Simple answers to stupid questions.

Eric Margolis of the Toronto Sun asks:

How did Canada, one of the world's most respected, law-abiding nations, become a party to the torture of prisoners in Afghanistan and a violator of the Geneva Conventions?

Easy, Eric ... this is how.

This has been another installment of "Simple answers to stupid questions."

LET ME PUT THIS ANOTHER WAY. Some commenters have taken me to task for blaming the Cons when it was the Liberals who signed the initial agreement. Let me explain why I think that argument is a dud.

Yes, it was the Liberals who signed the initial detainee agreement, and it was a stupid agreement, for which the Liberals should be roundly ridiculed. But ... even though it was a stupid agreement, it didn't have any immediate and obvious horrible consequences. Yes, the agreement sucked, but it didn't appear to be causing any harm at the time.

It was only under the Cons that the consequences became obvious; therefore, it was their responsibility to deal with it. If the Cons had been smart, they would not only have pointed out how stupid the Libs had been, but would have continued with something like:

"Unlike the Liberals, we believe in the rule of law and the Geneva Conventions, and we promise to make sure that detainees are treated decently. Canada has always been a beacon of fair play, and we want to make sure that reputation is preserved."

Or something like that. In short, Harper could have made the Libs look like douchebags, while claiming the mantle of morality for himself and cementing his reputation in the international community. Sadly, it hasn't worked out that way, has it?

In cases like that, you can point fingers but the real test is how you fix the fucking problem! And it's now obvious that the Cons are interested only in assigning blame, and had no interest in fixing things.

The original detainee agreement is not what's damaged Canada's rep worldwide. What's made us look like contemptible thugs is the way Harper and his cronies have dealt with the situation, which was to simply ignore it and lie. At that point, Harper gave up whatever moral ground he might have had.

The Libs may have been responsible for that initial, stupid agreement, but it was under Harper that its actual consequences became disturbingly obvious, and it was Harper's government that made it clear it didn't give a shit about those people.

In the movie "Rising Sun," Sean Connery explains to Wesley Snipes one way that the Japanese differ from Americans (paraphrased):

"The problem in America is that everyone simply wants to assign blame and people have to apologize. With the Japanese, they just fix the problem. Then no one has to apologize".

Exactly. Sure, give the Cons their moment to point out how stupid the Libs were when they signed that initial agreement. And now that the gloating moment is over, it's time to fix the goddamned problem. Sadly, the Cons have been spending all their time doing that first part, without moving on to the second part. And that's why, at the moment, it's their fault.

AH, HERE WE GO:

John Connor (Sean Connery): 'The Japanese have a saying, "Fix the problem, not the blame." Find out what's fucked up and fix it. Nobody gets blamed. We're always after who fucked up. Their way is better.'

Let them eat statistics.

Apparently, we hard-hearted progressives are being, well, hard-hearted:

Everybody has been crying for Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor's head ever since the first reports came out about Afghan detainees being handed over by Canadian forces to local authorities for certain torture.

Everybody, it seems, except the general public:

Oh, this should be good. I need some wicked, right-wing spin to brighten up my day, as "Loyalist" links us to the ruthlessly objective and bi-partisan Ottawa Citizen, where we learn:

A new Ipsos Reid poll, conducted exclusively for CanWest News Service and Global National, found 53 per cent of Canadians believe it is unfair for opposition parties to call for Mr. O'Connor to step down as they have been doing almost every day recently in the House of Commons.

And before we go any further, perhaps it's worth asking why this 53 per cent is so open-minded and forgiving. Maybe, just maybe, it's because they really don't see a problem here, given that they've been fed a steady stream of Conservative lies, from "Torture? What torture?" to "We have no evidence of torture" to "We have no first-hand evidence of torture" to "Well, OK, there was that one time but it was just some locals getting rambunctious" to "Hey, that guy had the crap beat out of him before we got here." I think it's safe to say that if I got my news from places like official CPoC press releases and the Blogging Tories, I wouldn't see what the fuss was about either. But we're not done here; let's read on.

On the other hand, 36 per cent of Canadians believe Mr. O'Connor has been negligent and should have been monitoring what was happening to the detainees after they were turned over to Afghan officials.

Hmmm ... only 36 per cent, he reports, as if this shouldn't be cause for alarm. Here's a hint, Loyalist: 36 per cent is not insignificant, as you seem to be suggesting. In fact, it's fucking frightening -- that's more than 1 in 3 Canadians who, despite the frantic spin coming out of Ottawa these days, think that O'Connor just plain fucked up.

And if you don't think 36 per cent is something to be concerned about, Loyalist, let me give you something else to chew on -- 36 per cent is exactly the percentage of the popular vote in the last federal election that gave your hero Stephen Harper a minority government.

In short, Loyalist, when you have the same number of people who voted Conservative in 2006 that are now publicly stating that O'Connor is unfit to hold his current position, well, I'd be really, really careful about suggesting that the opinion of 36 per cent of Canadians doesn't matter.

Must-see TV.

Via Crooks and Liars:

Scientifically speaking, I am SO underwhelmed.

Not all Christians are idiots, but some of them really fuck up the curve for everyone else.

Brian Lemon giveth, and Brian Lemon taketh away.

Blogging Tory Brian Lemon is seriously annoyed by that gosh-darned, CBC liberal media bias:

This morning, driving to the links, I tuned into CBC Sunday Edition...

This morning's show opened with an essay on Iraq by [Michael] Enright - certainly the most uninformed, biased report on Iraq to which I have ever been an audience (I suspect there were a few dozen others.)

If Brian thinks the CBC is biased, he's apparently never watched Fox News. But I digress. Onward.

Every possible facet of the struggle for democracy was deemed to be a failure (notwithstanding that the population turned out to vote - with risk of assassination - in higher numbers than ever in Canadian history.

Yes, by God ... how dare Michael badmouth a national election that set out to promote democracy, reduce violence, encourage a withdrawal of foreign, occupying troops and restore sovereignty to Iraq, and accomplished exactly none of the above? Why, the nerve of that man! What blinders he must be wearing. But Brian isn't done:

And notwithstanding that even ABC says that things are getting much better.

Um ....they do? OK, let's watch the video that Brian seems to be so proud of that allegedly demonstrates that:

Hmmmmmm ... now maybe it's just me, but the signs of "getting much better" in that video seem to be very carefully qualified, and also seem to be the result of more military force on the streets rather than an actual "improvement" of any kind. But, hey, Brian, how good are things, really?

And reports I get from US soldiers say that people in Baghdad live pretty normal lives - the kids go to school every day, Dad goes to work and Mom to the market. Every week or so there's some gunfire or bomb noise somewhere within earshot and people go inside for an hour or two.

Cool. Life is almost back to normal, except for that weekly nuisance ... you know, like this:

Car bombs kill 42 in Baghdad

Baghdad, May 6: Insurgents detonated more car bombs in Baghdad today, killing at least 42 people and shattering a short-lived lull in the sectarian violence blighting life in the Iraqi capital.

(It's amusing to have Brian describe life in Baghdad as "Every week or so there's some gunfire or bomb noise somewhere within earshot" when the very video he provides states that "Baghdad is still rocked by car bombs every day." I'm guessing Brian never made it that far into the video.)

In short, Brian's post is based on a misrepresentation of the actual news and an apparently deliberate omission of facts that contradict his basic thesis -- an obvious example of right-wing bias, wouldn't you say? Gosh, if only there were a place where someone could go to, say, report on that kind of bias. Wouldn't that be great?

Oh, well ... it was just a thought.

