That will teach me to say something nice about a Blogging Tory. Having complimented BT Backseat Blogger for being genuinely worth reading at times, his reaction was (tongue in cheek, of course) to wonder how he'd ever be able to show his face in BT circles again (which was amusing). He then proceeded to demonstrate why I think the Blogging Tories are, in general, such a colossal waste of time.
While I must consider the source of the compliment, how will I be able to hold up my head in company of my fellow Blogging Whorries? How will I be able to reestablish my credentials as a political neanderthal and a regressive conservative?
I have just the thing. I’ll blog about SOW(aka the Status of Women) and the Court Challenges Program. These are two initiative near and dear to the Fiberal and Dipper bleeding hearts and ones that I haven’t blogged on yet.
Yes, BB starts off well by using the unofficial and derogatory acronym of "SOW" rather than the correct "SWC", thus firmly establishing his "neanderthal" credentials. And, sadly, it's all downhill from there.
(Aside: The rest of this post doesn't so much specifically address points made by BB, but more generally addresses arguments made by Canada's wingnuts about things like the SWC.)
Let's first dismiss the idiotic justification for slashing SWC funding as being for economic reasons. At the moment, it's safe to say that Canada in general has no overwhelming need to pinch pennies. Even the intellectual midgets at the National Post have managed to figure this out:
Surplus reaches $13.2 billion
Government to cut $1 billion anyway
Note how even the Post admits that, given the surplus, cutting one billion dollars is at least a little curious with their use of the word "anyway." And even if one ignores that oddity, it's not like cutting $5 million from the SWC would represent a significant saving, would it? In fact, that amount represents less than 4/100 of one per cent of the amount of the surplus, yet we're told, in all seriousness, that it's justified because the Conservatives are such careful and frugal watchdogs of the public purse.
This is, of course, the same CPoC who seemed deliriously happy to give away a cool billion to the U.S. to (as it turns out, not) resolve the softwood lumber dispute. And this is the Stephen Harper who didn't seem to have a problem using a government jet to treat himself and his buds to one hell of an evening on the taxpayers' tab, and who still hasn't figured out that those government jets aren't his personal playthings.
So, please -- can we knock off this unspeakably idiotic excuse that cuts to things like SWC are solely for economic reasons? But if that's not the case, then what reason does that leave us? Simple -- the SWC had to have its funding cut because it was engaging in (gasp! horrors!) "advocacy."
How stupid do you have to be to make that argument in all seriousness? Of course they were engaged in advocacy! What is politics but advocacy of one viewpoint or another?
Why does one run for political office? Because they have a point of view they would like to advocate. Why did Canada's wankerhood vote for the CPoC? Because they agreed with the opinions being advocated by that same CPoC. Jesus, what's not to understand here? So rather than criticize the SWC for simply being involved in "advocacy," it's incumbent on its critics to explain what it is they don't like about what is being advocated. And, sadly, what you hear is little more than that the SWC espouses "radical feminism."
That is, quite simply, a justification that isn't even worthy of a petulant 8-year-old. If Canada's wankers feel they can dismiss an entire program as being nothing more than "radical feminism," then I have the right to bitch-slap Christianity as being nothing more than "pig-ignorant, superstitious swill." You want to play dueling catchphrases? Fucking A, I can play that game, too.
So what's left? What's left is for critics of the SWC, if they want to be taken seriously, to list what was being advocated by that group, and explain why they thought it was inappropriate, at which point we'll at least have something to discuss. But for anyone to defend what happened to the SWC as being for economic reasons or because it involved "advocacy" or that it promoted "radical feminism" is the height of intellectual laziness.
Which, if you think about it, is pretty much the Blogging Tories in a nutshell, isn't it?
BY THE WAY, the most annoying part of BB's screed:
I will cheerfully admit that I know virtually nothing about SOW beyond the fact that the minister responsible cut back its funding recently. Cue howls of protest from the usual suspects.
Here, let me translate that for you: "I have no fucking clue what this 'SOW' thing is all about, but if cutting its funding pisses off the lefties, then I'm so on board."
That pretty well defines the notion of unspeakable intellectual laziness, doesn't it?