skip to main |
skip to sidebar
You know what they say: If a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well. If it's worth doing dishonestly, give it to Steve Janke. How else to explain Steve's laughably inept spin job trying to ass-cover for the GOP in the exploding Mark Foley online sex solicitation scandal and even more appalling subsequent frantic coverup?
Peruse, if you will, Steve's inane contribution to the literature. Read it carefully. Notice anything missing? Why, yes ... yes, you do. With the exception of the quotes from ABC News, you will not find, anywhere in Steve's prose, the words or phrases "GOP", "Republican", "right-wing", "conservative" or anything else that identifies Foley by political party. Don't believe me? Go back and read it again and see the phrasing Steve uses every single time he refers to Foley:
"A Congressional Freak ... A US congressman ... the representative ... a congressman ..."
I mean, if you didn't know any better, you'd swear Steve was trying extra special hard not to let that unpleasant bit of information contaminate his whitewash job. That's particularly ironic coming from someone who blogs by the wide-sweeping motto, "Taking sloppy liberal thinking and tearing it a new one -- but always with a touch of class."
Right, Steve -- "sloppy liberal thinking." That really rolls off the tongue, doesn't it? Kind of like "sordid, right-wing sexual predatory practices." But I'm guessing there wasn't much chance of something like that showing up in your article, was there?
There's a fine line between appalling and just plain surreal:
Shimkus said in a statement last night, "in late 2005, I was notified by the then Clerk of the House," that Alexander had told the Clerk "about an email exchange between Congressman Foley and a former House Page. I took immediate action to investigate the matter."
In the e-mail, "Foley asked about the former Page's well-being after Hurricane Katrina and requested a photograph," Shimkus said. He said Foley assured him it was an innocent exchange, but "nevertheless, we ordered Congressman Foley to cease all contact" with the boy and to respect all pages. "Only now have I learned that Congressman Foley was not honest about his conduct," Shimkus said.
Wow. So a Republican congressman lied? Really? Man, who on earth could have seen that coming?
Apparently, Time magazine is getting its marching orders from the GOP establishment. How else to explain this bit of insufferably stupid journamalism?
Thanks to his previous work against pedophiles, the Florida congressman who sent possibly inappropriate emails to a teenager had little choice but to resign. Now the GOP has yet another vulnerable seat to defend
Um ... "possibly inappropriate?" Is that the best you can do?
Opinion may be divided over whether the e-mails Florida Representative Mark Foley sent a teen-age male congressional page last year were inappropriate or even constituted outright sexual harassment.
"Opinion may be divided" on whether those e-mails were even "inappropriate?" Are you shitting me? Is Time reading the same e-mails as the rest of us? Apparently not since, in that entire article, this seems to be the nastiest stuff they can come up with:
Foley's aides insist that the e-mails in question do nothing to belie his commitment to child protection issues, saying the exchanges between the congressman and the page - in which Foley asks what the boy would like for his birthday and requests a picture of him - were innocuous and "nonchalant" chat...
In other e-mail exchanges with the page, Foley discusses another boy who he remarks is "in really great shape -- i am just finished riding my bike on a 25 mile journey now heading to the gym -- what school like for you this year?"
That's it? Jesus Christ, Time, let me help you out here. How about some of these delightful exchanges: "do you really do it face down ... where do you unload it ... i always use lotion and the hand ... well i have aa [sic] totally stiff wood now".
Honestly, just when you think journalism has reached the bottom of the barrel, someone comes along and lifts up the barrel.
You have to admire Steve Janke's restraint. After having delved (and I use that word with the utmost caution) deeply into Cindy Sheehan's private parts in excruciating detail, it takes real courage for Steve to avert his eyes from the Republican Internet teen sex solicitation train wreck going on all around him.
Steve Janke: Because some peoples' genital areas are more interesting than others.
For years, Muldoon lives with his dog in the Irish countryside. When the dog dies, Muldoon goes to the parish priest. "Father, could you say a mass for the poor creature?"
The priest explains, "Well, I'm sorry, Muldoon, but we just can't have services for an animal in the church. I hope you understand. But there's a new denomination church down the road. Perhaps they'll do something for you."
"Thanks," says Muldoon. "Do you think 5,000 pounds is enough to donate for the service?"
"Well, now," says the priest, "why didn't you tell me the dog was Catholic?"
Not that long ago, we steeled ourselves and checked in on Adam Daifallah and his opinion on the bravest, wisest, most famousest hobbit ever, Mark Steyn. Mercifully, we can always back away slowly and read the opinion of someone who isn't a pathological groupie and suckup.
No, no, don't thank me. There's plenty of antidote to go around.
UPDATE: Hello, GG readers. Yes, I realize you've never heard of Adam Daifallah. Don't worry -- it's not like you're missing anything.
Rather than try to keep up with the exciting, new developments involving GOP Congressman Mark Foley and his predilection for teenage boys, I'll just redirect you to AmericaBlog and you can wallow in all of the sordid stickiness over there. But there are at least a couple points worth making.
First, as you can read, it appears that everyone in the vicinity has known about Foley's tastes for quite some time. Isn't that just delightful?
But what's more amusing is that the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has issued a statement in support of Foley. Yes, I'm sure that's just the message they want to be sending right about now.
P.S. I'm sure the Blogging Tories will be all over this shortly. Yup, just give them time. Any minute now. Yessir, any minute now ...
P.P.S. Whoops, the tidal wave of outrage has already started, with Damian Penny's piece entitled "IT COULD HAVE BEEN WORSE." Try to control yourself, Damian. Getting all emotional and unhinged like that is so unbecoming.
UH OH ... Shit, meet fan. I think somebody's got some serious splainin' to do, 'cuz it just gets weirder by the minute.
But as long as nobody lies about it under oath, I'm guessing it's all good, right?
Apparently, it doesn't take much to get Canadian Christian Conservative's antenna stalks quivering with a sense of injustice:
Miller supporter registers "stephenledrew.ca"
Someone who supports Mayor David Miller is pretty quick on the draw... on the day that Stephen LeDrew announced his intention to run against David Miller for the Mayor's job, they went and registered "www.stephenledrew.ca" and "www.stephenledrew.com"... and what did they go and do with those addresses?
Redirected them to "www.millerformayor.ca". How kind of them.
And you know what? I'll bet the owner will just squat on those addresses until, say, November 14, 2006.
This is, of course, a completely different issue from, say, this. Or this.
I wouldn't be making too much of that moral high ground if I were you, dude. Know what I'm sayin'?
THE COMING TIDAL WAVE OF HYPOCRISY. It's going to be amusing to see how the wankersphere spins this. You do remember, of course, how a sitting president having legal and consensual sexual relations with a woman was appalling, depraved, disgusting and pretty much a harbinger of the end of Western civilisation and the heat death of the universe. Yeah, you remember that, don't you?
So how are the Republicans taking the notion of a sitting GOP congressman soliciting sex over the Internet from teenage boys? About the way you would have expected:
Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois said he supported Foley's resignation.
"He's done, as of now; he's done the right thing," Hastert said. "I've asked John Shimkus, who is the head of the Page board, to look into this issue regarding Congressman Foley. We want to make sure that all of our pages are safe, and the page system is safe."
"None of us are very happy about it," Hastert said.
There will, of course, be endless descriptions of how his colleagues are heartbroken over this and how they will be praying for him, etc, etc. You know the drill by now.
Get your barf bag. You know what's coming.
AND THE IDIOCY BEGINS ... Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a meme (from the user comments):
What a terrible tragedy! I've known Mark for years and he was an extremely dedicated and effective legislator. He evidently fought with demons that none of us knew about. This is a big loss for the State of Florida.
