I Don't Understand

I am watching CNN and I unable to understand the thinking processes of these reporters.  The Libyans just overthrew Ghaddafi, violently.  They were able to overthrow their oppressive government because they had the guns.  Without guns they would have been slaughtered.  Now they are working towards their first election.  So what's the first thing these reporters say needs to be done in order to ensure a smooth transition to democracy?

Get rid of the guns!

Seriously!  They just fought a fucking revolution and these morons on CNN think the best way to ensure good government is the remove the ability to fight a future revolution!

Update:  I remember why I gave up on CNN - A commercial for Erin Burnett came on and the first words she said were "I became a journalist because I wanted to make a difference..."

Really?  Is that what journalism is now?  Here I thought journalists strove to tell the truth about the news.  Now I remember today's journalists "want to make a difference."

This is a Little Bit Better . . .

Free Speech is the foundation of democracy.  Without it there is no way for people to express any opinion that might affect the votes of citizens.  We restrict free speech in ways that make sense such as libel and slander, although I think Canada's laws are too strict on those. We also restrict speech where it causes immediate harm to another person, such a the hackneyed "fire in a theatre".  I personally think we go too far when we equate the harm of being trampled to death with the harm caused by racists and bigots.  Causation is obvious in the first and it's hard to argue the theatre isn't ablaze during a stampede.  However, the harm is not obvious with racist speech and we have the ability and the duty to refute such arguments.

Obviously, I think the kangaroo courts otherwise known a human rights commissions are an atrocity against the most basic freedoms we have.  The courts are a little better because at least truth is a defence there.  How 1984 is it that truth is not a defence in an HRC  hearing?  Well, this story at least restores a tiny bit of faith in the system:

White supremacist can seek help online in attempt to prove racist claims: court

The court has said that truth is defence and that Mr. Tremaine is allowed to seek evidence of the truth of his statements.  Statements like "Jews are a “parasitic race,” that “blacks are intellectually inferior to whites” and “Hitler was a lot nicer to the Jews than they deserved.”".

What a concept it is to let the truth decide his guilt!  While I still think this guy should be allowed to say whatever he likes until he says, directly, "Kill the Jews!" At that point he is inciting violence and I think criminalizing that is a reasonable restriction on speech.  I am happier, still, to see that Canadian judges have enough confidence in rational society to let this guy argue the ridiculous and have the crown refute it.

That is a little bit better.

Sentences Should Fit the Crime

 A while ago I was rather incensed at a new sentencing ruling put forth that said judges should not impose sentences longer than the expected life span of the convicted.  I think it's just another ridiculous ruling that has no real meaning other than old people now get the same discount on crime that aboriginals, women and minorities get.  I mean, if you're 75 and male you're living on borrowed time according to life expectancy stats so does that mean you get no jail time at all?  Because any sentence at that age is a life sentence.  And if you are 55 and commit first degree murder do we strike down the required 25 years as cruel punishment?

Sometimes I think Canada's "justice" system is a lost cause so it is very refreshing to see the Americans know how to deal with crime. Jim Sandusky raped at least 10 boys over a number of years at Penn State and in his home.  He is 65 years old.  In Canada his sentence would be a Graham James-like 2 years.  In the US he is getting a minimum of 60 and up to 400 years.  There is no bulk discount down there, you pay for each crime.  He will die in prison.  He may even find out what it's like to be on the receiving end in the shower.  That is justice.

The "Right" to Assisted Suicide.

Once again we see that if at first you don't succeed, try try again.  And again. And again. Because, you see, once you get a yes they can never say no again.  

It's not like assisted suicide would ever be abused.

The Tree of Liberty

“Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with the blood of Patriots and Tyrants.”
― Thomas Jefferson

That's a good quote.  I'd shorten it slightly. 

Occasionally the tree of Liberty must be watered with blood.    
-- The Rat

I say that because we have become such a risk averse nation that we consistently trample on Liberty in order to avoid injury.  Here in British Columbia our Liberal overlords, Premier Green Jeans and Premier Mom, have each enacted legislation that severely limits our Liberty in pursuit of a risk-free world.  Examples of that legislation are:

• Drunk Driving legislation reducing the threshold for penalties from .08 to .05.
• Speeding laws that allow the confiscation of vehicles for speeding 40km over the limit
• Body armour restrictions
• The newer motorcycle helmet laws

I could go on but I hope you see my point.  When our government starts to infringe on our rights as citizens in order to protect us from ourselves we are on a very slippery slope.  Absurdly, the drunk driving legislation  has been declared unconstitutional if you are over .08 as your right to a trial BEFORE punishment for a criminal offence has been breached.  However, if you are between .05 and .08 those same roadside punishments are apparently perfectly OK.

