And why don't we check in on Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ to see how well she's dealing with the real world? May 20, 2007:
At Instapundit, another email from Michael Yon;
I cannot believe my eyes and ears in Anbar. Very quiet where I am. Did a foot patrol today with Iraqi Army and a couple of Marines. Local population was friendly. Have not heard a shot fired in anger in days. (Whereas before the sounds of war were nearly always in the air.)
Backign up earlier commentary by MIchael Yon, more good news from the heart of the Sunni insurgency;
The level of violence has plummeted in recent weeks. An alliance of U.S. troops and local tribes has been very effective in moving against the al-Qaeda foreign fighters. A senior U.S. military official told me—confirming reports from several other sources—that there have been "a couple of days recently during which there were zero effective attacks and less than 10 attacks overall in the province (keep in mind that an attack can be as little as one round fired). This is a result of sheiks stepping up and opposing AQI [al-Qaeda in Iraq] and volunteering their young men to serve in the police and army units there." The success in Anbar has led sheiks in at least two other Sunni-dominated provinces, Nineveh and Salahaddin, to ask for similar alliances against the foreign fighters.
I recently returned from Iraq and four other countries in the Middle East, my first trip to the region since December. In the intervening five months, almost everything about the American war effort in Baghdad has changed, with a new coalition military commander, Gen. David Petraeus; a new U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker; the introduction, at last, of new troops; and most important of all, a bold, new counterinsurgency strategy.
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann continued to stand by President Bush's military surge in Iraq, two days after returning from a congressional trip that put her in the line of fire while visiting Baghdad.
"It hasn't had a chance to be in place long enough to offer a critique of how it's working," said Bachmann, R-Minn...
The delegation's visit was harrowing at times. While visiting with U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker at the U.S. Embassy inside Baghdad's walled, high-security Green Zone on Friday, mortar blasts landed inside the American-controlled territory.
"This recorded message played four times while we were there, asking us to move away from any windows, to get on the ground and move to the center of the building," Bachmann said. "(Crocker) stayed in his seat and kept talking with us the whole time. He never moved."
But here's the best part:
Security conditions in Iraq prevented Bachmann from meeting any Iraqis, leaving the Green Zone or staying in Iraq overnight. She and other congressional members were required to wear full body armor, including Kevlar helmets, during the entire trip, she said.
Yeah ... all that bad craziness, and they never even left the most secure, most fortified area in Baghdad.
Cue commenter "amosbsk" complaining about ... something, I'm sure. Because that's just the pissy, little whiner he is.
The Army missed its recruiting goals in June for the second straight month, as rising casualties in Iraq and a strong economy at home kept the service from enlisting enough new soldiers, Pentagon officials said.
The Army fell more than 1,000 active duty recruits short of its June goal of 8,400, said a Pentagon official who spoke on condition of anonymity because the figures had not yet been formally released.
Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™: When you need an antidote to all that mainstream "liberal" bias, and you have no clue with the word "irony" really means.
How odd -- in the last several minutes, I've had two separate site referrals from this URL, but when I click on that link, I get a blank page with only a header reading "The Wall Street Journal ONLINE".
Does anyone else see any actual content? I'm purely mystified why anything at WSJ would be pointing here.
Armed with only his wits, his cunning and, of course, articles from the Asian Pacific Post and the Vancouver Sunexplaining all the details ...
Is it just me, or is anyone else creeped out by Janke's unseemly obsession with East Indians and his desperate need to tie them to honour killings every chance he gets?
Hey, Steve ... here's another correlation that might interest you: Catholic priests and altar boys. No, really, check it out ... you might be shocked at what you find.
[Republican] Louisiana Sen. David Vitter apologized Monday for his telephone number showing up on the old phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates, the alleged prostitution ring run in the nation's capital by Deborah Jeane Palfrey.
My favourite part:
"Several years ago, I asked for and received forgiveness from God and my wife in confession and marriage counseling. Out of respect for my family, I will keep my discussion of the matter there --with God and them."
You know, you'd think that if God took the time to put Vitter's mind at ease after the fact, he might have bothered to show up before this whole thing started -- to nip it in the bud, so to speak:
"Um, Dave? Are you sure you want to be doing this? I mean, there's a reason I gave you those Ten Commandments? You remember the Ten Commandments, right? I didn't just do that for the intellectual exercise, you know."
God: When it's a lot easier to ask for forgiveness than to be told "No!" right up front.
It was way back here when commenter "rabbit" introduced us to the version of reality on his planet:
I notice also that people are getting dragged in front of Human Rights Boards for simple speech. The Bishop of Calgary is a good example, when he spoke out against gay marriage. Even when nothing comes of it, such actions suppress free speech.
Not having much patience with dishonest crap, I responded thusly:
rabbit wrote:
"The Bishop of Calgary is a good example, when he spoke out against gay marriage. Even when nothing comes of it, such actions suppress free speech."
Don't be so embarrassingly ignorant, rabbit. Henry did not simply "speak out against gay marriage," which would have been perfectly acceptable.
"Bishop Fred Henry is refusing to take back comments he made comparing homosexuality to prostitution and adultery, after two people lodged human rights complaints against him."
I'm hoping, rabbit, that you can appreciate the difference between what you wrote and what actually happened.
There's a relevant saying here: "Everyone's entitled to their own opinions, but they're not entitled to their own facts." And this, I predict, is going to be the downfall of The Great Canadian Debate: Canada's wankers will not simply show up to defend and/or justify their interpretation of the facts. Rather, they will show up with a complete set of fabricated facts that bear no resemblance to reality whatsoever.
As the quintessential example of this, consider the ongoing "debate" regarding biological evolution. Regardless of how many times you try to explain this to the more abysmally ignorant members of the wankerhood, you will, on a regular basis, hear this: "Evolution is impossible because it violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."
No. No, it doesn't. That's simply wrong.
But that won't stop said wankers from demanding to debate you on that very topic, to which the only appropriate response is, "Fuck off, you imbecile." Quite simply, there is no value in debating reality, but that doesn't stop the wankerhood from trying to do it repeatedly, over and over, again and again. And that, I fear, is exactly what's going to happen with The Great Canadian Debate.
Imagine, if you will, a given wanker opening his debate on the scientific validity of biological evolution with the above claim involving the Second Law of Thermodynamics. How does one properly respond to that? By giving a dissertation on the Second Law? Not likely. One responds by stating simply, "You're an idiot. I win."
Better yet, there should be no need for a rebuttal. What should happen is that the moderators (or whoever's in charge) should stop the debate instantly, and disqualify the moron. There should be absolutely no need for anyone to spend time defending facts. If someone makes a claim as idiotic as, say, "We need to fight al-Qaeda in Afghanistan because Saddam had WMDs" or "Abortions cause breast cancer," they should be shown the door. Immediately.
