Saturday, June 30, 2007

Let the teary, sorrowful, daughter-fucking rationalization begin.

Via Paladiea, we see the right-wing support group rushing to Wendy ("RightGirl") Sullivan's aid and comfort:

Why this turn down memory lane? Well, the lynch mob of well-meaning progressives response to this blog posting, puts this memory front and centre in my mind. While the language and imaginary invoked in the original blog post are confrontational and crude, and the judgments contained harsh and hurtful - perhaps, just perhaps, the well-intentional rabble should take a moment to pause and ask themselves; where did the blogger come from? What motivates her to speak thus? Whose shoes does she wear? Does this come from a position of experience and pain?


Dear Kateland: You really are a dumb cunt. Now, why don't you go figure out where that came from?

FREE AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Dave at TGB makes a good point.

Why, yes, I WAS right again, thanks for asking.

You know, it's almost boring being this stunningly prescient, but, what the hell ...

... this is a [no-fly] list that, once you're on, it's damned near impossible to get off of, which means that your life will almost certainly never be the same. Once you're on, you can expect to get the same hassle every single time you try to fly.

Oh, look (emphasis added):

Two boys named Alistair Butt, one from Saskatchewan and one from Ontario, were stopped while trying to board flights last week because their name matches a name that appears on a no-fly list...

Both boys were eventually allowed to board, once they were cleared by security after long delays, but their families fear they will face the same problem every time they try to fly.

"Canada is telling him he's guilty until proven innocent every time he flies," the Ontario boy's mother, Heather Butt, told CBC News.

But it gets so much better, as I also wrote:

And the worst part? Well, that would be the part that Joel finds so hilarious -- that you can never call ahead to find out if you're still on the list or not. Every flight is now a gamble ...

Oh, look: Part 2:

The list is not available to the public, which means those on it will only find out when they try to travel.

In other news, I'll go out on a limb and predict that Steve Janke will shortly find more evidence of corporate malfeasance somewhere. Yes, it's a bold prediction, but I'm feeling daring these days.

And, occasionally, the good guys win one.

From the comments section back here:

celeste said...

The embassy has removed their link to her Canadian Angels page.

Here is their reply:

Dear Ms (snip)

Thank you for your email regarding a post made this week in the blog "Right Wing Girl" and the our [sic] article about the Canadian Angels website from a 2006 edition of the Connect2Canada newsletter.

Our mention of Canadian Angels was made over a year ago. We have now removed that reference to the Canadian Angels site from the Connect2Canada website and newsletter and will not make future references to it.

Thank you again for your message. We very much value the feedback of Connect2Canada members.


Bernard Etzinger
Connect2Canada team
Canadian Embassy, Washington, DC

And if you listen carefully, you can almost hear the growing whine of "censorship" from the Canadian dumbfuck-o-sphere. Just wait for it -- you know it's coming.

The mote in one's eye.

(CC News) -- In an ongoing series, Canada's conservative blogging collective, the "Blogging Tories," have continued their criticism of the mainstream media, accusing it of deliberately downplaying or ignoring inconvenient stories, based purely on political or ideological considerations.

In unrelated news, when asked about the recent statements by U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney that he wasn't a member of the executive branch and was therefore not subject to any oversight or accountability whatsoever, the shocked BTs replied, "No way! He said that!? When the fuck did that happen??"

... and that's why they call him "the eJankulator."

Having milked the counterfeit Colgate story every which way until next Tuesday, poor Steve Janke is depressed that he just can't get the love, but that's fine because the Boy Detective is hot on the trail of another bodice-ripping scoop:

I have a report from Shell Chemical detailing a shocking problem discovered in Holland. Chinese-made piping for a major chemical plant was discovered to have been deliberately reworked to hide serious flaws that engineers believe could have resulted in disastrous consequences.

Wow ... this does sound serious. Tell us more, Steve:

Shell, the Dutch petrochemical giant, is currently constructing a world-scale styrene monomer/propylene oxide plant at Moerdijk, The Netherlands, known as MSPO-2.

Don't worry if you didn't know that.

Like any major industrical chemical operation, huge pipes will move massive volumes of potentially lethal chemicals from point to point in the processing. These pipes can't fail, or else people die.

Holy shit, how did you come by this, Steve?

So read this report from Shell Chemicals that was slipped to me.

Whoa, Steve has his own deep cover sources. Cool. And seriously fucking scary. I mean, it gets worse:

So two Chinese-based companies have been called out by Shell Chemical for shipping substandard part that Shell alleges were deliberately reworked to hide the flaws. Some pipes looked like they were welded together from different pieces, like a broken ceramic cup stuck back together with crazy glue. Paperwork was allegedly falsified, and certificates supplied with the Chinese parts were suspect. Worse than that, allegedly flawed piping and flanges were already installed, and had to be removed at great cost, but the alternative would have "disastrous" safety incidents. The entire project has been put in jeopardy by the "intentional deception".

Jesus, this sounds major and ... and ... um ... excuse me?

The report is not dated so I can't tell you if this is a current problem or one that has been resolved.


Very long pause.

Yeah, Steve, I hope you don't mind if I just call you "Jillian" from now on, m'kay?

Sometimes, life just doesn't get any better.

, you want a juicy story to dig into? With lurid language and a Canadian connection? Here's one -- the Canadian right-wing-o-sphere is awash in hateful bigots, white supremacists and morons.

Come on, Steve ... a clever lad like you should be able to tease a couple posts out of that. Really. I mean, I gave you the first link, so I'm expecting credit.

Friday, June 29, 2007

The Politically Correct Right

I've read some of the responses to RightGirl's fit of dung tossing. It occurred to me, and has appeared in some commentary, that it all comes down to a matter of safe targets. RightGirl seems to be hungry for outrage and relishes her position as a dangerous mind. But I found it kind of comic that she has a prominent banner on her page declaring it "Certified Politically Correct Free".

Fair enough, CC Headquarters posts up banners promising free range snark and sarcasm. But, the thing is that RightGirl is absolutely politically correct. Sure, she'll deny it but she is eagerly mouthing the positions of the politic to which she owes fealty. For the left of center, her diatribe against First Nations people is not only politically incorrect, it is abominable, disturbing and crass. But in the wilds of the far right, it is eminently correct.

So, she toes the party line and denigrates all who are brown of skin. But she rears up on her hind legs and whinges at the sky, in political lock step, on all matters Israeli. Heavens forfend that anyone dare protest or criticize Israeli actions. She may be stupid. She may be mean and ugly of spirit. But she is also quite determinedly politically correct. Pavlov's bitch.

See, it's safe to spit hate at those she calls "Injuns" or Moslems because she and her bigot buddies don't believe that anyone cares enough to call them on it. And because they feel safe, correct, if you will, they'll let fling the turds of hate. And just as compliantly they will leap to the defense of Israel, no matter the cause. And they will do so because it is what is expected, it is the politically correct reaction of the modern reactionary zealot: "But they don't call themselves anti-Semitic. Oh no - they know there's too much negative press attached to that. Instead they are "anti-Zionist", and "against Israeli Apartheid". These groups include Jews, much the way there were Jews in Nazi Germany willing to sell out their friends and family members, thinking they would be saved. In the end, everyone died."

So where are all of the outraged and morally traumatized whingers that threw a fit at McClelland's commentary? Where is little Warren Kinsella and his mighty column inch of scorn? Crickets, you say. The right wing PC police are licking the powdered sugar off their fingers, nothing to see here, move along.


Dave can be such a prick. And I mean that in only the most complimentary way, of course.

You have to love the irony.

Robert McClelland paints a depressing picture of right-wing civility, including this gem from Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™:

Mark my words - the moment is approaching when a bandana prowling these police protected barricades will end up in the crosshairs of someone’s high powered rifle.

And when whingers start talking about high powered rifles, well, you might want to pay attention. They have a history.

I'm in love.

Yes, it might be a cheap PR stunt, but it's still delightful.

Because calling someone a "leftard moonbat" is so last week, ya know?

