Wednesday, January 31, 2007

Oh, geez ... what is it THIS time?

So I turn my back ever so briefly and ... what the hell ... all sorts of bad craziness what with Warren Kinsella posting his personal top ten bloggers list, followed by Liberal Catnip who responds with a challenge to identify Canada's smart female bloggers, which inspires this rebuttal from Halls of Macadamia and so on and so on. What is with you people? Anyway, to business, as it were.

First, we deal with "Halls", who makes the paralogical observation:

So, to recap... Libnip and Kinsella, the self anointed judges of all that is good, smart and female in the Canadian Blogosphere, will soon grace us with their decision about the very smartest Canadian womyn bloggers.

As long as it isn't that unspeakable Kate at Small Dead Animals... you know... the hands down winner of the Best Canadian (male, female, gay and I daresay transgendered) Blog at the 2006 Weblog Awards.

"Halls" apparently confuses traffic with cleverness or, as it were, quality with quantity. But, in fact, "Halls" has a point here.

If LC's challenge were to identify Canada's "best" female bloggers (or some other word associated with literary quality or something like that), that would be one thing. If this were a poll whose primary purpose was to select based on actual journalistic excellence and objectivity, then there's no question that Kate McMillan wouldn't even remotely qualify, being the racist, dishonest, lying sack of neo-con crap that she is. That wouldn't even be open to debate. But that's not what LC was asking for here, was it?

In fact, LC was asking for Canada's "smart" female bloggers and that's where LC's case falls apart and "Halls" makes a perfectly valid point. Because, in my opinion, despite Kate McMillan being the deceitful, right-wing hack that she is, I don't think there's any question that she is, in fact, extremely smart.

Regardless of what you might think of Kate's vile rantings, one doesn't generate that kind of traffic by being an idiot. I think Kate has correctly assessed the basic Canadian demographics, and identified that sizable portion of it that are uneducated, racist, homophobic dittoheads, and has built a comfortable blog presence by pandering to those people in the same way you would pander to any lowest common denominator.

One need only peruse the comments section of a typical Kate post to understand precisely who her target market is, and she knows how to play those people like a cheap violin. These are not people who want objectivity, or nuance, or anything that requires deep thought. They want screaming, and shrieking, and clear distinctions between good and evil and Kate (God bless her shrivelled, blackened heart) gives them just that.

(Kate is, of course, not alone in this. Examples like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin leap to mind as well -- loathsome human beings who have made a living pandering to other loathsome human beings. It may be disgusting but you have to admit -- it's good business.)

So "Halls" is spot on with his objection. If we were discussing quality, then one could safely suggest that Kate wouldn't even be in the same time zone as that survey. But if we're talking about just plain smarts, then there's no question that she should be on that list. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that she'd probably be at the top of that list.

Kate McMillan may be a worthless waste of skin masquerading as a human being but -- give her credit -- she knows exactly how to pander to the lowest of the low. And her loyal fans -- the flying monkeys that they are -- love her for it.

Apparently, some of my regular stalk... uh, readers have taken issue with my giving Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck™ credit for smarts. So, all right, I'll back off on that. Actually, I rather like the idea of her being described as "manipulative" rather than smart, which I'm guessing isn't saying much given the crowd she's playing to.

Suddenly, I have this image of Linda Fiorentino in "The Last Seduction" ...


Jose said...

"Because, in my opinion, despite Kate McMillan being the deceitful, right-wing hack that she is, I don't think there's any question that she is, in fact, extremely smart."

She's very good at stoking her audience into an outraged frenzy. This doesn't take extreme smarts. If you actually see her engaged in debate she performs fairly poorly.

thwap said...

It really pains me to ever have to concede that any of those dunderheads, from bush II, to Rumsfeld, to Paul Martin Jr., to KKKate, are "smart."

So I'm really critical of such a stance.

More a form of low cunning. The mental and moral equivalent of Karla Homolka.

Ti-Guy said...

