Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Denial Failure

Controversy! Evidently the scientific community's doubts about global warming aren't as clear cut as the lying fuckwits at the Heartland Institute might like us all to believe. The Heartland Institute published a list of 500, count 'em 500 scientists that they claim were united in disavowing the concept of global warming. Pretty impressive... until the scientists named start to find out and demand their names be removed from the list.

The article, by Hudson Institute director and Heartland "Senior Fellow" Dennis T. Avery (inset), purports to list scientists whose work contradicts the overwhelming scientific agreement that human-induced climate change is endangering the world as we know it.

DeSmogBlog manager Kevin Grandia emailed 122 of the scientists yesterday afternoon, calling their attention to the list. So far - in less than 24 hours - three dozen of those scientists had responded in outrage, denying that their research supports Avery's conclusions and demanding that their names be removed.

I'm sure Denyse O'Leary will be trumpeting this conclusive information any day now. The swirling dishonesty is further derailed when the commenters start digging into the list over desmogblog.

Compared to his adoring groupies, it's quite possible.

Another poll just waiting to be freeped:

Top 100 Public Intellectuals

A reader emails;

Foreign Policy is having a poll of the top 100 intellectuals. The vast majority of the names that I recognized in their top 100 list are lefties. However there is a provision for writing in a candidate. The criteria is: "Although the men and women on this list are some of the world's most sophisticated thinkers, the criteria to make the list could not be more simple. Candidates must be living and still active in public life. They must have shown distinction in their particular field as well as an ability to influence wider debate, often far beyond the borders of their own country."

Under this criteria, I chose to write-in Mark Steyn, Canada, Author.

If ever there was a poll to go horribly wrong... here's the link;

Mark Steyn, renowned intellectual. Sure. Why not? What could possibly go wrong?

The stupid! It burns!

Any snark on my part would be depressingly superfluous.

Crooked Cons Crying

S.S. (Sniveling Stephen) Harper and his chorus of prats continue to stomp their little feet and whinge about the big, bad meanies at Elections Canada. How dare those guys try to prevent the S.S. Harper Party of God from swindling the system!

"It means that they don't have any respect for what they are, a government, and that Mr. Harper doesn't feel at ease with civil servants, with independent organisms – organizations or office, with journalists, with oppositions – in a word with democracy," said Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe of the Conservatives' vote.

The Cons had the audacity to vote against a motion of confidence in Elections Canada an impartial agency trusted throughout the world to monitor elections.

Conservative party lawyers say the party was not "advised" of the referral to the commissioner or the intention to seek a search warrant before Elections Canada "stormed into the party's office," said Poilievre.

What was once a visit now entails "storming". Maybe it is just that given the imperious behaviour of the S.S. Harper Party of God, they feared that we would be introduced to New Canada's New Government's New Slogan, Getting Things Shredded before Canadians. The lesson kids, Conservative corruption, cheating, lying and swindling is
good corruption, cheating, lying and swindling and what Liberals did two leaders and three governments ago is a permanent, indelible stain on the very heart of the party forever tied to the very definition of corruptionADSCAMADSCAMADSCAM.

S.S. Harper and his special needs caucus should try on a few of these, I'm sure Weepy Pete can hook them up with his supplier.

R. I. P. Albert Hofmann

Breaking News...

Infamous Wingnuterer Zorpheus to appear before Commons Committee investigating steroid use among satirists.


Maybe it’s just me but this sure doesn’t sound like Big Daddy’s brand new, soon-to-be-patented, nobody luuuuurrrvvvvvss immigrants like Canada’s New Government™ luuuuurrrvvvvvss immigrants party line.

It does, however, sound exactly like a party with a hidden agenda. Something that most people, the ones with brains, believe Big Daddy and his merry band of in-and-out wankers actually have.

L’État C’est Moi - Part II.

Well. I think we can safely say where Big Daddy and his merry band of totalitarian, in-and-out, mouthbreathing wankers stand when it comes to supporting the tools of democracy, n’est ce pas?

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Whatever will Patsy Pantload say about this?

Remember Ed Snell, boys and girls? He of the platform-on-top-of-his-car so he could scream obscenities proselytize to women entering a free clinic from behind an 8-foot privacy fence? Looks like he finally had his day in court ... or not.

A Dauphin County district judge dismissed felony assault charges this morning against a Juniata County man who's accused of pushing an anti-abortion protester off his car Dec. 22 at the Hillcrest Women's Medical Center in Harrisburg.

Judge Barbara Pianka threw out the aggravated assault charge, but Nathan Richardson, 23, of Port Royal, still faces misdemeanor counts of simple assault and reckless endangerment.

According to Harrisburg police, protester Ed Snell was standing on a platform attached to the roof of his car--allowing him to see over an 8-foot fence--when he began speaking to Richardson and his girlfriend who were entering the clinic around 7 a.m.

Police said Richardson became enraged at Snell's comments, scaled the fence and pushed the 69-year-old Susquehanna Twp. resident off his car, causing him to hit his head on the pavement.

One wonders just what Mr. Snell said that so provoked Mr. Richardson. One wonders, indeed.

H/T to that fabulous unrepentant hippie JJ who, as always, is alllllllllll over this.

Dear Matthew:

I, and all of your commenters, have not a hot fucking clue where you’re going with this post. Which, by the way, is unbelievably incoherent ... even for you. Could you please provide a detailed explanation and/or a description of the actual point you were trying to make? Thanks bunches.

Your perpetually amused reader,

P.S. A “Preview” button would also be super.

New Gland Speed Record

Faster than a speeding popemobile...
More powerful than a fetus fetish truck...

When Conservative Christian Preachers Attack

That poor, poor waiter.

Five Feet of Fries with That?™ takes time out of her busy, busy day begging for donations and trolling the Intert00bzz for pimpalicious cheesecake shots to reassure her loyal, mouthbreathing readers that she’s doing just fine.

Yesterday, the intrepid Dr. Roy took RightGirl and I out for lunch. He was concerned about how I was doing, given the whole lawsuit thing. He is so cute -- thanks, Doc!

Um ... eewwwwwwwwww? I just want to make sure you have an accurate picture in your head of the participants. That would dr. roy, Girl on the Right and Five Feet of Brother Can You Spare a Dime™. Click them — you know you want to.

The only thing that Round Table of Teh Crazy needed to make it truly complete would’ve been Neo and KKKate. I bet they left a lousy tip ...

Monday, April 28, 2008

Dig It!

Questions you should be smart enough not to ask.

Hilariously, Blogging Tory crime reporter "Neo Conservative" takes careful aim and manages to blow his nads off with this one:

If [Barack Obama's] afraid of Hillary...

What's he gonna do the next time Osama comes knockin'?

A good point, Neo. Perhaps Barack Obama can take his lead from steely-eyed rocket man President Chimpy McChimpster, whose stern resolve on the day of 9/11 can best be summarized by the phrases "Louisiana", "Nebraska" and "leaving a trail of fear-soaked urine wherever he goes."

President George W. Bush and Blogging Tory "Neo Conservative": Because adult diapers aren't just for incontinence anymore.

If you’re looking for sympathy – part eleventy-million.