Blogging Tory "Girl on the Right" brings the civility with respect to the Native Day of Action:

As opposed to the other 364 days

When the Natives do absolutely nothing except smoke, drink and fuck their daughters.

In other news, stay tuned since you just know I'm eventually going to snap and call someone a "dumb cunt" again, which just proves how we leftists are a bunch of hateful, hateful people.

Or something like that.

CORRECTION: It has been pointed out that GotR is no longer a member of the Blogging Tories, and hasn't been for a couple of months, and we apologize for the error.

Thursday, June 28, 2007

Apparently, Google can still be intimidating.

And over at "Dust My Broom," Blogging Tory Darcey ponders deep thoughts:

The CBC is using the Facebook platform for an informal poll where Canadians are invited to post their hope for the future. The current top wishes from the Great Canadian Wish List:

1. Abolish Abortion in Canada ...

Just a silly poll but what if Canadians actually do want limits on abortions, ...

An excellent question, which might inspire someone who actually cares about the answer to go hunting for it. Oh, look (emphasis tail-waggingly added):

  • In a poll conducted by the National Post in November 2002, 78% of respondents answered "yes" to the question: "Should women have complete freedom on their decision to have an abortion?"...

  • In a Gallup Canada poll taken April 2005, 52% of respondents say they would like to see Canadian abortion laws "remain the same," 20% say they would like the laws to be "less strict," while 24% say they would like the laws to be "more strict."

Tune in next week when Darcey muses out loud, "I wonder if there's really any evidence for that evolution stuff. If only there was somewhere I could go to find out."

YOU KEEP USING THAT WORD "POLL" ... Perhaps the funniest atrocity regarding that post at Darcey's is the incessant (and is there any other wingnut kind?) whining about how us leftists refuse to accept the results of "polls" with which we disagree, as if a publicly-freeped survey with no quality controls on it whatsoever constituted a valid "poll."

Using the same logic, I've gone back through a number of my previous blog posts, tallied the comments and found out that I am, in fact, correct 96.5 per cent of the time, based on a thoroughly-contrived statistical analysis of my commenters, most of whom appear to agree with me.

OK, maybe there's something to this "poll" stuff after all. And if I say so, it must be true since, apparently, I'm hardly ever wrong.

... but some people are more equal than others, know what I mean?

Blogging Tory Joanne is mightily impressed with a National Post editorial emphasizing that there should be one law that applies to everyone because, as we all know, it's a fundamental underpinning of our society that all Canadians should be treated fairly and equally in every way, being given the freedom to live where they want, do what they want and marry who they want.

Well, OK, except for the faggots and that whole gay marriage thing. I'm pretty sure we need to draw that "one law for everyone" line somewhere, if you catch my drift.

And shooting someone with a high-powered rifle? Definitely frowned upon for everyone, unless the victim is an abortion provider. Apparently, that's still a grey area.

It depends on what you mean by "unity," I guess.

In a somewhat surprising development, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently took credit for an alleged peak in Canadian unity. By way of celebration, the Blogging Tories told Canada's gays, aboriginals, atheists, pro-choicers, feminists and immigrants to all fuck off and die, while Harper told Newfoundland and Saskatchewan that they could just sue him.

Then cake was served.

Big Media ate my brain.

Or it will, unless you do something about it. Stop the big media takeover. Go. Now. I mean it.

We now return you to your Larry King and Paris Hilton-a-thon.

Tuesday, June 26, 2007


Just kill me now, Lord.

Grovelling in the Great White North.

Trying to avoid getting your lying ass sued off -- take 3. Although I'm thinking that that apology might have had more effect if it had been placed right at the top of the eJankulator's blog, rather than a simple three-word link.

It might also have been cool if Steve had used David Herle's full name, but that's the sacrifice you have to make when you're trying to make the link as teeny-tiny as possible so that readers might overlook it completely by accident. I'm guessing it's a Blogging Tory thing.

Monday, June 25, 2007

I'm ... speechless.

Seriously, snark fails me.

Low-hanging fruit, Dr. Roy edition.

Because I'm insufferably lazy today, here's the incomparable Dr. Roy Eappen. And here's TBogg, writing as if he knows the doctor all too well.

Dodging another gay bullet.

Don't panic -- apparently, another looming threat to Western civilization from teh homos has been averted.

I know I'll breathe easier.

The selectivity of outrage, Joel Johannesen style.

If there's one thing that gets Joel's Underoos in a bunch, it's getting railroaded:

'The first is the laudable pluck of Canada, the single nation that fought to the end against the outrageous “consensus” that was reached. First Canada opposed the package deal that included the singling out of Israel and the rewarding of Cuba and Belarus. The council chair ignored this, moving the item forward as if consensus had been reached.

Next, Canada, unbowed, called a point of order against the chairman’s action, forcing a vote. Finally, the council voted 46 to 1 (Canada), in effect retroactively and falsely deciding that consensus had been reached and blatantly violating, as Canada’s ambassador put it, “more than 60 years of established practice of the UN, which is based on the fundamental principle of equality of all of its member states.”'

Yeah, having your rights trampled in a meeting by an autocratic dictator. That has to suck.

Well, OK ... there might be the occasional exception. But just the one -- we don't want to make a habit of this.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Let's call it the "Steve Janke apology."

Shorter John Pacheco: "I apologize for being gauche, tasteless and insensitive but, hey, it happens when you're right, ya know."

Steve would be so proud.

Apparently, that whole "capitalism" thingy has its limitations.

Shorter Nicol Dumoulin: "As a steadfast conservative, I am absolutely a staunch supporter of the free market. Until it comes to getting our message out there. Then I'm a socialist."

Are we out of Cheeto's AGAIN??

This is quite a promising development:

CBC Wishlist - Pro-life Vote Needs Our Help!
Step Four: PLEASE forward this message to all pro-lifers that you know as soon as possible. It is important that we win this competition.

Canada's wingnut-o-sphere: Always on the lookout for another good cause they can support from the safety of their Kevlar-reinforced keyboards.

Pacheco and other illnesses.

You know, there's some people that spew filth, spite and intolerance and they do so under the guise of some greater moral, spiritual or ethical calling. Some of these folks do so in the fullest of faith, that what they speak and believe is pure and right. They are so sure in their beliefs that they never question and are startled when they find that other people bridle under their ministrations. They are shocked that their surety might ever be questioned. In the depths of their puddle deep hearts, they actually do mean well. They're probably nice people, more or less, they're just ignorant, blinkered and dim.

And then there are people that wrap themselves in pious cloaks and brandish their crosses like cudgels. Only too happy to spit their hatred in the face of any that dare question their pocket crusades. There is no hurt too deep for them to exploit, no life too private for their interference, no vitriol too bitter to share. My late mom had a term for these sorts of folks, she called them god-botherers. Petty little people with mean hearts and nasty tongues, full of vengeance and judgement for any and all. These creatures snipe and crow about your sins, your flaws and your failings and they relish the opportunity to point their little fingers. And all the while they hold themselves up as examples of virtue and righteousness, for they and they alone know the ways and wants of the lord.

And should you dare to question them or suggest that their vision fails the hopes and hearts of others, why, then they roll up their sleeves and clutch their bibles and cry woe. How sadly oppressed they are, how their very lives are portraits of martyrdom. How can we not let them dictate from their bully pulpits and still call ourselves free? For these manipulative, squalling bastards, freedom is what they choose to inflict. Your freedom to choose your own fate, your choice of partner and dominion over your own body is somehow an infringement on their precious freedom to abuse you and to demonize you. All of the bibles in christendom could not stack high enough to conceal their corruption.

John Pacheco traffics in such corruptions. He is a bigot. He is a misogynist. He is a liar and an enemy of freedom, liberty and honour. No sooner does Belinda Stronach's unfortunate bout with cancer make the news, than this vulgar little snake coils around it to spread his poison, his innuendo and lies. After a brief clipping detailing Ms. Stronach's misfortune, this disturbed little man appends the following:

"Please pray for Belinda.

We must still admit that for women taking oral contraceptives and having abortions, there is an increase in the risk of breast cancer. Check it out here. Keep scrolling down for the ABC link.