There is no value whatsoever in wasting anyone's time refuting what is obvious rubbish. Canada's wankersphere may be entitled to their opinions (as insipid and misguided as they are), but when it comes to the Great Debate, there should be no patience for allowing them to show up toting their own bucket o' facts. If that happens, and the moderators don't step in instantly to stop the discussion, then that venture will be a horrific waste of time.
And, being the pessimist that I am, I already have a good idea how this is all going to play out. And, I dare say, it's not going to be pretty.
POOR "ANONYMOUS": It must drive first commenter "anonymous" crazy that I choose to write about the Great Debate while having no interest whatever in participating. Here's a suggestion, A: why don't you try leaving comments that have something worthwhile to say? Really, give it a shot. There's always a first time for everything, you know.
Bush Denies Congress Access to Aides Bush Invokes Executive Privilege to Deny Congress Testimony From Former White House Aides
President Bush invoked executive privilege Monday to deny requests by Congress for testimony from two former aides about the firings of federal prosecutors.
The White House, however, did offer again to make former counsel Harriet Miers and one-time political director Sara Taylor available for private, off-the-record interviews.
And the rationale for the claim of executive privilege? You had to ask, didn't you? (emphasis added)
In a letter to the heads of the House and Senate Judiciary panels, White House counsel Fred Fielding insisted that Bush was acting in good faith and refused lawmakers' demand that the president explain the basis for invoking the privilege.
Not surprisingly, with such a stunning development that flies in the face of basic Constitutional principles, Canada's Blogging Tories are all over the story.
Once again, we have premature eJankulator™ Steve Janke, slowly twiddling the knobs on his police scanner, hoping to latch onto another seedy case where he can embarrass himself thoroughly. Oh, look ...
The investigation into the murder of newlywed Shemina Cheema (formerly Shemina Hirji) continues, but the police are keeping every detail under wraps. Even the cause of death will not be discussed with anyone, not even the family. Meanwhile, the question of whether Shemina was targeted continues to be asked, with focus on the mixed marriage (Paul Cheema was Sikh, and Shemina was a Muslim). A quick perusal of message boards reveals that the majority of families angrily oppose these mixed marriages, and the news director of Vancouver-based Radio India confirms that those feelings are as prevalent in British Columbia as they are in India.
Good job, Steve, because as we all know, there's little chance that B.C. law enforcement can get to the bottom of this without the vacuous and unsubstantiated meddling and speculation of a toothpaste-obsessed, wannabe detective from Cambridge, Ontario. I mean, we all remember how that last adventure of yours turned out, don't we?
Can somebody please just take away Steve's Cap'n Crunch secret decoder ring and let the grownups get on with their jobs? AFTERSNARK: Appreciate, if you will, a snippet of that piece I wrote back in November of last year (emphasis added):
I could go on, but there's really not much point. It's not that I think Janke is too clueless to take seriously -- it's that I think he's dangerously irresponsible. So while I don't think Janke is even remotely worth reading based on his actual production, I think he's worth keeping an eye on based simply on the damage he seems capable of causing. And frankly, if he keeps up this sort of sensationalistic rubbish, I'm betting it's only a matter of time before he finds himself on the business end of a defamation suit of some kind.
DOWN THE MEMORY HOLE. And just because you need a little more entertainment value, let's pop over to Steve's place and use his own search engine to track down his corrections/retractions/apologies for the David Herle incident.
So go here and follow those first two links and ... uh oh. I wonder if Herle knows about this. Heh heh.
Back here (in the first comment), Olaf opened the bidding with a curiously misworded submission for a debate topic:
Just to get things moving, howabout this debate topic:
"Can support for the troops be equated with support for the war?"
Um ... no, Olaf, that's not the question. The proper question is, in fact, "Must support for the troops be equated with support for the war?" Or, conversely, "Is it even possible to profess support for the troops without that support being dishonestly and opportunistically misinterpreted as support for the war?"
Blogging Tory Frank Parker ... what say you? (emphasis probably unnecessary, but let me make it easy for the hard of thinking among you)
Principle over Popularity
This is a tough issue to take a stand on for our party. But I truly hope that Stephen Harper will take a stand, defy these so-called experts and the opposition and extend the mission. We’ve supported the mission since Day1 (as have most Liberals) but unlike the Liberals we have principle. We’ve said we’re behind the troops, and we’ve got to commit to that.
And there you have it -- supporting the troops equals extending the mission, and vice versa, and one potential topic for debate is resolved once and for all, and we can move on.
No, no, don't thank me -- efficient time management is what I'm all about.
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration is urging a former White House political director to ignore a subpoena and not testify before Congress about the firings of federal prosecutors, her lawyer says.
The Senate Judiciary Committee wants to hear from Sara Taylor at its hearing Wednesday and she is willing to talk. Testifying, however, would defy the wishes of the president, “a person whom she admires and for whom she has worked tirelessly for years,” lawyer W. Neil Eggleston said.
So, let's be clear -- her rationale for defying a Congressional subpoena would be ... what exactly? (emphasis unnecessarily added)
[Eggleston] added, “Absent the direction from the White House, Ms. Taylor would testify without hesitation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. She has committed no wrongdoing. She will assert no personal privileges.”
Gotcha -- because her hero asked her not to. Why, yes -- as I understand it, that's a perfectly legitimate legal defense these days. I'm sure all those law-and-order Blogging Tories will be all over this sordid tale of self-interested contempt for the legal process.
You actually followed that link, didn't you? You people just never learn.
Courtesy of Canada's screeching, Catholic loon (no, that would be Canada's other screeching Catholic loon), we have a perfectly plausible conspiracy theory involving, oh, the world's entire scientific community:
In the wake of frantic efforts to discredit biochemist Mike Behe's new book, The Edge of Evolution, a lawyer friend writes to say,
Asking the mainstream science community to declare that new discoveries in molecular biology and DNA render materialism inadequate to explain life is like asking someone to declare that his skills have become outmoded and obsolete, unable to solve the new problems facing us. To ask someone to declare his own obsolescence triggers some pretty strong emotions, and some powerful emotional resistance, and counter-accusations. In the words of the poet Dylan Thomas, they "Do not go gentle into that good night" and they "rage, rage against the dying of the light." Thus, the emotional vehemence exhibited by the mainstream side is what we should expect, ...
Yes, exactly. And I have seen it in so many venues - social workers discussing welfare dependency, teachers discussing the relationship between strict standards and performance, police officers discussing the usefulness of current drug laws, dieticians discussing the usefulness of weight loss diets, media people denying a liberal bias* that is confirmed by virtually every political science study - NO ONE wants to hear findings, however impeccably produced and presented, that challenge the routine thinking with which their prospects and prestige are entangled.
Denyse would have been happy to further expound on the reluctance of people to hear findings that challenge their thinking but, sadly, she was already late for her church group meeting where she was going to present on the inviolability of Catholic Church doctrine, including the Holy Trinity, transubstantiation and the joys of a geocentric universe.
