Saturday, March 31, 2007

Don't clutter his mind with facts ... he's thinking.


Over at Daimnation, Mark C. veritably swoons over the military brilliance of Charles "Dr. Strangebrain" Krauthammer:

"...Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents."

Carefully conceal from that Martian, however, how that same United States was bestest friends with the former leader of the country involved in one of those "hot wars," how that same United States ignored painfully direct warnings about the terrorist attack that led to one of those "hot wars," how that same United States figured one of those "hot wars" would be a "cakewalk" and over in, oh, six months tops, and how that same United States spent the next several years fabricating one flagrant falsehood after another regarding things like how one of those "hot wars" involved al-Qaeda, WMDs, yellowcake from Niger, and ... and ...

I'm sorry, I've totally lost my train of thought. Where were we going with this?

Praise the Lord, and pass the financial statements.


The Lord shall provide. But just in case he doesn't:

MAKING DONATIONS AND BULLETTIN'S [sic] PAYMENT
WITH CREDIT CARD

Dear friends,

Many of you have expressed to us that high banking fees has [sic] made it difficult for you to fulfill your desire of supporting the beatification process of the Servant of God, John Paul II, with an offering or a contribution to the magazine “Totus Tuus”. We are pleased to announce that it is now possible for you to make a contribution to this work by also using your credit card and a new, online payment service.

They're also looking to speed up the canonization process with evidence of Popely miracles, so if you were ever sick, then mysteriously and subsequently got better, they definitely want to hear from you.

Friday, March 30, 2007

An obituary for the Olympic spirit.

The Vancouver Sun's Jeff Lee has an excellent article on the new Olympic spirit infesting Vancouver, let's call it litigious and monopolistic over reach. The Olympic spirit used to mean bringing the world together in friendly competition. Sure, it hasn't always worked out that way. The cold war shenanigans of the L.A. and Moscow boycotts sullied the games and sent it skidding toward irrelevance.

Gone are the days of protecting the honour of the games. Now a cloud of lawyers hover, ready to file nuisance lawsuits by the thousand. They are claiming special brand protections under Bill C-47 the Olympic and Paralympic Marks Act. Now, one would expect and understand protecting symbols like the rings, the torch design and the name of the games. But the new Olympic culture of unfettered greed has other ideas. From Lee's article, here's a partial list of some of what they are claiming as protected intellectual property:

See You in Vancouver
See You in Whistler
See You in Beijing
Let the Dreams Begin
Friend
Sea To Sky
Top
2010
'10
We're Next
Road to Beijing
Driven by Nature
Road to Vancouver
Road to Whistler
Driven by Dreams
Celebrate the Impossible
Vancouver '10
Vancouver 2-10
Vancouver 2'10
Gold Medal
Game Plan
2000
2002
'00
'02
Host Country
Bid Booster
Bid Champion
Beijing and Beyond
I'm Backing the Bid
It's Our Time To Shine
For The Fire Within

They are claiming rights to entire calendar years and seasons and a host of words that might be of vague associative marketing value. This is predictably being sold on the cheapest and nastiest rationale (from the article), "We owe it to Canadian athletes and the Canadian public to police the brand, and we take that very seriously. But at the same time we owe it to the same Canadian public and athletes to police it in a way that makes sense," he said."

I'm sure the athletes and all of Canada support the noble efforts to protect such terms as "Game Plan". Just like musicians appreciate corporate media giants suing their fans and kids. Because nothing says Olympic Fucking Games, like game plan. Hell, when I watch teh hockey and the commentators start talking about a coach's game plan, I have to scratch my head. Why are talking about the Olympics? Jeziz. What a load of dog shit. They owe it to Canadians to practice restraint of trade and quash entrepreneurship and hold the language hostage to maximize corporate profits for sponsors. Wow! Thanks Vancouver Olympic Committee. Your boundless greed has shown me the true state of the Olympic spirit in the 21st century.

The Olympic spirit is dead. RIP. You used to mean something once. You used to inspire. No more. My condolences to the athletes who have given their sweat, sacrifice and dedication to the pursuit of excellence. Your noble efforts have been reduced to a veneer, an image to move the brand. Death by commerce is the ugliest way for the Olympics to pass, a systemic creeping corruption of spirit. So fuck all of the official sponsors and fuck all of the committees. Fuck all of the disgusting legally empowered thieves of language and ideas. Fuck the Olympics, you are no more than the ravening, zombie shell of what once was a beautiful and noble ideal. That's not something I can look at.

Stephen Harper channels his inner petulant, infantile dumbass.


Every time you think PM Stephen Harper couldn't possibly be more of a worthless, partisan asshole, well, he continues to amaze:

[Senator Independent NORMAN ATKINS]: My father was a veteran of Vimy Ridge. He fought for the 46th Queens Battery.

[Reporter HANNAH BOUDREAU]: While Sergeant George Atkins was overseas, he kept a diary detailing his experiences and in typical soldier fashion, the entry for April ninth simply reads put over a barrage this morning, 5:00. The Canadians took Vimy Ridge a flying, took a lot of prisoners, etc. Ninety years later, there are no Vimy veterans alive to celebrate the anniversary, but Senator Atkins feels that with such a direct connection to that day, he would surely be included in Canada's official delegation attending the ceremonies in Vimy.

ATKINS: I am very surprised that I wasn't invited to go with the Minister of Veteran's Affairs. Any list that he could put together, I should have been one that would be considered.

BOUDREAU: But Senator Atkins wasn't the only one left out. None of the opposition leaders were invited, either.

But Harper's just getting even, right? After all, the Liberals ...

To commemorate the 60th anniversary of VE Day, former Prime Minister Paul Martin included all three opposition leaders on his trip to the Netherlands.

Cue the Blogging Tories, being similarly childish and making fun of all those whiny leftists again.

You know it's coming. It's what they do.

Let me use short words so even conservatives can understand this.


The setup:

House Minority Leader John Boehner was booed on Wednesday at a construction workers’ union legislative forum for saying the United States needs to fight the war in Iraq or face terror attacks at home.

"Who doesn't believe that if we just pull out of Iraq and come home that the terrorists won't follow us here and we'll be fighting them on the streets of America?" Boehner, R-Ohio, said to members attending the AFL-CIO's Building & Construction Trades Department's legislative forum.

Which makes perfect sense since, as we all know, the only possible way the terrorists could find their way to the U.S. would be to follow the stream of retreating troops and, consequently, until the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, nothing bad terrorist-related could possibly have happened in the United States prior to that.

Feel free to demonstrate the logical fallacy in my presentation.

Canada's most famous exports: Cold air masses and wingnuttery.


It just purely makes you proud when the American blogosphere occasionally notices us Canadians. Here, Firedoglake's TRex does Canada's Rachel Marsden, and not in a good way.

And I could have sworn I ran across a new hit piece on David Frum earlier today, but I managed to misplace it. Damn. Dontcha just hate it when that happens?

And in other non-Blogging Tory news ...


Uh oh ... apparently, U.S. Attorney General Abu Gonzo hasn't been entirely forthcoming with the U.S. Senate. And given that it's a crime to lie to the Senate, I'm sure those morals-and-values, law-and-order folks at the Blogging Tories are all over this latest development. Then again, maybe not.

On the other hand, they will definitely keep you up-to-date on Nancy Pelosi. It's a priorities thing, you know.

Thursday, March 29, 2007

"Sure I can count. One, two ... lots."


Damian Penny claws his way through all the real news to bring us this:

While Cathy Seipp was on her deathbed, a persistent, mentally unstable cyberstalker took the opportunity to take cheap shots at Seipp and her teenaged daughter: ...

At which point, one of Damian's adoring groupies draws the obvious and logically irrefutable conclusion:

Comment by 'been around the block:

The thing I most notice about entitled lib/lefties is how infantile they are, with no concept of boundaries or sense of decency (what's that, they say? 'Never heard of it.). Anything goes if someone wounds their fragile and teetering-on-the-edge ego.

