Just when you think they can't sink any lower into the ooze ...

... they manage to surprise you. Let's face it, kids ... your humble scribe is one hot property, isn't he? Autograph line forms on the left -- one at a time, no pushing.

Calgary Ward 4: Vote early, vote often.

Gosh, just look at the calendar ... only a couple more weeks until the Calgary municipal election, where all the evidence suggests that white supremacist and NAMBLA advocate Richard Evans is going to get flattened like a toad under a steamroller.

Apparently, though, there's been some recent excitement, during which someone has been wandering around Richard's ward, explaining him to his neighbours, to which commenter "lenny" suggests:

I wouldn’t have failed to mention Ricky’s promotion of pedophilia.

Not surprisingly, Richard uses a novel form of reasoning to dispute lenny's contention:

Now, lenny, you know better ... I merely pointed out the fact that CC passively enables pedophiles and redirected his pseudonym to a pedophile website. It wasn’t a promotion of pedophilia at all but rather the exposing of a disgusting individual for what he really is.

So let's analyze this logically, shall we?

• Who purchased the domain name canadiancynic.net? Richard Evans.


• Who currently still owns the domain name? Richard Evans.


• Who redirected that domain to the home page of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association? Richard Evans.

So, apparently, even though I had absolutely nothing to do with any of the above, the logical conclusion on Richard's planet is that this proves how I am somehow taken with the practices of NAMBLA.

You know, I almost wish Richard would win the contest for his Calgary ward. We would have absolutely guaranteed political entertainment for the next couple of years.

I normally don't take delight in the suffering of others but, in this case, I'd make an exception.

MUST ... RESIST ... WHOOPS, TOO LATE. While I really do have better things to be doing today, I can't help pointing out yet another puddle of hypocrisy that the NAMBLA- and white hood-obsessed Richard Evans is standing in.

As my regular readers are well aware, Dick registered the domain "canadiancynic.net" back in July and, in a move he must have thought was hysterically witty, clever and all-around knee-slappingly hilarious, promptly redirected it to the home page of NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Of such infantile sleaze is the wankersphere comprised.

But, lo and behold, if you click on http://canadiancynic.net today, well, you end up here -- at Dick's right-wing blog home page. Why is that?

Is it because, while Dick is busy fuming and frothing about libel and slander and defamation, he suspects that maybe he crossed the line with that little stunt so he's quietly changed the redirection, hoping no one notices?

Come on, Dick, be a man -- if you're going to do something as childish and classless as that NAMBLA redirect, at least stick with it. Don't be embarrassed; rather, take pride in the depths of the gutter to which you can sink. What the heck -- if I were you, I'd promote that little escapade on your campaign blog. After all, if the residents of Calgary's Ward 4 are going to vote for you, they should at least understand the sort of howling, drooling, bloodthirsty vengeance they might be in for if they ever crossed you.

So let's go, Dick, don't be ashamed of your past. Revel in it. Be proud of it. Fix that redirect, and let the citizens of Calgary know how you deal with critics. Heck, I'll bet that would even raise your standing among Calgary's shrieking wingnut demographic. You might not be a popular man at PTA meetings anymore but, hey, who the fuck cares what those people think? They're probably all commie symps, anyway.

Time to put up or shut up, Dick. Let's see you walk that walk.

Sometimes, the situation just screams for a United Way agenda item.

At first, the Dilbert cartoon just seems funny:

Pointy-haired boss addressing meeting: "We're poised for success -- we expect huge earnings and increased market share. Next on the agenda: There will be no raises because it will be a difficult year." (Awkward pause.) "Carol, I thought I told you to put the United Way update between those two agenda items."

Carol: "Oopsie."

Sadly:

Canada posts whopping surplus
September 27, 2007

Ottawa - Canada on Thursday announced a budgetary surplus of 13.8 billion dollars for 2006-2007, or one percent of Canada's gross domestic product, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said.

Total debt, meanwhile, fell to 467.3 billion at the end of 2006-2007, and the federal debt-to-GDP ratio is now "at its lowest level in a quarter century," at 32.3 percent, he said.

Combined with income from government-owned corporations, Ottawa thus made its "the largest debt payment in Canadian history," or 14.2 billion dollars, Flaherty said at the unveiling of his 2006-2007 financial annual report.

The government of Canada spent 700 million less than projected in Flaherty's March 2006 budget, and revenues spiked unexpectedly, he explained.

You know what's coming in the very next sentences, don't you?

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned that "recent volatility in financial markets needs careful management," Canada's forestry and manufacturing sectors are facing "tough times," and there is "weakness" in some export markets.

"At the same time, strong growth in other areas is driving up the cost of living," such as housing prices, beyond what many can afford, he said.

So, "we have to keep our spending prudent, keep reducing the debt, and keep lowering taxes for individuals, businesses and families," Harper concluded.

Don't miss next week's episode when Prime Minister Pointy-Haired Boss gives bumbling intern Peter "Asok" MacKay another harmless job just to keep him out of trouble. As always, hilarity ensues.

Right-wing logic, as it were.

It is, as we all know, absolutely outrageous that "Taliban Jack" Layton would suggest that we negotiate with the murderous Taliban, when we should instead be sacrificing the lives of Canadian soldiers by nobly and courageously defending the freedom-loving Afghani government of Hamid Karzai, who recently announced that he would like to negotiate with the murderous Taliban.

Feel free to draw whatever meaningless, illogical and semantically-tortured conclusion that you consider to be ideologically convenient.

Please give generously to the intellectually handicapped.

Johnny, over at "The Right Is Where It Sat," is absolutely livid over ... well, let's let Johnny explain it between flecks of spittle and drool slowly coursing down his chin:

... Tracey Glynn is a member of the Fredericton Peace Coalition and says that wearing a "Support Our Troops" yellow ribbon trumpets positive support for the war.

"I think by putting the yellow ribbon on or wearing the red shirt, you're being a cheerleader for the war," Glynn said...

Now how can anyone who says things like this can say that they support the troops ? Its just crazy and idiotic !!! They have no idea what supporting the troops really mean !!!

Damn straight! I mean, we've had this discussion before and where the hell do you get the nerve to suggest that just wearing a yellow ribbon necessarily means you support the mission in Afghanistan? Who the fuck is so dishonest and deluded as to draw that logical conclusion? Oh, wait ...

Although billed as a non-partisan rally, Mr. Harper used the occasion to slip in a not-so-subtle jab at NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for the withdrawal Canadian troops from the combat portion of the mission.

"Friends, I believe you cannot say you are for our military and then not stand behind them in the great things they do."

Tune in tomorrow when Johnny rips Stephen Harper a new asshole for being "crazy and idiotic." Or maybe not. It all depends on whether stupidity wins out over hypocrisy. Or vice versa.

Oh, THIS looks like a good investment.

Via Dana at TGB, we learn that:

The Canadian Forces are using a controversial private security firm to train some of its troops sent to Afghanistan.

Select Canadian soldiers have been sent to Blackwater U.S.A. in North Carolina for specialized training in bodyguard and shooting skills...

... 18 members of the Strategic Advisory Team sent to Kabul went to Blackwater in June for a two-day course called hostile-environment defensive driver training. The cost was $29,000 which included accommodation and meals, as well as extra course time for two of the team members.

Excellent -- top-notch, mercenary training for some of our folks. What can possibly go wrong? Oh, wait:

The second reaction I hear from active-duty soldiers is that they see what they refer to as these rock star private contractors, and they want to be like them. So we have a phenomenon of soldiers leaving the active-duty military to jump over to the private sector. There’s now slang on the ground in Iraq for this jump; it's called “going Blackwater.”

Yes, from Blackwater's perspective, it doesn't get much better than this, does it: Have someone pay you to train their people, at which point you can leisurely peruse the attendees and offer the cream of the crop an offer they can't refuse to entice them out of the military as soon as they can bail on their commitment.

Yeah, that deal is certainly working out well for someone.

P.S. If I'm a Canadian official and I need a driver fully trained in dealing with hostile environments, can I specifically request not to get one of the two who needed "extra course time"? Just curious.

Dear wankers: Wrong about everything again, I see.

Not surprisingly, all of the residents of Lower Idiotville who have been yapping on about how Stephen Harper is "required by law" to apply the current surplus of almost $14 billion to paying down the national debt appear to have got it wrong again. There is, as far as I can tell, absolutely nothing in law that "requires" the above. But hang on ... that's not the whole story.

In the comments section back here, Robert McClelland explains:

The fiscal year ends on March 31st. If there's any revenues that the government hasn't spent by that date, it's required by law that it be used for debt repayment. I don't know exactly where this is in the legislation but it is law.

Ah, now we might be getting somewhere. If Robert is correct, then any surplus that is still hanging around at the end of the fiscal year would have to go to debt reduction. But if that doesn't happen until March 31, then there's nothing whatsoever that stops Harper from spending any or all of that money elsewhere before then. To claim that that entire surplus must go to debt reduction now is sheer dishonesty. But, like many things, it's all in the wording.

So how might Harper go about making that claim so that it's technically correct? Simple. He can merely arrange that that surplus is untouched and untouchable until March 31. If he explicitly sets aside that surplus in a secure place and prevents anything from being done with it until March 31, then, by law, it would have to go to debt reduction. And notice how that isn't just a default outcome -- it requires a conscious effort on Harper's part to not do anything else with that surplus. There's nothing "required by law" about this -- what it does require is deliberate effort on the part of the Conservatives to not spend that money anywhere else, quite a different thing. And that begins to explain the odd wording in this article (emphasis added):

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the massive surplus and added that it would be funnelled into debt reduction during an event in Toronto that had all the earmarks of a mid-campaign event.

His announcement means the end-of-year fiscal windfall is no longer available for program spending. The money must, by law, go into national debt-reduction and the interest savings - about $725 million - will go to tax cuts.

Note the curious wording at the beginning of that second paragraph: "His announcement means the end-of-year fiscal windfall is no longer available for program spending." That would seem to fit nicely with what I just proposed -- that it is Harper's conscious decision and announcement that the surplus would go untouched until the end of the fiscal year that makes it required to pay down national debt. But this opens up a whole can of ugly, conservative worms.

Does this mean that that entire current surplus is now locked into debt reduction? That it is entirely unavailable for anything else and that Harper can't change his mind before March 31? Because, if that's the case (which I doubt), that would make a federal election before March 31 extremely interesting, since Harper wouldn't have any of that surplus to throw around as campaign presents to try to buy votes, would he?

I think this is the perfect time to call Harper on his bluff and bring down the government, then watch as he suddenly redefines "surplus" and "requires" to give him the freedom to star flinging surplus-provided bags of cash at Canadians in order to buy their votes. I suspect the English language would suddenly get an entertaining overhaul, and we'd see the hypocrisy start to ooze out of every pore of Harper's body. Not that that would surprise me, either.

Paying down the national debt: "As required by law?"

Since this is rapidly becoming a right-wing talking point, can someone please point me to the Canadian legislation that requires that any surplus be used to pay down the national debt?

Really, if such a law exists, surely someone can provide a pointer. It's not a tough question.

SURVEY SAAAAAAAYS ... that this "required by law" talking point is pure bullshit. No one has been able to point to a single piece of legislation that "requires" any surplus to be directed in its entirety to the reduction of the national debt.

On the other hand, there's this, which might be what the residents of Lower Wankerville are getting so thoroughly confused by (emphasis added):

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced one of the largest reductions in the federal debt in Canadian history and said the resulting effective interest savings will be used to reduce personal income taxes as required by law under the Government’s Tax Back Guarantee.

Well, now, that's enlightening ... the "Tax Back Guarantee" has nothing to do with where a surplus must be applied, only with what must be done with the interest savings, which is (as I'm sure anyone who is not a moron can see) a completely different thing. In short, all this "required by law" nonsense is exactly that -- nonsense, a classic bait and switch. And once again, the Canadian MSM got suckered by it.

I am so not surprised by this anymore.

BY THE WAY, I'm not even going to go looking for which Blogging Tories have been pushing this myth. There's only so much depressing wingnutiness one can handle.

THE READERS WRITE: E-mailer HCT weighs in:

There is no legislation on how any surplus is handled. NO government in it's right mind would enact it because it would tie their hands and the hands of subsequent governments forever ad infinitum ("forever, without limit, to infinity") or until the legislation was either repealed or overridden. Politicians are not fools.

The "Tax Back Guarantee" was contained in the 2007 Budget. Per the Canadian government website, Budget Plan, Chapter 4 (Budget 2007):

A New Approach to Allocating Surpluses

Budget 2006 acknowledged concerns over the transparency of federal budget planning. In Advantage Canada, the Government introduced a Tax Back Guarantee to ensure that all Canadians benefit directly from federal debt reduction through lower taxes. Budget 2007 goes further by proposing to legislate the Tax Back Guarantee. This ensures that as the Government reduces its debt, it will be required to use the interest savings from this debt reduction to lower personal income taxes. Any unplanned surpluses will be applied to reduce federal debt, and all associated interest savings will be used to further reduce personal income taxes. The Tax Back Guarantee makes more transparent for Canadians how the Government intends to use federal surpluses and ensures that such surpluses directly benefit Canadians.

This is only good for the 2007 fiscal year budget and will be overridden, unless repeated by the 2008 budget.

I don't understand all this foofarah. Martin was doing this for years, as finance minister and PM with one exception. He put a whack of money from the surplus against the debt, then took the balance of the surplus and instead of tax breaks, put the money into other government programs (health, equalization etc.)

So, once again, absolutely nothing about paying down the debt with surplus as required by law. Note, though, how Robert McClelland points out that any surplus must go to paying down the debt if that surplus is still sitting around at the end of the fiscal year, March 31. But that in no way constrains anyone from using any part of that surplus between now and then for whatever they want. In short, Stephen Harper is simply lying here.

Don't look so shocked -- you'd think you'd be used to that by now.

Patton Oswalt: Snack time, any time.

Not workplace safe. As if I care.

When life imitates Dilbert.

I've mentioned before how one of my favourite Dilbert cartoons involves the annoying friend or co-worker who insists on restating whatever you say in terms of "bizarre absolutes" just for the sake of being able to refute a nonsensical and irrelevant position that you never took, as in:

Dilbert: We should add this feature to our product to make it more useful.

"Bizarre Absolute" Guy: "Are you telling me that not one person on earth will use our product without that feature?!!"

Dilbert: "You just changed what I said into a bizarre absolute."

"BA" Guy: "Oh, I change everything you say?!"

So when you read about NDP leader Jack Layton doing this:

NDP warns government of election after 'undemocratic' surplus announcement

Alexander Panetta
Published Thursday September 27th, 2007

OTTAWA - Pumping almost all of the $14-billion surplus into debt-reduction rather than investing in Canadians is the kind of rigid conservatism that makes it likely the NDP will vote to topple the government next month, Jack Layton said Thursday.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the massive surplus and added that it would be funnelled into debt reduction during an event in Toronto that had all the earmarks of a mid-campaign event.

His announcement means the end-of-year fiscal windfall is no longer available for program spending. The money must, by law, go into national debt-reduction and the interest savings - about $725 million - will go to tax cuts.

you wonder how many people will deliberately misunderstand that Layton is not criticizing paying down the national debt, he's only upset that virtually all of that surplus is being used to do so, rather than re-investing some of it back into social programs that the Conservatives cut for the alleged sake of fiscal restraint.

So who -- I ask you, who -- will be dishonest enough (or, for that matter, retarded enough) to re-interpret Layton's position into a meaningless bizarre absolute?

Well, there's this doofus:

Paying Down Debt is What? Irresponsible?

By Dave Hodson | September 27, 2007

Jack Layton has made a lot of stupid comments before, but today he has truly outdone himself.

In response to the Conservative plan to use the current budget surplus for debt repayment (which is required by law), Jack Layton made the following comment.

“This is not a reasonable approach - it’s irresponsible”

That’s right, Jack Layton actually thinks that paying down debt is an irresponsible thing to do!

And, to no one's surprise whatsoever, there's this shrieking airhead:

Who cares about the National Debt?

Not Taliban Jack and the loony left.

The Blogging Tories: Making even the parody of Dilbert seem prescient.

"AS REQUIRED BY LAW"? I'm confused by something here -- is it actually "required by law" that any and all surplus be applied to reducing the debt? Because if it is, then Layton's complaint is, of course, idiotic. If the law requires it, then the law requires it, and that's the end of the discussion. But that's not quite what the article above implies based on its wording:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced the massive surplus and added that it would be funnelled into debt reduction during an event in Toronto that had all the earmarks of a mid-campaign event.

His announcement means the end-of-year fiscal windfall is no longer available for program spending. The money must, by law, go into national debt-reduction and the interest savings - about $725 million - will go to tax cuts.

The way I read that is that it was Harper's announcement that suddenly required the surplus to go to reducing the debt, as if he had a choice about it. And even then, who's to say what could be done with the interest savings?

Clearly, Harper is choosing to use the interest savings to fund tax cuts. But couldn't he just as easily have chosen to fund social programs with those savings instead? Can someone clarify this "required by law" notion? Is this actually a legal requirement?

Compassionate conservatism, Blogging Tory style.

• Raphael demonstrates to the world what being a conservative is all about.


• Raphael's anonymous commenter demonstrates to the world that Raphael is, well, kind of an asshole.

Any questions?

AFTERSNARK: TBogg has a frightening handle on the right-wing psyche. The last line is the money line. You'd almost swear he'd met Raphael in person.

Yeah, about those 125,000 child care spaces? Well, heh heh, funny story ...

Whoopsie. Via Buckdog, we learn the thoroughly unsurprising news:

Tories hint that promise of 125,000 new child-care spots may not be realistic

OTTAWA - A much-touted promise by the federal Conservatives to create 125,000 new child-care spaces may not be doable, suggests Social Development Minister Monte Solberg.

The Conservatives have been slammed by critics who say the government's approach won't create nearly that many spaces over five years.

"We have to be realistic," Solberg said Wednesday when asked if an election vow made 18 months ago can be kept.

Hey, I know ... let's hop into the wayback machine and see how many of those smugly sanctimonious Blogging Tories were ever so confident about this former promise, shall we?

Toronto Tory:

Conservatives Will Create 125,000 New Child Care Spaces

The Conservative party announced today that they will create 125,000 new child care spaces. This, in addition to the $100 per child/per month choice in child care allowance.

For the record, 125,000 child care spaces is higher than the number of spaces that would be created under the "plan" that the Liberals have repeatedly promised since 1993.

