There are only two things farmers complain about†: too much rain, and not enough rain.
For most of 2016, it was the latter that caught our attention, culminating of course in the Fort Mac forest fires that gained international attention (and retarded analysis by global warming fanatacists).
However, right on cue for May Long Weekend (which is almost as reliable a bad-weather predictor as Klondike Days is) the skies above Alberta opened up and gave a heavy dump of rain, ruining camping trips (doubly so, if you went camping in Leduc county) and giving parched lawns and forests a much-needed dose of rain. Farmers are mostly happy about it too: the thing about complaining about too much rain is when it happens at the absolute wrong time, like 24 hours after you've cut the hay crop. Right after you plant is much better.
† Pre Rachel Arab's sick anti-farmer government, of course
Rainfall varies a lot, of course: out at Lac St. Anne they apparently got a mere 25-40mm of rain this weekend. Edson and Grande Prairie got Friday morning snowfall, and sadly Fort McMurray itself got a mere 5mm.
As for Edmonton, we got 76.5mm of rain‡ between May 19th and May 23rd, with most of it falling on the even numbered days and smaller amounts on the odd numbered days§. That's a pretty big chunk of rainfall, you might be thinking, and you're right.
Edmonton's total avergage annual precipitation is 476.9mm (365.7mm of rain plus 123.5cm of snow), which means that over four days Edmonton received a whopping 16% of our total annual precipitation over that span. That also represents an astounding 21% of our total annual rainfall. More to come, too, as the forecast calls for more rainshowers into Memorial Day Weekend. By contrast, the entire precipitation for the month of April was 9.9mm, and 14.1mm in March.
‡ This again is very location-dependent: southwest Edmonton got more rain than northeast Edmonton did
§ The May Long 2016 rainfall, therefore, follows the same rule as Star Trek movies
Almost literally switching between feast and famine, the Capital Region is finally swimming in rainfall, and the crops and gardens and lawns and parks are finally going to grow like they were supposed to, just as soon as we start getting actual nice weather again. Just in case you worried we'd run out of things to complain about, this rain is just at the right time to provide a huge boon in the mosquito population.
We probably won't need any rain for a while now. Just in time, come to think of it, for Klondike Days.
TSN.ca columnist Scott MacArthur is mentally retarded.
What other conclusion can you draw from this insane column in which he basically objects to the recent Rangers and Blue Jays suspensions because of "old school" thinking like...cracking down on incessant rule breaking in order to establish order.
Gibbons got three games because he’s a repeat offender. This isn’t the first time Gibbons has re-entered the playing field after being ejected earlier in a game. Such an affront was it that it warranted a suspension only five games less than Odor’s, who decided it was time to be Muhammad Ali on a baseball field.Gibbons was suspended for returning to a game he was kicked out of. He's done it multiple times, therefore the suspension increases. Repeat offenders bear a more significant penalty than non-repeat offenders. This should not be a new concept to a human being. Google "three strikes law" if you need a real-world-stolen-from-baseball example (to bring right back 'round to baseball). It's hard to see what all this has to do with Cassius Clay, of course: the notion that a physical blow during a physical game should necessarily always always always be penalized more than the physical action of trespassing just hangs openly in the article and hopes that you (irrationally) agree with it.