Shorter "Hunter": If those people want to stay in Kashechewan even though they know it’s going to flood, then they shouldn’t expect any help from the government when it does flood. Don’t talk to me about traditional boundaries or tribal lands — those are my tax dollars, pal.

A little Amy to start the day.

It’s a grey, rainy Monday and I’m having a really hard time getting it together (the fact that I hate my job might have something to do with it) so I thought a little musical inspiration was in order.

Christ she’s such a talented train wreck ... btw, do you think that beehive is permanent or removable? These are the things that sometimes consume my mind — isn’t it a weird and wonderful place?

The more you know, the more entertaining it gets.

Two things you probably never knew about the anonymous Blogging Tory "Neo Conservative":

Yes, there's a punchline; you'll just have to be patient.

The lies that are Denyse O'Leary's life.

There's the inevitable Denyse-flavoured dishonesty:

Nancy Bryson taped a recent podcast with Discovery Institute about how she got Expelled from Mississippi Women's U because she told students evidence against Darwin's theory of evolution.

And then there's reality. Sometimes, I'm intensely jealous of PZ Myers -- his American IDiots, wingnuts and whackjobs are so much more entertaining than ours.

BONUS WINGNUTTERY: There's a delightful exchange in the cross-examination linked to in my article, in which the Discovery Institute's Stephen C. Meyer really doesn't want to answer a simple question:

MR. CALVERT: Dr. Meyer, thank you so much for your testimony. Our time is up. And so now it's the turn of Mr. Irigonegaray to ask you some questions for about twenty minutes.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: The Chair will decide that.

DR. MEYER: I met Pedro before. Pedro, you were the moderator of the debate at Washburn University in 1999 that I participated in. I don't know if you remember that.

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Oh, of course I do. I'm here in a little bit of a different role.

DR. MEYER: Well, actually it was-- you were a moderator--

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Steve, hang on a second. Whoa, you're taking up my time. Hang on a second.

DR. MEYER: It's not that different of a role for you.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Dr. Meyer, please proceed.

DR. MEYER: I can't hear you very well. I don't know if you--

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Dr. Meyer, can you hear me?

DR. MEYER: I can hear you, but it's very muffled.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray, would you move down to the chair, please? And you have twenty minutes. John, he can't hear us very well, so will you tell him that Mr. Irigonegaray is moving down to the chair?

MR. CALVERT: Dr. Meyer, Mr. Irigonegaray is moving down to my chair, so he'll be-- so you guys can talk a little bit better and hear each other better.


Q. Can you hear me now?

A. I can indeed.

Q. I have a few questions for you first that I want to establish for the record. In your opinion, your personal opinion, what is the age of the earth?

A. Do you want my personal-- why are you asking me about my personal--

Q. You're here to answer my questions. First of all, what is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?

A. I understood I was being called as an expert witness.

Q. What is your personal opinion as to what the age of the earth is?

A. I'm unclear. I understand--

Q. The question is simple. What is, in your opinion, the age of the earth?

A. Well, I'm just wanting to clarify the ground rules here. I thought I was being called as an expert witness, so why are you asking me about my personal--

Q. That's not the issue. Now, please answer my question. What is your personal--

A. I would like to understand the ground rules first. Why am I being asked about--

MR. IRIGONEGARAY: Mr. Chairman, if he's not going to answer my questions, I'd ask that his testimony be stricken from the record.

A. I'm happy to answer your question. I'd like to know why you're asking about--

Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) The "why" is not for you to determine.

MR. SISSON: Mr. Chairman, I understand Mr. Meyer's request to reflect some confusion about the ground rules, and it is quite appropriate for him to ask that the chair of the committee, namely yourself, speak to him concerning the appropriate ground rules. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Dr. Meyer, can you hear me now?

A. Yes, sir.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: My name is Steve Abrams, chairman of the science subcommittee. And even though these hearings have been called about the Kansas science curriculum standards and particularly how they relate to the minority report and particularly to the question of the philosophical claims and the religious claims of science and how to teach science in Kansas, we are allowing the counsel for the majority and the counsel of the minority great latitude in trying to establish their case. And Mr. Irigonegaray has elected to ask virtually every question-- every witness questions about their personal opinions about certain things. And so we have granted him that latitude, and so I would say that's where we're going.

A. You would like me to cooperate with that?

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: You can either answer "yes," "no," or "I don't know," or whatever you want to do, but that-- yes, I'd like you to cooperate.

A. It's a transparently obvious strategy to impeach the credibility of your witnesses, but I will cooperate. So my answer to your question, Pedro, is that I-- my personal opinions and my professional opinions are the same. I think the earth is 4.6 billion years old. I think the universe is--

Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) No, just the earth. I didn't ask you about the universe.

A. My opinion of--

Q. Mr. Meyer, please just answer my question. I'm not asking you other opinions.

MR. SISSON: I'd simply request to make a point here, ask the Chairman if I may make a point. Mr. Chairman, would you instruct the witness that there is no subpoena power here and that he is under no compulsion to answer and he would suffer no penalty if he chose to decline to answer.

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: He can answer the questions to his extent. However, we would like you to answer them.

A. Does that mean I can say something else about the age of the earth?

CHAIRMAN ABRAMS: Mr. Irigonegaray is going to ask the questions that he thinks important and he may repeat the question. And he will ask-- my guess is it will be a yes or a no answer or some side of an answer like that. If you feel comfortable answering that, say "yes," or if you don't know, say you don't know, whatever it is. I mean, be truthful and answer however you feel comfortable answering.

A. Right. But may I say anything more about the age of the earth, then?

Q. (BY MR. IRIGONEGARAY) I'm the one asking questions here, Mr. Meyer, and all you need to do is to answer my question.

A. Okay. I think the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years old. That's both my personal and my professional opinion. I speak as someone who is trained as a geophysicist--

Q. I'm not asking you about that. I just asked you for a number, and you have given it to me.

A. Okay. That's all you want is the number?

Q. My questions are pretty clear, Mr. Meyer.

Now that is some mighty fancy tap-dancing, wouldn't you say?

! Ladies and gentlemen, another "expert witness." It will forever be a loss to comedy that Denyse O'Leary wasn't called to testify.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Sunday Funnies.

Halo 3 edition ... just for PSA.

SUZANNE's Favourite Show!

As God is my witness …

... I’m starting to think that Tony “Beware the Tyrant King Porn Dragon” Zirkle is just making this shit up. Go. Read. You’ll thank me for it.


Shorter “Hunter”:

Don't waste your money on newspapers — the media is lying to you!!!! And because of this, young women are coming to Alberta to prey on all the young men who are uneducated but making lots of money. They’re like bloodthirsty lionesses only they’re money-hungry. Or something like that.

It really needs to be read in order to appreciate the complete driving-off-a-cliff insanity of the entire post. I need more coffee ...

I wonder what SUZANNE thinks about this …

After all, she’s alllllll about the unborn children. The fact that this has nothing to do with abortion and everything to do with equality, a mainstay of feminism, might put her tiny little fetus-obsessed brain in a bit of a bind. Let’s also be sure to remember that this was an actual live baby (perhaps a touch too brown for the average Kompassionate Konservative?) as opposed to a cluster of cells.