The Conservatives party of Canada - standing up for children, standing up for families.

Noise From the Right:

Under the Community Childcare Investment Program, employers who create new childcare spaces for their employees, or for the wider community in collaboration with not-for-profit organizations, will be eligible to receive a credit of $10,000 per space. This program will create 25,000 new spaces per year, or 125,000 over the next five years.

Choice for Child Care:

In addition to the $1,200 allowance, which would be taxable, Harper has said he would provide $250 million in tax credits to help community groups and businesses create 125,000 child-care spaces over five years.

Stephen Taylor:

The question fails to mention that the Conservative plan also includes the following:

* a commitment to provide incentives to create 25,000 flexible child care spaces per year through the Child Care Spaces Initiative, beginning in 2007.

Trinity-Spadina:

The Conservative Party of Canada would create 125,000 new childcare spaces, while also giving direct transfers to all parents of $1,200 per child per year for childcare to use in a way that is best for their family’s childcare needs.

Canadianna's Place:

The best example of this is the Liberals' 'sure thing' -- the universal child care 'plan'. Where Harper recently detailed the Conservative plan to create 125,000 spaces, and the same information can be found on the Conservative web pages, tonight Martin will boast that the Liberals will create 250,000 daycare spaces.

Kerplonka:

In other words, beyond the fact that it's technically premature to criticize Harper, this wasn't a promise, per se. The promise was 125,000 spaces over 5 years, not 25,000 per year. Theoretically, Harper could put it all in by 2011 and still be in the clear.

Responsible Government League:

Under the Community Childcare Investment Program, employers who create new childcare spaces for their employees, or for the wider community in collaboration with not-for-profit organizations, will be eligible to receive a credit of $10,000 per space. This program will create 25,000 new spaces per year, or 125,000 over the next five years.

At which point, I believe I have the right to ask once again: What's it like being wrong about absolutely everything?

I'm just curious.

Yeah, about that "founder of Greenpeace" thing ...

Alison takes the MSM to task for being insufferably lazy with regards to Greenpeace "co-founder" Patrick Moore, suggesting that they ...

... mention that Moore's speaking engagement at that Chamber of Commerce luncheon was hosted by two Canadian uranium mining companies, that Moore's current cross-Canada tour is sponsored by TEAM CANDU, and that Moore is being paid to support nuclear power by the US Nuclear Energy Institute.

There's also the itty bitty issue about how Moore really isn't technically a "founder" or "co-founder" of Greenpeace:

Moore has claimed for years to be a founder of Greenpeace, an exaggeration of his actual role. Moore sailed on the first Greenpeace campaign, but he did not actually found the organization. According to Dorothy Stowe, an American Quaker, who immigrated to Canada in 1966 and founded Greenpeace with her husband Irving Stowe and other Canadian pacifists and ecologists, "Technically, Patrick Moore cannot be described as a founder of Greenpeace. He was there in early stages with a lot of others. But what he is doing now is unconscionable."

Hey, I know ... let's see who else is unspeakably sloppy and/or lazy with their research, shall we?

• Blogging Tories and "Patrick Moore"


• Blogging Tories and "Patrick Moore" founder Greenpeace


• Blogging Tories and "Patrick Moore" "Nuclear Energy Institute"

You must have seen that coming.

Because it's all about the kids, remember?

On the one hand, Admiral Bunnypants wants another $190 billion so he can keep making Blackwater rich continue padding the pockets of his war profiteering friends carry on with his looting of the U.S. Treasury on behalf of American defense contractors continue killing swarthy, brown people with funny accents keep promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East.

On the other hand, Bush has promised to veto additional health care for children over a difference of six billion dollars a year. This will, of course, absolutely enrage the compassionate conservatives over at the Blogging Tories who are, as we all know, all about the children.

You didn't even click on that last link, did you? Have I become that predictable?

And suddenly, the MoveOn outrage becomes very selective.

You'll never believe what just happened. The same people who were frothing at the mouth over MoveOn's alleged "discount" ad rate with the New York Times have gone weirdly quiet over Rudy Giuliani's similar (if not even better) deal for the same thing.

Media Matters has the details, and those details raise a whole truckload of curious questions. Let's try to follow along:

In a New York Times article, Katharine Q. Seelye reported that MoveOn.org paid the Times $77,508 for its controversial General Betrayus" ad, ...

Yes, and this reduced rate was justified by claiming that MoveOn was getting a "standby" rate, meaning that their ad wasn't guaranteed to run on their preferred day of September 10. I had thought that this issue had been thoroughly resolved by now but, apparently, life isn't that simple:

In a September 26 New York Times article, Katharine Q. Seelye reported that MoveOn.org paid the Times $77,508 "after the newspaper revealed that its advertising department had undercharged the organization for" its controversial "General Betrayus" ad. The Times "should have charged $142,083," according to the article, "because MoveOn wanted the advertisement to run on a specific day ...and was therefore not entitled to the 'standby' rate."

Hang on ... was this a standby ad, or wasn't it? It's a fairly simple question, don't you think? Of course MoveOn "wanted" the ad to run on a particular day, but that's not the point; the point is whether they wanted a guarantee. If it ended up running on the day MoveOn preferred, that could just have been luck -- it's what "standby" is all about. But that's not what's so troublesome.

Responding to conservative outcry over the rate charged to MoveOn.org, Hoyt wrote in his September 23 column that MoveOn.org "should have paid $142,083" for its advertisement, and that it paid the lower rate because an advertising sales representative "made a mistake." According to Hoyt, "Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said... the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then. She added, 'That was contrary to our policies.'" In response, according to the Times, MoveOn.org said it would pay the difference in advertising rates "out of an abundance of caution."

MoveOn did what!?!? They paid the retroactive difference?? Why? Why is the NYT's "mistake" their problem? Does that mean that the ad was never "standby" in the first place? That's certainly a bit of news, and fairly important news at that, but it still doesn't implicate MoveOn in anything underhanded. As I read it, MoveOn asked for the cost of an ad, the Times gave them a quote, they paid it, end of discussion. And now the Times wants to go back and change the terms of the deal? You'd think it was a bit late for that but, to my amazement, MoveOn graciously agrees to pay the difference. And you'd think that's where it should end, right? Wrong. Let's read on:

In the fallout from the ad, Rudolph Giuliani, the former New York mayor and a Republican presidential candidate, demanded space in the following Friday's Times to answer MoveOn.org. He got it -- and at the same $64,575 rate that MoveOn.org paid.

Excuse me? Giuliani demanded equivalent space, and he demanded it on a specific day, but he insisted on paying only the significantly smaller "standby" rate, even after MoveOn covered the difference? Now who's getting the sweetheart deal? But is it clear that Giuliani was promised a specific day? If you read that MM piece, you get two different answers: a Giuliani spokesman is adamant that they did not get a date guarantee, while NYT's Public Editor Clark Hoyt is just as adamant that he did. How confusing. And how suspicious.

Of course, this new and disturbing development will mean absolutely nothing to whiny, little shits like, oh, this. And, yes, that was a depressingly easy smackdown but I'm feeling lazy today. So sue me.

AFTERSNARK: There's one claim in the above I have real difficulty swallowing:

... Hoyt wrote in his September 23 column that MoveOn.org "should have paid $142,083" for its advertisement, and that it paid the lower rate because an advertising sales representative "made a mistake." According to Hoyt, "Catherine Mathis, vice president of corporate communications for The Times, said... the advertising representative failed to make it clear that for that rate The Times could not guarantee the Monday placement but left MoveOn.org with the understanding that the ad would run then.

I'm sorry, but how unspeakably incompetent an ad sales rep do you have to be to make that kind of "mistake?" Are we seriously supposed to believe that the Times employs sales reps that can make $77,000 fuck-ups and don't understand the concept of a "standby" rate? That strains credulity just a bit, don't you think?

Surely someone has a copy of the original contract. Don't you think that would clear things up in an instant?

I believe that's what you call "timely."

[Timelier and timelier: Reality marches on, leaving Brian to his comfortable delusions.]

Hey, campers ... remember how Blogging Tory Brian Lemon gave us a rundown on the swell news from Iraq, including this gem?

A government is in place in Iraq which is fighting corruption (not perfectly but progressively) ... While corruption is widespread in Iraq it is declining where as up until the invasion it was rising rapidly.

And then, there's the ugly reality:

Iraq: Third Most Corrupt Country on the Planet
By Spencer Ackerman - September 26, 2007, 11:24AM

Anti-corruption watchdog Transparency International has listed Iraq as the third-most corrupt nation on the planet. Somehow, Haiti, winner of the 2006 Corruption World Cup (Iraq won the bronze that year, too) is no longer as corrupt as Baghdad.

The ranking comes as the State Department has barred its anti-corruption officials from publicly testifying to the House oversight committee about how bad the corruption situation is in Iraq. Maybe that goes a ways toward explaining why Transparency International considers 19 countries less corrupt than the United States.

In unrelated news, Hillary Clinton is actually a carnivorous space alien from Alpha Centauri -- Brian read that on Drudge. No, really.

When you need absolutely half the story, all the time.

Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ goes all full-metal Steve Janke to reveal ... well, let's just go read the pants-wetting excitement:

George Soros is known for funding groups such as MoveOn.org that seek to manipulate public opinion. So why is the billionaire's backing of what he believes in problematic? In a word: transparency.

How many people, for instance, know that James Hansen, a man billed as a lonely "NASA whistleblower" standing up to the mighty U.S. government, was really funded by Soros' Open Society Institute , which gave him "legal and media advice"?

That's right, Hansen was packaged for the media by Soros' flagship "philanthropy," by as much as $720,000, most likely under the OSI's "politicization of science" program.

Join us tomorrow when Kate reveals, for the sake of fairness and balance, that the anti-Kyoto, climate change denial group "Friends of Science" gets loads of money from the petroleum industry.

That will, of course, happen immediately after my hot tub date with Jessica Alba.

Hypocrisy for thee, but not for me.

If we could develop a power source that ran off of right-wing double standards, we wouldn't really need oil anymore. Consider the following recent bit of insipitude from Commander Chimpy McChimpster:

Mandela still alive after embarrassing Bush remark

Fri Sep 21, 8:15 AM ET

JOHANNESBURG (Reuters) - Nelson Mandela is still very much alive despite an embarrassing gaffe by U.S. President George W. Bush, who alluded to the former South African leader's death in an attempt to explain sectarian violence in Iraq.

"It's out there. All we can do is reassure people, especially South Africans, that President Mandela is alive," Achmat Dangor, chief executive officer of the Nelson Mandela Foundation, said as Bush's comments received worldwide coverage.

In a speech defending his administration's Iraq policy, Bush said former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's brutality had made it impossible for a unifying leader to emerge and stop the sectarian violence that has engulfed the Middle Eastern nation.

"I heard somebody say, Where's Mandela?' Well, Mandela's dead because Saddam Hussein killed all the Mandelas," Bush, who has a reputation for verbal faux pas, said in a press conference in Washington on Thursday.

Man, that George Bush, what a tool! What a dimbulb! What a freakin' moron, right? Except that, if you put what he said in context, he was actually simply making an analogy -- that Saddam Hussein had gotten rid of Mandela-like democracy advocates in Iraq -- an analogy that, not surprisingly, every loyal wingnut began pushing. Like here:

There Are Morons, But They Don't Include George Bush

It has become apparent that some journalists covering President Bush either have a learning disability or work extra hard to twist his words until the reporters turn into novelists. The latest to prove this theory correct works for Reuters, which sent out a story that claimed George Bush thought that Nelson Mandela had died, when in fact Bush used an analogy that clearly sailed over Reuters' head.

So there you have it -- it's irresponsible to simply look at the words themselves, when the proper thing to do is back up a step and make sure you establish the context. Right? Right?

Unless it involves a Democrat, of course, such as when John Kerry made a lame joke about how not-so-bright people end up in Iraq and, my oh my, the deliberate misinterpretation of that remark took on a life of its own, didn't it?

Big Story attack dogs on Kerry, lapdogs for Bush

As expected, the Big Story was all over the remarks that John Kerry made yesterday, misquoting, misinterpreting, and gleefully twisting into an anti-troop attitude shared by all Democrats. Gibson wonders if this is the October surprise?

For the record, the quote is

"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. And if you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Kerry says it was a misdelivered joke, intended to skewer Bush and his less-than-stellar academic record and subsequent misadventures in Iraq. A Kerry aide said (according to CNN) that the comments should have been

"I can't overstress the importance of a great education. Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq."

FOX News has been misrepresenting the comments all day, adhering to their proven formula that if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it as truth.

So there you have it. When a Republican says it, it behooves everyone to carefully examine the statement and put it in its proper context for the sake of fairness. On the other hand, when a Democrat does the same, it behooves us to deliberately and knowingly distort and misrepresent the words as much as possible, to maximum political effect.

Tune in tomorrow when we explain how politicians who want to bring back the troops to keep them from getting killed secretly hate them and hope that they all get killed.

Science, as it is done.

(Wag of the tail.)

Dear wankers: What's it like to be wrong about everything?

No, seriously ... what is it like to wake up every morning and realize that you have been flat-out wrong about every single opinion you've had for the last several years? Where do we even start?

Well, there was that same-sex marriage thing, and how you all shrieked incessantly about how it was going to be the death of traditional marriage and the downfall of western civilization and a clear portent of the heat death of the universe and similar rubbish. These days, though, the blithering chowderheads who whined interminably about it are now the same people who, without missing a beat, are now poking fun at how it is such a hilariously insignificant issue. Go figure.

Then there's religion and values, where all of you Bible-pounding loons were absolutely adamant that one required a deep, religious foundation (Christian, of course) to be upstanding and moral and so on. Sad to say, that position has taken a bit of a pounding. Yeah, that's not such a popular party line anymore, is it? Doesn't give you quite the opportunity for pompous, sanctimonious moralizing anymore, does it?

And as for the idea that some staunch conservative values are better for the young'uns, well, that didn't work out that well, either, did it? On the other hand, Chelsea Clinton was a National Merit Scholarship finalist, graduated from Stanford and went on to Oxford. Man, that must have grated on you, but I'm guessing you still didn't clue in, did you?

And then there's Iraq. Oh, lord, where to even begin on Iraq? Yes, that was going to be the grand, neo-con experiment in regime change and spreading democracy and making the Middle East safe for inexpensive oil, and on and on and tediously on. And it was going to be cheap, by God, it was going to be cheap:

ANDREW NATSIOS
This is 1.7 billion.

TED KOPPEL
(Off Camera) All right, this is the first. I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

ANDREW NATSIOS
Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada, and Iraqi oil revenues, eventually in several years, when it's up and running and there's a new government that's been democratically elected, will finish the job with their own revenues. They're going to get in $20 billion a year in oil revenues. But the American part of this will be 1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this.

Yes, that worked out just ducky, didn't it?

Iraq war budget jumps for 2008

WASHINGTON -- -- After smothering efforts by war critics in Congress to drastically cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq, President Bush plans to ask lawmakers next week to approve another massive spending measure -- totaling nearly $200 billion -- to fund the war through next year, Pentagon officials said.

If Bush's spending request is approved, 2008 will be the most expensive year of the Iraq war.

I could go on about Iraq but, really, Bill Maher summed it up all so nicely, don't you think?


And closer to home, I can remember when a vote for Stephen Harper's Conservative Party was going to be a vote for integrity, transparency and accountability to the electorate. As I recall, that guarantee lasted for all of several days, and went rapidly downhill from there.

So, really, how exactly do you cope with having to come to grips with being wrong about absolutely everything, absolutely all of the time? Personally, I'd be getting kind of depressed. Then again, I have a sense of pride in what I believe, and I'm a firm believer in logic and evidence and that sort of thing. I imagine it's different for you.

P.S. You'll notice that I didn't even mention the Right's delusional thinking on global warming since, in their minds, the jury is still out on that. One suspects that the polar ice caps would have to melt completely before they finally accepted it.

Their collective dementia truly knows no bounds.

The colour of the sky on Brian's planet.

I have no way to respond sanely to this:

Lemon: The Good that GW Bush Has Wrought

From Golden Lemon Award Winner Snakeoil Baron.

• A nation that was run by a totalitarian regime, controlled by an ethnic group that was a minority in the nation (no offense to Iraqi Sunnis but no minority can rule a majority without fear and force) is now run by a multi ethnic parliament that was elected by vast participation of popular vote.


• A government is in place in Iraq which is fighting corruption (not perfectly but progressively) and struggling to secure itself against forces which threaten it and the stability of the region rather than one which struggled to promote these forces.


• Iraq's freedom of the press and of expression has lead to a boom in the independent media and personal communications in a nation where cell phones and Internet access was controlled (Saddam once said that the Internet was the end of civilization)


• While corruption is widespread in Iraq it is declining where as up until the invasion it was rising rapidly.


• Iraq's economy is improving continuously in contrast to the 30 years before the invasion.


• The education, health, justice and banking systems and civil utilities are improving instead of declining. Children have been vaccinated, farmers are getting access to training and technologies they did not have before and access to veterinary services.


• Drained marshes are being restored.


• The more sectarian politicians who were elected in the first round of elections are no longer as popular and the populations in Sunni regions are turning against al Qaida.


• All told, Iraq is one of the nations that poses the least threat to the region and to America which is a far different case than before. Iraq holds far more potential for creating diversified (not exclusively oil based) prosperity and security than Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Pakistan or even Egypt not that she is devolving into a banana republic. It is not that there is no hope for these other nations but there must be a lot of change and hard work within them and a change of attitude toward them to get them on the most direct path to peace and prosperity.

Posted by Lemon at 11:59 AM

There are no words. What can you possibly say?

AFTERSNARK: It's a shame that Brian didn't have the imagination to continue with that list, since I can think of a number of things for which Iraqis should be grateful these days:

• Civil war.


• Depleted uranium.


• Acute malnutrition.


• Insufficient water or electricity.


• Vanishing women's rights.


• Cholera.

I'm guessing those items just weren't a high priority for Brian to get on his list. Odd how that happens, isn't it?

And when you want your news untainted by facts, there's always Dr. Roy.

