Thursday, January 31, 2008
Drinking SuperBowlishly in TO.
[Post-dated to stay up here for a bit.]
If there's enough interest, it might be worth having a few like-minded bloggers and related riff-raff congregate in Toronto this Sunday for the Big Game. You can leave a comment if you're up for it but attendance will be selective and by invitation only, given that at least a few people still want to preserve their anonymity.
APPARENTLY, not a lot of sports fans in the crowd.
Posted by CC at 11:46 PM 18 comments:
There's just no consoling some people.
Canada's Biggest Asshole is fit to be tied. If there was any justice, it would be to the rear bumper of my car.
Posted by CC at 3:31 PM No comments:
I'll take "Really retarded Blogging Tories" for $600, Alex.
The Globe gets it. On the other hand, this idiot does not.
Here's a thought, P.O. -- as a Blogging Tory, you really shouldn't write a breathtakingly stupid post that discusses "stereotypes." The irony could literally injure children and small animals.
Posted by CC at 2:46 PM 3 comments:
Karma is a beautiful thing.
Via Jason Linkins at the Huffington Post, we have this delicious bit of news:
Wednesday afternoon, John Edwards suspended his candidacy for President, vowing to "never forget" the poverty-stricken Americans he so passionately stood up for, and beseeching the remaining candidates - indeed, all Americans - to continue the work that he termed "the cause of [his] life." This afternoon in New York City, some of that work will resolutely continue, as a group of homeless veterans - one of the segments of the population of forgotten Americans that Edwards spoke of so often on the stump - will swarm FOX News Channel's Studios to bring their fight to Bill O'Reilly, the millionaire celebrity host of The O'Reilly Factor.
O'Reilly, who regularly defamed Edwards as a phony, has a lot to answer for. In attacks on the former North Carolina Senator, O'Reilly has repeatedly belittled his compassion, issued inflammatory statements and mocking attacks, and denied both the "existence and significance" of homeless veterans. As recently as January 16, O'Reilly took to the airwaves to rain ridicule upon Edwards, saying, "Well, we're still looking for all the veterans sleeping under the bridges,...so if you find anybody, let us know." As we reported two days later, Robert Greenwald and his crew at Brave New Films did exactly that.
Now, a group from Fitzgerald House, an "organization representing homeless veterans," plans to bring their fight for recognition to Fox's doorstep. They plan on visiting the Fox News Channel Studios today at 3:00 pm, and will come carrying a petition signed by 17,000 people demanding an apology from O'Reilly for his ignorance and abuse. In a press release, Brave New Films and Fitzgerald House say they "have found that it is very easy to locate homeless veterans and are willing to help O'Reilly find them if his desire to help homeless vets is sincere."
Of course, the last time we checked in on O'Reilly, he was in New Hampshire, bullying Obama aides, and snarling about how "nobody blocks a [camera] shot" on the "Factor." Well, we'll see about that.
Someday, I hope to meet up with Mr. O’Reilly while I’m wearing my boots (which are mine) and kick him squarely in the ‘nads. Remember, I take kick-boxing so when I’m through with him, they may have to be surgically removed from his throat.
Posted by LuLu at 2:16 PM 4 comments:
Uh oh ...
... this definitely doesn't look good.
Of course, if history is any judge, Raphael Alexander should be along shortly to explain how this concerns him but he's not going to jump to any conclusions until all the facts are in.
Posted by CC at 2:11 PM 3 comments:
Huckabee? Never heard of him.
Shorter Mike McGuire: Who’s a real conservative? Tom Delay? Crook. Mark Foley? Sex Predator. Ted Stevens? King of earmarks. Give up? John McCain ... and if the Republicans deny him the nomination this time, they’ll be totally sorry.
He's such a fickle creature.
Posted by LuLu at 1:51 PM 1 comment:
The towel snap of reality.
Someone finally figured it out.
Posted by CC at 1:06 PM 4 comments:
That’s just sad.
Don’t beg, Five Feet of Crazy™, it just makes people uncomfortable. No, really.
If you download my new e-book 'Acoustic Ladyland' before midnight tomorrow...
My share of the revenue will be added to my first cheque from Lulu, because it will count as a January sale.
Have I mentioned lately that I'm unemployed?
And that Mark Steyn loved the book...?
Well, since Five Feet has announced that it's okay to insult people, let me be the first to say that I would not waste one penny of my hard-earned money on your piece of shit e-book.
And have I mentioned lately just how much I want that name changed? I have? Good.
Posted by LuLu at 12:05 PM 5 comments:
KKKate: Really, really, stupid, racist cunt.
Having exhausted her pitiful repertoire of jokes about Palestinians and starvation, KKKate takes her show on the road to Toronto so she can address the proposed Afro-centric school system.
Streamlining the "school-to-jail pipeline", an Afrocentric school in Toronto receives approval. And not a moment too soon!
Just to prove how super smart she is, she also includes a bunch of statistics on race, no doubt so her post will look all official and sciencey and not, you know, racist. But wait, she’s not done yet.
Watch for the next step in this brave new social scheme - redefining academic standards to "normalize" Afro-achievement.
More here, here and here - "where race and failure are the only criteria for entrance".
In the midst of all the shrieking about reverse racism and too-cute usage of the word “apartheid”, don’t you wonder if maybe, just maybe KKKate and her flying monkeys are actually pleased by this new approach to education? After all, it puts all the not-white people together. What? I'm just sayin'. The Blogging Tories, boys and girls, where the stupidity is surpassed only by the hypocrisy.
And furthermore. No doubt our brand new concern troll and #1 KKKate defender “the sask insider” will be by soon, so let me save you some trouble. No, I don’t hate KKKate. I have very little use for her beyond “point and laugh” fodder ... which I’d be happy to stop if only she wouldn’t provide me with such an overwhelming amount of spittle-flecked topics to choose from.
Posted by LuLu at 9:32 AM 12 comments:
I'm just sayin'.
"How dare our politicians give their blessing to an Afro-centric school that caters to a specific demographic and social perspective?", quoth the winguts from the safety and comfort of their publicly-funded Catholic school system.
It's called an "analogy," in case you don't recognize it.
Posted by CC at 6:44 AM 9 comments:
Uh ... come again?
Over at the Blogging Tories Secret Treehouse and "No Girls Allowed" Club, Matthew has the obvious solution to all that reproductive choice controversy:
... it was suggested here in the comments that pro-lifers should pursue an agenda of getting the government to fund the needs of mothers who wish to carry their babies to term but are financially restricted ... Either way though, whether through the government or organizations, I feel that the idea of stepping up to the plate and providing the money for these women who go through the difficult situation of single-handedly raising their children is long overdue.
Damn right, Matthew, I am so with you on this, and I'm thinking that a structured, national child care program that provided tens of thousands of new spaces would be just the thing to ... to ... um ... OK, scratch that idea.
In other Canadian conservative news, mothers who can't afford to financially support their kids should just damned well stop having them and stop being welfare leeches off of the taxpayers. Or something like that.
I'm guessing this post would have made more sense if a United Way agenda item was involved.
Posted by CC at 5:07 AM 3 comments:
Fuck? In related news, none of the Blogging Tories see a problem here.
That last sentence was so unnecessary.
Posted by CC at 4:47 AM 5 comments:
Sometimes, the child-like naivete is just so adorable.
Gosh ... who could possibly have seen this coming?
Gomery disappointed in Harper
January 30, 2008 at 7:57 PM EST
OTTAWA — The man who investigated the sponsorship scandal says Prime Minister Stephen Harper seems to have abandoned any commitment he once had to transparent government in favour of a top-down style that centralizes power in his own hands.
John Gomery, in a wide-ranging interview marking the second anniversary of his final report, expressed dismay that the federal Conservatives have ignored his key recommendations for reform.
“I have to tell you, I'm very disappointed,” Mr. Gomery said from the farm in Havelock, Que., where he now lives in retirement.
“I worked so hard, and I got other people to work hard, and we gave very serious thought to what we were recommending. I thought it deserved a debate.”
Instead, said the former judge, most of the political and bureaucratic changes he proposed fell into a “black hole” of indifference or were rejected out of hand.
Dear John: Welcome to our world.