Tune in tomorrow when "been round the block" proves that all lib/lefties are fat because, well, there's that Michael Moore guy, right?

Hold on ... that didn't come out quite right.


Shorter Premature eJankulator: "It's outrageous that the Liberals may have broken the law in order to get their hands on documents that prove that the Conservatives broke the law."

Man, that's gonna leave a mark. Or maybe not.


Via TBogg, we find the residents of Lower Wankerville getting stoked for some serious beatdown:

General Services Administrator Lurita Doan testifies before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee this morning, finally getting her chance to face Chairman Henry Waxman (D.-Calif.) about the "allegations of misconduct" he's ginned up in the press.

Doan has put together a comprehensive defense -- her opening statement totals more than 6,000 words -- and has said for weeks she welcomes the opportunity to set the record straight. Having met Doan earlier this month, I think Waxman will have his hands full this morning. This woman means business.

Witness the savagery.

Awwwwwwwkward.


Whoops:

In trying to win support for his escalation in Iraq, President Bush was reduced to quoting two bloggers in Baghdad -- who turned out to be brothers he had met here-- and their postings were more than three weeks old...

President Bush today was reduced to quoting two anonymous bloggers from Baghdad.

He cited them as evidence that his surge/escalation is working. One problem: their posts were written weeks ago, and re-published in the Wall Street Journal on March 7...

To back up his point that pulling out of Iraq would be a disaster, President Bush had said today, "They have bloggers in Baghdad, just like we've got here," in a speech to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Then he quoted two of them: "Displaced families are returning home, marketplaces are seeing more activity, stores that were long shuttered are now reopening. We feel safer about moving in the city now. Our people want to see this effort succeed."

Only hours later did the White House reveal that the bloggers were brothers, Mohammed and Omar Fadhil, and these supposedly little-known average Joes had met Bush in the Oval Office in 2004. They are dentists and write an English-language blog from Baghdad called IraqTheModel.com, also available via Pajamas Media.

Well, OK, that's kind of embarrassing but it's not like you're going to hang your entire defense of Operation Iraqi Clusterfuck on the rantings of two Iraqi brothers that ... that ... um ... uh-oh.

In other Blogging Tory news, climate change isn't happening because Tim Ball said so.

If James Taranto says it, it must be true.


No, Kate, they're not anti-war ... they're anti-hideous, troop-killing, neo-con fuckup. Last time I looked, there was still a difference.

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

House of cards

The Times Hassan M. Fattah reports on the opening of the Arab League summit:

"RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq is “illegal,” and he warned that unless Arab governments settle their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region’s politics."

This is a crushing blow to the Bush White House foreign policy initiative. King Abdullah, has long been America's most powerful ally in the region. This, in the wake of a recently cancelled state dinner at the White House and the Saudi's hosting talks with Iran's Ahmadinejad, is a clear repudiation of America's leadership in the region.

It doesn't end there, the Washington Post also points out another instance of George Bush, declined:

"But Rice will get no relief when she returns to Washington. She will have to deal with more depressing society news: Jordan's King Abdullah, who has spent more time in George W. Bush's Washington than any other foreign leader, has let the White House know that he can't make that state visit discussed for September. Can you do 2008? the king asks instead."

2008. Say no more. Decidering is a lonely job. No one deserves to be more lonely than George W. Bush. The magnitude of his failure will fill books for many decades to come. My fear now is not that the war won't end, my fear is what price the men and women on the ground will be forced to pay in blood, getting out of George Bush's folly. I fear for the thousands and million of Iraqis who have suffered and seen life shattered and whose sorry plight will continue until some form of stability is achieved.

No surge will save Bush now. The question is how to save the lives of people worth caring for, the American soldiers and the citizens of Iraq. There are no easy answers for those questions. You just can't shop that much.

And stepping into the nearest phone booth, he re-emerges as ...


... Geek Man! I'll send you a postcard. If I remember.

Well, no, but you can SEE it from there.


Just in case you were wondering:

As a theologian, [Pope John Paul II Benedict XVI] has written about hell several times.

In the 1968 book, Introduction to Christianity, he described hell as a state of existential abandonment, "the loneliness into which love can no longer reach."

Well, actually, that's not hell -- it's Delisle, Saskatchewan. But I understand how you can get the two of those confused.

DEEP AFTERTHOUGHTS: At the risk of over-generalizing, have you ever noticed how many of those who are absolutely, positively convinced of the existence of Hell are the same people who still don't think there's enough evidence for climate change?

Just thinking out loud.

Ann Althouse explained

International crazy person, Ann Althouse flies off the handle on bloggingheads.tv. Here is all you need to know about the exchange, in cat.

Ann Althouse doesn't like these:



And when she says this, "I don't want to bring up old flame wars. It's not as if I attacked them.", well that's the kind of bald faced lie that requires a pretty substantial set of these:



Rather than confront her own spurious version of reality, she does this:



Proving yet again, that Ann Althouse is the cat's ass:



You're welcome.

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

It worked so well before, didn't it?


Abu Gonzo is going to get to the bottom of this ... or else:

“If I find out that, in fact, any of these decisions were motivated, the recommendations to me were motivated for improper reasons to interfere with the public corruption case, there will be swift and — there will be swift and decisive action. I can assure you that.”

Yeah ... about that administration track record:

Q Given -- given recent developments in the CIA leak case, particularly Vice President Cheney's discussions with the investigators, do you still stand by what you said several months ago, a suggestion that it might be difficult to identify anybody who leaked the agent's name?

THE PRESIDENT: That's up to --

Q And, and, do you stand by your pledge to fire anyone found to have done so?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes. And that's up to the U.S. Attorney to find the facts.

In other news, former football star O. J. Simpson vowed to find the real killers, from his current location somewhere near the 15th green.

There's one in every crowd.


It seemed like such sensible advice at the time:

He privately warned his MPs three times to shut the heck up about the Quebec election.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper understands that federal gaffes get magnified and amplified when played to hypersensitive Quebec voters.

And because Conservative MPs have been gagged and muzzled under threat of eternal backbench banishment, they dutifully followed Mr. Harper's orders to the silent vowel.

But it doesn't matter how often you say it, there's always someone who doesn't clue in; always someone who's too thick to recognize good advice when he gets it; always someone who is just too much of a lame-brained, loudmouth, dumbass motherfucker to keep his yap shut:

So when the Prime Minister personally injected himself into the three-way election last week by declaring it would take a federalist party in Quebec City to negotiate a lasting Canadian fix for the federation, well, even Conservative MPs rolled their eyes.

You saw that coming a mile away, didn't you?

No, Stephen, you can't sit here -- this is the GROWNUPS table.


This is what happens when you write of things you so clearly do not comprehend.

And this is the eventual towel snap to the nads in response, from someone who actually knows what the fuck is going on.

Monday, March 26, 2007

Somehow, the word "whiny" leaps to mind.


That was then:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper took his battle with journalists overseas to Vietnam this weekend. "Mr. Harper and his staff took aggressive control of the agenda after a reporter threw a question at him as he was being greeted by his Vietnamese counterpart yesterday morning, " the Globe and Mail reported from Hanoi.

"Canadian reporters found themselves barred from the rest of Mr. Harper's events yesterday, including a photo opportunity with Canadian youth and a dinner with his friend and ideological ally, Australian Prime Minister John Howard," reported the Globe's Brian Laghi.

But when it happens on the other side ... eh, not so much fun:

Gore Bans Media from Events

What is Gore afraid of?
Montreal: "No working media will be permitted in the hall during his keynote address or during the honorary doctorate ceremony. "
Toronto: "But what went on in there was still a secret - with no media permitted."

Since he is asking for public funding in the amount of something like $3 Trillion, should he not be 100% accountable and transparent?
Is he afraid of being asked embarrassing questions like how he got to the event or how much money he was paid?
Are these questions rhetorical?

No, Brian ... not rhetorical. Just really, really, fucking stupid.

Actually, when there's only one of them, it's called a "datum."


Apparently, Matt has trouble distinguishing between "the elite far left" and their "never-ending battle to destroy the family," and Dr. Fraser Mustard.

