So I turn my back ever so briefly and ... what the hell ... all sorts of bad craziness what with Warren Kinsella posting his personal top ten bloggers list, followed by Liberal Catnip who responds with a challenge to identify Canada's smart female bloggers, which inspires this rebuttal from Halls of Macadamia and so on and so on. What is with you people? Anyway, to business, as it were.
First, we deal with "Halls", who makes the paralogical observation:
So, to recap... Libnip and Kinsella, the self anointed judges of all that is good, smart and female in the Canadian Blogosphere, will soon grace us with their decision about the very smartest Canadian womyn bloggers.
As long as it isn't that unspeakable Kate at Small Dead Animals... you know... the hands down winner of the Best Canadian (male, female, gay and I daresay transgendered) Blog at the 2006 Weblog Awards.
"Halls" apparently confuses traffic with cleverness or, as it were, quality with quantity. But, in fact, "Halls" has a point here.
If LC's challenge were to identify Canada's "best" female bloggers (or some other word associated with literary quality or something like that), that would be one thing. If this were a poll whose primary purpose was to select based on actual journalistic excellence and objectivity, then there's no question that Kate McMillan wouldn't even remotely qualify, being the racist, dishonest, lying sack of neo-con crap that she is. That wouldn't even be open to debate. But that's not what LC was asking for here, was it?
In fact, LC was asking for Canada's "smart" female bloggers and that's where LC's case falls apart and "Halls" makes a perfectly valid point. Because, in my opinion, despite Kate McMillan being the deceitful, right-wing hack that she is, I don't think there's any question that she is, in fact, extremely smart.
Regardless of what you might think of Kate's vile rantings, one doesn't generate that kind of traffic by being an idiot. I think Kate has correctly assessed the basic Canadian demographics, and identified that sizable portion of it that are uneducated, racist, homophobic dittoheads, and has built a comfortable blog presence by pandering to those people in the same way you would pander to any lowest common denominator.
One need only peruse the comments section of a typical Kate post to understand precisely who her target market is, and she knows how to play those people like a cheap violin. These are not people who want objectivity, or nuance, or anything that requires deep thought. They want screaming, and shrieking, and clear distinctions between good and evil and Kate (God bless her shrivelled, blackened heart) gives them just that.
(Kate is, of course, not alone in this. Examples like Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin leap to mind as well -- loathsome human beings who have made a living pandering to other loathsome human beings. It may be disgusting but you have to admit -- it's good business.)
So "Halls" is spot on with his objection. If we were discussing quality, then one could safely suggest that Kate wouldn't even be in the same time zone as that survey. But if we're talking about just plain smarts, then there's no question that she should be on that list. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that she'd probably be at the top of that list.
Kate McMillan may be a worthless waste of skin masquerading as a human being but -- give her credit -- she knows exactly how to pander to the lowest of the low. And her loyal fans -- the flying monkeys that they are -- love her for it. ALL RIGHT, FINE! Apparently, some of my regular stalk... uh, readers have taken issue with my giving Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck credit for smarts. So, all right, I'll back off on that. Actually, I rather like the idea of her being described as "manipulative" rather than smart, which I'm guessing isn't saying much given the crowd she's playing to.
Suddenly, I have this image of Linda Fiorentino in "The Last Seduction" ...
Well, you knew it was coming ... apparently, Kate's Orcish minions have arrived to pollute my comments section with their typical, self-obsessed, pretentious whining.
Appreciate, of course, the idea of their taking advantage of my publicly available blog and comments section to defend Kate's locking me out of hers even to read it.
It would be funny if it weren't so ... nah, it's just funny.
P.S. I'd try to explain (given the existence of proxy servers) the futility of Kate's efforts but I'm guessing that any moderately technical explanation directed at any of the Katettes wouldn't be any more productive than, oh, this:
While Dick Cheney undoubtedly remains the most powerful vice president this nation has ever seen, it's becoming increasingly unclear whether anyone outside the White House believes a word he says...
But as his astonishing interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer laid bare last week, Cheney is increasingly out of touch with reality. He seems to think that by asserting things that are simply untrue, he can make others believe they are so.
Maybe that works within the White House. But for the rest of us, it's becoming a better bet to assume that everything -- or almost everything -- Cheney says is flat wrong.
From Canada's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck (via a proxy server, given the indescribably dangerous human being that I am), we have Kate, via the devilishly clever blog post title "Baby Boomer," apparently poking fun at infant suicide bombers (I'm hoping the link works for you). And that's when the SDA howler monkeys take over:
I need a new keyboard now. Can't get the coffee out of the old one...
Hey wait a minute...Isn't that pacifier chain made of C-4???? Clear the nursery!! Call the bomb squade to disarm this toddler!!...
Just wondering, is this boomer raised in a daycare center...
They love death, pure and simple. After all the hugging and kissing about how lovely Islam is, after it is all stripped away, there's a huge death cult mentality that's alive and well in Islam. Any cult that advises it's members that the only way to achieve positive entrance to heaven is to die in Jihad...well, enough said.
Baby Boomers......still laughing...
I considered titling this post "Dead Baby Before Picture... [that one was Kate herself]
Ah, they blow up so fast these days...