Obviously there are those who can justify these laws.  Alexa's law, as the drunk driving law is called, is an example of some truly misguided thinking.  The idea that people with blood alcohol between ,05 and .08 are the problem is absurd.  It is the heavy drinking, alcoholic types who consistently drive well above the .08 level that are the threat, even after we take away their drivers licence.  Yet, deaths in BC are down!  Yay!  Right?  Well, no, not to me.  Deaths are down because people, average people who might have drunk too much, again well past .08, are choosing not to drink at all for fear of running foul of this law.  But so what?  We know from many examples that when you enact draconian laws with no right of appeal you will change people's behaviour.  That doesn't make it right.

Worse, though, are laws that force individuals to take steps to protect themselves.  Helmet laws are just that.  What business is it of government's whether I engage in risky behaviour or not?  The rationale is always "because we all pay your medical bills".  But what kind of argument is that?  Can I opt out of socialized medicine?  Will we restrict all other risky activities?  We've already heard many academics argue for banning things like trans-fats, sugary snacks, and even sugar itself.  We have people who argue that some groups' sexual activities are risky.  So where is the line?  It keeps getting pushed a little further with each government.

I am quite serious when I say that Liberty must be watered with blood.  Sure, it may be the blood of idiots who would rather not wear a helmet, or even the blood of innocents killed by speeders.  There is risk in life but when we legislate to reduce risk we may save some lives but the cost in freedom is going to be very high.

A Liberal Complaining About Voting Irregularities?

Boris Buy-A-Vowel has apparently won a court decision overturning his loss in last May's Federal election because, shockingly, people were able to vote more than once and some were improperly identified!

The current law is open to gross abuse yet when governments try to address this it seems Liberals and Dippers flip out. How ironic is it that Boris is now fighting to overturn an election based on improper ID.  If only we had done what us Conservatives wanted this would never have happened.

Oh, and I've got a fiver that any voting irregularities went in his favour.  Signing up ineligible voters is a leftish speciality.

Happy Mother's Day

I have two children, both adopted, and both "unwanted" except by their birthmothers, or at least they both ignored strong family pressure to have abortions. Both birth mothers had serious problems, one drugs and the other mental illness. Both my children are at risk of complications in their life because of it. My wife and I had to choose, with as full a knowledge as possible, to parent these two.

I am deeply saddened when healthy parents choose to abort healthy children because it is financially difficult. Our family is in financial difficulties because of the choice we made to have children, but our finances will get better and we have two wonderful children who will be with us for the rest of our lives. Some say we "bought" our children, and if so it was the best purchase we ever made and every day I am grateful to the two mothers who made a choice that let two wonderful kids live.

Jan Wong is Depressed - How sad...

While I don't have much sympathy for Warren Kinsella's complaint about Jan Wong, oh he of the Barney reference and the well placed picture, I do agree that Jan Wong is quite a piece of work.  How unsurprising then to learn that Heather Mallick is a friend and an admirer of her's.  Oh, how sad it is that poor Jan Wong was persecuted by the evil management-types and MPs for a slight against Canada's unslightable province.  (and how delicious in that it's probably the only thing she ever wrote that I agree with!).

Mallick writes of that persecution:

"... and in an event that is so purely Stalinist I still cannot quite believe it."

Still, what a relief it must have been for Ms. Wong that it wasn't Maoist or they might have disappeared her...

John Reynolds Doesn't Speak for Me

John Reynolds says:

“Those of us who are conservatives are going to make sure that everyone on the conservative side will be with us,” he said. “(John) Cummins may not be on board, but the voters will be.”

 And he also says this:

"We've got a premier [Christy Clark] who's doing a good job and we've got a province that's just got [its] Triple A [credit] rating. Not too many provinces are as well off as we are. We can't afford an NDP government, so we've got to get together."

 Well John, this Conservatives begs to differ.  I am most definitely not "on board" and I most certainly don't think Premier Mom is doing a good job, nor is her party.

This is not just about the economy.  I am less concerned about the economy as I am about the erosion of basic freedom under our social engineering Liberal overlords.  Legislation by lobbyist is just bad policy and I don't see the Liberals having the balls to say no to the utterly mad MADD lobbyists, nor the truly sick minds at the Canadian Cancer Society.  I could go on but the point is simple, that economic success in a society that consistently breaches fundamental rights is not a society I want.  The Liberal party can change its name but until it changes its nanny-state ideology I will not be voting for it.

How to Win an Argument With Yourself

The Bionic Liberal?  It's so easy to win an argument with your imaginary foe when you don't allow comments...

Just a snippet:

Inquisitor: If abortions had been legal, you might never have been born.

Me: So?

Inquisitor: Well, you would never have existed. Anti-abortion laws saved your life.

Me: Let's follow your line of reasoning and say I don't exist. If I don't exist then I can't care whether I might potentially exist or not because, well, I'm not here.

