Canadian Cynic

The creepy eliminationism of Suzanne Fortin.

2012-01-21T11:50:00.031-05:00

NOTE: You might want to check back on a regular basis for updates since this story is just getting more entertaining. Updates will be added at the bottom.

While I still have no intention of returning to blogging on any sort of regular basis, a recent blog post of Ottawa's most prominent fetus fetishist Suzanne Fortin can't go unspanked, not only for its jaw-dropping intellectual lunacy and murderous overtones, but its hypocrisy and downright dishonesty. And while most of the commenters there seem to be giving Suzanne the drubbing she deserves, I think they're missing a couple points that deserve a little more evisceration. And so, to work.

OH, DEAR: As commenter Fern predicted, Suzanne Fortin is such a dishonest hack, she redirected the link to her post to fetal porn -- you know, the horrific, bloody images that one suspects she masturbates to on a regular basis. So here's a screenshot of the text in question:

If you want to visit, copy and paste http://www.bigbluewave.ca/2012/01/pro-life-nation-launches.html into your browser.

First, let's reproduce the passage in question that's causing so much consternation:

Pro-life Nation's first project is the launching of a groundbreaking web site AbortionDocs.org. This site is a searchable database that endeavors to list every surgical abortion clinic, every "abortion pill-only" clinic, and every abortionist in the United States. The website boasts that it contains the largest collection of documents ever compiled on the abortion cartel-and is growing daily.

Documents include photos, medical license applications, malpractice suits, disciplinary records, news articles, videos, criminal histories, and more.

Now while Suzanne didn't personally write that passage, I think we can safely conclude she agrees with it whole-heartedly; otherwise, why the unconditional promotion? In any event, I think it's perfectly fair to suggest that we can thrash Suzanne soundly based on those words. And where to start?

To save time, let's all just agree that the suggestion she's making is utterly, totally and completely batshit fucking deranged. Given the historic (and, some would say, ironic) violence of the "pro-life" movement, it takes an astonishing level of intellectual damage to suggest that one could openly document all sorts of personal information about abortion providers without seeing the potential disaster therein. If you have no idea what I'm talking about here, then you're simply too stupid to be taking part in this discussion. But that's not why I'm here. Oh, no, there's more.

First, note carefully how desperately Suzanne tries to move the goalposts when she's called on her obvious genocidal obsession. Suzanne is adamant that she wants to document only those abortion providers that are criminals or who have "shady" behaviours, writing at one point in the comments section:

There are no "wanted" posters. It's a database of information for women who might want to abort. You know, because we tell them about shady abortionists when you won't.

Suzanne makes the same claim several more times -- that she's only interested in smoking out the "bad" abortionists -- the shady ones, the criminals, the drug addicts and so on. That is, of course, a total lie since one can clearly read in the original passage (emphasis tail-waggingly added):

This site is a searchable database that endeavors to list every surgical abortion clinic, every "abortion pill-only" clinic, and every abortionist in the United States.

So Suzanne's frantic attempt to deflect falls MASSIVELY flat, and that's her first lie. But that's not why I'm here. No, I have a personal dog in this fight.

Suzanne's other pathetic rationalization is that simply listing publicly everything one can learn about abortion providers in no way endangers them, no sirree, they just want to, um, "shame" them, yeah, that's the ticket. And if they're lawbreakers, sure, that's a bonus, but Suzanne insists that a MASSIVE public database of abortion docs and everything one can glean about them (including their photos) doesn't represent any sort of risk to them. In Suzanne's own words, "This is not violent." This is an interesting defense since it contradicts completely how Suzanne felt just a couple years ago.

At the risk of over-summarizing, long-time readers might recall my public spat with one "NAMBLA Dick", during which -- after NAMBLA Dick had created a web site whose sole purpose it was to push unsuspecting readers to the home page of NAMBLA, an organization that promoted pedophilia -- I suggested that one response would be to figure out where Dick's children went to school in order to warn the teachers and administrators there that one of their parents had a truly creepy obsession with men having sex with children.

No, it wasn't one of my finer moments, but here's the curious thing -- by simply making that suggestion, I was hysterically accused of putting Dick's kids in terrible and mortal danger. Really? In what way? I'd suggested that, based on nothing more than Dick's public home address, it would be geographically trivial to deduce where the neighbourhood school was, nothing more. And in the end, that idea simply faded away and nothing was ever done with it. To this day, I have no idea which school that was and I have no interest in ever finding out.

And yet ... and yet ... from one of Suzanne's own posts from a couple years back (no link since she'd just redirect it to more gratuitous fetal pornography), we have this gem:

The lowest tactic was when Cynic revealed information about Richard Evans' kids and where they went to school, exposing them to possible danger.

Well, isn't that special?

Let's first notice that Suzanne is once again lying outrageously (something she claims as a Christian never to do). There was no "revealing" of school information at any time, either by me or anyone else. It's a lie. (More to the point, it's defamatory so I think a note to my lawyer might be in order.)

Ah, but that's not the best part of the above, and I'm sure you see where I'm going with this. Apparently, Suzanne believed that just by publishing a school location, I was exposing someone to "possible danger." That's fascinating since she seems to have reversed herself entirely since then, claiming now that posting everything one can determine about someone couldn't possibly end badly. Hypocrisy, thy name is Suzanne. But there's one more point that can be made.

Frankly, I think this whole thing is overblown. I doubt Suzanne is actually going to do anything like this since, even though she's clearly mentally disturbed, she probably still has the awareness to realize what sort of shitstorm she'd be walking into, legally.

Note how Suzanne writes:

We should do this in Canada...

As in, she thinks it's a terrific idea but one gets the impression she's more than happy to let someone else do the work. And that's a good idea, Suzanne, because here's the thing.

People get a bit touchy when you publicly accuse them of being "shady" or "criminals," and you've made it clear that's what you have in mind. But if you want to make those kinds of accusations, you better make sure you can back them up, because that sort of accusation is -- what's the word I'm after? oh, right -- "libelous." And you'll have to trust me on this -- publicly accusing someone of criminal behaviour on the Intertoobz has the potential for ending very badly.

So I'm guessing that while Suzanne would really, really like a public database of Canadian abortion docs, she's actually not going to do anything about it herself. Because I doubt there's enough money on the planet to cover the legal fees she'd need to pay if she tried.

In the end, though, one can just be amused by Suzanne's jaw-dropping hypocrisy and double standards, where publishing openly public information about someone represents "possible danger." Except when it doesn't.

P.S. I feel horrifically sorry for Suzanne's children. They're going to need a lifetime of therapy to cope with the psychological damage. Or they'll just go to work for Sun TV. No one will even notice.

AFTERSNARK 1: Suzanne has incredible difficulty keeping her story straight. After insisting she wants only to document the "bad" abortionists, she writes the following in her own comments section:

And suddenly, we're back to what Suzanne really wants -- a database of all abortion providers. It's actually sad that Suzanne can't keep track of her own dishonesty.

AFTERSNARK 2: Gosh, how did I miss this bit of hypocrisy from Suzanne:

Wow. So "There is no such thing as a right to privacy," except there was a couple years ago when simply talking about where someone went to school was "exposing them to possible danger." Suzanne really needs to decide if she's going to take the red pill or the blue pill. She'll still be a total crackpot, but at least she'll be a consistent one.

AFTERSNARK 3: Well, let's score one for Suzanne as she gets something right which has no value whatsoever. Here's a recent altercation over at Suzie Fetus':

And did I publish the names of Dick's kids, Courtney and Tyler? Why, yes ... yes, I did, because it was publicly available information on Dick's political web site when Dick was running for Calgary city council in Ward 4. I did not reveal anything; I simply reproduced what Dick had already put up on his web page for all to see, and Dick himself was nice enough to admit this in my comments section back in March of 2008, and I quote:

Well, isn't that special? Even Dick admits that I did nothing wrong, and yet Suzanne continues to tearfully clutch her pearls over something that represents no invasion of privacy whatever, even as she lectures everyone that we have no such right to privacy.

Suzanne should really figure out which argument she wants to defend, given how she bounces around all over the map. And she's still a lying sack of crap. If she thinks the name of a school was ever published by me or anyone else at my blog, she should provide a link. Or she should shut the fuck up and take down that accusation because that claim is still defamation and I'm rapidly running out of patience with liars.

P.S. Make sure you appreciate what sort of vile and reprehensible hypocrite and liar Suzanne Fortin is. On the one hand, she sees absolutely nothing even slightly unethical about publishing "photos, medical license applications, malpractice suits, disciplinary records, news articles, videos, criminal histories, and more" for abortion doctors, knowing full well the perpetual violence against such people because she claims there is no such thing as a right to privacy.

And yet, she gets her placenta in a knot over my printing two names that were openly and unabashedly published by the aforementioned Dick, who even admitted in public on my web site that he had "no problem" with that. So, Suzie, who's being the disgusting hypocrite here? I'm just asking.

AFTERSNARK 4: And it just gets better:

Oh, my ... Suzie Fetusfest appears to put a great deal of stock in manning up and admitting when one's made a mistake. One wonders when she's going to walk that road herself with this blatant lie about me:

As anyone who followed that ugliness knows by now, I did not "reveal" anything, and no school name was ever published, for the simple reason that I have no idea which school they attended, and I never did. In short, Suzanne Fortin is lying.

And I'm going to guess that Suzanne is going to correct the record never, since Suzanne is an astonishingly sanctimonious scold when it comes to others, but she lies freely when it suits her purposes. She really is a spectacularly dishonest hypocrite.

AFTERSNARK 5: Yeah, she went there:

Of rocks, and the slimy things hiding underneath -- the Patrick Ross saga.

2012-01-06T05:03:00.025-05:00

Back here, Rev. Paperboy asks:

What sort of fun and games are going to ensue (no pun intended) when the proper rock is lifted and Patsy scuttles out into the daylight?

I am not a lawyer and I would prefer not to speculate so I'll recap and let others with the appropriate legal beagle expertise weigh in. What follows are the simple facts.

On, November 23, 2010, defendant and U of Alberta student Patrick Ross, having weirdly chosen to not defend himself against a properly-served Statement of Claim, was found guilty in an Ontario court not merely of defamation, but of "clearly malicious" defamation:

(This default judgment was apparently ~~"unrecorded"~~ "unreported" which is why it doesn't appear in the normal legal databases or online, but you're welcome to view a confirmation of the judgment here if you refuse to take my word for it.)

(Aside: Thanks to commenter Holly Stick for pointing out the typo above, and for the link to an explanation.)

As one can read, in addition to the whopping $85,000 (and accumulating) penalty levied against him, Patrick Ross was ordered to, within 15 days, remove all posts that "in any way" referred to me from his blog, the appropriately-named "Nexus of Assholery." Even though Patrick Ross was clearly aware of the judgment within hours of its posting that day, he did nothing.

After months of being elusive, Patrick Ross was finally located and personally served with a copy of the judgment on April 29, 2011:

which meant that, as I understand it, the 15-day deadline for Patrick Ross to take action finally started. But that's not all.

As you can see from that affidavit, convicted defamer Patrick Ross was simultaneously served with a Financial Statement of Debtor form, which requires him to list in agonizing detail his financial assets and liabilities. Conveniently, that form also has a hard, legal 15-day deadline to be filled and returned, implying of course that Patrick Ross had until mid-May of last year to both a) cleanse his blog of all posts referring to me in any way, and b) return an accurate and complete Statement of Debtor form to my lawyer in Alberta.

As of today, Jan 6, 2012 (some eight months later), convicted defamer Patrick Ross has done absolutely nothing in the way of fulfilling his legal obligations (even after proper and legal service). He has paid me nothing, and never removed a single one of the 200+ blog posts that were covered under the order of the judgment. (After being more than patient, I approached Blogger Support with a copy of the judgment and worked with them to remove all infringing posts. Those posts are now gone, no thanks to Patrick Ross.)

In addition, convicted defamer Patrick Ross has never filled in and returned the legally-required Financial Statement of Debtor form to my Alberta lawyer, despite having promised by e-mail to do so.

In short, despite having been personally and properly served in April of last year with both the judgment itself and the Statement of Debtor form (both of which had clearly-marked, 15-day legal deadlines), convicted defamer Patrick Ross has done nothing and, to this day, remains in hiding and refuses to reply to phone calls and e-mails from my lawyer. (At this point, I would normally make a joke about "Law and Order" conservatives always lecturing us about "accountability" and "personal responsibility" but I suspect that would just be cruel.)

Given the situation as I have described it, armchair lawyers are now free to speculate.

P.S. To answer a couple earlier questions, no, I am not returning to blogging. The only purpose of these recent posts is to try to bring the Patrick Ross issue to a close. Once he's located and dragged before a judge, I will finish things off with a report on how it went, and there will be single malt scotch for everyone, and that will be it.

And if you want to know how it ends, feel free to help locate Patrick Ross and turn him in so that it ends just a little bit sooner. :-)

P.P.S. Given how much effort Patrick Ross put into defaming and libeling me online and sullying my reputation, it would seem that turnabout is slowly becoming fair play.

P.P.P.S. I leave as an exercise for the reader to identify the pants-crapping irony here.

One man's defamation is another man's yappy douchebagitude.

2012-01-04T14:33:00.006-05:00

One of my great regrets in life is that this action was never filed. I believe we are all the poorer for it.

Where's Twatsy? Tracking the elusive Patrick Rossosaurus.

2012-01-04T10:01:00.017-05:00

If you've followed the six-part series, The Saga of Patrick Ross (A study in Pathological Douchebagitude), then it's time for you to show your appreciation for all that pants-peeing entertainment value by helping me, my lawyers and children and small animals everywhere to locate and spank Mr. Ross to the extent that the legal system will allow:

So here's what we know about Patrick Ross. First, this would be what we in the biz jovially refer to as "The Twatster" or "Twatsy" for short:

(I'm guessing the fetching creature draped all over him would be his date, which should be a warning to you youngsters everywhere of the danger of "roofies".)

This is a list of everything we're pretty sure we know about Patrick Ross:

E-mail address: ddp316@hotmail.com

Phone number: 306-821-7328

Last known address: 10942 87th Ave, Edmonton, AB

Old Twitter account: NoAPatrickRoss

Current Twitter account: OutlawTory (ah, the unintentional irony)

Old blog: http://nexusofassholery.blogspot.com

New blog: http://badcompanycanada.blogspot.com (more of that irony)

Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/people/Patrick-Ross/508906366

In addition, Patrick Ross appears to be a regular contributor of right-wing ravings to a couple of useless online rags:

http://propagandistmag.com/patrick-ross

http://www.examiner.com/edmonton-conservative-in-calgary/patrick-ross

Finally, rumour has it that Patrick Ross is still a regular around the University of Alberta where he hangs out with campus conservatives and brags to cute undergrad chicks about his replica WWE championship belt and set of Edmonton Oilers collectable beer mugs.
)
What we're after is a reliable and verified address/location for Patrick Ross, so we can politely gift him with one more legal document, after which his running days are over. So drop any hints in the comments section, and me and my crack legal team of top men will take it from there.

UPPITY DATE: Oh, dear:

Twitmeister should really ask Patrick "Outlaw Tory" Ross whether Ross thinks his last 12 months have been "well played."

P.S. Just so you know ...

P.P.S. Here's the aforementioned Patrick Ross, doing his screen test for the part of a bookstore clerk while choking back the depression of knowing he owes me over $85,000 (his eminence bursts onto the screen at around 1:08):

The Saga of Patrick Ross -- Part the Sixth: Denouement

2012-01-04T05:20:00.017-05:00

Part 1.
Part 2.
Part 3.
Part 4.
Part 5.

At this point, I think it's time to make one big push and wrap this up with a huge, ugly, Patrick Ross-flavoured bow, at which point you'll be getting your homework assignment. And you knew that was coming, so don't look surprised.

