Thursday, July 26, 2007

Travers sinks to new low - With update for the 'mushrooms'

I try really hard to avoid reading James Travers. His columns are so unabashedly biased that I can barely stand to glance at the title. Sandy knows what I'm talking about.

However, today's opinion piece in the red Star ("Human factor transcends dogma in gun debate") is way over the top. In the Record, the same pile of vitriolic rubbish trying to pass for journalism is titled, "Harper turns blind eye to the compassion of gun control", which is what stopped me from glossing over his rhetoric today.

If I am understanding this correctly, Travers' argument is that Stephen Harper doesn't feel the pain of those who have lost loved ones in gun shootings, and the evidence of this is because he is not entertaining the thought of making guns unavailable to legal, law-abiding citizens who properly register and store their guns safely.

This according to Travers, shows Harper to be without empathy for the family and friends of Ephraim Brown and others.

Harper is supposedly too cerebral and doesn't have a heart.


This is so low, I can barely stand to type these words. (Note to self: Switch to decaff.)

I would suggest that it may be more the left-wing, knee-jerk reaction to a call to arms against guns rather than criminals, which is showing more of a lack of empathy. It happens again and again. And it will happen the next time.


Let's get the criminals off the street and keep them off. Make the judicial system more accountable for revolving door courtrooms, bail and light sentences.

But it's just way too easy to blame the guns and feel so smug and self-righteous.


* * * *

Update: Now here is someone James Travers can learn from - Lorrie Goldstein. His column today ("Using avoidance manoeuvres") is one of his best. Lorrie lays it all out without all the partisan rhetoric and camouflage :

..Indeed, in today's politically correct atmosphere, a politician who seriously wants to fight gun crime will be accused of interfering with the judiciary (for demanding judges take into account public concerns about gun violence), of being a racist (for demanding tougher bail and longer sentences since the criminals are disproportionately black), of being a fascist (for demanding the hiring of more cops and building more prisons) and finally, of being a bleeding heart and a spendthrift (for calling for massive new public spending, meaning higher taxes, to bolster public education, strengthen families and help find decent jobs for people jammed into urban ghettoes like Toronto's Jane-Finch).

Now, what are the chances we'll find a politician like that?

Better to treat the public like mushrooms. Keep them in the dark, cover them with manure and tell them "banning handguns" is the answer.



57 comments:

Anonymous said...

It rained the other day and now it is hot. PM Harper should have more compassion for climate change. Why do I have to suffer through all this change.

And that Bush fellow from the USA? What's up with him? I just don't feel so good. He's from Texas right? Guns and healthcare. Must be a connection there?

West Coast Teddi

Anonymous said...

I have written Travers a number of times on his biased columns but he is unapologetic.I believe he honestly believes the shit he writes about Harper and the Conservative government. He and his friend Delacourt at the Star are so consumed with their hatred of anything Harper/Conservative that they will invent anything they can to malign the party and government. I don't read him anymore nor do I write him.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

He and his friend Delacourt at the Star are so consumed with their hatred of anything Harper/Conservative that they will invent anything they can to malign the party and government

Exactly. Not even the presence of objectivity.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Meant to say "pretense". Same difference, I guess.

Anonymous said...

Travers is a bumbling old fool.
Why doesn't he write a column about how the liberals are stalling the bill to make the punishment for gun crimes more severe?
He is has his head so far up Dion's ass he can see Peter Mansbridge's boots.
The idea that a conservative politicion might do something in the interest of actual good government is completely foreign to him.
Chetien and Martin never did a much for anything other than self interest, but Jim missed that for some reason.
Hang up the keyboard Jim, you're just making a fool of yourself.

wilson said...

Those cruel and heartless wild easterners in Nova Scotia don't support a handgun ban either:

'...Even after a rash of shootings in HRM, including a man gunned down in broad daylight in downtown Halifax, Justice Minister Murray Scott won't be joining Ontario's call for a total handgun ban...'

PGP said...

Don't suppose that Travers and his ilk ever consider that what they spew amounts to mindless DOGMA.