Chavez gets three games because he hit Prince Fielder with a pitch in the bottom of the eighth. It’s an automatic suspension because warnings had been issued to both benches after Bush deliberately hit Bautista. Follow that logic. This magic “warning,” yeah, it’s time to scrap it. Enough is enough.I'm not sure who gave MacArthur the line about "with all the celerity of a tortoise crossing the street" but it certainly wasn't him, because nobody who thinks to use "celerity"† is also so functionally brain-fucking-dead that he can't grasp this concept either. MacArthur literally seems shocked that a suspension -- which is a higher penalty than a fine -- is issued out only in more serious cases‡. Namely: continuing to hit batters with a pitch, which has been specifically warned against in order to avoid games escalating. This event, of course, is precisely what happened after those players flaunted the warning. Rather than say "oh, turns out the rules are there for a reason", MacArthur is still thinking it's somehow a crime against nature that Jesse Chavez didn't get away with making a situation worse even after being warned against it...a warning that came with an automatic suspension, so he knew the consequences going into it. Matt Bush didn't: he could have been fined or suspended or gotten away with it scott-free. The league fined him for deliberately hitting Bautista. MacArthur's insane bloodlust for more penalties for more Rangers doesn't make any sense. Bush deliberately hit a player in a circumstance where MLB sort of kind of discourages it. There are other circumstances where they recognize it can be more dangerous or more serious, and then they discourage it more. Just like you're allowed to break a guy's arm if he's repeatedly punching you, but not so much if he only did it once. Again, this is basic stuff taught in High School law courses.
Bush, and remember the league has established his intent, doesn’t get suspended for hitting Bautista because it was pre-warning. Chavez gets nicked because he hit Fielder post-warning.
Going back to the beginning, MacArthur has nothing but a slew of false equivalencies. Rangers manager Jeff Banister "was speaking vaguely about the situation" and didn't even get a fine, dammit! Meanwhile Gibbons merely enters a game he was ejected to and gets punished. What's up with that? Does MacArthur think that a random visitor to the TSN studios should be treated exactly as harshly as one who has a court order keeping him 175m away from Kate Beirness at all times? Probably not. But then, he's been known to let his pathetically tiny brain shut down completely when his home team is concerned, so what's another case?
Meanwhile, the mental midget isn't done yet...
It’s time to disincentivize the intentional hit-by-pitch as a method of retribution. It is old school silliness in the same vein as the U.S. Constitution’s second amendment, which was penned long before sawed off machine guns existed.This moron already was showing himself on the same mental plane as a frying pan, and then he turns around and shows complete ignorance of American history, firearms, and philosophy all in a single line. A "sawed-off machine gun" wouldn't even work properly, for one. For two, the inalienable human right to bear arms is not dictated by the U.S. Second Amendment (for example, British and Canadian citizens have this same inalienable right codified in Common Law, and like all fundamental human rights§ it isn't at the whim of lawmakers. Finally, any sensible reading of the Second Amendment involves U.S. citizens having the right to any weapon used by their military, including things far more powerful than machine guns.
Scott MacArthur is an anti-gun and anti-logic retard. No wonder he cheers for Toronto.
† Since celerity is derived from Latin, you might think perhaps that he's just French, until you remember his last name.
‡ MacArthur, if he could take the time away from sticking his own finger up his ass and then licking it thinking that it's a lollipop, might argue that the original hit-by-pitch is serious. I disagree, since I don't think hitting any Blue Jay with a projectile is serious, but most critically it can be serious without being more serious.
§ More accurately, human right since there is only one human right, the inalienable right to properly.
The race is only a few minutes away, and with all the scratches and collapses and rainstorms, it's time for my 2016 Kentucky Derby predictions.
Win: Mor Spirit
Bonus next 2 horses: Lani, Exaggerator
Celebrate the day by finding an NDP voter, and taking their personal property. They can't object, they don't believe their property isn't communally owned.
So how long until the tranny-lovers start pushing to have this song banned?
After all, "Sheena" is just expressing her 'gender identity' and Tone here is being "trans-phobic" for not wanting to be a fudge packer with a man pretending to be something he isn't. [Even worse, Loc is flat out slipping girls a high-powered aphrodisiac, which would get him being accused of date rape these days... -ed]
Don't be too surprised if by 2018 this song has been given the "Money for Nothing" treatment.
The 2016 NHL draft lottery is a little over an hour away, and the Edmonton Oilers have the second-best chance of landing the right to draft top prospect Auston Matthews.
In the 2015 NHL draft lottery, held April 18th, the Oilers had the third best chance but obviously won the lottery. It was scary though, as the city held it's breath worried that the Leafs would get the pick. They didn't, and now despite the worst record in the league they actually have a 47% chance of drafting fourth overall thanks to the new rules.