Allrighty then ... Foley wasn't a disgusting pedophile and pervert, he was just a poor, tortured soul wrestling with his inner demons. Take it away, wankersphere.
The initial ugly symptoms:
A STROKE OF GENIUS?
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
It's a nasty affliction, but with careful tracking and a ruthless quarantine program at the border, I'm sure we can ... oh, fuck, too late:
Best article ever written?
I have been patiently waiting for the Western Standard magazine to post Mark Steyn's latest column online, because I feel it is quite possibly the best op-ed I've ever read...
No other writer alive has the ability to put things in perspective with such moral clarity -- and humour! -- as this man.
Yeah, I'm sure you didn't need to read that this close to dinner time, either.
An American and a Canadian are sitting together on a plane. After takeoff, the Canadian leans back, takes off his shoes and begins to relax. The American, who's penned in at the window, says, "Sorry to trouble you, but my call light is broken. Could you get me a beer?"
"No problem," says the Canadian and heads for the galley to get the beer, at which point the American bends down and spits in the Canadian's shoes. The Canadian returns with the beer and settles back into his seat.
Upon landing, the Canadian puts on his shoes and immediately realizes what has happened. "Ah, hell," he asks the American, "why does it always have to be this way? This constant fighting between our nations, this animosity, this spitting in shoes, this pissing in beers ..."
Via Alison, we learn of Rona Ambrose's new Chief of Staff, one Darrel Reid, who has an amusing perspective on church and state:
"I think every Christian's under an obligation to change laws to reflect biblical values."
Fuckin' A, dude. And I think this would be a fine place to start. The Criminal Code of Canada has absolutely no idea what's coming, does it?
HOT DAMN ... CHEAP LABOUR. You have to like this part:
'When you purchase a Hebrew slave, his service will last for six years.'
All right ... where do I buy me one of those Jew boys? And to think I've been paying for a maid service all this time. Although I'm not sure about this next part:
'But if the slave says to you, "I do not want to leave you," because he loves you and your family, and is well off with you, then you must take an awl and drive it through the slave's ear and into the door. He will be your servant forever.'
Um, yeah. Except for being a bit hard of hearing, so you'll have to speak up, know what I mean?
I notice Cathie has also picked up on this -- you should make yourself comfortable and take the time to read Alan Wolfe's "Why Conservatives Can't Govern."
As did Cathie, I'm going to reproduce the critical part of the article:
Contemporary conservatism is first and foremost about shrinking the size and reach of the federal government. This mission, let us be clear, is an ideological one. It does not emerge out of an attempt to solve real-world problems, such as managing increasing deficits or finding revenue to pay for entitlements built into the structure of federal legislation.
That, in a nutshell, describes the entire life span of the administration of George W. Bush. We're talking about an administration that has never made even the slightest attempt to formulate policy of any kind, but has been driven utterly by politics. Don't believe me? Ask John DiIulio (emphasis added):
Domestic policy adviser John DiIulio, a political scientist from the University of Pennsylvania, who had accepted his position in the White House on the assumption that he would be working to give substance to the president's rhetoric of "compassionate conservatism," resigned in a state of shock. "There is no precedent in any modern White House for what is going on in this one: a complete lack of a policy apparatus," DiIulio told Esquire magazine. "What you've got is everything -- and I mean everything -- being run by the political arm. It's the reign of the Mayberry Machiavellis ... Besides the tax cut ... the administration has not done much, either in absolute terms or in comparison to previous administrations at this stage, on domestic policy. There is a virtual absence as yet of any policy accomplishments that might, to a fair-minded non-partisan, count as the flesh on the bones of so-called compassionate conservatism."
Put more succinctly, the conservative government has nothing to do with solving problems -- it has to do with pushing a nakedly ideological agenda, with absolutely no regard to what the problems actually are.
Consider the most recent atrocities coming out of Stephen Harper and his enthusiastic little crew of brownshirts. Cuts to Status of Women Canada. The abolishment of the Court Challenges Program. And the rationale?
Liberal programs axed under Tory spending cuts
... "Most of those cuts are designed to appeal to the Conservative base," reported CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife.
"They have taken the axe to programs they've long regarded as slush funds for left leaning groups who don't vote Conservative."
These program cuts have absolutely nothing to do with fiscal management or whether these programs were "effective" (the catchword of the day, apparently). These cuts are driven purely by politics -- there's not a shred of policy to be seen anywhere. And now we're hearing that the CPoC might revisit the whole same-sex marriage issue. Why? Is it causing problems? Is it not an "effective" program? Is SSM somehow being fiscally mismanaged? Don't be silly, of course not. It has nothing to do with policy. It's naked politics, and nothing more.
In any event, go read Wolfe's piece. The parallels to the current group of fascists running things out of Ottawa should make you just a wee bit uncomfortable.
P.S. Like I said, politics, not policy.
SO MANY GREAT LINES, SO LITTLE TIME. There are so many delightful lines in Wolfe's piece, like this one:
Sure, the Bush administration has failed, all these voices proclaim. But that is because Bush and his Republican allies in Congress borrowed big government and foreign-policy idealism from the left.
Got that? Despite the fact that the GOP controls the White House, both houses of Congress, the Supreme Court and a whacking big chunk of the mainstream media, it's still the Left's fault.
This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic.
Welcome to CC HQ -- how may we abuse you?
Over here, Nathan takes a blunt instrument to Mark Steyn's latest bit of swill. Sorry? Who's Mark Steyn? Ah, how forgetful of me ... let me introduce you.
Following a referral from my SiteMeter stats and ... Jesus Christ, what is wrong with these people?
Gotta love that timing thing -- when depressingly stupid gets slapped around by harsh reality.
GREAT LINE OF THE DAY: It doesn't get much funnier than this:
"Inhofe offers a 12-point indictment of Gore’s documentary on climate change. He says the list might have been longer if he had actually seen the movie."
Yeah, that might have extended the list another point or two, dontcha think?
Now, don't get me wrong, I appreciate the attention but, come on, there is just something plain surreal about what happens when you Google on "velveeta slices."
And how chronologically convenient is this?
Socially retarded reporters
A local conservative breakfast club invited Dr. Tim Ball to speak here in Victoria, and I got an e-mail from a certain lefty reporter who detailed his suspicions with Ball (OMGBigOil!!!111) and told me he wanted to talk to me about this and environmental conservatism.
I responded as soon as I got the e-mail, telling him that while I wasn't going to the breakfast, I would be happy to speak to him regarding this, gave him my contact information and asked if we could find a mutually convenient time to talk in person.
And I've received no response.
What a douchebag. I've got half a mind to publish his name/contact info under a social retard database and have people give him rude calls at odd hours.
Tim Ball ... Tim Ball ... oh, right -- this Tim Ball. I'd almost forgotten.
In any event, after Jarrett describes the reporter as "socially retarded," a "douchebag" and threatens to encourage others to harass him, I have to conclude that the only reason said reporter wouldn't call Jarrett in the future is that that reporter is just a closed-minded, moonbat member of that gosh-darned "liberal media."
I can't think of any other reason. Can you think of any other reason?
A young boy went up to his father and asked him, "Dad, what's the difference between potentially and realistically?"
The father thought for a moment, then answered, "Go ask your mother if she would sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars. Then ask your sister if she would sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars. Come back and tell me what you learn from that."
So the boy went to his mother and asked, "Mom, would you sleep with Robert Redford for a million dollars?"
"You bet," the mother replied. "I wouldn't pass up an opportunity like that."
Next, the boy then went to his sister. "Would you sleep with Brad Pitt for a million dollars?" he asked.
Replied the sister, "Oh my God! I would just love to do that! Of course!"
