REHABILITATION? IT DOESN'T HAPPEN

It may not be politically correct, but let's stop all this crap about
trying to rehabilitate criminals.

The measure by the Tories to get rid of the two-for-one credit for
time served is a step in the right direction.

But, if we really want justice, let's not sentence a crook to 10 years
in jail, then let him out after he serves a fraction of that sentence.

Take, for example, the Chilliwack man arrested in the RCMP's big
drug-trafficking bust this month, in which several people were taken
into custody and charged with trying to move massive volumes of
marijuana to the U.S with the intention of hauling cocaine, weapons
and other drugs back into B.C.

Seems the man arrested and charged was sent to jail just two years ago
on a 10-year sentence, after being convicted of being the leader of
what was then described as a massive conspiracy to transport drugs.

Granted, the guy has not been convicted on his latest charges, but why
is he even out of jail and in a position where he is again arrested
accused of the same kind of crime?

The accelerated-release program is intended to give first-time federal
offenders a break, in case they just made a mistake and are now
prepared for a life on the straight and narrow.

But let's face it - very few of these jokers put behind bars emerge
rehabilitated.

They just come out better and smarter criminals.

So why don't we start putting them in jail not for purposes of
rehabilitation, but so they are punished for what they've done - and
punished for the entire length of their sentence?

The critics call that warehousing and counter-productive, since it
doesn't do much to rehabilitate offenders.

Well, to hell with rehabilitation.

Put them away for as long as judicial discretion allows without early
or accelerated release.

Few emerge rehabilitated in any event, but at least they'll be out of
society and unable to commit new crimes while they're behind bars.

Time for CBC to face reality

At the risk of offending those who pray at the altar of the CBC -
tough darts.

Federal Heritage Minister James Moore deserves a medal for holding his
ground in the face of demands he further open the poor taxpayer's
wallet to shove more public money down the gullet of this strange -
and, in the minds of some, somewhat unproductive - bird which, as has
been said before, has rather limited appeal.

The public broadcaster has announced it will lay off 800 full-time
staff, sell some of its assets and reduce national and regional
programming to cope with a $171-million budget shortfall.

The union that services many of the employees of the CBC has been
quick to blame the Conservative government for what it regards as a
national crisis.

Never mind the CBC has been unable to live within its overly generous
funding envelope - and the impact of the economy notwithstanding.

The federal Liberals, rarely the example of fiscal prudence, have
hopped on the bandwagon, insisting Ottawa provide the CBC with a
bridge loan.

Instead of pandering to the lowest common denominator, Liberal boss
Michael Ignatieff should try his hand at real leadership and insist
this so-called national institution rise or fall on its merits, not by
how much of the public's cash it's able to suck up.

Private broadcasters have had to adjust to the changing
economy.

They have tightened their belts by several notches, trimming their
workforce and rolling back their spending plans.

Without revisiting the debate on whether the CBC is necessary, most
Canadians will no doubt agree $1.1 billion in federal funding should
be more than enough.

The current economy ought to be a valuable life lesson to the
CBC.

While it's so far been largely immune to the need to tailor its
programming to appeal to a mass audience, it now needs to at least pay
some attention to the realities of the economy - and finally figure
out its days of entitlement may be over.

Cranky. Obtuse. Outrageous. On the mark. Love him or hate him, Jim
Harrison's views are never dull. The news director for Radio NL 610 AM
is a magnet for controversy.