That's it, really. Low cunning. People like KKKate are more manipulative than intelligent. They fall into that category of people that includes used-car salesmen, ambulance-chasing lawyers, too many politicans, drug dealers, paid shills and propagandists, etc. Real intelligence is multi-dimensional, consistng of memory, cognitive speed, problem-solving and critical thinking skills, creativity, emotional maturity, and very importantly, wisdom, which KKKate certainly lacks, despite her advanced age. Whatever cunning she has, it is short-term in its tactical value. Ten years from now, no one will remember who the hell Kate McMillan was.

"Halls" apparently confuses traffic with cleverness or, as it were, quality with quantity.

The righties know this when they claim someone's popularity is synomyous with excellence, but that doesn't stop them from saying it. You only have to look at top 10 grossing anything (movies, music, books, television programmes) to see how dishonest that is.

Scotian said...

Sorry CC, I don't agree. It does not take any especial "smarts" to pander to the lowest common denominator, especially when you are using hate, anger, contempt, and bile as the means by which you are pandering. I like the term Lazlo Pink came up to describe her as which I am now starting to make my regular means of referring to Kate, the lowest common denominatrix. There is also the bit about how quantity is being mixed up with quantity, I wonder if these folks that are doing so also believe that sufficient quantity has a quality all of it's own. If so then it is really ironic...

Anonymous said...

CC, actually, somebody on Catnip came up with a new nom de plum, for her majesty of right-whinger nutbar land. "Lowest Commmon Denominatrix"

Scotian and I really like it. It has a good ring to it, non?

As for smarts - I'd have to agree with the assesment made. This is a woman who is reduced on the Shotgun to using her admin privellages to change peoples posts on The Shotgun make it look like people agree with her, when she couldn't argue a discussion on immigration and actually make any valid points. When somebody with a brain actually told Ezra that this was a bad idea, and he banned it's practice, she quit in a huff as the paid administrator. MW

catnip said...

No more cheesecake for you, CC!


There's "smart" and then there's "smart". I will be defining "smart" when I post my list.

sooey said...

warren kinsella reminds me of christopher hitchens now deciding who's smart and who'snot:

sooey said...


Mark said...

wow left-wing nutbars arguing about who's a smart Canadian female blogger. It really pains you to live in a country that is now governed by us un-informed people (watch out for that Master's degree on the wall, don't let that hit you over your thick skulls). Maybe, just maybe we aren't all sheep who can't form an opinion that wasn't handed down by the Toronto Star editorial board or the Liberal party. Have you read the Star today to find out what you believe in now? Because if your current stance on gay marriage, Afghanistan, Free Trade, the GST, etc is any indication; it varies from day to day and who is in power.

CC said...

I'm sorry, Mark, were you saying something about consistency? I wasn't listening.

Ti-Guy said...

Thanks for being so smart, Mark.

...*yeesh* What is it with Righties and their obsession with The Toronto Star?

Scotian said...


I was wondering that myself. What really gets me is that I only first read anything from that paper in the last five or so years because I could online, before that I had never read it, indeed barely knew of it's existence and still only read the odd articles from it rather than any consistent reading. Yet this belief by so many of the online CPCers about how every lefty reads and is programmed by the so called "Red" Star is really wide and deep. Quite honestly a few of my views were shaped in no small part from things I would read in National Review (back when it was actually intended for real substantive and rigourous critical thinking instead of what it has long since become in the past couple of decades) as much as anything else so this particular line of thinking and unfounded/unsupported claim of fact by so many CPCers really leaves me baffled. It certainly doesn't offend me, because all I need do is consider the source and the nature of the attack/critique and give it the respect/weight it deserves. It does though leave me at times more than half convinced that there is some sort of pathology involved in the need to not just believe in such myths without actual hard evidence (as opposed to soft or confirmational in nature) but project it upon every single person any significant degree to their left politically. It would be pitiable if it were not so dangerous and damaging to our culture/society.

thwap said...

No, no, Linda Fiorentino's character was smart.

She was also "evil." And a bitch. [Hey! She said she was!! Remember?]