Honestly, it's like taking the occasional steel-toed boot to a mentally-retarded cocker spaniel, but there's something childishly satisfying in ripping Blogging Tory Dr. Roy Eappen a new orifice every so often. Like when he writes something as hopelessly dishonest as this:

Another Mea Culpa from NYT

The New York Times admits it gave Moveon.org an undeserved discount and that allowing the despicable moveon.org ad violated their own policy. Unfair and biased, as the NYT usually is,

Really? They "admitted" that, did they? Let's follow the doctor's own hyperlink, where we find this:

The Public Editor
Betraying Its Own Best Interests

By CLARK HOYT
Published: September 23, 2007

FOR nearly two weeks, The New York Times has been defending a political advertisement that critics say was an unfair shot at the American commander in Iraq.

But I think the ad violated The Times’s own written standards, and the paper now says that the advertiser got a price break it was not entitled to.

Wow, that's not the Times "admitting" anything whatsoever; instead, that's an opinion piece by its public editor. (A disclaimer at the bottom of that posted piece even makes that abundantly clear: "The public editor serves as the readers' representative. His opinions and conclusions are his own." One wonders what part of that so confused the good doctor.)

And as for Hoyt corroborating the accusations of left-wing, preferential treatment, well, Greg Sargent over at TPM's "The Horse's Mouth" deals with that:

New York Times Public Editor Dodges Central Question At Heart Of GOP Attack On His Own Paper
September 24, 2007 -- 1:54 PM EST // //

Clark Hoyt, the public editor of The New York Times, has now weighed in with a long piece on the whole controversy involving the MoveOn ad in his own paper attacking Mighty Scholar-Warrior Petraeus. It's a deeply disappointing article. He takes a very high-horse tone in the piece, rapping The Times for violating the paper's "own written standards," which say that generally the paper doesn't publish ads containing personal attacks.

Unfortunately, Hoyt doesn't weigh in on the question that's at the center of this whole controversy: Whether or not The Times gave a discount to MoveOn because the paper's editorial stance is antiwar...

Hoyt gives a great deal of ink to the Republicans making this charge. But what does Hoyt himself think of these charges, now that he's investigated the situation? Here's the sum total of his judgment on the matter, buried at the end of the piece:

The Times bends over backward to accommodate advocacy ads, including ads from groups with which the newspaper disagrees editorially.

...and that's it. Hoyt almost certainly knows how ridiculous the charge of ideological collusion is. Why didn't he say so, then?

By failing to reach for a conclusion about the question at the center of this whole controversy, Hoyt succeeded only in giving more ammo to right-wing critics -- and let down the paper's readers, who deserve to hear a journalism expert like him pronounce judgment on the assumptions and questions at the core of this whole assault on the paper. Hoyt squandered a chance to use his platform to say something meaningful about the whole affair, instead focusing solely on a bunch of peripheral details about ad rates and guidelines.

Blogging Tory Dr. Roy: When you have an attention span of about three sentences, but that's all you really need to corroborate your neo-con world view. It's just easier that way.

There are no words for this.

No, apparently, they don't have anything more important to be dealing with at the moment:

It had to happen -- a GOP Congressman is calling for hearings into The New York Times's decision to publish MoveOn's anti-Petraeus ad at a cheaper-than-usual rate.

GOP Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia has sent a letter to Oversight Committee chair Henry Waxman demanding a probe into the "scandal."

"It is time for The New York Times to answer publicly, on the record, and under oath for its conduct," Davis writes. "You have repeatedly challenged the public statements of administration and private industry officials and sought testimony under oath. It is time for you to give equal treatment to The New York Times."

And when we get through with those leftist, terrorist-loving, traitorous Timesmen and their discount standby ad rates, I'm sure we'll get right on Fox News and their giveaway of an hour of primetime TV to the Bush administration at no charge.

After all, that would only be fair and balanced, right?

And if you don't like those facts, Raphael has others.

Blogging Tory Raphael Alexander goes for snark and misses the target badly:

We ask that members of Progressive Bloggers conduct themselves in a respectful manner.

Hear, hear! I commend this decree. Let's start with bloggers who tell the mothers of dead soldiers to fornicate with their grief.

Wow, Raph, that's really clever ... except I'm not a member of PB, and haven't been one for at least a couple of years.

Reality: 1; Raphael: 0.

AFTERSNARK: It's thoroughly entertaining to watch Canada's whingers and their delightfully malleable principles:

Whingers: "Those leftards are a bunch of uncivil, shrieking, deranged, vulgar, out-of-control moonbats!"

Progressives: "We'd like to have some rules to guarantee civil and polite discussion."

Whingers: "Those leftards are a bunch of censoring, anti-free-speech, hypocritical control freaks!"

It seems like there's just no pleasing some people. Stupid people least of all.

Oh, man, you talkin' crazy!

Having already caused normal folks' eyeballs to roll back in their heads in disbelief when he claimed that the Holocaust was a "myth," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continued to embarrass his species when he proclaimed adamantly that there were no gays in Iran.

In response, Republican presidential candidates Mike Huckabee, Sam Brownback and Tom Tancredo vowed to introduce a Congressional resolution censuring Ahmadinejad for his appalling and breathtaking ignorance, just as soon as they finished telling everyone that they don't believe in biological evolution.

Some days, the straight lines really just write themselves, don't they?

Dear CTV: Regarding journalistic standards ...

Apparently, doing actual journalism is, you know, hard work (emphasis added):

Ahmadinejad, who has in the past referred to the Holocaust as "a myth" and called for Israel to be "wiped off the map," ...

Wow! He said that? Well, actually, no, he didn't. But it makes a great story, doesn't it?

THE CC READER CHALLENGE: Here's something to wile away the hours. Let's all keep track of the number of Canadian media outlets that repeat that hoary myth, as well as those who take the time to do some research and debunk it. I'm thinking the only meaningful wager here would be under-over of some kind.

SOMETIMES, THIS IS TOO EASY. Now, what group in Canada do you think would be so hopelessly, so inanely, so hysterically gullible that they would continue to propagate that Israel "wiped off the map" hoax? Go on, guess. Really, guess. Oh, crap ... you guessed.

Context: that's the important thing.

Given the right provocation, Blogging Tory "Backseat Blogger" is clearly capable of some justified outrage:

Disgraceful conduct indeed. This shmuck of an officer punches out a citizen in diabetic shock(and not exactly in any condition to be resisting arrest) in full view of witnesses without asking any questions first or advising said citizen that was under arrest.

Why am I not surprised? Punching, bullying, and strong arming first seem to the RCMP modus vivendi these days.

Of course, there's a limit to everyone's outrage:

After first deny its involvement(bad PR move right there) the surete de quebec has come clean and said that the three protesters in question were actually undercover agents.

On balance I’m going to come down on the side of the police in this one.

Their actions were justified to maintain public order and security while the behaviour and language of Dave Coles, president of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union was insulting at best and provocative and rabble rousing at worst.

And what a shame that was. If only Dave Coles had suddenly gone into diabetic shock and that undercover cop had beat the living shit out of him, well, then, by God, we would have had him.

Facts can be such inconvenient things.

Over at "Dust My Broom," Darcey is getting into some serious dick-swinging as he gleefully quotes Rudy Giuliani:

“We will not allow a nuclear Iran. Period. We will work with our allies and use every tool at our disposal to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. That is not a threat. It’s a promise. Iran is the leading state-sponsor of terrorism, ...

And now, for a pop quiz: From which country did 15 out of 19 of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers originate? Take your time, we wouldn't want to rush you or anything.

Let me explain this to you slooooooowly ...

Yes, Barney Frank is a bit over the top here but, for the love of God, how stupid are these Republicans?


(Tail wag to "TeddySanFran" at FDL.)

Sometimes, the analogy should be self-evident, don't you think?

Lowest Common Denominatrix™ Kate McMillan gleefully reproduces the propaganda that all the cool neo-con kids are pumping out these days:

"It is naïve to ignore the uses to which Ahmadinejad will put his invitation. Over the past years, Ahmadinejad’s confrontational rhetoric and policies have resulted in diplomatic isolation and economic hardship for Iran. These developments are unpopular among Iranians. It is beneficial to Ahmadinejad and his regime, then, if he can claim to the Iranian people that his leadership is not hurting their country. If he can demonstrate that he is treated abroad as a respected leader, he will be better able to counter his critics at home. Columbia’s invitation thus gives political assistance to Ahmadinejad.

OK, let's see here ... "Confrontational rhetoric and policies?" Check. "Diplomatic isolation?" Check. Causing domestic economic hardship? Check. Being unpopular at home? Big-time check there. And being treated abroad with respect by butt-kissing suck-ups and toadying sycophants to better counter his critics at home? Super-duper checkaroonie.

Are we done here? Yeah, I think we're done here.

OH, MY ... The hyper-ventilating, shrieking, pants-wetting terror mixed with fake bravado over in the comments section at that article at Kate's place is something to behold, if you can stomach the infantile whining.

Your Canadian mainstream media in action.

Shorter Stephen Harper: "It's important that we stay in Afghanistan because, as long as we're fighting the terrorists over there, it is, as anyone can see, logically impossible for any of them to attack us over here."

Shorter Canadian MSM: "Yeah, sure, I'll buy that. Hey, is the bar still open?"

Blackwater cluefulness: Better late than never.

In the wake of the current outrage over the Blackwater mercenary killing spree in Iraq, it behooves us to ask who the fuck first came up with the word "behooves." No, wait ... wrong column.

Actually, it behooves us to ask how someone can be this obscenely unaware of some fairly important information:

I didn't realize until recently that the contractors hung on the bridge in Baghdad sometime back were not engineers or technical folks, but Blackwater contractors. My outrage over that incident has had to admit to a lesser role.

I'm sorry ... you "didn't realize" something that significant? Here, let me introduce you to someone who was aware of that useful tidbit of information as far back as 2005.

Thank ya, thank ya very much. I'm here until Friday, don't forget to tip your waitress.

WTF ... ?

Seriously, where are the re-education camps for these people?

You keep using that word "civility" ...

Over at the Blogging Tories, one Mathew Siscoe is some kind of irked over Macleans' equivalence between George W. Chimpster and Saddam Hussein, and he's not afraid to say so.

In other totally unrelated news, well ...

If we're lucky, they'll beat each other senseless.

There's nothing more entertaining than watching neo-con lunatics turn on each other, is there?

GOP Infighting! Frustrated Boehner Battles For Control Of NRCC
By Greg Sargent - September 21, 2007, 6:23PM

GOP House leader John Boehner -- last seen saying that the loss of American lives in Iraq is a "small price" to pay for realizing Bush's vision in Iraq -- is upset with the "mismanagement" of the NRCC and is locked in a struggle for control over it with NRCC chief Tom Cole, according to a new report.

The Politico's John Bresnahan and Patrick O'Connor have the story. It's a good yarn, complete with shouting matches and hissy fits. The story is a reminder of just how bleak the 2008 electoral landscape looks for the GOP -- and the depth of denial about this that's reigning at the NRCC right now:

And, as the saying goes, I don't really care who wins, I'm just praying for injuries.

Sure, it's paperwork, but it's worth it.

Blogging Tory "Christian Conservative" is not happy about these new-fangled morals and ethics:

German politician Gabriele Pauli has come up with a suggestion for marriage... they should expire after seven years, at which time, couples can either let them expire, or renew them.

As one Scottish friend of mine would say, "Emmm... NO."

My wife and I said "Until death do us part", and we meant every word of it. If you don't mean it, don't get married.

Marriage is a sacred covanent between one man, one woman, and Almighty God... with no "best before" date, thank you very much, Ms. Pauli.

Precisely. On the other hand:

1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house ...

So, forever and ever Almighty God versus a writing pad and a good Sharpie ... decisions, decisions.

Deep thoughts from the Canadian Right, and turnabout being fair play.

Canada's newest Blogging Tory and self-proclaimed "one of the top five political minds in the country" Gerry Nicholls taxes himself intellectually to bring us some very deep stuff:

You know what has to be the easiest task ever?

Coming up with a list of people who would make a better leader than Stephane Dion.

In fact, I came up with such a list in about five seconds.

Here it is:

People Who Would Make a Better Liberal Leader Than Stephane Dion

* Britney Speers
* A cardboard cutout of Stephane Dion
* Anybody randomly picked out of the phonebook
* Stephane Dion's dog, Kyoto
* A carrot
* Urkel
* The Scottish guy on Canadian Tire money
* Mr. Clean
* Me
* You

So, here at CC HQ, we've decided to return the favour and start a list of objects that would make a more profound and illuminating commenter on today's political issues than Gerry Nicholls. I give you:

• Britney Spears (sp)


• A cardboard cut-out of Gerry Nicholls


• A urinal deodorizer disc


• Ear wax


• My laundry hamper


• That funny internal organ that is the only thing my cat won't eat when she munches down a mouse


• Dr. Roy

Feel free to add to the list. And remember, the above insightful commentary from Nicholls is why he's one of the Macleans 50, and you're not.

Friday, end-of-week retro.

This one's for Chet, just because it probably annoys the crap out of him. At least, we can always hope.

Right-wing armchair warriors: Whiny-ass titty baby edition.

[UPDATE: That's it, show's over. There's only so much hare-brained, right-wing idiocy I can handle, when people like Nonny can't seem to comprehend simple English. I'm sure he'll consider this a rousing moral victory for wingnuts everywhere. So let him wander back to the children's table and high-five the other nutbars, and we'll move on.]


If you only half-listened to the He-Man studs over there on the Right, you'd swear that they were the kind of dudes you just plumb didn't want to mess with 'cuz they would kick your ass from here to Iraq and back again.

Yes, there was superstud, jet fighter fly-boy George W. Bush with his steely-eyed "Osama, dead or alive" and "Fuck Saddam, we're takin' him out!" and "Bring 'em on!" and his latest testosterone-drenched "We're kicking ass [in Iraq]!". And right-wing web sites with macho-infused names like "Blackfive" and "Ace of Spades" and so on, replete with courageous graphics like "I support the troops!" and an endless line of patriotic patter about how those on the Right are the true heroes, while those on the Left are "cut and run defeatists" and the like. Which is all fairly hilarious because, quite simply, today's conservatives are the biggest bunch of whiny, snivelling cowards and pussies imaginable. And I say that with no disrespect to pussies anywhere.

You want proof? No problem.

As a quick refresher, feel free to reread Russell Jacoby's seminal piece, "The New PC: Crybaby Conservatives," in which one learns that today's conservatives really don't have much stomach for any kind of intellectual challenge. These are not people who have any interest in a free and fair exchange of ideas or philosophies. Rather, these are people who prefer to have their ideologies completely unchallenged, and have an annoying habit of running to Mama whenever anyone calls them on their bullshit. It's really quite unseemly, this childishness, but this doesn't even begin to plumb their depths of their whiny snivelitude, as two recent examples will demonstrate.

Consider, if you will, the latest brouhaha involving MoveOn's TV ad taking a swipe at General David Petraeus and questioning his credibility ("General Betray Us?"). Regardless of how you feel about that ad, one would think that this is the obvious consequence of supporting free speech: If people have the money, and they want to make an ad, hey, that's their right. And if you don't like it, then you can suck it up, and put together an ad as a rebuttal. In short, don't fucking whine -- if you disagree, then respond in kind.

Which is, of course, precisely what the Right did not do, as U.S. Senate Republicans actually put forth a motion in the Senate to condemn the ad. In other words, with buckets of more pressing issues, the GOP couldn't resist indulging in one monstrous, pathetic whine about how mean those MoveOn folks were. Pay no attention to those troops currently getting mowed down in Iraq like mice under a rotary mower. No, that's not as important as pointing at how those liberals are just mean bullies. And, of course, it doesn't end there.

The latest example of right-wing snivelitude involves Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's announcement that he wanted to go to Ground Zero in New York to lay a wreath. Well, God in heaven, you'd think he asked to take a dump on the American flag or something, as the conservative outrage practically blistered the paint off nearby buildings. TPM's Josh Marshall expresses his embarrassment nicely:

Grow Up

Am I the only one embarrassed by the dingbat brouhaha over Iranian President Ahmadinejad's attempt to visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath? Given relations between our countries I could see denying him a visa, but as long as we're hosting the UN that's not an option. Ahmadinejad now says he's "amazed" that such a visit would be insulting to Americans. Sen. McCain said that Ahmadinejad should be "physically restrained if necessary" from visiting the site. The National Review's Kathryn Lopez got worked up in such a lather that she begged Rudy Giuliani to "lead a human blockade keeping Ahmadinejad from getting to Ground Zero" -- thus demonstrating once and for all Rudy's true calling as the surrogate id of right-wing nerds everywhere.

So what's the problem exactly? Presumably we can be frank enough to acknowledge that the real issue here is that while Ahmadinejad is not Arab to most of us he looks pretty Arab. And he is Muslim certainly -- and pretty up in arms about it at that. And we officially don't like him. And we classify the country he runs as a state sponsor of terrorism. So even though he has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, when you put all these key facts together, he might as well have done it himself. And what business does anyone with the blood of the victims of 9/11 on his hands have going to Ground Zero?

That's basically it and don't tell me it's not.

Alternatively I guess it's that he's a very mean guy, said bad things about Israel or questioned the Holocaust? Is this man any worse than the various Soviet dignitaries who we feted and hosted around our country? Or is it simply that we've grown increasingly infantile as a country since the end of the Cold War, more and more obsessed and histrionic about minor powers like Iran and Iraq?

A president with some dignity and sense of the greatness of his country would say, good he should go there. Maybe he'll learn something about us and our loss.

If we as a country were a person, I'd say grow up. Act like a man*. Have some self-respect.

Exactly. Instead, we have countless whingers practically having kittens, sobbing over this and doing everything they can to make sure it doesn't happen. Jesus, but most six-year-olds are more mature than that.

Not surprisingly, the Ahmadinejad-inspired whininess isn't restricted to the U.S. Blogging Tory "Gay and Right" Fred practically bursts a blood vessel howling about ... well, just go read:

What was Columbia University Thinking????

How on earth could they invite Ahmainejad to speak???

Barred by police from visiting Ground Zero, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may find more of a welcome at Columbia University, where he has been cleared to speak on Monday at the school's annual World Leaders Forum despite outrage expressed by New York area Jewish leaders.

Whine. Whine, whine, whine. And one can't help but be amused by the overwhelming sniveliness of the Blogging Tories in general who, while full of bravado and bluster, have a disturbing number of members whose attitude towards readers' comments is that, well, they don't allow them, or they allow only moderated comments, or allow comments but reserve the right to delete any they don't like for any reason whatsoever or (my favourite) they'll delete any comments that use intemperate language. Poor baby. Here's an idea -- suck it the fuck up, or find a different hobby.