Posted by John Pacheco at 6/23/2007 07:11:00 AM

Labels: LifeStyle Choices"

It's not quite ten years since I lost my mom to complications from breast cancer. She went to her grave believing that there was a god waiting with the promise of peace and respite from the suffering. Were she alive today, there is no doubt in my mind, that if she were stood in front of Mr. Pacheco she would reach out with her Irish Catholic hand and slap his face. There is no excuse for the smug actions of this pathetic man. Somehow, Pacheco, you rotten guttersnipe, I don't think you should be using the familiar in addressing Ms. Stronach. Given that you are casting your unwelcome judgements upon her, given that she is a successful person and you are a failed and failing wannabe, that never was and never will be, it seems only fitting that you address your remarks in the formal and with the appropriate respect. Given that your prayers are as false as your heart, allow me to suggest you keep them to yourself. And as for your innuendo that somehow this cancer is the result of some lifestyle choices to which you are not privy, welcome nor entitled to share, allow me to suggest that you take your false piety back to your two-bit hovel and polish up your next set of blandishments for the ignorant and others of your ilk. Your false facts have been roundly debunked by the experts in the field. Your link is a lie and your prayers are the sort one scrapes from the bottoms of their shoe.

Be aware Mr. Pacheco, that your lies are not unnoticed, there are those that will haul your carcass into the light of day and expose you for the filth that you are.

Tip of the hat to: Alison at Creekside1 and JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie.


Pacheco has issued a fauxpology for his original post:

"I have apologized for the original post. My original comments were insensitive and uncharitable. That's why I amended them.

I hardly think I have "lied" about anything. I don't lie, unlike former pro-aborts, who admitted lying to get abortion legal in the U.S.

However, the substance of my points remain:

1) There is a link between OCs, abortion, and breast cancer.

2) Sexual choices have consequences.

Thanks for giving me the unexpected publicity on an issue that would have otherwise passed under the radar.

Much appreciated.

I hope we can move on to discuss the facts that you and the rest of the liberal clique find so uncomfortable."

What a piece of, um, work. He 'apologizes' for being a completely transparent asshole and has backed off to a position as a merely transluscent asshole. So, where to point of fact, Pacheco never apologized for the original post (a screen-cap of which is available at JJ's in the link above), he just changed the post. That would be, what do they call that, oh yes, a lie. Then his substantive points, one, that there's a link between oral contraceptives, abortion and the incidence of breast cancer. Sure there's a link, a false link that has been debunked and refuted by the medical establishment. He offers no such facts to discuss, beyond his ridiculous and unfounded assertion, which in itself is the promotion of a lie. His characterization of people as "pro-aborts" is also a lie. I and many other people support the right to self determination and bodily autonomy. I am not pro-abortion and I know of no one that is, I and many, many people are, however, pro-choice. If Pacheco and his fellow cultists don't like abortions, then it behooves them not to avail themselves of the procedure. It remains none of their business what anyone else does with their own reproductive system. I think it is safe to assert that Pacheco is a liar, whether he realizes it or not.

Second, he insists that sexual choices have consequences. Which continues in the insinuation that Belinda Stronach's medical condition is the result of either the pill or of abortion or both. I find it unseemly that this creepy individual is spending his time impugning the personal and private, sexual health and history of a woman who is currently facing the very real and traumatic hardship of cancer. I guess when you are as smug and mean spirited as Pacheco, it's all just fine to blame the victim. But let's just take this matter of consequences under consideration for a moment.

Let us stipulate that indeed, sexual choices have consequences. Therefore, one has at least as much, if not more, evidence indicating that abstinence as a sexual choice has consequences. Further that the long term choice of abstinence in adult males has serious consequences and that when abstinent adult males are sequestered in a patriarchal and hierarchical system, that the consequence of that sexual choice results in a high incidence of pedophilia. By Pacheco's logic, we should seriously question the wisdom of allowing that choice to be made. In fact, for the safety and betterment of society, the Catholic church should be outlawed and stripped of tax exempt status unless it agrees to allow priests to marry and for women to be ordained. That would be the only sane thing to do regarding this serious matter of public health and safety.

Think of the children Mr. Pacheco.

I'm sure Adam's world is a very happy place.

See, here on planet Earth, Dick Cheney is kinda like this:

Cheney then took astonishing measures to ensure that internal objections would not reach the President, even resorting to spying on White House staff:

At the White House, [White House national security lawyer John] Bellinger sent Rice a blunt — and, he thought, private — legal warning. The Cheney-Rumsfeld position would place the president indisputably in breach of international law and would undermine cooperation from allied governments. …

One lawyer in his office said that Bellinger was chagrined to learn, indirectly, that Cheney had read the confidential memo and “was concerned” about his advice. Thus Bellinger discovered an unannounced standing order: Documents prepared for the national security adviser, another White House official said, were “routed outside the formal process” to Cheney, too. The reverse did not apply.

Then there's the reality on Adam's planet:

One of the reasons I've always liked Dick Cheney is that he doesn't beat around the bush.

Well, all right ... perhaps we can give Adam this one. I mean, when Dick Cheney wants to know what you're thinking, he doesn't beat around the bush -- he just flat-out fucking spies on you.

And to think that didn't used to be a virtue. Ah, for the good old days.

Why, yes, I CAN politicize anything ... why do you ask?

If it involves death and pregnancy, MaryT can wring an abortion post out of it. Then SUZANNE weighs in and logic takes the next train out of town.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

So how's that "surge" going? Part deux.

No problem -- I'm sure this somehow constitutes progress:

Roadside bombs killed seven American troops in Iraq on Saturday, including four in a single strike outside Baghdad, the military said, as U.S. and Iraqi troops captured two senior al-Qaida militants in Diyala province.

I'd feel sympathetic except that, from what I hear, this is no big deal. Whew. Imagine my relief.

Sometimes, it's for their own good.

Stageleft brings us the story of the government of Australia deciding what is and isn't good for aboriginals. I have to admit, I'm kind of torn on this one; it's sort of like deciding that it's not a good idea to give science books to conservatives -- you know that they're just going to end up injuring themselves or something.

Thursday, June 21, 2007

So how's that "surge" going again?

Oooooooooooh ... not so well. On the other hand, there's always the right-wing comic relief ...

OH, DEAR: Take a few hours off and everyone in the sandbox starts throwing sand. I've de-activated comments on this post because I plan on having the last word. So there. More shortly.

Support the tro... oh, fuck 'em.

We're beyond outrage and are now into just plain amused.

Thursday morning Chester rock open thread.

When you finally learn someone's weaknesses, life doesn't get any better than this:

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

The CPoC and NASCAR: A match made at MAACO.

All right, enough with the Conservative Party/NASCAR jokes. I, for one, think it's a great idea, and I just can't wait for the first visual of something like this with the big "C" splashed all over it limping into the pits:

At that point, I'm pretty sure the jokes will write themselves.

That Steve Janke is one popular guy.

At the risk of being repetitive, I just checked and, yes indeedy, Steve Janke's whining for financial help is still front and centre at the Blogging Tories web site. Man, it must be nice to get that kind of extended storefront exposure when you're in deep doo-doo like that. Some people just have all the luck.

And if you're bored, Ted explains the ins and outs of blogging and defamation law, which can generally be summarized as, "Do not publicly describe someone as an ignorant dickwad or dumbass motherfucker."

Unless they are, of course. Then it's cool.

AFTERSNARK: As Ted points out, it is amusing for Janke to claim that he has "issued apologies and retractions on two separate occasions, each time as per his instructions," while, in the very next paragraph, Janke takes the position that "it's not right to be punished economically for telling the truth [emphasis added]."

Yeah, that kind of diminishes the value of an apology, don't you think?

You can't make this stuff up.

Oh, Jesus ...

As part of Griles’s plea, he is supposed to receive “10 months — five months in jail and five months in a halfway house or in home detention.” His lawyers are now arguing that Griles should receive no prison time and instead be allowed to perform “community service.”

But one of the two organizations he wants to do “community service” for — the American Recreation Coalition (ARC) — is actually a major lobbying firm that apparently benefited under Griles’ tenure in the Bush administration...