The boy pondered that for a few days, then went back to his dad. His father asked him, "Did you find out the difference between potential and realistic?"
The boy thought for a moment, then replied, "Yes, sir. Potentially, we're sitting on two million dollars. Realistically, we're living with a couple of sluts."
Pity poor Mike McGuire -- a man destined to forever shift one foot in his mouth just enough to make room for the other one. Here's Mike, doing the happy dance:
Seems Hugo Chavez's overblown uber-Marxist rhetoric is coming back to haunt him, thanks to a demonstration in good ol' fashion American democracy. Convienience [sic] sotre [sic] chain 7/11 is ending its association with the Venezuelan national oil company Citgo. it's chief supplier for its gasoline business ...
Chavez is finding out the hard way the cost of being a mouthy tinpot dictator. Good on Citgo. [sic]
Fuckin A. After all, it just makes sense when someone does something as low-down and sleazy as, oh, this:
Chavez' Surprise for Bush
Offering to Sell Cheap Oil to America's Poor
Worried about the skyrocketing cost of gasoline and heating oil this winter? Well, Hugo Chavez, the firebrand president of oil-rich Venezuela, wants to help.
Chavez, a former army officer twice elected president in huge landslides, has become a target of the Bush administration for his radical social policies. Last month, right-wing evangelist Pat Robertson openly urged his assassination. But now Chavez is firing back at Bush and Robertson with a surprise weapon - cheap oil for America's poor.
In an exclusive interview yesterday, the Venezuelan leader said his country will soon start to ship heating oil and diesel fuel at below market prices to poor communities and schools in the United States. "We will begin with a pilot project in Chicago on Oct. 14, in a Mexican-American community," said Chavez, who was in town for the United Nations sessions. "We will then expand the program to New York and Boston in November."
Blogging Tory Mike McGuire: Because when you can buy cheap oil, the terrorists will have won.
P.S. Like so many other right-wing airheads, poor Mike is about a month late to the party. When folks describe Mike as "a little slow," it's not just a figure of speech.
HEE HEE. Life is so much easier with TBogg.
Down south, I believe this is what they mean when they say someone is "all hat and no cattle":
The Tory government was attacked by all three opposition parties in the House of Commons yesterday for $1 billion in program cuts announced Monday to literacy programs, international internships for students, Status of Women Canada and other social programs.
"All three opposition parties?" Including the Bloc Quebecois? Really? You mean this Bloc Quebecois?
BQ decides to back Tory softwood lumber deal
The Conservatives' proposed settlement of the long-running softwood lumber dispute with the U.S. is likely to win parliamentary approval this fall after the Bloc Québécois said it will back the deal.
To paraphrase an old joke, yes, the Bloc's support is for sale. Now we're just haggling over the price.
Oh, man ... it must be nice to be king:
Bush seeks retroactive immunity for violating War Crimes Act
Thirty-two years ago, President Gerald Ford created a political firestorm by pardoning former President Richard Nixon of all crimes he may have committed in Watergate -- and lost his election as a result. Now, President Bush, to avoid a similar public outcry, is quietly trying to pardon himself of any crimes connected with the torture and mistreatment of U.S. detainees.
The ''pardon'' is buried in Bush's proposed legislation to create a new kind of military tribunal for cases involving top al-Qaida operatives. The ''pardon'' provision has nothing to do with the tribunals. Instead, it guts the War Crimes Act of 1996, a federal law that makes it a crime, in some cases punishable by death, to mistreat detainees in violation of the Geneva Conventions and makes the new, weaker terms of the War Crimes Act retroactive to 9/11.
Press accounts of the provision have described it as providing immunity for CIA interrogators. But its terms cover the president and other top officials because the act applies to any U.S. national.
But remember -- they've never broken the law. Just ask them.
It's days like this -- when I don't feel like being particularly challenged throwing together a post or two -- that it's always easy to slap around Joel Johannesen. So why not? Once again, let's appreciate Joel's perky optimism regarding the U.S. military:
U.S. Army meets re-enlistment goal? Tells us something.
Here’s what else “tells us something”: the fact that you have to stand on your head and search to find this news. Yes that also tells us something. It tells us that the liberal media doesn’t want us to know about this. So I think it’s actually two extremely important facts, neither of which the liberal media wants us to know about.
Yessir, according to Joel, everything is just ducky in WarWorld. Then again, perhaps you should also consider the opinion of someone who, when it comes to the American military, isn't as appallingly stupid as a sack of cement:
Army Warns Rumsfeld It's Billions Short
The Army's top officer withheld a required 2008 budget plan from Pentagon leaders last month after protesting to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that the service could not maintain its current level of activity in Iraq plus its other global commitments without billions in additional funding.
The decision by Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker, the Army's chief of staff, is believed to be unprecedented and signals a widespread belief within the Army that in the absence of significant troop withdrawals from Iraq, funding assumptions must be completely reworked, say current and former Pentagon officials...
The Army, with an active-duty force of 504,000, has been stretched by the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. About 400,000 have done at least one tour of combat duty, and more than a third of those have been deployed twice. Commanders have increasingly complained of the strain, saying last week that sustaining current levels will require more help from the National Guard and Reserve or an increase in the active-duty force.
How about that? Apparently, things aren't quite as rosey as Joel would like to think. And I'm betting you won't be reading this kind of sobering news over at "Proud to be Right-Wing Stenographers" anytime soon.
Call it a hunch.
Attagirl, Ken, you tell 'em:
"You don't cut programs for the sake of the cuts themselves. The purpose of government is people, not numbers. It is easier with eachday to see what this Government is not about. It is harder to see what it is about, except for targeted, small-minded and ungenerous cuts," Dryden concluded.
Whoooooweee! Smackdown! "Targeted, small-minded and ungenerous." Man, I'll bet Steve is still stinging from that one, yessir. I mean, that was one savage beatdown.
Ah, how timely:
Ken Dryden takes your questions on the Liberal leadership race
Here's a question, Ken: How about growing a pair? Can you do that?
... neo-cons live in a tightly-sealed echo chamber. Try to control your astonishment.
I'm not sure what to think about this, but I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing this. If you Google on "pay to fuck," what do you get coming up as the very first hit? Just curious.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, Google apparently likes us here at CC HQ for more than just off-colour, porn references. Consider the Google search for "military recruiting problems." At least from this end, there are 34,400 hits, of which this blog shows up as number four.
It really is a mystery.
It's hard to imagine that PM Stephen Harper could be a more loathsome and reprehensible human being than George W. Bush but the evidence is, well, pretty fucking overwhelming.
Think back over the last few years as the Bush administration took a surplus from the Clinton administration and, hideously mismanaging almost every goddamned thing they touched, turned it into an earth-shattering deficit. But that's not the most interesting part.
Recall, if you will, that part of the Bush mantra, even in the face of a deficit that was growing more monstrous by the month, was to toss tax cuts around like confetti (mostly to the very rich, of course.) And how was one to pay for those tax cuts? Simple -- annihilate social services at every possible turn. But at least this strategy was based on a warped kind of logic -- given that massive deficit, something had to give, and it was any concern for the poor, of course.
Stephen Harper has no such excuse.
Consider, if you will, the following:
The federal government's near-record surplus of $13.2 billion didn't save over a dozen programs and initiatives from the Conservative chopping block.
A surplus. Of $13.2 billion. One doesn't even have the excuse of claiming that money is tight and sacrifices have to be made.
A surplus. And yet:
Everything from literacy programs to medical marijuana research are being slashed as part of the Conservative government's plans to cut $1 billion in spending over the next two years.
A surplus. And yet:
"Most of those cuts are designed to appeal to the Conservative base," reported CTV's Ottawa bureau chief Robert Fife.