An "untouchable" woman who gave birth outside an Indian hospital because doctors would not treat her died Thursday, a day after her baby, officials admitted.

The newborn boy of Maya Devi, 28, died Wednesday due to lack of medical help minutes after being born outside the maternity wing of Kanpur Medical College in northern Uttar Pradesh state. Devi was only put in intensive care after giving birth but she died of a heart attack early Thursday morning.

Several doctors, including the hospital's chief medical superintendent, had refused to touch her or provide medical care as she delivered her baby, the Press Trust of India reported. Devi was a Dalit, or "untouchable", a group at the bottom of the caste social ladder who have long been ostracised and forced into menial professions despite laws banning discrimination. Many high-class Hindus fear coming into contact with them.

Dr Kiran Pandey, head of gynaecology at the hospital, told AFP she was an hour's drive away in state capital Lucknow at the time and rushed back. "We provided her the best medicines and treatment but she succumbed to two cardiac arrests," Pandey said. College principle Anand Swaroop has ordered an inquiry, as has a district magistrate.

The state's chief minister, Mayawati, who won elections last year, has ordered the doctors to be suspended and demanded an investigation.

We provided her the best medicines and treatment ... right after refusing to touch her or her baby while she was giving birth which probably had a whole fuck of a lot to do with their subsequent deaths. Pardon me while I have a hard time believing a fucking word that Dr. Pandey might say.

And Susie ALL CAP’s pro-life, god-bothering, won't someone think of the zygotes reaction? Hmmmmm. Does anyone else hear crickets?

When dishonest bloggers blog dishonestly.

As a followup to the previous post, I thought it was worth examining more intimately the rampant dishonesty of one Shane Edwards of The Politic, particularly his unseemly habit of -- how shall I put this delicately? -- making shit up. Specifically, I refer to his predilection for inventing alleged quotes out of thin air.

Starting here, we find Shane making shit up in the very body of his post, first with a quoted reference to the word "culture." But following the link under that word takes you here, where the only use of that word occurs in a trackback to the original article above, which I'm sure we can all agree doesn't constitute a valid quoted reference. In short, Shane insisted on "quoting" something which, in fact, did not exist. But it only gets better.

Immediately thereafter, Shane quotes the phrase "lifestyle choice," but the link underneath takes you, not to anything related to the issue in question, but here -- a piece that is not only wholly unrelated to schools in Toronto but which, amusingly enough, doesn't contain the phrase "lifestyle choice" anywhere on the page.

Being called on the above blatant fabrications, Shane responds unbelievably with (and I quote):

What would you call it when the position is “these children, because of their race, are incapable of learning in the public school environment”?

In case I wasn’t being clear, I categorically and fundamentally disagree with them AND the moronic McGuinty government that has consented to this “apartheid-style” educational policy.

Yes ... as hard to believe as it might be, Shane defends his fabrication of quotes by (ha! ha!) inventing more quotes that don't exist.

And as much fun as it might be to give folks like Shane enough rope to hang themselves by their nads, it might really be time for The Politic's head honcho Greg Farries to finally step in and discipline the children, and explain to them how grown-ups behave. And while he's at it, he might have a word with Matthew as well. One petulant fibber is trouble enough, but no one should have to put up with two of them.

Segregation is in the eye of the beholder, isn't it?

Blogging Tory and really, really creepy racist "Neo Conservative" is seriously miffed with the notion of a school that caters to a particular racial or cultural demographic:

As Canada returns to the good ol' days of segregation...

Canada's first Africentric alternative school will be a school within a school – not a free-standing building – and is being proposed for a wing of sprawling Sheppard Public School near the northwest corner of Sheppard Ave. W. and Keele St.

The pilot program, which Sheppard principal Ira Applebaum called an "exciting opportunity" in a letter last night to parents, would be open to children of any background across Toronto, from junior kindergarten to Grade 5, who would wish to enrol in September 2009.

On the other hand, some folks have no problem with that idea:

Build new residental schools, if that's what it takes and tell the detractors to go to hell...

Posted by Kate at December 4, 2004 1:41 PM

The Blogging Tories: Because when it comes to "segregation," context is everything.

WOW. Just ... wow:

Definition: when the oppressors no longer tell the oppressed that they are too stupid for normal education - it just lets the oppressed say it, then agrees with them.

That's The Politic's Shane Edwards, sniffing disdainfully at the idea that like-minded people with a common cultural perspective might want a centralized location where that perspective might be emphasized.

That would also be Shane Edwards of the right-wing aggregator "Blogging Tories," where like-minded people gather in one place to emphasize a particular perspective that ... oh, fuck, if I really need to finish that for you, you're too stupid to be visiting here.

AFTERSNARK: Using Shane's logic, one could similarly conclude that the descriptive phrase "too stupid for normal education" could apply just as well to Catholics in Ontario, who seem pretty pleased with their separate school system.

Come on, Shane ... are you sure you wanted to go down that road? I'm just askin'.

With the Blogging Tories, actual awareness is optional.

Blogging Tory and perpetual prissy scold JoJo wants to make sure we're focusing on the right issue here:

And so we to try to "Save the planet" instead of trying to save the people on the planet. Instead of trying to be good stewards of the earth so that we can continue to sustain ourselves here, ...

I'm sorry, JoJo ... "trying to be good stewards of the earth?" It occurs to me, JoJo, that you might want to have a chat with some of the more demented of your right-wing colleagues before presuming to lecture to the rest of us on the right way to approach environmental stewardship and sustainability.

Seriously, JoJo ... you already have a rep as a complete airhead. Let's not make it any worse, shall we?

Because obsessing over EVERYONE'S civil liberties is hard werk.

Blogging Tory Mike Brock has his Spider-Man Underoos in a serious bunch over:

Further to yesterdays outrage post, I have received quite a bit of feedback. But I was very interested where some of that feedback has originated.

Late last night, a CPC staffer, who asked not to be named, leaked me a set of memos and legal briefs on C-51, establishing not only do the Conservatives want this bill passed, but the PMO is putting it's full weight behind getting it through, in it's current form.

Needless to say, this is not a Liberal leftover bill as some commenters have pondered. It is a purebred Conservative bill, and it would appear that many cabinet ministers are lucidly aware of it's contents, as is the PMO.

I also received a phone call from someone who would remain nameless, who notes that very little if any external consultation was done for this bill. There was no consultation with provincial health ministries, none with potentially other interested parties.

This bill literally looks like something the Conservatives want to silently ram through parliament. We must deny them that.

E-mail or call your MP. Deluge newspapers with editorial comments, etc. Stop this additional incursion into civil liberties.

Because, let me tell you, Mike is all about putting the brakes on those additional incursions into civil liberties.

Then again ...

Saturday, April 26, 2008

And the crazy just keeps on coming.