This picture and some of the comments here make me ill. My heart breaks for a child who deserves a decent mother and father. Not the fucking ingrates it would appear he has. How do you even contemplate doing this to your child... I cannot help but hear again the words from the muslim student in Ireland who said to Trevor Owens, "this is not an ideology, it is a mental illness"...
The next jihadist-recruiting-movie title, or is it the caption under the photo, in the baby album, depicting baby's first steps:
"Dead Baby Walking"
It is hard to look at the pictures of those precious little ones knowing what their parents plan for their future...it breaks my heart...what kind of parents...?? Is this going on in moderate mosques in Canada?...
I'm starting to think that sterilization is the only answer.
And don't give me the Hitler thinking stuff. Jews didn't strap on bombs to kill innocent people...
One commenter tries to break in with some sanity:
Forgive my naivety but whats with th kid/bomber connection? I see pacifier, burnoose and a headband.
Am I missing something...maybe I need more sleep?
He is quickly dismissed:
For all of the people asking about what connection there is between the kid and terrorism:
I don't claim to be an expert, but I think the give-away is the red-bandana. Isn't it supposed to be some sort of Islamic mark of a soon-to-be-martyr? Flight 93 passengers reported red bandanas on the hijackers. I am sure that there have been news reports that have mentioned martyrs wearing them.
Maybe it's not a symbol and all of this is coincidence...but that's what it had come to mean to me...
Anyone else see the irony of the "pacifier" in this child's mouth?...
Mmmm, notice that the one end of the pacifier is open? Probably to hook a grenade onto...
You have to give it to extremists though, they don't discriminate, they bomb everyone, theirs included...
Multirec at least you have to give then credit for giving women, children, civilians and muslims the equal opportunity of being bombed. Isn't that what dions idea of social justice is...
Pull the chain and the baby blows.
Then comes Kate's major "oopsie" moment:
Update Oh man.... apparently I've overlooked the fact that these babies are dressed for the religious observance of "Ashura" ...
And here's your money quote from Kate:
Being generous enough of spirit to acknowledge that bloggers and commentors more open-minded than myself have bettered my appreciation of this gentle commemoration of the beheading martyrdom of Hussain ibn Ali (grandson of Muhammad), the best way to express my gratitude is to assist the readership here to expand theirs.
Yup, that's our Kate -- 10 pounds of generosity of spirit in a 5-pound bag.
Just kill me now, Lord.
BITCH-SLAP PEDANTRY. In case you missed it, go back and appreciate the subtlely dishonest way that Kate tries to recover from her howling fuck-up (emphasis added):
"... apparently I've overlooked the fact that these babies are dressed for the religious observance of "Ashura" ..."
No, Kate ... I'm willing to wager that you didn't "overlook" it at all. See, technically, the definition of "overlook" (at least in this context) is:
To look over and beyond (anything) without seeing it; to miss or omit in looking; hence, to refrain from bestowing notice or attention upon;
Note carefully what is implied here -- to "overlook" means that you were aware of something, or it was there in front of you, and you simply missed it or ignored it or failed to take it into account. That implies that, somehow, you had that information but merely failed to process it.
I don't think that's what happened here. I think a more appropriate reaction from Kate would have been something like:
"Oh, man ... apparently this child is simply dressed up for a religious observation called "Ashura" which I -- in my racist, batshit-crazy, hate-filled, shrieking, right-wing ignorance -- have never even heard of."
Toward the end of the conversation, I raised my hand and asked [Sen. John] McCain:
"Given that you've said that you are 'scared to death that it's going to be a very hot spring in Afghanistan,' and given that you have also said, repeatedly, that only a substantial increase in troops in Iraq would make a real difference, why not send the 21,000 troops headed to Iraq, in what is clearly an act of desperation, to Afghanistan instead?"
During his response, McCain equated those opposing his position with "the far left."
"Do you consider Sam Brownback part of the far left?" I jumped in. The Senator flared and told me that if I'd only let him finish his answer instead of interrupting, we could have "a civil discussion."
Lately, those on the Right have complained increasingly that it's getting harder and harder to have a "civil discussion" with all us deranged, moonbat lefties, but that all depends on what you mean by "civil". Apparently, "civil" means that they get to ramble on endlessly and tediously, spewing lies and absurdities one after another, and you get to sit there and wait for them to finish. And I think it's time for that to stop.
You see this on every talking head show -- guest number one (think Dick Cheney here) drones on, with one transparently false statement after another and, if anyone has the temerity to interrupt to call him on his bullshit, what you get is this predictable, wounded puppy dog expression, accompanied by, "Wait, can I finish? Please, can you be polite enough to just let me finish my statement? Let's be civil here, all right?" At which point, the monologue resumes and the lies continue unabated. And by the time the monologue is over, there have been so many lies that it's not even physically possible to address them all.
You want smug, sanctimonious condescension? Fast forward in about two minutes to see the bullshit start:
Frankly, I would like to see progressives stop being "civil." If someone makes a blatantly dishonest claim, they should be called on it immediately. If the wingnuts want to bitch about that, let them. Civility may imply being polite enough to let someone finish what they're saying, but it should also imply not flat-out lying. And if you lie, you've automatically given up the right to be treated "civilly."