Inquisitor: That's not the point.

Me: How can I have an opinion on something if I don't exist?

Let me finish this argument for him/her/it (I didn't bother to read its profile and I wouldn't want to insult it by using the wrong progressive-acceptable pronoun)

Inquisitor: Bang!!!!  Ok, you're dead now.  You don't exist.  I assume you don't care, right?  What's that, you can't answer me because you don't exist?  Argument won!

We prosecute murderers not because the person they murdered cares, they're dead after-all, we prosecute murder because killing someone is wrong.  Abortion is wrong, especially in a society where so many options for responsible birth control exist.  Heck, I'll even go so far as to accept early abortions, wrong as I feel they are.  But to argue that abortion is OK because the babies killed don't exist now, well, that argument has a bit of a flaw...

(and there's another flaw in the straw argument.  The Inquisitor feels the baby did exist, he wouldn't state something so obviously flawed as "...you would never have existed".)

Death Penalty Hypocrisy

Juxtapose these two men, Hamid Ghassemi-Shall and Ronald Smith, and ask yourself why our government might discriminate between the two.  The media and our bureaucratic betters tell us the Conservatives are bad to pick and choose whom to expend valuable political and monetary treasure on.  Even the courts tell us we must support all Canadians on death row.  The first is going to be executed as a spy by a regime notorious for unjust convictions and politically motivated executions while the second is an admitted multiple murderer who killed to see what it was like.  Now why on earth we would want to pick and choose between those two?

On the Buses

Our superior Greenie friends want us all on transit.  All the better to start the revolution , I guess.

Exploding Houses

That's the title.  It's the only reason I can posit for Natural Resources Canada to change the explosives act regulations regarding the storage of firearm ammunition.  After all, changing the regulations in such a drastic way could only be justified by serious problems in need of a fix, right?  So it must be all those exploding houses . . .

Gun owners decry 'monstrous' changes to ammunition rules

Hunters and shooters are up in arms about the federal government's proposed new explosives regulations, which they say will interfere with everything from big-game  hunting and ammunition storage, to re-enacting historic battles.

The changes require — for the first time in Canada — gun owners to lock away all ammunition.
......
The proposed regulations also seriously restrict the use of big-game rifles, since the regulations define "small-arms ammunition" as bullets no larger than .50 calibre. But in Canada, calibres larger than .50 — such as the .577 Snider and the .505 Gibbs rounds — are frequently used to hunt bears and other large or dangerous game.
Since these large bullets are not defined as small-arms ammunition in the proposed regulations, Arpin said, they will fall into a more general category of blasting explosives. As a result, shooters who use large calibres will have to acquire explosives licences — such as those needed for dynamite — to continue hunting with large-bore rifles.

It gets worse.  From CanadianGunNutz.com (account needed):

Shot Guns:

• 12 gauge is bigger than .50 calibre.  Do I need a blasting license now for a shotgun?
• Has anyone heard back about the shotgun slug issue? (Larger than 50 cal). Unless there's a special exception that might be a real issue. 

Ambiguous anti-theft regulation:

• Even better - if you DO add one more lock, some cop could say 'not good enough, you should have a BETTER lock' and send you to jail. It does not give any clear indication as to what's required to comply with the law. What's "good enough" to prevent theft? Only a judge can say for sure and you'll pay good money to hear his thoughts on the matter if a cop charges you.
• I remember someone saying that padlocks weren't good enough for firearms cabinet locks. I don't recall anything official on this topic.
• The regs require you PREVENT theft. Good luck with that, as long as it is still POSSIBLE to steal your ammo, you are a criminal.

It encourages dangerous storage:

• Lock your ammo in a sealed steel box? Can you say "pipe bomb" when the ammo cooks off inside if there is a fire?

What about transport, or use?

• How will the new regulations impact a person going from home to the shooting range or out hunting? Will a special transportation system be required? The way the proposed regulations are drafted, I could be charged when going out turkey hunting with 10 shells in my pocket.
• Wait 'til you get stopped in your truck and have a couple shotgun shells in the console or a loose .22 rolling around in the back seat somewhere....or have a few rounds from an earlier range/hunting outing in a jacket pocket.

Even the guy who wrote the rules isn't sure what constitutes safe storage:

• But Arpin said the safe storage requirements will not be as complicated as Bernardo suspects. He said any locking container — even those which can be easily removed from a house — likely will satisfy the incoming safe storage requirements.  

These new regs are ambiguous, onerous, dangerous and deceitful.  It's time for our government to stop this constant harassment of gun owners.  Write your MP today and tell them to stop making paper criminals of law abiding gun owners. 

update:  It looks like shotgun shells are specifically designated small arms and not affected by this.  Thank god for small mercies...

