Canada, academic "bias," and complete and utter BS.

I did say I was going to get around eventually to dealing with accusations of academic imbalance and liberal indoctrination in colleges and universities here in Canada, so today might as well be the day. And for this exercise, we are going to slowly and lovingly disembowel one Barbara Kay, whose Dec. 2004 piece in the National Post is such a delightfully vapid piece of idiocy, I may not have to address this issue again for quite some time. Feel free to bring up another window and follow along.

Kay sets the tone early with the title of her article, "Propaganda in the classroom," which certainly suggests that this whole issue is not open to debate, no sir, there's nasty stuff going down in Canada's hallways of higher education and, by God, Kay is going to show you just where it is. None of this namby-pamby "bias" nonsense for Kay -- she goes straight for the "propaganda" label so you figure she's done her homework and has the goods, right?

Until you read her first sentence:

Today's column is in part an amateur poll on intellectual harassment in our universities.

Excuse me? So, within her opening sentence, Kay manages to crank up the sensationalism factor even further with suggestions of "harassment," and yet ... and yet ... she now admits that what she's really doing is, in part, taking a survey. For what? Bias in the classroom? She's asking now?? Gosh, you'd think she might have actually done that research before writing her article, no? That's sort of the way most reporters work, but Kay is apparently above that sort of tedium. Think I'm being overly snarky? Read the rest of the opening paragraph, gloriously verbatim:

I'm asking Canada's future educators and lawmakers -- students in, or recent grads from, the humanities and social sciences -- if they're being ideologically brainwashed by their professors. So without further ado: Do you see a balanced ideological perspective in your courses? Does your professor direct you to alternative points of views? Is dissent or diversity of opinion encouraged in discussion? Are Judeo-Christian perspectives denigrated or mocked? Are grades a reflection of the merit of your arguments or conformity with the professor's ideology?

So many delightfully leading questions and, as you'll see shortly, so little actual evidence to answer any of them. On to paragraph two:

There are already numerous published surveys, polls and journal articles on the indoctrination of students by academics, ...

All right, evidence coming right up. Can't wait. Here it comes ...

... but none deal with Canadian universities.

Damn it! (Said with best impression of Stewie from "Family Guy".) So, to recap Kay's position: There's propaganda! Actually, no there isn't, that's why I'm asking. Wait, there are studies! But not involving Canada. You can only hope it gets better. And, sadly, you'll be disappointed:

[The studies] all catalogue the near-monolithic domination of the academy by leftists in the United States.

Oh, please, please, dear God, please, provide some evidence for that claim.

For example, one recent study shows that amongst American university teachers, Democrats outnumber Republicans 15 to one. That's on average. In anthropology, Democrats cast 30 votes for every one Republican. Similar results doubtless apply in the faculties of sociology, education, English literature, and women's studies (probably more like 1,000 to one there).

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Oh, damn ... I think I just wet myself. There is, of course, absolutely no reference given for this "recent study," but it might just be the same one I eviscerated back here, which was a thorougly dishonest piece of crap. And if you think Kay has embarrassed herself sufficiently, well, sweetie, you ain't seen nothing yet, as Kay continues:

Voting stats aside, there is evidence that leftist views play out in propagandist behaviours. A survey by The American Council of Trustees and Alumni finds almost half of students are exposed to only one ideological viewpoint, with teachers sanctioning none but their political views in class. An ACTA spokesperson comments: "If this were a survey of students reporting widespread sexual harassment, there would be an uproar."

Ah, yes ... ACTA. Worthless hacks. Go read. Moving on, to where Kay finally just shreds what little is left of her credibility by praising the work of (oh, Lord, you know who's coming, don't you?):

American conservatives are fighting back. The most dynamic amongst them is fiercely anti-Marxist crusader David Horowitz, founder of FrontPageMagazine.com.

Words fail me, they really do. I'm not even going to comment on this; interested readers are welcome to go back through the CC archives to see what kind of despicable, lying slime David Horowitz is. I just don't have the enthusiasm for it anymore.

Not surprisingly, the rest of Kay's piece is just as vacuous and dishonest. For corroboration, she refers to research by University of British Columbia philosophy professor Andrew Irvine, but fails to mention his participation in Canada's right-wing Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship, which is the kind of disclosure some readers might find enlightening.

Kay also bolsters her case by citing University of of Toronto psychology professor John Furedy and, oh, look, here he is, too. What an adorably closed club we have here -- just another right-wing echo chamber. Isn't that cute? To be fair, Kay does finally refer to the SAFS organization toward the end of the article, without actually mentioning Irvine's or Furedy's assocation.

But it's the last paragraph where Kay, as she did at the beginning, has to admit she has no evidence, and is reduced to begging her readers for proof:

So students (and parents), please send me your responses. Confidentiality is assured. Validate my keen assessment, or shame me for my wildly off-the-mark rush to judgment: It's your call. Survey 101 results TBA.

This might be a bit late, but I have some advice I'd like to pass on to Kay. Do your own damned research, and stop asking your readers to do it for you. It's called "being a journalist." You should try it.

BY THE WAY: When one writes an article praising an organization, it's generally considered good form to reveal one's connections to said organization. Conflict of interest, disclosure, that sort of thing. Which suggests that Kay might have wanted to mention, even in passing, her dealings with SAFS located by Google, some of which are listed here. (Note: one of those links is actually a wonderfully snarky putdown of Kay's work, so you can't hold all of those links against her.)

And, no, I'm not done with these people. In my next installment, we'll discuss the results of Kay's survey.

FOLLOWUP: Here.

The power of PowerPoint.

Following up on a recent comment, we have this.

Those were the days.

Remember way back (it seems like such a long time ago, doesn't it?) when Commander George W. Chimpster was crowing about his massive, overwhelming election victory:

Bush staked his claim to a broad mandate and announced his top priorities at a post-election news conference, saying his 3.5 million vote victory had won him political capital that he would spend enacting his conservative agenda.

"I earned capital in this campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it," Bush told reporters. "It is my style."

Yeah, you couldn't turn over a rock without finding a conservative crowing about how magnificent was this 51% to 48% devastating smackdown of John Kerry. 51%. You just couldn't escape the incessant bragging, could you?

And now, with Chimpy's numbers going down faster than porn star Mary Carey at a Republican fundraiser, funny how the administration just isn't talking about polls and percentages any more. Fancy that.

BY THE WAY: For those of you with visual fixations.

"As It Happens" and the 9/11 hijackers myth.

Did anyone else catch the CBC's "As It Happens" last night? Driving home, I just caught the last snippet of an interview in which the guest was talking about border security and claimed that some 11 of the 9/11 hijackers entered the U.S. through Canada, a myth that has been thoroughly debunked by now.

To her credit, the host was moderately aggressive in disagreeing with that claim, saying something like "I'm pretty sure that's not true." Personally, I would have preferred a response something like, "You are an ignorant dick and total wanker, and I'm going to cut you off before you say something even stupider." But I'll take what I can get.

Are show transcripts available online somewhere? From the brief clip I heard, it sounded like the guest might have been one of these volunteer, border patrol Minutemen assholes,

The Terri Schiavo watch: Day 5,621.

Man, some folks never give up, do they? Over here at WingNutDaily, they just won't let it go:

Challenging the assumptions of many analysts and news reports [Ed: and competent physicians and, well, pretty much anyone who isn't a total moron], an attorney who specializes in medical ethics cases points out the autopsy report of Terri Schiavo indicates the brain-injured woman might have been cognizant of her surroundings as her family insisted...

"It is very possible that she remained cognizant of sounds and other things without being able to communicate," Ward said. "It's possible Terri was aware of everything being done to her -- yet could do little to make people aware that she was there."

A bit of advice to the right-wing wankersphere: Let. It. Go. Please, for God's sake, just let it go. One can only fantasize that you folks showed one-tenth this amount of compassion for the prisoners who were tortured and, in some cases, beaten to death in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo. Ah, but I forget -- they weren't white. Sorry, what was I thinking?

BONUS IDIOCY: Just in case you needed any more proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of these people, feast your eyes on this delightful morsel of illogic:

[Jerri Lynn] Ward also challenges analysts who insist there was no abuse, pointing out the report does not rule out that possibility.

The autopsy report says, rather, that the medical examiner could not detect any evidence.

In other words, despite the fact that there was no evidence of abuse whatsoever, well, you can't prove that it didn't happen, can you? The mind just reels, doesn't it?

Time for an office pool, I think.

So, who's going to have their web site up and active first? Our wankers, or their wankers? Place your bets.