(And let us not forget Canada's own Lowest Common Denominatrix™ Kate McMillan, who lives in such pants-wetting fear of your humble scribe that, to this day, she does not allow redirects to her site from mine. Apparently, I am such a fearsome person that even pointing readers at her mind-numbing swill is enough to drive her and her obedient, leg-humping poodles into spasms of panic.)

Yes, these are a courageous lot, your modern conservatives, supporting every military adventure from the safety of their keyboards, and bursting into childish tears and calling everyone else a bully whenever anyone so much as looks at them the wrong way.

It is embarrassing, isn't it? The world's biggest collection of trash-talking warbloggers who soil themselves at the first sign of any disagreement. And while we on the Left might make fun of how most of them have managed to avoid serving, one can only hope that none of these people actually end up in the military. When you're living in close quarters or hunkered down in your foxhole, that pervasive aroma of terror and urine would get to be annoying after a while, don't you think?

HEE HEE. There is no limit to the hypocrisy, is there?

THE HILARITY WAS UNINTENTIONAL, I'M SURE: Commenter "nonny" figures we here at CC HQ are all talk and no action:

I'd like to see you give your thoughts to Blackfive's face, though, CC. You seem to complain about him enough. Why don't you engage him in a little debate? Even a debate on his blog would be worth something; I know you'd never dare do it in person.

For the uninitiated, that would be this "Blackfive":

Matthew Burden, a former Army officer who blogs under the name Blackfive, raved about how Bush slapped his hand and called him "brutha."

"The President was very intelligent, razor sharp, warm, focused, emotional (especially about his dad), and genuine," Blackfive wrote. "Even more so than this cynical Chicago Boy expected. I was overwhelmed by the sincerity -- it wasn't staged."

Yes, nonny, that's just the sort of mewling, sycophantic suck-up I'd invest my wit in dismembering. I'd probably suggest that he remove Bush's dick from his mouth first, otherwise the rest of us would have a hard time hearing him. If you catch my drift.

BONUS SUCKUPITUDE: If you can possibly stand the schmaltz ...

About that "walking and chewing gum" thing ...

When the hammer drops, it's going to crush the really, really dumb ones first:

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: Is the world flat?

SHERRI SHEPHERD: Is the world flat? (laughter)

GOLDBERG: Yes.

SHEPHERD: …I Don’t know.

GOLDBERG: What do you think?

SHEPHERD: I… I never thought about it, Whoopi. Is the world flat? I never thought about it.

BARBARA WALTERS: You’ve never thought about whether the world was round or flat?

SHEPHERD: I tell you what I’ve thought about. How I’m going to feed my child–

WALTERS: Well you can do both.

I'm fairly sure that's not an option there, Babs. Trust me on this one. And Social Services should be thinking seriously about rescuing that child before Shepherd tries to dry it in a microwave or something.

Tasers: The last word.

There. End of discussion.

And now, not your Small Dead Brainstem News.

Once upon a time, Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ was ever so moist over the idea that Iraq's provinces were being given back to local control little by little:

"One by one, the 18 provinces of Iraq are being turned over to the Iraqis"

Followed by loyal, subservient lapdog commenter "ron in kelowna":

And again, more 'tell-it-like-it-is' truth at sda than in our beloved media.

Yes, Ron, that's why I go to SDA -- for the unvarnished, unspun truth. Yeah, that must be it. In any event, and Ron's slavering adoration aside, one wonders what those folks are going to do with this ugly new development:

Another delay in returning Iraq to local control
Pentagon report highlights difficulties in developing Iraq police forces

WASHINGTON - In another sign of U.S. struggles in Iraq, the target date for putting Iraqi authorities in charge of security in all 18 provinces has slipped yet again, to at least July.

The delay, noted in a Pentagon report to Congress on progress and problems in Iraq, highlights the difficulties in developing Iraqi police forces and the slow pace of economic and political progress in some areas.

It is the second time this year the target date for completing what is known as “Provincial Iraqi Control” has been pushed back. The Pentagon report submitted to Congress on Monday hinted at the possibility of further delays.

No, I don't think you'll be reading that at SDA any time soon. But I'll bet Kate will have another picture of a temperature station any day now. She's big on pictures of temperature stations, is our Kate. Apparently, around SDA, that's mighty exciting stuff.

P.S. In case you were still suitably impressed by that "7 out of 18" percentage, allow me to disabuse you of that notion here, here and here.

No, no, don't thank me -- slapping the bejeezus out of the Canadian Wingnut-o-sphere is what I live for.

The classics never go out of style.

Go. Read. Be amused.

Blog rankings by incoming links.

A favour if you would. I know that, in my travels, I've seen blog rankings that are based on the number of incoming links. Where would I find that? I'd like to do some calculations for particular blogs based on that, but I don't recall where I once ran across it. Muchos gracias.

"Earth to Denyse ... come in, Denyse ..."

It's almost cruel, but let's take a quick whack at Canadian anti-Darwinist Denyse O'Leary, whose lack of awareness is at least moderately amusing at the best of times:

Saturday, September 15, 2007
Creation museum opens in Alberta, Canada

Recently, I was reflecting on the differences between the way the intelligent design controversy shapes up in Canada and the United States. And lo and behold, a Creation Science Museum just opened in Big Valley, in the western province of Alberta, in June.

Yes, it really does take Denyse only three months to finally clue in to what the rest of us have been chuckling over for quite some time. But let's let Denyse continue to entertain us:

Unlike the Kentucky extravaganza in the United States, the museum developed by Harry Nibourg with exhibits by Vance Nelson of Creation Truth Ministries of Red Deer, Alberta, is housed in a 900 square foot bungalow .

Creation Truth Ministries is a Christian evangelistic organization that wants "to see unbelievers come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ".

And you thought creation "science" had something to do with, you know, science. When will you ever learn?

"WTF???" open thread.

By the end of today, I plan on being a MySQL expert which means I'm going to be moderately busy so it's your job to locate and comment on what you think is the most hilarious, the most eye-rolling, the most purely entertaining examples of hypocritical, right-wing doofitude you can find. I'll start things off gently.

I know you can top that.

Kerry and dickheads and Tasers, oh my!

Some readers are none too pleased with my professed lack of sympathy with carefully-choreographed Taser victim Andrew Meyer, so let me clarify my position.

Did Meyer really deserve to get Tasered for what he did? Probably not. Did the cops over-react? Probably. Am I shedding any tears over Meyer's beatdown at the hands of some of UF's finest? I slept just fine last night, thanks.

See, there's a difference between accepting that someone is "technically" in the right, while still being willing to suggest that they really, really had it coming to them.

If you walk into your neighbourhood biker bar with a t-shirt that reads, "Harley riders suck dick," well, that is your right, of course. Free speech, free expression, that sort of thing. And when they find you out in the parking lot later with a exhaust pipe inserted where it wouldn't do you the least bit of good, you can argue all you want about how that was your "right" and, hey, I'd be the first one to technically agree with you while pointing out that what you did was seriously boneheaded and I just can't feel a whole lot sorry.

Similarly, I couldn't possibly argue that Meyer had every constitutional right to yap his face off the way he did. But when you're being escorted out by four burly law enforcement officials, at least one of whom has 50,000 volts strapped to his holster, then it's a really bad idea to be physically fighting back in support of those constitutional rights. At times like that, you go quietly and argue your case later at a safe distance from big guys with blunt objects that they can whap you or electrocute you with.

There's being "right," and there's being "stupid." And, sometimes, being right just isn't enough of a defense for being stupid.

Yeah, and there was that other thing, too.

Blogging Tory "Gay and Right" Fred is seriously miffed that former Harvard University president Larry Summers was invited, then uninvited, to be a keynote speaker at a dinner for the UC Board of Regents. And what exactly was Summers' sin?

Well, see, all the evidence indicates that he's kind of sexist. And kind of a bigot. And that sort of thing just doesn't play well at some dinner parties, know what I'm sayin'? But that's not the best part.

See, one would think that, if Fred gets this bent out of shape over simply being dissed over a dinner party, he'd be outraged -- absolutely livid, I tell you -- over what happened to Duke academic Erwin Chemerinsky, who had his hiring as the new dean at the UC Irvine law school pulled because he was too liberal, only to have it given back due to overwhelming protest.

See the difference? Summers loses out on an evening of free food because he's a sexist pig: Fred howls. Chemerinsky is the target of a concerted attack by the right to strip him of his deanship, solely because he's a vocal defender of civil liberties? Well, do I really need to explain how much that caused Fred any lack of sleep? Yeah, about that much.

I need to find some smarter conservatives to pick on. This is getting seriously boring.

BY THE WAY, about that nefarious liberal academic bias you keep hearing so much about? Well, bite me.

(For those of you who aren't quite sure who David Horowitz is, there are only two things you need to know about him:

• He is the primary source of 98% of the accusations that there is a nefarious liberal academic bias, and


• He is a hideous, sleazy, pathological liar about everything.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you.)

... and sometimes, you DESERVE a good Tasering.

A large portion of the blogosphere is outraged this morning over the Tasering of a student who was trying to ask Sen. John Kerry a question at a U of Florida campus forum. Let it hereby be known that I am not one of them.

Everything I've read suggests that I would have Tasered that airhead long before. Let's read the details:

"He apparently asked several questions -- he went on for quite awhile -- then he was asked to stop," university spokesman Steve Orlando said. "He had used his allotted time. His microphone was cut off, then he became upset."...

... [Andrew] Meyer struggles to escape for several seconds as up to four officers try to remove him from the room...

... Meyer screams for help and asks "What did I do?" as he tries to break away from officers. He is forced to the ground and officers order him to stop resisting...

Oh, and there's this excerpt from a statement from Kerry afterwards:

"In 37 years of public appearances, through wars, protests and highly emotional events, I have never had a dialogue end this way," he said in the statement. "I believe I could have handled the situation without interruption, but again I do not know what warnings or other exchanges transpired between the young man and the police prior to his barging to the front of the line and their intervention.

So, to recap, student Meyer rudely cuts in at the front of the line of people waiting to ask questions, he harangues Kerry endlessly and monopolizes the question time until his mic is finally and mercifully cut off, at which point he refuses to leave and subsequently resists arrest.

There may be cases of police over-reaction and excessive force that are worth protesting but, really, this is so not one of them. Sometimes, 50,000 volts is exactly the right response.

A SHORT FOLLOWUP: All right, I've watched the YouTube clip of the incident here and, frankly, I have no sympathy for Mr. Meyer, who spent that entire time being a total dickhead. Does that mean he deserved getting Tasered? Possibly not but, under the circumstances, I'm simply not going to let him become a poster boy for the unfairness of excessive force.

There's an old saying: Pick your battles. And if this battle involves defending Andrew Meyer, I am just not interested in enlisting for that one.

HEH. What TBogg said.

Even wingnuts have their limits.

An e-mailer brings my attention to yet another example of depressing scientific illiteracy by the Ottawa Citizen's David Warren. It's not the hopeless illogic in that piece that amuses; no, it's this plaintive appeal from a reader that is clearly not prepared to go down that road of batshit stupidity:

Among all the letters I have received on my Darwin columns -- mostly blind support, or blind abuse -- one struck me as especially worth answering:

“Wake up, man. Whether or not ‘Darwinism’ is good science, it is accepted as good science by most intelligent people, and if you persist in attacking it you will lose the respect of people who are prepared to listen to you on many other subjects. Why don’t you have the tactical sense to leave Darwinism alone?”

Translation: "Please, for the love of God, David, I like you but you're really creeping me out."

Eviscerating the rest of David's incomprehensible drooling is left as an exercise for the reader.

UPDATE: To my utter lack of surprise, Jeffrey has already been there and done that.

Apparently, (Catholic) girls just wanna have fun.

And the higher-ups are going to be having none of that:

The Halton Catholic School board may be the first in Ontario to ban the HPV vaccine in their schools. The Catholic School Board has been sent a letter by the conference of bishops, encouraging them to remember that HPV occurs only through sex, which is "appropriate only" in marriage.

On the other hand, those fun-loving bishops still heartily endorse the time-tested combination of latex condoms and Astroglide. Astroglide: because who needs girls, anyway?

Welcome to the party, PZ.

Jason? Is that you?

Why, yes, I DID call that nicely, didn't I?

Previously, from CC News Central, 10:17 a.m., Monday Sept 19:

P.S. If the Iraqi government says it wants Blackwater out, and the U.S. government says no, that's going to strain that whole definition of Iraqi "sovereignty" just a wee bit, don't you think?

Of course, one might also point out that we here at CC HQ have been trying to focus attention on this whole Iraqi "sovereignty" issue for quite some time, like here and here and here and here and here and here and ... well, you get the idea. So, under the circumstances, it's nice to see the mainstream media finally getting a clue:

Blackwater fight tests US view of Iraq

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A red-faced US government pleaded for patience from Baghdad as a private US security firm's role in a deadly gun battle tested US claims that war-torn Iraq is a sovereign nation.

CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP CLAP!! Bravo, AFP -- welcome to the party. A couple years late but, what the hell, we can order fresh pizzas. And if you need any more story ideas, well, you know where to find me.

AFTERSNARK: Perhaps the most ironic part of that AFP article:

A top Iraqi judge has said Blackwater could face trial over the incident, in which some of its guards, who were escorting US embassy officials, opened fire in a Baghdad neighborhood, killing 10 people and wounding 13.

But Blackwater denies any wrongdoing, and US legal experts said the contractors may be immune from prosecution under a measure conceived by the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority not long after the March 2003 invasion.

That would be that vaunted right-wing "accountability" and "personal responsibility" you keep hearing so much about. But you didn't need me to explain that, did you?

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

Over at Celestial Junk, Paul gives us a primer on right-wing logic, as it were:

Karzai to Canadians

Don't leave:

"He said that unequivocally it would mean that Afghanistan would fall back into anarchy -- that it would bring back the safe havens to terrorists and terrorists would be able to strike once again into the United States and Canada."

Quite right since, as we can easily see, as long as we are in Afghanistan driving the terrorists elsewhere, they cannot possibly attack Canada. But the instant we relax our vigilance and allow them to set up safe haven thousands of miles away, we are in mortal danger here at home.

In other news, I only hit you because I love you. Or something like that.

Some people eventually get a clue. Other people ...

Shorter Gerry Nicholls: "No, I'm still dumb as a sack of shit. Why do you ask?"

Sometimes, this job is way too easy.

Blogging Tory Raphael Alexander tries to alert us all to the potentially outrageous affront to democracy:

John Tory Warns Of Unelected MPPs

John Tory referred to appointed MPPs as "a second class" of politicians who are unaccountable to the public, and I think this is a perfectly accurate description. Not only is the addition of 22 MPPs extremely wasteful to taxpayer dollars, but it adds an aspect of the government in which politicians are unanswerable to the people, only to the party they were appointed by.

Really, sometimes the punchline just writes itself, doesn't it?

"La la la la la la la ... I can't HEARRRR you!": SDA edition.

Not that long ago, we had the Kate McMillan-inspired imbecility ... oh, just go read, you'll get the idea. And, in a disturbingly timely fashion, we have this more recent, seriously creepy incident:

Federal Prosecutor Arrested In Child Sex Sting

But this is not your average toe-tapping in airport bathroom stalls, uh uh:

A U.S. Justice Department official has been arrested on suspicion of traveling to Detroit over the weekend to have sex with a minor.

John David R. Atchison, 53, an assistant U.S. attorney from the northern district of Florida, was arraigned in U.S. District Court in Detroit Monday afternoon.

An undercover officer posed as a mother offering her child to Atchison for sex, according to police.

Prosecutors said Atchison flew from Pensacola, Fla., to Detroit on Sunday intending to have sex with the 5-year-old girl.

Excuse me? A 53-year-old official from the U.S DOJ was travelling from Florida to Detroit to have sex with a 5-year-old!? Does this get any more tasteless? Sadly, yes:

The undercover detective expressed concern about physical injury to the 5-year-old girl as a result of the sexual activity. Detectives said Atchison responded, " I am always gentle and loving; not to worry, no damage ever, no rough stuff ever. I only like it soft and nice."

The undercover detective asked how Atchison can be certain of no injury. He responded, "Just gotta go slow and very easy. I've done it plenty," according to detectives.

OK, then, no worries, he knows what he's doing. Yeesh. But read that entire article carefully. Notice what's missing? Why, yes ... the pervert's political affiliation. How odd. Now why would that be? In fact, if you read numerous online news pieces, there is no mention of party affiliation whatsoever. Apparently, you have to do a little digging to claim the following:

The only registered John Dave R Atchison (John David Roy Atchison)registered in Florida is a Republican from Gulf Breeze (Pensacola suburb) born in 1957, which fits the other information.....

Of course, that's still not proof but won't it be amusing to learn that the news coverage of this was sanitized because of Atchison's political affiliation? I'm just sayin'.

Don't you miss the old days when people were outraged by blowjobs from consenting adults? Yeah, those were good times, weren't they?

FREE AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Because you can never have too much depressing, right-wing moronicity in your life.

And women getting the vote? That's some bad ju-ju there, too.

Shorter Spanky's Clubhouse: "It is vitally important that we continue to warn Canadians about the dangers of same-sex marriage, for reasons known only to us and all of these empty beer bottles strewn about on the floor."

P.S. "No, we're not done yet. Why do you ask?"

Your preznit speaks!

Via Think Progress, we learn that, after hearing exactly the same speech from Commander Chimpy McChimpster 23 times, a 24th time just isn't all that appealing:



Now if he'd just choked on a pretzel, that would have been must-see TV.

... and that second explanation isn't holding up too well, either.

Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ is furious that former U.S. Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan isn't getting the opportunity for a do-over on his initial revealing accusation:

Greenspan: No "War For Oil"

Well, here's a shocker - Alan "The Iraq war is largely about oil" Greenspan says he's been taken out of context. No kidding;

Greenspan clarified his remarks in an interview with the Washington Post, telling the newspaper that although securing global oil supplies was “not the administration’s motive,” he had presented the White House with a case for why removing Hussein was important for the global economy.

“I was not saying that that’s the administration’s motive,” Greenspan said. “I’m just saying that if somebody asked me, ‘Are we fortunate in taking out Saddam?,’ I would say it was essential.”

He said that in his discussions with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, “I have never heard them basically say, ‘We’ve got to protect the oil supplies of the world,’ but that would have been my motive.”