In a move sure to strengthen Judeo-Christian relations, Pope Ratzo the First has revived the Tridentine Mass, which specifically targets for conversion those adorable Jews and their wacky ideas:
“For the conversion of the Jews. Let us pray also for the Jews that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us pray: Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness.?
In response, the Blogging Tory Anti-Semite Rapid Response Squad (or "NAMBLA") began scouring their archives for bad things to say about Robert McClelland.
In a shocking display of actual journalism, Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson points out the mind-numbingly obvious:
Mr. Harper has a style, and he's sticking to it - the most controlling, stifling, rigid style of any prime minister in memory. He's got a formula, and he's also sticking to it - short speeches, no spontaneity, tight scripts, rehearsed political choreography, utter discipline within the ranks, media kept at a distance. It's all about Him...
By way of response to Simpson, all 421 Blogging Tories obediently and simultaneously published angry blog posts, describing him as a "liberal, leftist, moonbat whiner," then wandered off to freep an online poll somewhere.
You would have hoped that with all the press on the issue of Chinese toothpaste spiked with diethylene glycol and counterfeit Colgate toothpaste teeming with bacteria normally associated with sewage, dollar stories would be much more careful concerning the health care products they put on their shelves.
I visited a dollar store (not the same one in which I found the counterfeit Colgate) and found a toothpaste, clearly not for the Canadian market, and clearly not allowed to be put on the store shelves and sold.
How do I know that this product was not fit to be sold? Trust me when I say it was so obvious.
Yes, it's official -- Steve Janke is now the official go-to guy on all things toothpaste.
In other, clearly less important news, Canada is raising its limits on pesticides in order to placate the United States. I'm sure Steve would have been interested in that story, too, but, geez, there's only so many hours in a day, know what I mean?
Shorter Richard Evans: "Civility? It's whatever the fuck I say it is."
I hope you're paying attention, Paladiea. There'll be a quiz after this is all over.
I LIKE THIS PART of Richard's rant:
As far as the debate goes, It'll be civil enough. I plan on using it as another example of how the left can't assert/maintain an opinion without resorting to ad homs, emotional rhetoric, mud slinging and misdirection.
Yeah, Richard, you be sure to show us angry, unhinged, deranged moonbats how it's done. This is going to be such fun.
P.S. By the way, Paladiea, if a bunch of us leftists throw an impromptu intervention on your behalf, it's only because we love you.
Even among the batshit crazy, clinically insane Blogging Tories, you'll find the occasional example of someone who still retains a healthy grip on reality and knows bad craziness when he sees it:
I know a lot of Conservatives in Canada support the United States and their war in Iraq. I don't. And I'm not really a fan of a political party which spends so much money on a foreign problem that they exceed the GDP of most nations in military spending alone. And it's not even necessary for the direct security of the United States, which is perhaps the worst part of the entire affair...
Not only is the Iraq war killing a lot of people, it's killing the economy.
And that's when poor Raphael learns the hard way that you just don't fuck with the party line, as fellow Blogging Tory Shameer (Sham the Tory Man) Ravji crawls out from under his algae-encrusted rock to set everyone straight in the comments section:
That's funny, I could have sworn you were talking about the left and their endless hypocrisy. Everything you accuse Bush of doing in the US are the exact same things that your Mini-me heros in Cuba and Venezuela are guilty of. As for the rest of your childish rant (both you archer and the blog poster), I guess you've been swallowing too much of Michael Moore and Noam Chomskey's kool-aid.
Damn straight, Sham, you tell 'em. I mean, you let those BTs start thinking for themselves and drawing their own conclusions and, God only knows, next thing you'll have discussions full of nuance and balance and facts and all sorts of nasty, left-wing shit like that.
Best to nip that sort of thing in the bud early. It's just easier on the intellect.
Eleanor Clift points to the 'tell' that still hasn't gotten enough attention ...
Fitzgerald said he wasn’t able to uncover the conspiracy because of all the sand thrown in his eyes by Libby to obstruct the investigation. Looking back at the trial, it was as inevitable as night following day that President Bush would find a way to get Libby off the hook. The fix was in when Libby’s high-priced legal team mounted a curiously passive defense. After pointing to Vice President Cheney as an instigator in the Plame naming, hinting they might even call the veep to testify, they abruptly backed off, slow-walking Libby toward conviction with no alibi for his lies other than that he didn’t remember. As legal eagles, they didn’t impress, but they did preserve the pardon option.
There was a promise: you'll never do a day in jail.
And metaphorically at least, as the trial got underway, he got it in writing.
I was curious about why Libby's team didn't seem to have a sense of urgency about them after a point. Silly me.
Yeah, I think you're reaching a bit with that analogy:
Shuster Rips Neoconservative Ajami For Comparing Scooter Libby To Fallen U.S. Soldiers
In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last month, neoconservative scholar Fouad Ajami compared Scooter Libby to “fallen soldiers” in Iraq. “[Libby] can’t be left behind as a casualty of a war our country had once proudly claimed as its own,” he wrote.
On the other hand, if you take one of those soldiers, convict him of perjury and obstruction of justice, then commute his posting to Iraq, you might have something there.
You know what's so neat about the Internets? They have a long memory. Like from back here, when I introduced you to the Blogging Tories' Brian Lemon and his ambitious plan to start cataloguing all that evil, left-wing bias in the Canadian media.
As Brian put it:
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', dude, I am so down with that. So ... it's been over two months, Brian ... how are things going? Oooooooh ... not so well. Who exactly has fallen afoul of Brian's determined search for the truth? Well, there's this guy:
David Herle - Liberal Communications Advisor
Was communications director for Liberal Prime Minister Paul Martin and was CEO of Earnscliffe which has come under scrutiny for the firm's relationship to the former Prime Minister.
Damn! What nerve! What chutzpah! What overwhelming duplicitude! My God ... if only Brian had presented any examples of his media bias, it would have been a slam-dunk case. And what about this sleazy weasel?
Robin Sears - NDP Communications Advisor
National director of the New Democratic Party (1974-81) From 1981-85, he was Deputy Secretary General of the Socialist International From 1985-90, served as Chief of Staff to Ontario NDP party leader Bob Rae
Or her?
Joy MacPhail
Likely the most likeable and moderate of all the Duff Newman commentators, Joy was a minister in Dosanjh's NDP government in British Columbia.
And then -- brace yourself -- there's this wretch:
Marlo Raynolds
Posted by Lemon at 2:43 PM 0 comments Links to this post
whose appalling disregard for fairness and balance is so egregious that it cannot be exposed to the light of day for fearing of harming the children.
Yes, I can see the debate resolution now: "Resolved: That the Canadian mainstream media has a flagrant and pernicious liberal bias."
Yes, I think Brian's ready to tackle that one. I'd pay to see that. Really. I would.