But I guess if helps sell dead trees it's good enough for the Star or any number of publications who pander to the ignorant.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hang up the keyboard Jim, you're just making a fool of yourself.

Or take a l-o-n-g vacation.

Anonymous said...

Sounds so familiar...
"Blame Mike Harris for...(you fill in the blanks)"
Sadly the rhetoric is soaked up, and spewed out by the faithful Red Star readers...I can pick them out of any discussion.
The Star is also eulogising one of the victims of this w/e shooting spree. He dealt drugs, 'but really a nice guy.'
(see Halls of Macademia)

Cherniak_WTF said...

But I guess if helps sell dead trees it's good enough for the Star or any number of publications who pander to the ignorant.
Another Sun and National Post reader I guess....

Anonymous said...

Travers' argument is essentially that while banning handguns won't help, it will be a symbolic gesture that might win some empathy for the PM by the gullible.

"Banning handguns won't solve the problem: Its complexity requires a broad response that applies more than a legal band-aid to a seeping social wound.

But it's a start. Along with working constructively with police, the provinces and mayors, it might also reassure Canadians that a prime minister properly respected for his analytical skills also feels pain."

Travers should apply for a job as a Liberal strategist, since this is their typical tactic: Rather than fix the problem with policies that might cost you votes with the bleeding hearts, construct a "feel-good" PR position.

Anonymous said...

Wouldn't a "total handgun ban" take away guns from the police to?

Why not just ban crime? That would solve everything.

Cherniak_WTF said...

Rather than fix the problem with policies that might cost you votes with the bleeding hearts, construct a "feel-good" PR position.
Hey, that sounds like Harper in Quebec...

Anonymous said...

If all legal, registered hand-guns are banned, when the next handgun murder occurs in Toronto, Mayor Miller can then declare (to everyone's shock) that some criminals just aren't obeying the law!

Miller might then consider embarking on a massive advertising campaign reminding criminals about the ban, just in case they didn't know!

Lorrie Goldstein recently quoted some interesting stats from a parliamentary debate:

"of the 5,194 homicides in Canada between 1997 and 2005, 118, or 2.27% were committed with a registered gun, 63, or 1.21%, were committed with a gun registered to the accused murderer and 111, or 2.14%, were committed by a person who held a valid firearms licence."

I assume that neither James Travers nor David Miller read the Ottawa Sun.

http://tinyurl.com/2go6vn

Joanne (True Blue) said...

If all legal, registered hand-guns are banned, when the next handgun murder occurs in Toronto, Mayor Miller can then declare (to everyone's shock) that some criminals just aren't obeying the law!

That's why I'm thinking now that we should do it just to call their collective bluff and then we can get on with real solutions - Unless of course, all murder and crime suddenly stops. Then I'll be looking skyward for the Second Coming.

Cherniak_WTF said...

So what are "real solutions" ?

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez:

Tough, REALLY tough sentences for crimes with guns. Any kind of crimes. And, according to the Supremes, one doesn't even really need to be packing weaponry, as long as the victim "believes" that one's live is in danger of a gun, long or short,real, concealed
or imagined.

Serious and long-term incarceration of weapons
offenders, means greater and far more meaningful
"incapacitation through isolation" of offense-prone, o hell... criminals.

How about some sense of compassion for ALL citizens to have the right to walk the streets freely, free of fear and intimidation.

USE A GUN TO DO A CRIME: LOCK 'EM UP 4 A VERY LONG TIME.

And just why exactly are Liberal politicians delaying such a bill in Otttawa?? And how, in all good conscience, could they do so?
tj

Cherniak_WTF said...

TJ that's a consequence, not a solution....

liberal supporter said...

"real solutions" are mainly solutions to the flagging sales in the privatized prison industry.

We haven't had the "hang 'em high" crowd weigh in yet, though.

'been around the block said...

Cherniak_WTF asks, "So what are 'real solutions'" ?

May I suggest, CWTF, that you mosey on over to Canadian Blue Lemons and check out my post entitled "'Natch - Blatch Got the Goods?"