"They have taken the axe to programs they've long regarded as slush funds for left leaning groups who don't vote Conservative."
For example, the Court Challenges Program which funded equality and language-rights groups to challenge federal laws -- an initiative long disdained by Conservatives -- is getting the axe.
A department significantly hit was Canadian Heritage. The department's Status of Women Canada, an agency which promotes gender equality, stands to lose $5 million from its annual $23 million budget.
Hard to believe, isn't it? At least Bush had a deficit to fall back on as an excuse. But Harper? It takes a whole new level of despicable to take a surplus of $13.2 billion, and still kick the crap out of the neediest people in Canada.
I don't worry about foreign terrorists coming to destroy Canada. It's the homegrown ones running the show in Ottawa that scare the crap out of me.
Remember this, where Joel was getting a Joel-sized woody over how swimmingly things were going with military recruiting down south? And then there's reality.
Let's see ... who to believe? Joel Johannesen, or someone who actually has a fucking clue? Grapple grapple ...
Is this just Steve Janke material or what? And, yes, that was rhetorical.
harper's spending cuts cost canadian women millions
harper spending cuts include 5 million from the council on the status of women.
And, of course, how could we possibly forget this:
Bush 'Slush Fund,' Courtesy of Canada
Softwood deal pours $450 million straight into White House, says U.S. lawyer.
The Conservative Party of Canada: Always looking out for the truly needy.
Not sure how I missed this but Canadian climate change skeptic (read: irresponsible, dishonest hack) Tim Ball is suing a bunch of folks for pointing out what kind of dishonest hack he is.
Don't you need a reputation to have it defamed in the first place?
BONUS SNARK AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Just for the entertainment value, you should follow up on a more recent piece by Tim Lambert regarding Tim Ball and, in particular, follow the early link to read Ball's actual statement and the hysterically self-destructive defense Ball presents, including the following gem in which Ball takes exception with Dr. Dan Johnson's claim that Ball could not possibly have been a professor at the U of Winnipeg for 28 years, to which Ball responds:
Ball has never had a website, but in any event, he was a professor at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to the date of his retirement.
Um ... so there! How dare you accuse me of not being a professor for 28 years! I was there since 1988!
You just can't invent people as unspeakably stupid as Tim Ball. I'm sure his membership in the Blogging Tories is imminent.
KICKING SOMEONE WHILE THEY'RE DOWN. Just for the amusement value, it's worth pointing out that, by Ball's own admission, he didn't become a professor at the U of Winnipeg until 1988 and, since he retired in 1996, that makes him a professor for somewhat less than 28 years. Determining the actual value is left as an exercise for the reader.
If the reader is a Blogging Tory, the answer is eight.
"Look, just lower your voice and pretend you're 16. And Mommy and Daddy don't need to know about this, OK?"
Your so-called "liberal media" in action:
Monday, September 25, 2006, 9:00 p.m.
Part One of The Path of Knowledge tonight on Ideas. Commanded by the Qur'an to seek knowledge and examine nature for signs of the Creator, the Islamic world was synonymous with learning and science for five hundred years. IN the twenty-first century, the relationship between science and religion generates much debate amoung Muslims. Chris Tenove asks if there is a contradiction between Islam and modern science. That's tonight on Ideas at 9 (9:30 NT) on CBC Radio One. (CONCLUDES TOMORROW)
Hey, CBC, here's a thought. Why don't you broaden that mandate ever so slightly to include scientific illiterates other than certain Muslims? How about, oh, the certifiably-insane proponents of Intelligent Design or, even better, those Christian "young earth" imbeciles who swear by the historical accuracy of the Old Testament? Wouldn't that be fun? And ever so much more inclusive, no?
UPPITY DATE: Apparently, commenter "mike" thinks I'm being a bit rough on the CBC, and that I should peruse the archives to get a feel for that whole "fair and balanced" thing. OK, let's do that. Let's see the last time "Ideas" did a piece on, say, "evolution". Nope, nothing here.
All right, what about "Intelligent Design?" Given the recent popularity of ID and the associated controversies, surely a progressive and diverse program like "Ideas" must have touched on the topic, right? Um ... nope.
OK, then, let's cast a ridiculously wide net and go after "creationism," which even the most ardent proponents of ID don't take seriously anymore. And we find something from back in 1982. Fair enough, I guess -- it's not like anything new or exciting in the conflict between religion and science has happened since then, right? Oh, except for that science and Islam thing, of course.
I re-iterate: idiots.
AH, THERE'S MORE. Commenter "GW" suggests I'm being unfair since, in just the last week, there's been a CBC special on religion in general, apparently inspired by Richard Dawkins' latest book.
Sadly, I have to run off for a couple of hours, but we'll be addressing this when I get back. In the meantime, feel free to proffer an opinion.
Shorter Steve Janke: "Next, we'll talk about fundamentalist Christian lunatics who kill their children or murder medical providers and ... oh, darn, I see we're out of time here."
See, it's all a matter of context. Once upon a time, Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck took a hissy little swipe at me for that cowardly anonymous blogging. And yet, from the comments section here, we have one of Kate's regular groupies, "Canadian Sentinel," expounding on the necessity of the very same thing:
This is why I don't blog under my real identity. The PC fascists would be on me just like that if I didn't have a moniker.
Honestly, sometimes this is just too easy.
From Canada's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck, we learn that academic freedom of speech is a fundamental principle of the wankersphere. Unless it happens at night, or you're the player on the dealer's right. Or it involves left-wing speech.
Especially that last part.
OOPSIE: Apparently, some of Canada's wankers might be a bit behind the times. That's what happens when you change your principles on a weekly basis.
BY THE WAY, if you have time to kill and don't mind wading knee-deep in right-wing stupidity, spend some time perusing the comments at that article of Kate's, where an entire community of wankers whines on and on and, God help us all, tediously on about "freedom of speech" and similar crap.
And once you've established, beyond any doubt, the principle they think is at stake here, feel free to read Illka Kokkarinen's blog itself, where Kokkarinen lets all the air out of that pretentious, victim-oriented, whiny balloon in one fell swoop:
Based on the torrent of email I have received since yesterday, plus the comments to my earlier post, I feel that I really must clarify something important here, before really signing off completely.
I am doing this completely in my free will to become a much better person than I used to be. No entity whatsoever has threatened me with any kind of consequences for blogging. This is not any kind of violation of my rights or free speech. In particular, if any of you want to start email or other campaigns about this, or in some other way publically accuse people and organizations for having treated me wrong, please don't. I seriously mean this.
Well, holy crap. So much for that "freedom of speech" bullshit over which Kate and her worker bees were getting their nutsacks in a knot. But here's the best part:
I made cheap and cruel potshots to mock people who had done nothing to me, being no better than some little boy who pulls wings off a fly. And that is just inexcusable, even if the other stuff had been the greatest thing since sliced bread, which it certainly wasn't. Occasionally I wanted to snark at somebody whose mere existence had somehow offended me even though they were nothing but words on the screen or enemies inside my head, and it's not like it's that hard to find aspects that are silly or mockable with pretty much anything. The worst things that I did were to thoughtlessly mock some group for no other reason but just to pinch at some particular person in that group...
... I have decided that simply don't want to be that asshole anymore.
That flatulent sound you hear is the entire Canadian right-wing wanker community deciding they really don't want that guy as their poster child anymore. Time to find another utterly bogus cause, methinks.
P.S. Note to Catholics -- that's an apology. Just so you can recognize one if you ever run across it.
Apparently, there are a few wankers with way too much time on their hands. Like Richard Evans, the right-wing troglodyte responsible for this. MWW has more here.