Exciting new developments in American, right-wing meltdown:
A new American Research Group national survey of 1,100 adults finds 45% favor "the US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against President George W. Bush."
The same poll finds 54% favor "US House of Representatives beginning impeachment proceedings against Vice President Dick Cheney."
A Newsweek poll finds only 26% of Americans approve of George W. Bush.
Your mission, should you decide to accept it: Identify the first Blogging Tory to mention any of this.
Yeah, that's kind of a no-lose challenge on my part, isn't it?
First, there's Dave over at TGB, discussing the possibility of William Elliott as the next commissioner of the RCMP:
He's not and has never been a Mountie. In fact, he's never been a peace officer. He's not a cop...
So... that means he worked for Don Mazankowsi in Mulroney's government. Then he worked for Harper when Harper was in opposition. Starting to look like a Conservative Party hack to me. But he's not a cop...
Day didn't mention whether Conservative Party membership was a requirement. "William" may be many things, but he's not a cop...
Day doesn't answer criticisms. He normally just lies. Elliott is a Conservative Party insider. And he's not a cop...
What Elliott doesn't wear, is red serge. He's not a cop.
Harper and the village idiot from Okanagan-Coquihalla have just taken a position which requires complete political neutrality and turned it into a partisan political appointment. Further, despite any other qualifications, Elliott has never been a cop. He has no idea what the front-line constable actually does because he's never been a cop.
One thing about selecting politically loyal operatives to fill senior positions is that almost any chicken farmer can fill a uniform.
Let's hope Elliott doesn't even try to put one on. He's not a cop.
Me: "See, Richard, you can't compare your situation and Meaghan's because there are significant differences, which I will now proceed to outline in rigorous and excruciating detail."
Good luck, Paladiea. When you get an overwhelming urge to talk to the grownups again, well, you know where to find us.
AFTERSNARK: It is truly breathtaking how quickly the lies begin over at LFR. Consider the first sentence of the first comment on that article, by LFR contributor Gamil Gharbi:
I like how they call you a fascist for legally regestering [sic] a website.
First, "they"? "They?" And who would these "they" be? A quick perusal of my blog post in question shows precisely one person who used that expression:
Yeabbut, Richard knows that if he's dealing with someone completely pseudonymous, there's no real legal recourse...none that's been established with cyber-stalking and online harrassment laws, as far as I know, or nothing that the police will take all that seriously, unless there's evidence that Richard does in fact know the identities of the people he's harrassing (which might have been obtained illegally).
What Richard *does* hope for is that you eventually out yourself, so you can no longer have the advantages pseudonymity provides, thus circumscribing your freedom of expression. Richard's a true fascist, in every sense of the word...
By Ti-Guy.
So, there is no general "they," is there? Rather, there is simply a "he." But it gets better.
If you read Ti-Guy's comment, he is clearly not making the accusation in the context of merely registering a domain name as Gharbi claims, is he? Oh, no, Ti-Guy is clearly discussing this in a larger context, which makes Gharbi a pathetic, lying little fuckwad. Kind of like Richard, which I'm sure is why they get along so well.
I feel sorry for you, Paladiea. The longer this goes on, the less reputation you're going to have left to preserve. I tried to warn you.
Over at Joel Johannesen's "Proud to be Canadian," regular columnist and recovering mousse-a-holic Doug Giles lays down the law with respect to the studs who come sniffing around after his progeny. It's funny stuff -- almost as funny as the unattributed original.
When someone coined the phrase "It beats working for a living," I'm fairly sure they had Doug in mind. IT'S ALL COMING BACK TO ME NOW. I knew there was something creepily familiar about that article. Now I remember. Yeesh. I mean, yeesh.
Oh, man ... this promises to have more entertainment value than watching a Blogging Tory trying to learn science. From the first comment back here, we learn that the socially-maladjusted Richard Evans may actually be a participant in The Great Canadian Debate.
And if that doesn't drive the audience screaming for the fire exits, well, you'll never guess who's on deck. Go ahead ... guess. Come on, really. You'll never guess.
Picking up a couple extra cases of beer may not be enough. I might need to stock up on the cocaine for this.
BONUS TRACK: If Brian needs a debate topic, let me suggest one: "Mindlessly regurgitating Matt Drudge to smear a reporter, being caught at it, promising to make a correction and retraction if it's warranted, then quietly moving on and pretending none of that ever happened is simply good journalism."
I take it all back, Paladiea. You are a freakin' genius.
Harsh US immigration rules force Microsoft to open shop in Canada
OTTAWA (AFP) - US software behemoth Microsoft Corp. said Thursday it would soon open an office in Canada, lamenting tough immigration rules in the United States that make it difficult to hire foreign staff.
"It is about recruiting the best and brightest, and right now, the majority are coming from overseas," Marc Seaman, a spokesman for the world's biggest software company, told The Globe and Mail newspaper.
"The United States has immigration quotas and some limitations for bringing in people from outside the country," he said. "That challenge is an opportunity for Canada, in the sense that this will bring the top software developers to Canada."
Sure, Bill ... after the U.S. gouged us out of half a billion dollars in softwood lumber duties, it's the least we can do to help you skirt your country's immigration restrictions.
And, hey, they'll even be eligible for socialized medicine. No, no, really, no need to thank us, it's the least we can do. Always happy to help. After all, we're Canadian.
His stump speech consists of broad conservative themes, talk of bipartisanship and commentary on issues of the day, but it largely lacks any vision for the future of the country. He deflects questions on what a Thompson presidency would look like and demurs when pressed for specific proposals for how to fix the nation's ills. He opines on hot topics, from taxes to terrorism, in online columns and on his Web site, usually without being challenged.
No matter. Even an empty suit like Thompson is going to have his groupies.
John at Americablog has a profound observation on the (alleged) difference between our religious fundamentalists and their religious fundamentalists (emphasis added):
One man's Islamic fundamentalist is another man's Christian fundamentalist
This photo in today's Washington Post of Islamic fundamentalist students rioting in Pakistan got me thinking about the difference between Islamic radicals and America's religious right. Both want to live in a theocratic state where they can force others to live under their own warped, hate-filled, minority version of an otherwise peaceful mainstream religion. And yes, the Islamic radicals are more violent than our Christian radicals, but only because our Christian radicals know that violence isn't acceptable in America. So they express their violence in their hearts, and their souls, and their politics. But at their core, they're no different. They hate all the same, and they'll happily bash with the power of a club or the power of the state. Both claim to represent the true God, both think they speak for all Muslims and all Christians, and neither does.
Exactly. Our fundamentalists love to sit around, sanctimoniously pointing out how they're not a bunch of raging, violent, hate-filled loons. However, one suspects that's simply because they can't get away with it here, and there would be consequences if they tried. But, every so often, the mask slips and the real extremist emerges and the consequences are ugly indeed.
No, our wingnuts are far more civilized and would never descend into that kind of violent madness. But, deep down, you have to suspect that they'd give it some serious consideration if they thought they could get away with it.