Remember Tony Zirkle, boys and girls? He of the Hitler birthday party speech. Well, it looks like Tony has taken offence with all the attention his Neo Nazi ... I mean American National Socialist Workers Party (ANSWP) ooopsie has caused. Via ThinkProgress:

On his website, Zirkle has responded to the criticisms by railing against Jews and prostitution:

I’ve been getting a flood of e-mails and phone calls, some of which include death threats, about my attempt to raise awareness of how the great porn dragon inspires Jews into pornography and prostitution and then, like the snake he is, turns the public against the Jews. Some have questioned whether there is any link to Jews and porn-prostitution. [...]

Unfortunately, those Web sites are just a small fraction of evidence you can find on a Google search of combinations of “Jews” “pornography” “sex slavery” “Israel” and “prostitution.” Let’s save our Jewish brothers and sisters from this tyrant king porn dragon before we get to another world-wide pogrom.

Okaaaaaaay then — moving right along.

Just a word to the wise, if you click through to Zirkle's web site (which I did), you will very quickly discover that this guy is completely bugfuck crazy. Shocking ... or not.

Why, yes, I WAS right again, why do you ask?

From just yesterday, we have your humble correspondent (emphasis added):

Bill C-484 instead moves the mantle of victimhood from the mother to the fetus, and that's where the implicit personhood of the fetus comes in, and that's why this bill is such a dishonest piece of swill.

If Bill C-484's defenders were sincere about their concern for the women, they would happily reword that bill to refer simply to a "fetus" and to extra punishment for the offender. But that's not what this is all about, is it? It's about passing a bill that very carefully and very deliberately pushes the concept of personhood and victimhood from the mother to the fetus, and that's why this is all about abortion rights and nothing else.

Great minds think alike (emphasis again added):

By recognizing a developing fetus as a victim of a crime separate from a woman, this legislation could erode Canadian women's right to safe and legal abortion by treading closer to the line of bestowing legal rights on a fetus, a concept clearly at odds with existing Canadian law.

Excellent argument, Vicki. A day late but, what the heck, I'll give you credit for it.

Saturday Morning Cartoons.

“Oh ho varlet ... caught crrrrimson fisted!”

This particular episode is probably not as a popular as some but it’s one of my personal favourites — especially the “knighting” scene. Too funny.

P.S. I love coffee, really I do. The cup I’m enjoying right now is exceptionally delicious.

Sometimes, the irony lasts for months.

Googling around a bit earlier and came across this gem from last fall, in which Blogging Tory co-founder and overworked wet nurse and child psychologist Stephen Taylor has a funny definition of "libel":

Liberal MP Dominic Leblanc stated,

"To date, we have learned that eleven of the former Conservative candidates and official agents implicated in this scandal were named to federal appointments or were hired in high profile government jobs. One has to wonder if there is a connection between their willingness to participate and employment by this Conservative government"

The Conservatives allege that such statements are libelous as the letter addressed to the Liberals reads, "In particular, it is defamatory to suggest or imply that the positions that these individuals have or have had on Ministers' staffs are "rewards" for having engaged in illegal conduct."

But, Stephen ... M. Leblanc never suggested anything explicitly, did he? He merely mused aloud that there was something odd here that one might "wonder" about, nothing more -- a tactic that I recently documented as being one of the favourites of your very own BT member Steve Janke. Under the circumstances, then, it's a wee bit difficult to understand your objection back then.

Oh, and your subsequent linking to Janke himself at the bottom of that post for corroboration? Gold. Pure irony gold. Keep it up, Stephen. I have no idea where this blog would be without you.

P.S. Stephen? Could we have the Blogging Tory search feature back? Seriously, that provided my readers and myself with just hours of hilarity. Why did it go away? Enquiring minds would love to know.

Feminism, Delisle-style.

Some days, there is just no appropriate comeback:

Apparently, though, they like blogs. Go figure.

Kate McMillan: The Newt Gingrich of the prairies.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Time to play.

As always ... in the comments, if you please.

1) Name one slasher film (preferably original) that honestly scared you.

2) Your favourite Viking movie and why.

3) And just to change things up ... coffee or tea in the morning? Be warned — anyone who says neither will be regarded with deep suspicion by this girl.

Me first.

1) Halloween with Jamie Leigh Curtis, the very first one. As campy as it might seem now, that movie scared me silly the first time I saw it. I’m not even sure why — I think it was a combination of the utterly expressionless mask that Michael Myers wore and the soundtrack which was brilliantly creepy.

2) The Thirteenth Warrior which is based on Michael Crichton’s retelling of Beowulf. It has everything a good Viking film needs — bloody sword fights, mythical monsters, scary stories in the longhouse and Vikings laughing in the face of death. It also has incredible cinematography and an outstanding cast, which includes Tony Curran, one of my favourite actors.

3) Coffee, coffee, coffee in the morning and green tea in the afternoon. I would be completely useless without at least 2 cups before noon.

Your turn.

The Twatrick just never ends, does it?

Several of the regulars here at the CC Roadhouse and Car Wash got into it earlier, discussing the concept of debating in "bad faith." In my not-so-humble opinion, there are a number of distinct examples of that sort of thing, but one of the most annoying is what I call the deliberate misunderstanding of your point. You all know exactly what I mean. It's when your opponent clearly goes out of his way to misinterpret what you said or wrote so that he or she can criticize something that isn't even remotely your point of view.

Case in point: my recent post here. Go read it slowly, and convince yourself that you understood the argument I was making. Seriously, make sure you appreciate the point I was attempting to drive home, because that's critically important to what's about to happen.

Done? Good. Because now it's time to witness teh overwhelming stoopid:

Let's Talk "False Equivalence", Shall We?
The hypocrisy -- predictably -- is astounding

Good ol' Canadian Cynic. Whenever there's a slow news week, one can count on his unrepentant hypocrisy to provide something to blog about.

The predictable stupidity this week swirls around Bill C-10, a piece of legislation that has proven utterly offensive to those who think the Canadian government should be obligated to fund every Canadian film that asks for a tax credit.

All right, then -- apparently, Twatrick is going to take exception with my musings on Bill C-10. This should be good, if only for the entertainment value for the simple reason that you just know Twatrick is going to argue in bad faith exactly the way I just described. It's what he does. So let's just skip ahead over all the irrelevancies to get to the good stuff:

So then it could be considered oddly ironic that, just over a year later, he himself is resorting to a false equivalence to try and push his narrative regarding Bill C-10, when he compares Charles McVety's Calgary Herald article noting that tax dollars supported pornographic films to McVety using the internet to solicit donations for the Canadian Christian Coalition.

Sadly, you can already see that poor Twatrick's argument is veering wildly off the rails since my diatribe was entirely unrelated to how McVety solicited donations. The fact that he happened to be doing it "using the internet" was entirely irrelevant to my argument, as most of you can see. And, not surprisingly, given that egregious misrepresentation by Twatrick, what follows is predictably nonsensical:

Of course, there's a difference between using tax dollars -- the tax dollars paid by all Canadian citizens -- to subsidize pornographic films -- like Bubbles Galore -- and asking people for a voluntary donation.

The fact that the donor in question has a choice in one example (McVety) and no choice in the other (production grants).

And there you have it. Twatrick has taken what I thought was a fairly obvious example of hypocrisy and mangled it so that he could respond, not to the argument I made, but to the one he wishes I'd made, which is the only one he can actually refute.