Bush crony re-nominated as chair of the Broadcasting Board of Governors by Bill Berkowitz
On November 14, in a move indicative of President Bush's intention to continue to surround himself with political cronies with questionable ethics records, Kenneth L. Tomlinson was re-nominated by the president as chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors -- the agency that supervises the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, the Arab-language Alhurra, Radio Marti and other government radio and television operations that are heard by an estimated 100 million people worldwide.
Tomlinson, a close friend of Karl Rove, has a decidedly spotty record in government service, having been previously forced to resign from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting over charges that he tried to politicize that agency.
... Who is Phil von Finckenstein? He’s a public relations consultant who in addition to working with the CFRA also works with the Fraser Institute; a well known rightwing astroturf organization. Oh, and he was also Conservative MP Stockwell Day’s Director of Communications during the Alliance phase of the party...
There is one other bit of information that has surfaced. If the name Phil von Finckenstein left you scratching your head wondering why the name sounds familiar, it’s because another von Finckenstein was in the news last week. Konrad von Finckenstein was appointed to the CRTC. I’m not sure if the two are related or what, if any connection there is between these events. But it’s a strange coincidence that two von Finckensteins were involved in news related to the telecommunications industry in the same week.
It's not that Stephen Harper is such an abominably dishonest sleazebag; it's that he's so depressingly unoriginal that's so upsetting.
Iraq's interim government was sworn in Monday after the United States returned sovereignty to the nation two days ahead of schedule.
The official handover of sovereignty occurred at 10:26 a.m. (2:26 a.m. ET), when former coalition civil administrator L. Paul Bremer gave interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi a leather-bound transfer document.
Of course, there were the inevitable whiny pessimists:
Some Iraqis dismissed the event as meaningless as long as U.S. troops occupy the nation, ...
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki had a surprise for President Bush when they sat down with their aides in the Four Seasons Hotel in Amman, Jordan. Firing up a PowerPoint presentation, Maliki and his national security adviser proposed that U.S. troops withdraw to the outskirts of Baghdad and let Iraqis take over security in the strife-torn capital. Maliki said he did not want any more U.S. troops at all, just more authority.
The president listened intently to the unexpected proposal at their Nov. 30 meeting, according to accounts from several administration officials. Bush seemed impressed that Maliki had taken the initiative, but it did not take him long to reject the idea.
By the time Bush returned to Washington, the plan had already been picked through by his military commanders. At a meeting in the White House's Roosevelt Room, the president flatly told his advisers that the Maliki plan was not going to work. He had concluded that the Iraqis were not up to the task and that Baghdad would collapse into chaos, making a bad situation worse. And so the Americans would have to help them.
Poor George ... still having trouble with that whole "sovereignty" thing.
Reading the comments section at most right-wing Canadian blogs is normally a trying experience which makes you think you should disinfect your keyboard when you're through or something.
Case in point is some of the feedback over here, where the news that Maher Arar is getting $10.5 million in compensation from the Government of Canada inspired your typical conservative compassion:
Arar was deported from another country and allegedly tortured by his fellow Syrian citizens. While members of the RCMP could be fired from their jobs and sued, Canadian taxpayers owe him nothing.
Now that's an interesting observation, as it suggests a whole new approach to dialogue with some of these cementheads:
You: "He's a Canadian citizen and he was handed over to American authorities!" Wanker: "Yeah? So?" You: "The evidence against him was totally and utterly fabricated!" Wanker: "Uh huh." You: "He was sent to Syria where he was tortured for ten months!" Wanker: "Oh, yawn. Whatever." You: "Uh ... he's getting ten million in compensation of taxpayer money." Wanker: "What? Are you fucking serious? That's outrageous! This bad craziness has got to stop! We have to make damned sure this never happens again!"
If all else fails, just appeal to their pocketbooks. It's really the only argument they understand.
Is it just me, or is anyone else getting a permission error trying to read the latest crazy-assed rantings over at Kate's place? Did she actually put a block on my IP address? For someone who likes to paint herself as such a hard-ass, no-shit blogger, that would be awfully thin-skinned.
Or is something else going on? Just curious.
YEAH, IT'S OFFICIAL: Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck can dish it out but she can't take it. I'm still banned from Small Dead Brain Cells but, no worries, using an intermediate proxy seems to let me in just fine.
Delusional is far too mild a word to describe Dick Cheney. Delusional doesn’t begin to capture the profound, transcendental one-flew-over daftness of the man.
Has anyone in the history of the United States ever been so singularly wrong and misguided about such phenomenally important events and continued to insist he’s right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary?
It requires an exquisite kind of lunacy to spend hundreds of billions destroying America’s reputation in the world, exhausting the U.S. military, failing to catch Osama, enhancing Iran’s power in the Middle East and sending American kids to train and arm Iraqi forces so they can work against American interests.
Only someone with an inspired alienation from reality could, under the guise of exorcising the trauma of Vietnam, replicate the trauma of Vietnam.
You must have a real talent for derangement to stay wrong every step of the way, to remain in complete denial about Iraq’s civil war, to have a total misunderstanding of Arab culture, to be completely oblivious to the American mood and to be absolutely blind to how democracy works.