DEEP AFTERTHOUGHTS: In a funny way, beating up on people using the power of the state is even more insidious than outright violence. If someone hated you so much that they came at you with a baseball bat, you could at least defend yourself in a similar manner, and it might be a fair fight.
But why resort to violence when you can slowly and inexorably grind down those same people with the power of the state? Strip them of their rights, deny them housing based on their skin colour or sexual orientation, make it difficult or impossible for them to get and keep certain jobs, perpetually describe them in public forums as abominations, tell them they can't marry the person of their choice, criminalize their private behaviour, and on and on and depressingly on. And, all the while, defend your actions with flowery phrases like "freedom of speech" and "freedom of expression." After all, it allows you to keep your hands clean, doesn't it?
Yeah, that'll work. Violence might give you instant gratification, but there's nothing like slowly and permanently dehumanizing some demographic to give you that all-over warm, fuzzy feeling of religious satisfaction while still letting you attend all the classier dinner parties.
Or letting you hang out over here. Yeah, you can still do that, too.
I did promise I'd get around to dealing with the childish, feces-flinging Richard Evans of "Let Freedom Reign" and so, without further ado, let's get down to business.
To recap, Richard thinks it's just a hoot (and some sort of laudable contribution to civil discourse in the blogosphere, I imagine) to register "lookalike" domain names of bloggers he doesn't care for, and redirect them to interesting places, which is what he's done with "somenamedia.com" and "cycles2k.com" and "myblahg.ca" and, most recently, "canadiancynic.net."
When someone points out to him that this is the sort of thing one might expect from an intellectually-stunted, petulant, six-year-old, Richard snaps back that Meaghan Champion did exactly the same thing with smalldeadanimals.blogspot.com so, "She did it first! So there! Neener, neener, neener!," and that I should hold Meaghan to the same standard.
Where to even begin the kneecapping here?
In the first place, Richard, if you look to the right (no, the other right, you airhead), you'll notice that Meaghan is not on my blogroll. Never has been. You did notice that before you started that spittle-flecked diatribe of yours, right? Good. Onward.
It's also amusing to note the standard defense of the wank-o-sphere when called on their behaviour -- "But (fill in the blank here) did it first!" Yes, it's always entertaining to hear a rationalization along the lines of "But ... but ... Meaghan ..." or "But ... but ... the Liberals ..." or "But ... but ... Bill Clinton ...". Apparently, those who claim the moral high ground in damned near everything have a moral standard that consists of little more than telling us that, hey, they're no worse than other people and they never started it. Yes, that's a moral standard to be proud of, isn't it? But enough chit-chat. Let's get down to the real issue.
Richard is taking the position that, given Meaghan's SDA-lookalike site of "What Kate Said ..." (formerly "Small Dead Animals 2.0"), what he's doing is no worse, and I'm being hypocritical in my selective criticism. How best to respond to this? How about, you're a moron, Richard.
Let's consider Meaghan's lookalike site, shall we? As best I understand it, that site was inspired after an extended feud between Meaghan and Kate, where Kate (totally in character) made numerous racist and dishonest and slanderous comments about Meaghan. Regardless of whether or not that's true, there is one indisputable claim you can make about Meaghan's WKS site -- it's purpose is to inform.
If you go to WKS, deliberately or accidentally, and regardless of whether you believe what's there or not, that site has a singular purpose -- to impart information to the reader. Its goal is clearly to allow Meaghan to get across her message in this dispute. In short, no matter whose side you take in that dust-up, WKS seeks to educate you on the issues. Which is precisely what Richard fails to do in any way with what he's done.
If Richard wants to claim a moral equivalence here, then one can ask what message he's trying to send or what information he's trying to impart by, say, redirecting the lookalike domain cycles2k.com back to his site. Apparently, Richard has an ongoing conflict with the corresponding blogger but, by squatting on the domain name and pointing it to his own blog, what is Richard's point?
If one follows that link, what does one learn about the beef Richard has with the original blogger? What message is being presented here? What information does one get regarding the issues or points of contention in that disagreement? Quite simply, sweet fuck all. As opposed to Meaghan, who is actively using her lookalike domain to actually address issues, Richard is merely being childish, and telling readers precisely nothing other than that he's a jackass.
One can ask Richard the same question about his motivation for registering canadiancynic.net and pointing it at his LFR site. What's your point, Richard? If people accidentally follow that link and end up at LFR, what are they supposed to suddenly learn about how you disagree with me, and on what topics? What new knowledge are they supposed to take away from that visit? What stunning wisdom will you have imparted because of that? And the answer? Again, squat. No attempt to address anything whatsoever -- it's simply the equivalent of mindless, blogosphere vandalism.
And what is one supposed to conclude from the fact that Richard's lookalike Somena Media site points here -- to the white supremacist Stormfront site? Seriously, Richard, how is this contributing to the discourse in any way? This tells us nothing about Meaghan or Kate, but it does suggest that you might have a few white hood issues of your own.
(As an aside, Richard has also registered myblahg.ca, and redirected it here. And, frankly, that is the one legitimate use of a lookalike domain by Richard. Regardless of whose side you're on, he has used the lookalike to present a rebutting point of view, so that example is at least defensible.)
In short, Richard's been whining about how what he's done is no different from what Meaghan's done. Rubbish. Utter rubbish. Meaghan, whether you agree with her or disagree with her, at least tried to use her lookalike site to educate readers on the issues. Richard, on the other hand, is simply being a whiny, infantile little fuck whose only motivation is to smear people he doesn't like by generating confusion and tarnishing their reputations in the blogosphere.
I trust we're done here. UPPITY DATE: Actually, not quite. There's a bit more coming shortly. I'm sure you'll just be waiting on tenterhooks. Whatever those are.
MARTINSBURG, W.Va. (AP) - In a patriotic July 4th speech to an invitation-only audience, President George W. Bush on Wednesday defended the U.S. military buildup in Iraq, saying victory will require "more patience, more courage and more sacrifice."
"However difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it," Bush said, telling members of the West Virginia Air National Guard that now is not the time to leave.
At the risk of being a bit repetitive, let's talk about censorship. Here's how it works around here.
Like most bloggers, I write stuff. And I like people to read that stuff. And I even like getting feedback on that stuff. And that's why I enable comments on this blog -- because I like to hear what other folks have to say. Sometimes, they agree with me, which makes me feel good and gives me warm fuzzies inside. And sometimes, they explain where I've gone wrong, and those people can just fuck off and die ... no, wait, that's just the cocaine talking. Where was I? Ah, right.
Not only do I have a comments section, but it is unmoderated. And, to top it all off, I even allow anonymous commenters. In short, come one, come all, pull up a chair and let's chat. However, I do have my limits.