Posted by CC at 4:18 AM 1 comment:
Sometimes, awestruck astonishment is the only possible response.
P.S. Somewhere, Denyse O'Leary is reading that and thinking she has her next blog post.
AFTERDEEPTHOUGHTS: It occurs to me that it would be trivially easy to thoroughly smack down ignorant yobs like this:
"We are not advocating creationism," said Kim Kendall, a member of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville. "We are not asking for religion to be taught in science.
"We are asking for evolution to continue to be taught, but to be taught with both its supports and its faults."
"Fair enough," I would say, "let's go to the whiteboard here and start two lists -- evolution's 'supports' and evolution's 'faults.' Now, Mr. Kendall, let's first fill out the list of 'supports,' shall we? Off the top of your head, start throwing out items to put on that list."
I believe the overwhelming ignorance of even elementary biology would become obvious in short order. The associated public humiliation would just be a bonus.
Posted by CC at 4:01 AM No comments:
Why, yes, I AM pro-life, why do you ask?
Back here, recent, incoherent troll "prolifemama" stopped by to regurgitate one of the Right's newest talking points -- that all of us who are in favour of reproductive choice should be described as "proaborts." That is, apparently, what passes for wit and deep thinking in the circles that PLM moves in.
If I read PLM correctly, the fact that some of us support the choice of abortion means we should properly be labelled as pro-abortion, in the same way that, if I say that blue is a perfectly acceptable colour for a new car, that would make me "pro-blue." While simultaneously being pro-red, pro-black, pro-silver, and pro-"Jacked up with racing stripes and Thrush mufflers." Or something equally inane. But, wait ... it gets ever so much better.
Given that pro-choicers are equally in favour of letting expectant mothers carry their babies to term and deliver if they so choose, then using PLM's own logic, we pro-choicers could equally well be described as pro-life. Or pro-birth. Or pro-baby. Or pro-family.
And won't that make for confusing conversations since, the instant you're described as "pro-abort," you should immediately counter with the fact that, well, actually, you're pro-life. And don't take no for an answer. If this sort of rhetorical sleight-of-hand works for the crazies, it should work just as well for we sane people.
"Pro-life": Because, when it comes right down to it, we have no problem whatsoever with women choosing to give birth. At all. Doesn't bother us a bit.
P.S. It's equally eye-rolling to read illogical yobs like PLM tell stories about women who chose to have an abortion, then regretted it immensely down the road, therefore concluding that that subsequent heartbreak is somehow abortion's fault.
This is akin to being fully aware of the value of a sensible and balanced diet but freely choosing to stuff your face like a grotesque pig for years to the point of morbid obesity and the inevitable heart attack, then blaming it on the food.
If those women regret having had an abortion, well, the choice was theirs to make at the time, wasn't it? I'm betting that logic will be entirely wasted on PLM. Time to move on -- life is too short to waste it on the stupid.
Posted by CC at 3:27 AM 3 comments:
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
A whole new level of stupid.
Pay attention. Read carefully. There will be a test:
The Bloc was asking why Mr. Harper's deputy press secretary, Dimitri Soudas, got involved in the government's long-standing battle with the Rosdev Group two years ago. Mr. Soudas's move in the summer of 2006 came a few months after an intervention on the same matter by his friend and party fundraiser, Leo Housakos, who was named by the Harper government to the board of Via Rail last month.
“The Prime Minister cannot plead ignorance concerning what Mr. Housakos did,” Mr. Guimond said. “It was his own government that appointed him to Via Rail. In that context, can the Prime Minister tell us whether he himself has met Mr. Housakos at 24 Sussex, his official residence?”
Now, what did you pick up as the relevant points from those passages? Harper's press secretary? The Rosdev Group? A friend and party fundraiser? The board of Via Rail? Visits to the official residence? Silly bunt. Here's what Stephen Harper picked up:
A Liberal MP says Prime Minister Stephen Harper should apologize to Greek Canadians for suggesting in the Commons Wednesday that opposition MPs are convinced of a government scandal because those involved are Greek...
Mr. Harper replied in French, “The Bloc member mentioned two people who are of Greek origin – one who was an employee here in Ottawa, another one who is a supporter of the Conservative party in Montreal. The fact that [there's] two Montreal gentlemen of Greek origin doesn't mean there's a conspiracy here.”
Um ... how retarded do you have to be to have listened to those initial accusations and concluded, "Holy crap! They're insulting Greeks!" Really, how retarded?
That's it. If I give you any more dumbassitude tonight, you'll have trouble falling asleep.
Posted by CC at 9:31 PM 3 comments:
I finally found the camera cable.
Posted by LuLu at 7:58 PM 10 comments:
The return of Inspector Gadget.
Shorter Boy Detective Steve Janke: "There's scandal here somewhere. I can feel it."
Posted by CC at 5:13 PM No comments:
It's not so much the howling incoherence. But, Jeezus, Patsy, can't you at least come up with your own choice of YouTube videos without ripping off mine?
Posted by CC at 2:43 PM 10 comments:
This could be delicious.
Proving once again that accountability is always applicable to thee but never to me, Canada’s New Government™ appears to have some issues. Via the Globe and Mail:
A spokesman for the Prime Minister and a Conservative fundraiser made separate backroom interventions in favour of a real-estate firm that faced losing a $50-million complex to the federal government in 2006, sources told The Globe and Mail and Radio-Canada.
Dimitri Soudas, a key architect of Stephen Harper's Quebec policies and his deputy press secretary, got involved in the battle between Ottawa and the Rosdev Group a few months after the Tories took office with a promise to bring the highest ethical standard to public life.
Mr. Soudas called an extraordinary meeting at the Prime Minister's Office in Langevin Block on August 2, 2006, with senior ministerial staffers from Public Works.
Conservative officials said there was a clear sense in the party at the time that Rosdev and its influential president, Michael Rosenberg, could become strong allies in Montreal, especially in a riding like Outremont with a strong Jewish community.
Sources said Mr. Soudas's position during the meeting was favourable to Rosdev and that he raised the possibility of Public Works dropping its plan to exercise an option to claim the complex for $0 in 2010.
Well, that sounds just the tiniest bit ... hmmmm, what’s the word I’m looking for? Starts with a "C" - I know! Crooked. But it gets better.
Mr. Soudas and Mr. Housakos are prominent members of the Greek-Canadian community in Montreal, worked together on the 2001 mayoral election and are supporters of the Action Démocratique du Québec.
While they are long-time friends, they said they have never discussed the Rosdev matter. Mr. Housakos, who works in marketing, added he has never acted as a lobbyist.
“I have no client, none whatsoever, that does business with the federal government,” he said.
Nevertheless, sources said that Mr. Housakos has been in contact with officials from a military company that was interested in selling hardware to National Defence. In addition, The Globe and Radio-Canada have learned that Mr. Housakos introduced officials from the company to Mr. Soudas of the PMO at an informal meeting last year.
Mr. Housakos said he has no memory of dealing with a military company.
“I don't know anyone in that sector,” he said.
(Mr. Lemieux, the lawyer who acted on behalf of Rosdev, recently registered to lobby federal officials on behalf of ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada Inc., a firm that is in the running for a Defence purchase of two military supply ships.)
Ooopsie. I do believe we're going to need even more popcorn.
Posted by LuLu at 11:54 AM 4 comments:
Apparently, Nova Scotians have delicate sensibilities.
OK, that title's not quite fair -- it's apparently only people travelling through Halifax Airport that need to be protected from literary intemperance, as an e-mailer points out:
I just thought I'd drop you a quick note to let you know that your blog is content filtered at the Halifax airport.
There is free WiFi in the departure lounge (and elsewhere I presume) but surfing to your humble corner of the tubes comes up with a shiny splash page warning.
Now let's understand something -- I have no problem with certain entities or organizations filtering based on content. Certainly, private corporations have the right to do whatever they want with their equipment, and so on.
But (and correct me if I'm wrong) isn't Halifax Airport publicly funded? It sure looks that way from a quick invocation of Teh Google:
March 3, 3005
Tourism Funding To Help Attract European Air Traffic
The province and the Halifax International Airport Authority are joining forces to bring more European visitors to Nova Scotia.