It's understandable -- I get those two confused all the time.

Apparently, yesterday's bullshit is inoperative.


Today (all emphasis added):

... the Senate's No. 2 Republican leader harshly criticized House Democrats for setting an "artificial date" for withdrawing troops from Iraq and said he believes Republicans have enough votes to prevent passage of a similar bill in the Senate.

"We need to put that kind of decision in the hands of our commanders who are there on the ground with the men and women," said Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss.

Um, yeah ... let's put that kind of decision in their hands, shall we?

With Iraq Speech, Bush to Pull Away From His Generals
Wednesday, January 10, 2007

When President Bush goes before the American people tonight to outline his new strategy for Iraq, he will be doing something he has avoided since the invasion of Iraq in March 2003: ordering his top military brass to take action they initially resisted and advised against.

... over the past two months, as the security situation in Iraq has deteriorated and U.S. public support for the war has dropped, Bush has pushed back against his top military advisers and the commanders in Iraq: He has fashioned a plan to add up to 20,000 troops to the 132,000 U.S. service members already on the ground...

Pentagon insiders say members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have long opposed the increase in troops and are only grudgingly going along with the plan because they have been promised that the military escalation will be matched by renewed political and economic efforts in Iraq.

In other news, American economists who are growing increasingly worried about a potential recession in the U.S. were told not to sweat it by the White House.

"I don't see what the big deal is here," said President Bush. "If money becomes an issue, we'll just print more of it. What's the problem?"

The CC reader challenge: Spot the logical absurdity.


Part the first:

The previous Liberal government had 13 years to take action on the environment but didn’t get the job done.

-- Conservative Party of Canada

Part the second:

So, the solution put on this site a little while ago by Tina is one I would support as well - namely, they don't take sides at all and admit they don't know and so are holding unbiased, public hearings in which scientists from both sides are invited to testify. The resulting chaos, with claims all over the map, will do enough to thoroughly confuse everyone (which is appropriate, actually, since the science is so immature and, frankly, confusing) and take the wind out of the sails of the "we are causing a climate disaster and must stop it" camp entirely, and the CPC can quietly turn to important issues without really having had to say much at all.

-- Tom Harris, Executive Director, Natural Resources Stewardship Project (and right-wing flack and corporate whore)

Take your time -- it'll come to you.

Now it's personal.


Back here, commenter Mark Graham misses the point somewhat when he writes:

For an excellent historical account of the liberal slanders and accusations thrown at Harper and the conservative party,

go to: http://www.coldhardwonk.com

The liberal party of Canada has very little credibility when it comes to decrying political slanders.....

Before we go any further, note well Mark's own words (emphasis added): "political slanders." Did you catch that? "Political" slanders. At which point, we follow Mark's lead and visit here -- a site which advertises itself as "No sentiment but politics", where we read more of the same (emphasis added):

But the opposition claims that it’s wrong to say something unpleasant about them for political gain.

Are you starting to see the pattern here? Why, yes, you are -- the operative word is "political," meaning the jibes, parries, thrusts and rebuttals are exactly that: political.

But that's not what's happening when Canadian PM Fatty McWideLoad accuses the Liberals of not caring about the troops. That's not a political argument -- it's a tacky, personal, drive-by smear. It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with pushing peoples' emotional hot buttons. "No sentiment but politics"? Hardly.

When people take aim at Harper's traitorous softwood deal with the U.S., or his gutting the SWC, or his shovelling money in Quebec's direction, those are political issues. But when you take an unrelated issue and use it to smear the opposition as not supporting the troops, that's not political anymore. It's a sleazy, personal assault. (And lest anyone accuse me of being hypocritical, Stephane Dion making a crack about Harper's weight was also out of line, but at least that was only stupid and childish, rather than an all-out frontal assault on an entire party's patriotism).

So, Matt, how about you try to appreciate the difference here? You do realize there's a difference, don't you?

MY religious sensibilities trump YOUR religious sensibilities.


Oh, well ... that's different. It always is, isn't it?

No, he's a dumbass all by himself; he doesn't need any help.


Back here, commenter "eastern capitalist" takes your humble scribe to task for (allegedly) unfairly smacking around the Blogging Tories' resident mouth-breather Dr. Roy, suggesting I'm over-generalizing just a tad:

Has Roy ever suggested that he supports what [Newt Gingrich] did?

Or do the sins of all conservatives fall on each and every single person who calls themself a conservative?

A fair point, to which one can respond, first, that the good doctor doesn't seem to have a problem referring to the Newtster in a generally approving way, like here:

Newt Gingrich, Hillary Clinton Defend Pope

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, longtime foes in American politics, forcefully defended Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday against a wave of Muslim criticism over a speech last week.

One might also point out that, given the striking similarities between these two situations, the doc hasn't bothered to draw the obvious parallels to point out how, unlike Edwards, Newt Gingrich, when the chips were down, was a completely amoral douchebag.

But, really, what it comes down to is that, given that Dr. Roy has been, from time immemorial, a potty-mouthed, ignorant, whiny little anti-liberal pissant, it's more than a little out of place for him to suddenly be terribly, terribly concerned about the health and well-being of someone he's never met.

Given that the good doctor, like the rest of his Blogging Tory circle jerk colleagues, didn't give a rat's ass about a nine-year-old Canadian boy incarcerated in a Texas detention centre, it's just a little galling to now start hearing his pretentious, sanctimonious medical advice, as if he actually gave a damn about Edwards and wasn't just trying to smear him as a hard-hearted, political machine unconcerned about his wife.

I'm sure Edwards and his family are quite capable of working this out all by themselves. The last thing they need is some mouthy, little right-wing fuckwad like Dr. Roy suddenly deciding that he's concerned about some politician's wife who has cancer.

It's a bit late for that, doc. You might want to save that advice for some of your right-wing colleagues who need it.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Swift Boat Jason at the Helm

There's an old political story about a candidate in a tough race. The candidate is looking for dirt on his opponent and there doesn't seem to be any. He tells an aide:

"Ask him if he still beats his wife."
"But, that isn't true!"
"I don't care. I just want to see the bastard deny it."

It is the sort of cheap and dirty stunt that people have come to expect of the political class. Young Jason Cherniak has taken this important lesson to heart.

"Find the middle ground
Let's face it. People cheat in politics. It's not a good thing. It shouldn't happen. But it does. The rumour around TO (Let me be very clear; I am not suggesting that the rumour is true. I am only stating that it is out there.) is that Olivia Chow won because NDP supporters from across the city voted early and often at different polling stations in Trinity-Spadina."

Oh you have been so very clear Mr. Cherniak. You aren't saying the rumour is true. You don't know if it is true. You have no proof that it is true. And really, you don't care if the rumour is true. Because this has nothing at all to do with truth. This is smear politics. A hit piece of the nastiest sort. Congratulations Jason, you have just promoted yourself to the rank of Swift Boat Commander. And that would be a rank in the rankest sense of the word.

"I don't know if it's true, but just the rumour led the federal Liberals to fight for a new rule that voters must show ID before receiving their ballot. If nothing else, such rules at least ensure that people can have confidence in the democratic process."

Show us your papers, old man. Because only by forcing the voters to produce identification papers can we prevent politicians from cheating. We must act swiftly to save the sanctity of our democracy from rumours of malfeasance. Let's call it the Florida strategy. As a Canadian born, white male, I wouldn't be able to vote. I've never held a drivers licence and I don't currently hold a valid passport. Hell, I still have an old style health card with no picture. Does this ID require a permanent address? No home, no vote. Does the permanent address need to be a street address? Fuck you small towns and rural areas. Just how many people are we willing to disenfranchise to save democracy?

"That has to be part of the context in which people consider the current debate in Quebec over whether a woman who covers her face for religious reasons must show her face before voting. It is extremely important to respect the religion of all Canadians, but it is also extremely important to protect our democratic system from abuse."