So, I'll give you those.

eb said...

It really pains you to live in a country that is now governed by us un-informed people

Yes. It really, really does.

pretty shaved ape said...

i is smart. i is a racecar. you know, i think it is safe to say that teh kate has smarts. she might even be clever sometimes. but she uses what wit she got to distress the feces. she's a shit disturber. and distributor. her signal to noise ratio is unsatisfactory. she has chosen volume over value.

i have no doubt that there are plenty more than a handful of dead brilliant women writing in the canadian bloggage sector. thing is, that blogging, like other forms of media, lives and dies by traffic, putting asses in seats. some of my preferred writers see only a meagre traffic. they are great writers but poor marketeers. (actually several of my picks have been "discovered", but you get my point) a big part of blogging is social networking. no question, kate's caravan has many fellow travellers, a long line of mein kampervans. they're eager to wipe their chins with her brown linen napkins, spoon up her dung parfait and dab at the drippings on their matching brown blouses.

and goodie for them. folks like mark need a place to go too. it's like neighbours standing on either side of the fence saying, "i'm right. you're wrong." back and forth to each other. we know that kate and her pals, with the prominent brows and heavy lower mandibles, are out there sipping ol' spiteful. and they know we're around here planning the gay, activist judge induced mandatory abortion parade and the angry left's annual multi-ethnic bake sale to support defeat and collaboration.

after all, who has more in common with extreme fundamentalist moslem killers than a nation of left leaning pacifists whose women wear mini-skirts, drive sport utility vulgarities and hold positions of authority? a nation full of people that would sink so low as to permit dick cheney's daughter to legally marry her beloved wthin our borders.

i'm of the opinion that the mullahs would find far more in common with a gang of white folks that want the kids praying at school, who believe that queers are abominations in the eye of god, the sort of folk that want their god's fingers on the law, in the bedrooms and in the courts, sure that there's a heavenly reward awaiting them beyond. and in kate's case, she's willing to put up a post, using the photograph of a living, innocent child to denegrate more than a billion people. she's happy to stoke the hate fires so her fanatics can roast their weenies on a stick at the bigot jamboree. but since she is proven willing to lie, either by intent or omission, to kick up the flames, i'd say she's disqualified from smart.

Anonymous said...


One could cut the vitriol around here with a knife.

For the non-specific, non-denominational diety's sake don't get run over by the irony.

That might want to ask yourselves what inspires this type of ad-hominem attacks from such "progressive" thinkers.

Is it traffic envy? Ideological spite? Plain old spite? Impotence? Continence? A character flaw? Or simple hypocracy?

All attempts at claiming the ends justify the means when combating "ignorance" will be thouroughly enjoyed.

As you were.


catnip said...

I've posted my list, CC. Now you can see what I consider "smart" to be.

And remember, Milli Vanilli had good marketing too and look what that was all about! ;)

Ti-Guy said...

Is it traffic envy? Ideological spite? Plain old spite? Impotence? Continence? A character flaw? Or simple hypocracy?

Wingnut shibboleth alert: "Hypocracy."

Listen, if you don't react to hate-spewing, ignorant authoritarian leaders and followers with some degree of alarm, then you are probably unconscious. As for vitriol, please. This isn't charm school.

catnip said...

This isn't charm school.

ummm...what? Then cancel my membership please.

Anonymous said...

Just as I suspected.

Predictability is such a bore.


CC said...

syncrodox fumes, his arms akimbo, stamping his little feet:

"Is it traffic envy? Ideological spite? Plain old spite? Impotence? Continence? A character flaw? Or simple hypocracy?"

The bad spelling. Mostly, it's just the bad spelling.

Anonymous said...

I was waiting for that. alll spelomg aside..Answer the questions.


pretty shaved ape said...

so sayeth syncroduck:

"That might want to ask yourselves what inspires this type of ad-hominem attacks from such "progressive" thinkers.

Is it traffic envy? Ideological spite? Plain old spite? Impotence? Continence? A character flaw? Or simple hypocracy?