In a democracy, when you run a campaign that panders to homophobia by attacking gay marriage and then your lesbian daughter writes a book about politics and decides to have a baby with her partner, you cannot tell Wolf Blitzer he’s “out of line” when he gingerly raises the hypocrisy of your position.
Will the some Blogging Tories ever grow up to the point where they realize that this kind of argument is idiotic?
The Americans could simply be stubbornly refusing to admit making a mistake on their end--if for no other reason than to avoid getting caught up in a similar payout. Buying off terror suspects, even exonerated ones, won't play well in the press or electorate there.
Or maybe, just maybe, there's still good reason to keep an eye on him.
Being not guilty of X doesn't mean being innocent of Y.
This has been another edition of "Simple answers to simple questions."
AFTERSNARK: Unlike dissonance and disrespect's "Loyalist," Glenn Greenwald is not a moron.
Tom Friedman (a political legend in his own mind) insists on taking a firm and unwavering position -- except for the part where he's not so firm and he wavers:
In today's column, Friedman again says he can support the "surge" -- that is, if Bush does still other things:
Let the troop surge be accompanied and reinforced by what the Baker-Hamilton commission proposed: a regional conference that puts Syria, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia around a table with Iraqis to try to stabilize the place. And that requires that America brandish carrots and sticks with all the parties. If a real regional conference doesn’t work, then Democrats who want to just set a date to withdraw will have an even stronger case because we will truly have tried everything. But let’s try everything: a surge of diplomacy, not just troops.
So before, it was basically, "if Bush doesn't send 150,000 troops, we should leave." Now it's basically, "if" we try a "regional conference" and it doesn't work, the case for withdrawal is "even stronger."
So ... he's all for "the surge," as long as a lot of other stuff goes along with it. Sort of like saying, "Chocolate Frosted Sugar Bombs! Part of a complete breakfast! As long as that breakfast includes milk, orange juice, multigrain toast and a selection of fresh fruit."
No, no, William ... don't get up. Let me get a couple more shots in first.
Back here, we collectively towel-snapped one William E. Demers in the nads for gushing over George W. Bush's oratorical skills. I'm guessing that it's easy for William to dismiss the derisive contempt for Glorious Leader coming from the Left, but what does he do when those on the Right are equally unimpressed?
In a video address entitled, “A Lifeless State of the Union,” President Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council said, “I believe the president failed to challenge the new majority to advance core family and cultural issues. What will become of the culture of life, the defense of marriage and permanent family-friendly tax policies?” [FRC, 1/24/07]
“I think the president left a lot of conservatives shaking their heads” by avoiding the issues atop their agenda, said Bill Lauderback, executive vice president at the American Conservative Union. [WSJ, 1/25/07]
“We’re disappointed that he didn’t mention cultural issues at all,” said Rich Lowry, editor of National Review magazine and a summit host. “Everyone realizes that this is a product of his diminished circumstances.” [AP, 1/24/07]
A bit of advice, William: It's a really, really, really bad sign when America's shrieking, neo-con flying monkeys start to look thoughtful and intellectual by comparison. I'm just sayin'.
BY THE WAY, it's not like I need to lay even more of a smackdown on Mr. Demers, but his kind of infantile whining really grinds my gears.
As you can read back here, our boy William suggests he's up for a good intellectual free-for-all:
You guys need to grow up. Rather than calling me names, why don't you come discuss your opinions with me?
However, given previous opportunities to get into the actual substance of an issue, William has instead responded with junior high school rubbish like this, involving childish references to my alleged lifestyle and blogging habits and employment status and so on, which makes it hard to take him seriously when he claims he really, really wants to have a dialogue.
No one's stopping you from having a discussion, William. You can start anytime you want. Really.
Refresh my memory ... how exactly did this guy come to be regarded as a prominent, political pundit?
BONUS WINGNUTTERY: At that blog post, commenter Jordan Alcock wants his turn to feel Cheney's nutsack flopping against his chin as he gushes:
I saw that interview, he really put Wolf Blitzer in his place several times.
The same reason I've always liked Cheney.
which is an interesting comment to make as I'm assuming one of those "times" is when Cheney teed off on Wolf about asking questions about Cheney's lesbian daughter Mary, to which Cheney snapped back that Wolf was "out of line," which is an interesting position for Cheney to take since, as John points out, Cheney has never uttered a peep in defense of his daughter when she's been savagely reviled by the wingnut Right but weirdly goes after Wolf for saying, "Your daughter Mary, she's pregnant. All of us are happy." and describing Mary as a "good daughter."
Attaboy, Jordan. Good wingnut. Here's a biscuit. And don't forget to wipe your chin.
In a fit of journalistic idiocy, Blogging Tory Jonathan "The Strong Conservative" Strong links to yet another of Canada's nauseating embarrassments to organized religion, the National Post's resident religious sleazebag Father Raymond De Souza.
Writes the deluded Jonathan:
Father Raymond J. De Souza has an excellent article in the National Post in which he displays a pattern of recklessness within the Kennedy family. Sadly, the Kennedy family appears to have a pattern of behavior in which they cosy up to America's enemies and undermine their own country's national security for the sake of their own political and personal agendas.