I suspect a number of readers are wondering, why the hell has this been taking so long? After all, the inordinately brief summary of the judgment from back in November of 2010 seems pretty clear on what Patrick Ross is required to do, and how quickly he's required to do it:

And here's where the novel property of a default judgment comes in.

Make no mistake -- the fact that Patrick Ross was so incompetent as to be unable to file a simple Statement of Defence within the legally-mandated deadline worked out MASSIVELY in my favour, allowing me to present my side of the case unopposed (although one imagines that even if Patrick Ross had filed and been present in court, I'm thinking he would have had a hard time defending his actions). But a default judgment also has an obvious downside.

As explained to me, the legal requirements of a default judgment kick in only after the judgment has been personally served on the victim, uh, defendant. If Patrick Ross had had the sense God gave a urinal deodorizer disc and hired a lawyer, this wouldn't be an issue. But the fact that Patrick Ross was in default meant that I had to find him after I won my judgment and serve him personally with a copy of that judgment before it would be considered in effect.

So let's make a long story short -- due to some miscommunications and also due to some astonishingly retarded U of Alberta frat brothers, it was April 29 of 2011 before a process server was able to put a copy of said judgment in Patrick Ross' pudgy hands, at which point the 15-day clock finally started ticking on his legal obligations to, among other things, get rid of every trace of any reference to me from his rancid sewer pipe of a blog. But that April 2011 service carried with it another time-critical obligation, as you can see here:

That would be the ominous "FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF DEBTOR" reference, which required Patrick Ross to list, in agonizing detail, every one of his assets, again with a 15-day deadline. After all, I can't take everything he owns until I have an inventory of everything he owns. And that is one mother of a scary form, as you can see here.

In short, as of the April 29, 2011 personal service on Patrick Ross, he now had a hard, 15-day legal deadline to do two things:

Remove a couple hundred posts from his so appropriately named blog "Nexus of Assholery", and

Submit an "under oath" list of every one of his earthly assets.

You'll never guess what Patrick Ross did next. Go on, guess. You'll never guess.

Nothing.

That's right -- having been physically located and having had some very serious legal documents with very serious legal deadlines crammed into his sweaty, sausage-like hands, Patrick Ross ... ignored them. I am not making this up.

After more than 15 days had gone by with nothing from defendant Patrick "Kid Cash Thunderbolt Assholery Nexus" Ross, my Alberta lawyer sent him a polite but firm e-mail, reminding him that (and I paraphrase) we were through fucking around and it was time for Patrick Ross to take this seriously or very bad things were liable to happen.

The response to this reminder was the hilarious, "What? You didn't get my documents? But I sent them! Oh, noez, I'll send them again, I promises!" And that's the last we ever heard from Patrick Ross, which is where things stand today. We have no idea where Patrick Ross is to be found, but we're fairly confident that when he is found, he will be in a world of trouble for his contemptuous dismissal of both the properly-served judgment and the properly-served Financial Statement of Debtor.

Anyone who's been following this clusterfuck for a while is well aware that Patrick Ross has always fancied himself quite the brilliant legal intellect. And yet, it would be hard to imagine how anyone could screw things up more than Patrick Ross has.

Patrick Ross has dug himself one monstrously deep and dark hole, and when he's found, life will become very unpleasant for him in a hurry. And it didn't have to be this way.

Patrick Ross was given every opportunity to walk back his malicious defamation. Instead, what we got was a constant litany of "Blar har har, OMFG!!" cackling, insults, threats, intimidation, and some of the stupidest legal strategy in the history of mullet-headed douchebaggery. And while Patrick Ross might want to play the aggrieved victim, he knows that he has only himself to blame for the shitstorm that his life is about to turn into when we track him down.

And that's your homework assignment. I'll shortly be posting everything we know about U of Alberta student and frat idiot Patrick Ross, but feel free to get a jump on the crowd. Ask around. Put out feelers. Follow the overpowering stench of dumbassitude. Whatever it takes. And when Patrick Ross is finally dragged into a courtroom to explain his actions, I'm guessing it's going to turn out very badly for him, indeed.

But that's just a hunch.

ADDENDUM: If one pops by Patrick Ross' now-dormant, craptacular blog "Nexus of Assholery," one will find very few blog posts left defaming me, but that has nothing to do with the co-operation of Patrick Ross.

Armed with a copy of the judgment, my lawyer and I convinced Google and Blogger Support to remove some 200+ posts that clearly infringed on the judgment. We got rid of that crap, since Patrick Ross made it clear he wasn't going to do it himself.

Seriously, when Patrick Ross is finally located and dragged before a judge, he will learn just how shitty his life is going to become.

The Saga of Patrick Ross -- Part the Fifth

2012-01-04T03:20:00.014-05:00

While some people are apparently tugging on their thongs to get to the Twatsilicious denouement of this epic saga of dumbassitude, I will tell this story in my own time, in my own way, in my own clothes. Live with it, kids. And ... onward.

From back in Part 4 of the Twatsy Chronicles, you might remember the jaw-dropping, magical reappearance of Patrick, the Wonder Doofus, who -- after having been utterly incognito for over three months after my whopping $85,000 judgment against him for malicious defamation -- burst back onto the scene with a sad story of victimhood and, well, idiocy. At this point, despite the clear and unambiguous directions of the judgment, Patrick had neither:

paid me a cent in judgment, nor

taken down a single bit of all of that defamation.

As you can read, Patrick (probably unintentionally) admits he's known about the judgment since the beginning, but weirdly thinks having ignored it this whole time will work in his favour. He is about to learn a very ugly lesson.

Continuing on in Patrick's groundbreaking blog post:

OK, then, let's refresh, shall we?

Once you're found in default and judgment is granted, your only option is to file to have the judgment overturned, which does nothing but let you back in the game and allows you to present your side in the eventual court case. And you already know what the requirements are for that. And you already know that Patrick has already blown a hole in that possibility with his idiotic admission that he's known about (and ignored) the judgment all this time.. But you should know one more thing.

As explained by my inestimable Ottawa lawyer, if you're from out of province, you cannot file such a request remotely. For Patrick Ross to try that, either he or an Ontario lawyer must appear personally at the Ottawa courthouse. He has no other option.

So, in fact, whatever was in those documents, sending them electronically was a total waste of time as they would be rejected. And they were. This would, once again, be Patrick Ross trying to act as his own lawyer, and trying to save money, and pooching it entirely. But, hard to believe as it might be, it gets so much funnier:

So here's the problem. Once again, I draw your attention to Patrick Ross' only option, which is to file to overturn the judgment. Instead, he now makes sinister bleating noises about suing someone for "malicious prosecution." And if you're a lawyer, you probably just wet yourself. Because you can sue for malicious prosecution only if you were involved in a legal action, and you won. With no competent legal counsel, Patrick Ross is reduced to dragging possible (and nonsensical) legal actions out of his fevered and crippled intellect, then threatening unnamed parties with idiotic lawsuits.

And then it gets stupider:

And if you don't appreciate the incapacitating idiocy in that paragraph, let me explain it to you. Weirdly, Patrick Ross seems to believe that, well, I had my shot, and presented my case, and got my judgment, and good for me. And now he seems to think it's his turn where, after laying low for a few months, hatching his cunning plan, he gets his shot in front of the judge. He clearly has no concept that the case is over. Done. Finito. And he lost. And he's trivially destroyed the only real opportunity he had to salvage the situation. And yet ... and yet ... here's Patrick Ross, apparently with a plan so cunning, you could pin a tail on it and call it a "weasel." Good luck with that.

And then it gets stupider, so let's just dump the rest of Patrick's post out there for your edification:

Yes, that would be Patrick, putting lipstick on that pig of a post by:

playing the victim,

begging for money,

hilariously throwing around the characterization of "bully" to describe others, and

most bizarre of all, continuing to defame me by describing me as "malicious"

That's just adorable.

And then it gets stupider.

To be continued ...

P.S. I'm curious as to how Patrick Ross justified asking for donations to defend against "this malicious prosecution" without letting readers know that the case was over, and he'd lost. That strikes me as just a wee bit disingenuous.

ADDENDUM: It's worth pointing out that, for this entire time, Patrick Ross did nothing to minimize damages. Even before the Notice of Libel, relatively sane people were cautioning him that what he was writing wasn't just talking smack or boys being boys. No, they were pointing out that it was clearly libelous, but Patrick played the legal genius and pompously lectured everyone on how he understood the Criminal Code of Canada and he was perfectly safe.

After he was served with the Notice of Libel, Patrick mocked it.

After he was served with the Statement of Claim, Patrick ignored it and claimed he hadn't received it.

After he was charitably given an extension, Patrick blew it off and (apparently) waited until the very last day to file a defense that, by his own admission, was crap.

And, finally, after the judgment, Patrick made no effort whatsoever to abide by any of its legally-required directives.

And after months of that sort of boneheaded stupidity, Patrick Ross has the gall to show up again and paint himself as the hapless victim at the mercy of the big, bad CC bully. Yeah, that didn't work out too well, did it?

The Saga of Patrick Ross -- Part the Fourth

2012-01-03T18:23:00.001-05:00

To truly appreciate what you're about to read here, you need to refresh from Part 3, at which point you need to totally, absolutely and intuitively understand the following MASSIVELY incompatible observations.

On the one hand, there is absolutely no doubt that fugitive defendant Patrick Ross knew, since November 23 of 2010, that he was the victim of a whopping big ($85,000 plus interest) default judgment for malicious defamation of your humble scribe, from which he spent the next three months dodging and weaving, despite being well aware we were hunting for him. Got that? Make sure you have that.

On the other hand (and here's the kicker), given that it was a default judgment, Patrick Ross' only hope was to file to overturn the judgment, for which I have already explained that the following two things have to be true:

He must have a compelling excuse for not responding to the deadline for filing a defense, and

After learning of the judgment, he must apply to have it overturned as speedily as practically possible.

I think you see Patrick's fundamental problem -- while running and hiding lets him (for the time being) escape financial accountability, it simply digs him deeper and deeper into the hole he's dug for himself in terms of ever being to overturn the judgment. You can either keep running, or you can man up and try to fight the judgment. You can't do both. Are we clear on that? You have to be clear on that because it's the foundation for the jaw-dropping dumbassitude that's about to follow.

Now let's set the stage: From November of 2010 until late March of 2011, Patrick Ross was nowhere to be found. He didn't respond to phone calls, he didn't reply to e-mails, his blog had gone suspiciously dark due to an almost total lack of activity. In short, Patrick Ross had dropped off the radar screen almost completely, despite the fact that he knew full well we were looking for him, and why.

And then, out of nowhere, comes Patrick Ross' blog post of March 30, 2011, a post at Patrick's now defunct "Nexus of Assholery" blog that is so thigh-suckingly bizarre and detached from reality that I am going to post it as a series of screenshots because, if I simply reproduced the text, you'd *swear* I was making it up to make him look retarded.

Ready? And ... begin.

I'll wait while you pick your jaw up off the barroom floor.

It would be hard to properly mock the screeching stupidity of that opening. In the space of three short paragraphs, Patrick Ross openly admits that he's known about the judgment against him for quite some time. Bye bye, rationale for overturning default judgment. If there's a dumber and more self-destructive thing that Patrick could have written after being on the lam for over three months, I can't imagine what it could be. But patience ... we're just getting started. And it gets so much stupider.

Note how Patrick seems to dismiss his $85,000 legal debt to me as "a default judgement." Well, yes, it is, but where is Patrick going with this, and why does he think that's important? Behold:

Huh. Now isn't that something? According to Patrick, he did file a statement of defense. Sadly, because he chose to do this without the advice of someone competent who actually knew how to do it, he almost certainly tried to file a piece of utter crap that was properly rejected by the legal system, which kind of has really strict rules for what they're willing to read. But wait ... there's more hilarity.

Patrick's alleged filing date of Sept 15, 2010 was, in fact, the absolute drop-dead deadline we'd given him in that extension. In other words, having been given over three months to get something done, Patrick waited until the last possible day, then submitted something that was obviously garbage and was thrown back at him.

And then it gets stupider, as we move to the very next paragraph:

As God is my witness, I have no idea how to properly make fun of this. This would be Patrick, now boasting as to how frantically avoiding what he admits is a default judgment he's known about for quite some time is somehow magically going to work out in his favour. Truly, Patrick's is a dizzying intellect, and one can't wait to see how this is going to work out. Given Patrick's obvious incompetence, one suspects, not well.

Oh, dear ...

Weirdly, Patrick seems to believe that something I did after the judgment was handed down has some incredible and devastating legal value to whatever bizarre and tricky strategy he has up his sleeve. Apparently, Patrick is unaware that, um, this case is over. And he lost. But Patrick is not one to let reality interrupt the voices in his head, as he continues:

Wait ... what??? "... as I have waited patiently to have documentation of the judgement served on me, ..."

This is, of course, the same Patrick Ross who's known about the judgment for over three months, the judgment he's been hiding from and which he could have obtained a copy of with a single phone call or e-mail anytime he wanted. But having dodged service for three months, Patrick suddenly reappears and plays the victim card. I told you that if I didn't reproduce the screen shots, you wouldn't have believed it.

And while we're only halfway through that magnificent post of Patrick's, you know what's coming. Yes, you do.

To be continued ...

PATIENCE, CHILDREN: I put up with Patrick Ross' abuse for three years. You can wait a couple days for the whole story. Think of it as foreplay.

The Saga of Patrick Ross -- Part the Third

2012-01-03T16:34:00.003-05:00

To recap from here and here, we are reminded of the crippling, self-destructive idiocy of one Patrick Ross who:

made up defamatory crap about me

bragged about making up defamatory crap about me explicitly to ruin my reputation

published that defamatory crap for month after month

laughed uproariously when served with a Notice of Libel

boasted about how much he looked forward to the court case

ignored both the original Statement of Claim, and the subsequent charitable extension we gave him to file a statement of defense

never filed a defense after all, which handed to me an $85,000 judgment for malicious defamation

How we doing so far? Because, as hard as it might be to believe ...

… it just gets stupider.

(Aside: I had totally overlooked mentioning that one of Patrick Ross’ more boneheaded moves was to openly brag to my lawyer as to how he intended to drag out this entire process as long and painfully as possible, for the sole purpose of driving up my legal fees. I’m not sure that ever came up in court but, if it did, I’m betting it didn’t do Patrick any favours. Judges are kinda like that. Anyway, onward.)

So it was November 23, 2010, and me with my handy-dandy $85,000 judgment, and you’d think that that was pretty much the end of the story.

And you would be wrong.

Because it gets so much stupider.

Because now I had to collect, and that’s where things got complicated.

On the one hand, the fact that mine was a default judgment worked massively in my favour, given that Patrick Ross’ incapacitating imbecility allowed my studly lawyer to present my side in court unopposed. On the other hand, the fact that Patrick Ross hadn’t bothered to submit a defense and had never hired a lawyer and had apparently disappeared from view meant that I now had to track him down in order to start extracting chunks of flesh — something that had never occurred to me.

In any event, I had no legal obligation to jump on this immediately so I took a couple weeks to tidy up some projects, and on December 3, 2010, I officially retained a law firm in Calgary to effect the process of collection (given that I needed Alberta representation to take care of phase two). But it’s what happened in the meantime that was so enlightening.

Within hours of the November 23, 2010 announcement of my crushing legal victory over the forces of stupid, my thorough and savage legal ass-kicking of Patrick Ross was the talk of the Canadian bloggysphere; oh, yes, it was. There was much mirth, merriment and schadenfreuding from people who had put up with Patrick’s abuse for years, and who were now giggling themselves senseless over his delightful comeuppance. But that’s not the important part.