All attempts at claiming the ends justify the means when combating "ignorance" will be thouroughly enjoyed."

in order, what inspires such ad hominem attacks? you mean why do we mock and revile kate and her fans, well, tit for tat. after all, we're the unhinged left, the angry left, the terrorist enablers, traitors and emboldeners, the weaklings with no stomach for fighting the great global war on terra, we're the freedom haters, feminazis, queer lovers, enviro-crazies etc etc. bottom line, syncro, we're responding in terms your side will understand. besides is it especially wrong to respond to a xenophobic, bigotted hate monger by calling them a xenophobic, bigotted hate monger? i think not. your creatures lowered the bar. hell, your neocon/socon movement pretty much dug a trench and dropped the bar into it and you expect us to be polite.

i'm sorry that you're stupid but i don't have to pretend that you're a special and clever bunny. your side is cheering for death along racial and sectarian lines. we're looking for common sense. your side has based it's agenda on exploiting fear, anger and distrust, we'd appreciate it if the pursuit of armed conflict was reserved for defensive actions and be based on honest intelligence. your gang seeks to expand your blood lust into yet further sovereign states, in an unstable region that your team has brought to the boiling point of chaos. we'd like to see the big league diplomats change tack and employ, say, diplomacy before hitting the launch button.

"traffic envy" i'd rather be honest and unheard of than be a famous liar. i'd rather dine in a bistro than get drive-thru from mcdonalds. i'd rather spend time with a few good friends instead of being shoulder to shoulder with a room full of slavering goons, bereft of wit, wallowing in a consensus of fearful rage.

"ideological spite" or "plain old spite", well, spite would indicate being contrary for the sake of being contrary. we're contrary because you are wrong. your agenda has failed on the international stage and in the middle east in particular. since the right has blindly followed and continues to insist on a failed path, marked only by blood, waste and lies, sure i'll raise my voice to spite you. it is obvious that you don't listen to reason so we frame our refutations in terms you might understand.

"impotence" and "continence" so. about that tossing around of ad hominems. just remember that we leftie liberal types are the libertines. we're the ones having the hot and steamy consensuals. you guys are the ones tying to legislate second class citizenship for homosexuals and touting abstinence only as sexual health education. as for continence, yes lefties eat a balanced diet, rich in fiber and we make poopie like clockwork, every morning.

"hypocracy" spelling aside, let's get this straight. your side wants to stay the course. support the troops. fight the war on terror. fight there, not here. create (impose by force) democracy. yadda and yadda. you pretend that the great white west is there for the benefit of iraqis and afghans and you'd love to give some exploding assistance to iran and syria. on the one hand you pretend the goal is to give freedom to the poor, backwards ayrabs. but a cursory glance into the comments at small dead souls revelas something else. your community openly protests hatred of "mozzies" and "ragheads" and routinely denigrates the entirety of their faiths, cultures and societies. your team wants to either kill them all or let them kill each other. well, who flies the flag of hypocrisy now, kid?

so mister or miss smug britches. there are some answers for your questions. now how about you do some justifying for all of the hate spewing over in kate's parlour. because all the pocket machiavelli in the world doesn't make you correct. and since you think you can bark orders and demand answers, how about you pony up some actual argument, rather than off hand dismissal. so far you have presented content and context-free allegations, some name calling and white wash. make your case, support your premise or take you presuppositions and wrap them in pretty ribbons and head back to the bunker. you can tell your cohorts all about how you showed those lefties a thing or two.

after all, things are always going to be just as you expected when you run in a little circle flapping your hands over you ears chanting neener neener neener.

thwap said...

Fucking brilliant.

Scotian said...

Pretty Shaved Ape:


Well done, very well done!!!

saskboy said...

