Apparently Justin Trudeau has made the bold and daring move of removing Liberal Senators from the Liberal Party Caucus. The net effect of this seems a bit nebulous at the moment as by the end of the day they had declared that these newly minted Independent Senators would continue to support Justin and the Liberal Party, keep their affiliations within the Senate, and moved to ensure that they were still the Official Opposition in the Senate ensuring their continued bonus monies.
James Cowan, who had been the party's leader in the Senate, says the formerly Liberal senators will continue to support Trudeau and call themselves the Senate Liberal caucus. ... "I think not a lot will change. I think that there is a perception perhaps that senators in our party and in the other party are under the control of folks on the other side. That's not been the case in our side. We obviously talk, consult with them and we have had the privilege of being part of their caucus up to now. We won't have that anymore. But we'll continue to talk to them and I suspect that not a great deal will change."
"Mood upbeat in Liberal Senate caucus. Now we will serve Canadians more effectively," Mobina Jaffer said on Twitter.
So am I to understand that removing Senators from a political party somehow makes them more effective politicians? Or to put it another way, being a member of a political party makes one a less effective politician.
A few days ago people across North America and the world took a moment to remember those who died as a result of the terrorist attacks against the US on September 11, 2001. It was the worst act of terrorism committed against the US with nearly 3000 people losing their lives. To this day it is not forgotten and to this day it is used as a rallying cry for those who would encourage the US to be ever more vigilant in defending its interests domestic and abroad.
It was a tragedy and one that I am in no way trying to diminish or disparage.
But given the way this one event has seared the soul of America one would think that an even greater tragedy would not go by with the minor level of attention that it does receive.
Imagine if you would if last year more than 300,000 Americans were murdered. Killed in cold blood. Imagine if we knew who the murderers were but chose not to bring them to justice. Even worse imagine if hundreds of thousands of Americans took to the streets in order to argue that these people did nothing wrong and in fact their murderous actions should be defended by the government.
It reads like an absurd scenario, one not worthy of consideration or a moments thought.
Unless of course you understand that I'm speaking about abortion.
Yes, I believe that abortion is murder and it pains me that each year approximately 3/4 of a million innocent people are murdered in cold blood and our society would argue that this is okay.
One of the most important questions that we have to answer as a society is: who is a person?
The abortion promoter would argue that a baby inside a woman's womb is not a person. This is the stance of the government. So if a woman is pregnant and decides to have an abortion it is a legal procedure that does not injure a person.
Yet if I were to kill a pregnant woman I would be charged with murdering the woman and the child who was in her womb.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act, passed in 2004, defines a fetus as a "child in uterus" and a person as being a legal crime victim "if a fetal injury or death occurs during the commission of a federal violent crime."[10] In the U.S., 36 states have laws with more harsh penalties if the victim is murdered while pregnant. Some of these laws defining the fetus as being a person, "for the purpose of criminal prosecution of the offender" (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2008).
So let me get this straight, if a woman kills a "child in uterus" its called an abortion and its legal. If a pregnant woman is harmed and her "child in uterus" dies, it is murder.
How does that make any sense?
It seems that the distinction is the intent of the woman. In the first case the woman doesn't want to be pregnant and so the "child in uterus" is not a person and so when killed its not murder. In the second case the woman wants to be pregnant and so the "child in uterus" is a person and therefore a murder was committed.
How convenient.
What kind of society does one expect to have when we allow 16 year old girls to be the arbiter of what does and what does not constitute person - hood?
Florida legislators considering a bill to require abortionists to provide medical care to an infant who survives an abortion were shocked during a committee hearing this week when a Planned Parenthood official endorsed a right to post-birth abortion.
Alisa LaPolt Snow, the lobbyist representing the Florida Alliance of Planned Parenthood Affiliates, testified that her organization believes the decision to kill an infant who survives a failed abortion should be left up to the woman seeking an abortion and her abortion doctor.
"So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief," said Rep. Jim Boyd. "If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”
"We believe that any decision that's made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician," said Planned Parenthood lobbyist Snow.
Rep. Daniel Davis then asked Snow, "What happens in a situation where a baby is alive, breathing on a table, moving. What do your physicians do at that point?”
"I do not have that information," Snow replied. "I am not a physician, I am not an abortion provider. So I do not have that information.”
Rep. Jose Oliva followed up, asking the Planned Parenthood official, "You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”
Again, Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider.”
So what she is saying that even if the baby is born, lying on a table, kicking and screaming, it is still not a person because only a person deserves to be protected by the law whereas this person's fate should be decided by the woman and her doctor and if they should choose to kill it, that should be okay.