Bottom line: Griles is asking that his punishment be to perform the same activities that landed him in jail.

In unrelated news, convicted pedophiles have now begun lobbying to spend their community service helping children. Yeah, that'll work. What can possibly go wrong?

Bring the snark, bring the pain.

I have been clearly remiss in not having this raving troublemaker on the blogroll but, that's OK, I have the admin password, so I can fix that. Shortly. Don't rush me.

The Steve Janke preferential treatment syndrome.

Hmmmmmmm ... curiouser and curiouser. As a followup to this piece from over 12 hours ago, it appears that, while the posted articles under his have changed, Steve Janke's classless begging for money still occupies the top spot over at the Blogging Tories.

Now, it may well be that that bit of prime real estate is based solely on reader click-throughs or something like that, which would be perfectly acceptable. But it's also possible that Janke's pleading has had a little technical help, at which point, if I were a member of the BTs, I'd be a bit pissed that my contributions were artificially being given less than equal treatment compared to a whiner whose current claim to fame is that he's so stupidly irresponsible that he opens himself up to legal action every so often with his asinine ramblings, and has to ask for help to deal with the logical consequences.

So ... anyone know what's going on here? By God, we'll dig into this and ferret out the truth or my name's not Steve J... uh ... never mind, just getting a little caught up in the chase.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Apparently, it's all the Left's fault. And they're right -- I can't wait for the next chance to use my mind control device on Steve Janke, to force him to do something stupid, irresponsible and legally actionable.

Yeah, sort of like that, but without the diaper.

I'd like to thank the fucking academy ...

Oh, my ... apparently, I am a bad person. I can see we here at CC HQ have a whole new chew toy.

(Wag of the tail to Dave over at TGB.)

Monday, June 18, 2007

Good boy, Jonathan. Here's a biscuit.

On the one hand, you have a powerful statement by Bill Moyers on why Scooter Libby deserves to be in prison. And on the other hand, you have Blogging Tory Jonathan Strong, being his loyal and obedient, right-wing stenogrepher self.

I will give Jonathan credit -- blogging sure is a lot easier if you just reproduce what people hand you. I'll give that a try some day when I no longer have any pride.

LET ME EXPLAIN THIS VERY SLOWLY, WAYNE. Scooter Libby was not sent to prison for outing Valerie Plame. Or for breaking the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act." Or for any other rubbish that Hitchens wastes his time on.

Scooter Libby was convicted for perjury and obstruction of justice during the subsequent investigation. In short, he was convicted for what he did after Plame was exposed as a covert CIA operative.

Now, what part of that do you just not get?

If you can't count on your Blogging Tory friends ...

Hmmmmmmm ... I'm not quite sure what to make of this. Back here, I was snickering over Boy Detective Steve Janke's legal problems. And now, as we speak, here's a screenshot of the Blogging Tories main page:

Well, now, it's certainly convenient that Steve's desperate plea for financial support just happens to be front and centre, doesn't it?

One wonders just what decides the choice and order for display of articles over at the BTs. Based on my experience with reading Progressive Bloggers, I always got the impression that it was sort of a first-in, first-out system, with some weight given to popularity. And maybe that's what's going on with Janke's piece.

But, you have to admit, it sure is a stroke of luck for Steve, isn't it? I wonder how long it's going to stay there. Just call me curious.

: Robert over at My Blahg has more info, so you can decide for yourself whether Steve should be let off the hook.

Drinking pragmatically in Waterloo.

Nobody tells me anything. Anyhoo, apparently there will be beer and peanuts this Saturday. One never knows who might show up.

Dear U.S. troops: Make yourselves comfortable over there.

Yeaaaaaahhhh, about that "surge" thing and its quick results:

Conditions in Iraq will not improve sufficiently by September to justify a drawdown of U.S. military forces, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said Sunday.

Asked whether he thought the job assigned to an additional 30,000 troops deployed as the centerpiece of President Bush's new war strategy would be completed by then, Gen. David Petraeus replied, "I do not, no. I think that we have a lot of heavy lifting to do."

Make sure you notice that it's only June, but Petraeus already knows that things will still suck in September.

Personally, I think we give it a couple more months until the U.S. military is in tatters, and then we invade. I'm pretty sure Vermont will go down without a fight.

Life just doesn't get any better ...

... than this.

This must represent karmic balance in the universe or something.

OK, I think I see how this works. The Conservative Party of Canada, having made cuts to several social programs because of budget constraints, suddenly finds enough cash to sponsor a car on the Canadian NASCAR circuit, to which they must be looking to attract your typical Canadian, conservative male race fan who will, after sitting in the sun all afternoon, drinking beer and getting blitzed, will end up thoroughly pissed off that their favourite driver didn't win, at which point they will promptly go home and take it out on their wife, who will have lesser recourse for protection since those same Conservatives cut funding to the Status of Women Canada, whose mandate included, among other things, advocating for women's protection against domestic violence and abuse.

And you thought the CPoC didn't have a plan.

: Commenter Wayne is right -- it is the party's money, not the taxpayer's money, which means that, if I wanted to act like a whinger, I'd quickly delete this post to avoid any further embarrassment. But I won't, 'cuz I'm a bigger man than that. For which the Canadian wingnut-o-sphere will, of course, ridicule me for my silliness.

With these folks, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. But you knew that.

There's a new troublemaker in town.

How can I not link to a new, left-leaning, Canadian politics junkie who goes by the moniker "900 ft Jesus"?

Winning hearts and minds.

Or maybe not:

U.S.-led air raid kills seven Afghan children

KABUL (Reuters) - At least seven children were killed in a U.S.-led coalition air strike on a religious school in Afghanistan, the coalition said on Monday, amid rising anger over civilian deaths from foreign military operations.

And don't you remember, once upon a time, when you could point at the George Bush-led Coalition of the Genocidal and say with some confidence, "Um ... we're not with them. Really."

Yeah, those were the good old days, weren't they?

"... and if she buys kippers, it will not rain."

It takes a while to get to it down there in the comments section but, really, it's worth it:

The problem is that lefties are not logical. They want to ban farmers from selling their own wheat, but don't dare have a no-fly list, that's unconstitutional.

Admittedly, a good point since, if I'm debating the efficacy and constitutionality of the no-fly list, the Canadian Wheat Board is the first comparison I'm likely to make. I mean, come on, we're talking no-brainer here.

Monday morning Chester rock.

Apparently, Chester's still moving ... hit him again:

How much wingnuttery can you handle?

Brace yourself -- over here, we have Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ taking a pot-shot at both Muslims and Episcopalians while quoting Mark Steyn writing at National Review Online.

If she could have only worked Joel Johannesen in there somehow, it would have been one for the ages.

Sunday, June 17, 2007

Mission acc ... uh, whatever.

So, kids ... how's that "surge" working out for you? Oooooooh ... not so good, I see.

Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno's assessment came as a U.S.-Iraqi effort to pacify Baghdad entered its fifth month, with 30,000 additional U.S. troops now in place. But the city has so far seen little improvement in overall violence, and a tense political standoff was under way between the U.S.-backed government and Shiite lawmakers who suspended their participation in parliament.

I know ... on top of that surge, let's have a super-duper, mega surge. How can that possibly fail?

INTO THE WAYBACK MACHINE, SHERMAN: Hee hee. Yes, I really can be annoyingly smug at times.

What do Blogging Tories and crickets have in common?

Via Liberal Catnip, we learn that not all Britishers are cheeky, happy-go-lucky scamps like the Monty Python crew:

... At least two witness statements taken in Damascus just last week from Iraqis detained at the same time, and obtained by The Independent on Sunday, throw fresh light on his treatment. Mohand Dhahir Abdulah, then a 17-year-old student, said he had known Baha Mousa for two years, and immediately recognised his voice when he screamed: "Please give me only half an hour so I can breathe some fresh air. I am going to die." Mr Abdulah adds: "I heard sounds of beating, so it appeared the soldiers continued to beat him, despite his screams."

