Losing to Dallas

On Monday December 15th, following a disappointing loss (at this point, aren't they all?) to the New York Rangers, the Edmonton Oilers finally fired head coach Dallas Eakins.

During my absence the Oilers finally did win a single game to avoid beating the team record 13-game losing streak, and also to prove me wrong by defeating a Western Conference opponent in 2014. But that wasn't enough to save Eakin's job. It bought him an extra couple games, but losing to a Rangers team that played the night before seemed to be the last straw.

The hilarious video that's popular and making the rounds this week is the post-game presser where Björn Lundqvist (no, seriously, that's his name) laughs at how few scoring chances the Oilers had against his team and how easy his job was. Worse still, the Rangers were playing the second half of a back-to-back. The Oilers shouldn't have been this easy against New York. Yet somehow they were. And Eakins lost his job the next day.

Though there was a better video out there that showed why Eakins had to go. It's this pre-game interview from just before the Oilers played (and lost) to the New York Rangers. Check out around 4:04 in the video:
Reporter: I know we were talking about the keys to the game being a good start, but there have been a lot of games this season where we've been down two or three nothing in the first or second period, and you guys all want to start the game better but what do you think the block is from actually grabbing the lead more often in games, or you're only down one nothing after a period or whatever?

Eakins: It's, uh, I firmly don't understand it, and I don't know if its a maturity level of being in the league for a long time and understanding that that first shift is going to be just as important as the last shift of the game, just as important as the middle shift, and believe me we have talked about this a ton. We've tried different guys starting, we've tried different lines starting the game.
Look, you can't envision any other scenario where an Eakins-like guy is in the hot seat and gives those sort of answers to questions. None at all. Imagine being the general manager of one of those big upgraders on the east side of Edmonton, and being far behind schedule and having questions from your boss about what's wrong and how to fix it. "I don't know, I don't understand what's wrong. Or how to fix it. I've tried a lot of stuff but nothing is working." Imagine being a case worker at the YMCA and you're being asked how you can help support one of your charges: "I firmly don't understand. Maybe they aren't mature enough?"

Results matter. Dallas Eakins couldn't get results, but that's not always enough to cost somebody the job. What will cost you the job, every single time, is being the person responsible for fixing a problem and admitting as it sinks your organization that you don't know what exactly the problem is or how to fix it.


Edmonton has no drunk driving problem

Another Christmas season, another sily hectoring by cowardly media reporters and corrupt cops telling us not to "drink and drive".

Some reality checks from the lies and mistruths Global's Slav Kornik is pushing on you:

  1. 83 of the people mentioned in this article are not in violation of any criminal law, and are the victims of an Alison Redford-era attack on Albertan's freedoms.
  2. The 69 people who did blow over 0.08 probably aren't anymore dangerous than most of the sober drivers you pass by each and every day
  3. The "curb the danger" snitch line is a wasteful sea of false positives: the article brushes over its 13/111 (12% success rate)
What we're looking at here is police persecution of the thousands of thousands of Edmontonians who drive around the streets after drinking without causing the slightest amount of difficulties. In fact, that these asshole cops have to ambush people are perform scientific tests on them to determine they were "not good at driving" (something that if they can't tell by looking at you means they shouldn't be arresting you at all), is because when you actually do simple things like watch them driving you don't find any problems at all.

Why not? Because there isn't one. Edmonton cops are attacking citizens for a noncrime. Plain and simple: shame Global News is too caught up in their bullshit.

A beaten and abused little girl needs a better culture, not an inquiry

In a way, you gotta hand it to the Red Indian: they never lose a chance to blame whitey for everything (and get a couple of sniveling liberals joining along for the ride).

Earlier this week news came of a horrible tragedy on the Paul Indian Reserve west of Edmonton: \

RCMP were first called to a property on the Paul First Nation at approximately 4:30 p.m. on Saturday.

Stony Plain RCMP say they found the girl suffering from “critical” and “life-threatening” injuries.

She was transported via STARS Air Ambulance to the University of Alberta Hospital, where she is now believed to be in critical but stable condition.

Police describe the incident as a “serious assault,” but would not provide details on the girl’s injuries or the circumstances surrounding the attack.
STARS Air Ambulance spokeswoman Kady Hobbins said medical crews responded to the Paul Band First Nation at about 4:15 p.m. Saturday for a call about a six-year-old girl with injuries from blunt trauma.

The girl was airlifted to hospital in Edmonton in critical condition.

The young girl was outside for “several hours” before she was found by family members, said Supt. Gary Steinke with the RCMP Serious Crimes Unit. He would not comment on whether she had suffered hypothermia, but said it was a life-and-death situation.

The girl is being treated at the Stollery Children’s Hospital for “very serious injuries she sustained during the attack,” Steinke said. He would not elaborate on what sort of injuries she sustained, but said she has not yet regained consciousness.
Charges against James Clifford Paul (no relation?) now include kidnapping, attempted murder, and sexual assault in the horrific attack. For those who hadn't already figured it out: James Paul is, like his young victim, an Indian.

Well that doesn't matter: for the "national inquiry into dead squaws" crowd you can't let something so trivial as the fact that this girl (who is neither missing nor murdered, but again I digress) was savagely attacked by her own kind (if not, as some reports are indicating, kin) get in the way. No, obviously this is a national problem that the Candian taxpayer needs to waste money on.

We've been down the road of the futility of the MMIW Inquiry ad nauseum, and nothing to happen to date has changed the 100% truth of that.
Both #IdleNoMore and #AmINext try to pretend that either we don't know the cause of the social strife afflicting the Red Indian. In the case of #IdleNoMore, it's dependence on government handouts and a culture that is inherently lazy and incapable of rousing its citizens into being productive, combined with a genetic predisposition to addiction and false mythology of history given off by the usual suspects. In the case of #AmINext, it's the violent predisposition of Indians (whether cultural, societal, or genetic doesn't really matter) combined with the promises of quick riches and attention that prostitution offers women who are poor and, let's be perfectly frank about this, typically as ugly as sin.
But this adds an extra level of ridiculous to the proceedings. When far-left PC MLA Thomas Lukaszuk did his usual suckup routine and tried explaining why we needed a national inquiry every time a savagely violent drunken Indian attacks a defenseless little girl, I seized upon another point that I don't think the proponents of these inquiries have thought much about.

What happens when the inquiry makes a report?
What will they implement? If there are a list of recommendations on how to change how reservations like the Paul Reserve, will mealymouthed politicians like Lukaszuk implement them? After all, his government won't even tell Indians who are killing themselves to stop in accordance with the law. What will they do if the MMIW inquiry comes back to say that the provincial smoking ban should be enforced? Or that provincial health inspectors should have the power to randomly enter on-reserve properties and inspect the conditions children are kept in? What if squaws are to only engage in relationships with non-Indians? What if they are to be prohibited by law from becoming prostitutes? What's the point of having this damn inquiry anyways? Everybody knows that even if there is one, the Indians won't uphold their end of the bargain: they never do. Basically its a forum for Indians to complain that people sometimes point out that they become violent savage uncivilized lunatics. They don't like being exposed to the truth: the realities of how their culture is ultimately inferior at providing properity and growth to the one outside the reservations. They hate hearing that the same factors that kept them from ever discovering bronze in a land absolutely swimming with copper are the ones responsible for their reservations being lands of sloth, where a lack of innovation and committment to building a better world cause them to live in squalour and despair and death.

