Thoughts on Sean Avery and Ed Schreyer

So I'm not the only incredibly attractive Albertan to have a blog: turns out Elisha Cuthbert, the hot actress from Calgary has got herself a hockey-related weblog. Apparently Elisha shares a quality also possessed by somebody else whom I know and will discuss in a few months when the anonymous thing wears off: the quality of being a puck bunny. In the previous case a tall Finnish Oiler was the object of affection. For Elisha, it seems to be Sean Avery, the asshole from Ontario who is famous for being an all-around douchebag. He is known around these parts mainly for directing a racial slur at Georges Laraque, but also known for making comments about Quebec players that make Don Cherry blush, and being a complete goon out on the ice. In 33 games so far this year he has 118 penalties and 17 points. Good news for whoever the hell has him in our hockey pool over at Yahoo Fantasy Sports, since PIMs count in your favour. Bad news for any player stuck on the ice with him.

Anyways, the point is that Elisha and Avery apparently are dating. Which raises the question: Avery gets to spend his nights pounding that hot piece of ass from The Girl Next Door, so why is he still so aggressive out on the ice? Can't Elisha let her man dog-style her into a zen-like level of calm to allow him to avoid all the stupid penalties that keep costing Los Angeles games?

Now the next rant I have to get onto is this business with the NDP and Ed Schreyer's history making campaign. As I already noted below, there was never a law against the Queen's Representative running after his GG term as a candidate, merely a gentleman's agreement not to do so. Since nobody in the NDP can be considered a gentleman, its not much of a surprise.

What is interesting in Jack Layton's spin-cycle bypass of Schreyer's 1987 light condemnation of homosexuality. Layton told CTV News that "I think Canadian society has evolved considerably around this issue and Mr. Schreyer is a part of that evolution" in response to Schreyer's newfound acceptance of pillow-biters. But when you start to look carefully at what Jack says, it starts to raise a few questions. The kinds of questions that Jack didn't want to answer when pro-family groups were asking him them over the past five years.

First off, why precisely is Jack so convinced that the last two decades of this so-called "moral evolution" where the two decades of it going on the right track, and 67,309 of the previous 67,862 decades were wrong? Isn't it the height of arrogance for Layton to essentially say that most of human thought on the matter of queerism was wrong, and the time in which he was alive just happened to be right?

Secondly, numerous conservatives noted when poofter marriage was being proposed that opening the door to one alteration of marriage would present opening the door to others. Colby Cosh in the National Post wrote this article on the prospect of legalizing polygamist marriage in August 2004, where Layton and his anal-loving pals were quick to dismiss it as claptrap. But as Cosh wrote, eventually "some moneyed Saudi immigrant to Canada [will ask] why homosexuals should be the only ones who get to rewrite the common law of marriage on selfish grounds" and Layton's latest talk about "moral evolution" is completely at odds with his speech linked to above. If there is a moral evolution in Canada that has already "seized" Ed Schreyer, will it not continue to seize him in the future? If Ed lives to 90 years old, will he be standing tall with Jack Layton and Svend Robinson proud to say that their old "dinosaur" views about polygamy are now purged from their systems? Or will pedophilia be the first old-school morality they enthusiastically ditch? If this is a possibility 20 years down the road in the same way that their support for faggot civil unions didn't seem possible 20 years ago, do they not owe it to the electorate to be honest and frank on this matter? What moral qualms of today are the NDP willing to abandon to the latest desires of "progressives" of tomorrow? The big (and obvious) question is will anybody pick up on this and ask the big questions? My guess would be no: except for me. If you're browsing past this blog and wondering about the original thoughts within it that make it worth bookmarking, this is it:

Having proudly abandoned any notion of drawing a moral line in the sand, we can only preclude that if Jack only lived long enough, we'd see him and his NDP cronies in Parliament happily endorse the sickest and most depraved of sexual acts with a straight face, proud that they have become morally evolved human beings.

If you think its far-fetched and unfair of me to imply such a progression, than all I can say is YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ENOUGH ATTENTION.