Yes. It should be part of the context. I recommend we give rumours all of the due weight and consideration they deserve. And Golly, isn't it important to respect all those religions? Even the ones we don't respect. Lord fucking knows we have to protect all of democracy from the many hundreds and thousands of traditionalist muslim women, sure to swarm the polling stations in silent, spectral procession. And isn't that just the exact same thing as the rumour about the wife of a party leader stuffing the ballot box? The parallels are frightening. Lest we forget, "...NDP supporters from across the city voted early and often at different polling stations in Trinity-Spadina." Let's just smear a great swath of people for the sake of democracy. Harper could use a boy like Jason. But that's just a rumour.

"The question should not be whether Muslim women need to show their faces when, for religious reasons, they would prefer not to. The question should be how you can respect the religious freedom of women who make such a choice, without allowing people to take advantage of that respect and cheat."

Right. The question shouldn't be, should muslim women be forced to choose between their franchise and their faith. The question should be how can you respect their religious freedom when they're going to use it to cheat. Like Olivia Chow.


"I think a compromise position is fairly obvious. Have the woman show her face to another woman who can compare her face to the picture on her driver's licence. Unless I am wrong about the religious rule here, that would solve both problems at the same time."

And if we play our cards right, we can angle for national identification cards. Maybe even with those groovy rfid chips. That would be awesome. You could use them for all sorts of travel within the country, to get into government office buildings, open bank accounts and all kinds of things. Why there's no way to scam anything then. We'd know where you went and what you did all the time. And since it wouldn't be voluntary, nobody would have an excuse not to have one. And then the NDP couldn't steal ridings, damn you Olivia Chow and your rumoured duplicity.



"At its best, politics is about compromise. Let's bring down the volume of the debate and discuss it rationally."

I'm willing to stipulate that Jason is indeed compromised. But really, this cry for civility is worthy of a Blogging Tory. Let's bring down the volume and rationally discuss the spread of rumour and innuendo as serious cause for legislation. What a prat. Predictably he take a few smacks in the head for his efforts in the comments section, Gazeteer's is particularly good. So Jason insists on having the last squirm:



"UPDATE
I'm sorry if you read this and don't like me reporting the rumour about Trinity-Spadina, but it IS a real rumour. It is not the same as accusing her of having relations with sheep, because that is not a real rumour that is circulating in Toronto. Further, I am not demanding that she deny it."

But it IS a real rumour. Yeah. It isn't like one of those made up rumours. Gosh you guys, come on. And further, ( a word that always adds gravity to a statement)he isn't even demanding a denial. How fuckingly magnanimous. 'Cos that would be embarrassing. Best just to leave that rumour out there uncontested.

You know, I really want to give Stephane Dion a chance. I want to believe that the Liberal party has put the excesses and sins of it's past in the past. I want to think that the political shenanigans have been sent out to pasture with the old guard. But when a creature like Jason Cherniak seems to represent the new guard and future of the Liberals, I worry. A quick look at Cherniak's page leaves no doubt that he is intent on making himself a political fixture, an ideological commode if you will. His posts are bordered with self love and clippings. He fancies himself a rising star. If he is the future of the Liberals, then I'll be keeping my voting options open. Provided I'm allowed to vote in his version of our democracy.



"One of my points in this post is that if you demand Identification from all voters, then you will no longer need to deal with rumours like this."

What. A. Fucking. Idiot.

One of my points in this post is that if you demand laws to protect yourself from rumours, you're a fool. Cherniak is too blinded by his own notions of cleverness to think things through. He is a spoiled, pretentious twerp with no grasp of how most people in this nation live. He furiously pats himself on the back and spouts this kind of crap, expecting to be taken seriously. Jason Cherniak, spreading rumours to protect us from rumours. Perhaps he should take a moment away from the mirror and examine a quote from LBJ:

"You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." - Lyndon Johnson

The only way a fool like Cherniak might examine the implications of the legislation he promotes is if it were written on his mirror in lipstick.

English, as she is spoke.


Shorter Backseat Blogger: "CC's a troll, as long as we get to totally, utterly redefine the meaning of the word 'troll.' And why not? We redefined 'compassionate,' didn't we?"

First thing, let's kill all the law students.


Is it just me, or are law students from across the entire political spectrum total cementheads? How else to explain this puerile screed from Blogging Tory Aaron Lee Wudrick:

The National Post tells Stephane Dion quit being a crybaby over Harper's QP Taliban/troops comeback:

Since last fall, the Liberals have labelled Mr. Harper a Neanderthal over his government's cuts to the Status of Women Canada budget; implied he is racist for axing the $5-billion Kelowna agreement on native funding; claimed he is anti-democratic for "stacking" the committees that advise on judicial nominees; accused him of "undermining our Canadian values system" by eliminating funding to the left-leaning Court Challenges Program; and suggested he was homophobic for reviving the debate on same-sex marriage. They have called him a "control freak," "Bush-lite," "deceitful" and a practitioner of "Republican voodoo economics."
...
Act like a leader, or at least a grownup politician. Accept that in the cut-and-thrust of political jousting your opponents are going to make allegations against you and your party every bit as outsized as the ones you make against them.

Quite right. Stuff a sock in it, Grits. As the ones who dragged it down to the level in the first place, don't blame the Prime Minister for learning from the originators.

Let's take this one claim at a time, shall we?

...the Liberals have labelled Mr. Harper a Neanderthal over his government's cuts to the Status of Women Canada budget ...

To be fair, I'm not sure I would have used the word "Neanderthal." "Misogynistic," perhaps. In any event, if Mr. Harper -- who, I should point out, ran on a platform of being, you know, pro-family and pro-children -- deliberately chooses to gut funding to Canada's needy women and their kids, it doesn't seem entirely out of place to call him on it. You may not like the phraseology, Aaron, but underneath it all, that insult is at least based on objective reality; that is, based on something Stephen Harper actually did. See how that works?

... implied he is racist for axing the $5-billion Kelowna agreement on native funding ...

See above.

... claimed he is anti-democratic for "stacking" the committees that advise on judicial nominees ...

Ditto.

... accused him of "undermining our Canadian values system" by eliminating funding to the left-leaning Court Challenges Program ...

Etc, etc.

... suggested he was homophobic for reviving the debate on same-sex marriage ...

If the shoe fits, Aaron ... I'm sure you know how the rest of that goes, right? Which brings us to Aaron's bizarre attempt at an analogy:

The National Post tells Stephane Dion quit being a crybaby over Harper's QP Taliban/troops comeback ... Quite right. Stuff a sock in it, Grits. As the ones who dragged it down to the level in the first place, don't blame the Prime Minister for learning from the originators.

Which is where Aaron's feeble attempt at equating the two situations suggests he's not quite ready for that devastating summation before the jury just yet. See, a) demanding that "war-time" prisoners not be abused and b) supporting the troops have nothing to do with one another. Nothing. Zip. Squat. They are entirely unrelated.

One can fully support Canada's military while still adamantly insisting that they adhere to the Geneva Conventions, which I should point out is as much for our troops' protections as it is for everyone else's. Sadly, though, logic from folks like Wudrick seems to consist mainly of non sequiturs like:

You: Even in the middle of military conflict, we have an obligation to follow the Geneva Conventions.
Aaron: You hate our troops and love the enemy!!
You: What the f...?

You know, Aaron, there's a reason people still get a kick out of jokes like:

What's the definition of the term "flagrant waste"?
A busload of lawyers going off the edge of a cliff with a vacant seat.

And, trust me, Aaron, you're not helping.

If he could have slipped a double negative in there, it would have been perfect.


Via Red Tory, we learn of the finely-honed political instincts of one Rob Edger:

Update: Edger’s Law of Conservative Political Discourse

It states: The Conservatives that accuse non-Conservatives of fearmongering when they mention the possibility of a Conservative hidden agenda, will console themselves every time Harper sells out his base by reminding each other that Harper has a hidden agenda.

In a blistering rebuttal, the Blogging Tories accused Mr. Edger of being "whiny."

Your one-stop shop for right-wing dumbassitude.