Oh, man ... back into the anti-Semitism brouhaha.

What he said. Exactly what he said. And I'll have some of my own thoughts on this later.

The Rachel Marsden watch: Totally gratuitous sidebar.

Just FYI, it seems somewhat timely to point out that our Ms. Marsden's work experience includes being fired by none other than stressed-out Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal, which leads one to wonder: Just how untouchably radioactive do you have to be to be fired by Gurmant Grewal?

Just asking.

The Rachel Marsden watch: Jesus, is it worth it?

Once upon a time back here, I advertised a new, regular feature here at CC HQ -- the Rachel Marsden watch, devoted to critiquing the punditry of Canadian right-wing banshee Rachel Marsden. (You remember Marsden, right? She's the conservative pundit whose journalistic claims to fame include trying to look sexy by stealing Julia Roberts' body.)

Well, it's been a bit busy lately and, now that I finally got the chance to re-visit Marsden's output over at her web site, I have to admit, I really don't see much value in this exercise anymore for the simple reason that Marsden's writings are so shrill and infantile, dissecting them intellectually would be akin to sandblasting a soup cracker. Seriously, follow along here and tell me if I'm wrong.

Given that my original piece was written on June 4, it seemed only fair to pick up where I left off and check out her column in the National Post on that same date. And, Jesus Christ, what a piece of absolute crap it turned out to be, where one need only read the first paragraph to realize that total rubbish isn't far behind:

I recently moved to Toronto from the tabloid-driven metropolis of Vancouver, where everyone is far more interested in who you’re doing than in what you’re doing. Vancouver is a town full of sandal-wearing, granola-chomping lefties that doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is: Slackerville. Business is dead, and networking is virtually non-existent. And I don’t care what the government stats tell you about employment levels. They must be factoring squeegee kid jobs into those numbers. So it’s hardly a shock that many people I know from Vancouver have given up the ooh-aaah of the pretty Left Coast mountains for the booming job opportunities in Toronto.

Note first that Marsden has the same literary writing habit as so many other conservative wanks before her -- everything in her world is one of exactly two colours, and there is no middle ground or qualification whatsoever. Note how, in Vancouver, "everyone is far more interested in who you’re doing than in what you’re doing." Not most people, not many people, oh no, "everyone".

Staying in that vein, we are told that Vancouver is "a town full of sandal-wearing, granola-chomping lefties that doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is: Slackerville." It's apparently unthinkable that the city might have a variety of inhabitants with a variety of lifestyles. To Marsden, it's apparently just full of Slackerville hippies. And, naturally, business is "dead." Not slow or struggling or unimpressive or anything subtle or nuanced like that. No, just "dead." Apparently, la Marsden doesn't do subtlety or nuance, it being perhaps unpleasantly, intellectually taxing.

And if you think it gets any better, well, carry on to the second paragraph to read:

If you’re a media personality like myself and you’re living in Vancouver, you may as well be in Siberia. Vancouver media people — navel-gazers who naturally figure they’re the center of the universe — are unaware of their own backwater insignificance in much the same way that fish don’t know they’re wet.

See how that works? Not just some media people, or even perhaps most of them -- nope, it's all of them. Clearly, there's no room in Marsden's universe for anything but 100%, unqualified observations about damned near everything. There's a word to describe this type of writing: lazy. But that's just the warm-up.

Not much further down, Marsden continues to gratuitously insult entire swaths of society, writing:

Toronto has a special breed of lefty that Vancouver lacks in significant numbers: rich intellectual snoots who think they can buy their way into Club Conservative. Yes, I’m talking about you, all you Rosedale and Forest Hill elitist snobs with 20 letters after your name, who bastardize the “conservative” label. It’s time to hop aboard the Marsden Tough Talk Express.

And, oh Lord, can you believe that Marsden is so childish that she actually invents a bad-ass proper name for her writing -- the "Marsden Tough Talk Express"? Of course, there's nothing particularly original about this; loudmouth members of the right-wing wankersphere have a grand tradition of this sort of idiocy.

You have Bill O'Reilly and his "O'Reilly Factor," where one enters "The No-Spin Zone." Oooooooh. There's total dickhead Joe Scarborough who's such a stud, he hangs out in "Scarborough Country." Chris Matthews? Well, don't mess with that muthah, 'cuz he plays "Hardball". And on, and on and tediously on -- self-appointed, kick-ass names for some of the biggest wimps and whiners on the planet, now joined by Marsden and her "Tough Talk Express." Big fucking whoop.

But it's in her last paragraph that Marsden demonstrates just how incredibly childish she is:

So why did I move to Toronto and not to a more conservative town like Calgary? Toronto is where the action is. It’s the biggest possible pot of liberals and faux-cons in this country in which to raise holy hell. Apparently, fighting on behalf of the traditional values on which our society was founded is a really rebellious thing to do nowadays. Contrary to liberal conventional wisdom, it’s conservatives who really love this country — who are defending all the good things that underpin our society — while the lefties hate this country so much that they can’t change it fast enough. Now, you tell me who’s really “scary” here.

So, conservatives love Canada while left-liberals all hate it. This is so perfectly, so beautifully, Ann Coulter that it's a wonder Coulter doesn't sue Marsden for copyright infringement or something. It's been said that Marsden is just a cheap, knock-off Ann Coulter-wannabe, but who would have thought she'd be so sleazy as to just steal Coulter's whole shtick of slamming liberals in their entirety?

In the end, it's not how someone as worthless and pathetic a writer as Marsden got so famous that's such a puzzle. Rather, what's curious is why the Post decided that Marsden's shit was worth a twice-weekly column. Really, what audience is the Post going after with her? Do they really think there's a mass market for crappy, right-wing, childish dreck like Marsden's?

And, finally getting to my point, is there much point in even bothering with it?

The War on Terror: Oh, those adorable College Republicans.

Following a link from the Rude One, we have the delightfully pro-war (in the sense of "as long as everyone else does the dying in it") College Republicans, describing how Commander Chimpy is such a muthahfuckin' stud when it comes to the War on Terror:

President Bush has outlined three commitments in America’s new approach to peace in the world, and we have found successful results:

* President Bush is defending the peace by taking the fight to the terrorists ...

Um ... well, that sounds just peachy, except for the fact that, back in 2003, that same stud said the following:

We're helping to train civil defense forces to keep order, and an Iraqi police service to enforce the law, a facilities protection service, Iraqi border guards to help secure the borders, and a new Iraqi army.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong but it does seem a bit contradictory to, on the one hand, brag that you're taking the fight right to the terrorists, only to turn around and "secure the borders" to make sure they can't get to you.

One would think that Chimpy, rather than trying to keep those bad old terrorists at a distance, would be throwing open the Iraqi borders and inviting those same terrorists to "Come on down!" or "Bring it on!" or ... Oh, wait. He tried that last part, didn't he? Didn't work out so well, did it?

Terri Schiavo: And isn't this an embarrassing development?

You know, you can only hope that there are a few slightly red faces in the right-wing wankersphere this morning after the release of the autopsy report on Terri Schiavo:

An autopsy on Terri Schiavo backed her husband's contention that she was in a persistent vegetative state, finding that she had massive and irreversible brain damage and was blind, the medical examiner's office said Wednesday. It also found no evidence that she was strangled or otherwise abused.

Wow. I'll bet that "blind" part comes as a bit of a shock to Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R - Political Opportunism) who, from a cursory viewing of a Schiavo videotape, suggested that she "certainly seems to respond to visual stimuli." Oopsie.

And, gosh, what will all those wankers do with their Terri-related blogrolls? Suggestions? Perhaps ... oh, i don't know ... get a fucking life or something?

BY THE WAY: There's a certain irony in Frist's crocodile tears over Terri Schiavo, given his contempt towards other forms of life when he was a med student.

DEPRESSING UPDATE: Well, you just knew that some folks weren't going to be convinced. How pathetic is this?

An online poll you'll really want to make a mess of.

Apparently, those lovable scamps over at MarriageReferendum.ca have an online poll, asking whether you support the notion of same-sex marriage. Why not drop by and let them know what you think?

(By the way, anyone there look familiar?)

Continuing fun and games at Media Bias Watch.

Still filling dead air over at MBW.

New York Times screws up, publishes actual facts.

From Kevin Drum, we learn that, God help us all, someone over at the NYT managed to sneak a few actual facts regarding Social Security into a news piece.

I'm sure someone at the Times will give reporter Stout a stern talking-to, and we won't see that kind of irresponsible, America-hating journalism again any time soon.