No, the important part is that, within a day, there’s no doubt that Patrick Ross knew about it as well. Despite the fact that he was not responding to e-mails or returning phone calls, there is no way that a narcissistic sociopath like Patrick Ross wouldn’t have noticed the spectacular spike in blog traffic as a result of the blog announcement sending people over to his cesspool of a blog to gloat over his totally self-inflicted misfortune. So file that away — there’s no way Patrick was unaware that his life had just turned into utter shash.

In any event, because it was a default judgment, it was necessary to serve it on Patrick for it to take effect, and this is where reality dealt yours truly a crushing blow. Patrick was nowhere to be found — a process server who went to his last known address was told he wasn’t there anymore. No Patrick. No replies to e-mails. No answers to phone calls. Passing strange behaviour for someone who had gloated about how much he’d looked forward to stomping me in court. Ah, well. The search was on.

At this point, we need to make a teeny digression and get all legalistic again. Bear with me — this is important and you’ll thank me for it later.

Under Canadian law, once you’re found in default and judgment is levied against you, well, you’re pretty much screwed. You can’t appeal. You have no normal legal recourse. It’s over, baby. Well, almost.

Your only option is to try to overturn the default, whose effect it is to simply let you back into the game. It’s not an appeal, and it’s not a discussion of the merits of the case. It’s simply a request that one be allowed to set aside the judgment and be allowed to go to court after all. That’s it. That’s the only chance you have. But there are three things that have to be true for any court to even begin to entertain a request like that:

You need to have a good reason for having blown the deadline,

Once you learn of the judgment, you must try to overturn it as speedily and expeditiously as possible, and

You have to show that you have a defense that is at least not total rubbish.

I think you see Patrick’s problem here. First, he has no remotely believable excuse for missing the filing deadline. We’d been more than accommodating, and he’d pooched it. One could also argue that, even if he were allowed back into court, he couldn’t possibly justify his vicious and prolonged libel. Ah, but it was the second prong above that was going to be particularly problematic for poor Patrick.

Remember, there was absolutely no doubt that Patrick knew of the judgment within hours of it being posted. He could not possibly have missed all that cruel and taunting laughter from coast to coast to coast. Yet he did nothing. But wait ... it gets worse.

For the next three months, we searched in vain. And, once again, there is no doubt that Patrick knew we were looking for him, but he carefully kept his head down. And while he must have thought he was being devilishly clever, I think you can see the hole he was digging for himself. You can either keep running, or you can desperately try to overturn that gosh-darned default judgment. Sadly, you can’t do both.

Then came the day of Wednesday, March 30, 2011, and the infamous blog post that changed everything.

To be continued ...

The Saga of Patrick Ross -- Part the Second

2012-01-03T16:21:00.002-05:00

When last we saw Patrick Ross, the Wonder Mullet and U of A frat boi, his months-long campaign of virulent smear and defamation had finally culminated in his pulling out of his pock-marked, doughy ass an accusation that I was a pedophile. It was at that point that patience was no longer an option, whereupon I hired a lawyer and, in early February of 2010, I served Patrick Ross with the standard Notice of Libel. And herein lies the first of many lessons to mouthy, preening, self-absorbed, retarded wingnuts everywhere.

I did not, as wingnuts are wont to do, threaten to sue. I did not howl publicly, nor brag, nor bluster. I served. That’s because, unlike the vast majority of Canada’s dull-witted wankers, I actually took the time to figure out what the word “defamation” means — unlike the aforementioned wanks, who have an annoying habit of screeching idiocy like, “You called me a ‘yappy douchenozzle’! I’m suing!!!!!”

I did not do that; I did the grown-up thing in hiring an actual lawyer and paying him to draft said Notice of Libel which clearly described my grievance in detail, and demanding a public apology, whereupon said Notice of Libel was correctly and properly served on one U of Alberta undergrad and frat boi Patrick Ross in Edmonton. And this is where the entertainment truly began, because there’s nothing that spells “recipe for disaster” like a pompous, pretentious, beer-swilling, WWE-obsessed, twenty-something undergrad that decides he doesn’t need his own lawyer because he’s super-duper Inspector Gadget smart and has the Intertoobz and, besides, he’s seen every episode of “Law and Order” since the beginning so there.

That’s right — having been served with a real Notice of Libel, Patrick “Mullet the Wonder Doofus” Ross decided he didn’t need a lawyer. The mind reels. But it just gets funnier (as you knew it would).

At this point, most sane human beings would take a look at the unpleasant legal document that’s just been placed in their hands by a very serious process server, and would probably think, “Uh oh … this is not good and maybe I’ve taken this a bit too far and maybe I better walk it back.” Most sane human beings would do that.

Patrick Ross is, by all accounts, not a sane human being.

Patrick’s first response to said Notice was to (and I am not making this up) threaten my lawyer. You read that correctly — Patrick Ross concluded that, having been served, his first course of action was to screech and howl at the lawyer whose only offense was to do what I had hired him to do. This is what comes of deciding you’re too clever to need a lawyer. And then it got stupider. (By the way, the phrase “and then it got stupider” will come up on a regular basis so you might want to get used to it.)

Patrick Ross next decided that the proper course of action would be to demean the Notice publicly, whereupon he made the nad-grindingly inane decision to brag to anyone who would listen how this was just awesome and he couldn’t wait to take me on in a courtroom and personally cross-examine me on the stand and expose my perfidy to the world. Oh, and he actually made the promise that he would “make [my] big, bad lawyer cry.” Yes, Patrick Ross smirked in public that he was looking forward to the eventual legal smackdown.

And then it got stupider.

On top of all of the above, Patrick Ross then publicly bragged in someone else’s comments section that he had shown the Notice of Libel to a lawyer (apparently not one that he had hired), and that that lawyer had “laughed” at it.

Pause with me for a minute and let’s think about that last claim.

If you’re served with a Notice of Libel for calling someone a pedophile, because you’ve actually accused someone of being a pedophile, and you take that Notice to a lawyer, there are a number of possible responses. If there’s a case, the lawyer should advise you of that. If there’s not much of a case, the lawyer should advise you of that as well. What the lawyer probably shouldn’t do is laugh at the Notice. That sort of behaviour is what we’d normally call really, really fucking stupid legal advice. But it’s what Patrick Ross claims happened.

It’s hard to believe that any lawyer would give that kind of counsel, but it’s the story Patrick Ross was now telling, and it’s apparently what inspired him to behave like what I began to call “The Dumbest Defendant in the History of Defendantdom.” But I tarry. Onward.

Having responded to the February 2010 Notice of Libel with nothing but scorn, mockery, derision and intimidation (and more than a smattering of illiteracy and bad grammar), Patrick Ross left me with very little choice, at which point I instructed my lawyer to do the obvious thing and in April of 2010, Patrick Ross was served with a Statement of Claim listing his offenses and what I was suing for.

(Aside: Based on advice from my incomparably professional and diligent lawyer and to speed things up, I chose to sue under the Simplified Procedure in Rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure. As it was explained to me, while this limited my claim of damages to $100,000, it typically got through the legal system way faster. Ergo, I made it so.)

At this point, a quick legal lesson, for which you'll thank me later. The first two pages of the Statement of Claim (henceforth “SoC”) spelled out painfully clearly what this was about and what would happen if Patrick Ross didn’t take it seriously, and I quote (final emphasis added):

TO THE DEFENDANT:

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff. The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a Statement of Defence in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff’s lawyer or, where the plaintiff does not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff, and file it, with proof of service, in this Court Office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this Statement of Claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.

If you are served in another Province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your Statement of Defence is forty days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is sixty days.

Instead of serving and filing a Statement of Defence, you may serve and file a Notice of Intent to Defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure. This will entitle you to ten more days within which to serve and file your Statement of Defence.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

Now let’s make sure you understand what’s happening there. In a nutshell, having been served in a different province, Patrick Ross now had a hard legal deadline of 40 days to respond and file a defense; otherwise, he risked being placed in default. And what “default” means is simply that he will no longer be allowed to participate in the ongoing legal proceedings, and we’ll be moving on without him.

(Let me explain that again because it’s important. Despite what astonishingly stupid and ill-informed commenters might try to tell you, having Patrick Ross placed in default in no way means I automatically win my case. I still have to make a case, I have to present it properly before a judge, and that judge will still absolutely rule on its merits. The only difference is that I will present my side unopposed. But I still have to present my side, and the judge will still have to rule. We will be returning to this critically important point for the sake of monumentally retarded people everywhere. But ... onward.)

Having served defendant Patrick Ross with a proper Statement of Claim, my lawyer and I sat back and waited for a proper and legal response within the mandated 40 days.

And then it got stupider.

Having yapped and bragged to everyone within earshot about how he couldn’t wait to kick my ass in court, Patrick Ross suddenly decided that discretion was the better part of jaw-dropping stupidity, and simply vanished. No response. No filing of defense. No nothing. The weeks went by. Eventually, two months went by and, being the impatient sort that I am, I was all for filing to put Patrick Ross in default.

“Patience,” counseled my inestimable lawyer, explaining that, depending on what happened down the road, it was in our best interests to be as accommodating and flexible as humanly possible. He made a convincing case — the legal system tends to look more favourably on those who play nice so, after more than two months, rather than file, my lawyer simply dropped a short e-mail to Patrick Ross, politely pointing out that he was past the 40-day deadline for filing a defense and when might we expect to see it?

And then it got stupider.

“Statement of Claim? What Statement of Claim?” That would be Patrick Ross, now professing total ignorance of a properly prepared and served Statement of Claim. To which my thoroughly professional lawyer replied that, OK, here it is again, and we’ll give you another month but we’re going to put a hard deadline on it, so you really need to get your shit together and take this seriously and we’ll be waiting.

You’ll never guess what happened next. Go ahead, guess. You’ll never guess.

Nothing.

That’s right. Nothing. Self-described legal whiz kid Patrick Ross, having chosen to represent himself, blew off the generous extension we’d given him and still didn’t file a defense, at which point on the day of the hard deadline we’d given him, we filed and put defendant Patrick Ross in default. Yes, the Patrick Ross who bragged for months about what sort of ass-kicking he was going to lay on me simply ... vanished.

And to tidy up Part Two, it remains only to explain that, having placed Patrick Ross in default, my lawyer applied for a court date, got one in short order, appeared, presented his case and got the $85,000 judgment referred to earlier.

And you’d think that was the end of the story. And you would be wrong. Because there will be a Part Three and, unsurprisingly, it gets stupider.

ADDENDUM -- SOME LEGAL STUFF: While I am not a lawyer, I believe I’m qualified to explain a couple things that some folks seem utterly unable to comprehend. The first involves what’s referred to as a “default judgment,” which is an unfortunate phrase since it actually involves two distinct events and processes.

Placing someone in default means nothing more than that they’ve failed to file a defense within the allotted time, at which point one is allowed to suggest they’re either too stupid or too lazy to take the legal system seriously. And placing them in default means only that they’re now not entitled to participate in further proceedings.

Placing someone in default says nothing whatsoever about the merits of the suit. It makes no judgment — it simply reflects one party’s lack of interest or effort in following the rules and doing what is required of them. Even after Patrick Ross was placed in default, my lawyer still had to file for a court date, show up and plead my case. And as you can read from the very brief summary of that case:

the judge absolutely found that I had been defamed, and maliciously at that. I was not handed that judgment out of the goodness of the Court’s heart — I won that judgment because I had been defamed. Period. Anyone who suggests otherwise is an idiot. But we’re not done here.

Let’s talk about “malice,” shall we? Because you’ll notice that the judge ruled that not only had Patrick Ross defamed me, but his behaviour was “clearly malicious,” so let’s make sure you understand the significance of that qualifier.

As I understand it, if you defame someone under Canadian law, you have a number of defenses. But if the defamation was malicious, most of those defenses disappear. If it can be shown that the defamation was explicit and deliberate, and that you knew the damage you were causing, you’re pretty well screwed in terms of a defense.

And that’s where Patrick Ross was massively obliging, in that on at least one occasion, he publicly bragged about how he knew how his constant blogging about me was polluting search engines and driving search requests about me to his site where readers would read his outrageous accusations. Quite simply, Patrick Ross made the hideously unwise decision to boast about how he knew what he was doing was ruining my personal and professional reputation. Yeah, that was a monstrously stupid thing to do, and he got his peepee whacked savagely in court for that. Not one of Patrick’s finer or more intelligent moments.

And one can even argue that, given the massive dossier we submitted detailing the overwhelming defamation, even if Patrick Ross had been in court, it’s not clear what he could possibly have presented as a defense. Once you’ve bragged online about how you’ve spent months wrecking someone’s reputation, you really don’t have a lot of wiggle room to walk it back.

Coming soon — Part Three, “And then it gets stupider.”

P.S. Just FYI, Patrick Ross’ strategy to ruin my reputation was to use my full name, the same way, over and over and over, repeatedly, to absolutely saturate online search engines and drive search requests to his site.

You might have noticed that I’m using his full name fairly frequently in these blog posts. I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.

BONUS HILARITY: I would be remiss in not pointing out that, less than a week before my lawyer appeared in court to plead my case, this happened. That’s right — when my lawyer appeared in that Ontario Superior Court of Justice courtroom, he had in his hand a precedent less than a week old from that same court, recognizing the significance of online defamation.

Which inspires me to write something you won’t read very often: Thank you, Ezra Levant.

WICKED COOL ADDENDUM: Anyone who wants a schooling in Canadian defamation law is encouraged to read that Vigna decision. In particular, paragraph [37] describes what must be true to claim a defence of “fair comment.” Amusingly, the very next paragraph reads:

Proof of actual malice will defeat the defence of fair comment.

Yeah, that’s kind of why, in my case, the judge’s finding that Patrick Ross acted with obvious malice really screws him every possible way.

Movin' on to Part 3. The things I do for you people.

The Saga of Patrick Ross -- Part the First

2012-01-03T15:55:00.000-05:00

CC here. Since I’ve tweeted mysteriously about this a number of times, I thought it was finally time to write the awesome — nay, definitive — history of my relationship with one Patrick Ross. And I use the word “relationship” in its most unpleasant and pejorative sense. And since this is going to take a while, you might as well make yourself comfortable; we’re going to be here for a bit.

First, let’s get rid of the suspense — pop over here to set the stage. That part of this sordid epic has been public for a while; the fact that mullet-headed frat boi Patrick Ross maliciously defamed me over the course of many months to the point where the legal system finally gave him the spanking he had coming to him, and gave me an $85,000 judgment I had coming to me. None of that is any surprise anymore. But there’s so much more and I think it’s time everyone else knew the whole story, and I’m doing this for a couple reasons.

First, as hard as it might be to believe, we’re still looking for Patrick Ross. That’s right — even after he was properly and personally served with the aforementioned judgment in April of last year, he’s weirdly considered himself somehow above the law, so the hunt is still on. And I figured that, if I want to ask the general public for help, I really have to give it something in return. Hence, the story you’re about to read. But that’s not all.

Having put up with years of abuse from Patrick Ross, I figure it’s only fair that I take this opportunity to spank him savagely and thoroughly (metaphorically speaking, of course), and to reveal him for the cement-headed, self-absorbed dingbat he is. And this is going to take so long that I’ll be doing this in two (possibly three, maybe four, who knows?) parts. So settle in, cuz it’s going to be quite the ride. And when we’re done, you’re more than welcome to do me an $85,000 favour. And now, to business.

(Aside: Every so often, I’ll toss in one of these “asides”, for obvious reasons. The first aside is that I’m going to try to be as accurate as possible about timelines, but dates don’t need to be perfect — all that matters is the general order of events.)