My objection was, of course, not to McVety asking for voluntary donations. It was, rather, to the fact that those donations were tax-deductible, the consequence of which is that McVety's religious organization is partially funded by Canadian taxpayers. That is, you and me. That was obviously the point I was making, so how is it that Twatrick could go so wildly off track?

It would be tempting to just call Twatrick a moron and leave it at that, but that would let him off too easy. I don't think Twatrick was being an idiot here, oh no. Instead, I think he was arguing in bad faith. He knew exactly what my point was, but he chose to misrepresent it for the simple reason that he had no comeback to the argument I made, so he simply mangled what I wrote into an argument I didn't make that he could rebut. (It's like the old joke of the drunk who lost his keys a block away but insists on looking for them under a street lamp because the light's better there.)

And how can I prove that Twatrick was arguing in bad faith? Easy. Now that I've explained what I actually meant, someone who was genuinely interested in dialogue would acknowledge the flawed interpretation and proceed to address what I actually meant. On the other hand, someone who was arguing in bad faith would do no such thing, but would continue to dish up the same plate of dishonesty, despite having been corrected.

And I'm fairly comfortable in betting which way this is going to go.

RED TORY IS RIGHT, it's really not a good investment in time to keep spanking Twatrick in public, but poor Twatsy's ability to mangle every argument he comes in contact with is truly breathtaking, isn't it? One is reminded of a piece I link to on occasion, in which writer Matt Taibbi takes it to Tom Friedman, pointing out one of Friedman's screwups but not stopping there:

This would be a small thing were it not for the overall pattern. Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible; he is a Joyce or a Flaubert in reverse, incapable of rendering even the smallest details without genius. The difference between Friedman and an ordinary bad writer is that an ordinary bad writer will, say, call some businessman a shark and have him say some tired, uninspired piece of dialogue: Friedman will have him spout it. And that's guaranteed, every single time. He never misses.

And so it is with Twatsy -- it's not that he goes off tilting at the wrong windmill only on occasion; it's that he does it consistently, perpetually, even relentlessly. Over the months, poor Twats has managed to misaddress every single issue he's tackled. It's astonishing -- an absolutely Friedmanesque record of utter failure.

When it comes to Twatsy, it's hard to choose between entertaining and depressing. Or just downright dull.

GOD ALMIGHTY, THE BURNING STOOPID: I swear, just one quick towel snap to the nads and it's over. Here's Twatrick's jaw-dropping response, or at least part of it:

First off, the post in question (referenced again, just so we can be sure everyone actually reads it) never said anything about the tax-deductibility of donations to religious organizations.

Now let's examine closely the graphic that represented the majority of that very post:

Why, yes, right down there at the very bottom: "All donations are tax deductible." Everyone else managed to notice that, but not Twatrick. Never Twatrick. Then again, Twatrick is the mullet-headed imbecile who ... oh, Jesus, just go read for yourself. What I wouldn't give to be a fly on the wall at Twatrick's first job interview. Lord, the pants-pissing entertainment that would represent.

I think we're done here, and it's time to pick on more intellectually-challenging targets. I hear Denyse O'Leary is available.

It's Friday.

Lighten up.

Welcome to Big Daddy’s Canada.

Where the cancellation of funding for the Court Challenges program produces the far-reaching consequences that anyone who isn’t a CPoC, talking point spewing, Blogging Tory fuckwit could’ve predicted. Impolitical has the details and they’re not pretty, boys and girls.

Do you think actual book burning could be next?

I feel a retardedness in the force ... oh, hi, Peter.

Oh, dear. Apparently, the Blogging Tories' go-to dude on eugenics, Peter Csillag, is at it again, lowering the intellectual level of this part of the galactic quadrant. You remember, Peter, don't you? Yeah, that Peter.

Well, Peter's back, and just in time to hideously misrepresent the controversial Bill C-484. Here's Peter, fucking things up from the get-go:

Defending C-484: because it has nothing to do with abortion (sorry you leftist morons!)

Now, never let it be said that Blogging Tories co-founder Stephen Taylor can't find the absolute cream of the crop, the most intellectually engaging of Canada's right-wing punditry. But that's another story and would take away from dealing with drooling dimwit Peter Csillag so let's continue.

You are, of course, free to read the entirety of Peter's frothing imbecility, but I'm going to stop at the title since that's all I need to prove that Peter is a boneheaded hack because, despite Peter's ravings, Bill C-484 has everything to do with abortion, and the proof is, in fact, right there in the wording.

Let's start by actually reading the bill, shall we?

BILL C-484

An Act to amend the Criminal Code (injuring or causing the death of an unborn child while committing an offence)

Freeze. Right. There. And you can see the first problem, can't you? Why, yes ... it's that reference to "an unborn child." Because, as the non-retarded among you already understand, the Criminal Code of Canada most emphatically does not grant the status of "personhood" to a fetus. Yet by sneaking in the word "child" in that title line, it's clear where this bill is trying to go. There would have been absolutely nothing technically wrong with referring to a "fetus" in that passage, but the bill's author quite clearly had ulterior motives and is obviously determined to co-opt the language, as any good propagandist will. But it doesn't end there.

On the very next page, the bill's author (having set the stage) proceeds to push the envelope a bit further:


This enactment amends the Criminal Code by making it an offence to injure, cause the death of or attempt to cause the death of a child before or during its birth while committing or attempting to commit an offence against the mother.

Note how we've progressed from an "unborn" child to simply a "child", albeit possibly one "before its birth". But what does it mean to refer to the as-yet unborn explicitly as a "child," other than to implicitly grant it personhood? What other rationale is there? Again, the word "fetus" would have had the same technical value, but it wouldn't have provided the propaganda value in terms of implicit personhood, would it?

And we're still not done, as you can see if you continue reading the bill and see references like "an unborn child" and "the death of a child during birth or at any stage of development before birth." Oh, yes, the wording for this bill was chosen very carefully and precisely to maximize the implication that the unborn fetus is indeed a "child," despite what the Criminal Code of Canada might say. But what was the alternative? I'm glad you asked.

Idiots like Peter Csillag and pathological lunatics like Suzie All-Caps will insist that this is all about punishing the perpetrator of an offense against a woman if that offense also happens to cause harm or death to the fetus. This sounds reasonable -- surely you can't deny that there should be additional punishment for something like that. But it's the wording that's oh so critical.

A simple resolution to this would be just to tack on extra penitence because the pregnant mother suffered extra damage. Put another way, the sentence for the perp would be increased because the mother was more greviously injured or -- let me reword this just a bit -- because the mother was more of a victim. See how that works? And that proposal would work just fine. You injure or kill a fetus in the commission of an offense? Then your sentence goes up because the mother suffered extra harm; that is, harm to herself and her fetus. But that's not what the bill is proposing, is it? Note carefully the actual wording (emphasis added):

1. This Act may be cited as the Unborn Victims of Crime Act.

And right there is everything you need to know as to why this bill has nothing to do with protecting women and everything to do with abortion. What the above phrase does is classify the unborn fetus as the "victim." Not the mother; the fetus. And the only way that makes any sense is if the fetus is to be considered a person.