Ed Morrissey explains;

Greenspan wanted to communicate how important the Middle East is in terms of global finances. He himself made the case for removing Saddam Hussein to keep financial markets from collapsing from an attack on world oil supplies, such as the one Saddam conducted during the first Gulf War. He took that argument to the White House, which specifically rejected it — quite the opposite of what the quote implied when first reported.

The chances of this correction being carried by the same Canadian media that rebroadcast the original misquote lie somewhere between zero and "not f'ing likely".

More on the news debacle here.

That's right -- the invasion of Iraq was never about oil; it was, instead, about toppling a brutal, murderous tyrant so that the people of Iraq could then flourish under the banner of democracy, controlling their destiny through the beauty of free and fair elections, and safe in the knowledge that they could now live in peace in a vibrant, prosperous and stable society without having to worry about being arbitrarily murdered in the streets based on their religious leanings, all the while providing the U.S. with an abundant supply of cheap oil.

Yeah, Kate, so ... how is that going, by the way?

BONUS GEOGRAPHICAL DUMBASSITUDE: And while Kate continues to worship at the feet of the incomprehensible one, we can amuse ourselves with another of Alan Greenspan's head-scratching droppings of wisdom:

"He [Greenspan] says he felt 'getting Saddam out of there was very important,'...because he was convinced the Iraq dictator wanted to control the Strait of Hormuz, through which a sizable portion of the world's oil passes...He conveyed that view to [Cheney and Rumsfeld]."

Well, OK, except for the tiny detail:



Yeah ... that detail. Sometimes, one wonders if any of these people can find their ass with both hands and a flashlight.

Even assassination can be made more time-efficient.

Blogging Tory Brian Lemon wants to make sure you understand who the real savages are here:

Lemon: The Religion of Peace

What a lovely Generous Act in Honour of Ramadan
"We are calling for the assassination of cartoonist Lars Vilks who dared insult our prophet ... and we announce a reward during this generous month of Ramadan," al Baghdadi said, according to transcripts of Islamic websites. The bounty of $100,000 would be upped to $150,000 if Vilks was ``slaughtered like a lamb," the al-Qaida leader said.

But Brian fails to point out that, while those Muslims may be bloodthirsty barbarians, they're not particularly well-organized. If they're going to call for the occasional fatwa, it would make more sense to not do this one victim at a time, but to collect all that information, with accompanying detail, then put it all up on a web page, with a running tally of who's been conveniently offed. You know ... like this.

See? Now isn't that a real time saver?

War profiteering by any other name ...

This week promises to be busy, so I'm going to point you in the right directions and you'll have to take it from there. If you need to be spoon-fed, well, you know where to go. Let's start here:

Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq
Civilian Number, Duties Are Issues

By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; Page D01

There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield.

And a bit more here:

Silent surge in contractor 'armies'

... Having civilians working in war zones is as old as war itself. But starting with US military action in the Balkans and Colombia in the mid-1990s and accelerating rapidly in Afghanistan and Iraq, the number and activity of contractors has greatly increased. Coming from dozens of countries, hired by hundreds of companies, contractors have seen their numbers rise faster than the Pentagon's ability to track them.

And the latest exciting development:

Iraqis Order Blackwater out of Iraq -- But Will It Leave?

Following a Baghdad shootout yesterday that left at least nine civilians dead, security-contractor giant Blackwater will no longer be permitted to operate in Iraq, according to the Iraqi Interior Ministry.

The Interior Ministry's decision is likely to be a source of friction between the U.S. Embassy and Iraq. Not only does Blackwater guard many important U.S. officials there, but the embassy is unlikely to want a precedent established that allows the Iraqi government to kick out U.S. contractors for excessive use of force.

But what I think is just the bestest part of it all:

"A week ago today, Gen. David H. Petraeus started his rounds on Capitol Hill, reporting that security in Iraq was improving to the point that a small number of troops could begin coming home by year's end.

But 10 days ago, his commanders in Baghdad began advertising for private contractors to work in combat-supply warehouses on U.S. bases throughout Iraq because half the soldiers who had been working in the warehouses were needed for patrols, combat and protection of U.S. forces.

"With the increased insurgent activity, unit supply personnel must continue to pull force protection along with convoy escort and patrol duties," according to a statement of work that accompanied the Sept. 7 request for bidders from Multi-National Force-Iraq."

For some reason, I have this image of an irresistible force and an immovable object ...

P.S. If the Iraqi government says it wants Blackwater out, and the U.S. government says no, that's going to strain that whole definition of Iraqi "sovereignty" just a wee bit, don't you think?

And the BT reaction? I'm guessing crickets.

By way of Vista Political Editorials, we learn of this depressing incident:

B.C. detention was bid to silence anti-war activists, American says

An American peace activist, who was detained by immigration officials in B.C. for two days, is accusing Ottawa of engineering her confinement to silence critics of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Alison Bodine, 22, of Broomfield, Colo., was carrying anti-war pamphlets in her car when she was arrested Thursday at the Peace Arch border crossing in Surrey, B.C., which is the main crossing between Vancouver and Seattle.

Bodine, who studied physics at the University of British Columbia, said she works with an anti-war group based in B.C. called Mobilization Against War and Occupation.

When she approached the Peace Arch crossing, Bodine said Canadian border officials told her there was a Canada-wide warrant for her arrest.

She spent Thursday night in a jail in Surrey and then was transferred to a holding cell at Vancouver International Airport before being released Friday night. She told CBC News she still hasn't been told what crime she is accused of committing.

"All I've been told is that I have an admissibility hearing coming up on Monday at two p.m. at the immigration offices," Bodine said on Saturday. "I do not get to hear my full case until that hearing."

And on that note, the Blogging Tory betting pool is currently open, in which you get to wager on the collective Blogging Tory reaction:

• A deathly silence, broken only by the occasional munching on Cheetos and the slurp of Dr. Pepper straight out of the can


• Thoughtful and nuanced commentary that will be, sadly, as hare-brained as most of that which addressed voting and veils


• Outrage over a clear infringement of civil liberties, regardless of the ideology involved

Yeah, I just threw that last one in to see if you were paying attention. Seriously, you can ignore it. No, really.

"Well, if that's the way you feel about it, I'll just take my business elsewhere ... hey, wait, I was only joking!"

When the Left wants to get down and get progressive, well, they know how to par-tay:

In June of 2006, "Kossacks" and bloggers from all over the world got together at the first annual YearlyKos Convention and actually met each other at the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas, NV. Approximately 1200 conventioneers, speakers, panelists and members of the media attended this debut event from June 8-11, and discussed everything from balancing family life, political discourse and a career to education in the United States to the future of energy resources and energy policy, and so much more. Speakers included General Wesley Clark, Senators Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid, DNC Chair Dr. Howard Dean, Ambassador Joe Wilson and former VA Governor, Mark Warner. The convention was covered by high-profile media sources including C-Span, CNN, the major television networks, the The New York Times, national radio outlets and of course, the blogosphere.

The Right? Ehhh ... not so much:

Acepalooza Location Picked

If you're coming in from out of town, you'll want places near the Prudential Center, or which have decent T-access to that area.

LauraW is going to email the location to all those who have responded to her at her laurawtips gmail address. We're not announcing it openly because we're not sure about doing that yet.

The place is decent enough, sort of centrally located so those who want to keep the party going should be able to find other places nearby, or just stay at the place. It's not ideal; parking is going to be a slight hassle, but I'll put up some secret parking information later. There should be free lots within a 10 minute walk. Plus there are nearby paid lots for those who don't mind dropping 25 bucks for parking.

I think the place is within 15 minutes walking-time of Cambridge, so those hotels will also be okay, with a bit of a walk or a fairly short $10 or $15 cab ride.

Sorry it took so long. I've spent four nights the past week and a lot of time on the phone trying to find a place; at some point I had to pull the trigger. It's been like apartment-hunting. A lot of it was bananas: the Marriott Long Wharf wouldn't reserve any space whatsoever without a $3500 catering contract for example. Not every place was that bad, but in most cases bars and hotels demanded a big upfront fee in exchange for the privilege of taking in $600-$1000 worth of business they wouldn't otherwise have.

And what kind of class organization is going to turn away $600-1000 of business from a bunch of Cheeto-encrusted keyboard commandos, I ask you? Although when Ace made it clear that they were going to be ordering pizzas for delivery instead of using the hotel food services, that might have been the breaking point.

Um ... poor people! Booga booga!

Over at "The Hell of Massive Dementia," Neo breathlessly alerts us to the impending societal disaster that is fatherlessness, at least when it applies to people who don't hang out at all the right dinner parties:

Be very afraid

You don't need to cruise the scary streets of Toronto's Jane-Finch ghetto, to know that we're on a slippery slope...

"What the 2006 census showed was not that the family was changing: It showed that the family was dying.

It showed a society in deep dysfunction. It delineated, statistically, a very real danger to the future of the nation-state itself."

Nobody had weapons when I was a kid. And whether or not you got along with your father... on some level you knew, at the end of the day... you were accountable to "the man." And there was none of this "time out" nonsense... there was instead, if you screwed up badly enough... "knocked out" and from what I remember it was pretty damned effective.

Apparently though... fathers aren't necessary anymore.

You need additional confirmation that Canadian society is hip deep in societal quicksand, never mind listening to the media. The next time you see one... ask a cop.

It ain't a pretty picture.

On the other hand, the presence of a strong father figure will help avoid all of those embarrassing incidents. You know, like this.

For the hard of thinking, that's we in Intellectual World call a "counter-example." But don't try using one of those at home, kids. Remember, we're professionals.

THE JOY OF LOW-HANGING FRUIT. It had originally occurred to me to refer to this. But that would have been too easy. So I didn't. You're welcome.

P.S. The use of the word "fruit" here is purely a coincidence. Really.

Sometimes, I am thoroughly embarrassed by my species.

Only if you dare. And, sadly, that is 15 minutes of your life you'll never get back.

AH, THE HYPOCRISY OF IT ALL. How quickly can you spot the sheepish back-pedaling and classless goalpost-moving here? [all subsequent emphasis added]

MoveOn told ABC's Jake Tapper that the group paid $65,000 for a Sept. 10 ad accusing General David Petraeus of "cooking the books for the White House" in his status reports on Iraq. The Times rate card implies that weekday, full-page, black-and-white cause, appeal or political ads cost $181,692.

A post on the blog Confederate Yankee soon noted the disparity. "While I'm fairly certain that nobody pays 'sticker' prices, 61% off seems a rather sweet deal," his post said. The New York Post picked up the story yesterday, running a piece headlined "Times Gives Lefties a Hefty Discount for 'Betray Us' Ad" and followed up with another article and an editorial today. "Citing the shared liberal bias of the group and the Times," the Post wrote, "one Republican aide on Capitol Hill speculated that it was the 'family discount.'"

Mr. Giuliani, speaking in Atlanta yesterday, demanded that the Times apologize and offer him the same price.

OK, then, Rudy has drawn his line in the sand and demanded exactly the same deal as MoveOn got. And the Times told him to go screw himself, right? Well, no, not quite:

And that's what the Giuliani campaign paid as well, according to one person close to the Times, for its counter ad today berating MoveOn and, in turn, Hillary Clinton for refusing to denounce the "Betray Us" ad.

Oh. So Rudy got his Spider-Man Underoos in a bunch demanding equal treatment, to which the Times replied, "Sure, no problem, here you go," at which point you just know that this is going to end gracelessly and childishly:

A campaign spokeswoman declined to say what the Giuliani campaign paid but said it was told by the newspaper that it was being charged the same standard rate MoveOn was charged. "This was an opportunity for the mayor to draw attention to what was an egregious ad that targeted Gen. Patraeus," she said. "It allowed us to defend him and point out that Democratic candidates have done nothing to condemn the MoveOn.org ad about an American hero."

Here, let me translate that for you: We made a big fuss over money, and it turns out that we were totally out to lunch, so now we're going to pretend it was never about money in the first place and change the subject and hope no one notices that we just got caught with our nutsacks blowing in the breeze.

There. Doesn't that read so much better?

If we wanted your opinion ...

Right-wing support for "free speech?" Ehhh, not so much ...

GOP politician sent email asking how to stop naming of dean

A conservative Los Angeles County politician asked about two dozen people in an e-mail last month how to prevent the University of California, Irvine from hiring renowned liberal scholar Erwin Chemerinsky as its founding law school dean, a spokesman for the politician said Friday.

Making Chemerinsky the head of the law school "would be like appointing al-Qaida in charge of homeland security," Michael Antonovich, a longtime Republican member of the county Board of Supervisors, said in a voicemail left with The Associated Press.

He was not available for further comment on why he was getting involved in the situation at a campus located outside his jurisdiction in Orange County...

The Antonovich e-mail was disclosed after UCI Chancellor Michael V. Drake withdrew an offer earlier this week to appoint Chemerinsky to the law school post.

In unrelated news, we here at CC HQ engage in censorship because we don't allow anonymous comments. Yes, we are bad people.

That IE thing.

I just tried a very quick-and-dirty fix to rectify the browser problem, and I'm not confident it's going to work, but I have no way of telling if it did since I don't have a single example of IE or Safari running around here. Has there been any improvement?

I'll deal with this more seriously later today when I visit someone who has IE running so I can debug in real time. Sometimes, I hate computers.

Those who don't remember (recent) history ...

... are condemned to write stupid blog posts like this:

The “No Surrender Tour”: John McCain Back in the Running?

I love it!

This guy, be he potentially the oldest man to become President of the United States, never gives up. And furthermore, he stands on principle no matter what; namely, Iraq is doable.

Damn straight. And if you don't like McCain's principles, well, he's got others.

HA HA! Oh, man ... just when you think McCain can't get any flip-floppier ...

HEE HEE. I got a million of 'em, a million of 'em ...

Those who do not remember history ...

... are condemned to provide hysterical, pants-wetting entertainment for those of us who do.

What's up with IE?

Recently, I got a chance to see what this site looks like when viewed by that despicable, bug-ridden piece of alleged software Internet Explorer, and it did not look good. Admittedly, it was an older version, but are readers having a less than ideal viewing experience with any browsers in particular?

P.S. By "less than ideal," I mean other than being a Blogging Tory and perusing here and learning that most of your BT co-bloggers are brain-dead. I'm afraid switching or upgrading browsers isn't going to help you there. For that, I recommend switching or upgrading aggregator colleagues.

Soljers ar stoopid.

Support the troops -- well, OK, maybe not the smart ones:

Montana conservative attacks fallen soldier over op-ed.

Earlier this week, Sgt. Omar Mora and Sgt. Yance Gray, who recently co-wrote a New York Times op-ed critical of the Iraq debate, were killed in a vehicle accident in Western Baghdad. The two fallen soldiers have since been hailed for serving their country and speaking out on Iraq. But one former conservative state Senator in Sgt. Gray’s home state of Montana, Dave Rye, has chosen to attack him for the op-ed, claiming he and his fellow soldiers weren’t intelligent enough to write it on their own:

Pardon my skepticism, and certainly no disrespect for the dead Montana soldier, but in my time in the Army I never heard such a word as “recalcitrant” escape the lips of any Staff Sergeant. I doubt if it’s spoken all that much in Ismay, either. The soldiers had the help and probably the encouragement of a writer with an agenda, from a newspaper which has always had one. Its continually declining circulation now mainly consists of those who want desperately to consider themselves sophisticated as well as compassionate, even if that means always branding the U.S. as the chief villain on the world stage—in fact, especially if it does.

In a followup, Rye admitted that he might have been a bit over the top, stating, "Well, yes, I might have phrased that more diplomatically. Luckily, though, they're dead now so it's not really an issue anymore, is it?"

In a rapid disavowal of Rye's tasteless and offensive comments, his GOP colleagues immediately condemned Sen. John Kerry for allegedly suggesting the troops were dumb.

Yeah, it's genetic.

Seriously, this can't come as much of a surprise:

Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain

Even in humdrum nonpolitical decisions, liberals and conservatives literally think differently, researchers show.

Oh, yes ... let's get started.

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

I know what you're thinking ... "Conservatives' brains work??" Calm down ... it gets better.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences.

Yes, yes, we are. Why, I remember this ex-gymnast Greenpeace member from Windsor and, let me tell you, she had this interesting way of ... uh ... well, never mind, it's not important. Where was I? Oh, right ...

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

And I know what you're thinking ... "Conservatives have style??" Stop that -- I'm trying to make an important point here.

Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.

Sulloway said the results could explain why President Bush demonstrated a single-minded commitment to the Iraq war and why some people perceived Sen. John F. Kerry, the liberal Massachusetts Democrat who opposed Bush in the 2004 presidential race, as a "flip-flopper" for changing his mind about the conflict.

In short, after investing hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq and having nothing to show for it but a raging civil war and a trashed military, it's only the liberals who might take a step back and think, "You know ...maybe this wasn't such a good idea after all."

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

Perhaps. But, in the end, scientific creationism is still dumbass stupidity. We liberals may be intellectually accommodating, but we do have our limits.

I am Voldemort -- fear me.

Apparently, I am become evil incarnate, the one who shall not be named:

maryT said...

It has taken a few days and a lot of foul language and jumping to conclusions, but, a certain blogger has finally sort of admitted that fake stories do get printed.

Yes, Mary ... apparently, fake stories actually get printed, and that revelation occurred to me only in the last few days. And all those posts I wrote back in 2006 on the embarrassing Iran/Jews/badges fiasco in the National Post? Strictly my imagination. Never happened.

Honestly, I can almost feel the stupid burning me from all the way over there.

Quickly, Sherman ... into the wayback machine.

Ah, it takes me back ... this post over at Pharyngula gave me a chance to blogwhore just a bit in the comments section to this piece of mine from a couple years back.

Yes, those were good times.

BONUS TRACK: The very previous post at Pharyngula was this one. Oh, the irony.

Your "liberal" media.

Go. Read. Be depressed.

The blogosphere just got stupider: Gerry Nicholls edition.

Oh, look ... Gerry "one of the top five political minds in the country" Nicholls just got himself a shiny new blog. And, not surprisingly, the collector of all things airheaded, Stephen Taylor, couldn't wait to snap him up:

Blogger extraordinaire Stephen Taylor recently asked me to join his famous Blogging Tories aggregate.

And I said yes!

So welcome to all you Blogging Tories out there who stumble upon my humble blog

Which means that it is logically inevitable that Gerry is a total retard, and Gerry does not disappoint:

Elections Canada is clearly an agency that's out of control.