It's not like I'm trying to pick on the poor, deluded wanks over at Blogging Tory "Celestial Junk" but ...

I've been reading the blog LIBERTAS for some time now. It is utterly refreshing to get a conservative take on the film industry.

If by "refreshing" you're referring to coverage of the entertainment industry written by (with apologies to Doug Feith) "possibly ... the fucking stupidest guy on the face of the earth."

Reading Jason Apuzzo to learn about entertainment is kind of like reading Tim Ball to learn about global warming -- you're not certain how it's going to end, but you're pretty sure it's going to involve overwhelming ignorance.

AND FOR DESSERT
... hey, it's Sunday and you have nothing better to do. Don't stop now.

Saturday, March 24, 2007

He'll give you some damned fine advice on abortion, too.


The Blogging Tories' Dr. Roy has all kinds of wisdom he'd like to share with John Edwards:

I am somewhat dismayed by Senator Edwards decision. His 57 year old wife has breast cancer metastatic to the bone. Her chance of survival for 5 years is about 20 %. It is probably less than that because of her age. She is likely to have fairly debilatating chemo soon.The couple has young children. They should have as much family time as possible now. Running for the presidency is not a good idea for this family right now.

The good doctor has a point. When your wife has cancer, it's not proper to continue in a grueling run for the presidency. The proper thing to do, of course, is wait until your wife has been hospitalized from that cancer, then serve her with divorce papers. After which you naturally try to cut off life insurance coverage for the children, get married again, then tell that wife that you want a divorce by phone because you've been boinking a much younger congressional aide during that time, all the while moralizing piously about a president who got caught getting a blowjob from an intern.

I'm not sure what could be funnier and more hypocritical than getting family advice from a hard right conservative, unless it's something like putting a serial teen predator in charge of protecting missing and exploited children.

Oh ... wait ...

Blogging Tories Short Takes: Mar 24, 2007.


Shorter Exactly Right: "National Post? Never heard of it. Why do you ask?"

Shorter Biebs: "Uhhhhh ... I was being serious. Why do you ask?"

Shorter Strong Conservative: "Well, yeah, I think the person who drove the car into the ditch is exactly the right person to tell us how to get it out again. Why do you ask?"

Shorter Backseat Blogger: All right, that one's just cool.

AFTERSNARK
: You know, Jonathan, it's getting a mite tiring to keep hearing that idiotic right-wing talking point about how Bush is, you know, "standing firm" and protecting America and stupidity like that. Let's have Bill Maher explain it to you.


And out there in the real world ...


Earlier this month:

[Alberto] Gonzales, who cancelled an out-of-town trip to appear at a hastily called Department of Justice (DOJ) press conference Tuesday, said, "I was not involved in seeing any memos, was not involved in any discussions about what was going on ... That's basically what I knew as attorney general."

Today:

Documents Show Gonzales Approved Plans to Fire Several U.S. Attorneys

WASHINGTON — Attorney General Alberto Gonzales approved plans to fire several U.S. attorneys in a November meeting, according to newly released documents that contradict earlier claims that he was not closely involved in the dismissals.

Of course, if reality is too much for you to handle, there's always Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck™ and deer humping.

Now, I'm not saying you're fat, but ...


According to some of the Blogging Tories, referring to Stephen Harper's porking out is, well, tacky:

Some might consider Dion’s recent comments about Harper’s weight as “just pointing out the obvious,” but personally I find it kind of tacky. After the recent buffalo under the arm joke (and the fallout that accompanied it), one has to wonder whether our politicians have any real tact.

... and immature:

Mr. Dion thinks that it will win him points if he takes shot at Harper's appearance. During an interview, St├ęphane Dion made fat jokes about Stephen Harper...

This sort of immaturity from Dion is only further evidence that the guy is out of his league.

... and childish:

So, what is Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's response to the Tory ads criticizing his leadership?

He calls Prime Minister Stephen Harper fat.

Boy, there's effective leadership for ya. What grade is he in now?

... and infantile:

So, to recap, the Conservative Party runs a series of ads, quoting Liberals - in context! - attacking their own party's record on the environment and on its inability to set priorities, and Stephane Dion responds something equivalent to: "I'm not going to be negative - your leader is fat!".

In other news, Al Gore is overweight.

Friday, March 23, 2007

About those role models of yours, Joel ...


Proud to be Canadian Joel Johannesen lets us in on one of the secrets of his success:

Among my plethora of email subscriptions, I subscribe to Dick Morris’ email letter. It almost always contains interesting information and political strategy dissections.

Morris ... Morris ... oh, right ... that Dick Morris:

FOX News contributor Dick Morris has another blot on his record besides toe sucking and poor prognosticating: He's also a tax delinquent. According to WTNH.com, Morris owes over $280,000 and has been on the state's list of 100 top tax delinquents for years.

Excuse me? Toe sucking? Oh, yeah, it's all coming back to me now:

A lawyer for an indicted D.C. madam is trying to drag conservative TV commentator Dick Morris into a juicy case that may involve thousands of former "clients," including some potentially prominent names. Morris, of course, is the one-time Clinton campaign advisor (until his toe-sucking sessions with a professional call girl were revealed).

Though Morris had admitted publicly that he hired prostitutes from more than one agency, it's unclear whether he has any connection to Pamela Martin and Associates, the call-girl agency run by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who is charged with federal racketeering and money laundering.

Damn. I'd completely forgotten about the hookers.

P.S. Ah, yes ... Dick Morris' "interesting information and political strategy dissections." Like, um, this one:

Since [Jeanine] Pirro is pro-choice, pro-gun control, pro-affirmative action, pro-gay civil unions and pro-immigration, Hillary cannot use any of her trusty hot-button issues to dismiss her. And, as a woman, Pirro is in an excellent position to challenge Hillary on all of her core issues...

Armed with the doubts of New Yorkers about Hillary’s fealty and protected by her social liberalism, Pirro will make a very effective challenger. She will almost certainly make the race closer than the 12 points that separated Hillary from her 2000 Republican challenger, Rep. Rick Lazio. And Pirro will make her work hard and spend tens of millions of dollars.

Refresh my memory, Dick ... how exactly did that turn out? Oh, right:

After weeks of pressure from her own party to drop out, Republican Jeanine Pirro abandoned her struggling campaign to unseat Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and announced Wednesday that she will run for New York attorney general instead.

There's a reason you get 341,000 hits when you Google on "Dick Morris" and "wrong."

You sure you don't want to rephrase, Stephen?


The Blogging Tories' Stephen Taylor channels his inner 8-year-old:

... when Stephane Dion whines that Stephen Harper is being unfair, he is not appealing to our sense of sympathy, he is unwittingly appealing to our schoolyard instincts. Nobody likes the whiner and his whiny mother in the press gallery who called our parents and the principal ...

... Too bad for Stephane, he can't whine and take his ball home. This Parliament is Harper's and our pal Steve is the king of the court.

Um, yeah ... about that whining and taking one's ball home, Stephen:

Harper to avoid national media, claiming bias

Prime Minister Stephen Harper accused members of the national media on Wednesday of bias, vowing to avoid them from now on in favour of less hostile local reporters.

Harper told a London, Ont. TV station in an interview that the Ottawa press gallery has decided to become the Official Opposition to his Conservative government, and that he's experiencing difficulty that no Liberal prime minister would ever have to face.

Somehow, Stephen Taylor's phrase "the whiner and his whiny mother" keeps coming back to me. Go figure.

When the shoe is on the other foot.


I'm sure you've all seen this video clip by now, where Democrat Barbara Boxer makes it clear to Republican and gibbering loon James Inhofe who wears the pants on the committee now:


It's amusing to hear Inhofe insist that he has the right to hurry Gore through his answers when things were oh so different a few years ago when the wingnuts were running things (all emphasis added):

When [Condi] Rice appeared before the 9/11 commission, she was favored with the Condi Rules; no one would question for more than ten minutes, the commission decided, a departure from established procedures (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 4/8/04). And just as soon as the questions began, Rice began giving long-winded answers, apparently to take time off the clock...