Gurmant Grewal and reality: not on the best of terms.

Apparently, the controversial Gurmant Grewal has a nasty habit of ... well, making shit up. Shocked, shocked, we are, by such revelations.

New blogroll coming one of these days.

Really. I promise. In my copious free time.

Some decisions just aren't that difficult.

Like this one:

Michael Jackson's website trumpeted his courtroom vindication Tuesday, linking it with such historic events as the birth of Martin Luther King, while his lawyer vowed his client will stop sharing his bed with young boys.

Well, duh.

Dear American Public Broadcasting fans: You are SO screwed.

You American Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) fans might want to start looking for alternatives for your objective news, given this:

June 14, 2005

Corporation for Public Broadcasting
401 9th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004-2129

Dear Board Members,

I was troubled to read in The Washington Post that former Republican National Committee co-chairwoman Patricia de Stacy Harrison is the "leading candidate" to be the next president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a position to which the CPB board of directors would appoint her.

As you know, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was established to shield American public broadcasting from political pressure. While Ms. Harrison has an impressive resume as a Republican activist and political appointee within the Bush administration, she lacks any experience in public broadcasting or independent journalism. I find it implausible that CPB chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson and your board cannot find a leading candidate who has the kind of extensive, relevant experience the position demands.

More troubling, by appointing a Republican activist to manage an organization designed to protect public broadcasting from political pressure, the board would be signaling to those who have treasured public broadcasting as a bastion of fairness and balance that it is now vulnerable to political manipulation. From Rush Limbaugh to the Fox News Channel, there is no shortage of conservative media in the United States. If CPB is committed to continuing to provide a nonpartisan alternative to such outlets, turning over the reins to a former co-chairwoman of the Republican Party is on odd way to accomplish that goal.

I urge you to find another candidate to lead CPB, hopefully one with more experience in public broadcasting than in partisan politics.

Sincerely,

David Brock

You do know what's actually happening here, right? Given a Republican CPB president, the CPB will inexorably begin to slant all of its programming to the right, alienating its current centrist and progressive listeners who will start tuning out in droves, driving down CPB's audience, at which point the Bush administration, citing CPB's dwindling audience, can justify slashing its funding.

See how that works? If you're a Republican, there's no need to explicitly get rid of the CPB. You just have to make it so awful that no one wants to listen to it anymore. Clever, no?

That gosh-darned American liberal media.

John over at AmericaBlog has it nicely nailed -- the Washington Post really has turned into a crappy paper. Between the Post and the New York Times' race to the bottom, American readers might take a minute to be grateful for papers like the Toledo Blade, who still understands what it means to do real news.

Canadian conservative values.

Uh oh ... apparently, all is not sweetness and light in the land of moral absolutes and brothers and sisters in Christ.

To all of you bickering, back-stabbing conservatives, I implore you -- put aside your petty differences and realize that, with all your minor disagreements, you still have in common the most important thing of all: You all hate gays. Surely that must count for something.

More Media Bias Watch stuff.

I wish the MediaBias folks would get it in gear already, so I don't have to keep writing stuff like this.

Another reason to really, really , REALLY hate Microsoft.

Because, according to John over at AmericaBlog, they've just decided to treat peace activists in China about the same way they finished treating gays.

Great. So not only do they make shitty software, now they're just dicks.

Well, isn't this precious?

I'm really looking forward to that grovelling, boot-licking apology from the right-wing wankersphere now that it's become painfully obvious that Commander Chimpy and his sock puppet, Tony Blair, knew the invasion of Iraq was illegal but went ahead with it anyway.

Come on, all you residents of Lower Wankerville. Not even a little apology? Just a teensy, weensy one, that's all. You'll feel better for it.

Off to the races.

No, really -- most of tomorrow will be spent at the bicycle races watching numerous guys and gals in colourful lycra ride very fast. I can't swear as to whether any of them will be Jewish but, if it means that much to you, I can always ask.

Exit strategy? We don' need no steenkin' exit strategy.

And the news for Commander Chimpy and his war-happy gang of neocons just gets better and better:

Faced with plummeting public support for the war in Iraq, a growing number of members of Congress from both parties are reevaluating the reasons for the invasion and demanding the Bush administration produce a plan for withdrawing US troops.

But ... but ... don't these people know that the insurgency is in its last throes? Really, Dick Cheney said so, and Dick Cheney wouldn't lie to you, would he?

A bipartisan group of House members is drafting a resolution that calls on the administration to present a strategy for getting the United States out of Iraq, reflecting an increasing restlessness about the war in a chamber that 2 1/2 years ago voted overwhelmingly to support the use of force in Iraq.

Whoa -- notice that word "bipartisan"? Yes, even some members of the GOP have finally had enough of this. It's not like you had to beat it into them or anything. And it's always nice to have someone in Chimpy's own party not mince words:

Representative Walter Jones of North Carolina, a conservative Republican who voted to authorize force, said his district is growing weary of a war that has cost the lives of more than 1,600 US troops and left more than 12,000 wounded.

''I'm hearing: 'How much do we have to do? We're giving blood. We're giving money. What is the final chapter for our involvement?' I think people are looking to the administration for an explanation, whether we have done all we can do," said Jones, whose district is home to 60,000 retired military personnel.

Jones said he felt misled by the administration on the reasons for the war because no weapons of mass destruction have been found. "If I knew [then] what I knew today, I would not have voted for the resolution," Jones said.

That's about as straightforward a condemnation as you can get, isn't it? One wonders if any members of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders (Canadian auxiliary) might be ready to admit they missed the boat entirely on this one. Apologies? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

P.S. Just FYI, I'll bet you had absolutely no idea that using the well-recognized term "neocon" was being anti-Semitic, did you? But there it is, straight from the keyboard of David Brooks:

We'd sit around the magazine guffawing at the ludicrous stories that kept sprouting, but belief in shadowy neocon influence has now hardened into common knowledge. Wesley Clark, among others, cannot go a week without bringing it up.

In truth, the people labeled neocons (con is short for "conservative" and neo is short for "Jewish") travel in widely different circles and don't actually have much contact with one another.

Apparently, then, if you use the adjective "neo" (meaning "Jewish"), you're being anti-Semitic. Or something like that. Therefore, in biological circles, describing someone as a "neo-Darwinist" means they're ... what? ... a Jewish evolutionist?

Hey, don't look at me. I just read it in the New York Times. Blame them.

Just how big a dick is Pete Rempel?

About this big. One suspects that Mr. Rempel, not wanting to cut into his wanking schedule too much, never bothered to read the entire series back here, including the comments, in which he'd find all sorts of subtleties and nuance and stuff like that there. Apparently, Mr. Rempel just doesn't do nuance, it being intellectually taxing and all that.

No, apparently, according to Mr. Rempel, I am such a virulent anti-Semite that he couldn't even bring himself to comment on it. Yep, that's me, all right -- ten pounds of anti-Semitism in a 5-pound bag given, over the many months I've had this blog, my overwhelming number of previous anti-Jewish postings which would number ... um, lessee here ... hey! Exactly zero. Ah, but who needs evidence or substantiation when you can just reel back in shock and feign completely bogus outrage, eh, Pete?

So, Pete, you can join the discussion if you have something meaningful to say. Or you can just be a dick. It's a tough choice, but one I suspect you've had to make before.

WEASEL BOY UPDATE! You know, I knew when I started this blog that, some day, it would all pay off in pure entertainment value. And, wouldn't you know it, today's the day. Look who joined the party -- Weasel Boy himself, with some delightfully inane comments. (And notice how he can't even seem to post a comment without somehow fucking that up. Too funny.)

Yes, go read how, according to WB, my smackdown of anti-evolution Intelligent Design here is, if you can believe it, just more evidence of my apparent anti-Semitism.

Man, this is funnier than the first round of Canadian Idol.

BY THE WAY: There's something moderately amusing about the selectivity of outrage on the parts of both Mr. Rempel and Weasel Boy. For instance, once upon a time, we had Kate of the blog Small Dead Animals suggesting that perhaps the best thing to do about the AIDS- or ebola-infected citizens of Angola might be to just "close the borders and let nature take its course."

Gosh, you might think that that suggestion could be ever so slightly racist, no? And yet, where's the outrage on the part of Mr. Rempel? And should we expect any sudden, animated condemnation of such racism from Weasel Boy? Let me give you some advice -- don't hold your breath.