In my first scenario, when the fetus was harmed or killed, it was the mother who was still considered to be the victim. Bill C-484 instead moves the mantle of victimhood from the mother to the fetus, and that's where the implicit personhood of the fetus comes in, and that's why this bill is such a dishonest piece of swill.

If Bill C-484's defenders were sincere about their concern for the women, they would happily reword that bill to refer simply to a "fetus" and to extra punishment for the offender. But that's not what this is all about, is it? It's about passing a bill that very carefully and very deliberately pushes the concept of personhood and victimhood from the mother to the fetus, and that's why this is all about abortion rights and nothing else.

And that's why people like Peter Csillag and SUZANNE are such lying douchebags. But it's not like you needed me to point that out, did you?

Come on, SUZANNE, it's an easy question.

Let's ignore Suzie All-Caps' latest whinefest, and recall that recently I posed what should have been a simple question back here. And for Suzanne's benefit, I will present it again:

If SUZANNE truly supports Bill C-537 as she claims to, would she be perfectly all right with bringing her badly-injured child into emergency late one night, only to have the single attending doctor decide that, for whatever reason he wanted, he just didn't feel like treating that child?

As you can see, that's a painfully straightforward question, and begs for a simple yes-or-no answer. Should we take any bets that SUZANNE will struggle mightily to not answer it, or change the subject, or shift the goalposts, or misrepresent the words, or ... well, you get the idea.

It's really quite entertaining to observe how people who can see the world in stark black-and-white morality some of the time are utterly incapable of answering a simple question at other times.

Had you noticed that? I'd noticed that.

Brane Hurts...

Got kidnapped by a couple of micro-biologists after work. There was much beer. I asked who was going to go see Expelled. I bet their tummies hurt from laughing too. We did agree that Excreted was a more apt title.

Now me nurse hangover. Owie.

Because I care, that's why.

"Right Girl" Wendy "Conservative Girls are Hot" Sullivan demonstrates that she understands her readership during a current fundraiser.

Let me dispel the suspense:

There. I just saved you twenty bucks. Now get back to work.

Steve Janke and dead, sodomized hookers? Hey, I'm just sayin'.

Among the intellectual drop cases known collectively as the "Blogging Tories," Steve Janke has a reputation of being some kind of crack, investigative journalistic sleuth. Why that is is a complete mystery since it would be hard to find anyone quite as sleazy or irresponsible as the Premature Ejankulator™.

First and foremost among his numerous failings is his perpetual tendency to avoid making direct claims or accusations, preferring instead to circle his target warily and carefully smear with slimy innuendo while retaining just enough plausible deniability to protect himself.

Macleans' Kady O'Malley (unintentionally, I'm sure) made reference to that here when she lowered the boom on Steve:

Janke has painstakingly cut and pasted the names of hundreds of Elections Canada employees, which he dredged up from the government online directory, GEDS, as part of his continuing effort to throw suspicion on the motivations of the agency, and the way that the raid into Conservative headquarters was carried out by the RCMP.

Conspicuously absent from the list, he notes, is Andre Thouin - the Elections Canada official who braved the throng of cameras outside Conservative Party headquarters, banker box in hand, and ended up playing a starring role in the subsequent news coverage.

All right, then ... so Steve is about to unleash a devastating indictment of corruption? Or something like it? In a word, no.

Not surprisingly, Janke finds this to be at least a little bit suspicious, although he does note that it is a 'minor point'.

Yes, that would be vintage Janke -- bring your readers to the edge of excitement, then quickly back away with something like, "Of course, this could be nothing. But I would be remiss in not bringing it to your attention, anyway."

This is, of course, Janke's standard M.O., and you can see it in action back here, where I described how the Ejankulator painstakingly analyzed some of Stephane Dion's spending, only to eventually admit that, well, OK, it might be nothing after all. But, hey, it sure was fun dragging Dion's name through the mud while it lasted.

And recently, Janke was at it again. After apparently building a case against Elections Canada, is Janke finally about to lower the boom and accuse someone somewhere of some kind of malfeasance? Well, no:

So is all this an innocent mistake? At the heart of it, possibly.

In other words, after the suspenseful buildup, Steve wants to make sure you don't think he's, you know, actually accusing anyone of anything. But isn't it fun to speculate?

Sure, Steve, why not? Unfounded speculation is always such a hoot. Which brings us to Janke and his possible obsession with dead hookers and anal sex. Now, let's be clear, I'm not saying that Janke makes a habit of murdering prostitutes and sodomizing their still warm corpses. But you just never know. Am I drawing unwarranted conclusions? Possibly. But come on, think about it -- Steve lives in Ontario, dead hookers occasionally show up in Ontario. Coincidence? Perhaps. I don't want to jump to conclusions here but, hey, I'm just sayin'.

It's probably nothing. Maybe.

Kate McMillan: Hacktacular!

There's the setup:

then there's the inevitable, humongous towel snap to the nads.

I'm thinking of numbering my smackdowns from now on, just to save time.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

There’s ignorant and misogynistic …

And then there’s our gal Susie ALL-CAPS. Let’s just "shorter" this steaming pile of drooling, fetus-humping, hypocritical bullshit, shall we?

Feminists are bad, bad, bad. They're soooooooooooo bad that I feel perfectly justified in comparing them to white supremacists and 18th century slave owners. Now that’s bad.

Hey SUZANNE ... I’ve got a dirty F-word for you — fuck off. Seriously. Because your blatant contempt for women who have the unmitigated gall to think for themselves makes any argument you might put forward worth exactly nothing.

Right-wing humour, as it were.

Apparently, impending starvation is a real knee-slapper. I guess making fun of dead Jews is old news by now.

Feel free to connect the dots.

Canadian IDiot Denyse O'Leary is a big fan of the movie "Expelled" and its producer Mark Mathis.

Mark Mathis is an ignorant, dishonest little douchebag.

I'll leave you to work out the rest for yourself.

The stupid must be contagious.

Apparently, a small number of Blogging Tories have their tampons in a twist over a recent court ruling right here in K-W that ... oh, hell, let's let BT JoJo start things off:

HRC in the news again

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has ruled that Christian Horizons has violated the rights of a previous employee who had revealed that she was gay - Christians Horizons Rebuked (Record): ...

Personally, I'm on the fence on this one. If this was a case of a Catholic parish hiring a staff member who turned out to be gay, would they have the right to ask that person to resign?

Would they be forced to hire an openly gay person even if it conflicts with the church dogma?

It certainly indicative of the ongoing dichotomy between freedom of religion vs. the state.

Whatever. Now let's check in on Victor over at the Phantom Observer, who writes a reasonable post, only to get infested by drooling retards like Shane from The Politic among others. And everyone has a good old time agonizing over religious freedom and coercion and Christian compassion, while no one has the sense God gave a Tupperware bowl to notice the most relevant detail at the original Record article:

Christian Horizons rebuked
Employer ordered to compensate fired gay worker, abolish code of conduct

A provincially-funded Christian group ...

And right there is where you can stop reading since that tells you everything you need to know. "Provincially-funded." As in, with public tax dollars; therefore, subject to all provincial laws. End of discussion. And just in case you missed that, we have (emphasis added):

The agency, which was started by a local couple in 1965, is now the largest of its kind in Ontario. It's funded almost entirely by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and has a payroll in excess of $63 million, according to Revenue Canada.