Um ... right ... cozying up to America's enemies for political and personal gain. Feel free to explain to Jonathan what that really means. Here ... let me start things off:
Take it away, kids.
UM ... HELLO? I am seriously disappointed that no one has mentioned this. Or this given this.
I'm also disappointed that no one pointed out how Venezuela's Chavez seems to have been pegged as an "enemy" of the U.S. based on, apparently, that he was democratically elected and is using his country's oil revenues to help the needy. Although, come to think of it, that's just the sort of commie, socialist swill that would make him Public Enemy Number One in the eyes of right-wing hacks like Jonathan, wouldn't it?
Look out! Steve Janke is on the case, so hide the women, children and journalistic objectivity. Over here, Steve's caught Liberal leader Stephane Dion consorting with cocaine dealers. Or something vaguely like that:
A union leader, Perley Edmund Holmes, has been arrested in connection to the trafficking of over $4 million in cocaine.
Perley Edmund Holmes came out strongly for Stephane Dion during the Liberal Party leadership campaign.
Of course, Stephane Dion can't control what his supporters do.
Correct. So what's your point, Steve? You do have a sleazy, illogical anti-Dion point here somewhere, don't you?
But the Dion people were quick off the mark to expunge the website of Holmes' endorsement.
And if they hadn't, Steve, your headline would have been, "Liberal leader Dion not embarrassed by drug dealing financial supporter." Liberals just don't win in your world, do they, Steve? So, out of curiosity, how financially incestuous is the relationship we're talking about here? Ah, here we go:
On paper, Perley Holmes donated a total of $100 to Stephane Dion.
Whoa, that's some serious bling, isn't it, Steve? But hang on ... Steve's not done here:
But then we know there are ways to move money around so that it doesn't have to be declared.
So Steve can't prove that Holmes donated more money to Dion. Then again, you can't prove he didn't. Using the same logic, I can't prove Steve Janke had group sex with Ted Morton, Rob Anders, Charles McVety, Kathy Shaidle and a diseased goat but, hey, you can't prove he didn't. Stalemate.
Mercifully, some of Steve's commenters are finally getting tired of his shtick:
While I share your enthusiasm for the Conservative/conservative cause, I do not share the same enthusiasm for this tactic. It is beneath you to hint at Dion's guilt by association. Just because the Liberals/liberals use dirty tricks, name calling & smear campaigns does not mean we have to sink to their same level...
Oh, man. If you are going to make an allegation, make one; but this kind of post is nothing but bush-league tabloid journalism...
I keep saying "Steve, you are better than this"; but I've said it so many times that I'm starting to think that you really aren't. Maybe you really are just a partisan hack who tries to present himself as a balanced observer.
DING DING DING DING DING! What do we have for the winners, Johnny? BY THE WAY ... speaking of guilt by association ...
In the comments section back here, Toronto Tory William E. Demers gets all bent out of shape, wondering why we insist on making fun of him, challenging us thusly:
You guys need to grow up. Rather than calling me names, why don't you come discuss your opinions with me?
Now, given that this is the same William E. Demers who opined:
I happen to think Mr. Bush is a great orator ...
one is justifiably left to wonder -- what the hell exactly would we be discussing?
In a general sense, how is it that the wingnut Right expects us to engage them in intellectual discussion, when what they offer us as grist for the conversation are opinions so idiotic, so inane and so divorced from reality that the only proper response is slack-jawed disbelief that anyone could be so freakin' dense?
William is apparently impressed with the oratorical talents of George W. Bush. This is, of course, the same George Bush whose name has become synonymous with mangling the English language; the same George Bush whose verbal malapropisms have inspired entire books and web pages; the same George Bush whose fundamental political philosophy consists of spouting vacuous tautologies. Yet this is the man who William admires for his oratorical skill, which again leads us to ask: What is there to discuss?
How do you respond when the wingnuts offer up such absurdities as "George Bush is a great orator" or "Gay marriage will threaten the sanctity of traditional marriage" or "There's no evidence for evolution" or "If we leave Iraq, the terrorists will follow us home." What do you say? What is there to say?
If you're feeling ambitious, you can try desperately to find some common ground but, really, is there any point? When someone can, in all seriousness, praise the linguistic talents of someone as howlingly inept as George W. Bush, well, I'm fairly sure that that is going to be one fruitless conversation.
No offense, Kathy, but I'm guessing I could see my way past the mismatched underwear. That's a sacrifice I'd be willing to make.
SLAPPING AROUND CATHOLICS IN GENERAL: In the comments section, Ti-Guy writes (jokingly but with some actual rationale underneath):
As a Catholic, I'm offended by these attacks and unfair generalisations about people of my faith...
...Ha! Actually, I'm not. Just getting my politically correct outrage in here and indulging in the identity politics we all *love* so much.
Of course, it's an unfair generalization to tar all Catholics with the rancid, Kathy Shaidle paintbrush but, as long as she holds herself out as a shining example of Catholicism and has held positions such as Contributing Editor of the Catholic Register and the rest of her religion tolerates her, then they're collectively fair game.
So to any well-meaning and legitimately reasonable Catholics who want to say, "Come on, we're not all loathsome, racist, homophobic, putrid sacks of pus like Kathy Shaidle," I would respond, "Fine. Then ex-communicate her. Until you do, you and your religion own her. She's yours, baby."