OH, YAWN: Help yourself. So, let's sum up here. If we understand Mr. Rempel properly, explaining why Jewish writers writing wholly unsympathetic articles referring to Muslims being incarcerated in inhumane conditions and published in Jewish periodicals simply gives ammunition to people to defend their anti-Semitism: Bad. Very, very bad. Breathtakingly, jaw-droppingly bad.

On the other hand, Pete's buddy Kate suggesting quarantining an entire African nation and letting them die from disease: Apparently, not so bad.

Relativism, taken to a whole new level.

Sometimes, over-reacting just makes you look like a dick.

Priceless. The best part is where Ms. Darr actually admits, while she's whining to the FEC, that "I realize that the Commission lacks the jurisdiction to handle a threat issued to one commenter by another in the course of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ..."

That's right, Ms. Darr, you moron. So why are you wasting their time? I mean, besides just to bitch and moan about something.

SNARKY AFTERTHOUGHT: You know, the "threat" to minimize attendance at someone else's event sounds suspiciously like, you know, a boycott, doesn't it? And, as we all know, no one on the ideological right would ever stoop to such classless, sleazy strategies, would they?

U.S. missile defense: A bad idea, getting worse by the minute.

Did someone mention quality control?

An outside panel chartered by the Pentagon has concluded that the rush to deploy a national antimissile system last year led to shortfalls in quality controls and engineering procedures that could have better assured the system would work, according to the panel's final report.

Bent on meeting President Bush's deadline to install the first elements of the system by the end of 2004, Pentagon officials put schedule ahead of performance, the report says. Among risky shortcuts that were taken, the panel says, were insufficient ground tests of key components, a lack of specifications and standards, and a tendency to postpone resolution of nettlesome issues.

Some unintentional hilarity in the next short paragraph:

"Manage quality first and then schedule," the panel advises.

And we all know how well this administration takes advice.

The few, the proud ... the really fucking desperate.

Apparently, military recruiting in the U.S. is becoming kind of stressful.

"Hidden agendas" and right-wing media bias griping.

Until our new site Media Bias Watch really gets cranked up, we can still make fun of the right-wing whiners here at mediabias.ca, as we see just how hypocritical and inconsistent they can be.

For instance, note how annoyed they get about accusations regarding conservative "hidden agendas":

In one election after another, the national media have steered public opinion toward left-liberal parties. Last year, they accused Steve Harper [ed: "Steve"? Good buddies, are they?] and the Conservatives of pursuing a "hidden agenda" (which conveniently can't be shown to exist because it's "hidden") ...

So, accusing someone of having a "hidden agenda"? Apparently, unfair. Or ... maybe not, as we read in the next column:

In 2003, Fraser academics Lydia Miljan and Barry Cooper published a book analyzing the strong left-liberal bias of Canadian journalists ("Hidden Agendas": How Journalists Influence the News," UBC Press, $25).

Left hand, meet right hand.

UPDATE: OK, the first actual content has now gone up at Media Bias Watch. More to come, I'm sure. And we'll definitely be doing some work on the site layout in the near future.

Open thread.

Today's going to be busy. Feel free to pick up the slack, but play nice.

Sometimes, this is just too easy.

Remember the Republicans, getting their dicks in a knot about how all of Commander Chimpy's nominees deserved -- yes, by God, were entitied to -- a straight up-or-down vote since, as everyone knows, that's how democracy works?

Well, apparently, democracy is kind of a relative thing:

WHILE REPUBLICAN senators insist on prompt votes for every judicial nominee, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) has placed a "hold" on President Bush's nomination of Julie Finley as ambassador to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

... Mr. Brownback, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, as of last night was employing a parliamentary maneuver to block any Senate vote -- on the grounds that Mrs. Finley is pro-choice on abortion.

That's great -- a Republican senator blocking one of the President's nominees. And where is Senate majority leader Bill Frist (R - Kitty Murderer) in all of this?

"Are we going to step back from that principle?" the Tennessee Republican asked reporters. "The answer to that is 'no.'"

Senator Bill Frist: He's got principles. And if you don't like them, well, he's got others.

Canadian right-wingers emulate U.S. counterparts as annoying whiners.

If there's one thing members of the right-wing wankersphere do better than anyone else, it's whine, bitch and moan. How else to explain this imminent web site, MediaBias.ca, which will, we are told, chronicle all of the shocking misdeeds of the dastardly left-wing, liberal media here in Soviet Canuckistan?

Oh, yawn.

As its primo, numero uno example of wretched, left-liberal bias, the group parades, front and centre, the following:

A typical example of news bias occurred on April 9, when 15,000 people rallied on Parliament Hill to support traditional marriage -- the biggest political event on the Hill in years, perhaps ever. The National Post and Canwest News Services paid the story almost no attention, and the Globe and Mail didn't mention it at all.

Ignore for the moment the suggestion that the National Post downplaying the event constitutes liberal bias. (For our international readers, the right-wing National Post is akin to the Washington Times, but with perhaps slightly fewer Moonies.) Quite simply, there was no need for the media to cover this event because, in a nutshell, there was no news there.

Seriously, think about it. It's not as if an ambitious reporter would have learned anything going to the event and interviewing anyone. "So ... you're all opposed to same-sex marriage? Yup, got that. And ... that's pretty much the story. Thanks for your time."

Really, what kind of article could anyone write about this? You could pretty much mail this one in from your couch during commercial breaks of Canadian Idol. In case it happens again, let me give you a generic template that could probably cover anything that might happen:

Parliament Hill (CC News) -- Gathering since early this morning, [insert number here] thousand supporters of so-called traditional marriage rallied on Parliament Hill. Lots of them were clearly Christian. Many Bibles were waved about, and many passages from Scripture were cited, mostly badly out of context. After a while, everyone went home.

Did I miss anything? And just in case that web site really does get cranked up and starts churning out the inevitable mixture of right-wing innuendo, distortions and outright lies, well, I've taken the precaution, just in case.

Life just gets better for the Conservatives.

Rather than invest any of my own time chronicling the delightful meltdown of the CPC, I'll just point you over to Robert's Blahg. Enjoy.

And now we see what's behind the curtain.

I'm almost past the point of even being capable of outrage anymore. Yet again, it's John over at AmericaBlog who points readers at a Nation article, describing how those fine Christian folks at the Family Research Council once paid white supremacist David Duke $82,000 for his mailing list.

I'm sure the right-wing wankersphere will be, like, totally outraged by this blatant racism. Yes, sir, any minute now. Any minute now ...

When Christian telemarketers attack. Or whatever.

Thanks to AmericaBlog, just go read this.

Sometimes, you can't even put good spin on it.

Everyone else is linking to it; why not me? Apparently, the U.S. Army is going to fall just a touch short of its recruiting goals:

Even after reducing its recruiting target for May, the Army missed it by about 25 percent, Army officials said on Tuesday. The shortfall would have been even bigger had the Army stuck to its original goal for the month.

On Friday, the Army is expected to announce that it met only 75 percent of its recruiting goal for May, the fourth consecutive monthly shortfall in the number of new recruits sent to basic training. Just over 5,000 new recruits entered boot camp in May.

But the news could have appeared worse. Early last month, the Army, with no public notice, lowered its long-stated May goal to 6,700 recruits from 8,050. Compared with the original target, the Army achieved only 62.6 percent of its goal for the month.

Ah, but here's the best part, where the Army tries to rationalize lowering their target number:

Army officials defended the shift on Tuesday, saying it was not uncommon to change monthly goals at midyear. They said that the latest change reflected the reality that the Army was not going to meet its May goal, and that it made more sense to shift some of that quota to the summer months, traditionally a better season for recruiters to attract new high school graduates.

Translation: we lowered our goal because we knew we weren't going to achieve it. Sometimes, it really is that simple, isn't it? And then there's this:

The Army's figures for May put the service about 8,300 soldiers behind its projected year-to-date number of enlistees sent to basic training by now. "The trend line is going against them," said Senator Jack Reed, a Rhode Island Democrat on the Armed Services Committee.

The Army has tried to reverse the trend by adding 1,000 recruiters since last September ...

Here's a suggestion: if those recruiters are doing such a pathetic job signing up new volunteers, just ship them off to Iraq. Hey, that's another 1,000 warm bodies right there, no?

But can any of them make a radio out of a coconut?

And isn't that special? Following the appropriate links from the inimitable Ms. Z (and there has to be a better euphemism for her than that, I'm sure), we learn that those wacky pirates over at the Western Stunned Herd are about to make a Bill O'Reilly-sized mistake.