To celebrate, I whipped up a graphic that went viral on social media, and featured the second ever case of my content being stolen and attributed to another person (the first was my World War II/soccer post in 2006).
So now a city waits on baited breath again, hoping that the second-worst-case scenario of 29 every other NHL teams comes true, and that the worst-case scenario of 29 teams (including the Oilers) doesn't: namely, awarding a first overall pick to that horrible city out east.
Over at the Mises Institute, Laurence M. Vance has a 2009 article about comparing the flat tax with the FairTax. While generally a decent article, Vance describes "the flat tax" and then goes into not one but two misnamed proposals called "the flat tax" (one by Steve Forbes, another by the Hoover Institute).
Vance is right to complain about these two proposals being unfair compromises: they are rather similar to the "flat tax" Alberta had before godless socialists took over†. Not particularly flat, though better than not flat at all.
Under a Flat Tax, everyone's income is taxed at the same rate (Forbes says 17 percent; Hall and Rabushka say 19 percent). And not only are there no tax brackets, there are generally no tax deductions other than personal and dependent allowances."Generally no deductions except for..." should be all Vance has to say on the topic. A proper flat tax not only has no deductions but no untaxed income level either. You only make $15,000/yr and the flat tax is 19%? Pony up $2850 every year to the government, and enjoy your twelve grand.
Vance is on his game though about FairTax, and includes a nice bit from Murray Rothbard about people who favour consumption rather than income taxation:
The consumption tax, on the other hand, can only be regarded as a payment for permission-to-live. It implies that a man will not be allowed to advance or even sustain his own life, unless he pays, off the top, a fee to the State for permission to do so.No article about FairTax is complete, of course, without some pot-shots at former talk show host Neal Boortz, one of the major proponents of it.‡ There's also a delightful proposal from the late Joe Sobran: a highly regressive tax where everybody pays the exact same dollar amount, and so every penny you make above that is gravy (and every penny below that, presumably, means your wages are garnished through the courts).
It would certainly be almost as good as the Flat TaxTM. Nothing, of course, is as good as a flat tax.
† Then, a few months later, the NDP won an election
‡ Neal is, more or less, a decent guy and I enjoyed listening to his show. He's wrong on the FairTax, obviously, but not so wrong on it that he necessarily needs to be the go-to pair of knees metaphorically capped every time somebody wants to complain about FairTax.
For the #BoycottEarls crowd and the far-left doubters and haters, a reminder that the label doesn't mean anything.
It's entirely possible to follow the steak from birth to the moment your plate is brought to your table and see no functional difference in how the animal was raised or slaughtered or cooked between "old Earls" and "new Earls". The only difference is one farm paid for a "promise we aren't evil" certification sticker and the other did. And so that means, like Frank's Red Hot Sauce, the certified humane badge can just be doused on absolutely anything, completely changing the complexion.
Whenever people casually refer to form numbers and everybody knows what they're talking about.
When government agents come to count your cows on behalf of County Reeve Lorne Hickey come to your farm to count your cattle...
They aren't allowed on your property. If necessary, shoot them until for whatever reason they stop coming on your land.
Optional second step: Feed them to the cows
The faggot-loving totalitarians at the University of British Columbia are holding a political prisoner for fighting against the sick sodomite agenda.
This is the police state under Rat Bastard Justin Trudeau. Fink must be freed.
Update, April 27 11:47pm: Turns out "Brooklyn Marie Fink" isn't a woman: he's a delusional man who thinks he's a woman. He's even worse than the fudge packers.
Lock him back up.
Who's the "predator" leaving Canadians "trapped in crippling cycles of debt"? https://t.co/krKmG6JOJp #cdnpoli #roft— FACLC (@FACLC) April 26, 2016
It's a half tongue-in-cheek quiz and half serious question...of course the answer is clear. Rachel Arab and Shiny Pony are conspiring to steal hundreds/thousands/tens of thousands of your dollars away from you (and they're conspiring with faggy and fag-loving city mayors to steal even more).