Back in my National Citizens Coalition days, I battled Elections Canada bureaucrats over their Inquistion-style enforcement of "election gag laws."

Believe me, these guys carry a political grudge.

And now these bureaucrats are interpreting laws with extreme politically correct zeal.

Maybe it's time someone reined in this rogue outfit...

The only mistake the Tories made on this issue, is they expected Elections Canada bureaucrats to have something that's in short supply in Ottawa: common sense...

Where does common sense lead us?

Well let's follow the path.

The government passsed a law requiring voters to prove their identity.

OK that makes sense.

Election Canada says proving your identity does not require certain voters to show their faces.

Sorry, that does not make sense.

In fact, it makes a mockery out of the whole voting process.

I could go on but why bother? Welcome to the Blogging Tories, Gerry. In an aggregator that features the lunatic ravings of Dr. Roy, Neo Conservative, Joanne (True Blue), SUZANNE, Brian Lemon, Kate McMillan and a host of other screeching dingbats, I'm guessing you're already feeling right at home.

YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP. Ye Gods ... Nicholls actually has Dr. Roy on his blogroll. I feel my head preparing to explode.

Unrepentant in the Great White North.

So, it's been a whole day since Blogging Tory and howlingly-inept Boy Detective Steve Janke levelled accusations of fiscal impropriety against Stephane Dion, only to have said accusations blow up in his face. No worries, though -- it's not like Steve is in any danger of learning anything or doing the right thing since, over at the original septic tank of an article, Janke still hasn't so much as acknowledged the evisceration of his entire argument.

Oh, wait ... I stand corrected, as we have this buried halfway down in the comments section from the Wankster himself:

Ironically, the anonymous Liberals are probably right. This probably is nothing.

Attaboy, Steve -- accuse on page 1, sheepishly retract on page 39. Your Blogging Tory accountability in action.

Werds meen wut I say they meen.

Over at Canadian Blue Lemmings, Canada's version of Kathryn Jean Lopez, MaryT, checks in from the planet Weembo to explain why she insists on describing disgraced ex-ABC consultant Alexis Debat as a "reporter":

Bylines are very important to reporters, and this guy was published many times with his name attached to the story re his supposed interviews with VIPs. That makes him a reporter.

By the same logic, this would make Stephen Harper a "reporter" as well, demonstrating once and for all the hideous conservative bias in the Canadian media, and it's not like I haven't been suggesting that for months, is it?

I'm guessing MaryT has photos of Brian Lemon having carnal relations with John Baird, Steve Janke and a diseased goat. There's no other possible explanation for why he gives her any blog space whatsoever.

The National Post and Benador Associates: Get a room, already.

So, to recap, ABC News gets hoodwinked by bogus expert and neo-con "consultant" Alexis Debat, who published his fictional interviews in the journal Politique International, which was edited by one Amir Tehari, who is associated with a PR firm called "Benador Associates" and who supplied the National Post with its worthless Iran/Jews/badges story, which got us here at CC HQ wondering ... how stupid is Brian Lemon?

No, no, I just made up that last part. What we were really wondering is, how many other "experts" at Benador Associates have been feeding the National Post potentially dishonest neo-con swill over the years. And the answer -- oh, you're going to love this.

Using Benador's handy-dandy search feature, we'll just produce a final count for each member that had at least one article published in the Post -- you're welcome to scan each list to see the articles for yourself.

• Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.: 1.


• Kanan Makiya: 1.


• John O'Sullivan: 6.


• Amer Tehari: 7.


• George Jonas: 173.

Yeah, you read that last one right: 173. Apparently, Mr. Jonas was a weekly columnist for the Post for years, so one can safely assume that that paper has been publishing a steady stream of right-wing nonsense courtesy of its Benador-supplied "experts" for quite some time.

The National Post: When it's a tossup between news and neo-con propaganda, and news sounds too much like work.

Alexis Debat and Amer Taheri: Connecting the dots.

Quickly now ... refresh your memory regarding infantile whiner and hacktacular little pissant Brian Lemon's gloating over a total non-story regarding disgraced ex-ABC consultant Alexis Debat. Take your time. I'll wait...

Ah, you're back. Now get a load of this:

The neocon link to the ABC News scandal

As predicted yesterday, the scandal over disgraced ex-ABC News consultant Alexis Debat continues to spin out of control, with major implications for the way that Americans have been getting their news about the flashpoints that could determine war or peace in the Persian Gulf and South Asia...

... blah blah blah ... Hello? What's this?

In the meantime, little attention had been paid to the French journal Politique Internationale -- which published Debat's bogus "interviews" with Barack Obama, as well as Hillary Clinton, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan, former Microsoft chairman Bill Gates, and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan.

But the French magazine deserves closer scrutiny. In continuing to connect the dots between Debat and the push for a neoconservative agenda that includes ratcheting up war tensions with Iran, it turns out that a prominent member of the neocon movement has served as editor of Politique Internationale for much of this decade.

Iranian-borm Amir Taheri (pictured at top) -- who edited a leading Iranian newspaper prior to the 1979 overthrow of the Shah and has since written for a number of western publications, including several owned by conservative press lord Rupert Murdoch -- has been a leading voice in Politique Internationale. It's not clear what his current role is, but in numerous press reports from 2001 through 2006 he was listed as its editor.

Taheri ... Taheri ... ah, yes ... that Amir Taheri:

And like Debat, Taheri's work has been called into question in recent years. Most notably, Taheri reported in a column in Canada's National Post in May 2006 that Iran had passed a law requiring the country's Jews and other religious minorities to wear coloured badges identifying them as non-Muslims. The story was received wide play in conservative circles, but it was not true -- the newspaper had to publish a retraction the next day.

Just make yourself comfortable and read the whole thing. Hey, Brian ... there's something for you to write about, no? And I'll be expecting that "hat tip."

(Double wag of the tail to e-mailer Tim H.)

LEMON-FLAVOURED SMACKDOWN AFTERSNARK: What I find most amusing about this story is how actual investigative journalists have taken the first clues, and run with them, and have proceeded to untangle a growing scandal regarding the unreliability of neo-con-produced "news", and how that fake news was/is being used to drive American foreign policy.

Brian and MaryT, on the other hand, take the same story and conclude, "The mainstream media gets it wrong sometimes! Ha ha!" Those two would have to aspire to be shallow and superficial.

Who said schizophrenia doesn't have its lighter side?

From a classic Dilbert strip:

Pointy-haired boss addressing meeting: "We're poised for success -- we expect huge earnings and increased market share. Next on the agenda: There will be no raises because it will be a difficult year." (Awkward pause.) "Carol, I thought I told you to put the United Way update between those two agenda items."

Carol: "Oopsie."

Who says life never imitates art? Spanky then:

Gay Marriage and the end of marriage as we know it

The correlations are strong. Support for marriage is by far the weakest in countries with same-sex marriage. The countries with marriage-like civil unions show significantly more support for marriage. The two countries with only regional recognition of gay marriage (Australia and the United States) do better still on these support-for-marriage measurements, and those without either gay marriage or marriage-like civil unions do best of all.

Spanky now:

The Earth-Shattering Importance of Same-Sex Marriage

Or, spending years and years debating silly public policy issues that affect around 1% of the population:

“The number of same-sex couples surged 32.6% between 2001 and 2006…In 2006, same-sex couples represented 0.6% of all couples in Canada.”

I'm betting Spanky could have really used a United Way agenda item right about then.

The douchebaggery of Brian Lemon.

It's hard to believe, but the sleazy hacktacularity of Steve Janke has just been outdone by the dumbass duo of Blogging Tory Brian Lemon and his co-dingbat Mary T. Read it and weep:

Lemon: ABC Reporter Admits Lying on Series of Stories

Hat tip to our own Mary T:
A former ABC News consultant fired last year because he couldn't authenticate academic credentials is at the center of a new dispute over apparently faked interviews with Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Bill Gates and others.
Here

Where, oh Lord, where to even begin? How about where Brian actually gives a "hat tip" to that deranged nutcase Mary T for ... what? Pointing him at a story that's already all over the news? That's what gets you a hat tip in Brian's world? Hey, Brian ... it turns out that Steve Janke is a jackass. And I want my hat tip. Jesus, what a cretin. But we're only warming up, kids. Buckle up.

In the first place, it's not clear why Lemon and mini-Lemon are so stoked over this since, by all accounts, what the ABC "reporter" did was write hit pieces on well-known liberals, so what's all the outrage for? One would think Brian would find that simply hilarious. So one is purely baffled as to what Brian's overwhelming interest is in this piece; all it shows is that some people who don't like liberals are sleazy liars. Like we didn't know that already? But (you guessed) it gets better.

The "reporter", one Alexis Debat, isn't really a "reporter" at all. Instead, as you can see in the very piece that Brian links to, he's a "former ABC News consultant." That's right -- consultant. As in, not a reporter but someone that a reporter would "consult" when writing a story. See, Brian, that's where the word "consultant" comes from. I'm sorry to have to be the one to break that to you.

And if you read further, you learn that ABC was not the culprit here but the victim, having been hoodwinked by Debat's bogus claims of expertise and a Ph.D. and so on. In short, ABC's crime was to be taken in by a con artist working out of, of all places, the Nixon Center. Oh, the glorious irony. And, not surprisingly, when ABC found out they'd been suckered, they canned him. Which inspires the obvious question -- what exactly are Brian and Mary T gloating over? Well, that's easy -- just read the first comment from dingbat Mary:

What can we believe. Remember the phony story on NBC about some car gas tank, then CBS and Rathergate, the Jason [sic] Blair, and other phony stories by reporters. Now, ABC. Will CNN be far behind. CBC had the Lewand twist.

Ah, there we go -- the irresistible opportunity to smear the mainstream media. Why, yes, Mary (pant, pant), who can we (pant, pant) believe, when there's all this (pant, pant) dishonesty surrounding us? I mean, good Lord, newspapers yammering on about Iran and Jews and badges. And, holy crap, what about the irresponsible hacks who accuse reporters of things they never did? Good God, Mary, will it never end!?

Canadian Blue Airheads -- when your dumbass-meter only goes to 10, but you really need it to go to 11.

Dear Mary: If that noxious little turd MaryT wants something to whine about, I'll give her something to whine about. She dislikes CNN? So do I, and here's one reason:

All networks shared the same pool video of Bush from the Oval Office. Perhaps in an effort to make its coverage look distinctive, CNN pulled a very questionable stunt during the speech. Bush made reference to a brave soldier, Brandon Stout, who died while serving in Iraq, and CNN, having received a copy of the text in advance, obligingly inserted a photo of Stout into the picture, moving Bush slightly to the left, as it were.

But it's not the job of news organizations to help politicians, even presidents, embellish their speeches or assist them in making a point. If any other network did the same thing, it was a mistake. The president gets to command television time pretty much at his discretion; the networks don't have to give him anything but the space.

There you go, Mary -- there's your "liberal media." Whine about that for us.

UH OH ... BRIAN'S LITTLE FEELINGS ARE HURT. Brian's double standards are on full display after Red Tory leaves the following perfectly appropriate comment, politely chiding Brian for his misrepresentation:

Did you notice the difference between "consultant" and "reporter" there? Sort of affects your little story a bit. You might want to check into that. Seeing as your sooooooo interested in accuracy and what not. LOL. You guys are too funny.

Amazingly, Brian's delicate sensibilities are offended:

Reddie - you're getting into the Jeff Davidson / and he who shall not be named class.
You're rude here, you're rude about us on your site.
I've been nothing but respectful to you and all you do is troll.

Yes, Brian -- you are the very model of decorum. And hypocrisy. That, too.

Whiner.

Some serious eJankulatory goodness.

[SOOPER DOOPER UPPITY DATE: Down. In. Flames. More at the end.]

[WHAT A DOUCHEBAG: Despite the fact that it is just after lunch and the Globe smackdown of Janke's douchebaggery has been up all morning, there is still not a hint of a correction or retraction on Janke's part, or even an acknowledgement that a refutation of his slimy dishonesty exists. So, if any of you want to check in on Janke on a regular basis, let's make a note of the first indication on his part that something is seriously amiss with his demented rantings.]

Oh, Lord ... this has such potential for pure Steve Janke-flavoured entertainment. Apparently, the latest proceedings to expose the Cons for the corrupt douchebags that they are took a bizarre turn when ... oh, screw it, let's let Kady O'Malley explain it:

... Poilievre, meanwhile, has gotten over his disappointment, and is in fine form as he accuses the opposition parties of being "hostile" to the very notion of widening the probe to include their financial records. He also claims to have uncovered evidence that the Liberal Party has also conducted a few of those so-called "in and out" transfers between federal and local campaigns - including that of the party's current leader, Stephane Dion!

So what, the Liberals respond. No one said that transferring money was illegal - the question is how it was spent, and whether it was funneled into advertising that would otherwise have been counted against the official limits.

Round and round they go. Meanwhile, all of a sudden, off camera is where the real action is going down.

The few reporters left in the room try to puzzle out the still-warm-from-the-printer handouts provided by the Conservatives; heavy on the clip art, with the disembodied head of Dion at the centre of a confusing series of arrows, it purports to show the flow of money from Dion's coffers to the party, and back again. But it's not clear how, exactly, this differs from normal party transfers, no matter how many times the party's spokespeople try to explain it.

(As it turned out, the heavy lifting, in this case, was done not by party operatives, but by Conservative-friendly blogger Steve Janke, who posted his findings hours before the meeting took place.)

Pause.

Just savour that for a moment if you will: Steve Janke -- a man who has made a blogging career out of being obsessed and just as obsessively wrong about damned near everything (and occasionally getting sued for it) -- is being touted as the basis for the Conservatives' counter-accusations.

Thank you, God. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

And what exactly, you might ask, has the eJankulator uncovered on Liberal leader Stephane Dion? Oh, you're going to enjoy this. Just let me skip over all the sordid details to get to the big payoff (pun oh so intended):

So what happened to the $12,200?

That's right: $12,200. All of that sleuthing was in aid of identifying a questionable transfer of $12,200. No, no, stay there, we're not done yet.

See, even without going any further, there are a couple points we can make. First, is it even physically possible for any of Canada's Tories to respond to any accusations whatsoever with anything except, "But ... but ... but ... the Liberals!" Seriously, is this going to be the perpetual defense against any and all wrongdoing? "But someone else might have done it, too!" God Almighty, but the word "pathetic" doesn't even begin to cover this, does it? But wait. There's more.

Even if, for the sake of argument (and this is strictly for the sake of argument) we were to accept Janke's claims (and you'd have to be completely retarded to do that), we're talking about $12,200. As opposed to the amount associated with the CPoC of $1.2 million. So, really, it's a bit of a stretch to justify the one by pointing at the other. But here's the best part.

Over at "A BCer in Toronto," Jeff takes Janke's analysis apart piece by piece. And while I'll admit that I don't have the time to follow Jeff's analysis line by line, I think it's fair to say that he at least makes a case for the Dion transfer being perfectly aboveboard.

Does that mean I buy Jeff's argument? No, it just means I haven't had the time to cross-examine it yet, but that's not what's relevant here. What's relevant here is that Jeff might be right, at which point Steve would be wrong and, oh Lord, the hilarity that would ensue. One can only imagine the fallout if senior members of the Conservative Party of Canada tried to derail a Parliamentary committee meeting looking into allegations of campaign spending violations by the Cons with magically-produced accusations of similar corruption against Stephane Dion courtesy of The Premature eJankulator™ himself.

There may be nothing this year that will top what's about to happen here, so I recommend stocking up on popcorn and beer. Mostly beer. And diapers, because you won't want to miss a minute of this.

I'm thinking of investing in a catheter.

TAIL-WAGGING UPDATENESS: Once again, the eJankulator strokes himself into a climax, only to come up dry once again. Here's the salient bit from the G&M piece, exposing Janke for the irresponsible hack that he is:

Yesterday, the Tories counterattacked with charges that Liberals, including Mr. Dion, also engaged in complicated financial transfers to pay for campaign expenses in the 2004 election.

Mr. Poilievre said the Liberal Party later transferred the same $12,200 sum to Mr. Dion's riding association that was paid for items labelled as non-broadcast advertising.

In fact, Elections Canada filings show that the transfer was one of two that the party made in the same month to pay back $44,719.17 it owed Mr. Dion's riding association - a debt reported publicly six months earlier.

The Liberals noted that their transfers - which campaigns in Quebec used to buy an "election kit" of lawn signs and insurance from the party's Quebec wing - did not allow them to claim a taxpayer-funded rebate, nor were they used to include national campaign expenses in the local tallies.

Dion should sue. Seriously, just sue that libelous dipshit Janke, take everything he owns and make him live in a cardboard box for the rest of his days. Fuck'm. No mercy.

Capitalism? Never heard of it.

Apparently, the Wingnut-o-sphere is livid that the New York Times might have given moveon.org a discounted price on their full-page "General Betray Us?" ad, thereby making a complete mockery of the concept of the unfettered, unregulated free market, the fundamental notion of supply and demand, and the unimpeachable freedom for people to negotiate ruthlessly for the best possible price.

I'm sorry -- I had all this pent-up sarcasm and nowhere to put it.

AFTERSNARK: As RT points out, John Cole is all over this non-story like a Republican on a cheap hooker.

BAIT-AND-SWITCH, UNCLE JIMBO STYLE: Over at BlackFive, one Uncle Jimbo seems to be playing fast and loose with FEC regulations:

Office of General Counsel
Federal Election Commission
999 E Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20463

...

It has been reported that MoveOn paid $65,000 for the ad ...

The rate card price of such an ad on the NY Times political advocacy rate card is $181,692.

I sold political advertising for Capital Newspapers in Madison, WI during the 2006 elections. We were informed that there could be absolutely no discounts to the rate card prices for political or advocacy advertising based on federal law. The reason was self-evidently to stop the paper from favoring one viewpoint over another. It seems evident that if the reports are true, the NY Times has favored MoveOn by offering a huge discount to them for political advocacy advertising.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Uncle Jimbo seems to be deliberately mixing his terminology. It would make sense if one were not allowed to play favourites with actual political advertising -- that would, of course, be only fair. But note how Uncle Jimbo quietly expands that entire classification by referring to "political or advocacy advertising" (emphasis added). Really? Do the same FEC rules actually apply to simple advocacy advertising (since MoveOn is, in fact, a registered 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization). That would be a bit odd, don't you think?