Between the Kinsella kick at the sphere, and Keren's, the Canadian blogosphere is abuzz with bloggers falling over themselves. It's great, isn't it?

pretty shaved ape said...

aw. i was so looking forward to finding out how syncroducks was going to dismiss my comments. you know, maybe by typing 'heh' in all caps and calling me a moonbat. alas. i guess he had to hurry back to the bunker and file reports of incivility against me.

funny. aren't these the same cats that bleat about liberals being cowards without the will to carry a fight. and yet when you call them on their ignorance they scurry off and whine how mean we are, with our fully realized sentences and coherent thoughts. seems to me that old syncroducks is a pussy (pardon my flemish) without a whole lot of put up behind his shutting up.

cheers and thanks thwap and scotian. scotian, you know me by my other monicker, lazlo pink. ciao.

Scotian said...


Thanks, I appreciate you letting me know that. As you may have noticed I am already starting to incorporate "lowest common denominatrix" into my everyday use when referring to her. I am really grateful to you for that descriptor, it is dead on accurate without the semantic baggage of the other terms like KKKate and Hate McVillian which while containing a fair amount of accuracy to them also did have overtones that were not strictly speaking fair to Kate. This descriptor though captures her essence to a "T" IMHO and does so without really providing any way for the faux outrage approach so beloved of the small dead minds crowd.

Eeyore said...

Wow. What unadulterated hate. An interesting glimpse into the heart of the beasts...though psychologists would probably find you much more interesting than I.

And all this from the folks who like to think of themselves as "tolerant" and "progressive".

Scotian said...


You have a very poor understanding of hatred then. Not that this s a surprise given the complete lack of substance to your comment, the lack of any point other than to demonstrate your own "hate" for this blog and those of us that have commented in this thread. The lowest common denominatrix has earned via her actions our contempt and derision for her being characterized as anything more than a partisan shill who thrives on tabloid style headlines and has the honesty/accuracy of such throughout her work. She does not handle significant dissent to her views well at all, and she allows some extremely hateful, xenophobic and in some cases openly racist material to be written to her blog without taken offence to it and in some cases cheering it one. While I took no part in her campaign against MWW for example I did watch it in real time, and some of the comments she had in her feud with MWW were clearly racist in nature. She panders with constant outrage, anger, contempt and sarcasm. She appeals to the negative emotions and she is more interested in provoking emotional responses than intellectual/reasoned ones.

So you can take your projective opinion of us somewhere else, your words only underscore our point and if any blog would make a psychiatrist interested in abnormal behaviour and anger management issues interested small dead minds is one of the top contenders while CC wouldn't even make the grade. His kind of biting political commentary is age old, very understandable and actually done quite well. While I wouldn't call him a serious political commentator for provoking serious discussion he is very good at exposing the hypocrisies of those he focuses on and in making clear those hypocrisies in a very blunt and straightforward manner. Too bad you appear unable to fathom such, your loss...*sigh*

Eeyore said...

That's funny, Scotian. I said NOTHING hateful at all and simply made a FACTUAL observation.

YOUR response shows your hate and reinforces my observation.

But I will go away and not return...I left you an opening for a rational response and got nothing of the sort. There's nothing to see here but hate-filled ramblings.

Ti-Guy said...

You so DID NOT make a factual observation. You expressed an opinion. In any case, you confuse legitimate anger with hatred.

I frankly could not care less how your precious sensibility is reacting to the tone of these discussions. No one's forcing you to read this.

...I will never get over how fucking prissy the Right is.

Scotian said...

"...I will never get over how fucking prissy the Right is." Ti-Guy

10:05 AM

They are only prissy though when it comes to how they are referred to; it is anything goes though when it is against someone they see as a legitimate target. That prissiness is yet more hypocrisy from such folks, which is why it cuts no ice with me. As you noted, little miss prissy made a bunch of assertions and attacks without actually showing how they were factual, got called on it and got all huffy because she was asked for facts instead of spew, so what does she do but spew so more wah wah victimization crap and then leaves. Classic Trolletariat mentality in operation. They are never in the wrong while we are never in the right. What a waste of space.

syncrodox said...


Don't get too full of yourself, I attempted to reply the other morning before going to work but ran into problems posting. goes.

Refering to me as syncroduck is the first indicator of your intellectual might....well done.