Tourism, Culture and Heritage Minister, Rodney MacDonald, announced today, March 3, an investment of $600,000 to increase air capacity out of European markets, especially the United Kingdom and Germany.
And if that's the case (and I stress if, since I might be misreading the above badly), then what exactly gives Halifax Airport the right to decide what its paying travellers are and aren't allowed to read?
The last time I checked, we here at CC HQ weren't doing anything illegal -- no file sharing, no copyright infringement, no child porn, etc. And, as far as I know, there's nothing unlawful about using any of George Carlin's seven words (or any of their variations). And if this blog is being filtered, I'm guessing a whole lot of other blogs are getting the same cold shoulder.
So, given that the public is paying for Halifax Airport, I think it's reasonable to ask why the public shouldn't be allowed to use that (publicly-funded?) WiFi to read whatever the fuck they want. Because if they can't, well, that's just a hideous violation of my right to free speech to say things that offend people as long as I don't break any laws, isn't that the way it works?
I'm sure Ezra Levant and his coterie of yipping cocker spaniels will be over here shortly to show their moral support. Yessir, any minute now ...
Posted by CC at 6:27 AM 14 comments:
Dear Raphael: What the f... ?
It's not like I enjoy picking on Blogging Tory Raphael Alexander in particular, but since he likes to present himself as a rare voice of reason in the Canadian Dumbshit-o-sphere and even has his moments of lucidity, it behooves us to point out that, once a hacktacular Blogging Tory, always a hacktacular Blogging Tory. Let's read:
A Cautious Benefit Of The Doubt For Stephen Harper
Easy, stomach ... down boy, we've got a ways to go yet.
Nevertheless, I am going to offer a very cautious benefit of the doubt that Stephen Harper will find a way to turn this issue around, and do what is right for our military and for mission success.
In which Raphael simply and axiomatically equates doing "what is right for our military" with "the mission" because, I'm guessing, it is simply a truism in Raphael's world that we should be in Afghanistan and, no, he doesn't wish to discuss it any further. It's sort of like arguing about the existence of God with someone whose argument consists of, "First, assume the existence of God ...". It may be a questionable rhetorical strategy but it is a time-saver, you have to admit that.
Today the Ruxted Group released their own endorsement of the Manley Report, and the full text can be read here.
I'm sorry but who the fuck is the "Ruxted Group" and why the hell should I care about their opinion? Perhaps they really are a credible and non-partisan collection of military authorities that ... whoops, never mind:
The Ruxted Group is comprised of a group of retired Canadian military personnel, who apprise of apolitical views of current Canadian military missions. It is anything but non-partisan, ...
Gotcha. Credibility established. Moving on ...
On the whole, the Ruxted Group approves strongly of the Manley Report, and believes the conditions set by the independent panel are deserving of being met by both NATO and Canada.
Perhaps. On the other hand, you can read TGB's Dave, in which he points out that the Manley Report is a vacuous, content-free, overpriced, self-plagiarized piece of vapourware. Given a choice, I'm going to go with Dave on this one. But we're just getting to the good stuff. No, really:
The article then cite two irrefutable truths of the Manley Report which have been, quite frankly, underreported by Liberal critics.
All right, then, it's about time, because we really need some factiness about now, and Raphael's about to lay down an "irrefutable truth" or two. And here's the first one:
The first is the undeniable fact that Canada belongs in Kandahar, having paid the price of our honour and reputation during wars in which we gave heavy bloodshed. In short, Canadians understand the sacrifices necessary in times of great peril.
Very, very long pause.
What the fucking hell? That's an "irrefutable truth?" No, Raphael, it's not -- it's a personal opinion that's currently being used to emotionally blackmail people into continuing to send their kids to die for a badly-defined and dishonest military venture, and one would have thought you could tell the difference. Apparently not.
At this point, one can safely say that Raphael's considered, thoughtful and non-partisan blog post isn't worth the phosphor it takes to display on your screen, but we would be missing out on the best -- the very best -- part of it:
The salient point here is in that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has an obligation to explain to Canadians why we serve in Afghanistan, and for what we fight.
That's right, Raph, he does -- as all of us deranged, leftist moonbats have been saying for months now. But having finally twigged on this, what does Raph conclude from it? Sadly:
His inability to do so has led to the timorous followings of those who beckon by cruel cynicism into our self-defeat.
Ah, I see ... PM Pillsbury Doughboy has concealed and lied, and the obvious conclusion to be drawn from that is that ... it's our fault? All of us cynical, self-defeaters? How to respond to that is a bit of a mystery at the moment, but let's end this on a high note, as Raphael finally waves bye-bye to reality as it gallops off into the distance:
In short, the Ruxted Group endorses transparency on Afghanistan because it is the only thing which can sell this mission.
Quite right, of course. Given that browbeating, obfsucation, evasion and outright dishonesty wasn't enough to sell "the mission," it becomes necessary to try, oh, total transparency since that might be what's required to sell "the mission."
I, of course, would have thought that transparency was necessary to make sure Canadians were well-informed and had all the information they needed to make a thoughtful and considered judgment on our presence in Afghanistan. Apparently not -- it's simply Plan B to get to the same, pre-ordained conclusion. Because no matter how you get there, it's vitally important that we all arrive at the same place -- Afghanistan.
To paraphrase, "Let's discuss whether or not we should be in Afghanistan. First, assume we should be in Aghanistan ..." Like I said, it's rhetorically questionable, but it is a time-saver. And, apparently, that's all that matters.
Posted by CC at 4:45 AM 19 comments:
Let's help the poor girl out, shall we?
As is her wont, douchebag for dishonesty Kate McMillan is asking for reader tips. In a spirit of fairness and bipartisan generosity, I think we should all pitch in, pop over to her comments section and mention, oh:
Really, given how terminally stupid that woman is, it's the least we can do to help.
UPDATE: Whoops, never mind ... turns out Kate's a bit busy with real scandals. I mean, when you have to make the agonizing choice between more dead Canadian soldiers and finding out who has the temerity to ask Dear Leader tough questions, well, that's pretty much the definition of a right-wing no-brainer, isn't it?
UPPERDATE: Given the current storm of scandal and lies circling around Dear Leader, that politically centrist, non-partisan Blogging Tory Raphael Alexander is finally outraged.
Oh, come on ... you didn't actually go look, did you?
Posted by CC at 2:52 AM 3 comments:
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
JimBobby spoke ...
... but I'll just bet you weren't paying attention, were you?
Let's all wait for the Blogging Tory spin on this one. It should be classic.
WHOOPS, IT MIGHT BE A WHILE, while PM Pillsbury Doughboy and the Sock Puppet Revue frantically deal with other embarrassing clusterfucks, like this one. And perhaps this one.
If I was a CPoC cabinet minister, I might not be making any plans for the evening.
Posted by CC at 3:13 PM 8 comments:
Let's go, baby.
If that's the way you want to play ...
Me, me, me ...
Posted by LuLu at 12:53 PM 7 comments:
Well, throw down, bee-yotch!
I'll see your Digg thingy:
and raise you a BlogRunner whatsit:
Uppity freakin' women around here. That barefoot and pregnant thing is sounding better all the time.
And, no, you don't get an iPod. So stop asking.
Posted by CC at 11:24 AM 4 comments:
Sweet dancing Jesus.
Five Feet of Crazy’s™ mind must be a dark and terrible place to live:
Insult is good. When I was a child we made fun of fat kids and there were fewer fat kids because of it. God forbid we hurt the feelings of our little ones. Boo hoo.
Since it's now okay to hurt someone's feelings, allow me to be the first to ask what the fuck went wrong with you, honey? Perhaps you just weren’t made fun of enough as a child.
Posted by LuLu at 10:56 AM 15 comments:
Tonight on Wild Kingdom.
Marlon Perkins (as played by balbulican) takes you inside the ever frightening but always hilarious mating rituals of the Blogging Tories. You’ll laugh, you’ll cry, you’ll thank your lucky stars that you’re not them.
Posted by LuLu at 10:03 AM 1 comment:
It must be pleasant to be terminally retarded.
Oh, my ... someone just got their "The MSM are a bunch of traitors" talking points in the mail:
Today's Globe cites an 'anonymous source' as having some inside information on the Afghan detainee controversy - Detainee fallout: take few, free quickly. (H/T National Newswatch)
How is it that the Globe can publish operational security details? Don't they know that the Taliban can read?