If the Idle No More crowd had any inkling to believe these undisputable truths would be coming out in an inquiry, and that their own sins and crimes against themselves and the rest of Canada would be the ones laid on the table to be poked and examined and disclosed: you know they'd clam up on the topic right away. But it's ultimately that conceit, that understanding that a Canadian-held inquiry would let them off with kid gloves, that spurs their call to action. The only two reasons that these people are calling for a national inquiry is that they will neither pay for it nor be given any corrective actions to undertake.

There is no reason to leave it this way though: for one thing, Harper can disable these calls quickly if he just throws on a single stipulation: DIAND will pay for the inquiry. It won't be funded by general revenues, and DIAND's budget will not be increased to cover the inquiry. If Canada's Red Indians want an inquiry, they can pay for it themselves.

I mean, ideally they'd pay for it from the revenues generated by taxing productive activity taking place on reserves.









oh man, that was a good one. Hold on, I've still got the giggles, give me a minute while I catch my breath and my ribcage stops hurting.


Productive activity on reserves. Oh, that was priceless. Anyways, where was I...?

Oh, right, the funding for a "Missing Murdered Indiginous Women" / "Missing Murdered Aboriginal Women" national inquiry. Well, in the absence of the hilarious option above, we can fund it from DIAND. That means that every penny that goes into this inquiry is coming directly from the pockets of people on reservations and using federal monies to attend University. We shall see in this scenario exactly how much time and resources are devoted to this issue. Hell, it might even serve as a bit of a "this is how reality works" wakeup call to the permanently aggrieved Indian class like Theresa Spence or apihtawiskawiskawiskaiskasisisisan: you live in a world of limited resources (which, thanks to cultures other than your own, is less limited that it might be) and you have to make adult decisions about where to spend your money and what is a cheap stunt that won't help save your people.

I'm not the only one calling for this, in fact: Dene Reservation Chief Bill Erasmus agrees:
Erasmus says people shouldn't have to wait around for the federal government to take action.

“By virtue of our own authority, which the supreme court of Canada calls sovereign authority, we have the authority to set up our own commission, and this issue becomes an issue that is dealt with the way we want it to be dealt with.”

Erasmus says he wants aboriginal women to be part of the process, and hopes agencies like the Native Women's Association would participate.

He says the AFN would need help, though.

Erasmus wants to ask international organizations, like the United Nations, for political and economic support.
Well, he would be asking silly people at the UN for money, but at least then it's spread through the taxpayers of the globe.

Meanwhile, violent savages on reserves will continue to hurt kids. You shouldn't need an "inquiry into root causes" when you know what the solution is: take away their children. All of them. Forever.


Higher tuition fees are good for all Albertans

Yesterday the PCs came under fire for announcing that a "market modifier" would be performed in Alberta post-secondary institutions: the result is an increase in five programs at the University of Alberta and three at the University of Calgary. The expected result will be an extra $21 million in tuition fees across the province.

Alberta Advanced Education Minister Don Scott reiterated Monday that the market-modifier program aims to correct “market anomalies” that see an Alberta institution charging less than a peer institution for a comparable program.
Seeing how Alberta is already sending billions annually in equalization payments to these other provinces, it seems only natural that we should at the very least be competitive in our tuition pricing (slightly related, Jim Prentice should be lobbing rockets into downtown Montreal Gaza-style every week until Queerbec universities stop charging Albertan students 209% of what they charge students of their have-not province). We weren't, the Government of Alberta took steps to correct this, and now we are charging more realistic rates for our tuitions.

Who on earth could object to this?

Oh, right.

Look, we all know Rachel Notley isn't the swiftest knife in the drawer, and now she's convinced that because the Treasury might be a little low on cash, Prentice shouldn't take steps to balance the books. No, seriously:
At a time when the strength of our oil and gas economy is faltering, our government should be encouraging diversification of our economy
Because a Masters Degree in Basket Weaving is exactly how Alberta is going to survive this temporary drop in the price of the world's most valuable commodity!
Too many young people are starting their lives saddled with mountains of student loan debt
Well, Rachel, why don't you advocate to reduce this number of young people starting out with debt by explaining to the many young people who want these useless degrees that post-secondary education isn't in their best interests and divert them to technical colleges or more job-focused educational institutions? Of course, Notley's NDP counts on large swathes of youth taken right from the toxic left-wing environs of public high schools and directly into the toxic left-wing environs of a public university. Going out into the real world and paying taxes from labours which benefit the economy in order to fund Notley's political class who consume resources and almost never spit them back out upon completion? Well, that might just make you vote for Heather Forsyth! We can't have that!

In fact, the Notley ignorance on the role of the taxpayer in bankrolling post-secondary students is even deeper than that. Even with these market modifications, none of these programs come close to recouping the cost of their education with tuition fees. Even international students, who pay over double what a Canadian student would pay, are only paying (most of but not all of) the operational cost of their education. The overhead for all the capital expenses and the like? That's still courtesy the Alberta taxpayer. So when some useless progressive tits on Twitter talk about how much "revenue" this move brings in, be aware that tuitions are nowhere near high enough to make University a revenue-neutral enterprise. So this isn't so much as "generating revenue" for the province as much as it's mitigating an expense using one of the fairest things around: user fees.

User fees are a way for the people who disproportionally benefit from the service (in this case, a University of Alberta Law Degree) to also pay the highest costs for the service. As an Alberta taxpayer, we definitely don't get nearly net value from ASEC Chair Tyler Ludwig's education as he does: he'll finish 9 years demanding free money from the productive class of the economy with a Bachelor of Management degree which would result in him receiving enough pay to one day be slightly annoyed at his $45,000 annual tax bill. Surely we can expect him to throw a few extra bucks at his education? He wants us to believe his education is "worth it" for us, so how can he and his organization claim that it's not worth a bit of extra money for them? There's a public interest in keeping tuition reasonably high: it means that the monetization of the learned skills is distributed more evenly with the input costs.

But there's another public interest in high tuition, one that doesn't get much discussion: tuition is your filter.

You see, it all stems from the universal truth ironically only denied by people in university: that not all university educations (or students!) are equal. They aren't, of course. To borrow the Mark Steyn line, an advanced degree in Transgender and Colonialism Studies isn't really of any value: be it to the student nor society writ large. So why are we paying for it? For that matter, why is the student paying for it? The answer, of course, is that the filter is broken: the mechanism (out-of-pocket costs) that ensures most if not all students will fail to recoup the cost of their education and therefore never enter it in the first place. Every student who thinks to themselves "well, I'd love to get a Sociology degree majoring in Gender, Family, and Work, but all it will really qualify me for is a career as a social worker at $18.86/hr, I'd better look at something else" is a student who was successfully stopped by the filter: stopped from wasting her time [let's be honest, this is the statement either of a chick or a guy with no balls. -ed] and her money, her decision to avoid this degree also saved the taxpayer the price of this education that did nothing but contribute to Parkinson's Law. Huge net gian for society. Meanwhile, whatever your view of lawyers they at least in theory contribute to the world around them: a law degree is a ticket to good money, and for this particular case you can see that the value to the law student (getting to be a lawyer) is very high relative to the value to the taxpayer (another lawyer). Yet the demand for the positions remain high, and since (outside of Queerbec) fees don't change depending on your province of residence, it's rather advantageous that Alberta doesn't set its prices too far away from the base average.