Now ... where was I? Oh, right ... fashion violations ...
BY THE WAY, in the same way that the Catholic Church has to deal with their association with Kathy Shaidle, so do the Blogging Tories. As long as people like Shaidle and Kate McMillan are members there, it's entirely fair game to suggest that the BTs continue to make a fine home for Canada's racist hatemongers.
If one gets the chance, one might ask BT co-founder Stephen Taylor what kind of standards he has for membership. If any.
The decline in Bush's support to Watergate-era Nixonian depths since he announced that his new Iraq policy was his old Iraq policy, only more so, stems, I suspect, from three conclusions that the public has reached about the president and his war. The first, simply, is that the war is no longer winnable and, worse, barely comprehensible since it has evolved into a Sunni-Shiite conflict. The second is that Bush, in all matters pertaining to his war, is a one-trick president who keeps doing the same thing over and over, never mind that it hasn't worked. In Isaiah Berlin's typology of leaders, Bush isn't merely a hedgehog who knows one thing rather than many things. He's a delusional hedgehog who knows one thing that isn't so.
The White House spin ahead of George W. Bush’s seventh State of the Union address was that the president would make a bipartisan call to revive his domestic agenda with “bold and innovative concepts.” The problem with that was obvious last night — in six years, Mr. Bush has shown no interest in bipartisanship, and his domestic agenda was set years ago, with huge tax cuts for wealthy Americans and crippling debt for the country.
Combined with the mounting cost of the war in Iraq, that makes boldness and innovation impossible unless Mr. Bush truly changes course. And he gave no hint of that last night. Instead, he offered up a tepid menu of ideas that would change little: a health insurance notion that would make only a tiny dent in a huge problem. More promises about cutting oil consumption with barely a word about global warming. And the same lip service about immigration reform on which he has failed to deliver.
... Bush's plans may be too modest to accomplish the broader challenge facing him: how to rescue the last quarter of his presidency from irrelevance and patch his tattered legacy. Bush is trying to regain his footing while Iraq is littered with carnage, Democrats are calling the shots on Capitol Hill, senior members of his own party are openly questioning his Iraq policy, and a vast majority of the public is disenchanted with his leadership.
"This represents the end of the Bush era," said Michael Tanner, a policy analyst for the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank. "This speech shows that outside Iraq, he is increasingly irrelevant."
I think it is appropriate to address Mr. Bush's State of the Union last night. As per usual, I enjoyed the President's speech...
I happen to think Mr. Bush is a great orator, and I thoroughly enjoyed watching him on FOX News...
I, like many who watched him speak, liked his positive message and appreciated that he was still optimistic, despite the fact that support for his mission in Iraq has been dwindling over the last few years.
Take your time.
BONUS TAIL WAGGING AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Oh, my ... the Washington Post isn't done with President Retard McDumbfuck. Not by a long shot.
... we can get our fill of right-wing dumbassitude without even leaving the confines of The Politic's neat-o little tree fort.
Matthew celebrates one year in power if, by "in power," you mean having "run" the country with a minority government and managed to not set anything on fire or be the direct cause of any tragic deaths. And I'd withhold judgment on that second part for the moment.
As if Kathy Shaidle wasn't enough, George gives us yet another reason to cross the street when you see a Catholic coming.
I'm sure Kate also said something stupid but that might cause dumbassitude overload and a warp core breach and then we'd have to separate the saucer section and you know what a bitch it is to get all that back together.
This has been another edition of "Simple answers to simple questions."
OH, THE IRONY. It's hard to believe that someone as imbecilic as Dr. Roy actually got through medical school but, if he summons up all that intellectual horsepower of his, he might want to consider that the election of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney was almost certainly unconstitutional:
Since Cheney lived in Texas at the time, choosing him led Bush into a situation that, if the words of our Founding Fathers still have any meaning, is unconstitutional. The Constitution forbids a state's electors from voting for candidates for president and vice president who are both "an inhabitant of the same state as themselves." Yet by voting for Bush and Cheney, electors in Texas did precisely that. Cheney lived in Texas, had a Texas driver's license and filed his federal income tax using a Texas address. He had also voted in Texas, not in Wyoming, a state where he had not lived full-time for decades.
Not to worry, though -- that's what timely change of address forms are for, right?
Not surprisingly, the anger is building over another apparent broken promise from Stephen Harper's Confabulation Party of Canada, as parents are wondering where the fuck all those child care spaces are that Captain Charisma promised them:
There's no federal help in sight for frazzled parents facing years on waiting lists for child care.
One year after the Conservatives won power on a platform touting 125,000 new spaces over five years, there isn't even a clear plan on how to create them. And there's uncertainty mixed with alarm across Canada over looming fee increases and program cuts since the Tories dropped the $5-billion Liberal plan to build a national early learning system. "They're really over a barrel," said Monica Lysack, executive director of the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada.
"They don't have a plan. They haven't created a space. Parents are being caught in the middle of this cut-and-run approach."
To which the CPoC might fairly be able to reply: I'm sorry ... didn't you read the fine print?