Why, yes, JoJo ... I'm sure the Taliban can read. Unless, of course, you and your intellectually-stunted BT colleagues are defending the mission in Afghanistan because, as we all know, we have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here since, if we leave, they'll follow us home, seeing as how they're all clearly too stupid to read a roadmap or an atlas.
Feel free to read that twice for the full effect.
Posted by CC at 9:06 AM 1 comment:
The joy of wordsmithing.
What's slightly weird about this picture?
For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation's strong economic performance because of public discontent about the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.
That is the problem Bush faces as he prepares to deliver his seventh and probably final State of the Union address tonight.
Give it time -- it'll come to you.
Posted by CC at 8:52 AM 8 comments:
Not what you'd call a student of history.
Briefly checking in from the planet Weembo, Blogging Tory "Freedom is My Nationality"'s prose must be appreciated in its full, unabridged splendour:
Glad to see ya Bushie
In his State of the Union address Bush promises to veto any bill that does not cut the amount of earmarks in half.
That is to say that the abuse of this system that has led to the pillaging of the people’s money for the sake of political gain is finally being tackled by an American President. This is good news. I am heartened to see that the Big Government-Spending Republican has managed to grasp this one piece of fiscal sanity.
I won’t even complain too much that he makes this pronouncement at the end of his second term in office. After all why worry that someone has come a little late to the party? We should all just be glad that he showed up at all.
You can't possibly need a punchline for that.
Posted by CC at 7:31 AM 5 comments:
Let the wingnuttery shunning commence.
Schadenfreude, baby ... pure schadenfreude:
At a meeting last week, a clear majority of the graduating class of about 230 [at Choate Rosemary Hall] said it opposed [Karl] Rove’s invitation, students who were at the meeting said.
In an editorial titled “Rove in ’08: We Think Not,” the campus newspaper, The News, urged the school to withdraw the invitation.
Yes, I think I see a delicious pattern here.
Of course, if there was a God, all of those people would be taken to the public square and tied securely, whereupon every citizen would be allowed to step forward and hoof them, just once, squarely in the nads.
But I'll take what I can get.
AFTERSNARK: Only seconds after I hit the "Publish" button on this post did it occur to me that, somewhere, there would be an ignorant, mouth-breathing fuckwit who would interpret the above choice by the Choate students as an appalling, leftist attack on free speech.
After all, it's just one of the most important events in the lives of all of those students, so why the hell should they have any say in how it goes down?
Fucking liberals -- there's just no pleasing them, is there?
BY THE WAY, if you read the originally-referenced news piece, you'll get a taste for the savage intolerance of those uncivil leftards (emphasis added):
Shanahan said he had asked seniors for their opinions on the proposed commencement speech and many said they wanted to hear from Rove—but at some time other than commencement...
In an e-mail to students and staff Monday, Shanahan quoted Rove as saying: "I would not want 12 minutes of remarks to be used as an excuse by a small group to mar what should be a wonderful day of celebration for the members of the 2008 graduating class and their families, so I am delighted to instead accept Choate's invitation to speak on campus Feb. 11."
Why, the absolute nerve of those closed-minded moonbats -- dismissively and contemptuously agreeing to host Rove on another occasion. How will democracy ever survive?
Posted by CC at 5:28 AM 4 comments:
Sympathy for thee but not for me.
The poster boy for particularly bad mullets Patsy Ross is outraged -- outraged, I tell you -- over our lack of concern for one Ed Snell, an anti-abortion activist who's made a career out of screeching, harassing and offending.
In totally unrelated news, killing a young woman by deliberately driving over her with a bulldozer is a total hoot. I'm guessing Patsy won't make the connection here.
Posted by CC at 4:01 AM 2 comments:
Thanks, but we've got our own problems here.
Once upon a time, Canada's Leading Asshole Mark Steyn warned us about how we were going to inexorably be overwhelmed by those nefariously baby-making swarthy people:
In 1970, the developed world had twice as big a share of the global population as the Muslim world: 30% to 15%. By 2000, they were the same: each had about 20%.
And by 2020?
So the world's people are a lot more Islamic than they were back then and a lot less "Western." Europe is significantly more Islamic, having taken in during that period some 20 million Muslims (officially)--or the equivalents of the populations of four European Union countries (Ireland, Belgium, Denmark and Estonia). Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the West: In the U.K., more Muslims than Christians attend religious services each week.
Can these trends continue for another 30 years without having consequences? Europe by the end of this century will be a continent after the neutron bomb: The grand buildings will still be standing, but the people who built them will be gone. We are living through a remarkable period: the self-extinction of the races who, for good or ill, shaped the modern world.
Well, thanks, Mark, but we have a similar issue we're grappling with already:
There. I just saved you any future trips to Kate McMillan's comments section. You'll thank me some day. Once the dry heaves subside.
Posted by CC at 3:18 AM 3 comments:
And as a followup to this piece, we have the howling outrage. Because when the Dumbass-o-sphere has a choice between noticing that someone miswrote "tons" for "pounds", or making hysterical fun of an imminent humanitarian disaster associated with a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions, well, that's pretty much a no-brainer, isn't it?
P.S. I'm sure Raphael Alexander will be along shortly to carefully examine both sides of this issue in a fair and evenhanded manner. After all, it's what he does.
P.P.S. Make sure you scroll to the bottom of that second link. The juxtaposition is amusing, at least at the moment.
Posted by CC at 2:22 AM No comments:
Monday, January 28, 2008
Can someone find the fainting couch?
Look who dropped by to clutch his pearls over our meeeeeeaann posts about Ed Snell. This Ed Snell.
During his visit, he’s managed to make reference to our little corner of blogtopia as a “cesspool” and my partner-in-hate. I think I might be hurt. No, now that I've thought about it, I'm really not.
He doesn’t actually say whether CC or PSA is my partner so maybe he just means both of them. Hmmmmm. Would that make us reverse Mormons? Nobody tell Mitt Romney – he’ll be soooooo pissed.
Posted by LuLu at 7:41 PM 7 comments:
"Pro-life": Because it's the chic thing to do.
You know what the best thing is about being pro-life? (And, yes, I know I really should say "anti-choice" but, what the hell, I'll be generous here and let the wingnuts have their way.) Anyway, where was I? Oh, right ... the best thing about being pro-life? It's so chic, dahling. So upscale and fashionable. So trendy. And, most importantly, you can be pro-life without getting your dainty little pinkies even the slightest bit soiled. Why, yes, I'd be happy to explain.
Have you ever noticed what a terrific social experience it is to be pro-life? First, you can do it from the comfort of your ritzy, uptown condo. A little technology, a little Internet access and -- bam! -- you, too, can be sanctimoniously pontificating about the inherent value of all life, even while lounging around in your cashmere sweats.
And if the mood strikes, well, what could be better than to occasionally get together with like-minded fashionistas, perhaps at a pro-life rally where, ooooooh, perhaps Stephen Harper might show up to say nice things about you, and if you play your cards right, you might even cadge a pic with him. And won't that be just the thing to lord over your buds when you next get together at Starbucks for that double mocha cappuccino with skim?
And if you're super, duper lucky, you might even make it onto the evening news, tearfully clutching your pearls and weeping quietly for the children who will never be. Oh, the girls down at the gym will be ever so jealous, won't they?
But the best part of being pro-life -- the absolute best part -- is that it's nice and clean. See, the great thing about the unborn is just that -- they're not born yet. So there's nothing, you know, icky about the whole thing. Because once that baby is born, well, suddenly the inherent value of every child isn't quite so appealing, is it?
See, unlike that unborn fetus, new babies aren't so delightful. They're fragile, and they cry, and they pee, and they crap, and damn it, they're just, well, icky. And they really do cramp your style when you'd rather be hobnobbing with the beautiful people but have to stay home and deal with shit-filled Pampers. Which is why, for the most part, pro-life people adore fetuses but really can't stand kids.