Maitham Mohammed al-Waz, a 37-year-old furniture maker, says he heard a voice pleading: "Please leave me. I am dying. I am dying. Have mercy. Don't hit me. I am going to die." The following morning the soldiers removed the hood over Mr al-Waz's head. "I saw a man lying on a stretcher. His body was not covered with any cloth. He appeared dead. I recall that at one point his arm bounced off the stretcher, limp." ...

Mr al-Waz, arrested after his car was hijacked by insurgents in 2003, says of his treatment at the British Temporary Detention Facility in Basra: " I was asked to enter a room and stand at a corner. I saw six or seven civilian men... all had their hands cuffed to the front and were hooded with hoods/sandbags. They were groaning in pain. Their clothes were torn. I was forced to wear a hood. A soldier made a gesture as if he was going to punch me. When I flinched he knew I could see a little. He then placed more hoods until I could see nothing.

"I was asked to stand up, bend my knees and keep my arms stretched out in front. After five to 10 minutes I could no longer keep my arms outstretched and they dropped. As soon as they dropped I was hit with a bar across my back and on to my arms. I was also hit very forcibly on my left knee. The blows were very painful. I screamed and hollered in pain."

Mr al-Waz added that he was not allowed to sleep for two nights - sleep deprivation is a recognised form of torture. His treatment has left him a changed man, he said, prone to nightmares and violence against his wife and children.

His testimony is echoed by Mr Abdulah, who told a similar tale of being hooded and beaten and being deprived of sleep. He also said he was forced to sit with his head in the bowl of a toilet for hours at a time and to kneel bare-legged on sharp stones in the blazing 45C heat.

He added: "At one point I recall a soldier urinating on me. I could feel the urine seeping through my hood and running down my arms. It was a disgusting experience. A soldier came to me shortly afterwards with a bottle, saying 'Water, water'. He partially lifted the hoods and placed the bottle in my mouth and forced me to drink its contents. I realised it was urine." ...

I was born on 7 March 1985 and am 22 years old. I am a university student studying economics and management at the University of Basra, in my third year. I am unmarried.

I was taken by a soldier to the gritty courtyard. I was then ordered by him to do what he was doing. He acted out by lifting his trousers, indicating that I should do the same to expose my knees. Then he kneeled, indicating that I should do the same. I was forced to kneel in the courtyard on a bed of sharp-edged pebbles. I had to do this for some time, in the hot blazing sun. It is very hot in Basra in the month of September with average temperatures at 45 degrees. At the time we arrived at Camp Stephen it was around midday, with the sun at his highest point, the hottest period of the day. The sharp pebbles hurt me and after a while my knees felt numb.

After a short while, a soldier indicated that I should get up. When I did so I saw the deep imprints made by the pebbles on my knees. The skin around my knees was bruised and tender. The soldier simply laughed at my agony.

Appalling, yes, and I'm sure crack Boy Detective Steve Janke will be all over this as soon as he deals with that raging toothpaste controversy.

It's a priorities thing, you know.

Saturday, June 16, 2007

Saturday night arena rock.

This one's for Chester.

One of these things is slightly different from the other.

On the one hand, you have your over-zealous prosecutor:

Nifong disbarred:Justice is done

The Bar Ethics committee has revoked the law licence of Mike Nifong. He agrees this should be done. So this dem prosecutor has been banned from the practice of law.

The committee has called the three young men,the Duke Lacrosse team,their coach and the Justice System victims. Justice is finally done.

On the other hand, you have a man who was convicted of, among other things, lying to federal prosecutors and obstructing justice:

This is ridiculous. President Bush should commute the sentence or outright pardon Scooter Libby. This whole thing is preposterous. The sentence is more than violent offenders often get.

Many legal scholars question the verdict and it is very possible that the verdivt will be overturned. Pardon Mr Libby , Mr President.

Gosh ... I wonder what it is that makes the good doctor so sympathetic in one case and not the other.

No, no, don't tell me ... I'm keen to guess.

About that "credibility" thing ...

Dear wingnuts: Go ahead -- lecture me about journalistic "credibility" after one of your favourite sources publishes this.

No, really, make my day. I need a good chuckle.

Dear Olaf: That's quite the crowd you're hanging with these days.

I'd like to think this kind of speaks for itself and doesn't need any editorializing from me, but it's not Richard Evans' jaw-dropping, childish immaturity that's so fascinating.

No, it's what you can read over on the left-hand side, in the "LFR Authors" list. I refer, of course, to "olaf." Yes, that would be this Olaf, he of "Prairie Wrangler" fame who has a general and well-deserved reputation as a thoughtful and fair-minded conservative in the Canadian blogosphere.

Until now.

A bit of unsolicited advice, Olaf -- you better decide really quickly how you want to play this, because you can either preserve your reputation, or you can keep hanging out with that sleazy sack of pus Richard Evans. You can't have both.

Time to choose.

. Obviously, everyone will have to make their own judgment call here, but if Olaf continues to associate with the likes of Richard Evans, I think it's only appropriate that any bloggers who care about a minimal standard of ethics in the blogosphere should drop Olaf from their blogroll, as well as no longer reading him or linking to him.

There's clearly no possibility of Mr. Evans ever changing his behaviour, so all that's left is to make associating with him as painful as possible. I think a couple of days is more than enough time for Olaf to make up his mind here, don't you?

APPARENTLY, THAT TOWEL SNAP TO THE NADS IS GOING TO LEAVE A MARK: Shorter Richard Evans from the comments section: "How dare you impugn my reputation while I'm busy trying to destroy someone else's!?"

Hey, Richard ... let me introduce you to this thing called "accountability." It's a bitch, isn't it?

BY THE WAY, in case you hadn't noticed, it's not just Richard we're talking about here. If you peruse the comments section at that no-libs article, you'll notice equally classless and infantile suggestions from commenters "Knight", "Gamil Gharbi", "pete in Midland", "Monty" and "Wonder Woman", all of them listed contributors there.

Yeah, I'd say Olaf has one fuck of a lot to answer for here.

Friday, June 15, 2007

Your occasional Joelitude.

I have to admit, it's almost unfair to pick on Proud to be Canadian's Joel Johannesen because, well, he's an idiot. And not just a run-of-the-mill, Blogging Tory idiot, oh no -- Joel pretty much sets the bar for right-wing dumbassitude, as you can read in one of his latest posts, which you really should read in its entirety but I will graciously give you the Joel shorter form: "Horrifically inconveniencing the flying Canadian public might be a high price to pay, but I'm willing to let others pay it."

Where to even begin with Joel's stupidity?

First, Joel doesn't seem even the slightest bit put out by the fact that the no-fly list will be secret and that you won't know if you're on it until you arrive at the airport to check in. So what could possibly go wrong? Oh, let me free associate here, please.

You've been working overtime for months, and you're finally getting the time to take the family on that dream vacation you've been talking about. The (non-refundable) plane tickets have been purchased, the (non-refundable) cruise cabins have been reserved, the hotel rooms have been booked, everyone's shifted their schedules around to get this time off. The whole family grabs a limo to the airport, you pay the driver, get all your stuff inside, the excitement is building and suddenly ... oh, I'm sorry, you're on the no-fly list.

Excuse me?

There must be some mistake, you're no terrorist, you're a middle manager at a software company, what the hell's going on here? Sadly, though, your name is sufficiently similar to someone else's who is a person of some interest so, well, you're just plain shit out of luck. The good news is that, after several hours and several phone calls, things are cleared up. But, by then, the plane is gone, and the cruise is out of reach. Quite simply, you're fucked, but look on the bright side -- it's been cleared up and you never have to worry about that kind of bad craziness again, right? Right?


Canada's long-discussed plans to implement a no-fly list will finally take flight early next year, meaning passengers pegged as a possible terrorist will be left on the ground.

But the RCMP's botched handling of Maher Arar — and horror stories surrounding the U.S. no-fly list — are already raising the spectre of a mistaken identity leaving innocent travellers stranded at the gate.

"It's a list you do not want to be on," said NDP MP Pat Martin, who has spent the better part of two years trying to get his name off the American list.