Yes, it does appear that Cons were fairly careful (at least in some situations) to point out that these new spaces weren't coming until this year. One can just Google on the combination of the phrases "child care spaces" and "starting in 2007" to read clarifications like, oh, this:
f the budget is passed, the Conservatives would also commit $250 million in annual tax credits starting in 2007 to fund a program to create 25,000 new child-care spaces.
Starting in 2007, the Childcare Spaces Initiative will help employers and communities create 125,000 new child care spaces over five years.
So, given that this qualifier was clearly out there for the last several months, whose fault is this? Did the general public just not pay close enough attention? Or did the CPoC selectively drop that qualifier when it suited their political needs?
More importantly, given that it's now 2007, when will we start to see the first of these spaces? Is there a schedule? Or are we simply supposed to assume that 25,000 spaces will magically appear sometime before midnight, Dec. 31?
LET THE FINGER-POINTING BEGIN: Not surprisingly, the blissfully-obedient collective that is the Blogging Tories are, at the moment, uniformly mum on this topic, except for this post, whose commenters know how to deal with those whiny moms who actually, you know, believed the CPoC and were counting on those spaces:
Everybody repeat after me: SOCIAL PROGRAMS ARE A PROVINCIAL RESPONSIBILITY. Now, will the chldspaces advocates, accountability challenged premiers and lib-friendly reporters please direct your whining to your OWN provincial govt. If that province won't give you what you want, either vote that govt out of power, move, or STFU ! ...
Socialist tripe. Look after your kids or don't have them, why the hell should I pay for thier childs care? Parents are care givers.
Translation: "Vote for us and we'll give you child care! All right, now, piss off 'cuz it's not our problem."
Am I the only one that was struck by the hypocrisy of Stephen Harper telling Ségolène Royal not to interfere in our democratic process when he himself will not recognize some democratically elected governments?
This has been another edition of "Simple answers to simple questions."
It's like asking someone if they understand science, and they can recite a string of facts at you … but they haven't absorbed the concept.
Anyone who's read physicist Richard Feynman's book "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman" knows exactly what PZ is talking about, as Feynman's stint of teaching physics in Brazil is summarized here:
Richard Feynman, in “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman”, related a story from his experiences teaching science to university students in Brazil. Feynman found that the students in his class could, with great speed and accuracy, recite passages verbatim from their physics text, and give equation upon equation from that text. But when challenged to explain the theories behind what the text postulated, or when challenged to explain the meaning of the equations they were reciting, the students were speechless.
The students believed that they were doing well, because they were in fact getting high marks on their exams (which were really little more than recitation). But the truth was that they had no real understanding of even basic scientific principles. Perhaps even more troubling, they had little or no experience with these principles first-hand. They could certainly recite equations on optics, or gravity, or any other topic in physics, but had they experienced them first-hand? No.
Welcome to most Biblical or Christian "study," in which one is considered a legitimate "scholar" if one can mindlessly regurgitate chapter and verse, with no understanding of their underlying meaning whatsoever. Sadly, most Biblical scholarship doesn't rise much above the level of, oh, this.
You know, Erin, those people might be more convinced that you gave a shit if you didn't spell it "Dukabours".
P.S. As a Blogging Tory, you might want to be careful about suggesting that "we have to close the books on the past and build on our legacy of an open, tolerant nation or risk playing pandering, race-card politics." That sort of open-minded compassion and plea for tolerance is not going to get you invited to the CPoC Christmas party.
On behalf of the Blogging Tory community and with respect to the Maher Arar situation, let me just say ... ah, whatever.
During the last federal election, Harper promised that a Conservative government would give Saskatchewan a better deal on equalization.
He promised that non-renewable resource revenues—strictly a provincial source of revenue—would be excluded from a future equalization deal under the Conservatives. Excluding resource revenues is only fair because under the constitution they belong solely to the province, not to the federal government or other provinces.
The Conservative promise was based on principle and is the right thing to do.
However, a principled stand and a firm promise seem to have given way to political expediency.
Yes ... yes, they have. But given that staunch right-wing hack Kate McMillan lives in Saskatchewan, one might have thought she'd have something to say about this, so one can wander over to SDA and search on the word "equalization," to find that the most recent SDA post containing that word appears to be all the way back on Oct 16, 2006 (emphasis added):
If Harper's governance is representative of the political hard-right, then how does [Susan Delacourt] explain the continued existence of the Canada Health Act? Provincial equalization payments? Spending on foreign aid? Federal child care payments? The absence of major income tax reforms to reduce the punitive effects on high income earners?
Why, yes, Kate ... how about those provincial equalization payments, which you appear to be touting back in October, but have fallen strangely silent about lately? I'm guessing that, for Kate, political expediency trumps provincial self-interest.
First, Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck gets all bent out of shape by the thought that the Winnipeg Free Press has become a fact-optional zone. Um, yeah. This would be the same Kate who, I'm sure, is a big fan of FOX News (some emphasis added):
In 1997, two Fox reporters uncovered unsavory facts about a BHG/Monsanto/dairy scandal in Florida, but were ordered by Fox to falsify their news reports. The reporters used that FCC policy to sue Fox. And in 2003, they lost. The "Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States".
IT WAS a memorable scene that few people witnessed: a smooth-talking white separatist in a suit being shouted down by a posse of politically correct storm troopers.
