Maybe it just needs a jump-start…

Isn’t that supposed to be what this “Tour” was all about? Giving the Liberal Party a jump-start? I hate to be the one to say it, but when the patient is dead, no amount of power will get the body going again.

And really? What is it with Liberals and transportation?

Shall we review current and past events?

In what appears to be hilarious irony, The Liberal Express breaks down within the first hour of setting off on what the Liberals have been touting as the largest event a Leader of the Official Opposition has ever undertaken. Given their current polling numbers…..quite apropos.

In other transportation news, an oil tanker has lost some of it’s load, up to 200 tonnes it’s said, in the St Lawrence seaway. How is this related to Liberal Transportation you ask? The ship was part of the Canada Steamship Lines fleet. For those of you who’s ears don’t recognize the name, this is the fleet that is registered in the Bahamas and belongs to the family of Paul Martin. For shame! I fully expect the Liberals to be as vocal about environmental damage as they have been in other situations.

Then, under the “Head in the Sand (Ash?) Dept.”, several Liberal MP’s were “stranded” in Newfoundland back in April when the Airport decided to cancel morning flights as ash from Iceland’s Eyjafjoell volcano was predicted to arrive. They began to cover their tracks by suggesting there was a conspiracy involved. It was found out that in light of the planned cancellations, additional earlier flights were provided. Tsk tsk tsk.

In 2008, then Leader of the Official Opposition Stephane Dion had a little trouble with transportation. It seems the Liberals were unprepared for an election they were so busy preparing for. When the time came, poor Mr. Dion was unable to acquire a plane to bring him around the country. When he was finally able to get one from Air Inuit, it turned out to be a massive gas guzzler that cost the party between $18,000 and $20,000 an hour to fly, and was 35 per cent less efficient than the Conservative and NDP planes. To top it all off, this was the launch of the Green Tax Tour.

Maybe it (LPC) just needs a jump-start?

More likey, it just needs a casket.

Not a dhimmi

Comedy Central may have bowed the knee, but Chris Muir is not going gently into that good night.

Waiter: And for you, prophet?

Mo: A BLT, another Spaten and a high chair for my wife.

Ba-dum.

H/T

Shook me all night long

Iran’s Ayatollah Kazem Sedighitold, taking AC/DC’s iconic Back in Black album literally… 30 years later.

‘Cause the walls start shaking

The earth was quaking

My mind was aching

And we were making it, and you

Shook me all night long

Update April 26: Boobquake. Gotta love Western women.

Lions and Tigers and Budgets! Oh my!

I have to say that I was amused by the reactions of the various Opposition Leaders to yesterday’s Budget release when they came out of the House of Commons. Robert Fife and Craig Oliver seemed to have a fun time dealing with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe. In fact, I was stuck by the similarities between said leaders and the colourful cast of The Wizard of Oz.

The Cowardly Lion (played by Mr. Michael Ignatieff) – ‘This budget is so very terrible that we simply can’t stand to support this government! In fact, we are so unhappy with it, we’ll rrrruff, and we’ll rrrrrufff! and we will vote against it with at least fully half of our caucus!’

Yep. So instead of getting fully behind his rhetoric and getting his entire caucus to vote against the budget, he opts for the cowardly route. Not that I’m looking for an election or anything, since that would just be stupid on anyone’s part. But still, it makes you wonder if Mr. Ignatieff has spine enough to bring consensus to his caucus and have everyone of them move in lockstep. Judging by his previous courageous stands, well, I’m not going to hold my breath…

The Scarecrow (played by Mr. Jack Layton) – ‘Well look, see, there’s a lot of things I like in this budget that addresses some of our larger concerns, but we don’t want to think about that. Look at the things he’s doing that I don’t like!’

Right! The ‘If I only had a brain!’ argument! Jack Layton couldn’t decide what he was going to do about the Budget. Was he going to support it? Was he going to vote against it? Was he going to try and negotiate? Was he going to do anything? Mr. Layton just couldn’t decide! So instead, he’s going to take it to his caucus and tap into the power of loony-left-groupthink and come up with something outrageous.