This is, of course, what was done.

The filter analogy, of course, works even better in this scenario than the Mark Steyn Complacency Studies version. We the taxpayer are going to push to keep the best and brightest at our schools. The way we achieve this is by having top quality students in a top quality program. The latter requires a lot of incoming funds to provide the financing: the former requires that the students who enrol are serious, committed, and talented. The talented bit is taking care of by the admissions requirement. The previous two? Well, in the same way that a bar which charges cover forces more "brand loyalty" than one who doesn't, a post-secondary system that requires the most input from the students themselves will get the brand loyalty. The end result: better students learning in a better program with less input and more benefit to the taxpayer. That's what we like to call "in the public interest" (which is why the public interest research pigs hate it so much).

The reverse scenario, a failure in the filter, is what groups like Notley's NDP or Ludwig's ASEC want to happen to higher education in Alberta: the taxpayer pays and pays and pays. Students contribute as little to the education which they receive as possible. Taxpayers end up overpaying for the degree programs, which impart much 'learning' and little actual learning in a field which there is no private sector demand worth speaking of. After this glorious degree (no pun intended) of money and time spent on the fancy piece of paper, the actual value of it in the real world is next to nothing. Alberta as a whole suffers. The economy suffers. The taxpayers who were forced to siphon money out of the economy suffer as a result. Technically the students "win" in the sense that they spent 3-8 years not having to work and studying a degree that they want for their own personal development...but do they really win? They finish school with a degree that might as well be used as birdcage lining for all the practical value it has, in an economy which hasn't reached anything close to its full potential, and the prospect of paying even more for even less when the next generation of kids grows up in a world where the NDP have been educating them since birth and tuitions are pushed to be even lower, breaking the filter even more and leading us on a slow path to mediocrity and ruin.

That's the world the NDP plan would leave us with. You can see its appeal: a steady stream of lemmings for Notley to pander her lies to, and for the Ludwigs of the world to grow up and eventually supplant her. That it comes at the cost of you and me isn't a bug to them: it's a feature.

It's the main reason that tuitions need to go up, not down.

Credit here goes to the father of an engineer friend of mine, who came up with this analogy.

Even if you're a current post-secondary student, you want the trend-line to go in this direction: if you're a second year student, you've already paid half the tuition you're going to pay. After you remember these are a sunk cost, ponder that for a small surcharge over the next two years (amounting to a couple hundred dollars annually) you get the reward over the rest of your life of paying fewer taxes to a wasteful system that would only benefit this small subset of people after you while impacting your real earnings.

Did Danielle Smith's original plan to leave for the Prentice PCs fail?

As I alluded to in my previous post on the massive Wildrose MLA exodus, there are a lot of questions about the timeline that has people feeling like something's fishy.

During the byelections in October there was some grumbling from various Wildrose supporters who thought that the party's strategy was designed to fail. Several people, including me, didn't like the "Send the PCs a message" bit thinking that it meets the classic political error of "He who runs for the position of opposition leader will always win it". There were talks that money was overspent in ridings they didn't hope to win while neglecting Calgary-West and to a lesser degree Calgary-Elbow. At the Wildrose AGM, the strategy in general was viciously attacked and forced Danielle Smith to admit errors were made.

The news from this past week sure puts a new spin on those criticisms, don't they?

Did Wildrose executives deliberately throw the byelection? These are the same executives that are still anxiously insisting that they are still fighting for the party, but it's possible they aren't entirely honest. (if there's anything we can remember from what happened, it's that politicians cannot be trusted with being truthful). Did Danielle Smith talk them into a strategy that she knew was foolish and not in the Wildrose Party's best interests, and the executive just didn't notice? Not sure if the "we were easily duped morons" defense is better than the "we were actively doing something wrong" defense. It never tends to work out well.

For my money though, the real curious thing is that right after the byelection losses, Danielle Smith called for an immediate leadership review. The general consensus at the time was that she was "getting ahead of the story" Jian Ghomeshi style: knowing that there were criticisms of how she handled the byelections, she decided to be forthcoming and upfront and rather than wait for a groundswell of voices to grumble for her ouster, she would be up front about the review and allow for all sides of the party to debate and discuss. Ultimately it was a meaningless gesture, since the caucus under the direction of Wildrose House Leader Rob Anderson officially requested she call off the request in response to overwhelming support that the review was a waste. Instead, the review was done by the Wildrose executive and not at the AGM. (For a good movie reference, imagine the scene in Goldeneye when Defense Minister Mishkin refuses General Ourumov's resignation over the incident at Severnaya: it seemed to play out much like that).

Doesn't this all look a little fishy now? First off, can we question the Rob Anderson push to quash the demands for her leadership review now that we know while this whole thing was going on, both Rob Anderson and Danielle Smith were negotiating their break from the party? Was this pre-arranged from the start? Was the ploy to make it look like Danielle was under seige only to have her white knight come to the rescue? More critically with an eye for what just happened, was this Plan A to migrate over to the PCs? Was the original thought being that the anti-Danielle crowd would be much louder after the sting of the byelection losses, to facilitate her defeat at the AGM? If following such a defeat prompted her to sit as an independent, nobody would have batted an eye: they would have batted far fewer when she joined Prentice's team a few weeks/months later. If a loyalist or two went along with her, again the move could have done with much face saved. If it failed, as it apparently/possibly did, then Rob Anderson had the "get out of leadership review free" card queued up and ready to deploy.

That scenario makes far less sense than the one officially being flouted by Smith/Prentice/etc. Now the story is people like me pushed her out.

“But our members organized to vote against a direction I had set. We had our members make a decision to go in exactly the opposite direction I wanted to go.”

“I found out afterwards there was a group who came specifically to vote it down to teach me and some of my caucus colleagues a lesson about having walked in the gay pride parade.”

“And I just thought: Wow. After all this, we still have a vocal faction in our party who would rather fight internally and be destructive on these issues.”

“I’ve always been very respectful of the social conservatives in my party and my movement. I’ve just asked for the same in return.”
So you're telling me that the woman who wanted a leadership review (and was "talked into" not having one) was then in a position where people would speak about where they wanted their party to go, and it scared her utterly shitless? How precisely does that work? If you want to square this circle, than either:
  1. Danielle Smith didn't want a leadership review, and the efforts to cancel her request was pre-negotiated before she made the initial request
  2. She wanted to lose the leadership review and use that loss to walk over to the Prentice PCs.
Under this scenario, some of the questionable decisions during the byelections makes sense.

Of course, under both scenarios the "executive is clueless about how to sell the party" option remains on the table. That, sadly, didn't change when Danielle Smith crossed the floor.

Doctors who okay abortions fear radiation

Please don't harm the undifferentiated mass of cells.


Why aren't you hearing more about Abdullah Shah?

Edmontonians may know and sometimes even cringe at the name of Carmen Pervez. He's a Lebanese piece of shit who's famous for being the ringleader of a record high mortgage fraud case. He's out of jail now and back to his usual tricks: making money and ruining property values and turning relatively decent Edmonton neighbourhoods into disastrous hell-holes similar to his own backwards country.

But something in this article caught my eye.

It was the black Hummer H1 neighbours recognized first.

Gohar (Carmen) Ahmed Pervez, a convicted mortgage fraud artist some in inner city communities view as a slumlord, got out of jail in 2010 and is back in Parkdale and McCauley neighbourhoods.