During that time, he had to endure the prospect of delays, questions and suspicious glances every time he went to the airport, even to board domestic flights.

"It has been a real hassle," said Martin (Winnipeg Centre). "You are literally detained while they decide whether they will give you a boarding pass. It's a hell of a stigma," said Martin, who has seen his travel woes resolved only in the past month.

Exactly -- this is a list that, once you're on, it's damned near impossible to get off of, which means that your life will almost certainly never be the same. Once you're on, you can expect to get the same hassle every single time you try to fly. And the worst part? Well, that would be the part that Joel finds so hilarious -- that you can never call ahead to find out if you're still on the list or not. Every flight is now a gamble and, if you have to travel regularly -- say for business -- well, your life just went to shit. But don't expect any sympathy from Joel -- we're at war against the evil, brown people who want to take away our freedoms, for which the only solution is, of course, to strip ourselves of those freedoms before they do. That'll show 'em, right, Joel? But wait, we're not done here.

Joel seems to think that this approach is just the thing to protect ourselves from the bad people, which allows us all to conclude that Joel is too fucking stupid for words.

Imagine, if you will, that I am a terrorist checking in, and I'm told I'm on the no-fly list. Ohmigod, I'm busted! Well, actually, no, I'm not. As I understand it, if you're blocked from getting on a plane, you have the complete freedom to say, "Fuck it," turn around and walk away, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. But that's not all.

Joel, in his infinite dumbfuckitude, thinks that the secrecy of the list is its biggest asset. What a maroon. See, if I was a terrorist planning to take a bomb on a plane, I wouldn't take a chance and wait until the day of the big event to try to fly. Oh, no ... what I'd do is, a week or so before, I'd try to take a quick trip from Toronto to, say, Ottawa, which would tell me everything I need to know about my status. Problem solved. See how easy that was, Joel, you doofus?

In short, the current implementation of the list pretty much guarantees to generate maximum inconvenience for the flying public, while slowing down the evildoers almost not at all. But that's cool with Joel because he just knows what the consequences would be:

"... hundreds or thousands of innocent humans saved from terrorists’ savagery ..."

Which you could almost believe except for one small detail that Joel has overlooked -- the terrorists are nowhere near as stupid as Joel, so I'm guessing they've figured all of this out already.

Sometimes, I think bad people read Joel Johannesen solely for the entertainment value. It just makes them feel smarter.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Shorter Kate: "What kind of cowards whinge on and on about the war without ever putting their own personal safety at risk? Reporting in from the dangerous, Global War on Terror™ front line of Delisle, Saskatchewan, this is Kate McMillan. Back to you, Stephen."

Yeah, I've heard that patience is a virtue.

Apparently, it's all a matter of time:

“In the eyes of the law…the slave is not a person.”
Virginia Supreme Court decision, 1858

“An indian is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of the constitution.”
George Canfield
American Law Review, 1881

“The statutory word ‘person’ did not in these circumstances include women.”
British Voting Rights case, 1909

“The Reichsgericht itself refused to recognize Jews…as ‘persons’ in the legal sense.”
German Supremem Court decision, 1936

“The law of Canada does not recognize the unborn child as a legal person possessing rights.”
Canadian Supreme Court
Winnipeg Child and Services Case, 1997


That's good to know. So we can expect you folks to eventually come around to that whole biological evolution thing one of these days, then? I'm happy to hear that since, to be honest, I'd kind of given up on you. But now I can be optimistic again.

Apparently, even dumbassitude has a shelf life.

: On second thought, given that it's been 2,000 years and you folks still believe in an invisible sky monster, maybe I'm not going to hold my breath anytime soon.

"Reality? Don't talk to me about reality."

On the one hand (emphasis tail-waggingly added):

credible [kred-uh-buhl]
1. capable of being believed; believable: a credible statement.
2. worthy of belief or confidence; trustworthy: a credible witness.

Blogging Tory "Kitchener Conservative" would beg to differ:

I'm not saying I agree with what's posted at LifeSite, but not credible by who's authority? Your's or someone else that doesn't agree with them. It's obviously a site based on religious belief, but that doesn't automatically bring discredit on any opinions expressed there.

Isn't the credibility of opinion based on "What's in the eye of the beholder"?

What a novel perspective. So tune in tomorrow when we here at CC HQ explain how describing someone as an "ignorant slut" and "dumb cunt" is simply a form of affectionate endearment and profound respect. Because we say it is.

IOKIYAR -- Part 8,992.

Shorter Dr. Roy: "Geez, you people say 'obstruction of justice' like it's a bad thing or something."

Thursday, June 14, 2007

That is one flexible front line, Tony.

It's the "front line" for suitably wide definitions of "front line":

Hugh Hewitt would be so proud.

The bigotry of really low expectations.

Exciting new developments in political wingnuttery:

Harper shows compassion meeting with widow

This is going to be a “good news” post — for a change — one that praises an elderly woman for her chutzpah and the prime minister for his ability to stop what he is doing and listen to a citizen of this country. So, if good news and compliments about our prime minister’s ability to show compassion and leadership is not something you want to hear about, read no further.

So, then, it appears that Prime Minister Cowboy Hat really is, you know, a compassionate conservative since he took time out of his busy schedule to be nice to a widow as opposed to maybe dousing her with gasoline and setting her on fire, or biting off her head like a live chicken.

I hear he also didn't murder an immigrant or sodomize an altar boy. I have a new role model.

Hermetically-sealed wingnuttia, Joanne-style.

An alert e-mailer points out something about our recently favourite wingnut Joanne that had escaped me:

As near as I can figure it, if you summarize what Joanne's written in various places, she:
  1. writes for only those people who agree with her,
  2. refers to people who don't agree with her as "trolls", and
  3. doesn't really care what you think if you disagree with her
That kind of defines the right-wing echo chamber, doesn't it?

Yes ... yes, it does. Good point.

The wingnuts are coming! The wingnuts are coming!

This sounds like a peachy idea. What could possibly go wrong?

(Wag of the tail to Dave over at TGB.)

Oh, no ... Conservative hypocrisy!

Shorter Conservative Party of Canada: "Canada Day funding is a disgusting, indefensible waste of taxpayer money and ... and ... hellloooooooo, slush fund."

Oh, puhleeze ...

I'm almost offended that Aaron went after only "Red Tory." But once my busy day is done, I'll be happy to inflict the death of a thousand cuts on Aaron's prose.

No, no, don't thank me -- whacking pinhead wingnuts is its own reward.

And the James Holsinger beatdown just keeps rolling on.

Poor Joanne -- it must be exquisitely painful to watch your hero getting his nads handed to him on a plate:

The majority believed that homosexuality, if practiced in a caring, committed relationship, was acceptable, Wogaman said. "When the majority was beginning to form its views, Dr. Holsinger was in strong disagreement with that and chose to leave the committee, in some anger," Wogaman said.

Holsinger opposed any recognition of homosexuality as normal, Wogaman said. "He took the view that it's pathological, that homosexuality is both sin and a kind of mental sickness," Wogaman said. "He was quite vocal about it."

And someone who clearly hates faggots just so happens to find scientific "evidence" to support his position. Man ... what are the chances of that?

Wednesday, June 13, 2007


Shorter Joanne: "Don't hate me because I'm stupid."

DUMB AND DUMBER: Honestly, I'm not sure how much more dumbassitude I can take. Apparently, on Joanne's planet, a "troll" is any commenter who disagrees with her. Here's some advice, Joanne -- why don't you grow a pair and stop being such a whiny little fuck?

Lord, but I never met anyone for whom martyrdom was such a lifestyle choice.

! Joanne only wants some civil discourse:

I encourage debate and respectful criticism.

Commenter "Sparky" is more than happy to oblige:

Bringing it back to the topic of the blog post (instead of the name calling and group hugging cutsies)-- ...

In response, Joanne lets Sparky know what he can do with his debate and respectful criticism.

I think we're done here.

WHOOPS, NOT QUITE: Joanne is above all of this criticism and petty carping:

I truly don't care what you think about me.

