What do you Think?

So what do you think? Does the Obama family have a right to privacy on vacation? Do you think Canada's witness protection program is effective? Do you care? Do these things impact your life in any way?

Me neither.

Polls in general give me gas. They are useful only to those who pay for them and, more often than not, are skewed to provide a predetermined response. And polls create statistics. Not a fan of statistics. But I digress.

Let's talk about the "informal polls," which I come across way too often during my morning news hunt. They can be just plain stupid.

The first question, about the Obama family, was today's informal poll on the Canada AM web site (the "Your Say" segment). That bugs me for a number of reasons. First off, I assume the question is the result of the "scandal" over Mrs. Obama's choice to wear shorts on vacation in the Grand Canyon. Wow. Who gives a flying fuck? Seriously.

She was photographed while wearing said shorts . . . by a photographer . . . while stepping off Air Force One, while on vacation. So now we must, apparently, ponder the privacy question. But why, tell me why, is this a question on one of Canada's national news sites? I mean seriously, we are connected with the U.S. and when it comes to trade, border policy and war, we should be concerned, we should be watching. But when it comes to the First Lady's clothing choices . . . is there really nothing going on in our own country that is more important to Canadians than how much leg is shown by the wife of the leader of our neighbour to the south?

If we must debate inane crap, could we at least find some inane Canadian crap to discuss?

At least Canoe, another major Canadian news site, kept this morning's stupid question within our borders. "Do you think Canada's witness protection program is effective?"

This question followed a rather insubstantial news report on the RCMP-administered program, under the headline: "Concern over few approved for witness protection."

If you'd like to read the "full" story, you'll find it here.

In brief, it offers statistics on the program, but very little on its effectiveness. For example, last year 103 people applied for the program and 15 were accepted. (Does that make it effective, or ineffective?) About $6.6 million was spent on the program, the lion's share going to admin and salaries. (Does that make it effective, or ineffective?) Six people were kicked out of the program for failing to follow the rules and 11 quit because they "could no longer live within the strict confines of the program . . ." (Does that make it effective, or ineffective?)

In addition, according to the story, many of those applying for, and granted, protection, have criminal backgrounds. (Does that make it effective, or ineffective?)

Now, the question. Is this program effective? How the hell would I know? And subsequently, why does my opinion on this matter?

You want my opinion? Tell me, how many witnesses have died or been seriously assaulted as a direct result of being rejected by the program? How many witnesses have died or been seriously injured after being accepted by the program? Can I see a list of the 103 applicants, along with the applications for acceptance? Give me a week to interview the front-line people who work within the program, NOT the ones at the top who must concern themselves with budget cuts. And grant these front-line workers immunity from punishment for being honest.

Then, and only then, will I have an opinion worth offering. But based on the story offered up by Canoe, I have no opinion, so don't ask. And, as an average Canadian (okay, maybe a little above average) my personal knowledge of the witness protection program is nil. And I suspect the same for the vast majority of Canadians who read the Canoe story.

The good news is, I just checked back. No one responded to the question. My faith in Canada is somewhat restored. And I say somewhat, because a fair number of people did respond to the Obama question on the Canada AM poll.

And one final note. The summary of the witness protection story, placed just before the area where we are to leave an opinion, includes the following sentence:

"Of that 15, six people were kicked out because the witness failed to follow the rules, and the remaining 11 decided they no longer needed protection."

I'm pretty sure that adds up to 17.