He’s been buying up marginal properties — renting, renovating and trying to sell them again. Some of his tenants give his homes a reputation for trouble, causing fear and headaches among his neighbours.

But some in the neighbourhoods credit him for giving a chance to the hard-to-house homeless and for providing renovation employment for ex-convicts.

Pervez, who has since changed his name to Abdullah Shah, was charged in 2005 as the ringleader for a $30 million-mortgage fraud that earned him $1.8 million in profit.

He pleaded guilty to 54 counts of fraud in 2008 and was sentenced to five years. But with credit for time served, he got out after two.

Now he claims to be a significant player in the inner city again with 93 properties — homes, apartments and lodging houses.

“We thought he was gone. Not so much,” said Tracy Patience, who lives across the alley from a string of five houses he owns or at least controls through a numbered company on 86th Street north of 112th Avenue.

Neighbours were in tears on the phone for this article, worried about putting their names to complaints about Pervez’s tenants but wanting the full tale out. He attracts troubled tenants, including those whose business activities have neighbourhood constables looking twice and ex-homeless people who can’t rent anywhere else.
Did you catch it? Go ahead, read the passage again. Or better yet, see if you can glean the issue when you also consider this other excerpt:
He has loyal friends and admirers. He hires people off the street to renovate his properties and lets them live on-site, even while the home is under construction. While neighbours worry vulnerable people are being taken advantage of, others are grateful for the opportunity.

“He pays us labour,” said Tyler Clark, who lives beside the string of five Pervez-controlled properties on 86th Street and helped apply acrylic stucco.

Clark served federal time and doesn’t have any formal tickets in the trades, he said.

“I’m just learning. … Carmen, he’s helped me out quite a bit, actually. I’ve found other jobs through him.”

Sarah Fassman has been managing properties with Pervez for 10 years and had tears in her eyes when asked about the mortgage fraud.
Okay, you must surely see it by now.

No? Well, it's that Carmen Pervez is referenced numerous times in this article. He's called Carmen. He's called Pervez. What he's never referred to as, other than a single line in the article, is his name: Abdullah Shah.

Now it's perfectly understandable why Redmonton Urinal Elise Stolte keeps referring to him by his old name: it's quite obviously who he is. He's Carmen Perez. He was Carmen Perez when he was in his mortgage scam, and Carmen Pervez is the man who is out on the streets doing the same shady shit he was doing a decade ago. The name change, of course, is so that he can escape being figured out on Google searches. But it is, quite clearly, who he is. Carmen Pervez is how everybody from his friends to his victims knew him as. Calling him Abdullah Shah is to participate in a bald lie.

Yet this isn't the media's rule for dealing with another group who are using name changes to deceptively hide who they are. Trannies are doing the same thing day in and day out. And you know who's culpably going along for the ride? That's right, the same newspaper chain who sensibly kept warning Edmontonians that Carmen Pervez is back. Back when Faggot-Familiar-Alliances were still a hot topic, guess how they described one of these trannies?
Sam Dyck was on the verge of dropping out of school.

“I didn’t feel safe walking down the halls, being in class . . . I avoided the washrooms at all costs,” recalled the 16-year-old transgender student at Forest Lawn High School. “I held it all day and was en route to a bladder infection or something.”

Dyck felt like he was alone but others were experiencing much of the same pain.
We aren't told what Sam Dyck's name was before she went around trying to claim she was a guy. Was it Samantha? Or did she pick a totally different first name? We don't know, unlike with Gohar Carmen Pervez we aren't given fair warning about who this girl was before this year. We do know, fortunately, what she looks like:

I mean, the Journal does fortunately give a picture of Pervez, same as Metro News gave us a picture of Sam Dyck and her friend Alex Hunt, who is also a girl despite what she tries lying to you about. Here, so you can remember...

So the question ultimately remains: what's so special about trannies that their mental disorders get them a free pass into just changing their name into whatever they like without any context ever given? This doesn't just apply to people in Alberta who are in news stories, either. Cat Stevens is the stage name of Steve Georgiou, both of which he rejected in favour of being called Yusuf Islam (he's mellowed in being known as Cat Stevens though). Meanwhile, Bill Amesbury was a successful music artist around the same time: his song Virginia (Touch Me Like You Do) is the one you probably remember: I covered it on this blog about five years ago. Well like Cat Stevens, Bill Amesbury decided to change his name. He's now claiming to be a woman and calling himself Barbara. More recently, if you remember the Wachowski Brothers you're a deranged CIS-normal lunatic, apparently. The fact that Larry Wachowski is a man who made the Matrix films is harder to coverup than Metro's sad attempts to lie to us and claim that Sam Dyck isn't a man, but rather a woman who started a club where she pretends to be a man.

On the subject of convicted fraudster Carmen Pervez, the newsmedia is okay with letting you know who he is despite his attempts to hide his past. Future sexual fraudster "Sam Dyck" isn't so easy. There the newspaper is okay with passing off a lie to you.

Distinction, perhaps. Difference, nope.


Uber Edmonton isn't quite ready for Prime Time

So with all the talk today about the cool new kid on the Smartphone block, Uber, I thought for tonight I would try out their UberX service which debuted (for free, for now) in Edmonton this week.
(click to view full size)

Let's just say I think there are still a few glitches to work out in the software...

A Black Power idiot on fantasy races

So it's white-centric and western-centric to consider Scotsmen and Russians to be foreign?

Danielle Smith has decided that elections are a waste of [your] time

My father has a line that he likes to use whenever he gets word that a couple whose wedding we attended has resulted in a separation or divorce. I've been told it a few times, most recently a family friend who got married in about four or five summers ago.

Well, looks like you wasted gas driving down to Drumheller
The quote has been repeated a half dozen times over the years. When we drove to my cousin's wedding in Canmore, we wasted gas. When we drove to another cousin's wedding in Edmonton (okay, for me granted it wasn't nearly as bad) we wasted gas. Our neighbour who got married in Calgary? We wasted gas. I wasted jet fuel too when I went to a Caribbean wedding a few years ago, but he didn't go so he wasn't as concerned over that one. The implication of the line though is pretty stunningly obvious: we drove all this way (and bought a gift, bought overpriced drinks, maybe even rented a tux). The intent of our drive was to witness an event, to be involved in a process by which two people affirmed a long-term (infinity, in this case) binding contract where they promised to be together, to support each other, and to work towards their united cause: in particular, raising a family.

When this contract turns out to be broken, it meant that our investment was a waste. Why did we drive to Drumheller anyways? Our friend's wife unilaterally decided that she didn't feel like honouring the contract anymore. We thought we were going there to support her decision to start a family, to build something new and stronger and better. Instead, she decided to take the majority of the wedding presents (yes, Dad did ask this) and hike off on her own.

When I learned about the massive Wildrose MLA defection which occurred this week, that line came back a lot in my mind. Much like when I drove to Drumheller for a wedding, a lot of you voted in April 2012 but it turns out all you were doing was wasting your gas money.

Did you vote for Wildrose because you liked the Wildrose Party?
Did you vote for Wildrose because you didn't like the Progressive Conservatives?
Did you vote for the Progressive Conservatives because you didn't like Wildrose?

Congratulations! Your vote didn't matter. You most likely drove to a polling station and wasted your gas money.