Unlike payday loan houses, you can't go up to the government counter, hear how much they plan on taking from you, say "no thanks", and just go home without ponying up the extra cash. They rob you right from your paycheque. Payday loan looks like a step up from payday larceny.
Far-left extremists should be the last people to make a stink about Money Mart. The mote in the eye of a payday loan company is insignificant compared to the beam in the eyes of socialists. Likewise, how does this phrase being used by the CBC against payroll loan company not apply 1000% more to Rachel Arab's government?
Such access to money, however, comes at a cost. Consumer groups say the interest rates charged by payday lenders- typically as high as 600 per cent on an annualized basis - can leave borrowers trapped in crippling cycles of debt.Taxpayers are trapped in crippling cycles of debt†. When will there be a law forcing the government to give taxpayers a break?
This supposes, again, that the two situations are equivalent. Despite the efforts to hype these customers as victims, they in fact are scoundrels: they are demanding free money. There's no wonder the NDP are rushing to their defense: people bad at managing finances wanting free money are a natural voting bloc they take great pains to coddle.
Here's basically what happens when you show up at a payday lending company: (figures are from this paper)
This demolishes the myth that these evil companies are just preying on poor folks who have no other option. For one thing, you actually have to walk into the door to get a payday loan (imagine never having to pay taxes if you never entered a federal government building). For another, the poor guy running the store has to give up money in his pocket in order to give money to the vagabond off the street, and then incur even more costs having to track these people down and take them to court. Check out this reddit post from a pathetic loser who can't believe that these bastards actually expect him to pay back the money they gave him. He borrowed $500, didn't pay it, and now they want $1350. He's contemplating fighting it in court or even no-showing and going on the lamb. This is the "victim" being "preyed" upon by the paydown loan companies: a guy who got some money that he now doesn't think he needs to pay back. [again, big surprise this person would then think to complain to a socialist and demand regulation... -ed].
The moral argument about paydays loans is demolished by Matt Zwolinski, who points out that the seen versus the unseen -- always a big issue in economics -- changes a lot of the lies about payday loans being pushed by the NDP and their allies at the CBC.
1. If payday lending is so profitable, why isn’t everybody doing it? This is a good question to ask yourself anytime you hear a story about some company earning unusually high profits off the back of a vulnerable population. If investors could earn a 200% rate of return by investing in new payday lending operations, why are smart investors wasting their time and money with anything else? Perhaps there’s something more to the picture that we’re not seeing?Zwolinski wrote a paper in Business Ethics Journal Review on the topic, where he notes that the notion that "usury equals theft" is a backwards notion [again, no surprise coming from the NDP... -ed] that has been thoroughly discredited going back to the 19th century.
2. Payday lending is not that profitable. Well, we don’t have to guess. People have studied this. And according to one study, the average profit earned by payday lenders was just 7.63%. By way of comparison, the same study reports that the average Starbucks franchise earns about 9% profit. So, if that 400% APR isn’t translating into sky-high profits for payday lenders, where exactly is it going?
It's worth noting this because the left's entire case against payday lenders is purely a moral argument, and demolishing this anti-human notion is a key ingredient in stopping them. There's a non-moral argument available, of course, and it's a basic fact that the NDP and their ilk always ignore: the law of unintended consequences. First, Georgia, 2007:
If large numbers of poor people in need of short term liquidity find they will no longer be able to access it, the likelihood is that we will see an increase in the poorest people being unable to meet their bills and pay for services they need.Or if that's not enough for you, how about Virginia, 2008:
This not an entirely theoretical example; a 2007 federal reserve study showed that when the state of Georgia regulated pay day loan industries out of the state, consumers “bounced more checks” and “filed for bankruptcy at a higher rate”. An official study in 2010 concluded that pay day lenders provided a useful service covering gaps in the market.