You think I jest? Surely you remember when all those God-fearing, pro-life American conservatives were forced to take time off from their fetus-worshipping to put the boots to the SCHIP program. Like I said, the very people who profess undying adoration for the unborn are the same ones who really couldn't give a rat's ass about the born. Because, quite simply, the unborn have the distinct advantage of staying conveniently out of sight so that you never have to get your hands dirty dealing with them. Is that a great deal or what? But it doesn't end there.
Recall, if you will, the mind-numbing uproar over Terri Schiavo, who became an absolute poster child for Christian emotional anguish. And what was so appealing about Schiavo in terms of a cause? Simple -- she was safely tucked away in a vegetative state in her hospice room, where none of those concerned Christians actually had to, you know, interact with her.
And why should they, when all that mattered was that they could create their posters, and show up at the Christian whackjob hoedown, and piously clutch their Bibles, and talk to reporters and maybe even sneak onto local TV for a few seconds, all of that entirely unspoiled by any actual interaction with Schiavo. I mean, God forbid that any of those concerned Christians actually consider acting as a hospice volunteer in some capacity, because that would be, well, yucky, and would definitely get in the way of dressing up for the cameras. I mean, one should be able to care for Schiavo without actually, you know, caring for her, if you catch my drift.
In short, being pro-life has nothing whatever to do with valuing children. It has to do only with valuing those precious unheard and unseen fetuses because, as soon as those fetuses make their arrival, they're now just a squalling bundle of continuous piss and crap and need and who the fuck wants to deal with that?
Fetuses: Because some people prefer their causes at a socially convenient distance.
AFTERSNARK: Just in case you needed reminding, you may remember from back here how the National Post's Karen Selick finds fetuses just ever so precious. And the already born? Eh ... not so much:
Consider, too, that the children currently available for adoption in Canada are disproportionately burdened with problems of one kind or another. Many suffer from physical problems such as fetal alcohol syndrome. Many are toddlers, or even older children, not infants, who have been seized from abusive homes by Children’s Aid Societies and made wards of the state by the courts. Would-be parents may be unwilling to take on the extra challenges that such children pose, but would happily take on the care of an uninjured, pre-born baby without undesirable psychological baggage.
Yes, for the "pro-life" crowd, fetuses are kind of like new cars -- delightfully adorable as long as they're still in the showroom with the price tag hanging off of them but, once you drive them off the lot, well, the novelty of newness wears off and the requirement for regular maintenance kicks in and then it's just not that much fun anymore, is it?
Pre-born and safely out of sight? Whoo hoo! Post-born and suddenly needing actual care and attention? Oh, man, now you're just harshing someone's mellow. And we can't have that.
Posted by CC at 3:41 PM 6 comments:
Kate McMillan: Really, stupid, hateful screech harpy.
Apparently, enforced malnutrition and/or starvation of children is just a hoot to "Canada's Best Blogger":
The New Media Math
The Boston Globe offers a shocking statistic;
Although Gaza daily requires 680,000 tons of flour to feed its population, Israel had cut this to 90 tons per day by November 2007, a reduction of 99 percent.
You don't need to be a math genius to figure out that if Gaza has a population of 1.5 million, as the authors also note, then 680,000 tons of flour a day come out to almost half a ton of flour per Gazan, per day.
It could be worse! "It's a good thing the eeevil Zionists didn't cut off the essential Stay Puft marshmallow supply."
Whoo hoo, that is some seriously knee-slapping humour there, Kate -- cutting off a basic food supply to an imprisoned populace. So let's see what really happened here, shall we?
Of course 680,000 tons of flour a day is a ridiculous and clearly absurd amount. But let's follow Kate's own link to one Martin Kramer, where we read:
Note how an absurd and impossible "statistic" has made its way up the media feeding chain. It begins in an Egyptian newspaper, is cycled through a Palestinian activist, is submitted under the shared byline of a Harvard "research scholar," and finally appears in the Boston Globe, whose editors apparently can't do basic math. Now, in a viral contagion, this spreads across the Internet, where that "reduction of 99 percent" becomes a well-attested fact.
Yes, Martin, it's all an evil leftist, Arab-loving conspiracy. But keep reading:
What's the truth? I see from a 2007 UN document that Gaza consumes 450 tons of flour daily. The Palestinian Ministry of Economy, according to another source, puts daily consumption at 350 tons.
Ah, and suddenly it all makes sense, doesn't it, because one immediately suspects that someone mistakenly wrote "tons" instead of "pounds," since 680,000 pounds is equal to -- ta da! 340 tons. Well, how about that? And that took all of about 30 seconds to figure out.
In a nutshell, then, the original Boston Globe claim is, as you can see, absurd, but mere seconds of investigation is enough to deduce that the actual reduction in flour is from 340 tons to 90 tons, almost a 3/4 decrease, which is still enough to cause food shortages, as one can see if one had the fucking sense to simply Google for it.
But that would be too much like work for Kate and her brood of adoring acolytes, who would prefer to ignore the imminent humanitarian crisis in order to crack a few jokes about it. Because, as we've established by now, that's just the way they roll.
P.S. Feel free to read the comments section at that article, where there are currently 33 comments and not one of those imbeciles has demonstrated the sense God gave a urinal deodorizer disc to wonder if that figure should be "pounds" instead of "tons," which is the absolutely first thing that occurred to your humble correspondent.
How can an entire demographic be so appallingly stupid? Where did evolution go so hideously wrong?
THE AMUSEMENT NEVER ENDS: Not surprisingly, the vast majority of commenters over at Kate's place have studiously avoided discussing the starvation tactics of the Israelis, and have obediently concentrated on making this into a diatribe against the irresponsibility and innumeracy of the mainstream media.
Also not surprisingly, the same people who are currently howling over the unforgivable mistake of confusing pounds with tons will never express the same sort of outrage over the National Post's previous gaffe regarding Iran and Jews and badges.
Will they, Kate?
Now that's some mighty selective journalistic outrage, wouldn't you say?
Posted by CC at 1:46 PM 26 comments:
And no hogging the couch, damnit!
It should become clear today whether Prime Minister Stephen Harper accepts or rejects a conditional, indefinite deployment of Canadian troops in Afghanistan.
Harper will hold a news conference in the National Press Theatre to sketch out his government's response to last week's Manley commission report.
Riiiiight. Maybe it’s just me but I bet Big Daddy’s press conference will turn out to be whole lot of nothing.
Well, colour me shocked. Turns out this girl was right (I know, I was totally shocked, too) and Big Daddy's presser was a whole lot of nothing much.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper repeatedly refused to explain Monday what Canada is doing with its prisoners in Afghanistan as he was pounded with questions about the government's mysterious detainee policy.
Harper described the issue as a matter of national security, leaving opposition politicians scratching their heads as they pointed out that Canadians know far more about U.S. prisoners than they do about their own.
One human-rights lawyer has described the issue as a matter of national embarrassment - not national security.
But Harper stuck to his guns.
"We are not going to publicly discuss how many Afghan prisoners we have - and where they are," he told a news conference. "These are details of military operations and we are not going to answer such questions."
"A matter of national security" ... looks like that's the line they'll be wanking furiously. Good luck with that.
Posted by LuLu at 11:50 AM 2 comments:
Wingnut hysteria, anti-choice version.
Oh, dear ... what with the 20th anniversary of R. v Morgentaler, the Christopaths among Canada's Blogging Tories are outdoing themselves in an absolute frenzy of pearl clutching and panty twisting. Here's "Christian Conservative," proving he doesn't know sweet fuck-all about Canadian law:
A Dark Anniversary for Canada
20 years ago today, infanticide was de-criminalized here in Canada. It's a reprehensible stain on our national image... one which no one seems to care to correct.
Oooooooh ... "infanticide." And yet, strangely enough, those abortion providers aren't being arrested en masse and thrown into isolation. How curious. It's almost as if abortion is ... what's the word I'm looking for here? Oh, right ... "legal."
In a display of totally uncharacteristic mercy and compassion, I'm going to spare you the rest.
Posted by CC at 11:28 AM 2 comments:
There is something just so wrong about this on so many levels.
Posted by CC at 10:08 AM 9 comments:
By the way ...
... is anyone else amused by the fact that the very people who have, for the last several years, been yawningly unconcerned about privacy, warrants, due process, security certificates, wiretapping, rules of evidence and presumption of innocence, and who made an absolute anthem out of "If you haven't done anything wrong, you should have nothing to hide," are now the same people who are terribly, terribly concerned about Ezra Levant's precious civil rights?