I must admit I like your tit for tat that Old Testament or a derivative of the Flip Wilson school of know....the neo-cons made me do it!!!

While Kate may post opinions and advocate positions the left takes issue with, I have never seen her stoop to "waste of skin" attacks.

This type of rhetorical garbage is all the more pathetic given your self stated "high mindedness".

The author of this site and yourself should feel ashamed....sadly I believe these type of personal attacks are a matter of pride.

Awesome political discourse!

On a brighter note I'm so very happy to hear of your regular bowel movements.

I will also concede that some who post at SDA use racial slurs. That said I've seen much the same thing at Mc Lellands and Babble. Then there is Cherniak who sometimes ventures into the sublime.

What I take issue with is proclaiming your progressiveness on one hand and resorting to viscous personal attacks on the other. It kinda sewers your credibility.

Sweeping generalizations are another issue. Because I am a right whinger (as Bob is so fond of saying) I must therefore hold all the positions you have outlined above.

Let me clarify. Anyones sexual preference is none of my business....unless they are proposing to engage in sexual acts with me...then it becomes pertinent.

On the issue of Islam. I spent a portion of my youth in Lac La Biche AB. In the mid 70's there was a Mosque as well as Anglican and Catholic churches. It wasn't a big deal then and to the best of my knowledge it still isn't.

On the other hand will you admit that there is an element of the worldwide Islamic movement that seeks to convert or destroy all infidels? As an aside I'm not fond of the JW"s knocking on my door to show me the light either. As with sexual preference I'm of the mind to live and let live....within reasonable limits.

As far as the "angry left"...well you identified yourself as such. I tend to think that most folks moderate their belief systems based on personal experience often taking from the left and the right.

The angry, righteous, lefty thingy is rather redundant and a tad juvenile. But hey if it makes ya happy.....just don't expect to be taken too seriously.

Keep on shitin and shavin!!!


Meaghan Walker-Williams said...

"No waste of skin attacks" -- don't you think there is something odd about a woman who is reduced to making fun of an opponents children in a debate to try and "win poins"

That's kate. And more.

But you probably have never paid any attention to that. You are blinded by your ideological affinity.

So keep singing her prasies. Be my guest. Someday you'll figure it out buddy. The Lowest Common Denominatric is pretty much a textbook example of borderline personality disorder made into a succesful blogging style and career.

syncrodox said...


I had no idea Kate made fun of someone's child to make a poin.
(this sounds especially agregious since I have no idea what a poin is worth but it does sound impressive).

As far as the lowest common denomimatric goes...I guess a poin is some sort of currency and being the lowest common I can only assume you are talking about the canadian dollar post koyoto which will be on par with the Bolivar.

Thanks for the heads-up... I have to remember to watch my poins!!

As far as your on-line psychiatric skills go....I am impressed. I mean to diagnose Kate with borderline personalaty disorder based solely on a blog is brilliant.

Now I regognize I in no way have the awesome skills you obviously posess....that said I'de like to try my hand at this psychaitric thingy....

Does the Walker-Williams handle indicate schizophrenia or a marriage to no-chin fop?

Please enlighten.


CC said...

Wow ... that's clever, syncro. To take a simple typo and make an entire meaningless comment out of it. Man, I wish I was that witty.

I'll leave that comment here as part of the permanent record of what kind of dick you are, but I think we can safely delete any future comments from you.

You no longer either amuse us or enlighten us and, around here, that's pretty much a death sentence.


syncrodox said...


Jeez was my snark factor to high or high and right?

As far as the spellung thingy...well I was busted on the same by yerself.

As a matter of fact I was reserved the honor of being the point of a second read et al getting smacked down by the Ape.

I thought snarky or snotty as I prefer to think of it (all us cave dwellers are of course fascinated by bodily fluids) was the stock in trade here.

I stand corrected and humbly withdraw from the field (pretty much a moot point eh?).

Regardless. All the best in your particular flavor of snarkiness.


peace out (via scooter)