At this point it's important to throw in that favourite caveat, that this topic was so beautifully expressed in the South Park episode "Douche and Turd", way back during the 2004 Presidential race. If you don't know it, the key takeaway from it for those watching the Wildrose Defections comes near the end of the episode: Stan finally votes the final vote of the election, and the side he voted for lost by a wide margin. The vote, by the way, was on a new school mascot since PETA had forced the school to change the old name. Stan tries claiming that, since his side didn't win by a single vote, that his vote didn't matter. Immediately the voting proponents stomped on his claim, angrily telling him that it's total nonsense: even if you vote for a losing cause, you still exercised your democratic contribution and therefore it mattered. Seconds later, the town learns that PETA has been killed by Puff Daddy (don't ask), and since the objection to the original mascot is gone, neither of the two choices offered in the election need to be picked and they can go back to the old name. Stan is then told by Randy, "now your vote didn't matter". The same works with this. Even if you were one of the 440,000 Albertans who cast your vote for Wildrose in 2012, your vote still mattered (moreso, naturally, since Westminister elections aren't all-or-nothing like the U.S. Presidential one South Park spoofed). Until this week, that is, when Danielle Smith decided to kill PETA.
And just like how our friend's soon-to-be-ex-wife unilaterally made the decision that our trip to Drumheller was a wasted trip, Danielle Smith and eight compadres made the decision that your vote in 2012 was a wasted trip. The election didn't really matter. Typically floor crossings are more matters for individual constituencies rather than the electorate at large. Rob Anderson becoming a Wildrose MLA was more an Airdrie matter than an Edmonton one. Kerry Towle leaving Wildrose to become a PC last month (more on that later) is more an Innisfail problem than a Calgary one. Sometimes it can have some larger ramifications, particularly when a floor crossing tips the balance of power in the legislature, but it's still primarily a local issue.

This is different. This is literally unprecedented in Canada. Hell, it may be unprecedented in the entire history of Westminster Parliaments. The key phrase in the preceding paragraph, you see, is "tips the balance". The teeter-totter metaphor makes sense when a majority party is only a couple of defections away from being replaced (see Jim Jeffords for a non-Westminister example). It makes sense if a minority government is only a seat away from being a majority government...or a minority government is only a seat the other way from being an opposition party. These are tips of balances of powers.

This is a party with a majority already...nay, a super-majority absorbing a huge chunk of its largest (and, as the mainstream media is now starting to suddenly go on about in a topic they've never once mentioned over the past half-decade under Danielle Smith, its most effective) opposition. The sheer size of the floor crossings, and that they include the leader of the party, make this quite different than the average MLA swapping parties. Oddly enough, since the actual reins of power aren't changing, the dynamic of this switch is even more monumental. This is, at least for the next election cycle and probably the next two cycles, going to completely eliminate the Wildrose Party from contention. Don't be surprised next week to find that Wildrose has ironically dropped in popularity. Why? Voters are mad at Danielle Smith and eight other people...who are now actually PC MLAs. Voters can be dumb, that's how come Wildrose didn't form the government in 2012 (when they were deserving of the role). Ultimately it means the PCs are the only centre-right game in town.

You're totally wrong to do so, of course. If you doubt it, I did an entire series that month about why the PCs were contemptible and why you are either stupid or evil for supporting them.

Can any good come from this? Yes, probably, though nothing right away. For one, this has effectively removed a few of the squeamish "Mildrose" MLAs from the roster. There wasn't many in the way of strong social or fiscal conservatives leaving the party with the possible exception of Bruce McAllister. Remember that since the 2012 election there have been many people, this blog one of the chief among them (but, certainly, not the only!) in calling for Danielle Smith to either be replaced, or for her desire to veer Wildrose to the left to be curbed, shaved, or even stomped. (Those who thought otherwise 18 months ago are probably backing down a little bit. Those who disagreed two months ago when apparently this operation was in the middle of its implementation phase must be backing down at warp speed). Maybe with a purge of some of the leftist elements (not all: as was pointed out to me a month or so back, far-left Alberta Party and Green Party extremists are still infesting Wildrose constituency boards) the Wildrose can at least strike the sort of principled conservatism that they had when Ed Stelmach was ousted as PC leader for fear of Wildrose on the right flank. (The departure of Red Redford was more complicated: even without Danielle Smith in the wings, her time was up in dirty affairs of her own making. Perhaps this will mark the return to a long-time stint as Wildrose being the polar opposite of the NDP: never in power or even threatening power, but constantly keeping the right-wing arguments against the Prentice Tories in the public consciousness. They may even end up the polar opposite of the Liberals in the sense that they do the same as the NDP, only every couple decades they threaten to actually seize power away. Remember that the Alberta Liberals under Lawrence Decore almost beat Ralph Klein from the right. For those who want principles to win the day instead of power, knowing that the important thing is that right-wing legislation gets enacted by the Alberta Government at the end of the day, this isn't exactly a bad thing.

Perhaps, though, Wildrose will end up trying to be the next government, losing two or three more election cycles in the process, and decide that Danielle Smith's plan (immediately dismissed by Wildrose executives) isn't such a bad idea after all. In that scenario, Wildrose and the Progressive Conservatives can meld their differences and enter into a merger where the PC party swings more to the right structurally in return for removing their Wildrose opposition. This wouldn't be the first merger between the Wildrose Party and another party: the Wildrose and the Alberta Alliance, after all, merged just five years ago in order to present a united front...against the PC Party...okay it would still be weird, but not particularly so. A lot of people are already comparing this to another prominent political merger this century...
Its essentially like a replay of the 2002 merger of the federal PCs and the Canadian Alliance, except without any obvious reason as its clear the PCs are not in danger of losing to a left-wing party anytime soon.
frankly, if Prentice never bothered to lift a finger for, no one could do anything about because he already had a majority!
Along with the government/opposition distinction Kyle references in that blogpost, there is perhaps a more major distinction between the "United Alternative" movement in the 1990s and the Danielle Smith merger plan (read: the Danielle Smith floor crossing plan): the "unite the right" movement started with Ezra Levant's "Winds of Change" conference in 1996. Craig Chandler had another in 1998. Reform itself turned into the Canadian Alliance following not one but two conferences, and then Peter McKay and Stephen Harper started working towards a party merger in 2003. In December 2003 the PC and Canadian Alliance memberships both ratified the change (support was in the 90% range for both parties). Hey, notice anything different about this process? Over a period of years various grassroots conferences and events were held to discuss and debate the merger(s). Letters to the Editor in various publications on each side was held. There were radio debates, there were live debates, there was a chance for voters to write their MPs and discuss their opinion on the issue. Whether or not you agreed with the Reform/PC merger that ultimately occurred at least there was a long period in which everybody got their chance to talk about it. Danielle Smith's floor-crossing party was a fait accompli: from what I can determine looking back in articles about this, only a week ago it was still just paranoid rantings from Loopy Joe Anglin, and definitely didn't include the Wildrose Leader. Now it seems that she's instantly the ringleader of a long-standing (but not long-mentioned!) plan of joining up with the man she called corrupt as she was side-dealing with him (at least now we know how she knew so well!). When was this discussed? When were Wildrose voters, or voters in their constituencies, in the loop about what was going to happen and why? She seemed to condense eight years of United Alternative discussions into roughly 36 hours of decision making, apparently only communicated through unfortunately timed leaks.