Public money. Taxpayer money. Your money and my money; therefore, subject to provincial laws. One would think this wouldn't be a difficult concept, and yet we have commenter Shane (emphasis added):

The part I have a problem with is the injunction to prevent a private company from operating with a code of conduct.

Holy fuck, Shane. What part of "provincially-funded" left you behind? Honestly, it's almost painful to read this stuff and try to imagine the thinking that went on behind it. Excuse me while I take a break and go sit outside in the sun. The stupid is finally getting to me.

LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING. The fact that a religious organization is getting public money is not, in itself, a problem, as long as that money is clearly being used for secular purposes. Situations like that generally require a very careful keeping of the books, to ensure that public funds and church funds never meet.

In addition, it's also essential that the secular activity follow all relevant laws and regulations, such as fair employment laws and so on. It's when the church lets its dogma spill over into the public activity that there's going to be trouble, and that's precisely what happened here.


Just go.

Bill C-537, and the Suzie All-Caps challenge.

Not surprisingly, fetus obsessive-compulsive SUZANNE is all about Bill C-537:

In the wake of the introduction of Bill C-537, a law to protect conscience rights of health workers who do not wish to perform medical procedures that are against their beliefs, the usual suspects-- feminists-- have been condemning this bill as an attack against "choice".

Let us not get into the details of C-537. Let us, instead, give Suzie credit for understanding the Pandora's box that this would open:

"But," some might opine: "what if he didn't want to see your children out of religious conviction?"

Exactly, but let's not stop there. Why should a medical provider need a "religious" reason to refuse to treat someone? Would that be the only legitimate criteria under this new law? Why? Why should religion get preferential treatment as the exclusive defense for refusing medical treatment?

If the defenders of Bill C-537 want to be logically consistent, they should be prepared to defend the notion that medical care could then be denied for any personal reason whatsoever -- racism, sexism, the fact that someone stole your parking spot at the Multiplex last week and you're just really, really hacked off with them. If religion is an acceptable defense, then anything else should be equally valid, no? But back to Suzie, because here's where things get a bit dangerous:

"But," some might opine: "what if he didn't want to see your children out of religious conviction?"

Then I don't want to see him! I'm not going to stop that doctor from helping others just because he has an issue with what I would like for him to do.

If he's a Muslim doctor who doesn't like to look at women, or a Jehovah's Witness who won't perform blood transfusions (my daughter is having surgery soon and I will be having a C-section,so these are possibilities), then fine-- don't. They can help other people.

Wow. Let's give Suzie credit, at least she understands what's at stake here: the right for any doctor to refuse to give medical care for personal reasons. And Suzie seems prepared to defend that. Or is she?

Let's imagine, if we can, that one of Suzie's kids is in a nasty accident, and is brought into emergency bleeding profusely. Not immediately life-threatening -- nothing some quick stitching and a transfusion can't fix, but time is of the essence and the clock is ticking.

However, the doctor on call just isn't interested. Maybe he has legitimate religious reasons which, we should emphasize, Suzie has already announced that she's good with. Or maybe the reason has nothing to do with religion. Maybe he's just tired, or maybe he doesn't want to be interrupted watching "The Daily Show" in the doctors' lounge. Or maybe he knows Suzie personally, and just plain doesn't like her. For whatever reason, while Suzie's kid is lying on a stretcher bleeding out, the only doctor on call in emergency that night decides he's going to take a pass on this one. Do you think Suzie would be good with that?

Because that's what's at stake here. Naturally, dishonest hacks like Suzie will be the first to tell you that that's different. No, it's not. If wanks like Suzie want to give medical professionals the right to opt out of providing medical care for personal reasons, then they need to go the distance and give that freedom to everyone for any reason.

Suzie's already admitted that she'd defend a Muslim doctor who refused to treat her daughter, but I'm guessing she only really thought far enough ahead to consider non-emergency procedures for which she can always find an alternative provider (and isn't that a risky assumption in these times?). But if she wants to go down that road, then she should be prepared to extend the same flexibility to doctors in emergency situations.

So, how about it, all you C-537 fans? Is that where you want to end up? Or are we going to be treated to yet another annoying demonstration of, "But that's different!" Because, somehow, when it comes to you whiny hypocrites, it always is, isn't it?

Today’s Sign of the Apocalypse.

Wherein LuLu is actually too shocked for snark.

If fans of Hitler held a party, and a candidate for federal office attended, would anybody notice?

Apparently, yes.

U.S. Congressional candidate Tony Zirkle is facing criticism from one of his primary opponents, and a host of people on the Internet, for speaking at an event over the weekend that celebrated Adolf Hitler's birthday. Zirkle confirmed to The News-Dispatch on Monday he spoke Sunday in Chicago at a meeting of the Nationalist Socialist Workers Party, whose symbol is a swastika.

When asked if he was a Nazi or sympathized with Nazis or white supremacists, Zirkle replied he didn't know enough about the group to either favor it or oppose it. "This is just a great opportunity for me to witness," he said, referring to his message and his Christian belief.

I’m not sure you want to describe your speech to a group of Neo-Nazis masquerading as white activists (Is there a difference? I can’t see a difference) as a “great opportunity”. But worry not, kids, Zirkle had good reason for making with the crazy.

The Crown Point Republican spoke in front of about 56 "white activists" at an event honoring the birth of Hitler. The German leader was responsible for the genocide of millions of Jews and others during World War II.

Zirkle said the group asked him to speak to discuss the effect of pornography and prostitution on young, white women and girls.

I guess all those young, non-white women and girls can just fuck off. Of course, he might've just been there for the cake.

At the event, Hitler's birthday was observed with a cake with a photo of Hitler and the words "Seig Heil."

Awwwwwwww — isn’t that sweet? Seriously, these people aren’t even trying to hide the fact that they're crazier than the average shithouse rat anymore.

(h/t to the good Dr.Dawg)

Unfounded, perky optimism, SDA-style.

And over at Kate's Aryan Roadhouse and BBQ Palace, Kate is all moist over one Gen. David Petraeus and how he's finally getting the props he deserves:

And how is that "surge" going, Kate? Uh oh ...

The surge must go on, Petraeus to tell Congress

The Bush administration's most senior advisers on Iraq, the commander of US forces, General David Petraeus, and the ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, will launch a new drive today to defer any exit of troops until April 2008 amid growing doubts about their credibility in Congress and among the public.

In two days of testimony before Congress, Gen Petraeus and Mr Crocker will make the case for the White House that America should maintain the current strategy and force levels in Iraq.

Because nothing says "surge" like, well, continuing to surge. Over and over. Again and again. Repeatedly.

Check back in 2013 when Kate will be happy to report that we're just about to turn the corner in Iraq. And light at the end of the tunnel. And they're just a bunch of desperate dead-enders. And ... and ...

Fuck, I really need more of a challenge here, don't I?

: Pete Wehner gives this whole plan a "thumbs up." And, after all, Pete should know.