There are some really excellent comments that have been posted about some realistic solutions, not the knee-jerk, lib/left nonsense about banning handguns.

Jim Travers' stuff is a travesty of responsibility in journalism. I never read him, 'can't be bothered, and make fun of him if I ever watch him on Don Newman's Politics on CBC. He's, supposedly, one of Newman's "Political Pundits." I just think he's something else that almost rhymes with pundit and begins with an i.

Brian in Calgary said...

TJ that's a consequence, not a solution....

Maybe, cwtf, but it's close enough for this hang-em-high extremist right-wing conservative tory fascist. Seriously, every minute a violent criminal spends behind bars is a minute that he is not putting the law abiding citizens in danger.

Anonymous said...

Progressives are quite concerned with ensuring public safety by confiscating law abiding citizens property but will protest any interference with the rights of convicted criminals. The also seem to have pretty selective compassion towards victims. Only if they are victims of gun crime but not victims of criminals from our catch and release justice system. When the day comes that progressives like Travers advocate as forcefully for tougher treatment of repeat violent offenders as they do for gun bans then I will start taking him seriously. Until then, writers like him are nothing more than silly political hacks.

LynnH

SouthernOntarioan said...

How about this for 'real solutions':

1) More police presence in our neighbourhoods. Greater police presence discourages groups from committing crimes out in the open at least.

2) Tougher sentencing. Do the crime, do the time. Serious crimes should have serious time. Rape victims shouldn't worry that their attackers will get off easy.

3) Stronger controls against the illegal import of firearms from the USA. Border guards shouldn't be allowing those with guns to enter the country. (As I said before, current policy is: 'if you think they have a gun, let them through')

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Lynn H., your comment was right on the money. Well said indeed.


CWTF asks: So what are "real solutions" ?

T.J. offers some deterrents as a possible solution.

CWTF says: TJ that's a consequence, not a solution....

See, that may be part of the problem right there. Progressives tend to have this view of human nature that given the right set of circumstances, a human being will usually do good, rather than harm.

Conservatives are realists. We believe that some people still choose to do wrong no matter how many basketball courts are in their neighbourhoods, and no matter how many government handouts are distributed.

So sometimes you need a deterrent, but the deterrent must have teeth.

There are probably a myriad of things we can do to improve the situation, but I believe the single greatest thing we can do is to look at the justice system and try to figure out why so many kids are back out on the streets on bail and parole.

It makes a mockery of the system.

The warlords of the neighbourhoods end up with more power than the police. No wonder kids gravitate to the gangs.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

S. O. - All good suggestions. They should be included in the overall package.

Cherniak_WTF said...

See, that may be part of the problem right there. Progressives tend to have this view of human nature that given the right set of circumstances, a human being will usually do good, rather than harm.
Okay then.
Here is an article about the increase of violence in Alberta
http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2007/07/23/4361054-sun.html
Alberta's robust economy has left the poor poorer and caused the serious crime rate to shoot up 15% in five years, according to a report from a law enforcement think-tank.
They seem to be blaming the disparity between rich and poor...

A deterrent will not change that...

Anonymous said...

Cherniak go back to your liberal hole in the ground or go have a conversation with travers,but just go.

liberal supporter said...

Cherniak go back to your liberal hole in the ground or go have a conversation with travers,but just go.

Yes, anon, thank you. I figured you guys were losing this argument. Can't stand it when someone disagrees, can you?

We can't take those guns away, because they belong to somebody.

Seems the main view here is that Property is more important than People.

Anonymous said...

Actually LS, the main view here is Traverse links gun killings to Harper in a twisted,biased attempt at journalism.
And CWTF wants to blame the rich in Alberta.
Have any of you Lib trolls considered that the gun weilding murderers would be to blame for the killings? It's about the word 'responsible.'

SouthernOntarioan said...

What? You didn't compare gun owners to slave owners again LS?

In any case, I don't see a single comment on this post saying "I want my damn gun! Keep your hands off it!"