BY THE WAY, BRIAN, how's that bias registry coming, anyway? Whoa ... a veritable hotbed of activity. Please, folks, a single line if you would. And no pushing.

Putting a whole new spin on "transparency."

Apparently, when the neo-Cons were campaigning on a platform of "transparency," they were actually talking about Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn's invisible plane:

Tory minister racks up $150,000 in plane rentals

Updated Sun. May. 6 2007 8:16 PM ET
Canadian Press

OTTAWA -- Labour Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn spent almost $150,000 on rental aircraft flying around Quebec last year but didn't declare any of the flights as a travel expense, documents show.

In fact, the majority of the flights on privately hired planes don't show up anywhere in Blackburn's public disclosure of ministerial travel and were only revealed through an Access to Information request by NDP researchers.

You know, it has to be embarrassing when your political career can be satirized by 24 seconds of "Family Guy."

(Wag of the tail to Devin.)

What a difference a few words make.

Life in Jonathan's world is so wonderfully simple -- there are good people, and there are evil people:

Pim Fortuyn, a Dutch politician, was murdered by an Islamic extremist 5 years ago today. His death was later followed by Theo Van Gogh, also murdered by a Muslim in plain view. Both men were critical of Islam and its extremist tendencies; they paid for that criticism with their lives.

Here, let me play with that just a bit:

Dr. David Gunn, an American doctor, was murdered by a Christian, pro-life extremist 14 years ago. His death was later followed by Dr. Barnett Slepian, also murdered by a Christian, pro-life extremist in plain view of his family. Both men perfomed medical services that were perfectly legal under American law; they paid for that service with their lives.

Reads just about the same, doesn't it?

Whaaaaaaaaa?

Most people can't pull off this sort of thing without some serious pharmaceuticals:

Posted by Joel Johannesen

... Al-Qaeda’s second in command, the barbaric Ayman al-Zawahri, took to mocking America—specifically President Bush, in al-Qaeda’s latest video, they explain.

That’s what they tell us in the headline, and tell us first in their story about the video. This, by the way, despite what is actually the recent Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid (and all other liberal Democrats) effort to cut and run and issue forth an American surrender of the Iraq effort to al-Qaeda and Iran, who will of course take over there in the event of a surrender. It’s apparent in the video that by mocking President Bush rather than the liberals who actually declared surrender in America, the al-Qaeda leader doesn’t understand that the good President actually vetoed the liberal Democrats’ attempt at surrender. So maybe he’s high on pot, and/or he watches the ridiculous CBC. I don’t know.

And so by logical extension—he’s actually mocking not Bush, but rather the idiotic liberals in America! So the liberal media is no more intelligent than that ass. They also miss the point, much to our amusement over here in the smart set.

I'd love to tie that up with a nice, snarky ribbon to put the finishing touch on it but ... I got nuthin'. Why mess with perfection?

THE WORD OF THE DAY. Via Driftglass: "Christalopithecus." There. Now we're done.

If it's Sunday, there must be new spin.

Apparently, Canada's Tap Dancing Government™ is still trying to figure out the storyline on the Afghan detainees, but here's something I think LC missed.

On the one hand, the abuse was, well, no big deal (emphasis added):

But Government House leader Peter Van Loan said the case cited by Col. Noonan is actually a good story for the Canadian military.

“It is a case where they saw some treatment, some roughhousing of an individual and they stepped in immediately to put an end to it. That is how things should work. That shows that things were working well in the field.”

So it was just some boisterous "roughhousing." You know -- I only hit you because I love you, that sort of thing. Nothing to get your Stanfields all bunched up over.

On the other hand:

Lt.-Gen. Natynczyk said the Afghan man was later picked up by police, and Canadian soldiers, who later came across him, noticed he had been injured.

So, according to Natynczyk, the Canadian soldiers weren't culpable as they only came across the man later, but notice that Natynczyk also clearly describes the man as "injured."

Well, boys, what version of this story do you want to go with? Was it just some harmless "roughhousing", or was the man legitimately "injured?" You really can't have it both ways, you know.

Oh, wait ... these are Conservatives. They make an entire career out of having it both ways.

What was I thinking?

AFTERTHOUGHT: It's probably worth pointing out how Van Loan and Natynczyk contradict one another on two fundamental issues:

• As above, Van Loan calls it merely "roughhousing" while Natynczyk clearly admits that the man was "injured," and


• Van Loan is clearly suggesting that the Canadians were witnesses to the abuse, while Natynczyk just as clearly suggests that the Canadians only came across the man later.

These are not trivial discrepancies -- they're glaring contradictions, which suggests that Canada's New Government™ had better go back to the drawing board and earn its nickname with a "new" explanation. Maybe one that doesn't reek of desperate improvisation.

That would be kinda nice.

History, revisionistically speaking.

Ooooh, oooh, Mark ... while we're talking about "making up the past," I have another one for you. Stealing positively shamelessly from Cliff, we have journalistic hack Amir ("Iran! And Jews! And Badges!") Taheri suggesting that he was simply misunderstood:

This is not the first time Taheri has been associated with a media controversy. In May 2006, the Canadian daily The National Post published an article by him on the significance of Iran's having passed a law to impose an Islamic dress code.

Why, sure, and it was all a case of misinterpretation (emphasis added):

"I speculated about what they were then going to do about religious minorities," Taheri explained to Jerusalem Post editors. "Then I went back to history - how Jews were distinguished; how Christians were distinguished; how Zoroastrians were distinguished. The Canadian paper presented this as a news story - as though it had already happened [as though Jews were going to be forced to wear the equivalent of the Nazi-imposed yellow star] - and everyone started attacking me [for giving false information]. It was really a big, big misunderstanding."

Sadly, though, as Cliff points out, the videotape tells a different story (emphasis added to point out the obvious future tense being used):

The law … envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct colour schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to easily recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis (unclean)…

Of course, the best part was how the Canadian shriek-o-sphere fell over itself spreading the word, and what happened when cooler heads tried to prevail in the comments sections:

maz2,

And the rest for that matter. I know Islam bashing is the norm and all, but lets stick to proven facts, not made up ones..

From your own National Post:

"Last Friday, the National Post ran a story prominently on the front page alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law that, if enacted, would require Jews and other religious minorities in Iran to wear badges that would identify them as such in public. It is now clear the story is not true. Given the seriousness of the error, I felt it necessary to explain to our readers how this happened."

Now I know the general line of thinking here is biased, but at least get the facts straight.

Posted by: jeremiah at April 23, 2007 5:25 PM

Poor Jeremiah ... he really should know better than to bring that objective, clear-headed analysis into Kate's house, as the appropriately-named commenter "Rattfuc" proceeds to set him straight:

Jeremiah:
Whether or not the story was false or not, the fact remains that Jews are targeted by the Iranian government as enemies.

Exactly. It's not important whether the story was true -- it only matters that it could have been true, at which point Rattfuc goes on to clarify the basic foundation of everything that is Small Dead Animals:

Yes, the general line of thinking here [at SDA] is definitely biased. Biased in favor of human rights,dignity and truth. Your specious comments would be amusing, if it were not for the Jews that are being persecuted by you and your fellow travelers.

If the comments on this blog cause you to think they are biased, then you are absolutly correct. Biased in the way of truth, justice and decency toward all mankind.

Adding anything to that last bit would simply take away from its wingnuttery perfection, don't you think?

BONUS TRACK: In case you didn't follow the link, Cliff also points us at this delightful smackdown of Amir Tehari, with such enlightening passages as:

Taheri was unreachable by phone. But Benador, who said her client was "traveling in the Middle East," was impatient with dissections of his work. Terming accuracy with regard to Iran "a luxury," ...