Surprisingly, Kate has a point. Public protest is so ... so ... last decade. Everyone knows that internment behind razor wire is how you deal with troublemakers. Although, once we were treated to the spectacle of Kate McMillan defending a white supremacist, I'm fairly sure any extra snark on my part was superfluous.
The point is to make it clear to the public that Democrats are trying to change the course, have a plan to change the course, and if the course isn't changed, that's all on the shoulders of Bush and his supporters.
The Dems have to take a deep breath and give the Bush administration free rein for the next two years to see this fiasco through to the end. It sounds harsh but, for purely political reasons, the Dems have to protect themselves in every way so that everyone can see it was the GOP who screwed this pooch...
... the Dems' first priority should be to protect their backs, and the only way to do that is to keep giving George W. Dumbass as much rope as he wants to hang himself thoroughly.
And at no extra charge, I predict ... I predict ... that Joel Johannesen will post something unspeakably fucking dumb at some point this week.
Thank you, thank you ... I'm here until Friday, enjoy the rest of the show.
If you're a regular reader of the right-wing blogosphere (or "wankersphere" as we like to call it here at CC HQ), you will have learned one fundamental, unassailable truth in your travels: If you ever criticize George W. Bush -- for anything -- it cannot possibly be because you have a good reason. That is simply not a notion that will be entertained.
Instead, you are clearly and irredeemably unhinged and deranged, to the point where you suffer from "Bush Derangement Syndrome" (BDS). And what is BDS? In short, it's when you disapprove of George W. for any reason.
Make no mistake -- it doesn't matter whether your dislike is justified, or whether you can back it up with painstaking research and irrefutable facts and logic. It doesn't matter if you can prove, beyond any doubt, that he's a pathological liar and psychotic sociopath who finds capital punishment amusing. None of that matters. Instead, you're unhinged. You're deranged. You're a moonbat. And, no, they're not interested in what you have to say. Moonbat.
And if it's big in Wingnutville down there, it just stands to reason that it's going to be all the rage up here as well, as the Canadian right-wing Wurlitzer is already cranking up the notion of "Harper Derangement Syndrome", as you can read in the comments section here, where commenter Kristin Beaumont responds to the reproduction of a lengthy, researched piece by Paul Wells with:
Well we found out one thing about your post. You do not like Stephen Harper.
Yes, by God, don't bother poor Kristin with, you know, facts and stuff. You clearly hate Stephen Harper. Moonbat. In fact, it didn't take long for that meme to get rolling as Blogging Tory and precocious McCarthyite Jarrett Plonka was already laying the groundwork for the obvious smear campaign last year before Harper even took office. Yes, there's nothing like a smug, sanctimonious, pre-emptive dismissal of any and all criticism, is there? Sure saves time.
Of course, if you despise Stephane Dion with a similar intensity, to the point of, you know, calling him names, that is, naturally, completely justifiable. I mean, "Dion Derangement Syndrome"? Perish the thought.
After all, that would be insulting. And we can't have that.
And with things going to hell in a handbasket over in Iraq, who can forget that The Decider decided that what he needed most to defeat global terror was ... to study it more closely:
Acting on the good advice of Senator Joe Lieberman and other key members of Congress, we will form a new, bipartisan working group that will help us come together across party lines to win the war on terror. This group will meet regularly with me and my administration; it will help strengthen our relationship with Congress.
To which Dems Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid tell Admiral McFlightsuit that he can go suck eggs.
But have a look at the video of her announcement. Rather than her "let's chat" rap, please focus on the background. Look out the door. Presumably the announcement was shot in one of Hillary's homes: Chappaqua or Georgetown. Now I know it's been a mild winter, but even so, surely the leaves are gone from the trees and bushes in either spot. And check out the yellow spot in the bushes. At first I thought it was just a warm dapple of sunshine. But freeze the frame when, about 1/4 of the way through, Hillary says "how to end the deficits that threaten Social Security." That's not sunshine -- those are flowers in bloom.
...what's the story? Did Hillary have this video in the can during all those months while she was claiming to be making up her mind? Was it a carefully staged artificial background? ....
What the deuce? We must get to the bottom of this! Quick, someone call Steve Janke ... oh, wait ... he's busy.
(Ripped shamelessly from the headlines over at TBogg, where I couldn't resist a little blogwhoring. So sue me.)
FREE AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Steve Janke and Damian Penny's partners in wankitude over at Open Bathrobe Media are on the case. I highly recommend the third comment from "tb", to which whose savagely surgical snarkitude I can only aspire.
Thanks for giving me one more reason to dislike Catholics, Kathy. Like I really needed it. Can "The Kathy Shaidle Show" be far off?
AFTERSNARK: Someotherfolks have noticed how Shaidle is a pathetic waste of skin masquerading as a human being. And while Canada's mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, wingnut community (a.k.a. The Blogging Tories) are constantly howling and drooling about the left-wing, commie, pinko slant of the CBC, at Robert's site, Alison points out in the comments section how Shaidle has actually been a guest of Michael Enright on that very network.
I can't wait for the next Enright/Shaidle special: "Canada's aboriginals: Should they really be allowed to marry white people?"