OK, maybe that's unfair. After all, it might be a truly educational experience basking in the variety and breadth of this truly diverse collection of conservative thinkers. I mean, there's Ezra Levant, the publisher of the Western Standard. And Lyle Dunkley, the chairman of the Western Standard. And Kevin Libin, editor of the Western Standard. And Andrew Coyne, a columnist with the Western Standard. And Terry O'Neill, a senior writer for the Western Standard. And ... uh ... and ...

Oh, never mind. You might as well save your money and just subscribe.

BY THE WAY: Speaking of diversity, notice anything just a wee bit odd about the collection of speakers? Think hard, it'll come to you.

Alright already, I've been book tagged!

Honestly, sometimes you people can be so needy, and it's not like my choice in books would be all that edifying. I mean, would it be particularly enlightening to know that the last book I purchased was Pragmatic Version Control Using Subversion (no, not that kind of subversion), or that one of the most meaningful books for me is Steven Levy's Crypto? Yeah, I figured not.

But some day, I hope to find the time to read One Hundred Years of Solitude. Really.

Alone on the high seas with Bill O'Falafel. Not.

And can this come as any kind of surprise?

More academic bias nonsense south of the border.

You know, I really don't know what to make of this, it's just so freakin' depressing:

Concerned that public schools are becoming sites of liberal indoctrination, activists have generated a wave of efforts to limit what teachers may discuss and to bring more conservative views into the classroom.

After all, they say, if related campaigns can help rein in doctrinaire faculty on college campuses, why not in K-12 education as well?

Oh, Jesus, it's not as if these dipsticks haven't fabricated enough crap about a non-existent pro-liberal bias at the college level, now they want to bring it into the high school.

You liberals might want to take a deep breath -- I think you have a nasty scrap ahead of you. We'll be writing more on this, I'm pretty sure.

FURTHER THOUGHTS: The article linked to above contains so much screaming lunacy, I could easily fill a week's worth of posts from it alone, but let's just pick on one example of mind-numbing stupidity, shall we? First, we have this, as a quick refresher:

Concerned that public schools are becoming sites of liberal indoctrination, activists have generated a wave of efforts to limit what teachers may discuss and to bring more conservative views into the classroom.

After all, they say, if related campaigns can help rein in doctrinaire faculty on college campuses, why not in K-12 education as well?

So, as we read it, the residents of Wankerville are clearly distressed that all that nasty, pro-liberal, anti-wingnut bias will filter down from the colleges and pollute the precious bodily fluids of high school students. And what kind of pernicious indoctrination might we find already in our public schools? Why, lookee here:

Tyler Whitney, a junior at East Lansing High School in Michigan, says teachers and administrators let him circulate his newspaper, The Right Way, only after a public protest this spring and coverage of the standoff in the local news.

Principal Paula Steele says the school permitted distribution of The Right Way as soon as editors deleted submissions by college students, because "we do not want to be a forum for outside speakers." Ideology, she says, was never a factor.

So ... to combat the evil forces of liberalism trickling down from the colleges, Mr. Whitney's solution is to try to distribute a high school paper containing (oh irony, delicious irony) conservative propaganda written by (you guessed it) college students.

You know, I just couldn't make up something this hypocritical without my meds. Is this just delightful or what? I'm pretty sure Mr. Whitney has a stellar career ahead of him writing for these guys.

When high technology turns on you.

Maybe there is a God after all.



Oops.

"You can never have too many firearms."

Well, actually, yeah, I think you can.

Well, OK, give me TWO reasons.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

... then garnish with Velveeta slices ...

If you grew up around the time I did, you might remember a number of variety shows, sponsored by Kraft, during which the commercials presented various recipes that all seemed to require a heaping helping of Miracle Whip. Cookies, muffins, salad, chili ... you name it, it somehow needed Miracle Whip for that extra zing.

So, just to bring back some really bad memories (thanks to Atrios for the link), we have Miracle Whip Pizza. My head hurts just thinking about it.

And you thought Canadian politics was boring.

Man, this is better than watching outtakes from "Canadian Idol":

Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal has agreed to go on stress leave pending investigations into surreptitiously taped conversations regarding defection and a possible breach of transport safety regulations.

Mr. Grewal will continue to be a part of the Conservative caucus and receive his MP's salary, but he will not sit in the House of Commons, participate in parliamentary committees or attend caucus meetings until all investigations involving him have ended, party aides said last night.

So ... he still gets paid but doesn't have to do any work? Damn! I want that deal. But it gets funnier (depending on your sense of humour):

The announcement capped a bizarre day in which it was alleged Mr. Grewal tried to persuade passengers travelling to Ottawa from Vancouver on Saturday to transport a package for him on a flight he was not taking -- a violation of security regulations. That allegation, which Mr. Grewal denies, followed a report in The Globe and Mail in which an independent forensic expert verified that the tapes of his conversations with Tim Murphy, the Prime Minister's chief of staff, and Health Minister Ujjal Dosanhj were altered.

Now, I have to ask: how does one "deny" such an allegation if there might be actual, live witnesses to attest to it? I can't wait to see how this plays out.

The lighter side of Intelligent Design.

Here.

UPDATE: Of course, regular readers of "Dilbert" might remember something similar.

People who no longer qualify as truly human.

Following a link from the folks at First Draft, we have Charles Krauthammer demonstrating just what sort of loathsome human being he is. I'm sure it's politically incorrect to say this but, after reading Krauthammer, you can almost understand what drives someone to be anti-Semitic.

THE INEVITABLE FOLLOWUP: Well, I just knew someone was going to miss the point here, so let's expand on the above, shall we?

So ... it's horribly unfair and unjust to generalize from the actions of a few assholes to their entire culture or religion or whatever, is it? Of course it is but, amazingly, that hasn't stopped a depressing number of people from looking at the actions of a few homicidal, radical, fundamentalist Muslims (see: 9/11) and cavalierly denigrating the entire, world-wide Muslim community, has it? And isn't that an uncomfortable parallel that I'm sure some folks don't want to talk about? But it doesn't stop there.

There's a certain irony, don't you think, in the fact that Jews (quite justifiably, I might add) want to make sure no one forgets the horrors of the Holocaust and the German concentration camps and yet a disturbing number of them don't seem to lose any sleep over the notion of an entire culture being rounded up, often on the flimsiest of pretexts, and incarcerated indefinitely behind barbed wire with no legal recourse, to be tortured and, in some cases, simply killed. That's some pretty selective outrage there, isn't it? But you missed the most important detail here.

It's not so much that one would use the single example of Charles Krauthammer to think badly of Jews. Rather, it's that his mean-spirited swill was published in the journal "Jewish World Review". So you can't just blow this off as one asshole being a bad example, as the first commenter suggests. No, you have to acknowledge that Krauthammer's vicious, anti-Muslim sentiments clearly represent a much larger number of people, if they're that happy to put his work before a larger audience. So the accusation of generalizing based on a single asshole really falls apart pretty badly, doesn't it?

Oh, by the way, just to make sure you know where I'm coming from, I absolutely agree that it's unfair to denigrate an entire category of people based on the actions of only a few of its members. I mean, to think that, say, conservatives would paint the entire Left as being in bed with terrorists, or treasonous, or soft on terrorism, or whatever. Whew ... it's a good thing conservatives are always so much more discerning than that, isn't it?

TUESDAY MORNING ADDITION: Well, it seems I'm not the only one a bit unimpressed with Krauthammer's warped view of the world.

SATURDAY MORNING ADDITION: And a big howdy to the folks popping by from Rempelia Prime. Perhaps, unlike Mr. Rempel, you'll actually invest the time to read the whole thing (including the comments) to figure out what's going on here. I can always fantasize, can't I?

Can you explain that whole "air space sovereignty" thing again?

Well, there's this (June 1):

The price of airline tickets between Canadian cities could go up if the United States implements an anti-terrorist strategy that would force domestic airlines to fly new routes far north of the American border, Transport Minister Jean Lapierre said Wednesday...

Washington warned recently that, as an added security measure against terrorism, it intended to require that all foreign airlines passing over the U.S. check the names of passengers against American government watch lists.

On the other hand, there's this (June 3):

A British airliner diverted to Nova Scotia because of a false hijacking signal resumed its trip to New York on Friday after sitting on a Halifax tarmac for almost four hours...

The Airbus was travelling from London's Heathrow International Airport to New York when it sent out the emergency signal.

Hey, no problem, Americans. Glad we up here in Canada could be of assistance, you know, letting you divert potentially terrorist-laden flights into our airspace and onto our runways until you figure it's safe to let them continue. Really, you're welcome. Any time.