It was after a couple years of blogging here at CC HQ that I first came to the attention of yappy, shrieking, spittle-flecked, overage frat boi and U of Alberta undergrad Patrick Ross, sometime around June of 2007. For an undergrad with an undeniably high opinion of himself, Patrick’s sniping was remarkably childish, and I satisfied myself with smacking him on the nose every so often, and moving on. And it wouldn’t have got any more exciting than that except for the day that "NAMBLA Dick" sauntered into town.

As near as I can tell, NAMBLA Dick (real name unimportant, nickname self-evident shortly) started in on me around August of 2007, and took great exception to me and everyone else at CC HQ. NAMBLA Dick was no wittier or well-read than any of Canada’s other useless, stenographic wankers at the time, but he distinguished himself by having a mean streak that inspired him to some astonishingly classless attacks.

After warming up with your typically sophomoric right-wing insults, NAMBLA Dick decided that it would be knee-slappingly hysterical to register a web site with a look-alike name to that of CC HQ, with the obvious design of hoping to trick the unsuspecting into visiting his site instead of the legitimate CC HQ. That’s tacky enough, of course, but NAMBLA Dick was just getting started.

What he did then was to redirect that URL to the home page of “NAMBLA” — the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Um, that would be a group that promotes men having sex with adolescent boys. Ha ha, that Dick, what a card! That is some funny shit, you bet. But Dick wasn’t done, oh no.

To truly finish things off, Dick arranged for the site to pop up a 15-second dialogue, claiming quite unambiguously that what the reader was about to see was what the proprietors of CC HQ wanted for Canada. In short, Dick was openly accusing all four of the bloggers at CC HQ of directly promoting pedophilia. To this day, no one knows from where in his fevered imagination Dick got this idea, but he clearly thought it was the height of entertainment, and he refused every entreaty to take it down, even from people who were typically supporters of his. Yes, Dick was that classless.

The cross-country pissing match (NAMBLA Dick lived with his wife and two children in Calgary, I was in Ontario) went on for months, with Dick making it crystal clear that that site was not coming down, and me slowly but inexorably running out of patience. No one understood what Dick’s point was, but it seemed like a bizarre thing to do for a rather obvious reason — Dick was running for Calgary City Council at the time, and it struck everyone that this really isn’t the kind of public exposure you want to hang around your neck when you’re trying to sweet-talk the electorate. But Dick cared not one whit — election or no election, he seemed determined to roll around in the mud of a website featuring men who wanted to get it on with adolescent boys, sodomistically speaking.

Now, as I said, I was slowly but surely running out of patience and, in a fit of pique, I did something I’ll admit didn’t represent my finest hour, but it happened. I decided that, if Dick was so keen on promoting NAMBLA’s web site, I could make him wear that sleaze in a very public way, and I suggested to my readership that, given that Dick had posted his family’s personal information on his political web site, it would be a trivial job to figure out, from simple geography, where his two children went to school, at which point one could simply drop a note to the entire staff there, pointing out Dick’s unseemly obsession with men and boys having sex.

Let me say that again to make sure we all understand my proposal. NAMBLA Dick had already posted his family information online, including his address in Calgary. Based on nothing more than that, I suggested it would not be difficult, based on only the layout of the school system, to deduce where Dick’s kids went to school, then embarrassing him massively to the teachers there. My logic was fairly obvious — if Dick thought promoting NAMBLA was such a nifty idea, he couldn’t possibly complain if I helped it along by giving him even more publicity. Simple, no?

Well, the shitstorm was entirely predictable. Despite the fact that I made it clear that my plan was based entirely on public information (most of which NAMBLA Dick had published himself, something he reluctantly admitted to much later), the shrieking was instantaneous — OMFG, CC’s endangering Dick’s kids, he’s telling people to stalk them, yap yap yap yap! The same wingnuts who thought sending unsuspecting readers to a site featuring man-on-boy butt sex were suddenly mortified by my proposal involving nothing more than public information and looking at a city map. If the hypocrisy was any thicker, you could have cut it with Ezra Levant's chainsaw. Yes, the hypocritical hysteria was something to behold. But wait, you ask, what does this have to do with Patrick Ross? A good question. But before I answer that, I must set the stage.

As anyone who’s ever dealt with Patrick Ross knows full well, he is the most dishonest debater imaginable. Patrick’s shtick is to argue in bad faith. By that, I mean that Patrick is never, ever, ever interested in an actual, honest exchange of ideas. Rather, Patrick’s M.O. is to hideously distort whatever you say or write, then attack the distortion. Patrick Ross has never been interested in discussion. Patrick Ross has only ever been interested in winning, and a couple examples will demonstrate that quite nicely.

Consider, if you will, the case of Andrew Meyer. As you can read, Meyer was the dumbass who was Tasered at the U of Florida for being an obnoxious, belligerent troublemaker who physically scuffled with security until they’d had enough and Tased his sorry ass. Given his behaviour, I and many others opined that, frankly, anyone that much of an idiot deserved to get a good Tasering, and I for one had no sympathy.

Patrick Ross’ rebuttal was as rapid as it was idiotic — “CC thinks people who disagree with John Kerry should be Tasered!!”

See what Patrick Ross did there? Totally stripped the context, and dumped on me for something not even remotely close to reality or what I’d written. And lest you think that was an isolated incident, let us continue.

There was also the case of anti-choice crusader Ed Snell. But Ed Snell was no ordinary shrieky fetus fetishist, oh no. As you can read here, Snell was a delightfully ambitious dingbat, who went to the trouble of building a car-top platform, from where he could continue to howl Scripturally at women even after they’d entered the grounds of an abortion clinic. Once again, a number of people (including myself) really couldn’t muster up any pity for Snell once someone lost it and booted Snell’s ass off the top of his car.

You know what’s coming, don’t you? Yes, you do: “CC encourages violent physical assault of senior citizens!!!!!”

See how Patrick works? To a miniscule grain of reality, Patrick Ross wraps multiple layers of exaggeration, distortion, misrepresentation and utter bullshit. This is what he does. This is how he argues. Invariably. Anyone who has dealt with him for any amount of time knows precisely of what I speak. And the brighter among you probably already know where this is going.

Patrick Ross decided that he wanted in on the NAMBLA Dick pissing match and, entirely predictably, my simple request for some geographical information was transmogrified by Patrick Ross into:

Accusations that I was harassing Dick’s kids.

Accusations that I was stalking Dick’s kids.

Accusations that I was encouraging my readers to stalk Dick’s kids.

Accusations that I was engaged in a criminal conspiracy to stalk Dick’s kids.

Accusations that I was engaged in a scheme of criminal harassment against Dick and his family.

In one hilarious incident, Patrick literally accused me of stalking Dick’s children “to their school” (his exact words), despite the fact that a) to this day, I have no idea what school they attended, and b) I haven’t been to Calgary in over a decade. But you should now appreciate how Patrick operates, and this is important as it plays a critical role in what happens from this point on.

We can now fast-forward to that fateful day of June 15, 2009, when my bloggy anonymity was blown and I was outed, with NAMBLA Dick being one of the prime movers behind that effort. And there was much rejoicing and schadenfreuding in the Canadian Dumbass-o-sphere, and the totally predictable threats of personal assault and violence the Dumbass-o-sphere is famous for, and I gritted my teeth and sucked it up and continued blogging and everyone slowly but eventually drifted away and life returned to something resembling normal.

Except for Patrick Ross.

Because now that my name was out there, Patrick Ross decided this was what was going to make his rep and get him some dynamite, kick-ass street cred — to launch a full-out, 24/7 assault on me and my personal and professional reputation because, apparently, that’s what U of A frat bois think gets the chicks or something. And Patrick took on his new mission with great gusto.

For the next several months, Patrick Ross spared no pixels in blogging about me and using my full name on a daily basis. The smearing was relentless — I was a stalker, a child stalker, a criminal, involved in criminal harassment, I was a dangerous psychopath … well, you get the idea. No one’s quite sure what drove Patrick Ross, but on at least one occasion, he openly described himself as being on a “mission from God” to reveal to all of Canada the dangerous lunatic hiding in their midst.

On advice of co-bloggers, I tried to ignore him, but that simply drove him into an even greater frenzy. At times, he published three blog posts a day attacking me, leading more than one person to suggest that that boy just wasn’t right in the head. And I continued to ignore him … until that day.

That would be the day in early 2010 when, sensing weakness on my part, Patrick Ross flat out accused me of being a pedophile. Let me assure you I do not exaggerate — the phrase “balls deep in a two-year-old” featured prominently in his accusation. And it was at that point that I’d had enough, and hired me a lawyer.

To be continued ...

The Saga of Patrick Ross -- New House Rules

2012-01-03T14:57:00.005-05:00

For reasons stemming from a fundamental difference in philosophy, the cripplingly hilarious "Saga of Patrick Ross" is going to be republished here one part at a time, with that fundamental difference in philosophy as follows.

Having put up with Patrick Ross' relentless defamation over the course of almost three years, while I'm going to leave the comments sections open for the entire series of posts, I absolutely will not tolerate trolls, idiots and sock puppets dropping by for the purpose of retrying my defamation lawsuit against him. Given that that case was tried and ruled overwhelmingly in my favour over a year ago, I have no patience for anyone who wants to re-argue its fundamental issues all over again.

I will particularly have zero tolerance for anyone who stupidly wants to repeat the same defamation that has one Patrick Ross in debt to me for currently well over $85,000 in judgment and court costs. If that's your plan, you're free to do that but you'll do it somewhere else.

Quite simply, after putting up with Patrick Ross' defamatory bullshit for month after month after libelous month, this is my turn to tell the story and I have no intention of letting utter dingbats hijack the discussion.

My blog. My rules. Deal with it.

Hiatus! And thanks for all the fish.

2010-05-30T17:35:00.012-04:00

Dr. Dawg has the right idea -- a month away from the blog. Of course, he has an actual excuse -- academic research.

Me? I'm just tired.

Now I could yammer on endlessly regarding my justification ... hey, why don't I do just that? In a nutshell, I'm tired not so much of blogging but what it's turned into. Used to be it represented some humour, some snark and -- most importantly -- actual, genuine intellectual discourse.

Well, those times are long gone, aren't they? Look around. If you're a Canadian progressive, who exactly are you going to exchange intellectual banter with? Hunter? Dodo? Kate McMillan? Neo Conservative? Ezra Levant? Kathy Shaidle? Sandy Crux? Dr. Jabba the Roy?

And even if you put in some legitimate civil effort (as a number of progressives have done), you know what's coming? "Harharhar, stupid leftards, it sure is easy to upset them, harharhar!" Followed immediately by the inevitable savage and brutal comment moderation and deletion. No intellectual discourse for those folks.

Quite simply, there's no middle ground to even attempt discourse any more. Canada's conservatives aren't just, well, conservative. No, they are, for the most part, screeching, scientifically illiterate bigots, racists and hypocrites. And after a while, simply mocking them gets tedious and repetitive. I mean, how long can I milk the theme of, "Hey, did you see the awesomely stupid thing that [insert random Blogging Tory name here] wrote today!?!?" You start to feel that you might as well just number code the jokes to save time. After all, I need only write "Molecules!" to inform everyone that Sandy Crux just posted something howlingly idiotic.

But, really, in the end, I just have other, more important things I want to do. It's been fun but, after well over 10,000 posts and over one and a quarter million visitors, there's other stuff I'd rather spend my time on -- books to read, technical tutorials to write, courseware to design, people to bounce some business ideas off of, seminars to give, conferences to attend, development kits on which to install Linux ... well, you get the idea. And when I think about it (and it doesn't take much thought), all of the above appeals to me way more than mocking Stephen Taylor for whatever asinine piece of offal he posted yesterday.

Will this stick? Who knows? Perhaps there's an up-and-coming blogger who wants to join the crew at CC HQ and poke stupid right-wingers with a sharp stick. If you're out there and this sounds like you, drop me a note and we'll see. But when I look around, I'm pretty sure the Canadian Progress-o-sphere is in good hands. And if there are any bloggy get-togethers, sure, I might crash it and socialize with my ideological buds.

But for now, at least, I've got a buttload of cool technical projects and people who want more of my time and, in the grand scheme of things, those cool technical projects have a lot more appeal than whatever douchebagitude Steve "The Premature eJankulator" Janke horked up recently.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I have some work to do for a high-tech European company and I feel like doing a good job of it. And that means starting today. Now.

Well, OK, after a glass of scotch. Then I'll start. And thanks for all the fish.

P.S. Molecules! You had to know that was coming.

OK, that's just weird.

2010-05-30T08:59:00.001-04:00

What the f...?

Now they're just stalking me.

Being right about everything all of the time.

2010-05-29T12:52:00.002-04:00

Oh, come on ... when everyone else was celebrating Speaker Peter Milliken's Parliamentary smackdown of the Cons over the Afghan detainees documents, I know I predicted something like this:

Opposition balks at Tory loophole in detainee records deal
Conservative proposal would allow exemptions for some documents

The Harper government has been trying to insert a loophole in a deal that’s supposed to grant opposition MPs full access to secret records on Afghan detainees – a proposal that could derail negotiations if not resolved.

Opposition parties are fighting the attempted exemption that would let Ottawa withhold some documents on the grounds they are “not necessary or appropriate for the purpose of holding Parliament to account."

Feel free to acknowledge my spectacular talent at prognostication any time.

You keep using that word "transparency" ...

2010-05-29T08:35:00.003-04:00

Apparently, we have a new right-wing talking point:

Critics point out that Britain pegged its costs for hosting a one-day G20 meeting in London last year at $30-million – a relative pittance, but an amount some U.K. newspapers still decried as spendthrift.

How to account for the Canada-U.K. discrepancy? Bookkeeping, according to [security czar Ward] Elcock.

“You’re assuming, and I frankly don’t, that the public numbers out there are correct,” he said. “If you could actually compare apples to apples, the costs are going to be fairly comparable.

“We have been much more transparent about total costs. I don’t mean that other countries are hiding costs,” he cautioned, saying that other, unnamed governments’ accounting methods are “just different.”

Ah, so the only reason Canada seems to be spending 30 to 40 times as much is that, apparently, we're simply being more open, more transparent, more accountable about that budget, is that it?

In that case, one might reasonably ask where that transparency and accountability was back in March:

In March, Canada allocated C$179 million for security costs at the two summits. This week it shocked legislators by revealing the overall total would in fact be many hundreds of millions of dollars more.

Sorry, Ward, but you can't have it both ways. You can't brag about transparency and accountability now after you clearly hid the real numbers two months ago. It doesn't work that way.

Unless you live in Stephen Harper's world. Then, sadly, it always works that way.

Molecules!

2010-05-29T07:34:00.003-04:00

I swear to God, you can't make this stuff up. From August of 2009:

(As an aside, one should note Sandy's level of astonishing cluelessness in constantly and relentlessly moving blog posts and blogs around to the point where links to her idiocy are always breaking and one can't possibly keep up with where she's moved her content this time. But I grow snarky. Onward.)

Wait for it ... wait for it ... wait for it ... ah, there it is:

This is a heads up to regular visitors. Due to the time required to manage and write two blogs, I have decided to incorporate Just Politics @torytalk.ca with The Retired Educator as I did initially with Crux of the Matter before I could no longer use that URL. However, I am not deleting www.torytalk.wordpress.com as I may want to use it if there is a federal or Ontario election campaign.

Note that the Harper Gov’t Record is on the header bar but no one has to change their favourites or links as I have forwarded the various domains. However, RSS feeds would need to be updated to http://theretirededucator.ca/?feed=rss2

I thank everyone in advance for their understanding.

I am, literally, speechless.

What a convenient interpretation.