Yes ... as with pretty much everything else in the wank-o-sphere, accuracy is a "luxury." It's also, as I understand it, hard work. That's quite the double whammy there.

And sometimes tenure has its downside.

Via Pharyngula, we find Christians behaving stupidly:

Hey, Frank ... you know what would convince me that God exists? A talking snake. Go get me a talking snake and then we can chat.

That's why he's a highly-paid pundit, and you're not.

President Chimpy McFuckWit hits a new low in public popularity. Surely it must be time for David Broder to explain how Bush is poised for a counter-attack.

HEE HEE. Over at FDL, TRex explains what a popularity of 28% means in comparison to, oh, child molesters or wife murderers. Yeah, that sounds about right. And it's also amusing to compare that against Bill Clinton who, even in the midst of his impeachment proceedings, had an approval rating of 73%.

Not surprisingly, you won't read about this over at the Blogging Tories since they're terribiy, terribly busy averting their eyes. It's a tough job, constantly averting your eyes but, hey, someone's gotta do it.

BONUS TRACK: Once again, Proud to Hate Everything Canadian's Joel Johannesen checks in from his home planet and gets it wrong. Mercifully, no one is surprised anymore.

What kind of fuckery is this?

And in this corner, Daimnation's Mark C. comes through with a post that plumb makes you forget how much of a bonehead Brian Lemon is, and that's no mean feat:

By George, he's disingenuous

Charles Krauthammer debunks a Tenet of intelligence:

Tenet is not the only one to assume a generalized amnesia about the recent past...

Everyone has the right to renounce past views. But not to make up that past. It is beyond brazen to think that one can get away with inventing not ancient history but what everyone saw and read with their own eyes just a few years ago. And yet sometimes brazenness works.

Sort of like the Globe and Mail on the Afghan detainee issue; the Liberals on why the Canadian Forces were sent to Kabul in 2003; and, the media on the mythical "invasion" of Afghanistan.

Or, if you're looking for examples of "making up the past," well, I don't think you're going to find anything more brazen than this, eh, Mark?

And speaking of that worthless hack Charles Krauthammer,

Tenet writes as if he assumes no one remembers anything. For example: "There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat."

Does he think no one remembers President Bush explicitly rejecting the imminence argument in his 2003 State of the Union address in front of just about the largest possible world audience? Said the president, " Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent" -- and he was not one of them.

Yeah, goddamnit, all that talk about urgent and immediate and imminent danger? That must have been someone else.

I'd like to officially apologize to Brian Lemon; he's nowhere near as dumb as I thought. Comparatively speaking.

Al Gore, the Internet and really stupid Blogging Tories.

It's like a scab I can't stop picking at, so I'm going to give BT Brian Lemon yet another knee to the happy sack for his hideously misnamed "biased commentator offenders registry", only to demonstrate how appallingly worthless that site really is.

Here's Brian thinking he's got the drop on Al Gore:

Mr. Gore is known to stretch the truth, if not outright lie, from claiming to have invented the internet to being the role model for the book and film "Love Story".

Jesus. H. Christ.

How many times over how many years do you have to explain to these imbeciles that Al Gore did not claim to have invented the Internet!?!? What he did do was claim to have been instrumental in pushing for its creation, to the point where even Internet pioneers Robert Kahn and Vinton Cerf give him the credit for that:

Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development.

No one person or even small group of persons exclusively "invented" the Internet. It is the result of many years of ongoing collaboration among people in government and the university community. But as the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

But that's not the worst of Brian's sins -- oh, no, not even close.

Aside from Brian being an embarrassingly ignorant little turd regarding the history of the Internet, one might ask: Where is the "bias" there? Even if Gore had made a ridiculous and over-reaching claim, how on earth would that constitute "biased commentary"? How does that fit Brian's own requirement that entries on that piece-of-crap blog of his represent "a built in conflict of interest or bias?"

On the contrary, given the actual facts, it's safer to say that the "bias" lies, not with Gore, but with those dumbfuck conservatives who, like Brian, continue to peddle that jackass fairy tale.

There you go, Brian. You want bias? How about stupid wankers who persist in misrepresenting history in order to keep smearing a Democrat? That's definitely "bias" where I come from.

Media bias and blue lemons: Let the games begin.

And they're off and whining! As he promised, the Blogging Tories' Brian Lemon has opened an official "Biased Commentators Registry," to keep track of all that nasty, liberal bias in the Canadian MSM. Or whatever it is he's going to be keeping track of. Oh, hell, let's let Brian explain the rules (emphasis added):

When a person offers to, or accepts an opportunity to, comment on issues of interest to the public his position in society relative to this issue is no longer private. He or she has entered the public realm and as an influencer of public opinion, should be held accountable for any bias in his comments.

For example, stock market commentators are required to reveal whether they have any financial conflict of interest in any stocks that they discuss.

It is important that when someone is presented to the public as a person worthy of comment on a particular topic, that if there is a perceived bias or conflict of interest, that this be revealed.

Fuckin' A, Brian, I am so with you on this. And as a housewarming present, I'm going to invite you to start here:

Here's the story:

A new study suggests a safe-drug-injection site in Vancouver that has been hailed by scientists as a success is really a failure.

Well, darn ... that kinda sucks. Whoops, hang on ... Cathie's not done here:

First, the study's author Colin Mangham has been publishing reports for years against "harm reduction" drug policies -- which, briefly, are policies which tolerate drug use rather than try to prevent it. The safe injection site is a prime example of just such a policy in action -- and therefore, in this man's opinion, it must be stopped. What's the harm? Well, the problem seems to be that the harm reduction "ideology" makes us "vulnerable to the drug legalization movement". Can't have that, I guess.

Cathie has more, but let's let Alison over at Creekside take it from there:

The Drug Prevention Network of Canada is an offshoot of, wait for it, the Drug Prevention Network of America. It is headed up by Calvina L. Fay of Drug Free America, Save Our Society From Drugs, and Drug Watch International, dedicated to "combating the drug legalization movement globally".
An advisor to Bush on drug policy issues, you may have heard her on the news recently proselytising against the medical use of marijuana for cancer patients. Yeah! - War on drugs!

But let's have a look at the Board of Directors for the Canadian branch of DPNC :
~ Randy White - Reform and Alliance Party MP for 12 years, right up until he went public with the idea of using the "notwithstanding clause" to prevent the passage of SSM and that was the end of him - too hot for Harper.
~ Gwen Landolt - VP of REAL Women of Canada. Thanks for all your fine work fighting Status of Women Canada. I especially liked your argument that shelters for battered women are discriminatory because there aren't comparable shelters for battered men.
~ a couple of graduates from the Scientology Narconon Program, now working as drug counsellors...

Stay tuned as Brian explains why that doesn't count.

P.S. Just for the entertainment value, let's pop over to the actual registry to see who Brian has mercilessly exposed, shall we? Ah ... I see Brian is being as rigorous and objective as ever:

Biased Commentator Offenders Registry

Biographical notes of organizations and their representatives who appear in the media as "subject matter commentators" who may have a built in conflict of interest or bias.

Because, as we all know, when you can't produce any real bias, unconstrained speculation is always the next best thing.

P.P.S. I know I should resist, but I can't. Again, from the registry, Brian makes sure you understand just how strict this new venture is going to be (all emphasis added):

Rules for Posting Content and Comments

This blog will only permit posts or comments that report supportable facts on identified commentators. Such content should have a reference to source. It will be fully moderated and any content that cannot be supported by facts will be held unpublished until a suitable reference can be confirmed.