Four years ago, Virginia lawmakers cracked down on payday lending. They limited borrowers to one payday loan at a time, and doubled the length of time they had to pay the money back. It worked. Payday loans plunged more than 80 percent. A few lenders left the state completely.What will private enterprise come up with in Alberta once they are banned from being profitable with their current business model? Will they come up with a clever equally profitable business model as in Virginia? Or will they go the Georgia route, and instead see a new demand on the NDP next year to demand electricity stay on when they can't pay their bill, or force other institutions to lend them money even when the underwriting tables tell them not to?‡ It's hard to say...as Hayek said, the fatal conceit is deciding ahead of time what people will do when the market -- not retarded NDP MLAs -- has the relevant wealth of information required to calculate it.
But it also didn’t work. The reforms created a vacuum being filled by a new form of short-term lending: car-title loans.
In a payday loan, the borrower writes a post-dated check to cover the loan amount, plus fees. In a car-title loan, the borrower puts up a vehicle as collateral. Since 2010 the number of car-title lending companies in Virginia has more than doubled. Last year, they made more than 128,000 loans, worth an aggregate $125 million. They also repossessed nearly 8,400 vehicles.
So what we're looking at here is a "problem" that doesn't actually exist. It doesn't exist in a moral sense of "ridiculous profits" being racked up while "victimizing the poor". It doesn't exist in a technical sense of "we can stop this and make things better for people". It's an emotionally-charged debate devoid of reason and common sense: a call for "something aught to be done" when nothing aught to be done. It's cheap political pandering.
It's the NDP at work. A reminder to all Albertans: buy a gun. Buy lots of guns. Be prepared to use them.
The NDP are declaring war against a legitimate business. Next they might turn their (metaphorical) guns on you. It's better to have (literal) guns to point back at them.
† A Conservative government runs up some debt so the media stops calling them heartless every time they make the slightest of cuts. Then a Liberal government runs up huge debts claiming they have to "make up for" the "brutal" cuts the media lied about in relation to the Conservatives. Voters get sick of the Liberal debt and bring in Conservatives to fix it...
‡ Don't laugh, either. The former was temporarily instituted in Ontario (by Conservatives!) in 2003 and the latter of course is how Bill Clinton caused the 2008 financial crisis. Unintended consequences, man.
Shiny Pony was never really a Parliamentarian.
You know this, I know this. It's apparently shocking news to The Globe and Mail's John Ibbitson though.
Constant travel is part of a prime minister’s job description, and Lord knows Mr. Trudeau’s foreign forays have been good for Canada’s international image. But they appear to be taking their toll on his time in the House.Will Rat Bastard 2.0 fall back on his previous excuse why he never bothered to show up to the job that he unjustly held? Namely: that Parliament "just wasn't working for ordinary Canadaians"? While Shiny Pony was out taking selfies and trying to raise his IQ above 75, we was skipping work more than the sitting Prime Minister was. Did we think that when he had more excuses to run around like a retard that he wouldn't seize them?
Typically, a prime minister does not attend Question Period Monday or Friday, but is available the other three days, unless circumstances intervene. A study of Hansard reveals that Mr. Trudeau has been present for 68 per cent of the Tuesday-to-Thursday Question Periods during this winter sitting.
In contrast, Stephen Harper was in the House for 81 per cent of the Tuesday-to-Thursday Question Periods up to this point in the Winter 2012 sitting, the first winter sitting of his majority government.
Buried too in Ibbitson's story is how omnibus this sick government is being, and how illustrative a lesson it is for the next conservative government in both Ottawa and Alberta...go hard and go fast, enact the most extremist policies you can as fast as you can.
The Liberals are moving aggressively on a packed agenda: infrastructure, indigenous issues, fighting climate change, voting reform. And now, as Daniel Leblanc reports, Heritage Minister Mélanie Joly is planning a sweeping review of culture policy. This government shows no hints of drift
I cut out the parts where John Ibbitson blatantly sucks Justin's cock. You're welcome to click the link if you're that interested in seeing the spin placed on this evil party's actions in power.