You know things have really tanked in the Canadian wankersphere when you start missing the days of Pete Rempel maturity.
Man, this sure paints a rosy picture, don't it?
Prime Minister Stephen Harper met today with Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul, Afghanistan. The two leaders discussed the challenges Afghanistan faces in achieving its objectives of rebuilding a free, democratic and peaceful country.
President Karzai expressed his gratitude for the support Canada has offered Afghanistan. Prime Minister Harper offered his congratulations on the significant progress already made and reiterated Canada’s unwavering commitment to the people of Afghanistan.
Yeah, about those "people of Afghanistan" and that "commitment":
Afghan Women Still in Chains Under Karzai
Kabul’s central jail holds female prisoners whose only ‘crime’ is their refusal to be second-class citizens
Well, I'm sure that, given Stephen's unwavering commitment to freedom, rights and democracy, he's going to have some harsh words for Karzai on this issue and ... and ... um:
NDP MP Irene Mathyssen points out that while the Cons may not have taken up the reactionary call for a direct frontal attack on Status of Women Canada, they're pushing SWC programs out of business by conveniently ignoring funding applications:
OK, maybe they'll just talk about football.
THIS IS ALMOST TOO EASY, as commenter "neo conservative" whips out his trusty six-shooter and neatly blows off several of his toes:
If you're gonna be a dufus, might as well be a world famous one.
The BBC's Lee Carter in Toronto says Mr Karzai will not be meeting the leader of the New Democratic opposition party, Jack Layton, who has called for Canadian troops to be withdrawn from their combat role in Afghanistan.
Mr Layton said that despite repeated attempts to set up a meeting with the Afghan president, none was scheduled.
Under the circumstances, then, this has to suck:
Afghan Leader To Meet With Layton Today
This is the day N-D-P leader Jack Layton finally gets to meet with the Afghan president.
He'll sit down with Hamid Karzai in Montreal to discuss their opposing views on the Canadian military mission in Afghanistan.
I'm guessing there's a reason "neo conservative" calls his blog the Halls of Macadamia, but to spell it out would be just cruel. So I won't.
Think nuttin' of it.
Gosh, aren't I adorable when I'm right? Back here, I warned you about the possibility of a supposedly non-partisan "support the troops" rally turning ugly (and by "ugly," I mean Conservative.) Lo and behold:
Although billed as a non-partisan rally, Mr. Harper used the occasion to slip in a not-so-subtle jab at NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has called for the withdrawal Canadian troops from the combat portion of the mission.
"Friends, I believe you cannot say you are for our military and then not stand behind them in the great things they do."
I'm guessing that Stephen didn't go on to say that dead troops were, in fact, a good thing. That might have seriously harshed the mellow all around.
Apparently, someone's had quite enough of the lies.
AWWWWWWWW ... Fox News is so cute when they get bitch-slapped around the room and now have to spin like crazy.
AND THE FURIOUS BACKPEDALING BEGINS. Over at Fox, the main page promo for the Clinton interview now reads, "Strong Reaction." Jeezus, that network can be more infantile than the Blogging Tories. If that's even physically possible.
Many years ago, I was reading the transcript of a debate between a biologist and a young-earth creationist (whose names, mercifully, escape me at the moment since neither of them did a particularly stellar job). Not surprisingly, during each man's presentation, their respective supporters in the audience would applaud wildly whenever they thought a point was scored.
During their summations, the creationist pulled a bit of a fast one when he stated (and I'm paraphrasing), "In the end, it's all about wanting the best possible science education for our children. So those people who are here this evening, if you support quality science education, stand up and show it."
Oh, that was clever.
What the creationist did was a well-known and sleazy kind of "bait-and-switch." Naturally, everyone there was prepared to say that they were in favour of good science education (based on how they defined it, of course.) So it wouldn't be at all surprising if the creationists in the audience immediately leapt to their feet and applauded madly.
But what about the supporters of biological evolution? What were they supposed to do? Of course they supported good science education but, if they had stood as well, there's no doubt that that gesture would have been re-interpreted after the fact as overwhelming, bipartisan support for the creationist speaker.
More recently, this bait-and-switch trick in public discourse has been on spectacular display south of the border. See, if you publicly "support the troops," then that support is repackaged as if it were support for the Bush administration. And if you disagree with King George and his minions? Well, then, clearly, you don't support the troops. I'm sure you can see how this works by now. Which brings us to "Wear Red Day," and the latest incarnation of right-wing, bait-and-switch sleaziness.
Canada's wankers would, naturally, have you believe that wearing red is to show support for "the troops." But does anyone actually believe that? Let's consider the evidence, shall we, once again stealing from Mark C. since he's such a delightful source of wanker silliness. As Mark quotes:
Hundreds of military spouses, family members and others are expected to rally on Parliament Hill tomorrow in response to a “Wear Red” campaign launched by family members of soldiers at the CFB Petawawa who last month began a six-month tour of duty in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Now there's the first hint that something devious is up. See, it's not just a "wear red" thing, is it? No, what's happening is a rally on Parliament Hill, where it's going to be irresistibly tempting to portray that mass of humanity as showing their support for the Harper government and its policies after the fact. I mean, be honest -- if you were in charge, could you resist the potential PR bonanza?
What? Me, a conspiracy theorist? Perhaps. So let's give Mark C. the last word and let him dispel any doubts, shall we?
Actually there are likely to be thousands and most will be "others", i.e. ordinary civilians like my wife and me. National Defence Minister O'Connor, Gen. Hillier and perhaps Prime Minister Harper will speak.
Well, how about that? A patriotic rally on Parliament Hill to ostensibly "support the troops" and, gosh darn it, what a coincidence that some prominent members of the CPoC could "perhaps" show up to speak and get some serious media face time. And how could you blame them? All that patriotic emotion in one place -- what a great photo op, and a chance to spin it later as PM Stephen Harper and his cronies basking in the adulation of the worshipping masses. And not a Liberal or Dipper or Green to be seen up on stage, at least not according to Mark C. Life doesn't get any better than that, does it?
And remember -- you read it here first.
P.S. If Canada's military have an ounce of sense, they'll have a recruiting table there. 'Cuz it's always easy to talk the talk, know what I'm sayin'?
DING DING DING ... We have a winner. Thank you, thank you very much. I'm here until Thursday. Try the veal.
Shorter H. Cameron: "Next thing you know, those broads are going to want to vote. Where does it end?"
YOU KEEP USING THAT WORD "FREEDOM" ... From the comments section over here, we have Canadian right-wing he-man Brent Colbert, getting all freedomy on us:
Show your how much you support our troops by sending in your photos of you wearing red and enjoying the freedoms that they are fighting for.
Although, by "freedom," Brent isn't actually counting the freedom of women in Canada to make equal pay, participate equally in Canada's social, cultural and political life and, you know, not get slapped around by abusive husbands or boyfriends. That kind of thing just doesn't make for good TV and, when it comes to Canada's wankers, it's all about the sound bite, ya know?
Shorter Mark C.: "I'm outraged that some people wouldn't support the troops."
Shorter PM Stephen Harper: "Dead troops. Mmmmmmmmm ..."
There's a fine line between irony and hypocrisy.
It doesn't take much to get unhinged Catholic Kathy Shaidle all cranked up:
UK: 6-year-old burned to death in "honour killing"
"Alisha's brother, 21-year old Abdul Hamid, had been seeing a teenaged girl, Meherun Khanum, since the end of 2005. Meherun was the sister of Hussein Ahmad. When her family found out about the relationship, a threatening phone call was made to Abdul on Thursday, March 9, warning him to stay away from the 15-year old girl.