The Tin Man (played by Mr. Gilles Duceppe) - ‘You see, I don’t care about the rest of Canada. I only heart Quebec. This budget does not do the things for the Quebec Nation that we want, so since we don’t get special treatment above and beyond the rest, we vote no.’

Thanks Gilles! I think we knew that the man with no heart for Canada wouldn’t support a budget that doesn’t try to bribe Quebec with the rest of the nation’s money.  How very predictable, but then we expect that from Mr. Duceppe…wait, was that a redundant observation? We expect predictability…? Anyway, back to navel-gazing for you Mr. Duceppe.

So in the end, while we got the usual reactions from the usual suspects, I was at least momentarily amused by them. Carry on carrying on boys!

Forcing perceived entitlements on others

The Quebec HRC has abhorrently ruled to force a condo-owning 60+ year-old woman, who herself suffers from a shoulder injury, to relinquish her paid parking spot near the door of a condominium building to her mobidly obese neighbour, who, incidentally, “weighs nearly 400 pounds… has diabetes and heart and respiratory conditions… [and] needs oxygen to breathe and rides a handicap scooter [AND yet is allowed to drive a motor vehicle -ed]. Additionally, the QHRC is forcing the neighbours of the obese lady to collectively pay $10,000 in damages for “…[violating] the inclusive values promoted by our society.”

It got me thinking about a recent episode with an obese person who likewise felt entitled to force others to accommodate her needs wants.

A couple weeks ago my family and I entered a Burger King to grab a quick bite as part of our hectic Saturday routine. At this particular BK there is only one blue-painted handicapped parking spot though there are at least six parking slots within 10 paces of the entrance. With our burgeoning family, I certainly appreciated being able to park the van and unload the tribe near the entrance.

Seated and munching, I notice a rotund woman park her minivan in a spot about 100 feet from the BK, literally kick the driver’s side door open, gingerly roll herself out of the van, and slowly lumber across the parking lot to the BK.  Used to determining the weight and size of moose and caribou at 100 and 200 yards, I estimated her weight at 350 lbs.

My brother’s fat humour echoed in my brain, “Warm up the fryers! Everyone out of the pool!” My wife, noticing that I had picked up on the “big-boned” woman making her way to the BK, and perhaps observing a rye grin on my face, jabbed me in the ribs. “Stop it,” she said with her eyes, seemingly knowing what was going on behind my eyeballs. Then audibly, “Don’t be so cruel. You don’t know why she’s like that.” You get the picture. Shame on me, but don’t act so innocent, dear reader!

Anyway, said rotund individual entered the BK, walked into the middle of the room and roared, “WHO IS PARKED IN THE HANDICAPPED SPOT?”  Startled at the rude interruption of the consumption of their flame-broiled whoppers and trans-fat sticks (fries), everyone turned.  Most muttered, “Not me,” except for one, an older woman in her 70s, sitting by herself enjoying a sandwich.

“I am,” she said.

Rotund woman, growing more agitated and pointing her finger: “I don’t see a handicapped sign hanging on your mirror. Do you have the right to be in that spot?”

Older lady: “Yes. My tag is in the glove box and I forgot to hang it on the mirror before coming in.”

Rotunda: “Really? Well, I WANT that spot.”

Older lady, with poise and dignity, “I’ll move as soon as I’m done, dear, but there are a couple spots right next that are open.”

Rotunda: “Doesn’t matter. I want that spot and I need you to move.”

The old lady looked away and started eating again. The men in the joint were observing closely, waiting for Roti to do something even more stupid.

Alas, with a “hmph” Large Lady exited the BK, trudged the 100 feet back to her van, damn near ripped the driver’s side door off her van whilst opening it, squeezed inside, somehow managed to reach out and close her abused door, and waited. And waited. Then waited some more. All the while no less than three parking spaces remained open next to the sacred blue slot, presumably the result of people being very accommodating indeed.