We are a sick and perverse generation that argues for and defends the right to murder their own children. If we were killing babies by burning them alive it would be barbaric and everything should be done to stop such a horrific crime against humanity. Call it a "choice" and use the term "abortion" and its all okay.
Don’t you see that children are God’s best gift? the fruit of the womb his generous legacy? Like a warrior’s fistful of arrows are the children of a vigorous youth. Oh, how blessed are you parents, with your quivers full of children! Psalms 124:3-5
The first command that was given to man by God was to be fruitful and to multiply; to have children. Yet here we are killing 2150 of these innocent children every day!
Billed as something of a prequel to the 1979 film, Alien, many were waiting with bated breath concerning the history of the xenomorph, the space jockey and planetoid LV-426.
Much of the noise surrounding Prometheus a week after its release, is some confusion and consternation concerning the questions raised and left unanswered. Some have said that it is the result of bad writing. Some have said that it will bomb and will be forgotten quickly.
Others see it as a science fiction classic that may take a few years to gain the reputation it deserves. Much like its progenitor, Alien.
If you have not seen the movie and don't want plot points spoiled, stop reading.
Spoilers ahead
Much of the consternation that surrounds the film, at least that I've heard, is that there is no direct link between Prometheus and Alien. Unlike Alien, which was set on LV-426, Prometheus takes place on the moon LV-223. We don't see a xenomorph until the final frames of the film and even then its not the same as the xenomorph from Alien but rather a forefather.
We do meet the space jockey, now referred to as an Engineer, but the questions of creation and its purpose are only partially answered. We find out that their DNA is a match for human DNA, which we know from the opening sequence of the film, but the opportunity to ask our creators "why?" never happened.
Instead, we get a film that sets up the Engineers as the progenitors of humanity, who leave a star map among several early human civilizations. The discovery of this star map leads our crew of misfits into space under the auspices of the Weyland Corporation.
Running throughout the movie are several motivations.
For David, it is to serve his master the old man Weyland himself, who unbeknownst to the crew, has been with them aboard the Prometheus the whole time.
For Dr. Shaw and her beau, Dr. Holloway, it is to find the answers to humanity's origin and purpose.
For Peter Weyland himself, its to find the parents of humanity in hopes of avoiding death.
For Meredith Vickers, the daughter of Peter Weyland, its secure her right of ascension to the head of the trillion dollar Weyland Corporation.
For the geological and biological comedic relief, its money.
From early on we can see that its David that is pulling the strings from behind the scenes all in an effort to find a live Engineer, but when he is successful, when he finds an Engineer in chryostasis, discerns the operation of their ship along with their purpose and brings Peter Weyland to meet his maker, the sought after revelations are not forth coming.
We witnessed David, studying the languages of the early human civilizations that had documented the star maps that led our crew to the Engineers, early in the film with the purpose of being able to communicate with them if they were found.
So when confronted with their maker, a fully alive Engineer, they are at first met with a person who looks upon these humans with apparent confusion. When David is prompted to speak by Peter Weyland, David does so in a language that is unknown to the audience. The reaction though is very clear, as the Engineer rips off David's head and kills the remaining humans who are present except for Dr. Shaw who manages to escape and subsequently warn the Prometheus that the Engineer is set on returning to earth and that if he succeeds that it will mean the end of humanity.
The Prometheus' captain and crew decide to save humanity by ramming the Engineer's ship, causing it to crash back to the surface of the moon.
Surviving all of this is Dr. Shaw who manages to make it back to the life boat of Vickers only to find the first face hugger alive and gigantic trapped in the medical bay. Upon receiving a warning from the still functional David that the Engineer is on his way to get her, she releases the face hugger upon the Engineer and manages to escape. She then salvages David's body and severed head and convinces him to fly one of the remaining Engineer ships to the Engineer home world.
Returning to the life boat we witness the now dead Engineer's body begin to convulse as our first xenomorph bursts forth from the Engineer's abdomen.
But after all this, we are still left with questions.
Why did the Engineers create humanity?
Why were they travelling to earth to destroy humanity?
Given that the xenomorph witnessed at the end of the film is not the same xenomorph encountered by the crew of the Nostromo in Alien, how does this lone xenomorph evolve and subsequently get to the other planet?
The first question is what drives the first half of the movie, but is not answered.
The second question is what drives the second half of the movie, but it too is not answered.