"The following day, the arson attack took place, shortly before midnight."
The two accused men deny the charges.
The little girl was trapped in her bedroom and suffered burns over 95% of her body. She died in hospital the next day.
Oooooh oooooh ... can I play, too?
Religiosity Common Among Mothers Who Kill Children
Andrea Yates said Satan told her to drown her five children.
Deanna Laney said the Lord sent her signs to beat her three sons with stones.
And the night before Dena Schlosser became the latest Texas mother to take her child's life, she told her husband she wanted to give her children to God. The suburban Dallas mother was charged with capital murder for severing her 10-month-old baby's arms. Attorneys were expected to discuss her competency in court Tuesday.
Women who kill their children commonly cite God, the devil and other religious influences for their actions. Although the mothers are also often found to be severely mentally ill or psychotic, the recurring theme of religiosity begs the question: Is religion to blame?
Theologians, sociologists and psychiatrists generally say no. They say religiosity is a common theme among psychotics because hallucinations and delusions usually take familiar forms.
Your move, Kathy.
Well ... this is a novel way of looking at it:
Opposition members are demanding that Prime Minister Stephen Harper explain what he meant when he said during a television interview that the lives lost in Afghanistan may have strengthened the Canadian military.
"This is the first time in some time that Canada's moved to the front lines of a peace-and-security operation, and I think it's really sinking into us all how difficult that is and what that really means," Mr. Harper said during an interview with CBC televised Monday night.
"At the same time, I can tell you it's certainly engaged our military. It's, I think, making them a better military, notwithstanding, or maybe in some way because of, the casualties."
In the same way, I suppose, that killing off a few Conservatives might make them a stronger political party.
I'm sure that analogy breaks down somewhere.
The hilarity here is, I'm sure, entirely unintentional:
The Toronto Star, in a truly disturbing display of economic illiteracy, advocates for a major increase in the minimum wage on the grounds that it will help the poorest members of society. By which they mean killing off thousands of jobs.
I expect this sort of flabbergasting economic reasoning from undergraduate political science students who think "economics" is some isolated "thing" you can massage and mould like a lump of clay. I don't expect it from the editorial board of a major Canadian newspaper.
This message dissing poor people brought to you by Aaron Lee Wudrick, undergraduate law student.
UH OH ... Poor Aaron seems to be getting dangerously deep into mindless hero worship here:
Difficult to find time to post lately, school is very busy - but the Prime Minister is in New York to speak to the UN tomorrow, and tonight spoke to the Economic Club of New York, and gave what I considered to be an outstanding speech.
Whatever you may think of his policies, this man looks and sounds like a statesman, and projects Canada as a strong country, with clearly defined principles and objectives.
I'm guessing it's only a matter of time before Aaron descends entirely into Hinderakeritis. I'm guessing it won't be long. I'm guessing we should start a pool.
Over at My Blahg, Robert discusses the notion that even the North American neo-con whackjobs understand that they'd probably come out on the short end of a real "religious war." To which one can properly respond ... well, duh.
I mean, when the "enemy" is quite prepared to sacrifice suicide bombers but the best we can expect out of our Bible-thumping cheerleaders is that they're prepared to put on something red and hang out for the cameras for a while, well, I'll take the foreign extremists and the point spread, know what I'm sayin'? But that's missing the larger picture.
It's not the foreign Islamogothiextremojihadifarians that worry me. It's these lunatics. Make no mistake -- the foreign religious loons concern me. They give me reason to be wary. But the local religious Christopaths? They scare the crap out of me, because they're the Scripture-spouting idiots who do shit like this.
When it comes to the foreign nutjobs, maybe we can protect ourselves against explosives and rocket-propelled grenades and suicide bombers. But the homegrown ones? They have a much more evil agenda -- they want to totally fuck us over from the inside.
These are the clinically-insane devout, who want to expunge actual science from public school classes and replace it with fundamentalist Christian drivel. These are the yahoos who want to curtail womens' rights, and gay rights, and want to change the law so that they have the right to deny service to anyone who doesn't quite measure up to their moral standards.
Swarthy, middle-Eastern extremists with shoe bombs, I can deal with. But that doesn't begin to compare with the fear I feel when I imagine vicious, ignorant dingbats like this possibly running the country.
Suddenly, the Islamojihadifarians don't seem like such a big problem anymore.
P.S. It's not just that the homegrown religious warriors seem bent on trashing Canada from a human rights point of view -- they're also just plain stealing our money.
Consider the recent giveaway of almost half a billion dollars of softwood lumber money to the United States. The Canadian wankersphere would have us all believe that this was a small price to pay to get a "deal." But ask yourself a simple question -- would the CPoC have been as accommodating if it had been President Al Gore in the White House and all that money would have been going into Democratic coffers to be available as a completely unaccountable slush fund for the next U.S. federal election?
Don't make me have to answer that for you, OK?
Since I happen to be in Toronto for the next few days, I'm up for a beer or six at the end of the week. I wonder what that Zorpheous low-life is up to ...
Blogging Tory "Kerplonka" explains what gets his Underoos in a bunch:
I just finished a "revisionist" account of the Marshall Plan. Someone smash my head in with a cinder block so I can stoop to the level of intelligence needed to believe this bullshit.
Yeah, historical revisionism. Dontcha just hate it when that happens?
That's so cute -- Blogging Tory Michael Hussey is playing the game "Six degress of separation."
Aw, come on, Mike -- you can do better than that. Here, I can name that tune in one note:
You'll forgive me for revisiting the topic of a very recent post but, honestly, there are reasons why reading Canada's wankers makes me want to dig out my frontal lobes with an ice pick.
Exhibit A today is one Aaron Unruh from the right-wing blog "The Politic", whose infantile whining is exceeded only by his teeth-gnashing dishonesty. Or maybe stupidity -- I always have trouble telling those two apart.
Let's begin at the beginning of Unruh's screed, shall we?
New Brunswick: The Liberals Steal One
See how that works? The Conservatives win elections, while the Liberals steal them. Only six words in, and Unruh is already knee-deep in assholitude and wading deeper by the sentence.
Congratulations to New Brunswick Liberal leader Shawn Graham who has eked out a miniscule win tonight.
Whoops, let me start over. The Conservatives have electoral victories, while the Liberals "eke out miniscule wins." A miniscule win being, I'm guessing, somehow not as valid as a massive, landslide kind of win, even if it is a majority, which the Conservatives didn't get in the last federal election. Oh, sorry, I probably shouldn't have mentioned that -- I'll bet that's still a sore spot with Aaron, given his childish petulance these days. But I digress. Onwards and upwards.
Even with a recent redistribution that blatantly favoured the Liberals, Graham failed to get more votes than Bernard Lord.
Translation: Whine, whine, whine, bitch, moan, statement of obvious fact that everyone already knows. And the capper:
Luckily, the electoral system came to Graham’s rescue and he won despite that most New Brunswickers voted for his opponent.
Translation: More snot-nosed bitching and moaning, followed by blatantly false claim. What's that, you say? Why, yes, Aaron is simply full of it, since the very article he links to shows the overall election results as Conservatives: 47.65%; Liberals: 47.00%. Which, as I'm sure even Pete Rempel might appreciate, means that most New Brunswickers emphatically did not vote for "[Graham's] opponent." So how could anyone write something so stunningly idiotic? Oh, the fun is just beginning.
Immediately below Aaron's original posting, we have the disclaimer:
Edited to deal with a silly objection.
It was? Where? It's annoying enough that Aaron disses the objection as "silly," even as he admits that he has edited his posting to deal with it. But what's the change?