Elections matter. At least, they're supposed to. Mark Steyn has been on this file since the U.S. midterm elections, which President Monkey basically cast aside days later: for government officials to tell the electorate that the election doesn't matter is to turn them from the electorate to the ruled. Even if the Prentice-Smith team ends up being the most benign and useful political alliance in the history of the planet, the answer still has to come up in that direction.

In 2012, you wasted gas. The blame for that needs to go squarely on Danielle Smith's shoulders. Some of it probably falls on Prentice, but you can hardly blame him for his plan. It's a relatively low-risk high-reward move, despite what Rachel Notley is trying to claim today. Note there aren't a lot of PC supporters upset over this. There are tons of Wildrose voters who are, and as Colby Cosh noted, an ironic block of leftists:
The floor-crossing has some people, mostly those who would never actually vote Wildrose, fretting about the general health of democracy in Alberta.
Ultimately Prentice made a bit of a bold gambit which seems to be paying off in spades. He didn't think the election mattered either, but it's worth noting that he didn't originally get elected in one.

It's hard to imagine that really ever becoming the case. It's why, despite the 4-hour caucus debate the PCs had about letting the ship-jumping MLAs into their party, there wasn't much worry that they would decide to say no. What would be their argument? "Why, we can't let them into our caucus, they are willing to let their political beliefs slide just to be closer to the reigns of power and oh wait that's exactly what all of us have been doing for years."

Good morning and welcome to the new Alberta political reality: the days of a 20-member Wildrose Alliance opposition are gone, soon to be replaced by a 4-member caucus that doesn't even have official opposition status. Strictly speaking, this isn't what any of us voted for. We voted for Brian Mason leading the NDP, Danielle Smith leading the opposition Wildrose, with Alison Redford leading the Progressive Conservatives in government. Select few, in accordance with Parliamentary rules that don't quite factor in the modern era of Presidential-style governance in Westminster systems, voted for Jim Prentice to become their MLA (and, three other guys to become theirs). Wildrose didn't win any of those elections, but they fought in them. (At least nominally, there's some grumblings I'm seeing on Twitter that maybe the byelections were thrown. I'll post later this month on this topic, there are a few connecting threads I want to put together first).

But why am I telling you all this? It doesn't matter. It was just an election. Nothing to get excited over. The election doesn't matter. Danielle and Jim got together and decided what the Alberta Legislature would really look like. Your say was all fun and interesting and all that jazz, but it didn't matter.

You wasted the gas.


Oilers at San Jose Sharks

Welcome to something I haven't done in ages. No, not liveblogging.

Well, okay, that too. I'm talking about watching the Edmonton Oilers play hockey. Their game against San Jose starts in about 11 minutes. Last game I saw, we got smoked by Arizona 5-2. Let's see what they can get up to tonight....

8:25pm: Five minutes to go: Drew says the Oilers have been told by new head coach Todd Nelson "just go back out there after you make a mistake". I think the Oil have that down pat, seeing how I don't recall any third periods where the entire team stayed on the bench.

8:26pm: So far, nobody on either team has the mumps. This may be an NHL record.

8:30pm: Sportsnet: "even with the coaching change, it was same old same old on Tuesday night". No shit, Sherlock. It's almost like Eakins wasn't the entire problem. Who knew?

8:32pm: Sportsnet talking about how Ben Scrivens sat on his head last game. Okay, that's totally news, I don't remember him doing that in the games before I left.

8:33pm: Oh God, what's Gene Principe going to say?

8:34pm: Gene's playing with a Budweiser red light prop today, talking about the Oilers being tied for second worst in the league in goals-for. So far no puns.

8:35pm: San Jose will win if they light the red light more often than the Oilers. Thanks Gene, you're a modern day genius.

8:37pm: Ben Scrivens is back in net again tonight. His .894 SV% is a stark contrast to Anti Niemi's .919.

8:38pm: The faceoff has begun. The Oilers lost it. Switching to gametime!

1st period 19:24: The Oilers get their first possession of the game only to give it back up immediately.

1st period 18:33: Joe Thorton almost got a goal there, but did an Eberle impression at the last possible second.

1st period 18:02: Scrivens handles the puck to avoid SJ getting an icing call. Great.

1st period 17:40: Thornton and Hertl almost get a shot on goal in a great scoring opportunity.

1st period 17:01: Ference touched the puck. I just booed.

1st period 16:40: So far San Jose has been mostly dominating. "Stay within your game plan" is the Oilers key to the game. Since the game plan is to lose, I think they are cool there.

1st period 15:50: Eberle's pass to the slot gets intercepted by Sheppard. At least the Oilers are doing good at winning the end board cycling so far.

1st period 14:45: Pinnezoto's pass goes wild across the Oilers zone. Oilers are backchecking good this shift, I approve.

1st period 13:55: Thane gets an elbow to the face. No call.

1st period 13:24: Nuge comes in and reads the attempted pass beautifully.

1st period 12:59: The Leafs winning streak has just been killed by Carolina. That's the most amazing news ever. That almost undoes what Danielle Smith did this week.

1st period 12:22: Edmonton Oilers have water bottled numbered. Sounds like they and San Jose have this mumps thing down.

1st period 12:12: We went from almost 5 minutes without a whistle to two whistles within a dozen seconds of each other.

1st period 11:33: Hall missed on a great crossover pass from Purcell.

1st period 10:50: Pitlick clears the puck, the first time he's been not invisible on the whole shift. Where was he when San Jose was rocking Scrivens?

1st period 9:59: Draisaitl had a good shot there, but he should have passed rather than shot when he got his own rebound

1st period 8:17: Time to turn the oven on for some frozen pizza. Hall passes to the slot, Purcell can't quite turn it into a quality shot on goal.

1st period 7:41: Hall loses his edge and falls. DRINK!

1st period 6:19: Arcabello shoots to the empty ice, Hunt has to leave the zone. Fire the coach.

1st period 5:50: HOW DID THAT NOT GO IN!

1st period 5:17: Gordon is in the lineup, and he scores with a slick backhand! What the hell happened after that though, Ebs? 1-0 Edmonton. Oilers lead, that's good, right?

1st period 4:48: Is egg nog with rum an acceptable hockey-drinking beverage? I sure hope so. Couture just tried to tie it up but couldn't get past the Oilers defense. Wow.

1st period 3:31: Both teams can only control the puck up to the opposing blue line tonight, it seems.

1st period 2:09: Yak is doing his patented "can I get to the puck? No? I give up" routine. Danielle Smith may need to pay royalties.

1st period 1:38: That same Nail Yakupov is now in the penalty box. First special teams moment of the game.

1st period 1:01: Wild play in front of the net, San Jose can't quite put it away.

1st period 0:40: Nuge! Fights the defender for a shot on goal, a pseudo-breakaway.

1st period 0:10: Tenneson's rifle gets snatched by Scrivens. Oilers hanging on from a couple scary PP moments for the Sharks.

1st period 0:03: Another Tenneson slapshot from the blue line, but the Oilers hang on. Considering it's against the Sharks, that's almost the perfect road period for a 30th place team.

9:12pm: The pizza is in, at least 17 minutes which means I may go silent as the second period starts up. Phil Kessel just gets a shout-out from John Shannon. I feel dirty even hearing it. I'd better finish this rum and eggnog, I'm pretty sure pizza and eggnog doesn't go well together.