Awesome. So what do we know about that shrieking, leftist moonbat David Suzuki?

David Suzuki

Posted by Lemon at 2:42 PM 0 comments Links to this post

Somehow, when it comes to documenting media bias, I don't think Media Matters for America is worried about the new competition.

BONUS UNCRITICAL DUMBASSITUDE AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: Courtesy of a commenter over at Alison's place, we learn that Maclean's is equally gullible.

... and don't forget to pick up the dry cleaning.

Newfoundland premier Danny Williams learns that PDAs can be useful:

Danny Williams remembers the precise moment he started loathing fellow Conservative Stephen Harper.

... during a pitstop in Gander last year, Williams reminded the newly elected prime minister to get carving his promised equalization upgrade into stone, including the vow to exclude all non-renewable resource windfalls from the calculation.

Harper shrugged and said he hadn't made up his mind. Williams retorted he had that deal in writing. "That was his dark side," the premier recalls. "There was a look in his eyes that told me this wasn't going to happen."

Sure enough, Harper partially reneged on his word in the March budget.

Yes, I can just imagine the contents of Danny Williams' day-timer that day:

• 1:15 p.m.: Provincial caucus meeting.


• 3:00 p.m.: Ribbon-cutting ceremony downtown.


• 4:17 p.m.: Learn that Stephen Harper is a worthless, lying, back-stabbing, weaselly little motherfucker who deserves to be dragged by his heels out onto the nearest ice floe and clubbed like a baby seal.


• 6:30 p.m.: Dinner, Swiss Chalet.

See, Danny? We told you those PDA things were cool.

It's all a matter of semantics, I guess.

Dante is a bit taken aback with France's Segolene Royal, and for good reason:

'Elect Me Or We Will Become Violent'

Segolene Royale has broken out the fear-mongering. Is she threatening France?

Dante has a point since, as we all know, the proper wording is 'Elect Me Or You Will All Die'.

Those French are such amateurs, aren't they?

Well, if you can't trust the NRSP, ...

Apparently, you shouldn't take that whole IPCC climate change report seriously 'cuz the NRSP says so. Yeah, that NRSP.

I guess we should be grateful she didn't start that piece with "According to Drudge...". That would have been truly depressing.

Life in the Blogging Tory hermet-o-sphere™.

I realize I sound like a broken record, but it's really quite entertaining to watch the Blogging Tories, as a single-minded collective, utterly ignore some of the biggest stories out there. I mean, to a person, all 300+ of them will simultaneously turn a blind eye to anything that doesn't play nicely with their ideological agenda.

Take, for instance, the story I referenced earlier where Republican Congresscritter Dana Rohrabacher told unappreciative audience members, regarding terrorism, "Well, I hope it’s your families, I hope it’s your families that suffer the consequences."

Not surprisingly, this story is all over the news, as one can see via Google. And yet, from the BTs ... nothing. Not a word. Not a single member of that entire collection of inbred troglodytes could be bothered to voice even a little discomfort over a right-wing politician that explicitly wished harm could come to other Americans.

And closer to home, the Canadian MSM is absolutely abuzz with the news that one Col. Steve Noonan specifically reported and documented that Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan were so taken aback by the abuse inflicted on a detainee they had just turned over to Afghan authorities that they took him back into custody.

Not surprisingly, this makes bald-faced liars out of the entire corps of Conservatives who have been denying all along that there have been any specific allegations of abuse, and the story has been covered, among other places, at CTV, CBC, Toronto Star, Globe and Mail, National Post and other CanWest media outlets. I mean, Jesus, even the batshit-crazy right-wing Washington Times had something to say about it!

And the Blogging Tories? Really ... did you even have to ask?

P.S. In all fairness, though, we shouldn't be too hard on BT co-founder Stephen Taylor. After all, it's a tough job poring over all those accumulated CBC news videos, waiting patiently for them to make a split-second mistake, then sanctimoniously blogging about it.

That does, of course, cut into Stephen's time for covering, you know, real news, but it's a price I'm sure he's willing to pay.

There's that compassionate conservatism again.

Shorter Dana Rohrabacher: "Fuck off and die. Really."

AFTERSNARK: Note that, even though Rohrabacher actually came right out and wished that audience members' families were victims of terrorism, you won't find a peep about this over at the Blogging Tories. Fancy that, eh?

On the other hand, can you imagine the coast-to-coast shrieking, bloodthirsty outrage if it had been a Democrat that had suggested such a thing? Yes, that would have been something to behold.

Beating? Oh, THAT beating.

Awwwwwwwwwkward:

Soldier: Afghans beat Canadians' prisoner

OTTAWA–Canadian troops in Kandahar were so disturbed by the beating of a prisoner they had just transferred to the Afghan police force that they demanded to have the man returned to their care, a top soldier says in a sworn affidavit.

The testimony of Col. Steve Noonan, a former senior commander on the Afghan mission, casts doubt on the claims of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and senior ministers that they had no specific reports of abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan.

Noonan tells of at least one detainee who got a rough ride after being handed over to the Afghan National Police (ANP). And he says it's documented in the military's own reports.

Your homework assignment is, of course, to spin this to blame the Liberals. Bonus points will be given for clever use of the phrases "unhinged", "moonbat" or "left-wing CBC bias," as well as denigrating the source as the communist, Red "Star."

You may also compare your opponent to Neville Chamberlain or accuse them of being "Nazis," but preferably not at the same time.

And sometimes, the snark just writes itself.

I swear, sometimes I think this is just parody:

"All the pros and cons on the war have been aired"

Victor Davis Hanson on "The Crazy Middle East";

All that has come and gone, and we are left in the end with the verdict of the battlefield. The war will be won or lost, like it or not, fairly or unjustly, in the next six months in Baghdad.

Please don't make me have to explain that.

I'M SORRY, you've never heard of Victor Davis Hanson? Ah, forgive me, let me introduce you.

Dear Stephen: That's some selective outrage you have there.

It's truly entertaining to watch Stephen Taylor get his panties in a bunch over the most insignificant and innocuous (left-wing) screwup, given that he does this sort of thing from the reeking cesspool of dishonesty and dumbfuckitude that is the Blogging Tories.

Witness Stephen's latest courageous exposure of liberal media bias, in which Stephen produces his second straight blog entry on the fact that -- wait for it, here it comes -- the CBC accidentally included a couple shots of Canadian troops while discussing American military matters. And if that wasn't enough, the CBC apologized for the "inadvertant" mixup the very next night.

Luckily, Stephen was all over this horrific ideological bias, and we can rest easy until the next hideous, moonbat-inspired media atrocity. I'm guessing it'll involve spelling or something.

The cross-border parallels are striking, wingnuttily speaking.

If you've ever wondered about the target demographic over at Kate McMillan's Small Dead Animals, well, let me give you an educational comparison:

Rush Limbaugh on Bush’s legacy:

“Long after we’re all dead and gone, when historians who are not yet born begin to write about this era, they’re going to place George Bush in the upper echelon of presidents who had a great vision for America, who looked beyond our shores, who didn’t just restrict himself to domestic policy niceties.”

Yes, I believe both Kate and Rush have judged their readership nicely, don't you?

Let's get to the good stuff.

And if you dig into this piece by TBogg on the recent GOP presidential debate, you learn that:

• there were 10 candidates


• they were all white males


• apparently, three of them don't believe in evolution

And if you don't think it can get any worse, only three of them were ready to admit publicly that they don't believe in evolution. I'm guessing there's at least one or two closet cases there.

And by "closet case," I don't mean in the interesting way. Or maybe I do.