This would, of course, be the same wingnut blogger who deleted her initial embarrassing post. And why? Oh ... that's why (emphasis added)

It seems that some from the left are quite indignant that I removed the post, "Another Inconvenient Truth", which is still available as a cached version for those who are interested (remember that whatever you write on the internet is there forever).

The reason I did this was simply because I was tired of deleting comments from trolls.

In short, Joanne truly doesn't care what you think about her, but she will defend to the death her right to not let you think it on her blog.

It's Wednesday, so Joanne must be terribly, terribly hurt.

It's not like I want to drag this out any further but, really, there's one point I want to make before moving on and returning to the world of the clinically sane.

If you go back through the last few posts regarding the batshit crazy "Joanne" of the Blogging Tories and check out those original posts of hers (those would be the ones she didn't delete out of sheer embarrassment), you might get the impression that she and most of her loyal, barking fans are incredibly sensitive to intemperate language and it's just painful to their delicate sensibilities and, why, they never, I mean, really, and on and on and tediously on.

All of that is, of course, complete horseshit. It's an act, and nothing more. Consider that these complaints about lack of civility are from people who make an entire career out of writing offensive and insulting posts about gays and immigrants, and referring to people as "shrieking moonbats" and "leftards" and "Lieberals" and "Fiberals", etc, etc. Funny ... that sort of thing doesn't seem to bother them in the least. So what's really going on here? I'm so glad you asked.

As I said, it's all an act. The point of posting such moronic stupidity (such as what Joanne posted) is precisely to get that kind of reaction. For all their talk about dialogue, the last thing the right-wing trogs like Joanne want is to get into a conversation. So their strategy is painfully simple -- post such idiotic rubbish that the immediate knee-jerk reaction is something along the lines of, "Jesus Christ, are you totally fucking retarded or what?" At which point, naturally, you dismiss the complainant as an uncivil, unhinged, deranged moonbat whose actual points can be summarily dismissed, regardless of their merits.

It's a terrific plan, isn't it? It not only allows you to avoid any meaningful discussion of why you're a raving idiot, but it gives all your commenters the satisfaction of being able to sit around and sanctimoniously "Tut tut" about all those nasty leftards and how they can't keep a civil tongue in their head because, as we all know, if someone describes you as an ignorant, bigoted dumbass, well, that's only because they're rude and not because they might, you know, have a point or anything.

I'm sorry -- you need proof? Why not slowly peruse the comments section here to see Joanne and her fans, sitting around patronizingly sighing about how they're the reasonable ones. Yeah, it is a sight, isn't it? And in all of that, not one line of addressing Joanne's original horseshit because, quite simply, that's not the issue anymore, is it? Now it's all about personalities, which is exactly what Joanne was after. After all, why discuss actual issues when you can play the delicate martyr card?

Or, as I was tempted to write initially -- Shorter Joanne: "I'm hurt and offended and insulted by the uncivil and demeaning language and ... ooooooooooo ... traffic!"

AFTERSNARK: If you need a second data point ...

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Take your civility and shove it, Joanne.

Awwww ... poor babies. Apparently, some of the more sensitive wingnuts are purely having a case of the vapours, what with all the intemperate language and everything.

Get freakin' real.

Joanne seems to think she's taking the moral high ground here:

I encourage debate and respectful criticism.

With all due respect, Joanne, fuck you. There's nothing respectful about posting obvious crap from a known anti-gay site and, when you're called on it, you simply delete the post. At the very least, "respect" suggests that, when you're caught peddling ignorant horseshit, you have the spine and the class and the common courtesy to 'fess up and admit it. When bloggers and commenters tear your post to shreds, "respect" demands that you accept it and you do the apprporiate mea culpa, as opposed to indulging in childish whining and putting the blame on everyone else.

Quoth Joanne:

If there's one thing I've learned from blogging, it's that when you stoop to the level of name-calling, you lose your credibility.

Um ... how to break this to you, Joanne: you have no credibility. None. Zip. Zero. You are a coward who posts homophobic rubbish who doesn't have the sense of decency to defend it. Don't talk to me or anyone else about credibility, you worthless putz.

And in closing, once upon a time, I suggested that it might be interesting and enlightening to instigate some civil conversations with the ideological Right. If we could at least discuss the same issues reasonably and calmly, well, who knows? Maybe we could actually have all learned something. Well, fuck that. If Joanne is an example of the sort of crap we can expect from the Blogging Tories, what's the point?

And regarding the name-calling, well, here's a thought, Joanne: If you don't want to be described as an ignorant, hateful, dishonest, homophobic cunt, try not acting like one. It's just a thought, you know.

Joanne, you ignorant slut.

Seriously, I can't think of any better way to describe this example of wretchedly dishonest dumbfuckitude.

Sone friendly advice, Joanne: do not -- I repeat, do not -- try to fence intellectually with people outside your hermetically-sealed, Blogging Tory, wingnut bubble. You're simply not ready for it.

P.S. Don't worry, I'll be coming back to expand on this. When I tear someone a new orifice, I want to make sure you know why.

UPPITY DATE: And he makes it to the corner and tags off ...

Monday, June 11, 2007

This one's gonna be hard to explain away.

Why do conservative judges hate America? Let the hysterical, shrieking wingnuttery begin.

Sometimes, there really might be two sides to every story.

On the one hand, the CBC reports that "40% of military contracts non-competitive." On the other hand, someone begs to differ.

Since I'm getting ready for a few days out of town, I don't have the time to follow up, but feel free to dig into this and report back. And here's a wild and crazy idea, kids -- let's stick to the facts, shall we?

Simple answers to simple questions.

Just how much of a frothing dumbass is Joel Johannesen? This much.

This has been another installment of "Simple answers to simple questions."

Hermetically-sealed wingnuttery, Joanne-style.

Sadly for Blogging Tory Joanne, her hero and homophobic bigot and religious lunatic James W. Holsinger, Jr. is getting reamed up the ass (and I mean that in the most heterosexual, scholastic way, of course).

Having had her blog topic exposed for the dishonest swill that it is, Joanne mounts a vigorous and methodical defense of her position, explaining, "Thanks for the traffic."

DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE. In what I'm sure is a shock to all of you, Joanne has obviously figured out that that original post of hers was a pile of horseshit and, in the true spirit of the Blogging Tories, rather than acknowledge its horseshitiness and follow up with a retraction or correction, Joanne has simply disappeared the entire post, no doubt hoping that no one notices.

Yes, there's a reason we here at CC HQ regularly refer to the Blogging Tories as a bunch of dishonest retards. And if I have to actually explain that by now, you just haven't been paying attention.

Stephen Taylor must be so proud of his creation.

Dear Colin: Piss off.

No, seriously, just bugger off and shut the hell up. You had your chance to say something when it would have mattered, and we all know how well that turned out.

So fuck off. As hard as it might be to believe, there are more important things happening right now than your legacy.

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Busy Shaved Ape

Greetings to those of you that endure my occasional screeds. I've been busy assembling a new business and being frustrated by suppliers. Yeah, the market will take care of things. Right. Don't conservatives ever have to deal with the customer service minions or their beloved marketeers. Jeeziz. Anyway, over the next weeks I will be shooting no less than three music videos and prepping a documentary. I will endeavour to keep posting with all the regularity that I can. But forgive me if I'm found wandering in the woods, in a robe, chattering about frame rates. If there is interest, I will give updates on the projects at hand. That is all. Back to the script breakdowns.

Saturday, June 09, 2007

Dumb as dirt: The Joanne's Journey story.

We are not even remotely done with the jaw-dropping dumbassitude of Blogging Tory Joanne (True Blue), but here's a little something for your Sunday evening literary amusement.

From this ignorant piece of swill, Joanne links to this idiotic Lifesite article, which solemnly informs us that:

A study released in 2005 in Psychological Reports confirmed earlier findings that homosexual men have on average a 20-year shortened life span.

Whoo hoo -- "Psychological Reports", is it? And what do we know about that periodical? Well, there's the "Purpose and Content" page, where we read (among other things):

Controversial material of scientific merit is welcomed ...