 

Mortality

Coyne nails it today.  Not that his subject matter is compelling.  A lifelong loser just arrested for drunk driving (note:  DRUNK driving, not MADD's new crime of drinking and driving) bursts into song, Bohemian Rhapsody, and he becomes an Internet sensation.  Who cares, really?  But this small passage is the nugget in the poop pile:

We're born, we work, we struggle, we suffer, and just when we are starting to figure it all out, we snuff it. In the Tragic View of the Universe, this is deeply unfair, fuel for a lifetime of resentment. In the Comic View of the Universe, it is sublimely funny, a great cosmic joke God plays on us all.

And that's life for you.  There is no great meaning to life except to live it.  That's the test we must pass every day and we all fail it at some point.

A New Era for Alberta

I was a little concerned a few months ago with the election of Allison Redford as PC leader and premiere in Alberta. My concern mainly came from the fawning coverage the eastern media was giving the "human rights lawyer" and "UN employee" Redford.  They fully expected that Redford was going to bring Alberta more into line with, you know, "Canada", or at least the Canada that Easterners believe in.  There was even talk about Alberta moderating the federal Conservatives as their base shifted to the the more moderate Redford-style.

Since then, Alberta has been led by more insular-minded leaders, happy to pit the province’s interests against those of the rest of the country.

That could well change after this election.

Since assuming the reins of the Conservatives last October, Ms. Redford has hinted at a more activist role in the national political agenda. She wasn’t in office a month before she was touring Central Canada talking up a national energy strategy – one that integrates the power dynamics of the entire country.

That is a decidedly different approach than the one taken by recent Alberta premiers Ed Stelmach and Ralph Klein who possessed more us-versus-them mindsets. And it is certainly a contrary vision to the one being offered up by Danielle Smith, leader of the Wildrose Party.

Oh well, I guess those rednecks will never learn...

A Reminder of Why I stopped Being a "Good" Cathoilc

 I went to mass last night for the first time in twenty years.  I have my reasons and I'll keep them to myself, but this is going to be hard.

The service reminded me, over and over again, why I stopped going.  It is the week before Easter, a long service, and one where the readings really drove home what the Church is trying to teach me:  I'm a worthless sinner and I need the priest to save me.  The reading of the passion was the perfect example of that.  The reader began but any line that was the crowd was spoken by the congregation in response.  We were the evil bastards that killed Christ.  The priest spoke all the lines that were Jesus', underlying that he was our eathly representative of Jesus.  Subtle.

I have met this man, this priest, and he strikes me as being no smarter, no better than me but somehow I have to go through him to receive the blessings of God.  Yup, this is going to be very hard.

Earth Hour... So What Do We Call the Other 8764?

So it's Earth Hour again and I have to decide whether it is worth lighting candles and risking a fire in my house to assuage the guilty consciences of the patrolling greeny vigilantes in my neighbourhood.

Decisions, decisions...

 

 Update:  Hahaaahaaaaa, that's funny!

Things that Never Happen to Me...

Hot teachers "abusing" teenage boys...

Reminds me of this episode of South Park...   Nice

Not Partisan At All...

This article by Jeff Davis shows just how gullible, how lazy, and how easily manipulated the mainstream media is. It unbelievable:

Saskatchewan Tory MP Garry Breitkreuz found himself in hot water Thursday after an Ottawa mother complained he told a Grade 10 class that everyone in Canada should be armed — especially girls.

Dianna Sakisheway wrote a scathing letter to Public Safety Minister Vic Toews this week. Her complaint stems from a speech Breitkreuz — known as the father of the legislation to repeal the long-gun registry — gave during a career day at Canterbury High School on March 7.

"I am outraged at the irresponsible conduct of the federal government in promoting gun violence to schoolchildren," she wrote. "You have gone much too far."

....

Sakisheway told Postmedia News that she is "just a mother" and has no political associations.

.... In her letter, Sakisheway says Breitkreuz clearly told the students that "it should be much easier for Canadians to attain and own a firearm because it is their duty and their right to engage in gun violence."

So let's just check a few things. First, Dianna Sakisheway is non-partisan? Uh huh...

From her Twitter feed:

Jack Layton:Tommy Douglas our 1st leader said Dream no little dreams. They said yes 2 a Cda where anything is possible. No 1 is left behind.

or

Cdn Boat “Tahrir” will sail 2 help end Israel’s illegal siege of #Gaza

But even if you are a moron and can't type a name into Google don't you think a real reporter with even an ounce of common sense would question if Gary Breitkreuz would actually say "it is their duty and their right to engage in gun violence."? Really? Would he call self-defence "gun violence" or is that the interpretation of a political activist? It would make me stop and think before I wrote an article based solely on her word that she is non-partisan and her account of what was said.

Truly another sad day in Canadian journalism.

Open Thread for James Morton's Anonymous Troll

Here ya go, dude, as promised,  prove me a Liberal.