Even the most cement-headed of bloggers generally accept that, if you modify your original posting in any significant way to change its inherent meaning, you have a moral or ethical obligation to point out what that change was. And yet, in Aaron's piece ... nothing. No overstrike. No deletion. No hint to the reader as to what's been quietly altered so he might not look like such a total dick. No hint, that is, until you get to "Balbulican"'s first comment:
“he won despite that most New Brunswickers voted against him.”
Gosh, not unlike that other dude…what was his name…Hacker? Herpes? Whorepurr?
Whoa, hold on there. Balbulican's quote most certainly does not match Aaron's current text, does it? In fact, one can safely say that the quote Balbulican is reproducing is actually, technically correct -- more people did vote against Graham than voted for him. So what? That's the way Canadian elections work. As Balbulican points out, it's exactly what happened with the CPoC in the last election.
And yet, we see that those are not the words in Aaron's piece at the moment. Is this what he quietly changed based on a "silly objection?" And changed, I should point out, to now be totally wrong.
"The Politic"s Aaron Unruh: Because there is clearly a shortage of right-wing stupidity north of 49 and, besides, even Pete Rempel needs someone to feel intellectually superior to.
Over at My Blahg, Robert has a short piece on the latest bit of petulant childishness on the part of the CPoC:
The Geological Survey, along with presumably the rest of the offices in the Canadian government, was sent a memo requiring them to stop saying they worked for the government of Canada, or the Canadian government, or anything sensible like that. Instead, they were to leave no letterhead untouched, changing all references to “The New Government of Canada”.
Yes, it's breathtakingly immature and self-indulgent but let's not get too carried away. Be patient. If the Liberals can eventually get their shit together in time for the next election and hand the CPoC their asses on a plate, then those Liberals can do likewise and issue an official edict, changing all government letterhead to read "Canada's Governing Liberals: The grownups are back in charge."
Or something equally amusing.
Honestly, some days it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps. Driving around Waterloo this morning and caught snippets of an interview on CBC Radio (89.1 FM locally) that started at 9 a.m.(?), involving a female interviewer who redefined the concept of "airhead."
Referring to the recent pissing contest between Catholicism and Islam and Pope Ratzo the First's indelicate bitch-slapping of the latter, the interviewer first altered reality by claiming that His Popeliness had already "apologized" for his remarks. No, sweetie -- he hasn't. Deal with it. A few minutes later, a male guest took fantasy even further by claiming that the Pope had apologized "three times already." Aaaargh. (Sound of forehead banging on keyboard.)
But the best was yet to come, as the conversation turned to what the Pope was "really" trying to say, and that he was just pointing out the dangers of "irrational faith." Excuse me? Irrational faith? As opposed to what? Rational faith? As in, based on reason? I'm sorry -- when did that product suddenly appear on store shelves?
Please, someone tell me there's a transcript of this idiocy somewhere. 'Cuz I just don't get enough indescribable stupidity in my life these days.
It's always fun to see which principle the citizens of Wankerville choose to sell out each morning. Over here, Jean-Francois celebrates:
NB Liberals Win!!
FREED! FREED AT LAST! THANK YOU, THANK YOU!
To which The Politic's Aaron Unruh, apparently misunderstanding the concept of democracy, snipes:
Congratulations. Got fewer votes than the Tories. The Liberals steal another one.
Uh, right. Losing the popular vote while still winning the election. That'll piss off a wanker faster than anything, won't it?
I think we can all agree on the problem here:
Calling for the Pope's execution
That's the ticket for a world-class religion which professes itself to be peaceful: let's kill anyone who insults Islam - or whom muslims percieve as having insulted Islam...
Uh-huh.... real mature and sophisticated: "We don't like what you said, so we'll kill you." Now tell me how we're supposed to take Islam seriously if its public face and voice in the West preaches barbarism?
Exactly. You know what those bloodthirsty, barbaric Muslim whackjobs need? A good role model, that's what:
After the September 11 attack masterminded by a terrorist hoping to spark a religious war, virtually every official and pundit knew better than to take the bait. Except for conservative commentator Ann Coulter, who wrote in a syndicated column on September 12 that in responding to terrorists "we should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Um ... OK, that was a bad example. Let me get back to you about this.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, of the Narcissistic Psychopaths for Lieberman Party, makes an interesting observation on Afghanistan:
“A lot of people want to fight the other war [in Afghanistan], the one we’re not involved in.”
Uh ... come again? The war that you're "not involved in?" Dude, you broke it, you can at least help fix it, know what I'm saying?
Canada's own Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck is just so adorable when she takes on logic and bludgeons it bloody with a tire iron:
Having come to agreement that "need" is the threshold for a citizen's right to own a firearm, the discussion is ready to move forward.
Announce to your friend that you are ready to accompany them to their home. You will begin with an inspection of the kitchen, and from there, will work your way through their house, tagging each possession you believe they do not need in "today's world".
Don't forget the garage.
There's no logical reason to limit the inspection to possessions that pose a threat as weapons. With the consequences that await society from global warming, and the alarming increase in energy consumption, those homes with a television in every room, two cars in the garage, and appliances of pure convenience - food processors, cappuccino makers - cappuccino makers! - must come under review.
Kate has a point. I can't count the number of times I've fantasized about launching an attack on a local synagogue, armed only with a seething, anti-Semitic rage and my fully-loaded, semi-automatic Presto Salad Shooter. I now understand why those people look on me and my coffee grinder with such fear -- they know what's coming, and they're powerless to prevent it. BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
P.S. Currently, we have an uneasy truce, what with those people and their automatic Matzo ball makers. But I'll be watching them. Those Jews are a sneaky, sneaky people.
I swear, this is what happens when Daddy turns his back for just a minute and The Politic's little Georgie Freeman grabs the keyboard:
Pope Benedict apologised today ...
Um, no ... no, he didn't. If we follow the link, he certainly started out in a promising way:
Pope Benedict XVI said Sunday that he is "deeply sorry" his remarks on Islam and violence offended Muslims ...
But, sadly, an actual apology wasn't forthcoming:
While Benedict expressed regret his speech caused hurt, he did not retract what he said or say he was sorry he uttered what proved to be explosive words.
Yeah, that's kind of the important part right there, isn't it? Being sorry for what you actually said, not for the way people reacted to it. Sort of like this.
I'd comment further on the contention by the leader of the Catholic Church that "violence is not compatible with faith" but I'm too busy clawing my eyes out at the moment.
SHORTER POPE RATZO THE FIRST: "Um ... that wasn't me, that was my evil twin Skippy."
As God is my witness, I would never stoop to such sleazy tactics. I'm sure even a Blogging Tory could understand that.
There was this:
Accused of lacking leadership as Canadian hosts of an international HIV/AIDS conference, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has cancelled related policy announcements "while the issue is so politicized."
Then there was this:
Prime Minister Stephen Harper says this is not the time to start discussing how the Montreal college shootings might have been prevented.
He says all the facts aren’t in yet from Wednesday’s attack and it’s too early to begin a political discussion.
And, of course, this:
Given the intense controversy surrounding the proposed softwood lumber resolution, PM Stephen Harper promised to delay any implementation, claiming that this just wasn't the right time, as the issue had become too "politicized" and ... and ...
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I couldn't even finish inventing that last sentence with a straight face. Must be getting old.
How can you not do something with a line like this?
With a growing majority of Americans opposed to the war in Iraq, even ardent hawks refusing to enlist in droves, and the Pentagon pulling out ever more stops and sinking to new lows in recruitment and retention, a new all-volunteer generation of UUUU's may emerge -- the underachieving, unable, unexceptional, unintelligent, unsound, unhinged, unacceptable, unhealthy, undesirable, unloved, uncivil, and even un-American, all led by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary for the ungrateful.