We work hard to balance critical editing, specific constructive suggestions for changes, and to make the approach interdisciplinary.

OK, already I'm a bit leery since the journal openly welcomes "controversial material"; you know, as opposed to, say, well-researched stuff, that sort of thing. But, hey ... here's the best part:

Publication Arrangements

Publication is in order of receipt of proof from the authors. There are three publication arrangements.

(1) Regular articles. These are articles which require from 2 through 20 printed pages. Charges are $27.50 per page in multiples of four pages, plus special fees for composition (e.g., tables, figures). Authors receive 200 preprints; additional reprints and covers can be ordered.

(2) One-page articles and notes. This arrangement is useful where the author does not intend to do further work in the area but feels that preliminary findings should be put on record, where it is expected that it will be several years before the final study is completed and reported, or where a particular finding can be reported completely in one page. The author submits a one-page summary of a study accompanied by the full report for filing with the Archive for Psychological Data. Charge is $27.50. Authors receive 50 preprints; additional preprints and covers can be ordered.

(3) Monograph supplements. Certain papers printing to more than 20 pages are published as monographs supplements. These are distributed to subscribers of Perceptual and Motor Skills or Psychological Reports as parts of regular issues and are also made available as separates. Charges are $27.50 per page in multiples of four pages, plus special fees for composition (e.g., tables, figures). Authors receive 200 preprints of the monographs with covers; additional preprints can be ordered.

Yes, you read that right -- you get published in "Psychological Reports" after you send them $27.50 per page (in multiples of four pages). In short, that journal is what is known in the biz as a "vanity publication" -- if you can cough up the dough, you too can see your name in print. In other words, that rag isn't worth the trees it cost to print it. And that's the basis of Joanne's pretentious, patronizing dumbassitude.

The word "stupid" doesn't begin to do that woman justice but, at the moment, it's the best I can come up with.

Dear Joanne: Read much?

So much Blogging Tory dumbassitude, so little time (emphasis added):

Another Inconvenient Truth

Homosexual activists and their supporters have expressed outrage that a doctor who has warned of the physical dangers associated with homosexual activity would be considered for the position of Surgeon General. Holsinger’s article has been condemned as a scientifically outdated piece of political ideology expressing a “very narrow view” of homosexuality, according to an ABC News report.

H/T Lifesite.

Really, Joanne? Is that why they're upset? Because he just warned of the "physical dangers"? I know -- let's read for ourselves, shall we? (Joanne-smackdown emphasis added)

A doctor tapped by President George Bush for the position of Surgeon General has been attacked by homosexual activist groups for saying homosexual activity is unnatural and unhealthy...

In the paper Holsinger stated that engaging in homosexuality was physically dangerous as well as unnatural behavior.

Isn't it amazing what you can learn if you take the time to follow the links and not take Joanne's word for anything?

: Don't say you haven't been warned:

Pointing out the naturally complimentary structure of male and female genitalia, Dr. Holsinger said homosexual sex goes against the natural function of the body and can result in serious injury.

“When the complementarity of the sexes is breached, injuries and diseases may occur,” Holsinger wrote. “From the perspective of pathology and path physiology, the varied sexual practices of homosexual men have resulted in a diverse and expanded concept of sexually transmitted disease and associated trauma.”

Why, yes, and if you can have that kind of "serious injury" and "trauma" with consenting adults, one can only imagine the kind of bad craziness you could get when, say, 13-year-old altar boys are involved. And yet, oddly, that article makes no mention whatsoever of the Catholic Church.

Huh. Go figure.

: And unlike the vast majority of Blogging Tories, Red Tory brings something worth reading to the table.

Judge to wingnuts: Bite me.

Oooooooooh ... snap! I bet that's gonna leave a mark.

Yes, Virginia, there is a God ...

... and He. Is. Pissed.

Friday, June 08, 2007

Steve walks warily down the street with the brim pulled way down low ...

Come on ... one line, no pushing.

A Kate-sized towel snap to the privates.

Ooooooooooh ... busted! I particularly like the part about Kate ripping off other peoples' work. Why am I not surprised?

(Wag of the tail to e-mailer Meaghan.)

About NAFTA and water ...

Global warming? What global warming?

A drought for the ages

DENVER — Drought, a fixture in much of the West for nearly a decade, now covers more than one-third of the continental USA. And it's spreading.

As summer starts, half the nation is either abnormally dry or in outright drought from prolonged lack of rain that could lead to water shortages, according to the U.S. Drought Monitor, a weekly index of conditions. Welcome rainfall last weekend from Tropical Storm Barry brought short-term relief to parts of the fire-scorched Southeast. But up to 50 inches of rain is needed to end the drought there, and this is the driest spring in the Southeast since record-keeping began in 1895, according to the National Climatic Data Center.

And when the U.S. goes looking for water, where do you think they're going to look first?

You keep using that word "democracy" ...

America: Land of the ... not so fast, buddy.

What kind of fuckery is this?

Oh, man ... put down that bagel or you'll lose it. This morning, we have the batshit crazy Kathy Shaidle posting over at SDA (two levels of dumbassitude for the price of one, and no, I'm not even going to link anymore, it's not worth the trouble). Behold the wingnuttery:

June 8, 2007
Chapters-Indigo Boycott: the slo-mo Kristallnacht continues

Kathy here, guest blogging for Kate...

Time to go shopping again, kiddies!

The Jew-haters at Rabble are publicizing the latest Boycott Chapters-Indigo Picket this Saturday, June 9, in which handfuls of (literally) smelly (I know: I shoved through them last time) unemployed misguided losers protest outside bookstores because a Jewish woman owns them.

Here's a chant you can use:

Hippies, hippies, you're so sad/ We charge you with smelling bad!

Warning: this Rabble thread contains the words "apartheid" and "Chomsky." Those with pre-existing medical conditions may want to consult their doctor etc. Note one lone voice of reason is manfully trying to argue using facts -- poor thing...

Israel is the only nation in the history of civilization expected to give up land it captured in a war, and Palestinians are the only "refugees" still hanging around waiting to go back "home." Watch old footage of Nassar and co. around the 6 Day War. They don't talk about "Israel", they always say "the Jews." That's all you need to know.

Posted by KShaidle at June 8, 2007 6:14 AM

To which the second commenter tries to inject a little sanity:

"...because a Jewish woman owns them."

That is an outright fabrication:

"We want to send a clear message to the majority shareholders, Heather Reisman and Gerry Schwartz, that their links to the HESEG Foundation for Lone Soldiers (individuals from outside of Israel that want to serve in its military) - are unacceptable."

As an aside, a Jewish woman by the name of Judy Rebick is the operator of Rabble; by your "logic" these "Jew haters" hang around a Jewish owned (and frequented) site plotting to boycott Jews...because they hate Jews? Who overwhelmingly vote left? Try again.

That is so awesome. In a single post, Kathy falsely accuses people of anti-Semitism, refers to protestors as "hippies," and finally accuses them of smelling bad.

As the co-founder of the Blogging Tories, Stephen Taylor must be so proud.

When casting needs an offensive, homophobic wingnut, who ya gonna call?

The Mittster takes a question and tap dances around it as only he can:

A New Hampshire woman, frustrated with Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s opposition to gay marriage, made a point Wednesday of telling him about her personal experience.

"I am a gay woman and I have children. Your comment that you just made, it sort of invalidates my family," said Cynthia Fish, a mother of a 6- and 8-year-old. "... I wish you could explain to me more, why if we are sending our troops over to fight for liberty and justice for all throughout this country, why not for me? Why not for my family?"

Romney paused, asked Fish about her children and then praised her.

"Wonderful," Romney said. "I’m delighted that you have a family and you’re happy with your family. That’s the American way. ... People can live their lives as they choose and children can be a great source of joy, as you know. And I welcome that."

But then Romney repeated his view of marriage.

And with Romney having marginalized the questioner and run screaming away from the question, who -- I ask you, who -- would have the prerequisite lack of class, grace and common courtesy to suggest that it's the questioner who has mental problems?


Yeah, that one was too easy. I'll try to make the next one harder.