It's just an observation.
Posted by CC at 9:37 AM 5 comments:
This is why I fight.
There are those who would have you believe that the Morgentaler decision was the beginning of the end for civilized society in Canada. They are convinced that this was an immoral affront to good people everywhere that must be overturned by any means necessary. In the last 30 years, the following violent attacks have been perpetrated by extremist pro-life factions in the United States and Canada:
• 7 murders, including three doctors, two clinic employees, a security guard, and an escort;
• 17 attempted murders;
• 383 death threats;
• 153 incidents of assault and battery;
• 3 kidnappings;
• 41 bombings;
• 173 arsons;
• 91 attempted bombings or arsons;
• 619 bomb threats;
• 655 bioterror attacks (all hoaxes), 554 of which were committed by one man;
• 1630 incidents of trespassing;
• 1264 incidents of vandalism; and
• 100 attacks with butyric acid stink bombs.
Their complaints that they’ve been silenced are plastered across national newspapers and on cars covered with abortion porn and on street corners in front of clinics but still they play the victim. They lie. And this is why I fight.
These supposedly morally superior people consider themselves “pro-life” warriors on a mission from God and accuse those who disagree with them of being “pro-death”. They use terms like “pro-aborts” and “poor choicers” to describe anyone who believes that a woman has a fundamental right to choose what happens to her body, convinced that only they know best. They argue that it isn’t a matter of choice at all even as they seek to impose their views and their choices on everyone. They refer to the pro-choice movement as one that embraces a “culture of death”, while holding themselves up as defenders of the very sanctity of life. But this doesn’t seem to stop them from standing outside clinics and screaming accusations of “baby killer” at women struggling with a decision that is no one’s business but their own as they attempt to enter those very same clinics.
Their so-called “pro-life” movement is comprised of the worst sorts of hypocrites and they need to be called on it at every opportunity. Their ultimate goal is to ensure that women everywhere will be left with choices that only they approve of ... which would be no choice at all. They do not now, nor will they ever, speak for me. And this is why I will never stop fighting.
Some further musings. My son turned 18 in December and it got me thinking about a lot of things. I was barely older than he is now when I found out I was pregnant. After the initial “holy fuck” reaction, I explored my options and made my choice. Clueless know-it-all brat that I was, I chose to have him. Raising him on my own is the hardest thing that I have ever done and I have an incredible support structure in my parents, sisters and extended family and friends. I love him endlessly but how much of that love is predicated on the fact that his birth was a choice I made and not one that I was forced to make? Probably none. I’d like to think that my boundless love for him is instinctive but we’ll never know, will we? Because I had choices.
Essentially, that’s what this fight is all about. I wish every pregnancy was planned and eagerly anticipated, but that just isn’t reality. There’s always the possibility that some woman is staring at that little blue stick thinking “What do I do now?” She needs choices ... so it’s up to us to make sure that the misogynistic hypocrites in the pro-life movement are never allowed to speak for her.
Posted by LuLu at 9:12 AM 37 comments:
Well, I just don't know WHAT we're going to do about this.
Shorter Blogging Tory JoJo: "It's not fair, you know. Except for the Blogging Tories, the entire chain of Canwest newspapers and every Government of Canada website in the known universe, Stephen Harper has no way to get the good news out there. Darn that biased mainstream media!"
Posted by CC at 8:44 AM 1 comment:
The burning stupid, Ezra Levant style.
So ... it's been almost a full week since the Canadian, right-wing Idiotsphere began their furious backpedaling regarding accusations of racism and misogyny against Richard Warman.
And yet, here we are, January 28, and look who's being a complete retard (emphasis tail-waggingly added):
Warman strikes again
By Ezra Levant on January 28, 2008 12:52 AM | Permalink | Comments | Trackback
Richard Warman -- the former human rights commissioner who went on to become the commission's most avid complainant -- is at it again...
But that's not what's interesting. After all, the CJC has become increasingly politically irrelevant, as the country and the Jewish community move away from their dyed int he wool leftism. Their decision to stand by Warman, despite recent revelations of his own anti-Black, anti-women bigotry, has only hastened their spiral into irrelevance.
Is it even possible for someone to be dumber than that? Well, OK, there's Blogging Tory Dr. Roy, but that's really an unfair standard.
Posted by CC at 6:09 AM 1 comment:
The inevitable unavoidability of reality.
And, finally, the blinders start to slip. And when even some Blogging Tories are getting a clue, well, can a rain of herring be far behind?
SADLY, HOWEVER, there is still some absolutely eye-rolling lack of awareness, as The Torch's Damian Brooks is as woefully clueless as ever:
With three months of work and one report Manley and the rest of the panel have accomplished what the Government has failed to do since the beginning of our Afghanistan involvement.
Yes, Damian, that's a good, little wingnut -- here's a biscuit. Mercifully, though, even those typically right-wing chowderheads at the Toronto Sun have clued in:
Manley panel gets it wrong
The report on Afghanistan delivered Monday by the Manley panel was deeply disappointing. Its totally predictable findings could have been written without the panel of instant Afghan experts wasting millions of tax dollars.
No shit, Sherlock. And might that be because that vaunted Manley report had already been written before the investigation even started?
The Torch: Because while there's a desperate need for well-informed, investigative Canadian military bloggers, even the retards have the right to a public forum, too.
Posted by CC at 4:16 AM 3 comments:
Sandra Buckler must die!
Politically speaking, of course (but you knew that, right?). First, and just for the entertainment value, let's hop into the wayback machine to see another prominent neo-con hack grab for some plausible deniability:
PETE WILLIAMS: Can you answer some of the questions that have come up over the weekend? As you know, there was an email that came out Friday night that showed that ten days before the firings there was a meeting in your office, which you attended to discuss the firings. And yet when you talked to us here at the Justice Department two weeks ago, you said you were not involved in any discussions about the firings. Can you explain what seems like a contradiction?
ATTORNEY GENERAL GONZALES: Let me just say, a wise senator recently told me that when you say something that is either being misunderstood or can be misunderstood, you need to try to correct the record and make the record clear. Let me try to be more precise about my involvement. When I said on March 13th that I wasn't involved, what I meant was that I had not been involved, was not involved in the deliberations over whether or not United States Attorneys should resign.
Yes, that would indeed be former U.S. Attorney General Alberto "Abu Gonzo" Gonzales, explaining how, when he said he "wasn't involved," he didn't mean that he wasn't, you know, "involved." Or something mirthmaking like that.
Which, naturally, brings us to the PMO's spokesweasel Sandra Buckler and how, when she said no one in the PMO's office knew, well, that's not what she actually meant. At which point we can safely say that Sandra Buckler is a lying bitch who should be canned. But given that PM Pillsbury Doughboy seems to be defending Buckler, is there any way to force the issue? Why, yes, of course there is, and you, the mainstream media, can make it happen.
From this day forward, in any press scrum, whenever Buckler makes a statement or answers a question, the media should make it clear that she has no credibility by forcing her to clarify every single claim she makes, along the lines of:
Media entity: "All right, then, when you say 'X,' do you actually mean 'X' the way we normally understand it? As in fully unqualified, and based on its normal definition in the English language? I just want to be clear here so there's no confusion."
Buckler: "No one in the PMO's office knew about the change in detainee transfers."
ME: "All right, so when you say 'no one knew,' what you're saying is that no one actually, you know, 'knew,' as in, had any awareness whatsoever. You can say that with confidence because you're positive that no one 'knew,' is that the basic point you're trying to get across here?"
In short, every single exchange with spokesweasel Buckler is now a two-parter:
- Buckler states position on some subject.
- Buckler then has to re-iterate that same position in painful and irrevocable detail just to make sure there is no ambiguity or potential for plausible deniability somewhere down the road.
And if the media insists on playing this way, it should be obvious that Buckler's career is over, since every media scrum would turn into a tedious exercise in repetition to the point where it would be intolerable, and the media would make it clear the only way they're going to stop is if Buckler is replaced.
See how easy that is? Now let's see who has the grapes to start the ball rolling.