Oh, man, have I got just the fertile recruiting ground for you. "Platoon, by the left ... no, no, Jesus Christ, the other left, for fuck's sake!"
Warning: Joel Johannesen densitude alert ahead:
Apparently, Joel's just tail-waggingly thrilled about the following nifty development:
U.S. Army meets re-enlistment goal? Tells us something.
Posted by Joel Johannesen
Here’s what else “tells us something”: the fact that you have to stand on your head and search to find this news. Yes that also tells us something. It tells us that the liberal media doesn’t want us to know about this. So I think it’s actually two extremely important facts, neither of which the liberal media wants us to know about.
Joel's got a point. That's not something you'd ever hear from that gosh-darned liberal media ... hello ... what's this?
Thank God for Blogger archives. Otherwise, I'd have to do actual work.
I DON'T GET PAID ENOUGH FOR THIS. It's one thing to disembowel wankers' arguments but, really, I think I have to draw the line at doing their research for them.
At Joel's eye-rollingly gullible piece above, commenter "parem" writes:
Here’s the truth about the composition of the U.S. military, a study that refers to a politician’s proposal to reinstitute the draft based on typical leftist misconceptions. I suggest people who expect to debate leftists to file this:
Who Bears the Burden? Demographic Characteristics of U.S. Military Recruits Before and After 9/11
by Tim Kane, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #05-08
Ah, yes, the right-wing Heritage Foundation -- an unimpeachable source of objective analysis, to be sure.
It took about 15 seconds with Google to learn that Mr. Kane's views on the subject of recruiting data are about as useful as a platoon of Blogging Tories in actual combat. The eighth hit for that Google search:
In short, NPP and the Heritage Foundation agree on the numbers. The crux of the dispute is what the numbers mean. The implication of Dr. Kane' report is that the income range of $25,000 - $54,999 does not constitute low and middle income. However, the federal government uses various definitions of 'low income' when creating eligibility criteria for particular federal programs. The range may include families with income levels up to 200% of the poverty level or $34,058 for a family of four.*
Recruits from zip code areas with median household income levels of $25,000 - $34,999 are over-represented in the armed forces. NPP stands by its conclusion that youth from low and middle income areas are being heavily recruited.
File that, baby.
MUST READ: As commenter Edwin suggests, you really should check out Billmon. And follow the links. Then, unlike the wanks over at PtbC, you will actually know something. Doesn't that make you feel special?
I'm not sure what to make of this but I'm getting an unusually large number of hits these days from Google searches where, even when there are tens of thousands of matches, somehow this humble blog ends in the first one or two dozen hits displayed. See for yourself:
Mind you, this is my personal favourite: don't let the door hit you in the ass. Yeah, I'll take ownership of that one, thanks.
In his speech at the University of Regensburg, [Pope] Benedict quoted criticism of Islam and the Prophet Mohammad by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who wrote that everything Mohammad brought was evil and inhuman, "such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached".
Benedict repeatedly quoted Manuel’s argument that spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable, adding: "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul."
I'm not sure what the Pope was thinking when he criticized evangelism via the sword. After all, everyone knows the high-powered rifle is the weapon of choice for religious lunatics everywhere these days.
I mean, Muslims might get a bit temperamental at times but, come on, they're not Luddites.
Pretty much the definition of "words coming back to haunt you":
The gun college killer Kimveer Gill displays proudly on his blog is a restricted firearm under Canadian law but popular with the country's shooting fraternity.
"To be perfectly honest it's a lot of fun to shoot," said Tony Bernardo, executive director of the Canadian Shooting Sports Association, who also owns a Beretta CX4 Storm.
"The little pistol calibre it comes in gives virtually no recoil. It's very accurate. The firearm is just one of those firearms that's just a lot of fun to spend a day at the range with." ...
"It doesn't have a huge muzzle blast," Bernardo said from Oshawa, Ont.
"It doesn't recoil you back into next week. It's just a fun little gun that people go out and shoot tin cans at the range with.
In unrelated news, the Catholic Church gave its highest rating -- 5 stars -- to the Astroglide line of personal lubricants.
"Hey," said the National Post's Father Raymond J. de Souza, "it's water-based and water-soluble, so it cleans up quickly with just a wet paper towel. What's not to like?"
There's speculation, and then there's premature eJankulation. It's not a pretty sight.
ARGH: OK, so I pooched the title. Too late to change it now.
Take a deep breath:
Right from Kimveer Gill's blog. The MSM sure can't make this guy into a right winger. I hope other bloggers pick up who this guy is and make it widely known.............
Dislikes: THE WORLD AND EVERYTHING IN IT But to be more specific: Animal Cruelty Country Music Posers Chavs Jocks Preps Downraters Anything And Everything Hip Hop All Those Who Oppose My Rule Traffic American Government Anyone Who Supports The American Government Politics Comedy Movies Religion All The Governments On Earth God Stress People In General Really Hot and Humid Summer Days Lies Betrayers Deceivers Manipulators Lawyers Anyone Who Has Anything Agains Metal Or Goth Capatalists People Who Think They're Real Smart Asses But Who Are Really Just Mother____rs People Without Manners Downgraders Rude People People In General Anyone Who Has Ever Said Or Done Anything Bad To A Goth Girl (I WILL KILL YOU) Sunlight (Arrgghhh, It Burns) Goody Two Shoes F___ng Religious People Who Think They Know Everything.....And Then They Stick It In Your Face Cuz' They Think They Know Everything (They Don't Understand That They're Just A Bunch Of Little Sheep) Catholics Society Traffic When My PC Crashes Or Freezes...Arrgghhh Mmmmmmmmm, So...What Else??.. Ummmm, Let Me Think.....(This May Take A While)... F__ing' Jocks Cheerleaders Preppies F___ING JOCKS Teachers Who Try To Be Like The Students So They Can Be ^popular^....Instead Of Doing Their Job The Way They Should...And TEACH F__k, Just F___ing Writting This Stuff Is Pissing Me Off People Who Talk With Their Mouths Full Bullys When My Rifle Misfires And I Gotta Stand There For 60 Seconds Waiting For It To Fire, Or Not The Universe Anyone who doesn't like VF Church Going Assholes The World Bible Thumpping Know-It-Alls Damn I Gotta Lot Of Dislikes Child Molesting Priests All Priests Republicans Racists Homophobes Did I Mention That I Hate The World Pitbulls (They're Too Dangerous) Waking Up Life The City It's Just So Damn Crowded Warm Beer The Human Race When A DVD I'm Watching Skips Or Freezes Dogs GOD DAMN MOTHERF___NG JOCKS
This text is quoted from the shooter's blog.The shooter is apparently a leftoid......not a right wing conservative.There has beens stories goin round, sayin this guy's guns were registered.Sure looks like that gun registry sure helped those poor people in Montreal.The gun registry is useless.If it was effective, the woman who was killed would still be alive today.I blame the Liberals and NDP.This guy was one of em.He promoted the gay agenda and he hates christians, just like Layton and Graham.
In other words, LEFTOIDS kill people.....NOT Conservatives.
Get that into your thick skulls Mr.Layton and Mr.Graham and Mr.Duceppe!!!!
The Kimveer Gill A&E biography courtesy of Ace of Spades, picked up by Canada's own Free Dominion, and finally reproduced in all its splendour and glory on the blog of one tory_canuckistan, of whom we can read:
I have just finished my grade 12.I am took grade 12 math, then I will be done High school.I am horrible when it comes to mathematics.
I swear, if there was any more stupidity concentrated in a single article, we'd have a warp core breach and Mr. Data would have to separate the saucer section just to save the crew.
(H/T to commenter Radical Centrist.)