We were in the restaurant for 15 minutes beyond this and Double-L didn’t avail of the non-blue parking spaces during the entire time. Our tribe left the BK, jaunted across the parking lot to a market where we spent another 10 minutes or so before returning to our van by the BK.  Lady Large was still in her van.

She had walked at least 200 feet, attempted to run roughshod over an elderly woman, ignored her desire for food, and waited for at least 25 minutes for the privileged blue paint nirvana to open up, even though she could have easily DRIVEN THE FRIGGIN’ VAN into the spot next to the handicapped zone and proceeded to walk the 10 paces into the restaurant.

My wife and I looked at each other, “Unreal.”

In light of these coincidental travesties, I am caused to ask, Why do people, obese or not, feel entitled to certain things that they clearly are not entitled to?  And why, I wonder, do they feel the need to leverage the State to nourish and enforce their believed entitlement and so force their will upon others?  What drives that behaviour?  Finally, why does the State feel the need to involve itself in a disagreement between two renters of condominiums whom have each paid for parking?  And “violating the inclusive values of society”???

Have we lost of freaking minds?

Despots at Copenhagen

When blogging, there are times when you wonder if an analogy or illustration may be over the top or so far out that it will result in a barrage of legitimate criticism and, ultimately, a retraction or correction.

Then there are times when comparisons seem downright prescient.

Over in Copenhagen, we have Robert Mugabe, perhaps the most brutal and corrupt despot in Africa, whose life’s work has been to destroy the once-prosperous country of Zimbabwe, lecturing the West on the “hypocrisy” of its position on climate change. [...]

We have the government of China, which won’t allow its citizens free access to the Internet, complaining that the climate summit is “not transparent.”

We have Hugo Chavez, who took time off from shutting down Venezuela’s radio stations to fly to Denmark, complaining about western “dictatorship.” (If anyone back in Venezuela disagrees, he’ll toss them in jail).

–National Post, an absolutely smokin’ post by Kelly McParland.

It bears repeating that this is the morally inverted world of environmentalism.

Update: Pass me the caviar and vodka, Sergei.

Californian Governor Proposes SkyNet To Save State

Well…not quite, but he did say that technology will be needed to save San Francisco from global warming. One is quick to propose that an army of T-1000s invading the city is more likely, in light of recent events…

Pope Looks For Extraterrestrials, So What?

I love the topic of aliens when it comes to theological issues. It seems to be a simple, straight forward issue that shows critics of Christianity, be they militant atheists, stateists and company, for the ignorant windbags that they are. I’m not sure why either, but the topic seems to melt away any pretension that these folks have of getting Christianity just by having them muddle through the implications of having alien life on other planets.

Unfortunately, it seems that the Vatican has fallen prey to this culture of confusion as it’s now launching an investigation that will, in part, deal with the ramifications of aliens existing. We should’ve expect better from the seat of Roman Catholicism, since it has so clearly drawn the line in the past on other issues that are, er, more down to Earth although as the axiom of the the believer’s faith teaches, we’re all prone to err. It’s also a shame too since ABC is currently airing a (so far) excellent remake of the 1983 classic “V” series in which a Catholic priest serves as one of the principle characters and the theological ramifications are only mentioned briefly.

Wouldn’t it strike a huge blow to Christians, especially those who are faithful to the word of Scripture, you ask? Not as much as you would think. Those who study the Bible know that it is primarily concerned with one thing: the redemptive plan of God for humanity. The state is very Earth-focused, and narrows down even further for most of the Old Testament to what’s going on in and with Israel, only to shift later in the New Testament to what is happening to churches planted in Rome, Greece and modern Turkey. Scripture could’ve written about God’s creation of little green men in Genesis 1 and 2, but for that matter, it could’ve also covered the Qin Dynasty of ancient China. Investigating and understanding why the Bible doesn’t do this is crucial to even beginning to rectify The Way with visitors from other planets — it simply doesn’t deal with the plan of salvation ordained by God, but nothing in Scripture rules out God exercising His creative power by creating other life forms.