2010-05-29T07:16:00.008-04:00

Blogging Tory Hugh MacIntyre gets all pedantic and everything:

Government versus the Conservative Party

The headline of this story reads 'Tories apologize to India over visa feud.' Shouldn't it read 'government apologize to India over visa feud.' It isn't like the Conservative Party of Canada is making the apology. It is the government.

There is a fine line between the actions of a political party in government and the actions of the government. But when dealing directly with foreign powers it is very clear what side of the line it is on. Minister Kenney was speaking on behave [sic] of the government of Canada not the Conservative Party.

So why the misleading title? Is it to make it sound like this incident is somehow the Conservative's fault?

We now return you to your regular programming, where the Stephen Harper Party of Canada runs the country, and the entire Opposition are simply second-class citizens who can shut the fuck up.

P.S. Follow the link and make your own determination as to who exactly owes the apology. No, really, go ahead. Amuse yourself.

Oh, and pay close attention to this bit:

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney issued a statement Friday saying Canada works closely on security matters with India.

“The Government of Canada therefore deeply regrets the recent incident in which letters drafted by public service officials during routine visa refusals to Indian nationals cast false aspersions on the legitimacy of work carried out by Indian defence and security institutions, which operate under the framework of democratic processes and the rule of law,” Mr. Kenney said in the statement.

“This language, or the inaccurate impression it has created, in no way reflects the policy or position of the Government of Canada.”

At least he got that last part right. It wasn't the policy of position of the "Government of Canada" -- it was simple Conservative racism from beginning to end. With the unfuckable Jason Kenney's fingerprints all over it.

BY THE WAY, HUGH, if you want to get all pedantic like that, you might reserve your irritation for this sort of crap on the Government of Canada website:

PM builds stronger collaboration with Mexico

Really? The PM built a stronger collaboration with Mexico all by himself? That's just awesome. I would have thought the rest of the Government of Canada would have been involved as well. My bad.

BONUS TRACK: I could do this all day.

Jason? Jason who?

2010-05-29T06:05:00.004-04:00

Canada's Blogging Tories, who absolutely delight in pointing out the dishonesty, hypocrisy and shifting ethical standards of, well, everyone else, have nothing to say on the subject:

Pretend you're surprised.

P.S. In case you needed reminding:

Document the douchebagitude.

2010-05-28T12:24:00.002-04:00

Seriously, go wild.

WELL, THAT'S JUST EMBARRASSING: Commenter Lenny draws our attention to this. I am ashamed.

Syrup? Yes Please!

2010-05-28T09:33:00.004-04:00

The unfuckable Jason Kenney launches the Conservative Party of Canada space program, powered by a heady mixture of flat out lies and methane. Should you have a moment or three the good Rev. paperboy called me up late last night and we had a little chat. Tune on in to the Maple Syrup Revolution for tales of fibbers, cons and douchebags named Baird.

None dare call it "corruption."

2010-05-28T07:14:00.003-04:00

You will, I wager, not find a single Blogging Tory calling out Tony Clement on this:

Clement took part in a 2008 promotional video for Lord & Partners Ltd., a company that produces environmentally friendly cleaning products. The company is based in Clement's Ontario riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka.

In the video, Clement identifies himself as the minister of health, as he was at the time, and extends greetings to the people of China "on behalf of myself and the government of Canada."

And here's the fun part:

As industry minister, Clement subsequently appointed the producer of the video, longtime supporter George Young, to the Canadian Tourism Commission. Moreover, Lord & Partners this year received three federal contracts, worth a total of $41,000.

And, as we have already established, IOKIYAC.

AFTERSNARK: In that article, here's part of the apparent defense (all subsequent emphasis finger-pointingly added):

Harper was not in the Commons but his parliamentary secretary, Pierre Poilievre, stood by Clement, one of the prime minister's most seasoned ministers.

Poilievre said Clement was not involved in awarding any federal contracts to Lord & Partners. He said the company owner has never contributed to the Conservative party and that Clement did not gain financially in any way by helping to promote the company.

But that part is most emphatically not relevant, as Impolitical reproduces the appropriate legislation:

For the purposes of this Act, a public office holder is in a conflict of interest when he or she exercises an official power, duty or function that provides an opportunity to further his or her private interests or those of his or her relatives or friends or to improperly further another person’s private interests.

It certainly seems like it's that last part that would apply here, wouldn't you say?

All the douchebaggery that's fit to ignore.

2010-05-28T03:59:00.001-04:00

Submitted without comment:

The unfuckable Jason Kenney: Liar!

2010-05-27T16:28:00.001-04:00

Via Stageleft, we have the following beauty, which deserves MASSIVE distribution:

Take it away, sports fans.

Thank ya, thank ya very much.

2010-05-27T16:21:00.002-04:00

You know I only do it to annoy.

P.S. I'm in some pretty good company there, wouldn't you say?

Dear Bob Rae:

2010-05-27T16:14:00.000-04:00

Do or not do. There is no try.

That $200 million security bill? Down the memory hole.

2010-05-27T12:56:00.004-04:00

Maybe I'm just pooching this, but it seems that all those online references that once promised no more than a $200 million security bill for the upcoming summits have all gone bye-bye.

Google for it -- here, let me save you the trouble. I use that phrase since it seemed to be popular, and at least Google claims to have found a few hits.

Now follow those links. Go ahead. I'll wait right here.

Do you see any pages at the other end of those links? And if you do, do they say anything about that specific amount of money? Hmmmmmmm?

Or maybe search for some variation of that phrase. Can you find anything online that still refers to that earlier, much smaller amount? I'm just curious.

None dare call it hypocrisy.

2010-05-27T10:05:00.003-04:00

Awwwwwkward:

Industry minister admits to breaking copyright law to build iPod collection

OTTAWA — Industry Minister Tony Clement has an admission to make: He built his impressive music library on his iPod in part by breaking Canada's copyright law.

Clement, stickhandling the copyright file for the Conservative government along with Heritage Minister James Moore, is poised to introduce new copyright legislation within days. But until the law is updated to permit Canadians to transfer music onto MP3 players from CDs they have purchased, Clement stands on the wrong side of Canada's copyright law.

"Well you see, you know I think I have to admit it probably runs afoul of the current law because the current law does not allow you to shift formats. So the fact of the matter is I have compact discs that I've transferred, I have compact discs from my children or my wife that I've transferred onto my iPod. None of that is allowable under the current regime," Clement, a music buff who also legally purchases songs from iTunes to build a digital database that now stands at 10,452 songs.

In unrelated news, Canada's conservatives are staunch law-and-order types. Just ask them.

Ah, so that's what unfettered influence looks like.

2010-05-27T09:37:00.003-04:00

The nad crushing power of the JoJo:

James Traver’s column is very strange today. It is lacking a certain je ne sais quois…

Where is the anger and the venom? Where is the over-the-top pugilistic rhetoric?

Are you feeling o.k. James? Or could it possibly be that you want to work your way out of that Bad rating you received in our media survey?

Apparently, there exists a universe in which professional journalist James Travers is terribly, terribly concerned about what screechy wingnut JoJo and her adoring gang of drooling yips thinks. That must be a very odd place.

Republicans discover the Intertoobz ... what could possibly go wrong?

2010-05-27T06:09:00.002-04:00

Well, OK ... besides that?

Oh, so that's what that word means.

2010-05-27T05:22:00.003-04:00

Irony n. , pl. , -nies: In which a highly-placed representative of a major religion that has, for decades, fucked children and covered it up, presumes to lecture the rest of us on "moral disorder."

You can't put a price tag on ego.

2010-05-27T04:17:00.005-04:00

So ... what price for 72 hours of unabashed, pretentious primping and preening of one's ego on the world stage? Ah, a billion dollars:

Summit costs hit $1.1B

The cost of hosting the G8 and G20 summits next month in Ontario now stands at $1.1 billion and further outlays are likely, federal documents show.

The price tag includes $160 million for hospitality, infrastructure, food safety and extra staffing. That amount is in addition to the $933-million security bill the Tories revealed earlier this week.

"This might be the most expensive 72 hours in Canadian history," Liberal MP Mark Holland said.

And if my calculations are correct, that would put the price of five minutes of everyone standing around, waiting for Stephen the Corpulent to get back from the bathroom for the group photo at around $1,150,000, easily the most expensive dump of all time.

SOMEONE SHOULD PUNCH VIC TOEWS IN THE MOUTH: Seriously:

When asked by the Liberals during Wednesday's question period to explain the costs, [egregious philanderer and hypocrite Vic] Toews said the government believes the experts when they say such a level of security is necessary.

"I understand that the Liberals don't believe in securing Canadians or the visitors here," Toews told the House. "We're different."

Tune in tomorrow when Stephen Harper sonorously proclaims:

"I can understand why the Opposition would prefer that visiting international leaders were violently assaulted or assassinated while on Canadian soil. We're different."

To the mainstream media's everlasting shame, they would simply print that and move on.

And I'd check the watermark on the paper if I were you.

2010-05-26T15:24:00.005-04:00

That 2004 Harper coalition proposal, and the more recent one when others proposed something similar? Totally, totally different. Because shut up.

And fuck off. That, too.

OH, DEAR: The comments section there is a must-read. Seriously.

Molecules!

2010-05-26T06:48:00.002-04:00

Read this. Now read this.

I have no comeback.

A hundred million here, a hundred million there ...

2010-05-26T03:53:00.004-04:00

... pretty soon you're talking real money:

Security tab for G8 and G20 summits could top $900 million

OTTAWA – The cost of securing next month’s G8 and G20 summits has soared to at least $833 million – an eye-popping sum that has some wondering whether it’s time to rethink how international summits are organized.

The federal government on Tuesday revealed it had set aside an extra $654 million, on top of the $179 million already earmarked, to provide security for the G8 summit in Huntsville and the G20 summit in Toronto.

In unrelated news, the Stephen Harper Party of Canada wants you to know that times are tight and there's just not enough money to go around so, sadly, some people are just going to have to do without. You know ... like these kids:

If only there was $15 million to spare. Pity. If only they'd been white. And Christian. That's where the real money is, you know.

And here's where we juxtapose ...

2010-05-25T16:26:00.006-04:00

Apparently, the hard-nosed, kick-ass, take-no-prisoners, "Are you talkin' to me? Are you fucking talkin' to me!?!?" conservative political flunkies who promise to protect us all from the murderous Islamojihadifarians are the same ones who are too pants-pissing terrified to answer the questions of Parliament, 'cuz those committee members are really, really mean people and they can hurt someone's feelings.

Luckily, you can always count on John Baird to show up, scream at someone, punch a lady in the face and bite the head off a live chicken.

BONUS TRACK: What Dave said:

Dimitri Soudas is a coward.

He is a chickenshit, cowering piece of quivering liver. He cries for his mother when things don't go his way.

He is a conservative.

He let's other people fight his battles.

We have put the defence and the security of this country in the hands of the likes of him. Isn't that reassuring?

Look what a piece of cowardly crap your vote got you.

Want a piece of me Dimitri? No problem, you cowardly turd. Single combat. Look it up.

I'm fairly sure Dave means it, too.

Mongoliad!

2010-05-25T09:50:00.001-04:00

This looks wicked cool.

Goddamned, motherfucking, cocksucking booming school.

2010-05-25T09:28:00.012-04:00

Via the Mind of Dan, everything you ever wanted to know about booming school, for fuck's sake.

In unrelated news, Canada's whingers would like to address the inevitable ecological catastrophes that come from our relentless dependency on oil by telling you to fuck right off with your Earth Hour.

It's not like he WANTED to be a two-faced, hypocritical sleazebag ...

2010-05-25T04:39:00.003-04:00

The Canadian Fluff-o-sphere is all about the new Stephen Harper Senate talking points:

Of idealism, realism, and appointing senators

Long-time Blogging Tory, Springer on "Sort of Political" has written an excellent post on why Prime Minister Stephen Harper has had to appoint senators, despite the fact that before he got elected, he said he wouldn't appoint an unelected senator.

"Thus, it is no mystery that, to achieve even most symbolic reforms to the senate, PM Harper has had to fight tooth and nail every step of the way against a deeply entrenched indifference and/or ambivalence within the greatest part of the Canadian population centered in Ontario and Quebec that is a fact of our nation."

I would add the simple fact that in politics, circumstances change all the time, yet Harper has always had the long-game in sight and ignoring the naysayers (mostly Liberals and Dippers) who say they believe in reforming the senate but have no guts to do it. I've thus termed this condition as "insenaty".

The logic here is, of course, unimpeachable: As a committed opponent of patronage-laden Senate appointments, the only way Stephen Harper can get everyone else on board and stop making patronage-laden Senate appointments is to continue to make patronage-laden Senate appointments until the Opposition is so outraged that they will join with Stephen Harper in discontinuing the practise of patronage-laden Senate appointments.

In related news, Stephen Harper is said to be increasingly frustrated with the Opposition's reluctance in passing legislation that would increase the prison sentences of people who kill police officers so, starting tomorrow, Harper is going to murder one police officer a week until the Opposition finally sees things his way.

And that 2008 legislation raising the Canadian sexual age of consent from 14 to 16 years? You do not want to know how Harper convinced the rest of Parliament to go along.

And this is why we mock them.

2010-05-25T03:02:00.001-04:00

I have no punchline. Seriously.

The resemblance is downright eerie, isn't it?

2010-05-25T02:53:00.004-04:00

Molecules!

2010-05-24T18:16:00.006-04:00

Sandy Crux is outraged because Right Chik is outraged because ... oh, fuck it, we'll let Dr. Dawg sum it all up:

So someone who was not a delegate tried to crash a meeting? And was escorted out?

*yawn*

It occurs to me that unabashed, moist-panty groupies of the Stephen Harper Party of Canada are the last people who should be accusing anyone else of being brownshirts. If you catch my drift.

AFTERSNARK: Jesus, but Right Chik is a useless, lying piece of shit:

Look at the Ann Coulter event at the U of O - students could register for free where they would have had the opportunity to debate the object of their scorn - instead they chose to violently protest. I was in the room where the lecture was to take place and we had to leave by a back door for our own safety.

Liar.

In which Jack Layton and the NDP are invited to burst into flame and die.

2010-05-24T04:04:00.001-04:00

So ... how's that discussion about full public disclosure of MP's expenses going? Oh:

Given that the Bloc Québécois says it always supported the Auditor-General’s request, that means three of the four parties in the House of Commons are at least supportive of further talks. The NDP remains officially opposed to the Auditor-General’s request, though that too may change this week as several NDP MPs have called publicly for the party to reconsider.

Why anyone thinks Jack Layton still represents even a whiff of progressive principles these days just plain baffles the fuck out of me. Seriously.

Being right about absolutely everything, absolutely all of the time.

2010-05-24T03:53:00.003-04:00

Please, oh please, tell me that while everyone else was celebrating Speaker Peter Milliken's Afghan detainees ruling as a MASSIVE victory for the Opposition and a wicked boot to the nads for Stephen Harper, I blogged my immediate reaction at the time -- "Oh, man, he's just setting you up and you will get fucked over." Please tell me I wrote that down somewhere. Because here you go:

Ottawa bars ministers’ staff from appearing before committees
New Tory policy says ministers, not their staff, should be held accountable

Latest edict goes against Speaker’s ruling on Afghan detainees, ethics committee chair says

The Conservative government is launching another showdown with the opposition over the powers of Parliament, this time issuing an edict that only cabinet ministers – and not their political staff – can appear as witnesses before committees.

The new cabinet position, to be outlined in detail Tuesday morning, comes just days after the opposition and government resolved a heated dispute over Parliament’s power to see documents related to Afghan detainees.

By all means, read the rest -- an amusing new policy sodomizing the concept of "ministerial responsibility" and carefully released to coincide with a holiday long weekend when no one is paying attention.

Please tell me I can say, "I told you so."