BONUS TRACK: "Spokesweasel." Heh.
Posted by CC at 3:19 AM 2 comments:
Just more dumbassitude, Denyse O'Leary-wise.
Mercifully, PZ takes her out to the woodshed, so I don't have to. I've concluded that there is no God because, if there was, I would be a Canadian "journalist" while Denyse would be wearing a paper hat and listening for the "ding" that tells her the next batch of fries is done.
Posted by CC at 3:09 AM 1 comment:
Zorpheous is gonna love this one.
Just go see.
(Via this weird chick.)
Posted by CC at 2:43 AM 2 comments:
Sunday, January 27, 2008
And sometimes snark fails you ...
There are times when I think the so-called “values voters” that make up the Christian right are actually just perpetrating the biggest con job in the history of con jobs. How else do you explain the never-ending stream of stories about sex, drugs and wetsuits? Via CBS News online:
A Utah retailer of family-friendly tapes and DVDs - Hollywood films with the "dirty parts" cut out of them - has been arrested for trading sex with two 14-year-old girls.
Orem police say Flix Club owner Daniel Dean Thompson, 31, and Issac Lifferth, 24, were booked into the Utah County jail on charges of sexual abuse and unlawful sexual activity with a 14-year-old.
CBS Station KUTV in Salt Lake City reports that the shocking discovery came when a mother found a $20 bill in her daughter’s room last week and questioned her about where the money came from.
The girl confessed that she and a friend had been paid for sexual favors by an older male.
Lifferth was additionally charged with patronizing a prostitute and was also in possession of a prescription drug medication without a prescription.
Thompson's Flix Club was one of several Utah-based video outlets that traded in edited versions of R- and PG-13-rated films, catering to clientele who wanted to watch hit movies without nudity, sex, language or graphic violence.
Just so we’re clear here – no T&A for you but sex with underage teenagers for me, got it? Good.
Posted by LuLu at 11:53 AM 1 comment:
Apples. Oranges. NOW do you understand?
And as much as I've flogged this already, this is just too precious not to whack one more time. First, go here, where TGB's Boris talks about the new "Rambo" movie, and uses that as a vehicle to explain the plight of a particular group of Burmese refugees in Thailand.
Now go here, where Blogging Tory and Canadian Forces dude "Junker" talks about the new "Rambo" movie, and uses it as a vehicle to explain his man-crush on Sly Stallone and how much he likes seeing things get blown up.
The Blogging Tories: Because some people just know their audience.
NO BIG SURPRISE THERE: Guess who else is just creaming himself over Rambo? And remember, this is the "pro-life" crowd we're talking about. Don't that just beat all?
Posted by CC at 11:37 AM 2 comments:
Science? We don’t need science.
After all, it’s so liberal and elitist and, and ... sciency. Ick.
The one scientist in this country who had direct access to the Prime Minister is being dismissed. Canada’s National Science Adviser, Dr. Arthur Carty, was appointed by former Prime Minister Paul Martin to provide expert advice on the government’s role in matters of science and science policy. Now, less than four years after the position was created, the Harper government feels that it’s no longer necessary.
Well of course he’s not necessary, Big Daddy already knows everything worth knowing. He’d be the first one to tell you that. And considering the not-so-science-friendly people he hangs out with – well, you get where I’m going with this, right?
Bob McDonald, host of the CBC science radio program Quirks & Quarks, then goes on to say:
Eliminating the National Science Adviser is the latest in a string of events showing how our current government, at least at the top level, does not seem to be interested in the scientific perspective.
Soon after taking power, the Harper government moved the National Science Adviser position from the Privy Council Office down to Industry Canada, where Dr. Carty reports to the Minister there instead of directly to the PM. Following that, our Prime Minister embarrassed the country internationally by backing out of the Kyoto Accord and stonewalling the climate change discussions in Bali.
Canada’s New Government™, boys and girls ... where science is sooooooo two years ago.
Posted by LuLu at 10:11 AM 6 comments:
Posted by CC at 9:24 AM No comments:
Even the nutjobs don't want to hang out with the nutjobs.
You know you're radioactive when even the Bible-whomping whackjobs don't want to be seen in public with you.
Posted by CC at 8:08 AM No comments:
Sandra Buckler: All lies, all the time.
I realize it's just piling on, but you have to chuckle over this snippet from the G&M:
When asked why the government withheld information from the public, from Parliament, and from the blue-ribbon panel hired to chart Canada's future policy in Afghanistan, Ms. Buckler said the Canadian Forces had kept it secret.
Ms. Buckler's statement provoked outrage within her own government and particularly infuriated military officials.
Some news organizations gave little prominence to her remarks because they simply assumed them to be untrue.
In short, some news organizations have openly given up on expecting the truth from Buckler. And when that happens, your life span as a "spokesperson" is generally measured in days.
Posted by CC at 6:57 AM 1 comment:
Give it time, Raphael ... it'll come to you.
Shorter Blogging Tory Raphael Alexander: "It's now painfully obvious that the CPoC has lied outrageously about every single aspect of the Afghan detainees. I just don't know what to think now."
Posted by CC at 5:01 AM 12 comments:
Because avoiding the facts iz hard werk.
Yes, it just gets funner and funner, doesn't it, as JimBobby points out:
Detainee Transfers: Did We Really Quit?
Whooee! So, there was a new policy on detainees put into place on November 5th or 6th, 2007. Around December 19th, Brigadier General Deschamps made statements under oath in an affidavit filed with the Federal Court. The General paints a dire picture of what would happen if we quit handing over prisoners to the Afghanis.
But, but, but... we'd already quit doing that 5 weeks earlier.
I could ask the Blogging Tories how they'd like to explain this but, instead, I'm just going to point out that they're all a bunch of retarded, KoolAid-swilling cementheads and move on. It'll save us all a pile of time. You can thank me later.
But one telephone receiver was shaking with the sound of screaming as a livid Department of National Defence official vented his fury at the Prime Minister's Office.
The military official said his colleagues are incensed by the insinuation that they would be incompetent enough to withhold key details on a politically charged file from their civilian bosses.
He said the Canadian Forces should be receiving plaudits for having signed a detainee-transfer deal when Foreign Affairs failed to do so in 2005, and for having then immediately halted transfers when proof of torture was uncovered in November.
“Instead we've been wearing this,” the military official said, shouting loudly enough to shake the phone receiver. He described the mood at DND as ”outraged and frustrated.”
If I were Stephen Harper, I wouldn't worry too much -- he'll always have a loyal, fawning following among the Blogging Tories who are active members of the military, currently putting their lives on the line at the front.
Oh, wait ...
(Wag of the tail to CH.)
BY THE WAY, you have to love the very title of that G&M piece: "Conservatives send designated MPs to defend Buckler." That's right -- the PM's spokesfuckwit now has her own personal spokesfuckwits. If the hilarity got any more recursive, well, it would just get more recursive, wouldn't it?
MORE LINKY GOODNESS AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Not surprisingly, Dave at TGB is all over this like Patsy Ross on Werner Patels' trouser weasel:
The word on the jetty is that unless Buckler receives the appropriate discipline (fired), there will be information made public which will show that the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan did not make the immediate decision to stop prisoner transfers in isolation. They will demonstrate that the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, the government department actually responsible for administering the prisoner transfer agreement with the government of Afghanistan, made the initial decision on November 5th, 2007 and advised the CF to stop handing over prisoners to the Afghan government.
Added thought: I don't believe for a minute Buckler will be fired, but if she is you can expect a soft-landing. If I were the ambassador to any developed country in the Canadian diplomatic chain, I'd be checking to see where I could get some packing boxes.
And if the latter happens, one might ask PM Pillsbury Doughboy how he defines "accountability" and "personal responsibility" these days. Not that we'd give a shit what the answer was, but it would be amusing to watch him get angry again.
Posted by CC at 4:04 AM 2 comments:
Saturday, January 26, 2008
I Could Totally Do This...
[This embedded video deleted since heavy.com is just dog-fucking slow about downloading.]
Holy Jeebux kids! I did gymnastics at one point in my life and I used to pull some pretty crazy and risky stunts but... OMFG. If you notice, he's brandishing a sword during some of this. Because it isn't quite dangerous enough yet. Yoiks!