CORRECTING THE RECORD: And isn't it adorable when someone lets the freepers out of their basements to stretch their legs, and they take the opportunity to wander over and take a whiz on someone else's web site? How else to explain the commenter here, who writes:

You let terrorists in all the time anyway, what harm would a few more do?

I'm assuming the commenter is referring to the now-discredited myth that a number of the 9/11 terrorists entered the United States through Canada, a bit of nonsense that even right-wing loon Newt Gingrich has now admitted is false:

WASHINGTON (CP) - High-profile U.S. conservative Newt Gingrich has agreed to retract his statement that terrorists involved in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks entered the United States from Canada. The move came Wednesday after Canada's Ambassador Frank McKenna fired off a letter of complaint.

Gingrich, former Republican speaker in the U.S. House of Representatives and a potential presidential candidate in 2008, "deeply regrets the error," said spokesman Rick Tyler.

"That's become accepted conventional wisdom here. But he'll help to correct the record."

"He wishes he had not repeated that error and had checked it out," Tyler said from Lincoln, Va.

"We're in complete and utter total sympathy with the Canadian ambassador and all Canadians, for that matter."

Gingrich, appearing Tuesday on a Fox News Channel political show, said: "Far more of the 9-11 terrorists came across from Canada than from Mexico."

McKenna, who became Canada's top envoy in the United States last month, wrote Gingrich's comments "perpetuate an urban legend that can take on a life of its own, especially when repeated by people whose opinions are deeply respected in the United States."

"Canadians and Americans are great friends. And great friends can tell it like it is."

"In the interest of that friendship and to set the record straight I ask that you retract your statement."

McKenna noted former U.S. attorney general John Ashcroft is on the record saying: "None of the terrorists from the Sept. 11 carnage came to the United States through Canada."

A 9-11 commission report has also detailed how the terrorists entered with U.S. visas and none came through Canada.

Any other freepers want to step up and make public asses of themselves?

And with Monday coming up fast ...

Your Working-Day Emotion Checklist

9:00AM pure grumpiness
9:05 caffeine jolt-o-rama
9:29 early morning stupefaction
9:45 splitting headache #1
10:04 momentary panic attack
10:31 caffeine overdose
10:37 perverted daydreams
10:42 mid-morning numbness
11:33 rebuffed flirtation with co-worker
11:35 temporary dementia

12:09 joyless lunch-eating
12:09 mirthless joke-telling
12:23 belching discontent
12:35 sudden awareness of one's shallowness

1:19 early afternoon catatonia
2:44 fooling around at the copy machine
2:59 unrealistic plans to quit this lousy job
3:09 mid-afternoon torpor
4:09 fear of getting fired
4:25 lottery fantasies
4:33 contemplating tv tonight
5:00 temporary perkiness

With apologies to Gordon Lightfoot.

Best not to let Gord see this -- he might have an aneurysm or something.

I'll take "Really weird shit" for $400, Alex.

Just in case you don't have enough mind-numbing irony in your life:

The United States plans to decide its next move on North Korea in the next several weeks, which could include referring the matter of Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program to the United Nations, a senior defense official said Sunday.

Hey, here's an idea -- we could have this guy give the presentation. What could possibly go wrong?

Things just fine here. Why do you ask?

Oh, yeah, about that "Iraqi insurgency in its last throes" thing ... maybe not so much:

May was the deadliest month of the Iraq war for part-time American servicemen. Thirty-one of them died: 14 members of the Army National Guard, 12 from the Marine Corps Reserve, four from the Army Reserve and one Navy Reserve hospital corpsman attached to a Marine combat unit.

The overall U.S. death toll in Iraq last month — counting active-duty as well as mobilized reserve forces — was 80. That is the highest for any month since January, when 107 died as insurgent attacks rose sharply prior to the Iraqi election. Fifty-two died in April and 36 in March, when it appeared the insurgency was waning.

And how do you know when you're making progress?

Iraqis bore the brunt of insurgent violence in May, but it also took a heavy toll on the approximately 140,000 U.S. troops there. The 80 deaths compares with a monthly average of 70 over the previous 12 months.

Ah -- an increase in the death rate. Apparently, that's a good thing these days in BushWorld. Progress and all that.

Really entertaining creationist wingnuttery.

And these are the people who want equal time in science class.

It's never too early to beat up on Tom Friedman.

Apparently, The New York Times' Tom Friedman understands nuclear proliferation and international diplomacy as much as he understands, well, everything else.

The same-sex marriage controversy, in a nutshell.

Dear same-sex marriage opponents: We're right. You're wrong. Fuck off.

The Rachel Marsden watch: Part one in a new series.

In the updated, paperback edition of his bestseller "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," comic Al Franken has an addendum to his Ann Coulter chapter in which he describes waiting for his wife to get ready to go out and, cooling his heels in his home office with colleague Andy Barr, he notices Coulter's slimy little treatise Treason (OK, my adjectives, not his) on the book shelf. As Franken writes:

Taking Treason from the bookcase, I said, "Andy, I'll bet you I can find a lie in this piece of shit before Franni gets her lipstick on." Andy knew just what to do. He cranked up Nexis, and we were on our way.

I told Andy, "There's a lie on every page of her books, so I'll just open to a random page." Boom. I opened to page 265 and scanned down the page and saw a paragraph beginning with the words "New York Times." Boom. There's always a lie when Coulter mentions the New York Times.

Franken goes on to describe how Coulter does indeed hideously and dishonestly misquote columnist Thomas Friedman and, yes, this is all done before Franni's appearance.

It's in this vein that, with the debut of Canadian right-wing hack Rachel Marsden's column in the National Post (for which paper I desperately need a snarky, derogatory euphemism so put on your thinking caps), I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that you'll be able to find some kind of distortion, misinterpretation, misrepresentation or (let's just come right out and say it) an outright lie in each and every piece of crap that she writes.

As a warmup to this , I decided to pop over to her web site and test my hypothesis. Scanning down the list of previous columns for a random selection, I was grabbed by this one -- "The Dangers of Limiting Free Speech" -- always an amusing topic given the right's predilection for favouring free speech as long as it's theirs and nobody else's. So, self, I says, let's see how long it takes before I can identify the first piece of dishonest swill in that column. It didn't take long. Writes Marsden:

One of the world’s top pollsters -- Frank Luntz, who has been praised by the Right and the Left (and even Air America radio host, Al Franken) for his work -- conducted a study of Ivy League professors. He found that 79% deemed George W. Bush to be “too conservative”, compared with only 38% in the national sample; only 3% called themselves “Republican”; and 84% voted for Al Gore over George W. Bush in the 2000 Presidential Election.

How ironic (and, I swear, totally random, picked from the list of columns based on the title alone) that this piece would refer to Franken, with Marsden suggesting that Luntz is admired uniformly across the political spectrum, even by that left-wing gadfly Franken. As Jon Stewart might say, "Whaaaaaaa?".

Did Franken really praise pollster (and, as you'll see shortly, Republican hack) Frank Luntz? This bears looking into, so it's off to Google where we find, right on Luntz's web site, an apparent testimonial from Franken: "Asking Frank Luntz if he understands public opinion is like asking Julia Child if she knows how to make a soufflé." Wow. High praise, indeed. Um ... or is it?

If you read carefully, Marsden claims that Luntz was "praised" by Franken. The quote from Luntz's web site claims only that Franken believes that Luntz "understands" public opinion. And, yes, there's a difference. For example, one can opine that White House braintrust Karl Rove, even though he's a totally unprincipled, unethical hack, certainly does understand how to win an election. Put another way, I will certainly concede that Rove "understands" politics even while I think he's one of the most loathsome, sleazy bottom dwellers in politics today. See the difference? But that's just nitpicking.

What's really dishonest is for Marsden to suggest that Luntz gets high marks from the left and the right alike when most liberals have long accused Luntz of being a Republican hack. One need only pop over to Media Matters and search on "Frank Luntz" to learn what many folks think of Luntz's credibility and objectivity, such as here, here, here, here, here and here, among others. But, gee, you wouldn't know about any of that left-wing dissatisfaction from Marsden's puff piece, would you?

One of the world’s top pollsters -- Frank Luntz, who has been praised by the Right and the Left ...

Poor Rachel. Methinks she needs to get out more often. And learn to read.

Taking the fall.

Hmmmmmm ... now isn't this just the slightest bit awkward?

Three soldiers have been ordered to stand trial at Fort Carson on murder charges in the suffocation of an Iraqi general, who died during an interrogation 1 1/2 years ago.