Most Bible critics who moonlight as sci-fi buffs know this, and that’s why they try to target the redemptive implications instead. A common presumptive mistake, made by the V series mentioned above, is the automatic presumption that aliens, if they’re intelligent, would need to be redeemed.

There are three possibilities: a)yes, they need redemption; b) no, they don’t; and c) they do but they’ve been set aside as beyond redemption. In a)’s case, the aliens would be much like humanity, but before missionaries run off to expand the kingdom, it should be pointed out that God’s plan for redemption would be different for another species than it would be for humans, who are born again as children of Abraham. If a) were true, what is to say that there isn’t already a plan that God has implemented long before a visit to Earth? This is where the attacks begin to fall apart, because they simply presume to know too much. b) is the case that all the other creatures on Earth fall under, and frankly would be the most likely. The notion of innocent creatures interacting with humans is not a new idea as many faithful would see angels as fitting this role perfectly. As for c), it might not be the most politically correct, but God is beyond silly political notions anyway; nothing says that a race needs to be redeemed, and Christians already believe that demons led by Satan will not escape their punishment. The true could apply to another race of beings from space, which is why evangelists should be cautioned against falling into the trap of how the Church would handle alien beings.

Any which way though, I’m again puzzled as to how any Bible scholar would find conflict between the Bible and the mere existence of aliens. Their appearance on Earth wouldn’t necessarily surprise this author, although much like the V series, I don’t know if I would be too trusting at first either. Let’s get the facts on what we do know, namely the Christian faith, right first though before we start pondering the implications of things that only might be true!

What Jarome Iginla and Gay Marriage Have in Common

They both get people fired*.

Alberta’s health board sacked one staffer Wednesday and said more punishment may be on the way for those who let Calgary Flames players, management and family members jump the H1N1 vaccine queue.

We’ve had our own little debate here at ThePolitic regarding the H1N1 vaccine, but opinions matter not a whit compared to hard science.  So, can’t we just agree that if the Flames win the cup, the vaccine worked and saved us from the rapture, but if they get bounced in the first round, the whole thing was a giant scam cooked up by the CIA and Jenny McCarthy to sell DVDs of Things to do in Denver When You’re Dead?

(*.)

NDP House Leader Libby Davies, how do you respond?

In the not too distant past (March 13th of this year actually), Libby Davies spoke to Parliament regarding the decorum of the House:

When is this going to stop? Things are really bad around here. People who watch us from the gallery or on CPAC are appalled at the kind of behaviour that takes place. To somehow characterize this as we are shutting down criticism or legitimate debate, that is not what this is about. This place is about debate, analysis and criticism and we do that every day, but this is about the kind of personal attacks that are being made.

We should be calling on the Speaker to stand by his ruling and to say to the majority of members of the House, I would dare say from all parties and maybe some people do not feel comfortable saying it, to support the Speaker’s ruling. I believe that things have gone too far. We should be upholding our Speaker. How many times have we called on the Speaker to intervene and to bring back decorum? He is trying to do that, and we should support what he is trying to do. You did it today, Mr. Speaker.

In light of recent events, I wonder just how self-righteous the House Leader for the NDP is feeling about her party’s commitment to restoring order and decorum to the House of Commons when her Leader, Jack Layton, is being implicated in orchestrating a virtually unheard of disruption in the House of Commons himself?

“…somehow the NDP organized the protest in the House is ludicrous. There is no conspiracy except in the mind of the Government House leader. The fact is we knew nothing about the protest.”

And Jack Layton’s press secretary Karl Belanger?

“Ya, that’s right. We organized a protest to interrupt our Leader during his question. Clearly, it was a socialist plot from the NDP.”

‘ll admit, it’s a weak suspicion with no proof, but hey, since they opened the door to conspiracy, does having a protest take place during one of their own speeches give some grounds for plausible deniability? Hey, it’s a weak argument, but that’s what you get with a weak defense.

So ultimately, if the NDP are in fact to blame for this ruckus, can Ms. Davies truly stand up in the House of Commons any longer and preach about NDP desires for decorum with any credibility?

Next Page »