Holy Jeebux kids! I did gymnastics at one point in my life and I used to pull some pretty crazy and risky stunts but... OMFG. If you notice, he's brandishing a sword during some of this. Because it isn't quite dangerous enough yet. Yoiks!
Posted by Lindsay Stewart at 7:52 PM 2 comments:
Pay no attention to that scandal behind the curtain.
Big Daddy gave a speech yesterday to the faithful that contained several factual errors but really, what’s a few credibility issues between friends?
He attacked Liberals for opposing his recent GST cut and cast his foes as careless spenders.
"Their reckless spending would - in one budget - push the country back into deficit, adding to the federal debt and putting upward pressure on interest rates," he said.
"They never saw a tax they didn't like. Never saw a tax they wouldn't hike."
Those lines drew chuckles from the party faithful. But they also flew in the face of historical fact.
The previous Liberal government cut taxes by $100 billion, eliminated the deficit, presided over years of uninterrupted economic growth, and tabled more tax cuts in a 2005 budget the Tories later reversed.
He then continued to shovel the CPoC bullshit at a furious pace, to “repeated, thunderous ovations” from the mindless, righttard drones who comprised his appreciative audience.
Why did the Conservatives scrap proposed plans for a national child-care system and replace it with $1,200 taxable cheques for parents?
"Children aren't raised in academic faculties or government offices or in the boardrooms of social activists," Harper explained.
"Children are raised in families, so that's where the money flows."
And what about people who oppose elements of the Tories' law-and-order agenda, or point out that crime rates are actually falling? Harper cast them as apologists for criminals.
"(They) try to pacify Canadians with statistics," Harper said, suggesting emotion should outweigh empirical evidence.
"Your personal experiences and impressions are wrong, they say; crime is really not a problem. These apologists remind me of the scene from the Wizard of Oz when the wizard says, 'Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."'
Give me a fucking break. Oh, and that inconsequential business of who may or may not be responsible for the change in policy concerning the Afghan detainees?
He did not address the mushrooming detainee controversy or the substance of a recent blue-ribbon panel's report on how to proceed.
However, Big Daddy, leader of the “all polls, all the time” party, did have this to say about the Manley Commission report.
"On a matter of national and global security like this, we will never make a decision based on polls," Harper said. "We will make our decision based on what is right."
Of course you will. Canada’s New Government™ ... the party of accountability, transparency and complete detachment from reality.
Posted by LuLu at 12:10 PM 2 comments:
Holy Jesus Christ, the burning stupid!
Gawd Almighty, but you might want to buckle up for this one. First, TGB's Dave attempts to impart something resembling actual information:
Kursk. You might try something unique in your ilk.
Start with the Officer's Professional Development Program, military law.
You don't get to decide.
As you pointed out, the CF, internally at least, is not a democracy.
Understand completely, I have been in a situation where I threatened to kill one of my own men for making a move not to protect a prisoner.
It's not a fucking video game and you don't have a clue what you're yapping about.
To which, God help us all, Blogging Tory Alberta Fuckwit makes it clear that he just doesn't give a shit about facts:
Dave I really do not know if the CF would be called the detaining power, but they are the ones doing the actual detaining so... Could NATO or even the UN be called the detaining power as the mission is under those umbrellas?
Either way it does not matter as this little contrived story has done nothing but again shown the Liberals to be incompetent boobs. I guess Bib Rae doesn't have a blackberry or cell phone as both Dion and Iggy could not manage to contact him before he started going off in public about something they ALREADY knew about.
Honestly, how can you possibly engage such screeching idiocy in intellectual discourse?
IN THE MEANTIME, you can bathe in the intellectual brilliance that is Canada's right-wing military punditry. Given time, I'm sure you can appreciate the subtle difference.
Posted by CC at 11:29 AM 11 comments:
There’s everyday stupid …
And then there’s the raving, barking at the moon, righttarded stylings of KKKate who is celebrating the tenth birthday of the little blue dress. You know, the one Monica Lewinsky wore with those unfortunate stains? No, I'm not kidding.
Further highlighting her catastrophic irrationality, KKKate writes:
Which reminds me of this: the one question no interviewer has yet had the courage to ask of Hillary - What will you do, as President, if there is another bimbo eruption in the White House?
Gosh, KKKate, I, too, wonder why no one has asked that question. Could it be because it's both irrelevant and inappropriate? Oh wait, I forgot who we're dealing with ... never mind.
Posted by LuLu at 10:28 AM 4 comments:
Today’s Huckabee Hilarity.
Via ThinkProgress, behold the unrelenting yet always amusing stupidity of the man we call the Huckster. When he was asked about the lack of success in locating Saddam’s WMDs during Thursday night’s Republican debate, he had this to say:
"Now everybody can look back and say, 'Oh, well, we didn't find the weapons.' Doesn't mean they weren't there. Just because you didn't find every Easter egg didn't mean that it wasn't planted."
Easter eggs? Seriously? I love this guy. Why address the question when you can make it all about religion?
We now return you to our regularly scheduled session of Big Daddy and the Conservative theatre of insanity. Can I get some popcorn over here?
Posted by LuLu at 9:13 AM 6 comments:
Posted by Lindsay Stewart at 9:08 AM 4 comments:
I Arr Elufunt.
Posted by Lindsay Stewart at 8:46 AM 2 comments:
The Fraser Institute...
Posted by Lindsay Stewart at 8:45 AM No comments:
The log in one's eye.
In Peggy Noonan's considered opinion, the current and self-evident meltdown of the Republican Party is all George W. Bush's fault, and should in no way be connected with the fact that the GOP these days consists of very serious people who believe in magic dolphins.
That was the punchline.
Posted by CC at 8:32 AM 2 comments:
Well I'll Be Danged...
In a stunning turn of cognitive dissonance, the National Poo has continued the week long silence regarding the terrible, awful problem of abortion, by posting something that isn't insane. Colby Cosh: Long Live Morgentaler! doesn't advocate for science fictional procedures or trumpet freeped polls and made up statistics. I suppose after yesterday's descent into the pits of idiocy, there was not much left to dredge from the crazy mines.
So hats off to Colby Cosh, a voice of reason alone in a crowd of jabbering loons.
For a full dose of deranged, unintentional comedy, go have a peek at the comments on the Karen Selick piece from yesterday. If ever a person was determined to cling to the stupidest of ideas, her name would be Selick. The Post should be ashamed. I simply can't believe that she gets paid for being that daft.
So hats off to Colby Cosh, a voice of reason alone in a crowd of jabbering loons.
For a full dose of deranged, unintentional comedy, go have a peek at the comments on the Karen Selick piece from yesterday. If ever a person was determined to cling to the stupidest of ideas, her name would be Selick. The Post should be ashamed. I simply can't believe that she gets paid for being that daft.
Posted by Lindsay Stewart at 7:29 AM 3 comments:
Fucked if you do, and fucked if you don't.
The Blogging Tories' Raphael Alexander points out how Stephane Dion is pretty much screwed, no matter what:
... why are the Liberals standing on the podium crying about "stains" on Democracy when they've known about it for two weeks, and why has Peter MacKay accused Dion of being 'irresponsible' about speaking about the issue?
So Dion will be attacked for remaining silent on what he knew for that last two weeks while, on the other hand, he will conversely be vilified for irresponsibly speaking out on the subject.
And the Blogging Tories' response will be, "Um, yeah, I don't see a problem here."
AFTERSNARK: In the comments section there, one "wilson" sadly demonstrates just how much of a misinformed imbecile someone can possibly be:
PMSH and Conservatives are still 'no comment on military operations', while Dion is telling all, in detail (he said, and then I said) to any media that will listen.
I don't know why the military swore all those privy to the detainee info, into secrecy. That was a military, not political decision.
To which one can only plead with "wilson" to go read Dave's take on the issue so that he not remain this depressingly ignorant all his life.
Yeah, that'll happen. When pigs fly out of my butt, that'll happen.
DOUBLE PLUS GOOD AFTERSNARK: Apparently, Stephen Harper and the Harperoids have pissed off a few people. People with guns. That's generally a bad idea.
THE LAST WORD: Read this. Then this. Case closed.
Posted by CC at 6:59 AM 3 comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)