Chief Warrant Officers Lewis Welshofer and Jeff L. Williams and Spc. Jerry Loper, all of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, also face charges of assault and dereliction of duty during combat operations, Army spokeswoman Kim Tisor said Thursday.

Prosecutors claim the soldiers put Maj. Gen. Abed Mowhoush headfirst into a sleeping bag, tied him up with an electrical cord and threw him to the ground. The Army accuses the soldiers of sitting and standing on Mowhoush's chest.

Previously secret court testimony indicates the Iraqi general's body was badly bruised and he may have been severely beaten two days before he suffocated on Nov. 26, 2003.

No date was set for the court-martial. If convicted of all charges, the soldiers face life imprisonment without parole, forfeiture of all pay and dishonorable discharges.

Welshofer and Williams were interrogators, and Loper a prison guard. All have denied wrongdoing, saying commanders had sanctioned their actions.

Ah, yes, the "I was only following orders" defense -- which worked so well at Nuremberg, as I recall.

Here's the deal: Unless those soldiers are prepared to specifically name names and testify to the direct orders they were given and exactly who gave them, they should take the fall. Quite simply, you shouldn't be allowed to pass the buck unless everyone can see who you're passing it to. Someone's head should roll for this.

Dear American investors: You are SO fucked.

All you individual investors might want to just slit your wrists now so as not to prolong the suffering:

President Bush chose California Rep. Christopher Cox on Thursday to run the Securities and Exchange Commission, assigning him the delicate regulatory dance of protecting investors' rights while not stifling business...

Business groups, which view some SEC regulations as overly burdensome and would like to see them loosened or overturned, welcomed Bush's pick. Advocates for individual investors voiced concerns that Cox might do just as business hopes.

A suitably snarky comment escapes me at the moment.

UPDATE: Just in case you're not sure why you should be afraid.

Quotable snark.

From the Department of "Gee, I wish I'd thought of that first", regarding Commander Chimpy's ongoing campaign to privatize Social Security:

Me: Incredible. He just won't stop.

Tracy: Yeah. He's like the Energizer Dummy.

Dear Americans: Get over yourselves.

Oh, Christ. Does this guy not have more important things to worry about?

EAST RUTHERFORD, N.J. -- International and U.S. soccer officials are puzzled over acting governor Richard Codey's anger that The Star-Spangled Banner was not played before a match between England and Colombia.

Codey attended the game at Giants Stadium on Tuesday and became annoyed when the U.S. anthem was not played along with those of the countries in the match, even though that is the normal protocol. He said he immediately asked game organizers why it wasn't played and was told: "Governor, we're really very sorry. The British people don't want to hear it," the Newark Star-Ledger reported yesterday.

No problem, though, it's one of those things that people get over quickly, right? Right?

"When you have two countries you host so they can play each other, and have the anthems of both countries played but decide not to play the anthem of the host country, well, that's about as absurd as it gets," Codey said yesterday. "What could they possibly be thinking?"

The governor sent letters to the chairman of the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, which manages the Meadowlands complex, and to Britain's ambassador to the United States.

Careful, Governor. You wouldn't want to waste any of that good-will, political capital the U.S. has built up with other countries, would you?

Hey, I was just askin', ya know?

TBogg finds they're a mite touchy in East Wankerville these days.

In hindsight, maybe not such a bad decision.

Following a suggestion from CathiefromCanada, we have James Wolcott describing, as only James Wolcott can, what kind of mess the neo-cons have made of the War on Terror (TM).

And to all of those delightfully hawkish pro-war Canadian pundits, this is the debacle you wanted us to get involved in, was it?

Why, no, justice ISN'T blind. Why do you ask?

Following links by way of the Green Knight, we have the chilling story of a potential terrorist attack, nipped in the bud in the nick of time and ... well, OK, maybe not so much:

This past weekend [Cecilia Beaman] and several other chaperones took 37 middle school students to a Heritage Festival band competition in California. The trip included two days at Disneyland.

During the stay she made sandwiches for the kids and was careful to pack the knives she used to prepare those sandwiches in her checked luggage. She says she even alerted security screeners that the knives were in her checked bags and they told her that was OK.

But Beaman says she couldn't find a third knife. It was a 5 1/2 inch bread knife with a rounded tip and a serrated edge. She thought she might have lost or misplaced it during the trip.

On the trip home, screeners with the Transportation Security Administration at Los Angeles International Airport found it deep in the outside pocket of a carry-on cooler. Beaman apologized and told them it was a mistake.

"You've committed a felony," Beaman says a security screener announced. "And you're considered a terrorist."

Beaman says she was told her name would go on a terrorist watch-list and that she would have to pay a $500 fine.

"I'm a 57-year-old woman who is taking care of 37 kids," she told them. "I'm not gonna commit a terrorist act." Beaman says they took information from her Washington drivers license and confiscated and photographed the knife according to standard operating procedure...

Sure, you might be sympathetic towards poor Ms. Beaman, but rules are rules and you have to enforce them. No exceptions. Well, OK, maybe now and then:

[Republican] Congressman [John] Hostettler faces a charge that could put him behind bars.

Indiana's 8th district representative is in trouble after being detained at the Louisville airport for carrying a loaded gun in his briefcase.

The crime is a misdemeanor but it carries a sentence of up to a year in jail and a $500 fine.

So ... a 5 1/2 inch bread knife is a felony, while a loaded gun is a misdemeanor? How ... quaint.

Screeners caught the gun at a security checkpoint. "It was obvious that they weren't as upset as I was, but you could tell they were uncomfortable. But they did a marvelous job in making sure the airways were secure."

Hostettler says he was detained at the airport for an hour for FBI questioning. His loaded nine mm Glock was confiscated and he was let go.

Before he boarded his flight, the congressman was issued a citation for a misdemeanor charge of carrying a concealed and deadly weapon.

And how did all this pan out?

The FBI says, to its knowledge, no federal charges were filed which could have carried up to ten years in prison.

The TSA says the congressman received no special treatment because of his status.

Lauren Stover of TSA says, "TSA makes no exceptions to who the person or individual is that's found with a loaded firearm. We do not discriminate against ranks of folks that carry a loaded weapon and every passenger to us is treated the same; and they're given the same level of respect and the same level of processing if they present themselves with a loaded prohibited weapon at a checkpoint."

Continued Stover, "But if he had shown up with, say, a small bread knife, well, holy fucking shit, that would have been different, let me tell you! We don't mess around with stuff like that."

You pretty well know that your society is fucked up beyond redemption when Franz Kafka looks like the most normal person in the room.

OK, I'm confused.

From the May 30 episode of Larry King on CNN:

DICK CHENEY: So I think we're making major progress. And, unfortunately, as I say, it does involve sending young Americans in harm's way. But America will be safer in the long run when Iraq and Afghanistan as well are no longer safe havens for terrorists or places where people can gather and plan and organize attacks against the United States.

From the New York Post, via AmericaBlog:

Yesterday, the NY Post ran a story saying that 40% of the suicide bombers dispatched by Al-Zarqawi were Saudis and only about 9% were Iraqis.

Hmmmm ... so let's see here ... if Iraq and Afghanistan are no longer "safe havens" for terrorists ... and if 40% of them are allegedly Saudis ... and they can't gather and plan in Iraq or Afghanistan ... gee, where on earth might all those Saudis get together to plan and organize attacks against the United States? Where could it possibly be?

D. Ho, doing what D. Ho does best.

Lying, that is.

CBC watch. Reality check, anyone?

Awwww ... isn't living in your own little delusion adorable?

In the grand left only CBC tradition, it is teaming up with the greatest left leaning newspaper in the US, the New York Times,...

Apparently, someone hasn't read the Times lately.

Li'l Scottie, blaming the victim.

It's hard to believe that White House Press Virus Scott McClellan can get away with crap like this and not have someone in the press corps finally snap, pull out a handgun and empty it into him, screaming, "No! I just couldn't take it any more!!"

Q Scott, at the press conference yesterday, approximately 25 percent of the journalists were women, and the President went to 2 percent of the journalists. And back in April, again, it was about 25 percent, and the President took only one question from a woman reporter. Can you explain this pattern?

MR. McCLELLAN: That might be a reflection on the media. That's not -- I don't think that's a reflection on who the President calls on.

Q Their hands were up, picked the female hands --

MR. McCLELLAN: You pointed out that there is a smaller percentage of women at the event. I think that's a question you may want to address to the media, if it's a question of diversity in the media.