And Uncle Dumbo gets even confusinger by first referring to "political or advocacy advertising," then later delicately morphing that into "political advocacy advertising," as if it's all one and the same after all. In any event, there's nothing to suggest that the Times did anything wrong here, but it's amusing to watch how hard the wingnuts have to spin this to invent a controversy where none appears to exist.

P.S. Do I really need to ask how many of these hysterical dingbats will offer up the appropriate correction and retraction once it turns out that this was all perfectly aboveboard?

Yeah, and pigs will fly out of my butt.

When I referred to unreasonable religious whackjobs, I didn't mean OURS.

Blogging Tory "Gay and Right" Fred doesn't see what all the fuss is about:

Muslims refusing male gynaecologists in Belgium...

Just deny them treatment....

And those Jehovah's Witnesses who aren't so keen on blood transfusions? Yeah, Fred, I'd show them the door, too. That is where you were going with this, right?

P.S. First commenter "anonymous" over there brings a little compassionate conservatism to the issue:

If Muslim women die in childbirth, Muslim men can simply buy more. So this is not really an issue.

Honestly, I don't know what I'd do without the emotional outlet that is the Blogging Tories. Drinking heavily and abusing small animals comes to mind.

The editorial you know you're never going to see.

First, the lead-in (emphasis added):

Ottawa keeps up veil offensive
Records show government officials knew ballots could be cast with faces covered

DANIEL LEBLANC

With a report from Campbell Clark

September 12, 2007

OTTAWA -- The Harper government continued attacking Elections Canada yesterday, even though records clearly show top government officials were aware last May that a revamped Elections Act allowed voters to cast ballots with facial coverings.

Conservative House Leader Peter Van Loan told reporters that Elections Canada is going "against the clear intent" of the Elections Act by stating that the law, as passed by Parliament last June, does not force voters to show their faces.

However, a senior bureaucrat told senators last May that the Elections Act, which was going through Parliament at the time, indeed allows voters to keep facial coverings if they have two non-picture IDs or someone else to vouch for them.

"Neither requires removal of a veil," Matthew King, assistant secretary for legislation at the Privy Council Office, told senators.

Mr. Van Loan had been a witness alongside Mr. King at that Senate committee hearing on May 10, although he left before Mr. King commented specifically on veils.

Mr. Van Loan insisted yesterday that Parliament never expected that voters would be allowed to cast a ballot wearing a niqab or burka.

It's not that Van Loan is a total imbecile. After all, he's a Tory -- it goes with the territory. No, what's grating is that there will be more editorials discussing this non-issue, but not one of them will eviscerate this idiocy with the withering contempt it deserves.

We don't need journalistic decorum. We need someone, somewhere, in the mainstream media, to finally have had enough and write something like:

Veils, voters and vacuous idiocy

At the risk of offending, what the fuck is wrong with you people!?!? What part of the clearly-written Act do you just not get?

How many times do we have to point out the screamingly obvious? M. Mayrand is right. You are wrong. So stop it. Really, just fucking stop it! You are all acting like retards and making Canadians look like a bunch of comtemptible buffoons and racists.

So knock that shit off!!

Retards, the lot of you.

If any of the above shows up in an editorial somewhere, I expect attribution.

Ah, the consistency that is the Blogging Tories.

Once upon a time, U.S. Senator John Kerry made a joke about George W. Bush that backfired:

Kerry's 'stuck in Iraq' remark ignites firefight with Bush, GOP

By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | November 1, 2006

WASHINGTON -- President Bush joined prominent Republicans yesterday in blasting Senator John F. Kerry for comments they said demeaned the intelligence of US troops, after Kerry gave a speech at a political rally where he said that students who don't perform well "get stuck in Iraq."

Ignore that most people (and even some conservatives) knew full well that Kerry was referring, not to the soldiers being unintelligent, but to Bush. Nor surprisingly, a few BTs deliberately chose to misunderstand Kerry's point and went on a bit of a rant.

Fast forward now to GOP House leader John Boehner (R - SPF 15) who, well, just doesn't seem to worry a whole lot about dead soldiers (emphasis added):

BOEHNER: I think General Petraeus outlined it pretty clearly. We’re making success. We need to firm up those successes. We need to continue our effort here because, Wolf, long term, the investment that we’re making today will be a small price if we’re able to stop al Qaeda here, if we’re able to stabilize the Middle East, it’s not only going to be a small price for the near future, but think about the future for our kids and their kids.

The corresponding outrage is, as I'm sure you've already guessed, palpable.

I really do need more of a challenge in this job.

Apparently, it's all a matter of context.

Over at Spanky's clubhouse, clubmember Shane Edwards reveals the sordid and seedy side of polygamy:

Polygamy: Maybe They Aren’t All Consenting Adults

As reports come out about legalizing polygamy, and proponents speak of the victimless nature of multiple women choosing to live with one man, comes this opinion of a woman trapped in a polygamous cult until she was 14:

“I don’t know how a woman can allow another woman to come into her home and cook some supper up with the family for her and go to bed with her husband that night and respect herself.

I don’t see how that is possible. You have to let a part of yourself go. A part of something in you, you have to squash that down in order to live with that every day.”

Tune in tomorrow as Shane is surprised to learn that ugly things happen in regular, heterosexual marriages as well, but he's not quite sure what to make of that.

Just get a bucket of paint for those idiots.

It is impossible to read this and not think of Stephen Harper whitewashing Aunt Polly's fence, and waiting for the gullible buffoons to start wandering by.

Apparently, free market accountability has its limitations.

Shorter Jarrett Plonka: "Speaking as a conservative, isn't it terrific how the free market works? The fierce rivalry, the intense competition, the parry and thrust of capitalism where the strong survive, the weak fail and success always goes to those who can produce the better product and demonstrate a clear and unambiguous superiority over others in their industry. What a relief that government doesn't work that way."

Yes, technically, that was actually longer, but the build-up was worth it, don't you think?

I'd like to recognize all the little people ...

No, seriously, I think it's time for a thorough restructuring of the blogroll here at CC HQ and, along those lines, I offer up the following CC reader challenge: To recommend those Canadian bloggers who are currently flying under the radar but who, in your remarkably inappropriate and unhumble opinions, deserve a wider readership.

The rules for this are simple and will be, I'm fairly confident, misinterpreted in every conceivable way:

• Recommendations cannot be made for blogs that are well-established and have a decent readership already. Those leeches can go find their own audience.


• Recommended blogs must produce on a regular basis -- someone who posts only occasionally is not eligible.


• You cannot vote for yourself.


• Just in case you missed that the first time, you cannot vote for yourself. What part of "cannot" is causing you such grief?


• Judicious use of profanity should be considered a good thing, but only if tastefully done.


• Recommendations for new blogs are particularly encouraged. However, let it be made abundantly clear that the 649th re-incarnation of the blog of Weiner Prattles shall not be considered "new." In fact, it shall not even be considered a "blog."


• Recommendations should be made by leaving as a comment the name of the blog, wrapped inside a hyperlink to that blog. If you don't know how to do that, figure it out.
  
  If you violate this rule, forcing people to cut and paste, I will have "Nexus of Douchebaggery" blogger Patrick Ross trace your IP address, learn where you live and publish a Google Earth photo of the roof of your house. And you do not want it to come to that.

Take it away. The lines are now open, and operators are standing by to abuse you.

How stupid is Sheila Copps?

About this stupid. Honestly, if Copps is proud to describe herself as a "progressive," I want to invent a new word.

I feel ... a batshit craziness in the force ...

Whoops, never mind ... it's just Richard Evans and more of his hysterical, contrived outrage:

WTF?

CanadianCynic - NutBar

An individual died today and Canadian Cynic is doing a chair dance as a result. He’s even put up a post to commemorate the passing c/w a title of “Na na na na … hey heeee-eyyyyy …” and a video of Kool and the Gang singing “Celebrate Good Times C’mon…”.

Now one has to wonder just who it was that passed that deserves such celebration. Was it Osama, the man responsible for 3,000 innocent deaths on 9-11? Nope. Castro, who has kept his people oppressed for generations? Nope. Mini-Kim from North Korea? Nope. Almond-jihad out of Iran? Nope. None of those.

It was a preacher.

It was Rev. D. James Kennedy. An individual who promoted peace and clean living and worked hard to promote his faith.

Of course, Richard conveniently omits the part about Kennedy being a virulent homophobe, not to mention a staunch and sleazy anti-evolutionist. But I can understand if Richard couldn't find the space to squeeze that in -- Richard can only handle so many words at one time before things go south for him, intellectually speaking.

And just in case there's any ambiguity here whatsoever, Richard, well, how can I put this best?


Just so there's no confusion.

P.S. I'm fairly sure Richard's not going to like that Kathy Griffin "Suck it, Jesus" post, either. Oh, well ... I'm guessing Richard and I weren't going to be getting intimate anytime soon. Life's just full of disappointments, isn't it?

Kathy Griffin: "Suck it, Jesus."

Apparently, Kathy Griffin doesn't really give a shit what you think. And since there's no obvious video of that hysteria, you'll have to make do with this. Try to handle the disappointment.

How to blog with one hand: Wingnut edition.

Shorter wizbang collective: "And on this solemn anniversary, it is only fitting that we honour the dead by showing picture after picture of the horror, the terror, the indescribable devastation and loss of life, the ... the ... oh, yes ... oh, YES ... oh God, YES, YES, YES!! UNNNNHHHHHHHHHHH!!! ... Um, yeah, are there any paper towels left?"

Your Conservative Party of Canada: Getting things done (on the side).

Integrity! Accountability! Transparency! Fiscal responsibility!

Yeah, whatever:

Canadian Forces' smart-bomb plan hits major snag

Canada's efforts to equip its CF-18 fighter jets with laser-guided smart bomb technology has hit a snag, with a ruling that the contract to do the work may have been improperly awarded, CTV News has learned.

In March, the Public Works Department awarded the massive $180 million contract to outfit the jets with Advanced Multi-Role Infrared Sensor systems to aerospace company Lockheed Martin.

But two competitors immediately began to complain.

Raytheon Company and Northrop Grumman Corporation -- both U.S.-based defence and aerospace leaders -- submitted lower bids to do the work.

In fact, an industry source tells CTV News one of the losing bids was $20 million lower than the one put forward by Lockheed Martin, which eventually won the contract.

And unlike Lockheed Martin, both Raytheon and Northrop Grumman had similar systems already in operation on F-18 jets around the world.

But ... but ... but ... look! Over there! Muslims! Wearing veils!

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now.

NO, THIS DOESN'T QUITE PASS THE SMELL TEST. Not surprisingly, this isn't the first time Lockheed Martin has been given a cushy ride when it comes to military contracts from Canada's Corrupt Government. From December of last year:

From the outset, competing aircraft manufacturers have been crying foul over the fact that the Defence Department guidelines were so stringent as to exclude all but one possible contender - the C-130J produced by American manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

When it was learned Canadian procurement officers were already in Lockheed's U.S. headquarters in Marietta, Ga., negotiating a contract, the political daggers were drawn...

Just one day after O'Connor defended the C-130J as the right choice, the media reported a contradictory opinion in the form of an internal air force memo. Drafted in 2005, the DND assessment highlights the serious deficiencies in the C-130J fleets that are already in service with U.S. and British air forces.

Both the range and payload of the new generation of C-130 Hercules were described as "inadequate" by those already using them. The Canadian report's conclusion reads: "The bottom line with regards to the C-130J is that, although it looks like the venerable old C-130, it has yet to officially achieve the same level of operational capability as its forebears."

And as commenter Mike points out, Lockheed Martin and Gordon O'Connor happen to be neighbours. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence.

And one Blogging Tory steps up big time.

Hey, kids ... remember this recent bit of excitement? And maybe you didn't realize how that proved that I was clearly a raving, tin-foil hat, black helicopter conspiracy theorist:

RELATED: I'll bet you didn't realise...

That Vast Right Wing Conspiracy has extended it's oily tentacles all the way into Ontario...

I'm writing this in confidence so I hope you will keep it on the DL.

I'm sure you're already aware of the attempts, but I thought you should know a bunch of folks have contacted me trying to develop some united effort to expose your identity.

I am not warning you of this because I like you. I'm doing it because you have a right to remain anonymous, even if I personally happen to think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Anyways, tread carefully. And rest assured I'm not assisting these people.

The best part of this... has to be the way all the "little winged monkeys" are so eager to climb on board the "Crazy Train."

"Roger that, Darth Stephen... I'll meet you at the grassy knoll."

And that's when one Aaron Lee Wudrick decided he'd had enough. At which point Neo, rather than posting a polite and sheepish retraction as any minimally socially-adjusted human being would do, has the eye-rolling lack of sense to ask, "Why wasn't I invited?"

Here's a hint, Neo -- you weren't invited because even your Blogging Tory colleagues think you're a dangerous, drooling whackjob. And on that note, I think we're done here, don't you?

P.S. And the next time I'm in London, if he's up for it, I am going to buy Aaron a beer. In person.

OH, MY ... THIS IS DELIGHTFUL. I just this second noticed what sort of sleazy douchebag our infantile stalker Neo is. Go read Aaron's post. Carefully. Commit it to memory. Got it? Good.

Now read Neo's alleged reproduction of it. Notice anything different? Why, yes ... yes, you do. Neo dishonestly decided to editorialize by adding a search link back to my blog in the middle of Aaron's text, to make sure readers didn't miss his point.

Naughty, naughty, Neo. When you claim to be quoting someone verbatim, slipping in stuff like that is considered kind of tacky at the best of times. If I was Aaron, I'd be a bit pissed about having my alleged words hacked without any warning. Then again, at this point, I think we've established what sort of unprincipled hack you are, Neo, so we're just going to shake our heads, wonder why Stephen Taylor doesn't have at least some minimal honesty and civility requirements for membership in his beloved BTs, and move on.

It's time to wander back to the grown-ups table, and leave the children to their feces-filled sandbox.

Your regular moment of "Duh": At Aaron's piece, commenter Raphael Alexander has finally solved the mystery of my bloggy methodology:

What's most interesting of all is that without us he would have no blog, as all he does is copy and paste our original content with indignation.

Yes, Raphael ... extracting excerpts from others' work for the sole purpose of holding it up for universal scorn and derision. What can I say? You've figured me out. It is a radical notion of my own invention but, somehow, I think it's going to catch on. Yes, I think it's a keeper.

Next week: I boldly decide to embed videos in some of my posts. Don't you dare miss that one.

Heh.

Indeed.

P.S. In Yon's lineup of laudable Times reporters who have covered Iraq, I notice the significant omission of Judith "I was proved fucking right!" Miller. I'm sure that was just an oversight.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

Just go. Trust me on this one.

Retractions! Get your Blogging Tory retractions here!

It takes them a while but, eventually, the MSM comes toddling along to catch up with the smart folks. Here's The Globe and Mail (all subsequent emphasis added):

... If the system for verifying a voter's identity with written identification or sworn statements is considered good enough for other Canadians, it should be good enough for those who cover their faces for religious reasons. That is why Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand says he will permit veiled women to vote as long as their identity can be confirmed. He was not making a special accommodation. He was applying the law as it stands.

Mr. Harper surely knows what that law says. His government passed it with opposition support earlier this year. He also knows that eligible voters living temporarily abroad may vote by mail; they do not show their face, except to a mailbox. Yet on the weekend in Sydney, he accused Mr. Mayrand of defying the will of Parliament. "The role of Elections Canada is not to make its own laws." This false accusation against an independent Officer of Parliament smacks of intimidation.

And The Star comes bouncing along behind:

Why are Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion and a host of other politicians criticizing Chief Electoral Officer Marc Mayrand for not enforcing the new voter identification rules at the polls – when he is in fact upholding those rules?

So I'm sure it's only a matter of time before all the shrieking Blogging Tories identified back here will sheepishly roll over to their keyboards and apologize to one and all for their high-pitched hysterics.

After all, that would only be the right thing to do.

GREAT CAESAR'S GHOST! Even the National Post has a rare moment of lucidity:

Indeed, as Mr. Mayrand told reporters at a press conference yesterday, 80,000 Canadians voted by mail during the last election -- a process that obviously does not permit electoral officers to see a voter's face. People wearing bandages on their faces are also permitted to vote. Moreover, the law permits Canadians to vote in person even if they do not have photo identification, providing they take an oath and have a neighbour vouch for them.

I believe our work here is done, at least until the next outbreak of irrational, right-wing hysteria. And if history is any judge, I wouldn't get too comfortable.

Oooooooh ... that's gonna leave a mark.

Yes, that's some serious smugness you've got going on there, Paul:

Poll: We Trust the Military

Oh my! This has got to get the military hating "progressive" class whining:

Americans trust military commanders far more than the Bush administration or Congress to bring the war in Iraq to a successful end, and while most favor a withdrawal of American troops beginning next year, they suggested they are open to doing so at a measured pace, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.

At which point Paul comes face to face with the Mighty Towel Snap of Reality:

Not surprisingly, Petraeus performed smoothly in his testimony to Congress. But an internal Pentagon report is expected to 'differ substantially' from his recommendations on withdrawal from Iraq, NEWSWEEK has learned.

Ouch. That whole "trust" thing isn't looking so good, is it, Paul? Let's read on:

NEWSWEEK has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will “differ substantially” from Petraeus’s recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will “recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there.”

Yeaaahhhh. You know, Paul, when you fib to a Congressional committee, it doesn't matter whether you're under oath or not -- that's perjury. And we're not talking about a blowjob here.

At this point, I'm pretty sure that "But ... but ... but ... Bill Clinton!" just doesn't cut it anymore.

TAIL-WAGGING AFTERSNARK: I believe the word you're looking for here is "inconvenient":

In his testimony today, Gen Petraeus was asked about a Washington Post story over the weekend that reported on a "schism" between Petraeus and his immediate superior, CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon. The Post quoted a senior civilian official as saying about the relationship between Petraeus and Fallon, "Bad relations? That's the understatement of the century. . . . If you think Armageddon was a riot, that's one way of looking at it."

In response to questioning today, Petraeus denied that there was any disagreement among top military officials about his recommendation on how to proceed in Iraq, saying he had the support of both Fallon and Joint Chiefs.

I think Petraeus just learned that there are some people you don't fuck with.

Iraq, progress and more dead bodies: Do the math.

Of all the carefully-parsed, deliberately deceptive claims made by Gen. David Petraeus in yesterday's hearings on Iraq and the "surge," my favourite is the following (emphasis added):

Based on all this and on the further progress we believe we can achieve over the next few months, I believe that we will be able to reduce our forces to the pre-surge level of brigade combat teams by next summer without jeopardizing the security gains that we have fought so hard to achieve.