ANOTHER GRAND EXPERIMENT: Hmmmm ... here's Blogging Tory Victor Wong, looking around carefully, then writing something lucid, hoping none of his BT colleagues notice. Let's check back in a day or so and see how well his philosophizing went down with his batshit crazy bunkmates at Stephen Taylor's House of Dumbth.

I'm guessing they're not going to be thrilled, but that's just a hunch.

So, how's that "Drill, baby, drill!" working out for ya?

2010-05-23T10:21:00.003-04:00

Oh, dear ... not so well:

With some oil impossible to remove, nature may be the last, worst hope
Cleanup could do more harm than good in marshes, so officials may have to let the disaster run its course

... More than 80 kilometres of Louisiana's delicate shoreline have been soiled by the massive slick unleashed after the Deepwater Horizon burned and sank last month. Officials fear oil eventually could invade wetlands and beaches from Texas to Florida. Louisiana is expected to be hit hardest.

Officials on Louisiana's coast discovered a major pelican rookery awash in oil on Saturday. Hundreds of birds nest on the island, and an Associated Press photographer saw that at least some birds and their eggs were stained with the ooze. Nests were perched in mangroves directly above patches of crude.

In unrelated news, today's conservatives wish government would get off the backs of big business because government just gets in the way of profit. Or something like that.

Oh, the piteous whining. Hypothetically speaking.

2010-05-23T10:06:00.003-04:00

In proposing a list of the good, the bad and the ugly in Canadian media, Blogging Tory JoJo finally loses her tenuous grip on reality:

THE UGLY:

We are unable to publish this list because as Ezra Levant found out, hurt feelings are not allowed in Canada.

You know, it's embarrassing enough when your life is one of perpetually whiny victimhood, but it's particularly pathetic when you have to make shit up to complain about.

And here's where we juxtapose ...

2010-05-23T09:01:00.004-04:00

Canada's hard-core, Biblical, God-fearing conservatives would like to take a brief break from explaining why gays are second-class citizens, abominations and don't deserve the same rights as regular people, to express shock and dismay over the apparent hate beating of a gay man, and to wonder where people got the idea that that kind of violence and savagery targeting homosexuals was acceptable behaviour.

You only wish I was making that up, don't you?

"Grandfathering" bigotry and discrimination: Sure, that's a plan.

2010-05-23T07:31:00.005-04:00

Apparently, the latest brainstorm emanating from Canada's Wingnut-o-sphere is that Saskatchewan's marriage commissioners who are terribly, terribly upset about being told to do their (public, taxpayer-funded) jobs -- that is, to officially marry whoever comes before them that is legally entitled to be married under federal law, including gays -- should be allowed to hang on to their well-established bigotry and be given a pass from said federal law because (if I read this correctly) they were bigots long before the law was changed.

Yes, if I am not mistaken, the suggestion to "grandfather" these homophobes is based on the logic that they have been bigots for so long, and that their bigotry is so well and firmly entrenched, that it would be emotionally and psychologically cruel and traumatic to tell them to grow the fuck up and join the rest of us in the 21st century. But what an interesting compromise that is, since it opens up all sorts of entertaining and/or disturbing possibilities.

For example, just a couple years ago, the sexual age of consent in Canada was raised from 14 to 16 years. And since this was a law that was passed by Parliament, you'd think it applied to everyone, right? And, certainly, if you're an adult who's never fucked a 14-year-old before, it goes without saying that you sure aren't going to start now.

But what if you've been doing it for a while? Maybe you're in your mid-thirties and have been fucking 14-year-olds for a number of years, to the extent that you're quite comfortable with it and having to stop would be, like, really upsetting and everything. Why should you have to cease and desist?

Sure, it's the law now but you never saw this coming and why should you have to suddenly change your behaviour? The obvious solution is, of course, the grandfathering of 14-year-old fuckers and letting them continue what they enjoy, but drawing the line there and not letting anyone else get started. That sounds like a reasonable compromise to me.

Cue shrieky, ignorant wankers howling how that's totally different in three ... two ... one ...

P.S. We're not done here.

Victory is mi-- hang on.

2010-05-22T11:53:00.001-04:00

Libertarian whackjob Rand Paul enjoys his victory while it lasts, because it doesn't last long.

It's official -- Texas just got stupider.

2010-05-22T09:16:00.007-04:00

Well, this is depressing:

Texas OKs school textbook changes
Critics claim conservatives trying to revise history

AUSTIN, Texas - The Texas State Board of Education adopted a social studies and history curriculum Friday that amends or waters down the teaching of the civil rights movement, religious freedoms, America's relationship with the U.N. and hundreds of other items...

In one of the most significant changes leading up to the vote, the board attempted to water down the rationale for the separation of church and state in a high school government class, pointing out that the words were not in the Constitution and requiring that students compare and contrast the judicial language with the wording in the First Amendment.

They also rejected language to modernize the classification of historic periods to B.C.E. and C.E. from the traditional B.C. and A.D., and agreed to replace Thomas Jefferson as an example of an influential political philosopher in a world history class. They also required students to evaluate efforts by global organizations such as the United Nations to undermine U.S. sovereignty.

Former board chairman Don McLeroy, one of the board's most outspoken conservatives, said the Texas history curriculum has been unfairly skewed to the left after years of Democrats controlling the board and he just wants to bring it back into balance.

Yeah, fucking liberals with their facts and evidence and methodology and science and everything. It's about time someone who believes in an invisible sky monster got the chance to shape impressionable young minds.

P.S. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that responsible American institutions of higher education simply refuse to accept Texas high school diplomas from now on?

LIMITING THE DAMAGE: At least according to CNN, the damage that Texas can inflict on the rest of the U.S. might be getting more limited these days:

What is taught in Texas often is taught in other states because publishers typically tailor textbooks for Texas, one of the largest buyers of textbooks in the country.

However, digital publishing has diminished the state's influence on textbooks nationally and that curriculum is always going to be decided at the local level, Education Secretary Arne Duncan said.

"Whatever Texas decides, I do not think there will be large ripple effects around the country," he said before Friday's votes. "Textbook companies today have a real ability to customize textbooks and whatever the Texas board decides, I don't think that's going to impact education in other parts of the country."

I think this is trivially obvious -- given the flexibility available with current digital publishing technology, changing a book for a different market should not be a big deal anymore.

One need only pop over to, say, Textbook Revolution, to see how frustrated students are dealing with stupidly expensive and crappy textbooks these days.

... and that's where I stopped reading.

2010-05-22T07:38:00.004-04:00

Blogging Tory Victor Wong does bad things to people with a mouthful of morning coffee:

So the Prime Minister likes to hang out with Bryan Adams, Taylor Swift, Yo-Yo Ma, Nickelback, and so on. He plays piano and privately jams with his son, a decent exercise in family bonding. What’s more, he doesn’t seem to make a big deal out of it ...

Quite so, Victor, quite so.

Punchline entirely superfluous.

Always ahead of my time, gosh darn it.

2010-05-22T05:31:00.003-04:00

Blogging Tory Adrael MacRaphelander has one of his occasional moments of partial lucidity, then brings the unintentional hilarity:

By the way, [National Post] Full Comment has a whole new look with nice big glossy pictures. I think they’re trying to compete with the Globe and Mail’s blog section.

Damn. And I just used this cartoon:

P.S. The comments section there is a real hoot as countless people twist themselves into ugly shapes to deliberately miss Adrian's point.

Not so fast, Pierre.

2010-05-21T13:52:00.001-04:00

Oh, dear.

Dear libertarians: Please put a sock in it.

2010-05-21T08:32:00.001-04:00

Seriously.

Blog!

2010-05-21T07:27:00.003-04:00

The secret:

Contemptuously dismissing people as wanky douchebags technically counts as "content," right?

Attention Earthlings

2010-05-21T06:53:00.003-04:00

The Rev is back with another Maple Syrup Revolution audio event. This episode featuring the eminent Senor Boris from down Galloping Beaver way. Listen up! This message brought to you by the Stockwell Day Love Machine Company and Puddingworks.

Not available in blonde. Wetsuits and Jet-Ski sold separately.

Rod, meet bus.

2010-05-21T05:43:00.004-04:00

Bus, Rod:

Harper to 'recommend' defeat of Tory MP’s abortion bill

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Stephen Harper will vote against a private member's bill promoted by one of his own MPs that would add new Criminal Code penalties for those who coerce women to have an abortion.

A senior government official also says that while the prime minister will not "whip" or demand Conservative MPs vote as he votes, it will be "very strongly recommended" that Conservatives vote to defeat the bill.

See, that's what happens when you count on the batshit fucking crazy demographic to keep you in office -- eventually, they start having their own ideas, and we all know nothing good ever comes of that.

Ah, irony, where is thy towel snap to the nads?

2010-05-21T04:52:00.003-04:00

Blogging Tory Alberta Ardvark is outraged -- outraged, I say -- about government censorship on the other side of the planet:

First they came for Facebook and now the Pakistani Government has banned You Tube and 450 other sites including Wikipedia for being "sacrilegious" to the nation's Muslim majority.

When you give the government the power to censor, they will use it.

You may agree with the government on a particular ban, but one day you won't, and by then it will be too late. Think Human Rights Commissions for something a little closer to home.

Say, anybody remember this amusing incident?

Minister stops book talk by Environment Canada scientist
Last Updated: Thursday, April 13, 2006 | 5:53 PM ET

Environment Minister Rona Ambrose has stopped an Environment Canada scientist from speaking publicly about his own novel...

[Author Mark] Tushingham was scheduled to speak in Ottawa about his book and the science underpinning it. But an order from Ambrose's office stopped him.

"He got a directive from the department, cautioning him not to come to this meeting today," said his publisher Elizabeth Margaris of DreamCatcher Publishers in New Brunswick. Margaris had driven from New Brunswick to attend the speech.

"So I guess we're being stifled. This is incredible, I've never heard of such a thing," she told CBC Radio.

First they came for the scientists, eh, Ardsy? And you didn't stand up ...

Conservative Party of Spam

2010-05-20T19:28:00.004-04:00

For the last few days I've been getting strange phone calls. The number is 300-130-1724 and in the caller id where the name would be is the number 519-639-4079. Curious, I called back and then I did a search to confirm. Sure enough, when I looked the number up, guess who's spamming my phone, why none other than the Conservative Party of Canada! How about fuck off spammers! Canada's New Government, bugging you at home with robo-calls.

Train wreck!

2010-05-20T13:57:00.001-04:00

Oh, dear.

Quote of the day.

2010-05-20T13:18:00.004-04:00

Bitchslap!

Harper — who once said he would never appoint senators but instead wanted them elected — has now appointed 33 Conservatives to the 105-seat upper House in the past 18 months.

Pretty much sums up the sleaziness of the man, doesn't it?

AFTERSNARK: Say what?

Harper has typically waited for a number of Senate vacancies to open up before making a group appointment, but officials in the government say there is too much important legislation to be passed before the summer recess and every Tory vote is needed.

In unrelated news, blowing six weeks on prorogation recently was a perfectly good idea. Wasn't that what you heard?

Frankly, I don't know why Harper doesn't simply take all of those Liberal senators outside and have them executed. I doubt it would surprise anyone by now.

So, how's that "Drill, baby, drill!" working out for ya?

2010-05-20T10:48:00.004-04:00

Oh, dear ... not so well. In unrelated news, Canada's conservatives who profess to be terribly, terribly concerned about this environmental disaster would like to remind you to Shut The Fuck Up about your stupid Earth Hour.

I would have used quotes but it's just a paraphrase.

And here's where we juxtapose ...

2010-05-20T08:42:00.003-04:00

Ezra "Bubbles" Levant, the man who pimped the appalling literary dishonesty that is Ann Coulter, is outraged by alleged errors in someone else's book.

If you have the time and are so inclined, why not pop by the Post and leave a comment to that effect? Be civil. Be polite. Try to avoid use of the phrase "vacuous, yammering douchebag."

PIMP UR BLOG! (Or someone else's if you must.)

2010-05-20T06:52:00.004-04:00

And here's where I get to be awesomely lazy and let you do all the work by recommending bloggy-type things out there that would appeal to the regular readership here at CC HQ. (And by appealing, I mean having the nads to refer to screechy, vacuous douchebags as, you know, "screechy, vacuous douchebags". Or, for the sake of brevity, "Ezras.")

Leave recommendations in the comments section. Use hyperlinks. If you don't know how to use hyperlinks, figure it out. Or join the Blogging Tories. Whatever.

I'll start things off here. And ... go.

No, no, too wordy, let me tighten that up.

2010-05-20T06:47:00.003-04:00

Via Audrey II, we have a reasonably cogent argument against "equal time":

I would put it another way:

"So, when you refer to 'equal time' and 'academic fairness,' you'd like us to balance the presentation of experimentally-supported and objective science with unadulterated, ignorant, scientifically illiterate, Christian wingnut bullshit?"

Yeah, that's tighter.

And there you have it.

2010-05-20T06:32:00.001-04:00

Whew:

Shell promises Arctic drilling will be safe

And I was so worried there for a minute. Silly me.

And here's where we juxtapose ...

2010-05-20T05:55:00.004-04:00

Here's the intellectually-crippled "Hunter," yammering on patriotically:

Being a non-hyphenated Canadian, I get ticked off at immigrants who expect us to bend our rules to accommodate their culture. This can be worked out if everyone comes to the table with a love of Canada.

An excellent point, Hunter. But what do we do with those people who despise Canada? You know ... like this hateful cretin:

... I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians...

... Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.

In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.

I'm with Hunter -- I'd send useless, unappreciative yobs like that packing. I'm sure Hunter would agree.

P.S. It's really easy to see why Hunter's MP asked her to stop blogging, isn't it?

Faggots redux!

2010-05-19T16:54:00.001-04:00

You know I only do this because it annoys the crap out of some folks, right? Of course you do.

Meow!

2010-05-19T16:04:00.004-04:00

Slap fight! Sorry, but the train wreck aspect of this is weirdly compelling.

And, yes, that makes me a bad person.

Beer! Popcorn! Lawyers!

2010-05-19T11:02:00.007-04:00

The spectacular and public self-immolation of Blogging Tory Sara Landriault continues at breakneck speed:

A reporter scamming her way to selling newspapers, she if [sic] full of it!

Too Munsch information, Robert!

The result of Munsch's admission of his problems has been to stigmatize them even more, as in Landriault's response, which can be summed up as: "He's mentally ill and he took cocaine and drank! Evil man! Get him and his books away from my children!

By Naomi Lakritz, Calgary Herald

This statement was never made by me nor was it even hinted at. Naomi is such a low life writer she decided to take my original post while ignoring my other posts showing all of my emotions just to sell more skanky newspapers.

This article is a lie, I do not believe Munsch is evil nor will I do any of the things she says I will in the article.

My blog was written to show my emotions of how the unveiling of Robert Munsch's addiction affected me, it was certainly not to portray him as evil. That would be Naomi's doing!

Apparently, Sara is some kind of pissed, as you can read in her comment at Lakritz's online piece:

I did not and do not feel munsch is evil, that only came from Naomi's narrow minded brain.

Read my blog for the truth http://choiceforchildcare.blogspot.com

as for Naomi I will see you and the Herald in court.

3 pieces of personal information were used without my permission from your paper and the National Post.

If you really want to be a tabloid writer try the US or UK they would love woman like you who twist the truth just to sell newspapers....

Overlooking the hilarity of a Blogging Tory complaining about journalistic irresponsibility, I suspect Sara is not going to have much of a case here since, as I read it, Lakritz never suggested that Sara used the word "evil." She simply suggested that Sara's position could be "summed up" that way; in short, Lakritz made it abundantly clear that she was paraphrasing, which would make this threatened legal action amusing indeed.