What you do see is people saying "a gun ban would not reduce crime".

Your problem is that you cannot accept that some people truly don't believe that a gun ban would solve anything. So you figure we must be trying to mask our true nefarious plot by trying to sound reasonable.

liberal supporter said...

Your problem is that you cannot accept that some people truly don't believe that a gun ban would solve anything. So you figure we must be trying to mask our true nefarious plot by trying to sound reasonable.

Give me that old time projection!

I'm sure some people truly don't believe a gun ban would solve anything. It is not something I "cannot accept". Your statement would indicate you cannot accept someone thinking it would.

I see no nefarious plot of trying to sound reasonable. That would require your position actually sounding reasonable.

Instead, I see rhetoric, pejoratives and a view that those who disagree are either immature or are mentally ill, or both.

The Soviet Union had a fine history of putting dissidents in mental institutions. Do you intend to create a gulag for liberals?

Anonymous said...

mmm...it's tempting.

liberal supporter said...

mmm...it's tempting.
hmm.

When Soviets were questioned about committing dissidents, the response was that the Soviet Union is a totalitarian dictatorship police state, and the dissidents would have to be crazy to oppose it.

Riley Hennessey said...

Joanne,

I'm back in blog-action and I have to jump in here and say I totally agree on James Travers. You know he's been a long time irritant for me as well. His columns are so fact-less and emotionally based. He hates the U.S. and Harper, whom he surmizes are one and the same, and no matter WHAT harper does, Travers will hate it. Harper could cure blindness and Travers would claim it as some "ploy crafted by U.S. style politics".

PGP said...

Ah yes the non-sequitur factoids and warped analysis are trotted out again along with the aspersions!

While the self proclaimed debaters and champions of logic rush to defend the pointless members of their tribe they seem to be leaping right out of and losing their logic legs.

Don't have a leg to stand on? Borrow one from the lost leg bin over in the corner! There's a bunch of generic ones just the right colour to prop up your listing body !

Today's most popular artificial appendage ... the "Conservatives care more about property than people!" model. Close runner up ... " Alberta has crime because they are successful!" version.

Careful though! Don't lean too heavily on them. These are spindly and cracked props that will let you fall on your face very quickly. But then you must know that already.

Pat Travers is a witless partisan hack who gets paid to spew crap for a publication that will most likely not exist in a few short years!
His logical legs are as shot with worm rot and cracked by abuse as any could be. He has already fallen and cannot get up. He needs one of those emergency dialers to call for the emergency responders.

Solutions ?

Actual enforcement of the law is a solution. One that works very well if practiced diligently!

Anonymous said...

Why is anyone arguing with liberal trolls.... those guys are smears on the road to reality. Seriously.... liberalism is a mental illness and only the terminally stupid will argue with children like cherniak_wtf and "liberal supporter". Yeah, I know.. this is an ad hominem attack (look it up in the dictionary), but see, I don't argue with liberals anymore. None of the ones I have met on the internet have enough of an intellect to provide a single coherent sentence. So I amuse myself by insulting them, thereby taking up a particularly well-played liberal sport called "insult the messenger and ignore the message." Bite me asshats.

Anonymous said...

LS...your man Steffi has nothing to offer so you drag out the old 'scary hidden agenda' line.
hahahahahahahahahaha
BTW...if we are talking more rules to harass law abiding citizens, that sounds pretty 'Soviet' style to me.
other anon...sometimes you just have to throw something at those trolls!

liberal supporter said...

anon 8:56
You silly empty headed troll! You tiny brained wiper of other people's bottoms!
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time!


anon 9:01
The scary hidden agenda is still there. Do you figure people won't notice that you don't have a majority, so that is why it is not in play? That's like saying we should all have more guns, and then fewer people will be shot.

Hahahahahaha!

Cherniak_WTF said...

Wow anon - quite the argument.
Telling a BQ supporter to go to a Liberal hole...

Cherniak_WTF said...

And CWTF wants to blame the rich in Alberta.
Just want a second there numbnuts - I'm quoting an Alberta report that points to the cause in that crime increase out West...
Did you fail comprehension or are you just so full of bile that the synapses are not functioning correctly?