. You have to love how the vaunted surge is being framed in the context of having been proposed "in the face of gale force political winds." Really? Is that how it happened? Political opposition only? I beg to differ (emphasis added):

White House, Joint Chiefs At Odds on Adding Troops

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

Well, isn't that special? Even the Joint Chiefs of Staff thought the idea sucked. And Kate? Once again, the pathological dishonesty. It just never ends, does it?

No, it doesn't.

Just when you thought they couldn't get any dumber ...

Here at CC HQ, we thought we were just having harmless fun mocking The Politic commenter Charles Anthony:

By the way, I genuinely believe the world is 10,000 years old AND I believe in natural selection. I just do not believe we come from apes.

As God is my witness, we had no idea that Mr. Anthony is not simply another Bible-whomping, scientifically illiterate, ignorant yahoo. Oh, no ... Mr. Anthony is actually a contributing blogger over there.

The Politic
: because ... because ...

I got nuthin'.

Fanfare for the common wank.

Canadian IDiot Denyse O'Leary wants you to know that she's fed up to here with all that fancy-schmancy book larnin' of you hoity toities:

Would you go to see a film about a pregnant New York waitress from a deprived background - estranged from her family, dumped by her lover, fired for being late, and about to arrange an abortion? Really?

Um ... no, not really. Not unless I knew a bit more about it. That's not really enough to go on, Denyse. Why do you ask?

If you said no, you would certainly be affirmed in your decision by critics at the top Entertainment sections.

OK, that might be good enough for me. My time is limited so I'm more than willing to take advice. What's your point, Denyse?

But then Bella stunned film mavens by winning the Toronto Film Festival People's Choice Award. Audiences have since made Bella a popular, award-winning - and well-rewarded - movie.

Well, good for it. Are you going somewhere with this, Denyse? Ah ... yes, you are:

There is currently an enormous cultural divide between elite culture and popular culture in North America, and film's future rests with popular culture. To understand what will happen next for Expelled, ignore the derision of the elite; note whether people "with jobs" go see the film.

Because the true test of the value of Ben Stein's "Expelled" movie is not whether the educated "elite" like it; no, it's whether it sells well to the scientifically illiterate Lumpentariat who are, of course, the appropriate judges of what qualifies as acceptable scientific theory.

Frankly, Denyse, I'm not comfortable with your average, badly-educated yob with a job being asked to decide what is valid science and what isn't. We've already seen what happens when rubes like that get their hands on the levers of government and, well, it's just not a pretty sight, is it?

What the average person on the street thinks is perfectly acceptable when you're asking them about whether the Kitchener Rangers are going to win their next game. "Yeah, Rangers rock, dude! Fuckin' A! Whoo hoo!" It's not acceptable when you're asking them to pass judgment on the scientific validity of biological evolution. 'Cuz, quite simply, most of them are just not up to the task.

I'm sorry ... was that "elitist?"


It is not hard to see why “Bella,” a saccharine trifle directed by Alejandro Monteverde, won the People’s Choice Award at the 2007 Toronto International Film Festival. This is a movie that wears its bleeding heart on its sleeve and loves its characters to distraction. Nothing — not even significant plot glitches and inconsistencies — is allowed to get in the way of its bear-hugging embrace of sweetness and light...

If “Bella” (the title doesn’t make sense until the last scene) is a mediocre cup of mush, the response to it suggests how desperate some people are for an urban fairy tale with a happy ending, no matter how ludicrous.

Pardon me while I go get my insulin.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

And while we're on the topic, Chuck ...

From today's Calgary Herald:

We don't want to subsidize porn

Charles McVety, For the Calgary Herald
Published: Sunday, April 20, 2008

Really, Chuck? Well, I don't want to subsidize religion:

So, Chuck, howzabout you yank the fucking log out of your own eye before bitching about the speck in mine?

This is delicious.

I love the smell of scandal in the morning — it smells like fun.

The fretting in Conservative circles Monday expanded beyond what was in the unsealed Elections Canada warrant into what new avenues into unknown controversies have been opened up by investigators.

Conservatives who have scattered from official Ottawa during what is supposed to be a break week burned up telephone lines and shared damage assessments following the raid at the party's headquarters last week.

But it gets soooooooo much better (as always, emphasis gleefully added).

One Conservative said the concern is not that Elections Canada would find evidence of anything illegal - but that it could uncover material that would embarrass the government or party. A government manual on how to obstruct parliamentary committees that caused no end of embarrassment when it was leaked to the press last year is one example of legal-but-embarrassing flotsam that can surface.

Conservative campaign boss Doug Finley has become renowned among partisans for similar hardball tactics. Conservatives now fear other plays from the Finley handbook may fall into the wrong hands. "We've done some stuff that's not really problematic, but it's not something I'd necessarily want Elections Canada or reporters getting their hands on," a government official said.

Let’s just savour that for a moment, shall we? Not really problematic. Don’t you just love the way Big Daddy and his merry band of in-and-out specialists (doesn't that sound diirrrrtttttyyyyy) parse their sentences? As more and more CPoC rocks get turned over, I think we can safely say that all kinds of fun, slimey things are going to slither out. Popcorn?

Half a year later, and still stupid as hell.

Over at BDT's (Brain-Damaged Tory's), commenter "wilson" emulates the intellectual tenacity of, well, a volleyball when he coughs up this hairball:

# wilson Says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 am

Read it Gayle, I would be most interested in what you think of Dion’s in and out, how you will explain it away.
Why you don’t think he should be investigated by EC .

Liberals escaped EC charges under Adscam due to a time limit technicality, but not under this recent EC attack. if CPC is guilty, Libs are guilty.

Oh. Yawn.


Because even dishonest hacks have a right to blog.

Like, say, this doofus:

First, let’s just cover some of the basics. The Tories did nothing wrong. They broke no rules. They have conducted themselves the same way all other parties do.

And your substantiation for that, apart from your adorable spittle-flecked enthusiasm, would be ... ah:

Don’t believe me? Well, maybe some of the pinkos out there will believe Robin Sears, the NDP’s national director from 1974 to 1981:

“…central parties have always transferred money to help out local candidates and they’ve always asked local candidates to help pay a share of national advertising.

“I have a hard time understanding what it is, beyond what everybody’s always done, that (the Tories) are being accused of here,” Sears said in an interview.

“To claim that national and local expenditures were always rigorously divided and it was a very clear definition of what fell into which camp, it’s just bullshit.”"

Well, that certainly convinces me and I believe we can put this whole issue to rest and ... hey ho! What's this? Let's continue on to the very next paragraph at that link, shall we?

In an odd twist, Sears has since become a spokesman for prime minister Brian Mulroney concerning the former prime minister's dealings with businessman Karlheinz Schreiber

How ... amusing. And how convenient that DBT would stop quoting precisely where he did. I'm sure it was just a coincidence. But the real entertainment starts on the very next line (emphasis added):

Sears said he's not familiar with the details of the current election spending controversy.

And who better to quote as an authority on the topic than someone who publicly admits that he's "not familiar with the details"? Isn't that just the person you want to use as corroboration?

Y'all excuse me while I wander over to Denyse O'Leary's, for the obvious increase in intellectual level.