As I have explained on a number of occasions, while I like a good intellectual tussle as well as the next man, there's a difference between an honest disagreement, and someone just wandering in here, shrieking incoherently and flinging feces at everyone in sight. At that point, I have a policy -- if you can't behave, there's the door and don't slam it on your way out.
This is not an original policy; many others do the same thing. Perhaps the best summation can be found here: "Comments are great; obnoxious comments get deleted. Deal." And that strikes me as perfectly reasonable. If you play nice, you can stay. If you act like an asshole, you can't. What's not to like about that? Sadly, though, others are not as graciously accommodating.
As I explained back here, "Proud to be Canadian"'s Joel Johannesen's position is that, if you don't agree with whatever oozes out of his intellectually syphilitic brain, you can hit the fucking road. Put simply, if Joel wants your opinion, he'll give it to you.
Then there's Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ and white supremacist Kate McMillan who, as my regular readers are well aware, for the longest time blocked me and/or people redirected from this blog from even reading her racist swill. We're not talking about blocking comments; we're talking about Kate living in such abject fear of my rapier-like wit and intellectual superiority that she refused to allow me to even see the crud she published. (And this is when I have never, ever, ever left even a single comment at that cesspool she calls a blog. Yes, that aroma you detect? That would be the fear wafting out of Delisle, Saskatchewan.)
And, finally, when it comes to censorship, well, you can't top Canada's best-known Catholic sociopath, Kathy Shaidle, who simply doesn't allow comments, period. Yes, we have some serious examples of the right-wing echo chamber here, don't we? One big wankery circle jerk, as it were.
But on the rare occasion when I turf someone who's just being an obnoxious dumbass, and contrast that with someone like Joel Johannesen, I get comments like this:
Anonymous said...
So you both practice censorship, whats your point?
A decent, openminded blogger like Olaf allows all comments to stand on their own merit.
But you wouldnt understand that premise, methinks.
Why, yes ... the obvious conclusion to be drawn here is that I censor comments, and Joel censors comments, so we're even.
There's your debate topic, Paladiea: Resolved -- that conservatives are moronic retards. No, seriously, there's your resolution. Sure, you might have to clean it up a bit to make it official but, hey, if you're up for it, I'm game. Really, I'll argue for the affirmative and, truth be told, I'm feeling pretty cocky since I have a bottomless supply of right-wing dumbfuckitude to work with.
So whaddya say? I'm psyched, I'm primed. You set it up and supply the scotch, and I'll be there faster than you can say "conservative assclowns."
If you still have to ask why they call us progressives the "reality-based community," well, you just haven't been paying attention. BONUS TRACK: There's Stephen's fantasy world:
Since the topic of abortion has been one that hasn't been polled or discussed in any real public sense for years, ...
In a Gallup Canada poll taken April 2005, 52% of respondents say they would like to see Canadian abortion laws "remain the same," 20% say they would like the laws to be "less strict," while 24% say they would like the laws to be "more strict."
Conservative Party of Canada Pundit Stephen Taylor: Depressingly stupid, or hideously dishonest? You make the call. THE STUPID! IT BURNS! No, seriously, what useful tidbit of information is noticeably missing here? Give it time ... it'll come to you. AND THE TIDAL WAVE OF STUPID just keeps rolling on.
Well, you knew that was going to happen. No sooner do I suggest that Richard Evans has worn out his welcome here than I get a comment, shrieking about "censorship" and "freedom of speech" and equally asinine accusations. I deleted the comment, but now I regret it because it was such a splendid example of the lack of critical thinking skills in the dumbass-o-sphere.
Let me explain censorship. The following is what I received -- verbatim -- when I registered once upon a time at Joel Johannesen's septic tank of a blog "Proud to be Canadian." Appreciate, if you will, the noble open-mindedness and willingness to partake in honest dialogue in the following:
Your "membership" has been activated and is ready for use. Now that you're activated, please make use of your privileges!
If you're a LIBERAL, please remember that:
** You are a guest at ProudToBeCanadian ("PTBC"); and it is a privately-owned facility, and yes, privately-owned things are still allowed in this country;
** You are granted a priviledge by us as the owners of this site to post comments. You do not have "a right" to make comments at PTBC. Please be aware of the difference. You are not automatically "entitled" to anything at PTBC;
** We're under no obligation to provide you with a platform, at our expense, to rant on and on about liberalism, the "Canadian value" of abortion, smoking pot, socialism, or any other liberal-left ideal. Nor are we obligated to even allow you to post any of your comments at all whatsoever, and we may delete them if they break our very reasonable rules, and we are under no obligation to consult with you first;
** You will have to tread lightly, respectfully, and remember that you're among people who are committed conservatives (despite the teaching at schools and from the liberal media which permeates our lives), you're not necessarily among friends, and nobody will reach out to you for a group hug. And if you do remember that, you'll get along just fine and last forever at PTBC.
If you're a CONSERVTAIVE, show your support for the conservative cause by being active and regularly making comments -- even if it's just light-hearted one-liners.
For convenience, when you log in, you can set the log-in procedure to automatically "remember" you, so you won't have to log in each time you visit (and if you do use that feature, don't "log-out" or it resets). That makes it easy to quickly make comments when the urge strikes you.
Please also remember that this site is a massive undertaking and relies on cash contribution from regular folks like you. No, it isn't "free", you know, like our healthcare system is "free"! And no, "somebody else" isn't going to cover for your non-support. And no, we do not get any government funding or tax breaks.
href="http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/index/weblog/support-pre">SUPPORT US PLEASE, or we simply won't be able to carry on. And no, you will not get a tax receipt if you do support us, because we're not a registered charity, and we hope we never have to be.
Yessir, that's some serious open-mindedness. One wonders why Joel didn't just save the bandwidth and write, "If you don't already agree with everything I think, fuck off. Really."
I, on the other hand, like to give people their say, even if they disagree with me. But I've made it clear numerous times that I have a limit, and that limit is when commenters just won't shut the fuck up from saying the same stupidity over and over and over and over. At that point, I point out that, if they have that much to say, they're welcome to get their own blog to say it.
So, to recap, I generally don't toss peoples' asses out of here until they've made total dickheads of themselves, while Joel, right from the registration procedure, makes it clear that he will tolerate absolutely no dissension whatsoever, and will ban your sorry ass for the slightest infraction, real or imaginary.
And with all that in mind, guess which one of us is constantly accused of "censorship" by the dumbshit-o-sphere? Go on ... guess. Really. You'll never guess.
I'm a mite busy at the moment but, rest assured, I will take Richard Evans out to the woodshed soon and give him the beatdown he so thoroughly deserves. And, trust me, I will not have to exercise myself intellectually to do so.
I'm sure that last part was unnecessary.
DEAR RICHARD: With all due respect, piss off. Quite frankly, you've worn out your welcome here. You've had more than your fair share of comment time, and I'm drawing the line. If you have any more to say, feel free to say it at your site, and if anyone wants to know what you think, they can help themselves.