AFTERSNARK: The Blogging Tories' le politico says pretty much what I was thinking:

I'm sorry, but belief in evolution should be a Presidential prerequisite.

to which commenter "paul m" responds with unintentional hilarity:

US Constitution; First Amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

By suggesting that a belief in evolution should be required for holding the executive branch, you are establishing a religious test for that position. That is completely contrary to the spirit of the US Constitution an its writers.

Um ... Paul ... we're not talking about a religious test here, we're talking about an intelligence test. It's not that the President shouldn't be a Christian, but that he shouldn't be a moron. And if you choose to conflate those two issues, well, I'd suggest that says a lot more about you than about the rest of us.

P.S. Anyone who doesn't understand the dangers of having a moron as President simply hasn't been paying attention.

ATHEISTIC AFTERTHOUGHTS: It's mildly amusing to hear "paul m" whinging on about the unconstitutionality of religious tests for public office in the U.S. when the chances of an atheist ever getting elected President are about the same as the proverbial snowball in hell.

People with long memories might remember George Bush I's opinion of the godless:

Sherman: What will you do to win the votes of the Americans who are atheists?

Bush: I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in god is important to me.

Sherman: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God.

More recently, we have distinguished constitutional scholar Star Jones:

Star Jones is a lawyer and former prosecutor who is currently a co-host of ABC's show "The View". Her web site is http://www.starjones.com/. She mocked Atheists who were concerned about her bigoted views. Jones intimated that Atheists are unpatriotic, while falsely claiming that the secular complaint had been in response to patriotic remarks she made on September 12, 2001. On February 13, 2002, Jones said that, in her opinion, Atheists are unqualified to hold the office of President of the United States.

I'm guessing that that's about where Paul loses interest in constitutionality and stuff like that there, if you catch my drift.

Apparently, knowing stuff is hard werk.

Brian Lemon is happy to give us the Reader's Digest condensed version:

In the recent past the Republicans have impeached Clinton for immorality reasons and the Democrats are anxious to impeach GW Bush just for being himself.

The Blogging Tories: Because if you can't say it on a bumper sticker, it's not worth saying.

I want these people dead.

Seriously.

Fool me once ... uh, how does that go again?

Good news, good news!:

Al Qaeda in Iraq leader killed: Interior Ministry
Published: Tuesday, May 01, 2007

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - The leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was killed on Tuesday in an internal fight between insurgents north of Baghdad, the Interior Ministry spokesman said.

Brigadier-General Abdul Kareem Khalaf told Reuters "we have definite intelligence reports that al Masri was killed today."

Another source in the ministry also said Masri had been killed. Khalaf said the battle happened near a bridge in the small town of al-Nibayi, north of Baghdad.

Both Khalaf and the other source in the ministry said the authorities did not have Masri's body.

The U.S. military said it could not confirm the reports.

"I hope that it is true, but we want to be very careful to make sure," said Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver, a spokesman for the U.S. military in Iraq.

OK, I guess they're sure:

Iraqi officials reported Tuesday that Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the nom de guerre adopted by the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq, had been killed. Early Thursday, Iraqi officials reported the death of Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, who also operates under a pseudonym as purported leader of the insurgent group Islamic State in Iraq.

But Caldwell said Masri has not been killed and U.S. officials are not even sure who Baghdadi is. He said U.S. officials, after checking extensively, have no indication that any high-profile target beside Jubouri has been killed in recent days.

The National Post: when you absolutely, positively have to be misinformed overnight.

A smackdown looking for a place to happen.

From the comments section, courtesy of "real conservative":

A true leftist will always seek accomodation [sic] and appologies [sic] from others while never offering it themselves. It is the domain of the immature, selfish and egotistical.

I am so looking forward to pulling that out the next time someone accuses me of generalizing. Go ahead, dumbass -- make my day.

Another day, another atrocity from SDA.

And if it's morning, there must be another example of overwhelming dumbfuckitude over at SDA. Ah, here we go:

Y2Kyoto: Al Gore Strikes A Blow For Intelligent Design

A global warming disciple was troubled by the Goracle's presentation in Regina;

... In the very same breath, he then continued to explain that according to his religious beliefs, this “rise of humans” was God’s creation of mankind - apparently 200,000 years ago. His graph then changed to include the caption “Adam & Eve” above this starting point.

I started laughing, and I had to consciously blink my eyes and double-check the screen to make sure I was seeing it properly. Let me get this straight...the guy's entire presentation exists in order to present people with the scientific data showing that human-caused climate change is a fact. He does his very best to include references in all of the slides, showing to any thinking person that this data is not made up, that it comes from the forefront of our scientific research (there was many slides containing data from Science journal, and a few from Nature).

He tarnishes his beautifully crafted presentation by not only stating his belief in creationism - but by placing the words “Adam and Eve” right on the slide (which is actually a scientific graph) as a caption explaining the beginnings of mankind.

Something doesn't add up here. On one hand, he is using science to predict the disastrous outcome of our current actions and rally support for taking proactive measures to make sure bad things don't happen, but on the other hand, he is clinging to stone-age beliefs that another very important area of science has proven wrong (that we humans evolved from other forms of life, and that every organism on Earth has a common ancestor).

Odd that none of the media in attendence picked up on this. Sharp as tacks, that crew.

Why, yes, that's certainly embarrassing ... until (unlike Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ and her pack of trained poodles) you take the time to, you know, read stuff:

The tension between Gore the politician and Gore the environmental activist was even more apparent on two occasions when the former vice president approached sensitive political issues.

When be [sic] brought up a graph showing human population growth over the past 100,000 years or so, Gore at first made light of recent debates over the origins of human life: "You don't have any new laws here I should know about?" he quipped before labeling the point at the beginning of the graph "Adam and Eve," provoking laughter. But then Gore adopted a more prudent tone, adding, "In all seriousness, I really do not see any conflict between my religious faith and sound science."

Ah ... it was a joke. Humour, as we like to call it.

I think my job here is done.

Besides, the ink is ugly and the paper's from the wrong kind of tree.

One of the more amusing (and, let's be honest, irritating) characteristics of the wingnut-o-sphere is their unflagging ability to dismiss good, solid criticism for the stupidest, most meaningless and most contrived reasons imaginable.

The most common reason, of course, is that you're being "uncivil," or something of the sort. In responding to the typical dumbfuckitude of the Right, you might produce a rigorous, methodical and positively devastating evisceration of their latest idiotic claims but if, in the midst of that literary brilliance, you let slip a little smackdown like, oh, "dumbass," well, this just won't do, you're unhinged, you're deranged and vulgar and profane and there's just no point in even addressing what you've written, despite the fact that it may have been impeccable and irrefutable logic which tore someone a new orifice. Nope, you're a moonbat so everything else you've written can be ignored in its entirety, logic notwithstanding.

Another technique is to seize on even the smallest blunder to wax sarcastic and dismissive, sort of like what commenter "ktk" did back here:

And for the record when you copy the word of the day (misogynstic) try and spell it right. Maybe you just need to work on your 'word-itude'.

Oh, no! I misspelled "misogynistic" and therefore should be consigned to the scrap heap of ranting, frothing moonbats. Or something like that. (For the record, I am well aware of how "misogynistic" is spelled but, given that I typically type on the order of 80 words a minute, sometimes my fingers get ahead of the keyboard and slipups happen. Apparently, though, the same conservative wingnuts who perpetually write pure and unadulterated rubbish think it's appropriate to contemptuously wave away my contributions because I misspell the occasional word. Yes, that's what you might call "irony.")