The creation of the xenomorph is almost a side plot and not really necessary to the overall narrative of the movie. For the xenomorph is actually the product of the machinations of David, who infects Holloway, who has sex with and ultimately impregnates Shaw, who tries to abort and kill the fetus, which ultimately survives and grows to a very large size and is able to kill the Engineer by thrusting an appendage down the throat of the Engineer, which later 'births' the xenomorph. Ultimately though, this plot thread is not necessary to the overall narrative of Prometheus.
So as the movie ends, we have Shaw and David flying off to try and answer questions one and two and the audience left to wonder about the third question.
This has bothered some people and after having given it some thought, here is my attempt to answer questions one and two.
We know from the opening sequences of the film that the Engineers came to earth, leaving one of their own on the surface and then leaving as we watch the Engineer drink a strange black liquid which causes his body to disintegrate and fall into a raging river, which ultimately disperses his now altered genetic material. The product of this is humanity.
We then find out that several ancient human civilizations had been visited by the Engineers, the effect of which was that each of these civilizations that spanned continents and milennia left a star map that would point a scientific crew to the moon LV-223 in the year 2093. The motivations for our scientific protagonists is to find out if the Engineers created humanity and if so, why.
When Shaw the science team first enter the pyramid complex they find a decapitated Engineer. They secure the head and take it back to the ship for testing. They are forced to race back to the ship due to a massive electrical storm, which we are told would fry the suits of the science team if they were caught in it. Back on the Prometheus Drs. Shaw and Ford try to "trick the central nervous system into thinking its alive" by introducing a current to the Engineers brain. The current though causes the Engineers head to explode.
While this is happening we follow a bumbling geologist and biologist who come upon a pile of bodies who have wounds on them that looks like something within them exploded. They make their way to the room where the decapitated Engineer was found which by this time is filled with streams of black goo that was triggered by the environmental change of the chamber triggered by opening the door. We see that this black goo has mutated two worms into aggressive and dangerous creatures that manage to kill the two men.
The black goo that we see here is similar to the black liquid we see the first Engineer drink upon ancient earth.
The geologist falls face first into the goo and later shows up as a mutated, violent and uncontrollable creature. All as a consequence of contact with the goo.
So it would seem that this stuff is actually some biological agent that is meant to identify, attack and mutate the DNA of a host organism in order to turn it into a mindless killing machine. This is later confirmed when the captain of the Prometheus theorizes that what they found was a weapons factory as the Engineers were too smart to create something so dangerous on their own planet.
So what was the purpose of humanity's creation?
Its my thinking that there was no purpose. That what we witness at the beginning of the movie is a biological experiment. The Engineers go to an uninhabited planet, leave one of their own to ingest the new weapon and then remove themselves to monitor from a safe distance. However, rather than simply mutating the engineers DNA, the engineer falls into the river and has the weapon and his deconstructed DNA diluted and spread throughout the environment. This produced us, but that was not the intent.
It would seem that they had been monitoring earth for some time as the civilizations that were said to have the star charts all predated the death of the engineer on the ship 2000 years ago. So the engineers had contact with early human civilizations, hence the cave paintings and carvings, and decide to use us as so many guinea pigs in a planetary test lab.
The Engineers decide to go back to earth, not to destroy the earth but to run another experiment. What happens when we infect this new life form with our bio weapon. Hence all the canisters of goo stockpiled on the ship. This was meant to happen during the early years of the Roman Empire.
When they find the decapitated Engineer, Shaw uses a bit of tech to carbon date the corpse and says that it had been dead for roughly 2000 years. Given this, as we watch the movie and find out how the Engineers were actually on their way to earth in order to destroy or at least infect humanity, it is obvious that they had attempted to do this in what would be the first century AD, when the Roman Empire was reeling from the eruption of Mount Vesuvius.
The problem being that the Engineer crew that was sent to retrieve the biological weapon from their weapons factory was caught in a massive electrical storm. Unprotected, many died having parts of their body explode as did the Engineer's head in the lab when subjected to a current, leaving a pile of corpses that was found by the geologist and biologist.
We see scenes in the movie of the Engineers running, it is thought away from something, but it is my conjecture that they were instead running towards a place of safety inside their ship but didn't make it except the lone Engineer whom we meet towards the end of the film who was protected from the electricity of the storm within his ship and kept alive in chryostasis.
This prevented the intended launch and saved mankind. So when the engineer on the ship is awoken, he is a bit baffled by what he sees. It is when David begins to speak the ancient human dialect that the engineer realizes that who they are, assumes that they have come to destroy him before he can destroy them and so lashes out, killing everyone present, minus Shaw.
He then sets course for earth determined to finish his mission convinced that while we may have been lab rats in the past, we are now a threat to be dealt with and eliminated.