But, at this point, you're simply a broken record.
Since I make a hobby of regularly pointing out the pure, collective dumbassitude of the Blogging Tories, simple fairness demands that I give due when it's earned. Over here, Backseat Blogger nails it with respect to the Libby commutation, particularly understanding what the guilty verdict was all about:
... it’s not the crime that’ll get ya, it’s the coverup.
Exactly. This wasn't about the outing of a covert agent -- it was about the fact that Libby lied about it afterwards, under oath, to FBI investigators.
Sadly, first commenter Jonathan Strong at that article is as horrifically clueless as ever, but it is what we've come to expect from him. And he doesn't disappoint.
Put aside what you think of the actual commutation of Libby's sentence, because there's something subtler and sleazier going on here. Only yesterday, Commander Crotchbulge defended that commutation thusly (all important bits emphasized):
I respect the jury’s verdict. But I have concluded that the prison sentence given to Mr. Libby is excessive. Therefore, I am commuting the portion of Mr. Libby’s sentence that required him to spend thirty months in prison. My decision to commute his prison sentence leaves in place a harsh punishment for Mr. Libby. The reputation he gained through his years of public service and professional work in the legal community is forever damaged. His wife and young children have also suffered immensely. He will remain on probation. The significant fines imposed by the judge will remain in effect. The consequences of his felony conviction on his former life as a lawyer, public servant, and private citizen will be long-lasting.
Note well what Bush is saying here -- he can justify the commutation because he is leaving the rest of the sentence in place. Do you understand that? Because if you don't, go back and read it again. That's how Bush is rationalizing what he's just done.
WASHINGTON - The White House on Tuesday declined to rule out the possibility of an eventual pardon for former vice presidential aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby. But spokesman Tony Snow said, for now, President Bush is satisfied with his decision to commute Libby's 2 1/2-year prison sentence.
Now, regardless of what you think of the initial Libby decision, how on earth do you logically defend this latest pronouncement? What does it mean to say one should accept the commutation of the prison sentence because the remainder of the sentence will stay in effect, only to turn around one day later and announce that you might pardon the rest of it after all.
This is not logically defensible. It doesn't matter whether you're elated or outraged at the commutation -- this is simply not defensible. It makes no sense to justify abolishing part of the sentence by saying that you're still leaving the rest in place, then suggesting you might not leave the rest in place in the end.
This is nonsense. Regardless of where you sit on the ideological spectrum, this should piss you off. But I'm guessing the reaction from the dumbshit-o-sphere is going to be predictable.
There's only one argument that makes sense of this decision: no jail time. That's the argument. Scooter's price. Otherwise, he might have been tempted to go the Fitzgerald route to reduce his sentence.
And that's the only explanation that makes sense -- Scooter was willing to take the fall for Dick Cheney as long as he knew ahead of time that he'd never have to spend a day in jail. This has all been one long charade, where Libby has known the whole time how it was going to end.
If you've just come back from that badly-needed long weekend, well, we've been having some fun around here and, rather than try to cover it all again, you're welcome to review the last couple days of deathless prose and draw your own conclusions.
First, and somewhat unrelated to the above, I've started to clean up the blogroll a bit. Simply, I'm pruning a few entries (mostly because they appear to have gone defunct or don't publish regularly) and adding a few new ones that have come to my attention (with more on the way, so this is still very much a work in progress). But that's not really the story here.
No, the story is that, if you look to the right, you'll notice the absence of a few longtime stalwarts on the roll. And the reason is simple (as I have explained before and am not going to go into yet again) -- if you have the Olaf, the "Prairie Wrangler" on your blogroll, you're not going to be on mine. And, no, that is not negotiable. Deal with it.
That wasn't an easy decision since it forced me to chop some of my absolute favourites, such as "The Stormy Days of March" and "The Galloping Beaver" and "A BCer in TO" and "Idealistic Pragmatist", among others. So, yeah, it hurt, but it's my decision, just as it's everyone else's how they want to react to that. (I also passed over adding a couple new blogs for exactly the same reason, but there's no value in naming names here, so I won't.)
In any event, anyone affected is free to decide what they want to do about it. If you were cut and want back on the blogroll, you know what you have to do. If you were cut and are fine with that, then that's cool with me and the best of luck to you.
What it comes down to is that there's little enough one can do to fight the screaming, childish idiocy coming out of the dumbfuck-o-sphere these days, but this was one of those things I had control over, and I chose to exercise that control. And I'm free to make that decision, just as you're free to make yours.
All that leftist yearning and popcorn later. Let’s check on the outcomes of “Plamegate”:
* Dick Cheney: Still vice-president. * Karl Rove: Still around. * Lewis Libby: Not in jail. * George W. Bush: Still awesome. * Liberals: A mite peeved.
President Bush has done the right thing and has commuted Scooter Libby's sentence. It's about time. Many conservatives have been calling for this and I am glad President Bush has done this.
FMR. REP. GINGRICH: President—you know, I’m—I’ve been divorced twice.
Both times I’ve been deposed. Both times I was told, “Perjury is a felony. You should tell the truth under deposition.” President Clinton lied under oath as a lawyer in front of a sitting federal judge in a civil rights case. This was not about his personal behavior in the Oval Office. That’s a matter of judgment, and people can render judgment. The question is, do you want to go down the road of Nigeria and corruption and have a country in which, as long as he’s popular, he can break the law? And if Clinton gets to commit perjury on this topic, then what does the next president get to commit perjury on, and then what does the next president get to commit perjury on? This was entirely about something I knew personally. We have an obligation as citizens to tell the truth to a federal judge under oath. The president failed that.
Whoops, sorry ... I have no idea how that last one slipped in there.
There is a conceivable argument --- a very poor one but a conceivable one --- for pardoning Scooter Libby, presumably on the argument that the entire prosecution was political and thus illegitimate. But what conceivable argument does the president have for micromanaging the sentence? To decide that the conviction is appropriate, that probation is appropriate, that a substantial fine is appropriate --- just no prison sentence.
This is being treated in the press as splitting the difference, an elegant compromise. But it is the least justifiable approach. The president has decided that the sentencing guidelines and the opinion of judge don't cut it.
The only basis for this decision is that Libby is the vice president's friend, the vice president rules the president and this was the minimum necessary to keep the man silent.
Exactly. If Commander Codpiece thought the verdict was unfair, he should have simply issued a pardon and defended it. Instead, he's made the most indefensible of all possible choices -- he acknowledges the crime and the conviction while rejecting the sentence for it. And you just know that that kind of inconsistency is going to fly right over the heads of the entire wingnut-o-sphere.
See above. YES, DEAR. Commenter Alison has it exactly correct, as Josh Marshall describes here:
I havent seen this noted but i think the reason for the commutation is that a pardon would mean that Libby was no longer exposed to criminal sanctions and thus had no Fifth Amendment privilege. As it stands he has a fine and probation at stake during the pendency of the appeal which inulates [sic] him ( and Bush and Cheney) from havaing [sic] to answer questions before Congress.