Ignore, if you will, the admission that the vaunted, rapid-fire "surge" will now, at the very least, last for over a year. That's not a surge; it's a long-term escalation. But that's not the best part.

Petraeus is clearly claiming that next summer's drawdown will be as a result of the inevitable progress between now and then.

He's lying.

The "surge" (or however you want to hilariously describe it) will end next summer for the simple reason that there are not enough troops to keep it going (again, emphasis added):

Analysts say Iraq surge can't last past Aug. '08

WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon cannot sustain its current force levels in Iraq beyond next summer, effectively giving the Bush administration and the Iraqi government until the middle of 2008 to capitalize on recent security improvements before the US military must draw down its forces, according to US military officials and foreign policy analysts.

When the 15-month combat tours end for the nearly 30,000 additional US troops President Bush sent to Iraq earlier this year to secure the country, the Army will be unable to replace them without damaging morale or troop readiness, senior Army officials say. Those forces will complete their tours during the spring and summer of 2008, according to Army deployment schedules...

Keeping 160,000 troops in Iraq beyond the middle of next year would require the Army to reduce further the amount of time troops spend at home -- already scaled back from two years to less than 12 months in some cases -- before sending them back to the combat zone. But Army Secretary Peter Geren, the service's top official, re cently said he sees "no possibility" of extending the duty tours of US troops beyond 15 months.

Yes, it's really that simple. It doesn't matter what the conditions are next summer -- those troops are going to start to come home, progress or no progress. In short, Petraeus lied.

And I don't think the lying is going to stop any time soon.

Mainstream media: The "duh" factor.

Via Atrios:

What I just learned from CNN:

6 years after 9/11 there have been no terror attacks here in the United States.

Yeah. And I'm guessing that's because the bad people clued in early on that, if they wanted to kill Americans, they didn't have to procure fake visas, sneak into the U.S., take pilot lessons and then plow large flying objects into tall buildings.

Instead, nowadays (and with much less fuss and bother), they can simply wander down the road outside of Baghdad, plant a few roadside IEDs and watch the subsequent mayhem and airborne body parts.

I believe that's what you call "effective resource management."

The Blogging Tories: Credit where credit is due.

And if you take the time to wade through all the spittle-flecked outrage regarding voting and veils, you find a BTer who actually does the appropriate research and knows of what he speaks.

I'm betting he doesn't get invited to a lot of Stephen Taylor's dinner parties.

Do I get HOV lane access for having multiple personalities?

Shorter Damian Penny: "How dare you use the power of the media to spew ideological propaganda?"

Shorter Damian Penny: "Using the power of the media to spew ideological propaganda? Yeah, what's your problem?"

Tune in tomorrow when Damian will swear that he loves "Master" but still wants to kill him for his "Precious."

Ah, the veil-covered hilarity of it all.

Sadly, even the Americans are getting some entertainment value out of this. Apparently, there's only so much amusement you can wring out of an absolutely-not-gay GOP senator cruising for some oh-so-gay action in a public bathroom.

Brought to you by the "We Are Not Gay!" Republican caucus. Because they're not gay.

The politics of personal destruction is soooo last year, don't you think?

That's all they can stands, they can't stands no more:

MoveOn.org's slander of Gen. Petraeus
By Hugh Hewitt

Doug,

Rarely has the left in America shown its true colors in quite so candid a fashion as did MoveOn.org today with its ad in the New York Times headlined: "General Petraeus or General Betray Us? Cooking the books for the White House."

Democrats in Congress and across the country need to denounce this George Soros-funded front for its slander on Gen. David Petraeus...

Because if there's one thing patriotic, freedom-loving, conservative Americans simply cannot abide, it's cheap, sleazy, underhanded attacks on legitimate American military heroes who ... who ... um ...

How about I get back to you on this one?

There's reality, and there's that other thing.

There's people who understand shit:

WASHINGTON - In vertical bars of blue, green, gray and red, a briefing chart prepared by the Defense Intelligence Agency says what Gen. David Petraeus won't.

Insurgent attacks against Iraqi civilians, their security forces and U.S. troops remain high, according to the document obtained by The Associated Press.

And there's people who just make shit up:

Update: A critique from Michael Yon;

General David Petraeus's first day of testimony was completely accurate, and consistent with my recent experiences around Iraq. Everything he said during the public hearing on Monday was measured, cogent, and demonstrably accurate...

Posted by Kate at September 10, 2007 3:34 PM

This blog post has been a public service announcement from the not-batshit-crazy, reality-based community.

You're welcome.

Just when you think they can't get any more childish ...

[For the record, since a number of readers might get the wrong impression, the correspondent who sent me the e-mail below made it clear (admittedly after the fact) that he had no problem with my publishing his e-mail once any trace of its origin had been removed. So, by all means, find something else to whine about, OK?]

[LATEST UPDATE: Just bite me.]

What follows is, verbatim, a note I received earlier on the private CC HQ red phone from a member of the Blogging Tories and, while he asked me to keep it private, I don't think I'm violating any confidences by reprinting it, stripped of any identifying information (mostly because it's not like it should come as a major surprise to anyone).

Enjoy.

CC,

I'm writing this in confidence so I hope you will keep it on the DL.

I'm sure you're already aware of the attempts, but I thought you should know a bunch of folks have contacted me trying to develop some united effort to expose your identity.

I am not warning you of this because I like you. I'm doing it because you have a right to remain anonymous, even if I personally happen to think you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.

Anyways, tread carefully. And rest assured I'm not assisting these people.

Regards, ...

So, to Blogging Tories co-founder Stephen Taylor, I can only say -- this is your creation. These are the people who are representing what you'd like to think of as the cream of the crop of the conservative Canadian blogosphere; a bunch of petty, vindictive dingbats who, because they can't possibly address the issues and criticisms I raise on a daily basis, think the next best thing is to try to ruin my blogging hobby.

I realize it's getting a bit repetitive but, really, you must be so proud of your co-bloggers: if it's not the screeching pro-life dingbats or the depressing scientific illiterates or the worthless right-wing talking point stenographers or the disgusting racists or the shrieking homophobes, it's the infantile playground bullies.

What a community you've constructed and unleashed on the world, Steve. I hope you and your legacy will be happy together.

BY THE WAY, STEVE, I can't wait to see what happens if the junior detectives in question eventually think they've determined my identity and post it for the world to see, only to have gotten it wrong and ending up making some innocent schmuck's life miserable.

Oh, yes, the hilarity will ensue then, won't it? Especially since I've e-mailed you offline and pointed you at this very post, so it's not like you won't have known about it. I have no idea whether that would make you the subject of any potential legal action but the word "negligence" just leaps to mind, doesn't it?

Have a nice day.

Veils and faces and airheaded Blogging Tories.

Let us first let Impolitical explain the reality -- Elections Canada is simply following the rules established by Parliament. Who doesn't understand that? Seriously, who doesn't get it?

Well, there's this doofus. And this airhead. And this froot loop. And let us not forget this whackjob. And, no surprise, this dingbat.

Have I missed anyone? No, really ... I'm feeling extremely inclusionary today.

PEDANTIC AFTERSNARK: Panty-twisting commenter "right hand man" is all about the accuracy:

Froot loop? First of all spell it correctly.

I give you Exhibit A:



The prosecution rests.

When the Iraqis stand up ... I said, when the Iraqis stand up ...

What's hilarious about this graphic?


Take your time ... I'm sure it'll come to you.

Careful with that fawning adoration, Damian -- someone could lose an eye.

Why, that kind of slanderous villainy is enough to just get Damian's Underoos in a bunch:

"General Betray Us"

If you can't call someone a "chickenhawk," try calling him a traitor. (But don't you dare question our patriotism...)

Yeaaahhhhh ... you know, I might be putting that defensive hero worship back in its holster for a while, Damian. Trust me on this one.

UM ... DAMIAN? If you can remove your nose from Gen. Petraeus' butt crack, you might want to have a look at this. And, by all means, take a crack at trying to reconcile the general's numbers with everyone else's.

Go on, give it a try. We'll just sit here quietly and watch.

WHOOSPIE. The problem with lying is that sometimes you forget your earlier lies. Yeah, that can be embarrassing.

That's some SDA-sized stupid you've got going on over there, Kate.

Canada's dumbest woman asks what she seems to think is a rhetorical question:

If an ACLU kiddie-pornster were arrested in a Minneapolis airport, would it then make a sound?

Gosh, Kate, I have no idea. I mean, if the former president of a state chapter of the ACLU were arrested for child pornography, how on earth would we ever know?

Just. Fucking. Retarded.

The Washington Times: When you just wanna make shit up.

First, we have the perky, feel-good news from Iraq courtesy of The Daily Reverend Moon:

Some recent numbers from MNF-I indicate that real progress is being made. For example, the number of dead civilians in all categories (not just ethno-sectarian violence) fell from 2,193 in December to 575 last month for a 74 percent drop.

Then, of course, there is the actual, non-lunatic media:

Iraqi civilian deaths climb again

War-related fatalities rose in August, the second month in a row, suggesting that the U.S. troop increase has had little effect.

BAGHDAD -- Bombings, sectarian slayings and other violence related to the war killed at least 1,773 Iraqi civilians in August, the second month in a row that civilian deaths have risen, according to government figures obtained Friday.

In July, the civilian death toll was 1,753, and in June it was 1,227. The numbers are based on morgue, hospital and police records and come from officials in the ministries of Health, Defense and the Interior. The statistics appear to indicate that the increase in troops ordered by President Bush this year has done little to curb civilian bloodshed, despite U.S. military statements to the contrary.

And you just know I'm waiting for the first Blogging Tory to quote the Wash Times to show how things are just getting duckier and duckier in Iraq. I'm betting this guy will be first.

He's never let me down before.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Seriously (educational hyperlink added):

Delay Decision on Major Cuts, Petraeus Says

The top American commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, has recommended that decisions on the contentious issue of reducing the main body of the American troops in Iraq be put off for six months, American officials said Sunday.

Snark eludes me.

AND IF YOU ORDER TODAY, we'll throw in this scrumptious smackdown of Thomas Friedman courtesy of Matt Taibbi. Yes, we've linked to it before, but the classics never go out of style, do they?

Yeah, it's the fine print that always a bitch, isn't it?

And over at Small Dead Intellects, Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ puts her giggly, schoolgirl crush on courageous warblogger Michael Yon aside just long enough to get another giggly, schoolgirl crush on courageous warblogger Bill Ardolino:

"the enemy has become the friend and the friend became the enemy"

Armchair chickenhawk warblogger Bill Ardolino reports from Fallujah. One of his readers comments:

I have sat and cried just seeing the pics and reading the article. I have 2 Marines in Fallujah right now and I cannot wait to show this article to any and everyone I see. Do you think if enough of us sent the article to foxnews they would put this story up front? NOWHERE else have I seen pics like these, of the actual work that has been going on. Thank you just doesn't seem enough for the author and I know it isn't enough for these Marines. And I would venture to say neither is expecting one. But from the bottom of this Marine momma's heart, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

Bill is supported by reader donations - there's a link at the bottom of his page. Posted by Kate at September 9, 2007 9:45 AM

Yes, by God, Bill Ardolino is another of those courageous, independent journalists, in search of nothing but the truth and supported only by your hopes, your prayers and your generous donations ... whoops, hang on, what's this?

Please consider a tax deductible donation to support independent journalism. Mark the subject line with "INDC Journal," if you are so inclined.

OK, so he's supported by only your hopes, your prayers, your generous donations and your tax dollars. Somehow, the phrase "warblogger welfare" leaps to mind. But maybe that's just me.

BONUS TAIL-WAGGING AFTERSNARK: If you check out the domain publicmultimedia.org, well, there's just ever so much more entertaining, wingutty, crunchy goodness:

About Us

Bill Roggio ...

Roggio? Roggio? ... Oh, right ... that Bill Roggio:

Military Blogger Bill Roggio Swiftboats the Washington Post

Military blogger Bill Roggio recently has been getting Internet mileage by flogging the Washington Post for maligning him about his work as an embedded blogger in Iraq. Great, except that Roggio is wrong and the Post is right...

3. Whose Credentials. Most audaciously, Roggio complains that the Post said he was accredited by the American Enterprise Institute, home of his pal Leeden, while in fact he was accredited by the Weekly Standard, for which he wrote exactly one article, and a Canadian radio show. The Post did indeed rely on a questionable source for this information: Roggio himself!

In his October 31, 2005 blog post, Roggio stated

In the three days since I announced my plans to travel to Iraq and embed with RCT-2 in Anbar province, the response has been phenomenal. I have received media credentials, thanks to Dr. Michael Ledeen and the American Enterprise Institute. ... The current plan is to leave for Iraq on November 19th.

Apparently, the Post's error was not fact checking for errors in Roggio's own blog!

And remember, you Americans ... these folks are supported by your tax dollars. Doesn't that just give you warm fuzzies all over?

We now return you to Kate's original giggly, schoolgirl crush on courageous warblogger Michael Yon.

Don't quit your day job, Jonathan.

Blogging Tory and "Strong Conservative" Jonathan Strong puts on his deep thinking pundit hat and promises to set us down and set us straight:

The Bush Doctrine: A Review

As we approach the tragic anniversary of September 11th, it is constructive to review the policy positions taken by the Bush Administration to confront Islamic fascism from shortly after the attacks on New York, Virginia, and Pennsylvania to the strategic posture of the United States today. This article will examine elements of President George W. Bush’s address to a joint session of Congress following the terrorist attacks and compare his statements to America’s ongoing fight against Al Qaeda and Islamic fascists today.

Oh, this should be good -- sort of like getting prepped to hear a seminar on advanced cosmology from The Politic's Aaron Unruh. Yeah, sort of like that.

It is arguable that a majority of Americans still hold anger towards those that attacked America six years ago and that the resolution to defeat them remains. However, the same cannot be said of many Democrats and left wing journalists who seek to demoralize the troops, weaken their resolve, and retreat from the enemy at every turn.

Whereas the Republicans ... well, by God, the Republicans, they of the glint in their eye and steely backbone and endless resolve and ... and ... uh ... say what?

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

And, yes, that is where I stopped reading. Why do you ask?

Blogging Tory inanity of the week: Sep 2-8, 2007:

In what might become a regular feature here at CC HQ, we're going to go back through last week's entire output of the Blogging Tories and select the most absurd, the most ridiculous, the most jaw-droppingly asinine post for the inaugural "A Blogging Tory said WHAT!?!?" award.

Actually, in all honesty, we're going to do no such thing because we already know who's getting the award, and we just wanted to make it sound like there was, you know, work involved. So while there were numerous worthy candidates, really, there is just no earthly way anyone could possibly top this gem from self-proclaimed "Canadian. Christian. Conservative." BT Mark Peters:

The problem is that natural science has set itself up as the only pathway to true knowledge. But natural science certainly does not have the corner on knowledge or truth. In fact, one of the greatest criticisms of naturalism and materialism is that they discount very real supernatural events, even though the supernatural phenomena are tangible and observable.

I have personally witnessed supernatural healing, for example: a man in our church had one leg six inches shorter than the other from birth. He walked with a platform shoe. One night, after praying for him in a church service, a believer laid him on the floor and literally, in real time, pulled his leg out until it was the same length as the other. Six inches of flesh, bone, sinew, fiber, blood and vessel, etc. in less than a second. No pain, no surgical incision. Nothing. The man walked to his truck in his socks with both feet level on the ground and had to buy a whole new set of shoes.

Natural science cannot explain this. It defies natural laws. This is why they call it supernatural. But it did happen, it was tangible, observable and explainable, if you allow the supernatural. Certainly the person who was healed knows the new part of his leg is real; he walks on it every day. Same goes for the lady whose blindness in one eye instantaneously receded after prayer during the same service.

I'm sure some of you might be disappointed in Mark's victory here because you were cheering for local favourite Matthew at "The Politic" but, really, no one else even had a chance. I'm sure you can see that now.

TOTALLY GRATUITOUS AFTERSNARK: It wasn't eligible for this week's award but I don't imagine I'm going to hear any whining if I suggest that last week's award would most likely also have to gone to Mr. Peters for his thoughtful and nuanced proposal about why it was terribly, terribly important to send Christian missionaries to Afghanistan for what he called "large-scale proselytizing."

In fact, I'm sure there won't be much complaining if I simply name this award "The Mark Peters Award for Saying Something Really, Really Stupid." Somehow, it just seems right, doesn't it?

Apparently, bloodthirsty, vengeful rage has a shelf life.

And after a few years have passed, you don't quite remember what all the fuss was about:

Bin Laden is 'virtually impotent,' national security adviser says

Osama bin Laden may be grabbing headlines with a new videotape but he is "virtually impotent," said President Bush's national security adviser.

"This is a man on the run in a cave who is virtually impotent other than his ability to get these messages out," Frances Townsend said Sunday on CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.

So, sure, he was responsible for the death of 3,000 Americans but, come on, that is so 2001.

In other news, it's critical -- critical, I tell you -- to stay in Iraq to get the job done because of the horrific mass murder of 3,000 Americans, which we grieve for. A lot. Maybe not as much as we used to but, still, a lot. Sort of.

In wholly-unrelated news, Vice-President Dick Cheney emerged briefly from his secure, undisclosed location to deliver another message, and to dispel any notions that he was impotent.

Somewhere, Larry Craig is breathing a sigh of relief.

Yes, this will make you forget all about a U.S. senator playing footsie in a public bathroom:

Consultant dies in murder-suicide; had worked in state

A Republican political consultant killed in an apparent double murder-suicide in Florida had worked extensively in Alabama politics including a controversial "Adam and Steve" campaign leaflet that parodied gay marriage.

Just when you think it can't get any seedier, well ... it gets seedier.

Wow. I mean ... just, wow.

I'm sure some of you are getting a bit bored of following this depressing saga but, seriously, it's fascinating to watch the slow descent into madness of one "Neo Conservative," whose paranoia is taking on absolutely epic proportions:

RELATED: Hey CC... find anything good?

Sitemeter tells me someone is frantically pawing through my old posts at Google cache... presumably looking for the holy grail of my downfall.

I'm sure that's very exciting for you, Neo, but I can assure you that wasn't me since, given our current conflict, there's no logical reason why I'd want to peruse your archives. Quite frankly, I can