If I really want this to happen for the sheer, naked entertainment value, does that make me a bad person?

P.S. You need to read the comments at Sara's latest piece. Honestly, these people are about as smart as a sack of soup. I particularly like Ardvark's take on this:

Ardvark said…

..as in Landriault's response, which can be summed up as: "He's mentally ill and he took cocaine and drank! Evil man! Get him and his books away from my children!"

What kind of writer uses quotation marks for something that clearly was not said?

The kind that prefaces those quotes with "which can be summed up as" to make it clear they're paraphrasing? Christ, I'm getting tired of having to explain stuff to these yobs.

OH, YOU KIDS: You can be so adorable when you're even more obsessive than I am. An e-mailer brings my attention to this 2007 gem from lovely Sara:

Liberal supporter tells Cancer patient to "fuck off"

Jumping ahead to the comments section on that piece, we have commenter "Jay" being fairly reasonable:

I don't think this has anything to do with Liberals and more to do with an asshole who supports them.

And then Sara comes clean:

I agree he is a nutwing and has nothing to do with the party. I put Liberal supporter in hopes the Libs would shut him down.

It occurs to me that someone who deliberately lies for political advantage really doesn't have the moral high ground to complain about someone else's journalistic accuracy. If you catch my drift.

Nice life you have there, Raimey ...

2010-05-19T09:39:00.004-04:00

... what a shame it's about to turn to shit.

Blogging Tory co-founder Stephen Taylor: Giving Canada's vengeful, creepy stalkers their own social club.

AFTERSNARK: It's probably worth pointing out that Blogging Tory BC Blue's place is becoming Creepy Stalker Central in the Canadian Wingnut-o-sphere. I'm sure that wasn't his plan; it just worked out that way.

Geek humour.

2010-05-19T09:09:00.001-04:00

Faggots!

2010-05-19T08:10:00.007-04:00

Apparently, some truly stupid people have been blogging lately about same-sex marriage in Saskatchewan, whining about how marriage commissioners who refuse to perform same-sex marriages were totally blindsided by the relatively recent change in Canada's marriage laws that legalized such marriages and therefore they shouldn't have to perform them. For those truly stupid people, I humbly submit reality (all subsequent emphasis tail-waggingly added):

The Marriage Act, 1995 sets out the procedures that must be followed for a legally binding marriage in Saskatchewan. The Marriage Unit provides support to retailers authorized to sell marriage licences and those appointed to perform marriages. The Provincial Government (Marriage Unit) has exclusive jurisdiction to pass laws pertaining to "The Solemnization of Marriage in the Province." The Federal Government has the sole power to determine issues of capacity to marry, such as who can marry whom and age of consent.

In other words, those marriage commissioners have known since at least 1995 that it was the federal government that made up the rules and defined who could and couldn't get married, and that those rules could change at any time. I'd ask whether we were finally done here but, sadly, when truly stupid people are involved, we're never done.

P.S. And for those truly stupid people who keep whining that Saskatchewan's homophobic bigots simply want their day in court, I give you:

A tribunal set up by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ruled that [Orville] Nichols did not have the right to refuse service based on his personal beliefs, and ordered him to pay M.J. $2,500 in compensation.

Nichols appealed that ruling, arguing that his religious beliefs should be protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But in a 39-page decision dated July 17, Court of Queen's Bench Justice Janet McMurty dismissed Nichols' argument, concluding that the human rights tribunal was "correct in its finding that the commission had established discrimination and that accommodation of Mr. Nichols' religious beliefs was not required."

In short, Nichols went to the HRC, and lost. He then appealed, and lost again. He is now on his third attempt. One can say a number of things about the whiny and pathetically homophobic Orville Nichols, but one can't say that he hasn't had more than enough opportunity to make his case.

In closing, then, shut the fuck up.

P.S. Apparently, Canada's gay-bashing wankers suddenly care very deeply about Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the hell did that happen?

Simple answers to simple questions.

2010-05-19T06:30:00.010-04:00

Question: "... are we really being led by a man too chicken to answer the genuine, spontaneous queries of a few wonky kids?"

Answer: Yes.

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

P.S. And the bitch-slapping continues for Mr. Bubble ...

BY THE WAY, you can always spot the Conservatives in the comments section:

They're the ones who think education is a laugh riot.

AND HERE'S WHERE WE JUXTAPOSE: It just occurred to me that the earlier post had Blogging Tory Sara Landriault bawling about how being a stay-at-home mom left her with no marketable skills and exactly zero job prospects, and yet when the Globe article refers to a student at Winnipeg's Red River Community College being 30 years old, the right-wing fuckwits double over in laughter at the the idea of someone that old trying to better themselves at an institution of higher learning.

Oh, that these useless yobs could keep their bitching and insults consistent. Where the fuck are those internment camps when you really need them?

JESUS CHRIST: As commenter "mystereeoso" points out, the Canadian Dumbfuck-o-sphere has been given its marching orders:

30-year-old student runs to media with Harper question complaint

... Besides my first thought of “a 30-year-old student was at this thing”, I wondered just who would be asking a non-economic question in a group of students whose focus is on economics? ...

Ubiquitous wingnut commenter MaryT understands immediately how to deal with troublemakers like that:

Bet she show up, along with Pat Martin’s employee, at some protest at the G20-G8. We need her picture circulated so we can watch for her.

Yeah, that's my image of constructive, political discourse.

The spectacular hypocrisy of Sara Landriault.

2010-05-19T06:17:00.006-04:00

It's not like I'm trying to beat up on poor Blogging Tory Sara Landriault, who self-destructed so spectacularly in the course of a single blog post. But, oh my, how did all that eye-rolling wingnuttery stay so carefully hidden all this time? Here's Sara, bitching and whining about ... well, you'll just have to read it yourself:

How hard it is for a woman to return to the workforce after being home for 9 years

Women are stepping back from the career track to do the mom-and-family thing - not because they must, but because they can

Margaret Wente speaks the truth about women and work. Unfortunately governments and advocates don’t see it that way.

My story is a bit different from the “so called professional women” in society today. I’m referred to as the uneducated baby machine who relies on her husband to keep her pedicures and manicures coming. Though I’ve never had a pedicure or a manicure in my life, most people find what I do just above the welfare line.

Since I was little I wanted to be a mother, not a doctor or a bus driver just a mother. I worked odd jobs over the years and attempted at a financial career going after a trader position but when it came down to the crunch I could not do both, so I went back to just being a mother.

Now my children are all in school. This is the dilemma, no education, no real experience and no hopes for a pension plan beside Old Age Security & CPP.

All because I wanted to be just a MOTHER.

http://choiceforchildcare.blogspot.com/2009/09/untold-truth-about-women-and-work.html#links

–
Thank you,
Sara Landriault
stay at home mom
*President*, National Family Childcare Association
www.careofthechild.com
www.incomesplitting.org
landriault@ripnet.com

So, if I read this correctly, Sara -- being one of Canada's conservatives who's constantly yapping and yammering about how mothers should stay home with their kids and how day care is some kind of liberal, socialist evil -- is whining that all that mom experience has left her with sweet fuck all in the way of marketable skills to let her go out and hit the work force running.

Do I have that about right? Because if I do, that's one of the howlingly funniest bits of hypocritical bitching and moaning I've read this decade. Someone should hand Sara a dictionary and point out the entry for "accountability." Oh, and the one for "choice."

BONUS TRACK: You'll notice that Sara claims that she received only one reply to that snivelling, tearful email ... from the NDP's Irene Mathyssen, who graciously takes pity on Sara's wretched whining. Writes Mathyssen:

I also firmly believe that women who are fortunate enough to be able to stay home and raise their children should not be left with little hope of work or pension later in life. Government supported programs to retrain women after taking time off paid work to raise children or look after elderly, ill or disabled family members should be made a priority.

So Mathyssen proposes what should be anathema to a diehard conservative -- a taxpayer-funded, government retraining program to bail out people who apparently made a hideously bad choice and now find themselves in dire straits financially and want someone else to save their sorry ass. I look in vain for where Sara tells Mathyssen to fuck off with her socialism. Perhaps that was in another post.

Dear stupid, useless Canadian media.

2010-05-18T18:34:00.004-04:00

The next time Ezra Levant opens his festering piehole to pick nits with someone else's prose, why the fuck don't you ask him why he then promotes the hideous literary dishonesty that is Ann Coulter?

Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a fair question.

I LOVE ME SOME GOOGLE:

If there's anything you want to know about Ezra, just ask. That's what I'm here for.

You keep using that phrase "freedom of speech" ...

2010-05-18T18:14:00.001-04:00

Shorter Blogging Tory Gay and Right Fred: "When I say I support freedom of expression, I don't mean for other people!!"

Sara would appreciate it if you fucked off.

2010-05-18T13:32:00.004-04:00

Blogging Tory and "Choice for Childcare" blogger Sara Landriault has a message for you:

Personal note:

Fuck off!

Sara will now return to lecturing people about civility and decorum, and blogging about proper child care and how best to raise those fucking kids of yours.

P.S. We're not done with Sara yet. Oh, no.

When truly stupid people blog.

2010-05-18T11:01:00.004-04:00

It's a day that ends in "y" so, somewhere, a Blogging Tory has posted something abysmally idiotic. Oh, look:

Why Kagan Should Be Withdrawn

President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan made war against the US military's recruitment efforts at Harvard because of Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, ...

And then, there's reality:

The truth is that Kagan went above and beyond the law’s requirements as they were interpreted by the federal courts. In 2004, a U.S. Court of Appeals declared the Solomon Amendment, which requires universities to either grant access to military recruiters or to forgo certain kinds of federal funding, unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Kagan continued to allow the military to recruit on HLS’ campus — either through the career services office or through the HLS Veterans Association. Despite the Court of Appeals decision (which was eventually stayed by the Supreme Court), the Pentagon informed HLS that it would nonetheless cut off funding unless the law school allowed military recruiters to be processed by the same office as other employers. Kagan complied with the Pentagon’s request and allowed military recruiters to be processed through the career services office during the very next hiring cycle.

In March 2006, the Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals’ decision, adopting the Pentagon’s reading of the Solomon Amendment in the process. By this point, however, military recruiters were already availing themselves of HLS’ career services office. In other words, HLS was already in compliance with the Supreme Court’s decision, and HLS still complies with this decision to this day.

And Jonathan -- he should stop being such a lying asshole, too.

BONUS DUMBASSITUDE: Ah, this should be entertaining. Here's more of Jonathan's tinfoil hat whackjobbery from that same post:

... that didn't stop [Kagan] from accepting huge gifts from Saudi donors who approve of executing homosexuals. How odd.

And that's when Jonathan's fellow batshit crazy loon "Hunter" shows up, desperate to get the goods on Kagan as well:

Do you have a link to an article about the donations from Saudis, or do you mean that the university accepts huge donations from them?

Give Hunter credit -- she at least appears to understand the difference between Kagan taking Saudi money personally, and accepting Saudi donations to the university. But if Kagan accepted donations from the Saudis on behalf of Harvard, I'm not sure I see the problem there. I mean, getting chummy with the Saudis? I'm pretty sure that's been done before.

Yeah, I don't think there's a story here. But won't it be amusing to keep an eye on Hunter and see how spectacularly she lies about this? After all, it's what she does.

Compassionate conservatism, as it were.

2010-05-18T10:06:00.002-04:00

Shorter Blogging Tory Sara Landriault: "Sick people suck."

One hopes none of Sara's kids end up mentally ill, cuz that's when they'd learn that Mommy is quite the heartless bitch.

Butt sex, as it were.

2010-05-18T08:36:00.005-04:00

(CC NEWS) -- In a surprising legal decision handed down this morning, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled that current marriage commissioners in that province have the right to refuse to officiate at same-sex marriages, but only if those commissioners agree to have gay sex first.

"We think it's a particularly elegant solution," said one member of the Court, who preferred to remain unnamed. "It's based on this recent law out of Oklahoma that said that women who wanted to have abortions first had to view a sonogram of the fetus, and have all the details explained to them before making that decision."

"Bloody brilliant, we thought," continued the justice, "so we extended that idea to rule that, if marriage commissioners want to condemn same-sex marriage, they should first be required to participate in some butt sex. Rollicking good butt sex. I mean, naked, sweaty, steamy, tearing up the sheets ... uh ... sorry, where was I?"

Unsurprisingly, every one of Saskatchewan's marriage commissioners was outraged by the ruling, and vowed to fight it every massive, throbbing inch of the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, with the exception of commissioner Orville Nichols who, as the original defendant that inspired the current case, sat thoughtfully in the corner of the media room and was heard to mutter quietly to himself, "Well, let's not rule anything out."

As God is my witness, ...

2010-05-18T06:41:00.001-04:00

... I have no idea whose side to take here.

Sex, Stephen Harper style.

2010-05-18T06:10:00.006-04:00

During which Stephen the Corpulent lubes up, Mike Duffy bends over and the Canadian public gets fucked.

HOW ... ODD: If one follows the link from Steve V's to here, that CTV article appears to have been massively rewritten already. The title is no longer "PMO says it didn't rewrite youth forum questions," it's "Harper wants economy, not 'sideshows,' focus of G20."

The fact that something's changed can be seen here, where the title is, once again, given as "PMO says it didn't rewrite youth forum questions - CTV News," but that link clearly takes you to the newer version.

One apparently needs to go to other media outlets like this to see the original piece. How curious.

DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE!

It was fun while it lasted.

WTF? Following that earlier link to the Chronicle Herald piece, we find what appears to be the same article, but with a whole new headline: "Youths unimpressed with 'open' dialogue with PM." Oh, and what the hell is up with this?

Two other youths had earlier explained that the questions were selected by Vision Internationale, a non-profit Christian group, and then edited by Harper’s office.

So Christian groups are now in charge of carefully excising what might offend Prime Minister Il Douche's delicate sensibilities? When exactly did that happen?

Here, let me tighten that up for you.

2010-05-18T05:28:00.004-04:00

Shorter Raphian MacDouchebag: "I am incapable of intellectually processing two independent issues at the same time. Here, let me demonstrate."

Dishonest or retarded? You make the call!

2010-05-18T05:19:00.004-04:00

Rapidly making a name for himself as one of the Dumbass-o-sphere's most deranged lunatics, Blogging Tory "BC Blue" can't even defend his own rantings:

Liberal president Alfred Apps is getting a taste of his own party’s medicine when he and his law firm were connected to one of the central figures in the Jaffer/Guergis saga by private dick Derrick Snowdy during his testimony in front of the government operations committee.

"Connected?" "Connected," you say? Oh, dear, that must be horrifically embarrassing -- to be caught intimately entwined with a shyster like Gillani. So, Blue, what exactly do we mean by "connected?" Oh:

Nazim Gillani had given Apps a retainer back in 2006 but after the law firm did a little checking into him, returned it.

You know, Blue, that idiotic blog post would have had more impact if you hadn't actually admitted it was total shit in your second paragraph. I'm just saying.

Sure, let's talk about ugly.

2010-05-17T19:53:00.004-04:00

Via ETP, we are once again reminded of the overall ugliness of one Maria S Nunes:

... how come Conservative women are so beautiful and articulate whereas the other side have people like Rachel MadCow and Ariana Whatever.

Commenter CK stops by Audrey's to point out the hideously obvious:

Just dropped a line off over there, although, since she moderates her comments, not sure if it'll get published; basically suggested she take a look at Wendy Sullivan, Kathy Shaidle and Denyse OLeary and Sandy Crux.

In unrelated news, I give you the newest Miss USA: Lebanese immigrant Rima Fakih:

And then there's Kathy Shaidle:

Don't make me post a picture of Ezra Levant. We'll all regret it.

Morals!