Cherniak_WTF said...

Why is anyone arguing with liberal trolls....
Words from an anon....
A few posts back some of the Connies here decried the lack of civil discourse... Of course it's all the fault of the Liberals...
Maybe, I should berate you for posting under anon - it's an attack that the Connies like to fling about...
Odd how none of the Connies bring it up. I guess it's fine if you are attacking those that don't have your position...

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hi Riley. Good to hear from you. I hope things are going o.k.

Harper could cure blindness and Travers would claim it as some "ploy crafted by U.S. style politics".

Exactly. This particular column was probably the worst yet. The level of journalism in the Star is tanking.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

They seem to be blaming the disparity between rich and poor...

O.K. Let's work on the logic of this argument. CWTF, you give this article as a reference.

So, the crime rate is going up because of the disparity between the rich and the poor? Is that how you interpret that? What specifically in the article led you to that conclusion???

Sandy said...

Joanne, I think you meant to link to my post on Travers, rather than the Liberal Sponsorship Scandal. I didn't put his name in my title this time because as you say: he sinks to new low. That says it all. Here is the link to the post about his column:

http://crux-of-the-matter.com/?p=265

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Sandy. Actually, I had just linked to your blog itself, rather than a particular post; just as a general reference. I had no idea you were posting as well. Anyway, I just updated the link. Thanks.

Dirk said...

From sweater guy:
"Pat Travers is a witless partisan hack who gets paid to spew crap for a publication that will most likely not exist in a few short years!"

This is a new one... the far and away leader in newspaper subscriptions in the GTA is going to up and die.

liberal supporter said...

This is a new one... the far and away leader in newspaper subscriptions in the GTA is going to up and die.

But pgp did not say that, he said it will most likely not exist in a few short years.

We've already established day 1 of the CPC majority will involve banning the liberal party. Day 2 will be outlawing all newspapers except those approved by the CPC Ministry of Truth.

Day 3 is still open, but in this thread we see they are "tempted" to round up all liberals and place them in mental institutions.

The agenda is not hidden at all!

Dirk said...

I don't understand the outrage at James Travers' latest column. He's known to have a centrist view on social policy issues, so why the frustration over his gun control column? I happen to share those kind of views, and I agree with his article's conclusions.

For kicks, I also read Mark Steyn's columns, but I don't get hot and bothered by his crap.

And what's with mentioning Lorrie Goldstein as an example of "someone James Traves can learn from"? So what's there to learn here? How to write editorials from a right-leaning perspective? Goldstein is anything but balanced. And that's ok -- many readers aren't idiots, and can detect bias -- or rather, political leanings -- for themselves.

Bottom line: there are newspapers and columnists who don't lean right. Get over it.

SouthernOntarioan said...

HAH! LS you make me laugh.

Seriously that was amusing. First you compare opposing government waste (in the form of the gun registry) to slavery. Then you suggest that I want to toss liberals in a modern day gulag.

And you accuse me of using rhetoric? HAHA!

How about this one though? First you say that we could believe that guns don't reduce crime but then you state that its not a reasonable position.

Oh and if memory serves the only party that portrayed its opponents as threats to the nation in the last election was the Liberal Party of Canada.

SouthernOntarioan said...

Dirk, the outrage is because Travers is not a centrist.

Its a funny thing actually, everyone tends to think that they themselves are the centrists and that most other people are extremists one way or another.

A study on a similar issue showed that most people consider themselves middle class (even people earning 6 figures considered themselves 'middle class'!).

Travers is in my opinion a left wing hack. And yes, many Sun columnists are right wing hacks. One way to identify hacks is their unwillingness to accept that there is anything positive about their opponent (or rarely accept it). Travers has never in my personal history of reading him ever said anything nice about Harper.

I'm sure some would argue that Harper has no redeeming qualities and that he is simply a monster who wants to turn our nation into a totalitarian state... like LS... But they tend to be partisan hacks who would find fault in anything.