The latest teeth-gnashing, right-wing escape hatch can be found here, where Garth Turner is entirely upfront as to where the inspiration of his recent post came from:

An interesting letter, sent to me Monday evening by a prominent member of the national media. He says, “An old university friend of mine, who wants to remain anonymous, passed on this letter to me, written as kind of an open appeal to Stephen Harper. It’s kind of funny, especially the Stephen King line, but I can’t figure out any way to use it in my paper. Maybe on your well-read blog?”...

... First, the Tory bloggers, or blogging Tories, as they officially group themselves on the world wide web. Seriously – have you looked at the hateful spite spewing out of these internet sites? It’s like graffiti you’d find in the washroom of a home for angry old men. They hate everyone. They loathe any woman on television. They detest people who live in cities, perhaps even anyone with indoor plumbing. They scream at anyone who doesn’t think like they do. Do yourself a favour, Mr. Harper: never look at the Small Dead Animals site. Stephen King should be suing these folks for plagiarism. They talk like the evil townsfolk in his horror novels.

The immediate wanker defense in the comments section is not long in coming:

Great blogging Garth. An anonymous letter passed along by an anonymous national media friend. The depths of credibility are mind-blowing.

and

Like a previous commentator said; it’s awfully convenient that an anonymous Conservative gave this complaint to an anonymous friend who passed it along to an anonymous (but prominent) member of the media who passed it along to you. You, at least, had the courage to put your name on that dubious chain of circumstances.

and

Garth tell us it wasn’t you who wrote that letter….sure sounds like it!!!Interesting that the author wants to remain anonymous….sounds fishy to me.

and

I have to agree with the Right Wing Wingnuterers here, a anonymous letter writer passed to and anonymous Reporter,… sigh, sorry Garth, it isn’t worth Bum Wipe.

Yes, how irresponsible of Turner to have passed on all that anonymity. After all, it's not as if anyone might, oh, pop over to SDA to corroborate all the spittle-flecked hatred for themselves, since that would be too much like work. No, better to just dismiss all of that even when all the evidence is available at the click of a mouse button, if you just got off your lazy goddamned ass and put the Cheetos aside for a minute.

I swear, if there's an easier job in the world than being an arrogant, little right-wing pundit and blowhard, I've yet to find it.

DEEP AFTERTHOUGHTS: I would be remiss if I didn't point out the absolutely most popular evasive strategy of the Right when confronted with that nasty, brutish thing called "reality" -- ignore it and move on.

It wasn't that long ago that the Blogging Tories site was purely awash with Bush worship. You couldn't swing a dead cat without whapping some BT gushing all over President FighterPilot CrotchBulge and his Global War on Terror™, and how the Democrats were all cut-and-run, cowardly Defeatocrats and on and on ... yadda yadda yadda.

My, how times have changed.

These days, you can barely keep up with the astonishing meltdown of the entire GOP, so delightfully documented at places like AmericaBlog, ThinkProgress, TalkingPointsMemo and others. It's literally almost impossible to keep an up-to date list of the Republicans who have resigned, or are being investigated, or have already been indicted, charged or just plain sent to prison, while subpoenas fall like rain. And the response from the BTs?

(*Crickets*)

I mean, seriously ... Alberto Gonzales? Never heard of him. But, by God, they are so all over Nancy Pelosi.

It's not that the BTs are necessarily stupid, or even dishonest. What they are is worthless. These days, you could read the entire aggregator and not realize that some guy named Alberto Gonzales is in a shitload of trouble for lying 24/7 to Congress. On the other hand, if you want to know all about Hillary Clinton -- who is neither under investigation nor being indicted nor being charged nor being sent to prison -- well, help yourself.

(As an aside, there are some Blogging Tories who are so obscenely biased, it crosses over from annoying into downright amusing, such as Dr. Roy Eappen who, while he apparently has no interest in Alberto Gonzales whatsoever, certainly found the time to keep his readers up to date on corrupt Democratic congressman William Jefferson. It's a priority thing, I guess.)

God help us all, the Blogging Tories are like a puppy with a ball and a blanket. As soon as their right-wing spin disappears, they sit up with a confused look on their faces, then wander off to find news that more fits their particular worldview, and please not to confuse them with facts.

There's a reason we like to refer to the "right-wing echo chamber." And it's not for the comedic effect.

If it's homophobic dumbassitude, you just KNOW Spanky's involved.

Yes, leave it to The Politic's Spanky to connect the dots A and Z without showing any of his work in between:

From Gay Rights to Incest?

Time: “It turns out the critics were right.”

Jeff Jacoby:

An article last month by Time reporter Michael Lindenberger titled “Should Incest Be Legal?” highlights the case of Paul Lowe, an Ohio man convicted of incest for having sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter. Lowe has appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court, making Lawrence the basis of his argument. In Lawrence, the court had ruled that people “are entitled to respect for their private lives” and that under the 14th Amendment, “the state cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.” If that was true for the adult homosexual behavior in Lawrence, why not for the adult incestuous behavior in the Ohio case?

Ah, yes ... if you're going to curl up and purr at someone's journalistic feet, it might as well be Jeff Jacoby.

Tune in next week when Spanky raises the alarm about another "slippery slope" argument in which allowing Christians the right to discipline their own children might lead to their beating those kids to death. But I'm guessing the logic there is going to be different somehow.

It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's ...

... Commander Guy!

Honestly, it's depressing when parody can't even keep up with reality.

For the record.

And just for posterity, from back on April 5, we have Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ (emphasis added):

Uh oh ...

"Pelosi, who met in Damascus with Syrian President Bashar Assad over the objections of US President George W. Bush, said she brought a message to Assad from Olmert saying that Israel was ready for peace talks."

Then, of course, there's reality:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told colleagues yesterday that she was incredulous after President Bush pulled her aside at the end of a meeting Wednesday and told her he did not criticize her recent trip to Syria.

Also, for the record, I don't think Kate's a liar. Just really, really, really stupid.

Sweet Home Talledega.

Man, talk about alienating your fan base:

Talladega track bans 14 fans for life

TALLADEGA, Ala. (AP) -- Talladega Superspeedway has permanently banned 14 fans arrested for throwing objects onto the track from buying tickets for future races at the speedway...

A number of fans began throwing beer cans after Jeff Gordon won the race under caution, passing the late Dale Earnhardt -- a Talladega favorite -- in career wins.

I'm sorry ... you banned them for life for throwing beer cans? After the race was over?

Dude, I don't know how to break this to you, but you run stock car races. This is your market demographic:

Abu Gonzo -- the atrocities continue.

I have nothing to add to this.

Must-see Youtube.

Here.

With friends like this, who needs enemas?

And over at Garth Turner's blog (from which your humble scribe is getting a link from waaaaay down in the comments section), we learn that there may be some hope for Canada's conservatives yet, as Garth receives a copy of an anonymous missive that was allegedly sent to Prime Minister Mary Kay Eyeliner:

Dear Mr. Harper:

You don’t know me, but I am a long-time supporter of yours. My admiration stretches back to the time when you were a principled young MP with the Reform Party in the 1990s. I noticed you because you seemed smarter than the rest of the rabble. You always seemed slightly put off by the rhetorical and partisan excesses of politics. I thought, more than once, that one day you would make a fine prime minister.

Well, here it is, 2007 and you are prime minister. And from all indications, you have a pretty tight rein on the job and you say you’re enjoying yourself.

Yeah, yeah, let's get on with it, I'm starting to nod off here.

But I have to tell you something: your supporters are embarrassing you. It’s so bad, Stephen, that I no longer tell people I’m one of your fans, for fear of being associated with that bunch.