9:16pm: Nobody on the Oilers can complete with Brent Burns in the critical "awesome beard" stat.

9:25pm: Gene is interviewing Raffi Torres. Since it's past 2008, Gene should worry that Raffi will cheap shot him across the back of the skull.

9:27pm: "Maybe some health coming in 2015 for you" says Gene. I thought for sure that's when Raffi would have hit him. I would have.

2nd period 19:41: Of course as the period starts my oven beeps: the pizza is ready.

2nd period 18:56: A powerplay just ended so the Sportsnet crew starts talking "momentum". Like the sun rising in the east, you can count on it.

2nd period 18:39: Pacoretti has now gone to the hospital in that Montreal game. I'm off to have pizza, you're on your own for now!

2nd period 14:09: San Jose scores. Hot chicks cheering on in the crowd. If you show those girls again, and we get Connor McDavid, I'll accept another dozen goals against us.

2nd period 8:03: Wow, wild period while I was away having pizza. It's now 3-2 Oilers after Nuge and Pinnezoto try this "fight for the puck in the slot" thing and find out, hey look, it works great!

2nd period 6:59: So this is the most goals the Oilers have scored against the Sharks all year. Hell, when was the last time the Oilers even scored 3 goals? October?

2nd period 5:52: Klefbom levels Couture, he's having a good shift against a tough line.

2nd period 5:34: Another Oilers penalty. Still winning 3-2 though.

2nd period 3:37: I guess November 28th was the last 3-goal Oilers game. Penalty ends as San Jose does a good impersonation of an early 2000s Oilers powerplay. Lots of cycling, barely one shot on goal.

2nd period 2:34: Oilers escape another barrage and go on the rush...Hall is not having a good game, he ran out of momentum just inside the blue line.

2nd period 2:04: Hall almost scored but again doesn't seem to have any magic in the...magic...tank....

2nd period 1:29: Yak with about 5 shot attempts within 20 seconds.

2nd period 1:11: A Ference shot is completely harmless. Please try to act surprised.

2nd period 0:42: Oilers completely collapse back on their own net and survive another strong barrage of shots from the superior Sharks forwards.

2nd period 0:00: A really wild period, 4 goals in about 4 minutes. Of course, that's the timeframe I'm busy eating pizza so I only got to really look at a couple of them. Nuge is definitely the best player on the ice tonight. Hall was starting to get his groove back later in the period, he jumped Niemi to check a Shark against the back boards with about 15 seconds left. Pinezotto's goal was a greasy greasy greasy one, but Nuge's was beautiful. Going the other way, Logan Couture's goal is going to make it on the "This guy scored" site tomorrow, as all Oilers slid to the side of the ice he wasn't rushing up the boards on.

3rd period 18:46: Perron puts a dirty dump in to make a line change. Ference almost cost us a goal again.

3rd period 17:49: San Jose totally dominating this period, kept in the opposing zone where Pavelski was a one-man wrecking crew.

3rd period 16:07: Oilers still can't get it out of their zone or make any sort of push into opposing territory.

3rd period 15:37: San Jose survives a total Oilers blitz: one of their players gloves it out of the air and play is whistled down.

3rd period 14:59: The Hall/Klefbom chemistry tonight is pretty nice.

3rd period 13:50: I wonder what was up with the refs at the Oilers bench, looks like MacT had to intervene to keep the Oilers out of the box for some reason. Burns lost his stick and still managed to clear it out of the zone.

3rd period 12:52: It's funny seeing that Adobe ad along the San Jose side of the boards. In one sense it's annoying because it's a lit sign, and its hard for your eyes to follow the action as players pass by it. On the other sense it's funny since Adobe is notorious for having compatibility issues with the chief software from the company who owns naming right to the arena. Anyways, Eberle just got softly roughed up in the corner. Again, we've seen this show before.

3rd period 12:34: This Sharks fan with the teeth looks legally retarded. Perron with a penalty for an illegal head shot.

3rd period 12:08: Couture and Pavelski were totally rocking the Oilers on that shift. Ever see a backhand blind pass on a PP before? Well you saw one now.

3rd period 11:40: Nuge wins another faceoff and the Sharks barely get out of their zone.

3rd period 11:31: But when the Sharks do get out, they snap a quick shot and score over Scrivens' blocker. We're tied at 3-3.

3rd period 11:22: So that's Tenneson's first NHL goal. He certainly earned it with the way he played so far tonight. One of the Shark's most dangerous weapons.

3rd period 10:57: Cue the Oilers collapse, as Barkley Goodrow shakes off Justin Schultz and crosses the entire ice and backhands it under Ben Scrivens. 4-3 for San Jose. Goodrow's second ever goal. Wanna guess which team he scored his first against?

3rd period 10:22: Almost 5-3 for the Sharks after this shift: they have just been pushing hard and harder and oh God oh God harder harder harder and Oilers are hanging on for dear life.

3rd period 10:09: I like the hottie in the leopard print scarf behind the Oilers bench. Wait, a scarf? In San Jose??

3rd period 9:24: They switched the Adobe sign. Heh. Loose puck almost scooped up for Courture for another San Jose goal, but luck was on Edmonton's side for once.

3rd period 8:29: Oilers can't keep the Sharks off the puck. Fortunately San Jose coudn't keep the puck inside the blue line.

3rd period 7:40: Now Burns is starting to have one hell of a game. Must be the beard.

3rd period 7:04: Hall vs. Thornton isn't going well for Taylor Hall. Not sure that Taylor Hall vs. Goodrow would be the greatest matchup for Taylor Hall tonight. He's totally not on his game. Has this been going on long?

3rd period 6:28: Hall clears it out of the zone, which is good since Thane gave the puck up and caused a good 15 second long rush where San Jose wouldn't give up on their mission to hit 6 goals tonight.

3rd period 6:12: Hall just lost another battle in the opposing zone.

3rd period 5:23: Oilers third line working hard to keep the puck in the San Jose zone. Sportsnet just said this is Schultz's best game. Did they not watch the Goodrow goal or something?

3rd period 4:33: Nuge is so far able to hem 2-3 opposing players in their own zone single-handedly. At least the third time I've seen this.

3rd period 4:14: "Taylor Hall almost got through". I'm telling you, he lost his mojo. time to travel back to the 1960s...

3rd period 3:08: C'mon Oilers, you gotta score here. You aren't one of these teams that can score with a second left on the clock...but the teams you play always seem to be. Oilers can't get possession so far.

3rd period 2:48: Oilers narrowly avoid icing, The Nuge is back out.

3rd period 2:18: Fake whistle just sounded. Hall's attempted pass intercepted, Klefbom bails him out.

3rd period 1:55: Oilers lose it in the zone, Scrivens run watch is on.

3rd period 1:31: Schultz advances and the net is almost empty.

3rd period 1:21: Now the net is empty, or will be when/if Edmonton wins the ensuing faceoff in the San Jose zone. Or, no, nevermind, it's staying empty apparently. Bold move, new coach guy.

3rd period 0:45: San Jose miscue behind their net, Hall almost capitalizes.

3rd period 0:34: Eberle almost has a chance to score...which means, of course, he doesn't. The Eberle regression season continues, it seems. 2011 Eberle totally would have buried that one.