2010-05-17T11:05:00.004-04:00

Stephen Harper's favourite band, Nickelback, extolling those right-wing virtues we all know and love:

Rock and roll, alcohol and some sweet, sweet girl-on-girl action. Works for me.

Let me tighten that up for you.

2010-05-17T10:23:00.002-04:00

How about, "As the representative of a number of amoral monsters that buttfuck children, I would now like to lecture the rest of you about the propriety of social mores."

Did I get that about right?

"You think you're pretty smart, don't you?"

2010-05-17T09:51:00.001-04:00

Well, I do hate to fly in the face of public opinion.

I tried to be humble once. It didn't take.

And while we're on the subject of SSM ...

2010-05-17T07:11:00.005-04:00

While we're all waiting for the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal to give these idiots the ass kicking they deserve, it's worth revisiting the surprising National Post editorial on that topic which was, against all odds, logical and coherent, and worth reading carefully for three reasons.

First, it's the National Post. That's right, Canada's normally reliable right-wing steno pool, telling all those whiny, Christian marriage commissioners to shut the hell up and do their job or fuck off and find other employment. That's fascinating since, on the occasions when every other media outlet in Canada is acting sane, the NP can normally be counted on to promote the hard-right, inane, idiotic, bereft-of-logic party line. But when even the Post abandons the drooling, lunatic Christ-o-sphere, well, that's just plain awkward.

Second, it's enlightening to realize that the Post not only came to the correct conclusion, they did it for the right reasons. This is actually noteworthy since experience teaches us that, even when the residents of Lower Wankerville have the right opinion, they frequently hold that opinion for the most eye-rolling, illogical reasons. One almost expected the Post to tell marriage commissioners to resign in protest, not because it's the right thing to do, but because mass resignation would throw marriage plans into an uproar and that would teach those Godless humanists, or something equally stupid. But no! Astonishingly, the Post used actual critical thought and logic to arrive at that conclusion. Will wonders never cease? But that's not the best part.

No, the best part is that the Post editorial did not just reject the Christopaths' argument on this topic. They stomped on it. They crushed it. They ground it into powder. Witness, if you will, the utter lack of ambiguity or weaselitude on the part of the Post, as it lays the freedom of conscience argument's nads gently on an anvil, and pounds them flat (all emphasis nad-flatteningly added):

Marriage commissioners have no right to say no

... [marriage commissioners] must follow the government’s rules when they execute their duties...

They may either adapt to the new same-sex-inclusive rules or quit performing civil marriages altogether. There can be no picking and choosing whose ceremonies they will officiate...

Once the government has decided that gays have as much right to marry as heterosexuals, it clearly is a violation of their human rights for a civil commissioner to turn them down...

Gay couples must have the same protection once the federal Parliament has granted them equal rights.

Note well the utter lack of waffling or weaseling or any of the lame attempts at compromise or accommodation proposed by Canada's culture of professional victimhood. That Post editorial does not provide even the smallest hint of a shred of a whisper of hope for anyone looking for a hook on which to hang their homophobic arguments. It's direct, brutal and savage, and makes no apologies for taking that Bible-fueled discrimination out to the woodshed, and beating the living crap out of it.

All that's left is to see whether the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal can demonstrate that kind of clear thinking and integrity, or whether it will cave trying to find some useless middle ground that still fucks over gays while soothing the furrowed brows of bigoted marriage commissioners and allows them to keep feeling good about themselves.

And so, we wait.

David Frum: Douchebag.

2010-05-17T05:56:00.004-04:00

Useless, unreadable wank David Frum rouses himself just long enough to bash out the following bit of inanity:

It especially enrages [Marci] Mc-Donald that "opponents of [the Harper government's] pro-Israel policy are routinely branded as anti-Semites" (page 358-359). But if this branding occurs (and McDonald offers no instances or examples), ...

Oooooh, oooooh, pick me, Mr. Kotter! Here's Stephen the Corpulent himself (emphasis nad-whompingly added):

Stephen Harper equates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism.

"Unfortunately, Israel at 60 remains a country under threat – threatened by those groups and regimes who deny to this day its right to exist," he told a Toronto celebration marking the anniversary.

"And why? Look beyond the thinly veiled rationalizations: Because they hate Israel, just as they hate the Jewish people." ...

The Prime Minister also told radio station CFRB: "My fear is what I see happening in some circles is anti-Israeli sentiment, really just as a thinly disguised veil for good old-fashioned anti-Semitism."

And ... KAIROS, anyone? Can David Frum just crawl back into whatever bottle he crawled out of?

Ezra Levant: Jew.

2010-05-17T05:37:00.003-04:00

I just thought you might need reminding of that, given how Ezra has recently morphed into Christianity's most ardent defender. Anything for some air time, right, Ezra?

The most dangerous location in Canada? Anywhere between Ezra Levant and a TV camera.

When truly stupid people blog.

2010-05-16T09:06:00.009-04:00

Apparently, some of Canada's relentless whiners have been yammering on about how freedom of conscience (or some other equally vacuous phrase) should allow civil marriage commissioners to pick and choose which members of the public they wish to serve.

As a history lesson, then, a smattering of news pieces over the last several years, in a (probably vain) attempt to educate these ignorant, teary-eyed bigots (all emphasis thigh-suckingly added).

January, 2004:

Perform same-sex marriages or resign, B.C. tells commissioners

British Columbia has ordered the province's marriage commissioners to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or resign...

The B.C. Vital Statistics Agency, which appoints the commissioners who perform civil marriage ceremonies, sent out a letter in January ordering those "who feel they cannot solemnize same-sex marriages" to "resign their appointments" effective March 31.

February, 2005:

7 Nfld. marriage commissioners quit over same-sex issue

One in every 10 marriage commissioners in Newfoundland and Labrador has resigned, saying they won't perform ceremonies for same-sex couples.

Immediately after a Supreme Court of Newfoundland decision that cleared the way for same-sex marriage, the provincial government notified marriage commissioners they would have to abide with the law or resign by Jan. 31.

May, 2008:

Rights tribunal rebukes marriage commissioner in same-sex ruling
Religious beliefs can't be a factor for civil servants, tribunal says

The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal has ordered a marriage commissioner who refused to perform a same-sex ceremony for religious reasons to pay $2,500 in compensation to the gay complainant.

Orville Nichols, 71, has also been ordered to stop discriminating against same-sex couples in a judgment issued in Saskatoon Friday by the quasi-judicial provincial body that adjudicates human rights complaints.

In the 25-page decision, tribunal member Anil K. Pandila ruled that as a public servant providing a government service, Nichols does not have the right to refuse service on the basis of his personal beliefs.

While religious organizations have that right, the ruling states, the purpose of civil marriage is to give people, including same-sex couples, who have the legal right to marry a chance to be wed outside of a church.

May, 2010, when even the screeching dingbats at the National Post get it:

National Post editorial board: Marriage commissioners have no right to say no
Posted: May 11, 2010, 8:32 AM by NP Editor
Editorial, gay rights

Civil marriage commissioners are, in effect, agents of the state. It is government that gives them authority to perform legally binding marriage ceremonies — which means they must follow the government’s rules when they execute their duties...

Once the government has decided that gays have as much right to marry as heterosexuals, it clearly is a violation of their human rights for a civil commissioner to turn them down.

I await the inevitable slobbering, idiotic refutations from the aforementioned bigots, who will argue that devout Christians should be exempt from their official, state-sanctioned and legally-defined obligations because it hurts their widdle feewings.

LET'S TALK ANALOGIES: When wankers insist on using inane, indefensible arguments to support marriage commissioners' right to freedom of homophobia, it is impossible to make said wankers appreciate their overwhelming dumbassitude through the application of mere logic and reason. And this is where a good analogy always comes in handy.

To set the stage, let us recap the typical wanker position -- civil marriage commissioners should have the freedom to discriminate because, well, to make them marry gays would hurt their precious feelings and offend them greatly, and it would be a horrible violation of their religious right to be assholes, and when they took the job, it didn't say anything about having to hitch those dirty faggots and they should be "grandfathered in" and, in the end, what's the big deal since there's always another marriage commissioner who might be willing to do the job? Have I missed anything? No, seriously, is there any ignorant, screeching facet of the wanker's argument that I've overlooked? Because this is where an analogy might finally demonstrate their ridiculous stupidity.

Let us imagine the aforementioned wanker as the owner and operator of, say, a moderately successful family restaurant, which gets enough business to employ one waitress full-time. Life is good, the restaurant makes a decent profit and everyone is happy.

Until one day, when the wanker/owner finally gets approval for his liquor license, which is a big deal since -- as we all know -- the markup on booze is typically obscene and profits should go up noticeably. Yee ha. More money about to come in. Except we suddenly have a problem.

The heretofore reliable waitress makes it clear that she's not going to be able to do this. Turns out that she has a deep-seated, religious objection to serving alcohol. She's been fine until now as long as beer and wine wasn't on the menu, but now that the rules have changed, she has to put her foot down. She's happy to handle customers who require no booze, but beyond that, not a chance.

What's a poor wanker/owner to do?

Well, if said wanker/owner applied his own gay marriage logic, he would happily accept that the waitress should be allowed out of her duties serving alcohol. Of course, this means he has to hire another (entirely unnecessary) person to handle the liquor-related duties but, hey, that's the logic he used in one situation, so it's only fair that he be forced to live with it now. Or, extending his own logic even further, when customers come in who want to order alcohol with their meals, they're told, sorry, but there's another restaurant just down the road that can accommodate them. See where this is going?

Now, let's take a poll -- how many people think that the wanker/owner would consider any of the above possibilities for even a fraction of a millisecond?

Not. A. Chance.

I guarantee that the wanker -- having earlier made what he thinks is a compelling argument for the freedom of conscience of marriage commissioners to be gay-bashing bigots -- would fire that waitress in less time than it takes Stephen Taylor to fluff Preston Manning. There is zero possibility that the wanker would accept the very same logic he just finished spewing all over the floor with respect to same-sex marriage. Zero. His attitude would be blunt and direct: "Sweetheart, either do your job or there's the door. Choose."

But I'm sure that, if you presented this analogy to any random wanker, they would refuse to accept it. That's completely different, they would whine. They wouldn't be able to explain how, but it goes without saying that they would reject this perfectly reasonable comparison, agree with the restaurant owner that it's time to fire that useless wench, then go back to unabashedly defending marriage commissioners, all the while completely unaware of their own hypocrisy.

Canada's wankers: Always ready to argue the most dumbass, indefensible logic, as long as they don't have to live with it themselves.

P.S. We're not done here.

Still a bit unclear on that whole "tag" concept.

2010-05-16T06:52:00.003-04:00

Blogging Tory Maria "Sarah Palin Shaped-Vibrator" Nunes squeals like Ezra Levant when she learns that Canada's Air Force actually does its job. But it's not the squealing that's so amusing:

Maria is apparently still grappling with the whole concept of tags, but wants to make damned sure that no conceivable or hypothetical search will fail to locate her squealing. Just playing it safe.

And here's where we juxtapose ...

2010-05-16T05:04:00.002-04:00

Serial whiner Ezra Levant, the man who brought us Ann Coulter, amusingly describes someone else's work as "semi-literate".

Really, you can't make this stuff up.

Helena? Helena who?

2010-05-15T07:48:00.003-04:00

Apparently, the new Blogging Tory talking point is that now-disgraced Helena Guergis was useless window dressing that whole time:

I don't care about Helena Guergis and neither does the PM

... ultimately I don’t think it was the scandal that caused the Prime Minister to taketh [away Guergis' position]. It was her incompetence.

Since the beginning of Stephen Harper’s Premiership [sic], Helena Guergis has been steadily moving down in the ranks. The Prime Minister showed such a consistent lack of faith in her abilities that it is a wonder why he didn’t just ice her before. Except it isn’t a wonder because Helena Guergis is a woman and the media and women’s groups would scream bloody murder if this Prime Minister fired a highly visible woman.

In fact I will go farther and claim the only reason why she was a Minister to begin with is because she is a woman; this gives irony to the complaints of some that she is being treated differently from Maxine Bernier because of her gender. Stephen Harper waited until there would be minimal political cost to getting rid of her, and then got rid of her.

The story of Helena Guergis is much more a story of the failure of identity politics than it is a story of corruption. And I really don’t care about her ultimate fate.

When anyone else suggested that Guergis was an incompetent hack, it's because they simply hated women.

Misogyny!

2010-05-15T04:22:00.003-04:00

It's nice to be a dude in Stephen Harper's Canada:

PM won't punish Shory over fraud investigation
Calgary MP among 300 people named in BMO's civil lawsuit over mortgage fraud

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he won't take any action against one of his Calgary MPs who has been named in a Bank of Montreal civil lawsuit over what the bank alleges was a massive mortgage fraud.

Devinder Shory, the Conservative MP for Calgary Northeast and a lawyer, is among the 300 people, including Alberta lawyers, mortgage brokers and four BMO employees, named in the suit.

To recap then, Helena Guergis -- accused of still-unspecified allegations -- was stripped of her Cabinet position, turfed from the Conservative caucus and handed over to the RCMP for investigation.

Devinder Shory, on the other hand, who is actually named in a massive mortgage fraud investigation, gets a free pass and life goes on.

I await Canada's Blogging Tories to finally logically conclude that the Stephen Harper Party of Canada hates women. That is the logical conclusion to draw here, no?

Analogy!

2010-05-15T04:10:00.004-04:00

Um ... what?

Liberal MP Pablo Rodriguez has been charged with refusing to obey a police officer after a traffic accident involving his car.

Has anybody seen the Liberals who attacked Conservative MP Davinder [sic] Shory today? I didn’t think so.

So we're comparing a Conservative MP whose name has been linked with a multi-multi-multi-million dollar mortgage fraud scheme with ... a traffic accident? Really?

Awesome.

Left hand, meet right hand.

2010-05-14T19:20:00.003-04:00

OK, then:

The order to cut Canada's 12 coastal defence vessels by half has been rescinded — just one day after it was announced, according to the country's chief of defence staff.

Check back Monday when the Harper government again does something baffling and inexplicable, then checks public reaction to see if it was a good idea after all.

... and this is why we mock them.

2010-05-14T11:20:00.004-04:00

Over at BCL's, a link to Dr. Dawg's regarding Harper government funding of faith-based organizations inspires this comment by ubiquitous wanker commenter and mathematical illiterate "wilson":

'22 out of 173 grants made went to faith-based organizations'

WOW! 1.27% of the funded organizations were faith based, that's real scary stuff BCL.

Is there a breakdown where the other 98.73% went to?

It's always a bad idea when wankers try to do simple arithmetic. It never ends well.

AFTERSNARK: I love wilson's implication that there is some magical percentage for misappropriation of public funds below which we should just give it a pass. One immediately thinks of ADSCAM!!!!!, and the popular figure of 100 million dollars. If we take that figure, and compare it to the total Canadian budget for one year, and that ADSCAM!!!!! amount turns out to be less than 1.27 per cent of the total, can we tell Canada's wankers to finally fucking shut the fucking fuck up about it?

I'm just asking.

Same-sex marriage and the "slippery slope."

2010-05-14T09:07:00.004-04:00

"It's a slippery slope," the wingnuts screech. "First, you let gays marry. Then it'll be polygamy. Then adults will be marrying children, and men will be marrying sheep. And box turtles. Where will it end!?!?", they howl tearfully.

Yes, let's talk about that slippery slope, shall we? Where said wingnuts will first refuse to perform same-sex marriages. Then, perhaps, given time to reflect, they will decide it offends their religious sensibilities to perform inter-racial marriages. And maybe it will outrage their religious convictions when one of the couple is divorced. Or when one atheist wants to marry another atheist. Or when a human female wants to marry Ezra Levant.

OK, maybe I pushed that analogy a bit far, but you see where I'm going with this.