The secret to electoral success: Jetpacks!

Scott Feschuk gives the obvious answer to all problems

by Scott Feschuk on Tuesday, March 16, 2010 11:00am - 9 Comments

I firmly believe our investment in jetpack technology will pay off big-time. Steve Jobs will buy the design from us, name it the iPack, put a lousy camera in it and we’ll all be rich. We’ll have so much money that we’ll be able to bring all the athletes back to Vancouver and show them a closing ceremonies that doesn’t bite the big one. Right after we win gold in the jetpack slalom.

Despite my enthusiasm, I am not naive about jetpacks. I know there are a number of difficult public policy questions that still need to be addressed.

Policy question No. 1: should we name our jetpacks? It’s a tough call. We generally don’t name our cars but we do name our boats. I’m going to say yes, we should name our jetpacks. Dibs on Hellraiser.

Policy question No. 2: would a proliferation of jetpacks intensify the process of global warming? Yep. But here’s the thing: nobody will give a damn. Rattlesnakes could migrate north to thrive on the tropical Arctic tundra and the Bermuda-shorted Inuit would be like, “Check this out—I put some flame decals on the side of my jetpack.” And David Suzuki and Al Gore would high-five and agree that’s awesome. Why? Because it is awesome.

Policy question No. 3: jetpacks are amazing! That’s not really a question, but I agree.

At this point, you’re probably wondering if there is any downside—any downside at all—to a world with jetpacks. The answer is no. Will some people in jetpacks die in head-on collisions with other people in jetpacks? Frequently. But they’ll be remembered for having died in a jetpack accident. There is no more awesome way to go.

Bookmark and Share
  • Margaret

    Get a jetpack for Harper, set it on "Torpedo", and aim him out over the Atlantic Ocean. Destination – somewhere in the middle. Just get rid of him.

    • Gary

      correction aim for the most distant constellation

      • Lilly

        they just worte to say that they didn't want him either

  • D Mitchell

    So if Iggy replaced Harper, how long would it be before you start bitching about him?

    • Katherine

      Mr. Ignatieff should also endorse the funding of jetpacks.

  • chris

    Don't you mean Jetpackcross? Everything is better when you add 'cross' to it.

  • John Ogilvie

    As a former Green Party candidate I wanted to endorse your idea 100%. I'm not sure that Jetpacks are a bad thing environmentally.

    They *do* get lousy mileage (38 L/100 km, vs the 7 L/100 km for an average car. OK, that's REALLY lousy mileage. But..
    1) Jetpacks don't need roads. At $1million a km to build roads, the government could stop building roads and subsidize jetpacks.
    2) Jetpacks don't need tires. Manufacturing and disposing of tires is a big environmental problem.
    3) Jetpacks don't need parking lots. I plan on landing mine on the roof of the building where I work, and just leave it there. (I haven't asked them about this yet, but who can say no to a JetPack!
    4) Jetpacks use 1/15th the materials to build, compared to a car. I'm basing this on vehicle weight, 250 lbs vs 3680 lbs (Camry).
    I could pretend that this argument is a Green ploy to demonstrate that our car-based society is *already* crazy. But, to be honest, I really want my JetPack!
    John Ogilvie

  • http://www.spartanmoving.com/ San Jose Movers

    awesome image and really cool article. Just get the JetPack for Stephen Harper and let it free

  • http://www.1chicagomovers.com/ Chicago movers

    Amazing stuff.Thanks for sharing.And the comment posted by John Ogilvie impressed me a lot and found very valuable and interesting.

    They *do* get lousy mileage (38 L/100 km, vs the 7 L/100 km for an average car. OK, that's REALLY lousy mileage. But..
    1) Jetpacks don't need roads. At $1million a km to build roads, the government could stop building roads and subsidize jetpacks.
    2) Jetpacks don't need tires. Manufacturing and disposing of tires is a big environmental problem.
    3) Jetpacks don't need parking lots. I plan on landing mine on the roof of the building where I work, and just leave it there. (I haven't asked them about this yet, but who can say no to a JetPack!
    4) Jetpacks use 1/15th the materials to build, compared to a car. I'm basing this on vehicle weight, 250 lbs vs 3680 lbs (Camry).

From Macleans