Apparently get run over by somebody backing out of the driveway:
Police are citing alcohol consumption as a factor in a tragedy in which a woman allegedly killed her sister-in-law and injured two other family members by driving over them while they slept on the ground outside her home.
RCMP said several people were at the home in Berens River at the time of the incident Saturday afternoon, and they had been drinking.
A concerned reserve resident, who did not want to give her name, said the family had been drinking together at the house and the mother, the father and daughter passed out in the front yard.
“It was 4:30 and it was a sunny day. You do crazy things when you’re drinking and they passed out on the ground,” the resident said.
They are passed out drunk on the driveway at 4:30 in the afternoon? That’s some serious drinking. And the police state that “alcohol consumption is a factor? Knock me over with a feather. And yes – this is on a “Native Reserve” which is the Canadian version of an Indian Reservation. So drinking and “sleeping” (what a nice way to say passed out) all day apparently are what happens.
And just how drunk does the driver have to be to run over not 1, not 2, but 3 people before figuring out those speed bumps in the driveway are people?
In Canada, which is suffering from a serious freedom deficit lately:
In response to a series of controversies over abortion debates on Canadian campuses, the student government of York University in Toronto has tabled an outright ban on student clubs that are opposed to abortion.
Gilary Massa, vice-president external of the York Federation of Students, said student clubs will be free to discuss abortion in student space, as long as they do it “within a pro-choice realm,” and that all clubs will be investigated to ensure compliance.
You vill be investigated. You vill be “pro-choice”. And if not? Apparently you will be murdered – which is simply choice taken to post-birth.
Is Obama actually going to get some real questions? Looks like handling the press that is not kneeling down in fawning supplication isn’t as much fun:
An exasperated Barack Obama scurried away Monday from the toughest news conference of his campaign, telling reporters who kept shouting questions that he’d spent enough time on the grill.
“Come on! I just answered, like, eight questions,” Obama, looking surprised, told shouting reporters as he fled the room. “We’re running late.”
The first question was about a private talk an Obama economic adviser had with a Canadian official – reportedly saying that the harshness of Obama’s criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement was for political show.
Last week, Obama denied an initial media report about the conversation. But after a Canadian government memo surfaced, he acknowledged yesterday there was a conversation.
“When I gave you that information, that was the information that I had at the time,” he said. His camp still disputes the memo’s account of the discussion.
That was the information I had at the time? Oh come on Bambi – nobody lets a Republican get away with that answer.
The questioning then turned to Obama’s links to ex-fund-raiser Tony Rezko, who went on trial in ChicagoMonday on corruption charges. A reporter asserted Obama hadn’t fully answered journalists’ questions on Rezko.
Obama insisted he had – during a past news conference with Chicago media. But another persisted that questions remain unanswered, such as ones about fund-raisers Rezko held for him.
Obama replied, “These requests, I think, can just go on forever. …” He said the “pertinent” information had been provided.
When Obama declared the press conference over, one reporter yelled that he was dodging questions just minutes after claiming he wasn’t.
anti-growth, anti-human, anti-logicand heaven help us “to cheering” wants to lock up politicians who ignore science. Who decides what is the right science? Him? Just how much of today’s science was considered completely wrong 5 years ago? And what was considered truth 5 years ago that would be derided as idiocy today?
Suzuki underlined the importance of looking backward by explaining that, because the past 50 years have seen a boom in technology and population expansion, ideas of economic growth have been skewed.
“That means you have lived your entire lives in a completely unsustainable period,” Suzuki said to the young audience. “You all think [economic] growth and change is normal. It’s not.”
He urged today’s youth to speak out against politicians complicit in climate change, even suggesting they look for a legal way to throw our current political leaders in jail for ignoring science – drawing rounds of cheering and applause. Suzuki said that politicians, who never see beyond the next election, are committing a criminal act by ignoring science.
When the polar bear population increases by 500% it hardly qualifies as being endangered. In fact, ask the people who have their arms torn off by these cuddly little fellows whether they are as nice as they are pictured by the eco-nazis.
How did the polar bear, one of nature’s most vicious beasts, become the doe-eyed poster boy for the green lobby?
Environmentalist groups stick pictures of pitiable bears in their leaflets and on their posters. They feature heavily in Al Gore’s Hitchcockian documentary An Inconvenient Truth. Even adverts for low-energy lightbulbs and renewable energy show polar bears adrift in a sea of mangled, melting ice. The message seems clear: “Go green, or the bear gets it.”
The global polar bear population has increased from around 5,000 in the 1960s to 25,000 today.
The myth of the desolate bear reveals two things about the politics of environmentalism: first, that it’s underpinned by a simplistic, anthropomorphic view of good vs evil, which most of us grew out of before we hit our teens; second, that it frequently bends the facts to fit the fable.
World and U.S. opinion seems to revolve around who signed Kyoto rather than actual carbon dioxide emissions. Once again, stated intent trumps actual results. Can even the global warming believers possibly believe this treaty has anything to do with it?
One would think that countries that committed to the Kyoto treaty are doing a better job of curtailing carbon emissions. One would also think that the United States, the only country that does not even intend to ratify, keeps on emitting carbon dioxide at growth levels much higher than those who signed.
And one would be wrong.
Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.
In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto. Below are the growth rates of carbon dioxide emissions, from 1997 to 2004, for a few selected countries, all Kyoto signers. (Remember, the comparative number for the U.S. is 6.6%.)
Nor in Europe, Africa, Asia, or South America. And all those with Bush Derangement Syndrome who blather on prove the point. You can freely speak and write in America – including the most base and egregious slurs against the very President of the country.
One of the critical differences between America and the rest of the west is that America has a First Amendment and the rest don’t. And a lot of them are far too comfortable with the notion that in free societies it is right and proper for the state to regulate speech.
These “human rights” censors started with small fry – obscure websites, “homophobes” who made the mistake of writing letters to local newspapers or quoting the more robust chunks of Leviticus – and, because they got away with it, it now seems entirely reasonable for a Canadian pseudo-court to�sit in judgment on�the content of a mainstream magazine and put a big old “libel chill” over critical areas of public debate. The�”progressive” left has grown accustomed to the regulation of speech, thinking it just a useful way of sticking it to Christian fundamentalists, right-wing columnists, and other despised groups. They don’t know they’re riding a tiger that in the end will devour them, too.