It is the best of all possible worlds, isn't it? Probation means squat, Libby's friends will cover his $250,000 fine with pocket change, he'll immediately get a well-paying gig at a right-wing think tank (hello, American Enterprise Institute), and he can't possibly be called up again for questioning. Life really doesn't get any better than that for a convicted felon, does it?
OH, WHAT THE HELL ... place your bets: Does anyone think there will be a single Blogging Tory who will be upset about this mockery of justice? Come on ... I'll give you odds.
Back here, Olaf takes a certain umbrage with my suggestion that he should be guilty by association:
I'd like to know on what grounds you suggest I'm "part" of Richard's behaviour, let alone passively accepting it?
There is a disclaimer on LFR, put up on my recommendation, saying "any posted opinions are that of the post author or individual commenters and do not necessarily reflect the views of the group as a whole." Period.
You have no idea of my "association" with Richard, much less to imply that I am somehow 'actively' a part of planning his free time, behaviour and interpersonal internet feuds.
Olaf is, of course, correct, and the fact that Richard Evans at "Let Freedom Reign" has classlessly registered the domain name canadiancynic.net and redirected it to his own site should in no way reflect upon Olaf's maturity as Richard's co-blogger at LFR because, well, Olaf is Olaf and Richard is Richard and it would be hideously irresponsible to use the childish actions of a single individual to criticize someone else.
In other news, "Canadian Cynic" sometimes uses bad words; therefore, all liberals are a bunch of angry, moonbat leftards. But you knew that already, right?
HERE, THWAP, LET ME CLEAR THIS UP FOR YOU: In the comments section, thwap is curious:
But what's really inspired me to comment is this "notcycles" dipshit.
Who is this guy?
Simple, thwap -- it's none other than Richard Evans, who hijacked the domain name of "cycles2k.com" out from under an established blogger cycles2k.blogspot.com, and promptly redirected that domain ... guess where, because that's such a knee-slappingly, hysterical thing to do when you're accusing other people of being unable to participate in a civil discussion.
Yeah, there's some serious irony here, isn't there?
Analysis: 'Sicko' numbers mostly accurate; more context needed
... Moore covers a lot of ground. Our team investigated some of the claims put forth in his film. We found that his numbers were mostly right, but his arguments could use a little more context. As we dug deep to uncover the numbers, we found surprisingly few inaccuracies in the film. In fact, most pundits or health-care experts we spoke to spent more time on errors of omission rather than disputing the actual claims in the film.
The Blogging Tories: when you absolutely, positively need to be a total ignoramus about damned near everything, and still be proud of it.
From the comments section back here, we have the one and only Richard ("notcycles") Evans, opining thusly:
Like Rosie (fire doesn't melt steel) O'Donnell, CC makes proclamations and the limits debate on the same. He's a bully. He's scared to step up lest he be measured and found lacking. He's a typical MoonBat.
Um ... right. This coming from the guy who deliberately registers domain names to masquerade as other bloggers, and has this web site.
Yeah, Richard ... you're just the guy to give me a lesson in the civility of debate. And when that's done, I'll go find Kathy Shaidle. Apparently, I need to polish my interpersonal skills.
Lord, but the Blogging Tories are adorable when they're being clueless. Over at "Socialist Gulag," Mike appears to be a big fan of Republican presidential wannabe Fred Thompson. Uh ... that would be this Fred Thompson.
Any further snark on my part would be unnecessarily cruel, don't you think?
Just remember, Canada would not be as great today if it was not for our founding under Christianity. We would not have our political freedoms, or our religious freedoms, or our social freedoms if we were not a Christian nation. Remember, it was Christians who ended the slave trade in Britain and America, it was our Christian past which allowed religious freedoms to take place, and it is our Christian ways which allow our most fundamental freedoms.
Eviscerating this would be like kicking a blind, mentally-retarded quadraplegic out of her wheelchair. And even I have limits.
The Great Canadian Debate is an attempt to provide intelligent, civil discussion of some of the major issues facing Canada and Canadians. Two bloggers with opposing points of view will present their side of the argument on an agreed-upon topic. Readers will then be invited to debate the issue.
To which I can safely respond, "Not fucking likely."
In the first place, based on what I wrote here recently, as long as The Prairie Wrangler's Olaf continues to associate with that worthless, waste of skin Richard Evans and his cretinous colleagues here, I wouldn't touch anything he's involved in with Ann Coulter's dick. But it goes beyond mere personalities, Pal.
Frankly, I'm not sure what you think you're going to accomplish. You seem to believe that, under the right circumstances, you can get those on the Canadian Right to buckle down and produce cogent, coherent and rational arguments on various topics. What have you been smoking?
I've been to the Blogging Tories, Pal. Regularly. And I can say with little fear of contradiction that reason and critical thought are not in great supply over there. I mean, really, these are the folks who keep giving us such gems as "Saddam Hussein had WMDs and attacked us on 9/11" and "Same-sex marriage will threaten the sanctity of traditional marriage" and "There's no evidence for global warming" and "Yeah, I think there's something to this intelligent design stuff" and "We have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here" and "But you can't prove God doesn't exist" and "I read on WorldNetDaily ...".
However, Pal, let me be generous. Let's assume that there are some in Canada's wankersphere that are, in fact, capable of logical and civil discussion. If that's the case, let them prove it first. By themselves. On their own blogs.
It shouldn't be necessary to set up a forum with all sorts of restrictions to finally get those dingbats to write something that's even marginally sane. They have their own forums, and they've had years to figure out how not to post utter swill. And, sadly, that just hasn't happened, and I don't see why they should be provided with yet another forum to try to get it right.
Let them figure out how not to sound like ignorant dingbats on their own time. And when they finally make that big step, then we should consider engaging them in conversation. But not before.
And, finally, I wouldn't get involved in that venture simply because I have too much pride to want to share the same stage with any of those whackjobs. As an evolutionary biologist recently said as he was explaining why he didn't want to debate a creationist (paraphrased), "That debate would look pretty good on his CV. On mine, not so much."
P.S. And I know this isn't going to go down well in the Canadian progress-o-sphere, but I took a stand regarding Olaf and his association with that bottomless pit of sleaze Richard Evans, and I'm going to stick to it. If you choose to hang out with Olaf, say bye-bye to my blogroll. I'll be cleansing it of anyone that has Olaf on their blogroll.
Sorry, Pal, but I have certain standards, and that's one of them. End of discussion.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, PALADIEA, the dropping from the blogroll has nothing to do with the attempt to promote civil debate. It has to do with Olaf, and nothing more. And you're not the only blog that got cut for precisely that reason.
If Olaf wants to chum around with Richard Evans, that's his choice, just as it's my choice to have nothing to do with him, directly or indirectly.