[Sandy] Berger told commissioners the time. His answers were brief and to the point, permitting an actual dialogue.

Rice told the panel how to build watches. As part of those permissive Condi Rules, she was questioned first by the mild-mannered co-commissioners, Kean and Hamilton, who normally don’t take turns in the questioning. And her answers to Kean showed where things were heading; they totaled 439, 383, 549 words respectively, all longer than Berger’s most fulsome effort. Then came questioning by the Democrat, Hamilton—and Rice ripped off a 967-word reply to one of his queries. “Well, I thank you for a careful answer,” the vice chairman wryly said...

Later, commissioner Kerrey begged Rice to stop “filibustering” his time. “It isn’t fair,” he plaintively said.

Drop by later to hear the wingnuts respond, "But that's different!"

There's something I think you should know.


Fresh out of graduation from Steve Janke Boy Detective Community College, "Biebs" lets us in on some really, really disturbing news (emphasis added):

"Lawmakers Propose Ultrasounds Before Abortions"

Rep. Greg Delleney (R-Chester and York Counties), said, "I'm just trying to save lives and protect people from regret and inform women with the most accurate non-judgemental information that can be provided."

I think this is a great idea. Too many girls have an abortion because they are naive to the realities of the consequences of that decision. Abortion is final and therefore should require full and complete disclosure of all of the facts before it is allowed.

Check back next week when Biebs breathlessly fills us in on where babies really come from, and it has nothing to do with that stork thingy.

SLIGHTLY TASTELESS AFTERSNARK
: I'm amused by sanctimonious "pro-lifers" who think pregnant women should be forced to somehow confront their fetuses before committing to have an abortion.

Using that same logic, I could suggest that legislators pushing for additional funding for military action should first spend a few seconds contemplating, on their desktops, the remains of a broken, dismembered child killed by heavy artillery.

What's good for the goose and all that.

What do you call 200 Blogging Tories at the bottom of the lake?


A good start.

Yes, that joke is old and lame but, frankly, there's no other way to look at it but that the BTs are the most worthless collection of partisan imbeciles imaginable. And I say this with great respect for worthless, partisan imbeciles everywhere.

Readers of this blog know I pick on the BTs on a regular basis, and for good reason -- a depressing number of them are either idiots or hideously dishonest hypocrites. (Go on, ask me for examples. Make my day. Seriously.)

It borders on creepy how the BT collective -- and I mean the entire collective -- can, in unison as if they've all been sent the same memo, decide that a particular development is simply not newsworthy and that they're not going to mention it. At all.

Case in point, of course, is the recent international incident involving the nine-year-old Canadian boy who was tossed into a "family detention center" in Texas. Now, you'd think that the BTs, being the pro-child, pro-family crowd that they are, would be all over that story like Steve Janke on Cindy Sheehan's private parts. You know, standing up and ... what's that phrase they use again? ... oh, right: "Getting Things Done for Canadians."

And you'd be wrong, as you can see from the handy-dandy Blogging Tories search engine, where you see just how terribly concerned they were about this story. Yup, all of two hits (provided I'm using that search facility correctly), with one of them by BT Backseat Blogger making fun of the situation, and the other by a BT who is simultaneously a member of the Progressive Bloggers of Canada, so that doesn't really count.

So do they just not give a shit? Of course not. One can safely assume that, as soon as that story broke, they quickly examined it for its political/ideological value, just as quickly determined that it had none, and moved on.

Imagine, however, if they could have somehow pinned the blame on the Liberals. OHMIGOD, the anguished shrieking would still be going on. However, since blame could not be assigned, the collective reaction was, well, utter indifference, and everyone could safely return to making fun of David Suzuki.

The most recent example of this, naturally, is the total lack of BT interest in the exploding shitstorm regarding the purge of U.S. attorneys by that sleazy little Hispanifascist Alberto Gonzales. It's hard to downplay how big a story this is, and yet ... and yet ... oh, yawn.

Of course, nothing says that the BTs have to cover breaking news south of the border but, given their perpetual love affair with all things Bush, one would think they might spare a blog post or two to at least mention it. After all, they don't seem to have a problem keeping an eye on, oh, Hillary Clinton. Or Nancy Pelosi. Or Al Gore. But rampant criminal behaviour that might very well bring down a sitting U.S. attorney general? Ah, nothing to see here. Move on.

Of course, you get the most entertainment value when you can pick on specific BTs and their posts to show their overwhelming hypocrisy, like this one by Celestial Junk's "Paul" from back in 2006:

Bush Done-it # 12 345 756

Finally, after 12 345 756 attempts at finding a charge that would stick, the international “progressive” class may finally have found a Bush Done-it that will bring down the Bush administration. Impeachment, if not criminal charges are in the air.

From the Plame-game to colluding with the 911 hijackers , Bush has managed to elude his detractors time and time again. Armies of leftist sleuths numbering in the hundreds of thousands have been pouring over damning documents (primarily MSM sources) uncovering Bush lies, Bush manipulations, Bush warmongerings, Bush inanity, Bush blunders, and outright Bush attempts at forming absolute GOP rule within the United States of America. Now, finally, they may have nailed the bastard down.

It has been recorded, on video, that George Bush, the 43rd President of the United States of America, GROPED, German Chancellor Angela Merkel during the recent G8 summit. In a lecherous move more akin to RAP ass grab, Bush Done-it.

Whooooeeee (as Jim Bobby would say), that Paul is one funny, funny guy. Of course, though, once you've invested the time in dissing all that anti-Bush sentiment, you kind of have a moral obligation to cover the real news when it happens, dontcha think? You know -- to be "fair and balanced." Yeah, you wish.

Perhaps the funniest thing about the Blogging Tories is their hypocrisy when it comes to whining about liberal media bias and, more specifically, news outlets that give you only "half the story". Because if you got your news only from the BTs, you literally would not know about the attorney purge scandal down south. At all. As not one of those biased hacks has seen fit to write a single blog entry on it.

The BTs are not alone in this deliberate aversion of eyes from unpleasant news, of course. Pop over to the right-wing, hacktacular "news" site Pajamas Media and search the main page for any mention of the name "Gonzales". Good luck. (Amusingly, Fred Beamer wannabe Steve Janke is a member of both the BTs and Pajamas Media so his bad news avoidance circuitry must be working overtime these days.)

In any event, I don't think I've told you anything you didn't already know. But, really, there comes a point where you get thoroughly tired of hearing these useless wanks whining on and on and monotonously on about liberal bias when their entire lives are defined by the circle-jerk echo chamber in which they live, and if it doesn't suit their dishonest, ideological agenda, well, it just ain't news.

I'm quite sure that's a tolerably pleasant lifestyle if that sort of thing appeals to you. But it sure does explain the howling ignorance, doesn't it?

Thursday, March 22, 2007

I only hit you because I love you.


PTBC's Joel Johannesen:

Ignorant, naive Canada still thinks it’s special
Posted by Joel Johannesen

Perhaps it’s because Canada is so used to living under the comfy warm blanket of America and their realistic level of defensive security protection and their willingness to defend not just themselves, but apparently most of the world including Canada. (Does the U.S. send Canada a multi-billion-dollar bill every year? It should.) Or maybe we’re just all drunk. Perhaps drunk on that yummy “progressive” blather and liberalism and its self-gratifying ignorance.

Can someone explain why anyone who runs a blog called "Proud to be Canadian" insists on perpetually describing that very Canada as some sort of international, free-loading, "ignorant", "naive" parasite?

I'm just curious.

Just for the sake of completeness, ya know.


Blogging Tory "Gay and Right" Fred gives us the rundown on anti-Semitism in Canada.

Dear Fred: When you start your list for 2007, make sure you don't miss this one. Just trying to be helpful.

No! Really? The latest installment.


Crack online sleuth Steve "Inspector Gadget" Janke reveals the latest shocking news -- there's some bad drugs out there.

Tune in next week when the eJankulator warns us that those e-mails from Nigeria aren't all they're cracked up to be.

