thought he was nice, charismatic and a kind person.”  They made love the first night and over the coming days she became infatuated with Mfizi, her first real boyfriend.  They used cocaine and visited nightclubs.  Within a month, she and a friend moved in with him, and he paid for all her needs. She felt happy because she could stay up as late as she wanted. She did not get along with her parents.

Soon Mfizi showed her a website operated by Cachet Ladies, an escort service, and told her about the thousands of dollars his ex-girlfriends had made. He said it would be fun to become an escort and that she wouldn’t have to have sex with clients. He made an appointment for her to meet “Danny,” the owner of Cachet Ladies. He told Danny she was 19.  “When asked if she was open-minded, she told Danny that she gets along with everyone.”  Mfizi got her fake government ID that stated she was 19. He coached her in how to behave. The first night, she had two dates and made $365.

She estimates she made $5,000, and Mfizi took 90 per cent. Soon he tried controlling her every move, ordering her never to leave work without permission. He assaulted her and told her, “I own you.”  Her stint as a prostitute ended last May when she was apprehended by police for underage drinking and told them what happened.

You know, from (near) tragedy can come hope. The random stabbing of a 26 year-old woman in a nice, residential neighbourhood on Tuesday night actually provided a positive story at first.

Namely, a bystander came to her rescue to try to stop the bleeding and comfort her until paramedics arrived. And that bystander, 47 year-old Margot Hines, is the kind of person who, right before she helped save the woman, had been standing across the road, handing a hamburger to a homeless man. Ms. Hines is the prototypical–and all too rare–Good Samaritan.

However, then we find out that the stabber is a mentally unstable man who did the same thing five years ago. I am very familiar with the hell that can be a mental disorder and I believe that certain mentally ill individuals need to be placed in a hospital, not a jail. However, if the mental disorder is so severe that the person is not responsible for their horrific actions, then they either a) need to be kept in a psychiatric facility until they have shown significant improvement–i.e., enough so that we should have little fear that they will harm someone again, and/or b) need to be monitored on the outside to make sure they are taking their medications.

I am not a proponent of over-medicating people such as children, or adults suffering from mild depression or anxiety, as you can see in posts such as this one on killing our children through legal drugs and this post on true heroes fighting for the drug companies our safety. And I know for a fact that most people with serious mental health issues are a far greater risk to themselves than to others; but the media get more mileage from a story of a “crazy person” hurting someone else.

However, serious mental illnesses such as schizophrenia or any other psychotic disorder–”psychotic” means to lose touch with reality and has nothing to do with “psychopath”, which refers to someone who has no empathy or remorse for harming others–require medication to help control the symptoms. If someone refuses to take their medications, they will almost always go off the rails and can cause some serious damage to themselves or others.

If such was the case with this recent stabber, then we have another example of our government playing the role of Most Recent Argument for Birth Control by consistently reducing funding for mental health treatment. It’s sadly ironic that every study on the subject has found that trying to save money by cutting back on treatment actually costs far more money because the people who need help end up getting in trouble and costing money through repeated admissions into hospitals, as well as through getting arrested and not being able to take care of themselves sufficiently and needing to rely on social assistance and other government resources.