Ah, here we go ... the good stuff:

First, the Tory bloggers, or blogging Tories, as they officially group themselves on the world wide web. Seriously – have you looked at the hateful spite spewing out of these internet sites? It’s like graffiti you’d find in the washroom of a home for angry old men. They hate everyone. They loathe any woman on television. They detest people who live in cities, perhaps even anyone with indoor plumbing. They scream at anyone who doesn’t think like they do. Do yourself a favour, Mr. Harper: never look at the Small Dead Animals site. Stephen King should be suing these folks for plagiarism. They talk like the evil townsfolk in his horror novels.

Well, hush my puppies. The Blogging Tories a bunch of hateful shrews? Well, I never. Although, I'm sure if you read some of them carefully, you might get that impression. You know, like here (as I've pointed out a couple times before)

Not to minimize the egregious wrongs committed by the Afghan police/military against their own countrymen in their own country -- but why are we supposed to care?

Or from further down that post in the comments section:

Just before reading this I watched a video on yahoo of a 12 year old taliban boy sawing the head off a taliban man who was accused of something or other.

These creatures may look human but they are not. They are lost to humanity. They should be given no consideration whatsoever. We shouldn't even be capturing them. They all should be shot on sight. All of them. Every single one. Until the plague of their existence is completely extinguished.

I'm not sure how you could top that last submission, but I'm guessing that The Politic's Aaron Unruh's good-natured dismissal of female genital mutilation might come close, or perhaps Kathy Shaidle's idea of a Toronto Saturday night good time, but that's just my opinion.

I'm thinking we'll be coming back to this later today, so all you Garthoids might want to pop back later. I'll try to be entertaining, in a Blogging Tory shrieking, spittle-flecked hatefest kind of way.

BY THE WAY, I just now noticed that Aaron has quietly altered that page where he made fun of female genital mutilation. If memory serves, that post of his was particularly offensive since he tagged it as humour, a suggestion corroborated by commenter 3 there, who writes:

I guess Aaron thinks that female gender mulitation is funny, or at the very least “Amusing”.

And yet, if you look closely at the current version of that post, there is no such tag, suggesting that poor Aaron took such abuse that he carefully went in when no one was looking and deleted the tag so as to not look like the misogynstic misogynistic whackjob that we've all come to know and love.

I'm kinds busy at the moment, but if anyone wants to hunt down an old copy of that page to prove my point, I'd be ever so grateful.

BUSTED. Commenter "M@" gives us this web page, where you can see that, yes indeed, Spanky has been cropping bits of that post to make him seem less like, well, Spanky.

Note that, in addition to removing the embarrassing tag of "Amusing," Spanky's deleted the snotty opening of, "I swear that this is from some UN charter or something:".

Is this detective work exciting or what? By God, I feel like Steve Janke, but without the unseemly obsession with Cindy Sheehan's private parts.

Dear Greg: Let's talk about that "linking" thing, shall we?

Way back in April, when we were having such an animated discussion about civility, The Politic's Greg Farries had this to say about the idea of simply linking to someone else's asinine/insulting/offensive output (see comment 3):

And I don’t consider linking to an “outrageous” opinion/weblog grounds for using “pointed” comments.

Translation: "Hey, I didn't write it, I just linked to it approvingly. What's your problem?"

Perhaps Greg would like to have a chat with fellow Blogging Tory "Platty", whose sarcasm is obvious:

So, your not to blame, as long as your just repeating what someone else has already said.

That's right, Platty, that's how it works. Just ask Greg.

IT'S AN AARON UNRUH KIND OF MORNING. Apparently, I can display the entire gamut of Canadian conservative dumbassitude this morning without leaving Aaron Unruh's driveway. Having once savaged Aaron (or "Spanky" as he's known 'round these parts) for his inane post on gay marriage, Spanky responded thusly:

Now, one could say that providing a link to an article as well as quoting a passage from the article without any additional commentary makes me a horrible bigotted piece of garbage slimeball, as the silly link-blind person claims and which a handful on trolls of this site are currently screaming. But here’s the deal. I provide the link, you go read if you like, “refute” whatever you like, and leave me alone. How hard is this? And if you don’t like the articles I link, then treat the presence of my name at the top of posts as a warning: “Oops, my feelings are about to be hurt, had better not read.”

Translation: I will link to crap, I won't care if it's crap, and if you don't like it, you can go take a crap.

The Politic's Aaron Unruh: When it's a tossup between accuracy and ideology, accuracy is generally too much like work.

ANOTHER HOMEWORK ASSIGNMENT, IF YOU WILL. Some time back (maybe a few months), I recall reading a blog post where someone (Glenn Greenwald, perhaps) took Instahack Glenn Reynolds to task for his ubiquitous habit of linking to worthless dreck, getting called on it, then shrugging his shoulders, saying, "Hey, I didn't write it, I just linked to it. Not my problem."

Can anyone track down a copy of that? I'm only guessing Greenwald was the author, but I'm sure Reynolds was the victim of that smackdown.

Yeah, George ... about that "mandate" thing ...

As a follow-on to PSA's piece about Commander Codpiece and his veto, recall if you will how the Bush crime family celebrated their 2004 electoral "mandate" (all emphasis added):

"President George W. Bush won the greatest number of popular votes of any presidential candidate in history," marveled Vice President Dick Cheney while introducing his boss. "President Bush ran forthrightly on a clear agenda for this nation's future, and the nation responded by giving him a mandate."

Yessir, we're talking a mandate here. Um ... by the way, what kind of mandate are we talking here? Oh ... right:

With 99 percent of precincts reporting nationwide, Mr. Bush garnered a record 59,017,382 votes, to Mr. Kerry's 55,435,808 — a 51 percent to 48 percent margin.

Whoo hoo! Yowza! 51 to 48! Smackdown! And don't you fucking suggest that that isn't a mandate:

Never mind the 59.4 million Americans--a record number--who voted for President Bush. Forget that he's the first man since his father in 1988 to win a nationwide majority. According to numerous commentators on the left, Bush still hasn't earned a mandate.

"The risk for Republicans is that they overinterpret the election," New York University political analyst Paul Light told the Arizona Republic. "I don't see a clear message for President Bush here."

Neither does Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne: "A 51-48 percent victory is not a mandate," he claimed.

Adds Peter Beinart of the New Republic: "Already, the president is claiming a mandate for partial Social Security privatization and regressive changes in the tax code, even though he rarely campaigned on these issues and there is no evidence the American public voted for them."

In fact, the president does have a mandate on a number of key issues, topics he talked about repeatedly on the campaign trail.

Fuckin' A -- 51 to 48! The public has spoken, we're in charge so you can all shut the hell up, right? Hang on ... what's this?

There's a standoff between Congress and President Bush over Iraq. Whose side are the people on?

By nearly two to one (59 percent to 33 percent in a recent Pew Research Center poll), Americans say they want their representative to vote for a bill setting a deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

If you need a punchline here, you're truly beyond help.

P.S. As a pre-emptive strike against potential stupid commentary, it's amusing to see how so many people defended the Bush "mandate" by claiming that, in that election, he received the largest number of votes in presidential election history.

This is an idiotic thing to say, and is as meaningless as suggesting that poor people should have nothing to complain about since the minimum wage is currently higher than it's ever been in history.

I trust I don't need to explain that for you.

Boy George's Veto

The most powerful fool on earth has stamped his little feet and with the stroke of his pen, has consigned those he commands to an endless misbegotten hell. Chimpasaurus Tex has vetoed the supplemental spending bill sent up by both houses of congress. He has said no to funding that goes to veteran care, he has refused funding for training, equipment and combat readiness, he has cast aside funding to repair Walter Reid Hospital. And he has done this to deny the will of the congress, the senate and of the American people to redeploy forces out of Iraq.