My God, I love being right.


Regular gluttons for punishment at this blog might recall when I suggested that, rather than invent bizarre and lame rationalizations for the recent purge of U.S. attorneys, the Bush administration simply say that it's their call and it's none of your damned business:

If you're going to invariably fall back on this 'at the pleasure of the President' defense, why doesn't the President just come out and say that he can do whatever the hell he wants, and he just felt like firing those eight attorneys, and it's nobody else's business and if you don't like it, you can just bite him?

Oh, my. Did I call it or what?


Thank ya ... thank ya very much.

BY THE WAY, did anyone else notice that, in Commander Chimpy's very first sentence, he referred to the "resignation" of those attorneys (as if they were voluntary), and immediately followed that up with the claim that he has, of course, the power to "replace" them.

Where I come from, being forcibly "replaced" doesn't normally fall under the category of voluntary resignation, if you see what I mean.

A gathering of turkeys.


Heh.

Don't rush him ... he's rationalizing.


Shorter Paul: "Best 3 out of 5? Come on, best 3 out of 5. Damn ... best 4 out of 7? Come on, 4 out of 7. Damn ..."

BY THE WAY, PAUL
, If I were you, I wouldn't be making any long-range plans based on the judgment and military wisdom of Victor Davis Hanson. I'm just sayin'. And sayin'. And sayin'.

... and I don't use the word "pathological" lightly.


On occasion, I've referred to the residents of Wankerville not just as "liars," but as "pathological" liars; that is, they seem positively incapable of telling the truth (see: Blogging Tories).

Exhibit 57,236: Bugman Tom DeLay on Chris Matthews:

Anyone catch the Bugman on Hardball pimping his new book? He's gone round the twist:

MATTHEWS: You say [Dick Army] was "drunk with ambition."

DELAY: Actually that's not what I said. What I said was "blinded by ambition. "Drunk with ambition" is a quote of a cliche.

MATTHEWS: Why would I underline it in the book?

DeLay babbles for a while as Matthews looks up the quote:

MATTHEWS: "He resented me for being the other Texan on the leadership team and he resented me for being in the way of his becoming Speaker of the House. Beware the man drunk with ambition."

DELAY: Uh, read the sentence before that.

MATTHEWS: That's what I just did.

DELAY: It says "blinded by ambition."

MATTHEWS: No, I'll read the sentence again: "He resented me…" It's right here in your book. You gotta read it. (Matthews hands him the book). I'm sorry Tom but it's there. It says "drunk with ambition."

DELAY: That is the cliche…but right up here, I don't have my glasses on, right up here it says "blinded by ambition."



So tell me -- how dishonest do you have to be to adamantly deny something that you wrote when the book that contains it is being held up in front of you where you can read it for yourself?

There's a reason they call us on the Left the "reality-based" community, you know.

FREE AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Let's go to the videotape.

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

A few dollars more.

The Star reports a raise for Ontario's poorest workers:

"Mar 21, 2007 04:30 Am
ROBERT BENZIE
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU CHIEF
The Liberal government will ramp up the minimum wage to $10.25 by 2010 in a provincial budget tomorrow that has been designed to help Ontario’s poorest children and their families.
As first disclosed in the Star this morning, the $8 hourly wage will rise to $8.75 next year, $9.50 in 2009 and $10.25 in 2010."

Well it's about bloody time. I suppose now some of the working poor might get together to buy Jason Cherniak a beer to cry into.

“That’s an issue of concern to all of us and particularly it’s become more pronounced given that we now fully understand that many of these kids are showing up for school and they are not ready to learn…it compromises our ability to build a strong, competitive economy,’ McGuinty told reporters."

Not to cast doubt on motive but let me cast doubt on motive. I'm guessing that what Mr. McGuinty is now fully realizing, is that there are quite a few voters looking at their kids going without and his party might go without some of those votes come election time. Motive aside, this is the right thing to do. This is a wealthy province. It is simply wrong to allow institutionalized poverty to continue. McGuinty is right, though he couches his words, the province will not prosper when thousands of children go to school hungry.

"The decision to increase the minimum wage comes after weeks of pressure on the government from poverty activists and the New Democrats."

Ah, the assistance needed to "fully understand".

"McGuinty said, "just as it would be irresponsible to hold the minimum wage at $8 an hour indefinitely, it would also be just as irresponsible to raise it to $10 an hour overnight."

Damn straight Dalton old bean. A 25% increase in wages overnight is irresponsible. Unless you get to award that kind of increase to yourself, I suppose. After all, a 25% wage hike for the well off increases competitiveness while a similar wage hike for the poor will kill jobs. That's the operating rationale down there at Queen's Park, right?

"...study to be released by Sorbara will warn that 90,000 to 180,000 jobs could be lost if the minimum wage is increased by 25 per cent in one fell swoop.
Sorbara commissioned University of Toronto professor Morley Gunderson to study the impact of a $2 hike.
Gunderson, paid $24,000 for a sobering 50-page report that took him six weeks to complete, found such a dramatic rise in the wage could cost even more jobs than the 66,000 the finance ministry had estimated."

Check. In politics, it is always important to buy a fall-back position. And you get what you pay for. Now I know nothing about Professor Gunderson, he's probably a very nice guy. But, for $24,000 I would hope his sobering report could be a little more specific. I never took a stats course but 90,000 to 180,000 seems like a pretty generous margin of error. After all, $24,000 is $7,360 more than a person making the new minimum of $8 an hour will earn working full time for a year, before taxes. At $480 per page, Dr. Gunderson must be one sober cat. And he spent six whole weeks figuring it all out, I'm sure he burned through a lot of pencils earning that $4,000 a week for this little project. Not a bad part time job for a guy paid $110,807.88 for the 2000 school year.

"The minimum wage issue has become a difficult political problem for the Liberals.
Last month, the governing party lost a by-election in York South-Weston, once one of the safest Liberal seats in Ontario, when New Democrat Paul Ferreira toppled a McGuinty-anointed candidate, Laura Albanese.
With a provincial election on Oct. 10, the Liberals are concerned about their left flank, which is why tomorrow's budget is designed to steal some of NDP Leader Howard Hampton's thunder."

I think I'm beginning to fully understanding some things too Dalton. 'Tis the season to buy some votes, just like big Steve. Still, a little hope for the little folks is better than none.

How not to sell a book

I hesitate to give a proper link, but if your stomach is not as surly as mine has been these last few days, go have a laugh at spaceark.net. Don't tell him I sent you. If you can stop laughing long enough to send him a note, please forward copies of his responses to the comments. Oh dear, oh dear.

How to sell a book.

When old media meets new media and comes away looking rather bright. This new marketing idea for those quaint "book" things is a winner.

GOTCHA!


Nice freakin' catch.

Um ... about all that right-wing outrage over "perjury" ...


More stuff you won't read a word about over at the morals-and-values, law-and-order Blogging Tories (all emphasis added):

In nasty and bumbling comments made at the White House yesterday, President Bush declared that “people just need to hear the truth” about the firing of eight United States attorneys...

Mr. Bush’s idea of openness involved sending White House officials to Congress to answer questions in private, without taking any oath, making a transcript or allowing any follow-up appearances...

Why would anyone refuse to take an oath on a matter like this, unless he were not fully committed to telling the truth?

In more important news, however ...

OOOOOH ... OOOOOH ... Bonus.

PAGING MR. OBVIOUS: I realize this may be flogging the obvious, but I'm wondering how many of the residents of Lower Retardville who might be arguing that, just because you refuse to be sworn in doesn't mean you plan on lying, are some of the same people who defended the eavesdropping allowed by the Patriot Act because, after all, if you object to uninhibited eavesdropping, well, that means you must have something to hide.

Or was that too painfully trivial to have mentioned?

Right-wing schizophrenia, as it were.


How odd. Apparently, the same Canadian wanks who were utterly and monumentally uninterested in the plight of a nine-year-old Canadian boy being held in appalling conditions in a Texas detention centre are now -- suddenly -- totally devastated by the situation involving an Afghani boy who they'd never heard of before.