Q If 25 percent of the journalists are women, I would think more than 2 percent of questions -- or, in fact, it was one question -- would perhaps be directed to the women.

MR. McCLELLAN: The President looks forward to taking questions from a wide variety of people, and I don't think that's a reflection on the President. I think that's a reflection on maybe the media and the diversity within the media. So I think that's a question you ought to direct to the media, not us.

Q Can you assure us that he will take note next time to count --

MR. McCLELLAN: He was pleased to call on women journalists yesterday --

Q He called on one. (Laughter.)

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, like I said, there are a number of major media organizations that were represented there. The President believes it's important to get to those major media outlets and start the news conference that way. And if it's a question of diversity within those organizations, I think it's a question to direct to those organizations, not us.

Got that? If women don't get called on, well, clearly it's their fault and you should ask them about it.

The U.S. no-fly list. Tit for tat?

It's hard to imagine that the people currently in charge of the U.S. could piss off their "friends" any more than they already do, but what else can you think about this?

The price of airline tickets between Canadian cities could go up if the United States implements an anti-terrorist strategy that would force domestic airlines to fly new routes far north of the American border, Transport Minister Jean Lapierre said Wednesday.

The minister said he is fighting hard to keep Washington from getting its hands on Canadian passenger lists for domestic flights that stray into U.S. airspace.

But if he fails, added Lapierre, Canadian carriers might have to take pains to avoid conventional routes that cross over northern U.S. states.

Calling it a "very hot issue," Lapierre said Washington hasn't finalized its proposed new rules but he's already lobbying to protect Canadians' privacy.

"I'm very worried about it," Lapierre said outside the Commons.

"We don't think it's a good idea that Canadians travelling from one [Canadian] city to another [Canadian city] would have to be checked under the American no-fly list."

Washington warned recently that, as an added security measure against terrorism, it intended to require that all foreign airlines passing over the U.S. check the names of passengers against American government watch lists.

Uh, right. Refresh my memory -- weren't these the same people who were howling about how they really didn't give a shit about Canadian sovereignty and air space when it came to launching missiles in this direction? But all that hypocrisy aside, just which security-related parts of the U.S. are currently at risk by these overflights of Canadian airliners into American air space? Well, holy crap:

To save time and fuel, flights from Montreal to Halifax pass over Maine, while flights on the Toronto-Calgary route almost always cut across northern U.S. states.

That's right, these incursions into American air space apparently represent an unacceptable terrorist risk to Maine, northern Michigan and the Dakotas -- irresistible targets of international terrorism, the lot of them.

But, wait. What's this? According to Mapquest's handy-dandy map of the U.S., is it possible that Americans flying from Minnesota to New York might actually pass over Ontario? And what about flights from places in the mainland U.S. to Alaska? Is there a chance they might fly over some part of Western Canada? Perhaps some frequent flyer can enlighten us here.

SNARKY AFTERTHOUGHT: If I was running things up here, I might just suggest that we Canucks would also like a chance to vet passengers on American flights that cross Canadian air space, to make sure they're not carrying, oh, people who have committed international war crimes. But that's just me.

Some folks just have a talent for satire.

Here, courtesy of Ms. Z.

So much for that "due process" idea.

It's not like I want to over-generalize or anything but, Jesus Christ, how can you Americans be such assholes? OK, not all of you, of course, but check out the breathtaking contempt for the whole concept of "due process" by some American officials in the case of Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen who was deported to Syria by the U.S. where he was tortured:

A Liberal senator who took a hand in efforts to free Maher Arar says U.S. officials were willing to send him back to Canada – but only if he was sure to face criminal charges here.

Pierre De Bané told a public inquiry Wednesday that he learned of the U.S. offer from a Foreign Affairs official who briefed him on the case in the summer of 2003.

Mr. De Bane was about to leave for Syria on a mission aimed at freeing Mr. Arar from imprisonment there.

He said he understood the Americans made their offer several months earlier, when they arrested Mr. Arar in New York.

They decided to send him to Syria after the RCMP told them there was not enough evidence to charge him with anything in Canada.

Mr. Arar's lawyer, Lorne Waldman, says the U.S. offer should have set off alarm bells in Ottawa and tipped Canadian officials that Mr. Arar might be deported to Syria, where he was later tortured into false confessions of terrorist activity.

But there's something missing in this story. It's rancid enough that the U.S. officials wanted a guarantee that Arar would be charged before they gave him back. But during a CBC radio show this afternoon, the host claimed that those same U.S. officials actually wanted assurances ahead of time that Arar would be both charged and convicted before they would return him to Canada.

According to a Canadian official whose name I didn't catch during the radio broadcast, that official (correctly) made it clear that, without proper due process, Canada could make no such promise, whereupon the Americans shipped Arar to Syria.

I think I've reached my limit on outrage. Really.

RAPID-RESPONSE UPDATE: Ah, here we go: the CBC story, where we read:

[Liberal Senator Pierre] De Bané said a top Foreign Affairs official told him the Americans were only willing to hand over Arar under certain conditions.

"He said the Americans said to the Canadians, 'We are ready to give you back Mr. Arar on the condition that you bring him back to Canada, you incarcerate him, you make charges against him,'" he testified.

"And the Canadian party said, 'No, the Canadian Charter of Freedoms does not allow us to do what you're asking. We do not have proper grounds.'"

Hmmm ... that lends itself to a slightly different interpretation but De Bane is right -- it simply wouldn't be allowed here. If I'm still this pissed in the morning, I'm going to be taking it out on someone.

The 101st Fighting Keyboarders, barbershop quartet edition.

Indeed.

Rachel Marsden: Taking journalism to a whole new low.

And just when you think you've reached the bottom of the barrel, someone comes along and lifts up the barrel. How else to describe right-wing pundit Rachel Marsden's debut in the National Post, the first paragraph of which you can read here?

(You need to actually cough up some cash to read the whole thing, although I can't imagine anyone with a functioning brain stem paying to read Marsden's swill. But, hey ... that's just me.)

Even without access to the entire piece, that first paragraph should tell you everything you need to know about where Marsden is coming from:

Some artist uses a crucifix as a swizzle stick in a vat full of urine, and Christians just roll their eyes. But suggest flushing the Koran -- or even dog-earing a copy of Fodor's Guide to the Islamic World -- and the folks who cheered in the Arab Street on 9/11 take it as a green light to riot and blow up more innocent women and children.

Ah, yes, that delightful myth that stories of Koran desecration inspired violence and death, despite the U.S. military's own beliefs to the contrary:

General [Richard] Myers also told reporters at the Pentagon Thursday that the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, General Carl Eichenberry, disagrees with the reports that protests in the city of Jalalabad were caused by anger over the alleged Koran incident.

"It is the judgment of our commander in Afghanistan, General Eichenberry, that in fact the violence that we saw in Jalalabad was not necessarily the result of the allegations about disrespect for the Koran, but more tied up in the political process and the reconciliation process that President Karzai and his cabinet are conducting in Afghanistan. He thought it was not at all tied to the article in the magazine," he explained.

So, who you gonna believe: U.S. General Richard Myers, or right-wing dingbat Rachel Marsden? Oooooooh ... tough decision there. Grapple, grapple ...

(If someone can find the entire article online somewhere, I'm sure we can have some fun eviscerating the rest of it. I have the entire thing in front of me and, oh baby, it is evisceration material.)

Dude, let it go.

This is pretty much the definition of pathological obsession, isn't it? Coming soon from Weasel Boy: why the growing insurgency in Iraq is really Bill Clinton's fault.

Who? Us?

Your daily helping of lack of reality:

Q Scott, Amnesty International report today, saying the U.S. is a top offender of human rights. Does the White House dispute that assessment?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the allegations are ridiculous and unsupported by the facts. The United States is leading the way when it comes to protecting human rights and promoting human dignity. We have liberated 50 million people in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have worked to advance freedom and democracy in the world so that people are governed under a rule of law and that there are protection -- that there are protections in place for minority rights, that women's rights are advanced so that women can fully participate in societies where now they cannot.

We're also leading the way when it comes to spreading compassion. The United States leads the way when it comes to providing resources to combat the scourge of AIDS. The President put forward his emergency plan for AIDS relief to fight the scourge in Africa and high -- other highly afflicted areas of the world. So I just think it's ridiculous and not supported by the facts when you look at all that we do to promote human rights and promote human dignity in the world.

You're certainly leading the way when it comes to spreading something.

INCONVENIENT AFTERTHOUGHT: Um ... Scott, if you've "liberated" these people, how come all your troops are still there?