Despite his peevish and intractable nature, despite his inability and unwillingness to take responsibility for his decisions and their repercussions I suspect that George the Lesser knows something that isn't being discussed. There is really no doubt that America lost in Iraq. The mission has failed. In more than four years of operations, more than 3,300 armed forces personnel have perished, tens of thousands have been wounded and countless and uncounted Iraqis have lost their lives. The Iraq adventure was neither quick, easy nor cheap. Native oil revenues will not and have not paid for the war. The American taxpayer will be burdened with hundreds of billions of dollars of costs and interest for the ongoing fiasco. None of America's operational goals have been met, none of America's rationales for invasion have proven true. After all this time, blood and money spent, the Iraqis still haven't managed to locate a florist to properly greet the occupation forces.

So, what might petulant George know? My guess is that some little bird has whispered in his ear, the one that Jesus isn't using, to inform him that there is no easy exit for American forces. There is no central-fall back position from which to evacuate troops. There are no allies on the ground, there is no functional Iraqi Army to take up the mantle of security. George W. Bush has ignited a civil war and there is no rooftop in Saigon from which to load the choppers. Regardless of the political machinations in Washington, the withdrawal from Iraq will be paid for in innocent blood, both Iraqi and American and all of the scrubbing in the world won't remove it from his hands.

You have to admit it's a real time-saver.

An exciting new development in the Canadian wingnut-o-sphere:

European Terrorist Rights Convention

Telegraph;

Two Libyans found to pose a danger to national security are likely to be released on bail next week after a court ruled that they could not be sent back to their own country. Siac, the special anti-terrorist court, said it was "quite satisfied" that one of the men, an Islamic extremist identified as "AS", would resume terrorist violence when he was able. The other, "DD", was also unlikely to modify his behaviour, Siac added. A map in a car at his home had marks on footpaths under a flight path to Birmingham Airport...

Is there any doubt that Canadian courts - with the enthusiastic backing of the Liberals and NDP - would treat such a case here any differently?

In what is certainly a brilliant, new strategy in time management, Canada's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck™ has now taken to criticizing the Liberals and NDP not for what they do, but for what she theoretically imagines they might do at some undetermined time in the future.

Along those lines, if I ever meet Steve Janke, I am so going to give him a good smack upside the head. It's not like it would be because he said something stupid, but I'm pretty sure that if I gave him the chance, it would be inevitable.

Is there any doubt?

Happy birthday, Mr. President.

Four years old today. Time sure flies when you're playing dress-up.

P.S. Just for the entertainment value ...

It's Tuesday so there must be a new set of talking points.

Last Friday, we had this (all emphasis added):

Tories dismiss Afghan torture allegations despite no investigation

The embattled Conservative government is pushing a new line about claims of prisoner abuse in Afghanistan - it didn't happen...

[Stockwell] Day accused the opposition again Friday of believing "false allegations" of torture made by insurgents.

He insisted that two Corrections Canada officers in Kandahar have had full access to Afghan prisons, and that they have a mandate to report prisoner abuse.

Well, it's Tuesday and, right on schedule, we have a completely different story:

Canadian officials reported Afghan torture allegations, Tories now reveal

The Conservative government conceded Monday that it has received reports from Canadian officials about alleged torture in Afghan jails.

Tune in later as we watch the Blogging Tories frantically redefine the words "report" and "torture."

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Just kidding, of course -- none of them give a fuck, remember?

There's a reason I hate these people.

I swear, if it weren't for all that misplaced admiration, David Broder would be in a home somewhere, wearing adult diapers and being spoon-fed anything that could be pureed:

As Media Matters has noted, in his April 26 column, Broder asserted that both Reid and Gonzales were "continuing embarrassment[s] thanks to" their "amateurish performance[s]," and he pointed to Gonzales' handling of the controversial dismissal of eight U.S. attorneys and Reid's "war is lost" statement as evidence...

But, during his interview with Edwards, Broder himself stated that it "is really doubtful" Bush's "effort to try to salvage something that would look like a victory in Iraq" is "achievable." Broder added that Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, "probably has until August or September to produce something that would be tangible. If he can do it, that would be wonderful, but I think the odds are against him."

Will someone please, for God's sake, deal with David and do the merciful thing here? Do I have to spell it out?

It's only fair. (UPDATED: Dear Blogging Tories:)

Yes, it's slightly old news but, when it comes to this whole freshwater thing, I'm amused by this passage:

A draft report will be submitted to the three heads of state at a partnership summit in Alberta this August.

“It’s no secret that the U.S. is going to need water. ... It’s no secret that Canada is going to have an overabundance of water.

Got that? An "overabundance" of water. The implication is clear: somehow, it's just not right. It's just not fair. We have so much while others have so little, so we should work to somehow balance this out because, well, it's the right thing to do.

And if any of my American readers want to take that position, let me give them something to think about:

* Though accounting for only 5 percent of the world's population, Americans consume 26 percent of the world's energy. (American Almanac)

* In 1997, U.S. residents consumed an average of 12,133 kilowatt-hours of electricity each, almost nine times greater than the average for the rest of the world. (Grist Magazine)

Sure, let's talk about fair and balanced, shall we? Tell you what -- we can discuss sharing all that water equally when you folks start consuming energy equally.

Whaddya think? Is that fair? Does that work for you?

UPDATE: It occurs to me to ask -- where are all those patriotic, flag-waving Blogging Tories on this issue? Remember, these are the people who are allegedly "standing up for Canada" and "getting things done" and yadda yadda yadda.

Certainly, there's no shortage of Canadian progressives who are sounding the alarm over this issue, but from the Blogging Tories, we seem to get ... a deafening silence.

Why is that? It's not as if there's a distinct ideological divide here. This isn't same-sex marriage, or Intelligent Design in the classroom, or the freakin' Wheat Board. This is all about whether Canada has the sovereign right to control its own water. It's hard to even imagine a more obvious no-brainer, and yet the BTs seem blissfully unconcerned (if they aren't actively campaigning to give away Canada's water rights).

So here's a little homework. First, are there any BTs who are actually blogging about this? That is, who are actively opposed to allowing the United States to control Canada's water supply?

And for my Blogging Tory readers (all three of you, I'm sure), a simple question -- what's your stand? Is giving away control of our water supply your idea of standing up for Canada and getting things done? Seriously, it's not a tough question. Where do your loyalties lie?

Enquiring minds want to know.

All your waters are belong to us.

Alison at Creekside has been all over this issue, and it's not like I have a whole lot more to add, but if anyone doesn't understand the potential clusterfuck here, this is an interesting read, particularly this passage:

A contentious issue that continues to be debated is whether the United States is entitled under the NAFTA (and was previously under the FTA, which contained similar provisions) to a share of Canada’s fresh water supply.

Did you catch that? Whether the U.S. is entitled to some of Canada's water. That's what this is all about, folks.

Be concise. Give examples. Show your work.

And for your Tuesday morning political science assignment, identify your favourite passage from this. Here's mine:

"A responsible, rational opponent of the war in Iraq and of George W. Bush would say, "I am appalled by the disastrous war in Iraq, appalled by the wasted American lives, appalled by the moral wasteland of Iraq, and I loathe this president..."

Apparently, a visceral loathing of President Chimpy McChimpster that was once "Bush Derangement Syndrome" is now "responsible" and "rational". I guess that's progress. Sort of.

Take it away.