Anonymous said...

Rudy Giuliani successfully cleaned up New York City's crime problem with a "tough on crime" policy. This was one of the principle reasons for his popularity even before 9/11.

Too bad we can't try that in Torontostan because it's "too American."

Anonymous said...

Another suggestion, but if it turns up in the next Liberal Red Book, I want a very senior position in their opposition benches!

More policing and much stiffer jail sentences for both drug and gun crimes is too draconian!

What is needed is a “progressive” and “fresh” approach!

Using the City of Ottawa’s former “crack pipe program” as a model of progressive thinking, perhaps what is needed is a “handgun program.”

* Any and all anonymous "handgun applicants" would be given a free “handgun kit” containing a small caliber handgun, bullets, surgical needle & thread, bandages, disinfectant, morphine. an “emergency services/crisis counseling” card and $20 for cabfare.

* City workers issuing the kits would counsel the users on the proper use the handguns, but also suggesting abstinence.

The program might not completely stop all the shootings, but there could be numerous benefits:

1. It might help reduce illegal gun smuggling by organized crime!

2. Proper “training” to shoot straight and avoiding crowds where possible might help reduce the number of “accidental” shootings of innocent bystanders!

3. The smaller caliber of the city issued handguns might reduce the number of deaths per shooting. As a bonus, this could also result in shorter prison sentences!

4. The cash currently being paid to organized crime for illegal guns would become available for other uses such as buying nutritious granola bars and yogurt!


I know some of you "law-and-order-people" might not like this suggestion, but it's a uniquely Canadian solution, and dammit, it's a start!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Anon at 01:23:00 AM, that was absolutely brilliant. Too bad you've hidden yourself under that handle.

You should have your own blog.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Dirk, the outrage is because Travers is not a centrist.

Not to mention the pathetic lack of logic in his 'argument'.

Anonymous said...

"And just why exactly are Liberal politicians delaying such a bill in Otttawa?? And how, in all good conscience, could they do so?
tj"

Been waiting for that comment to show up somewhere.

Here's a possible answer.

The liberal senators are beholden to maintain the legacy of those that appointed them. If the law and order laws where given royal assent tomorrow whodo you think would get the credit? A bunch of political hacks with a patronage appointment, or a minority conservative government with a leader facing opposition not only from the other parties and the liberal dominated senate, but also the media and left wing interest groups that got their funding cut by the Harper government?

The liberals don't neccessarily oppose the measures, they oppose Harper getting credit for something they didn't do when they where in power.

They fear not only being out of power, but the loss of the collective memory of Trudeau.

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez:

Somtimes the realties of consequences and solutions are interchangeable, interconnected, interrelated.

1.) I'm hungry. I plant something. Things work out. I harvest and I, and others, eat and we have some to set aside for the next spring planting.
Where is the solution, where the consequence?

2.) Would you consider the isolationism of former TB sanitoria, or of current day Isolation procedures in most major hospital facilites, ato be consequences, solutions, a blending of both, none of the above? But have you heard, TB is nothing close to the scourge it was seventy years ago, though it seems to be making a bit of comeback of late. Where is the solution, where the consequence?

When does the solution stop being a consequence, or vice versa. And when does this verbal "picking the pepper out of the flyshit" game contibute to the solution that alleviates the fact that a majority of citizens, hard-working and law-abiding, have to live in terror and fear in the hearts of their cities, BECAUSE OF A SHORTAGE OF ["XYZ"]? Fill in the blank : think tennis court, B'Ball Court, social club. OH! how about "responsible parents (at least two) and community?

tj

Anonymous said...

TangoJuliette sez
TO: Cherniak_WTF who said...
TJ that's a consequence, not a solution....

Thu Jul 26, 02:18:00 PM EDT

Nice wordplay. But now, let's get real.

I would imagine that your understanding on the appropriateness of selecting the most precise word out these two: "consequence" vs. "solution," might be somewhat torqued by something as simple as determining just precisely which side of the gun you found yourself on, at during the crime in question.

tj