3rd period 0:02: Oilers ice the puck with only two seconds left, but nobody except the cameras heard the whistle. 4-3 San Jose and I'm afraid that this game is basically over for the Oilers. The ref says 2 seconds, but I already told you that. No delay of game penalty despite the announcer's wish.

3rd period 0:00: That horrible arrangement of "Rock and Roll Part 2" plays, and its official. Oilers have lost another game, in regulation. The "Lose All Honour for Conner" chant should be set to resume.

The new Alberta PC Cabinet

Welcome back?

Hey everybody, sorry for the couple weeks I was unavailable. Back now though.

So what did I mi....HOLY SHITBALLS.

Okay there's been a lot going on, from Sydney to Wildrose to Eakins to Sony. That's a *LOT* to digest now that I can actually read up on stuff.

Definitely have more to say in the days coming forward. Christ Danielle Smith, I go away for two weeks and you completely give up the farm? You didn't even get any magic beans.

At least the Oilers might have some magic beans.


The Grand Budapest Hotel in LEGO

(features a bonus appearance by Tony Revolori)


It's still not Christmastime

C'mon people, let's pace ourselves. Yes it's December, and there's snow on the ground, and therefore everybody is getting all pumped for Christmas.

You're going to burn out.

Take those stupid puffy Christmas ornaments off your lawn. Sure, put the lights up when it's nice out, but they stay off for now. You don't need to parade around in a Santa hat, or play Christmas carols in your car, or put Christmas ornaments up in your home or place of business. You definitely don't need to put these up anywhere or at any time.

Yes you think I'm the "bah humbug" guy now, but around December 19th you're going to get so sick of Christmas shit that you're going to have some sort of Yuletide meltdown. You don't have to do this.

The window to put up Christmas decorations is December 5 through December 10th.

You may not have seen this rule before, but it's entirely true. Even if you wait until December 10th, you have two full weeks of Christmas decoration cheer to live with. This should be enough for any rational human being. Though, again, if you're doing the singing/dancing Christmas plush toy thing, you don't fall into this category anyways.


In California there's something called "Proposition 65" which requires businesses post if their foodstuffs contain "substances which are known to the State of California to cause cancer". The signs are everywhere: Carl's Jr has them, hell even Starbucks has them. In fact I can go one crazier: I was in a shopping mall in Santa Monica where the mall entrance had to warn that it was built with *building materials* " known to cause cancer." It's just ridiculous overkill.

Which is why it's so funny to go to the docks.

On every pier you see a bunch of Mexicans fishing off the dock, and almost as many State of California social workers tagging along, each holding signs (in español, natch) warning them which fish are and are not dangerous to eat. Unfortunately, apparently the
q Mexicans ignore them and occasionally get sick. (I have a picture at home, I'll try to find it later)

The problem is same as the "wear condoms when having queer sex" issue: having just finished over-nanny-stating the populace over nonsense, the State of California has lost all credibility. Fish from Marina Del Rey isn't good for you, but apparently so is a goddamned hamburger, so who cares?


The only media outlet that on FFAs gives the winning side a voice

One of the things I've pointed out many a time (and shocked and confused brain-dead liberals who believed the media) is that when it comes to these Faggot-Familiar-Alliances, the Alberta newsmedia is solidly on the side of the pillow biters. Liberal reporters only interview other liberal activists and put out a decidedly one-sided story out in the media.

Then they keep losing in the Legislature, and nobody can seem to figure out why. So it's probably not surprising that LifeNews (last seen scaring a liberal fag-lover into cowardice) actually talks with the other side of the discussion, particularly former Canadian Taxpayers Federation executive John Carpay. Worth a full read, but here's the meat of John's attack:

“Totalitarian states cannot tolerate freedom of religion because it means people look elsewhere than the state for their values,” Carpay told LifeSiteNews. Free states, on the other hand, should promote freedom of religion, and the freedom of parents to teach their children their own values. Bill 202 and gay-straight alliances were both premised on the idea that “homosexuality is healthy and normal,” which is in conflict with what Catholic and other Christian schools in Alberta teach, says Carpay, which is that “sexuality is sacred and the place for it is in heterosexual marriage.”

Redlettermedia watches the new Star Wars trailer

You know, when Rich Evans finally snaps I'm not entirely sure we'll notice.

As for the trailer itself, I was kinda "meh" on it. It's nice to see that Stormtroopers are (probably) just actual drafted soldiers again, and it looks like there's a decent chance of action. But it smells too much like "J.J. Abrams up his own asshole" again, and the deep deep voice voiceover ended up just sounding ridiculous. Then again, I geeked out at the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy trailer, so what do I know?


So a bill that essentially turns children’s decisions of their own rights into a parent’s decision is now enshrined in the Alberta bill of rights.
Yeah, that's how parenting works.
Bonus ignorance:
Today Jim Prentice, the premier and leader of the Progressive Conservative party, introduced Bill 10 in response. This bill is an amendment to Bill 202 and means that if a school board or parent does not want students running a GSA they are fully in their right to refuse it.
Uh, no, Bill 10 is a separate government bill. Its timing follows Bill 202 (a private members bill) but is in no way shape or form an amendment. Meanwhile, it just establishes a longstanding legal principle that the ATA and their sodomy thugs want to deny: that the final arbiter of school systems must be the parents whose children are trapped within it.

Happy World AIDS Day (should I have brought noisemakers?)

Today marked "World AIDS Day", the day the United Nations has set aside for raising money and awareness about the disease.

I marked 2014 World AIDS Day the same way I marked 2013 World AIDS Day, 2004 World AIDS Day, 1988 World AIDS Day, and indeed all days in between World AIDS days: not doing the stupid and/or desperate things that would cause me to get AIDS.

The list isn't particularly complicated:

  1. Don't be so desperate to get your dick in something that you pick another man's ass
  2. Don't be so stupid as to let another man's dick go up yours
  3. Don't sleep with a chick who is cool on "bisexual" men (ie. fucks fags)
  4. Don't be so desperate for drugs that you're willing to jab them into you using whatever needles happen to be at hand
Now unfortunately there are a few other routes to getting AIDS, though thankfully they are (or at least were) relatively rare:
  • getting a blood transfusion
  • Being born to a mother with AIDS
  • Being in sub-Saharan Africa where huge swathes of the population are only a couple Degrees of Kevin Bacon away from a guy who thought chimpanzees make a good appetizer.
One notes that the second category, while less easy to avoid, is mostly an "already done" sort of category: if you weren't born with AIDS and don't live in Africa already, the only thing you have to worry about is blood transfusions. So far the odds of getting it are nonzero but still very small, less if the likes of Chrystia Freeland are successful in getting the Canadian Blood Services uranist ban lifted even more than it is already. It's ironic, really, that the same folks who try to promote fudge packing as a legitimate lifestyle have to at least one day a year turn around and ask for money when the diseases caused by promoting the sick lifestyle continue to spread. How can the spread of AIDS be stopped? First order of business you think would be to start spreading the message that the lifestyle choices that lead to AIDS are wrong and you shouldn't be doing them anymore. That would, you think, be the bare minimum required. Yet the AIDS lobby is with their left hand promoting the spread of AIDS and in their right hand decrying it. It's why, this AIDS Day, José María Di Bello has AIDS and I don't. It's why Merritt Butrick is dead, and the man who played his father in 1982 isn't.

I won't have AIDS next AIDS day. Michael Phair having it would probably pay 3-to-16 in Vegas.