Sometimes I really like Gilles Duceppe. Read this. It's like, Fuck yeah Gilles!
On the other hand, Jack Layton does on occasion disappoint me. We should shut down the tar sands, Michael Byers is spot on, and Jack mustn't be afraid to say so.

Yesterday I had planned to post about our boyfriend Stephen, and his plan to "get tough on crime." But then I got tired and didn't feel like it. Besides, what could I possibly add that isn't obvious to everyone already: Longer jail times don't prevent crime - hell, the death penalty doesn't prevent crime. I wanted to ask Stephen to present me with a single study that suggested otherwise.

Look, I'm just as afraid of getting randomly shot on Younge St. as anyone else. It's probably worse being a woman, because I fear that I am more likely to be a victim of crime (I confess I don't know for a fact if this is true). But when academics who study the subject tell me "Longer jail time for criminals won't make you safer, the only way to stop crime is to address its causes: Poverty, low levels of education, domestic abuse," I tend to listen.

But not our buddy Stephen! Here's what CP24 is reporting:

Harper used the Saskatchewan stop to promise a crackdown on conditional sentences and house arrest. It was the second straight day of Conservative justice reform proposals that many criminologists say will increase prison costs and do nothing to deter crime.

"We're listening to ordinary people," Harper said in rebuttal to the body of academic research.

"Not people who work in ivory towers, but people who actually work on the street and deal with crime on a day-to-day basis."

Good work Harper. I bet Bob at the corner store knows how to fix crime better than some four-eyes in the Ivory Tower who studies the matter all day. What do "criminologists" with a "body of academic research" know?