I hear there's medication for that, you know.

Yeah, that explains a lot, doesn't it?


Now this is what you call a blogroll:




In totally unrelated news, the mainstream media sucks because they only ever give you half the story. Dontcha just hate that?

Checks and Balances

Man, oh man. You spend your day orbiting the porcelain and babbling with a fever and you miss all the fun. After more than six years of lies, arrogance and criminal bullshit, the Bush mob looks about ready to circle some porcelain of its own. Funny what a little oversight can do.

Top of the pile would have to be the unravelling of the Department of Justice under Alberto Gonazales. The firing of United States Attorneys for partisan, political reasons, sidestepping Senate confirmations and the web of lies has more than upset the apple cart. Even Republican lawmakers are beginning to call for Gonzales to step down. Every administration tactic seems to be blowing up in their faces.

Once upon a time, a 3,000 page document dump would have slowed the process of seeking truth to a crawl. The administration likely didn't anticipate the power of distributed effort. tpmmuckraker asked their readership to go through the document dump and piece by piece patterns begin to emerge, lies and manipulations. By today a picture was beginning to form of an administration that was conniving to play politics with prosecution. That is one chilling picture. Not that the Bush regime's serial abuses of surveillance, privacy, habeas corpus etc. aren't chilling enough, but turning Federal Prosecutors into political hitmen is just scary.

The Senate voted to shut down the Patriot Act loophole, that Gonazales had promised not to employ and promptly used to pull this scam. As the investigation widens and both houses of Congress demand answers, Bush offered to allow White House officials to speak to members of the Judiciary Committee, behind closed doors, not under oath and without transcripts. He might as well have offered to sing folk songs. Fortunately, Senator Leahy and Representative Conyers were having none of it. Tomorrow, the house committee will be convening to discuss subpoenas for Kyle Sampson, Harriet Miers, deputy White House counsel William Kelley, Karl Rove's aide Scott Jennings and little porkie himself, Karl Rove. The senate committee will be meeting Thursday.

Bush, ever the stubborn snot, has vowed to fight subpoenas. Thus begins the showdown between the executive and legislative branches. This may turn into the first of a series of constitutional crises, as the administration's notion of unitary executive and unfettered power runs headlong into checks and balances for the first time.

I for one, am looking forward to watching Karl Rove twist in the wind. With everything lining up against them, I expect the Bush mob to try and tie things up in the courts and run out the clock on the little prince's term. Here's hoping that the continued perseverance of the Congress will bring down the house of cards. And there's more to come. Rep. Conyers has been taking his vitamins, as he's also heading up hearings to investigate the FBI abuse of National Security Letters. It really is just one scandal on top of another. We are heading into what looks to be a season of amazing political theater. Too bad I don't care much for popcorn.

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Welcome to the real world.


Oh, darn ... sometimes, reality can be a real bitch, can't it?

Taking "stupid" to a whole new level.


Sometimes, snark is not sufficient. Sometimes, you just have to point out that someone is plain, dumbass, motherfucking stupid. Like this guy:

ACLU Finds Religion

From Moonbattery:

The ACLU has gone to great lengths to suppress Christianity, ...


Of course it has, so maybe someone should set Google straight.

Plain. Dumbass. Motherfucker.

And I'm being polite.

When are you simply too stupid to forgive?


As I pointed out back here, there is apparently nothing too idiotic or dishonest that can't be forgiven by those compassionate conservatives over at the Blogging Tories (as long as it's forgiving one of their own, of course).

Unfortunately (and totally predictably), those wanks are still woefully clueless about what happened here, and Dave over at TGB is only too happy to explain it in painful detail:

O'Connor would have been required to complete the OPD program while still serving in the army. Which means he should have been aware of the ICRC limitations on reporting the treatment of detainees.

Beyond that, however, is the fact that O'Connor has a relatively large staff which should be researching this material. How is it that he can step into the House of Commons and utter statements which are so far from accurate that they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of the details of prisoner and detainee monitoring?

Yes, there's that -- that O'Connor could have been ignorant about such a fundamental aspect of the ICRC monitoring of detainees. That alone makes him unqualified to be Canada's Defence Minister. But wait -- that's not all.

Dave quotes O'Connor's jaw-dropping dumbfuckitude in his apology to the House as he (O'Connor) tries to recover from his wretched idiocy (emphasis added):

“Mr. Speaker I would like to be clear: the International Committee of the Red Cross is under no obligation to share information with Canada on the treatment of detainees transferred by Canada to Afghan authorities. The International Committee of the Red Cross provides this information to the country that has the detainees in its custody, in this case, Afghanistan.”

As Dave points out, claiming that the ICRC has "no obligation" to share that information with Canada is the height of dishonest sleaziness. To say someone has "no obligation" suggests that, while they can't be forced to do something, they might still do it out of the goodness of their hearts or something. And as Dave points out (emphasis in original):

Let me be clear. They won't share information with Canada.

Exactly. It's not that the ICRC has no obligation to share information with Canada; it's that they have an obligation to not share. And if you can't understand the fundamental distinction there, you have absolutely no right to be this country's Defence Minister.

What a maroon.

P.S. Go on ... leave a comment insisting that there's no difference between those two statements. Go ahead -- make my day.

Oh, irony, where is thy ... oh, THERE it is.


Savour the wankitude of Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck™:




Give Kate credit -- when it comes to courage, bravery and actually taking up arms to personally face down the murderous hordes of Islamojihadifarians, she and her wanker brothers-in-arms have the "working quietly at their desks" part down nicely. It's a gift.

UNINTENTIONAL HILARITY, I'M SURE: It's moderately amusing to hear the Right accuse us of thinking the world is run on wishes and that we always have three more. I mean, speaking of wishes:

Dems want out of Iraq; Bush pleads patience
March 20, 2007


WASHINGTON -- With Democrats pushing for an end to the Iraq war now entering its fifth year, President Bush pleaded for more patience Monday, saying success is possible but "will take months, not days or weeks."

Just another few months. Just another Friedman. One more chance. One more try. We'll try another Secretary of Defense. We'll try a "surge." We'll get it right this time, we promise. Honestly. And this time, we mean it.

And there's a pony under there somewhere. There has to be.

ABOUT THAT FRIEDMAN THING
... For those unfamiliar with the "Friedman" reference, it refers to an annoying habit of right-wing hack Thomas Friedman to ... oh, hell, see for yourself. Yes, just another six months, that's all they need.

And, mercifully, the media is finally beginning to catch on.

OH, ABOUT MR. VANDERLEUN: If you really need to read the illogical, right-wing excrement that is driving Kate and her panty-sniffing groupies to orgasm, here it is. And as a bonus at no extra charge, here's everything you need to know about author Gerard Vanderleun.

I'm assuming you can understand the hero worship now.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Now THAT'S what I call "compassionate conservatism."


Pay no mind to the fact that Canadian Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor is stunningly ignorant about basic issues like the Geneva Conventions and the protection of detainees. Despite having lied to the House of Commons, it seems like the Blogging Tories are in a forgiving mood ...
... here:

This Is Why They Call Him “Honourable”

It’s great to see a parliamentarian deliver an apology without any reservation at all...

Isn’t it refreshing to hear a real apology instead of the using blame the victim, “If you were offended by misinterpreting what I said then I’m sorry” apology we’ve come to listen to in past years? Should another apology have to be delivered, I hope the Honourable Member follow O’Connor’s example.

... and here:

It’s the way that O’Connor apologized that makes all the difference: a statement of regret plus a claim of responsibility.

Of course the Opposition could now switch gears and clamor for O’Connor’s resignation, but doing so would merely be discounted by attentive voters as a partisan exercise.

I’ll have a link to the full statement up tomorrow, but for now I’ll just say that O’Connor has, at the very least, enhanced the Tory reputation for wanting to be straight — both with Parliamentary tradition, and with the voting public at large.

Yeah, a real, heartfelt apology -- what a great idea, right, Matt? Still waiting ...