Can you say "shameless pandering," boys and girls?

(CC News) -- In a brazen attempt to woo the batshit-crazy, Bible-toting, whackjob demographic, three of the most prominent Republican presidential candidates tried desperately to outdo one another with stories about how nauseatingly prepared they were to suck up to the most intellectually-challenged voting bloc in America:

Fred D. Thompson said that within his first hour of becoming president, he would close the door behind him in the Oval Office and pray for wisdom.

Senator John McCain grew emotional when he talked about a North Vietnamese prison guard who loosened his bonds and, several months later in a meeting on Christmas Day, surreptitiously etched a cross on the ground in front of him.

Mitt Romney spoke about his wife of 38 years, 5 children and 10 grandchildren, saying he had been “pro-family on every level” in his personal life, as well as his political life.

Realizing he had been out-flanked by Romney, Thompson immediately lashed back that he didn't believe in evolution, to which McCain countered that not only did he not believe in evolution, but that the earth was indeed flat as well.

Interrupting loudly, Romney then began telling a story about how he had to carry his Bible five miles to school each way every day uphill, to which Thompson snorted, "Ha! Luxury! Why, when I was a lad ..."

Faith resolved!

In the ongoing effort of this blog to serve the public good, we provide a link to the following FAQ. You're welcome.

The stupid! It burns!

Can we just give these people their own Jesusland and be rid of them?

P.S. Yeah, that would be this Doug Giles. Any further snark would be superfluous, wouldn't it?

If the irony were any thicker ...

The people over at Kate's place take a moment off from describing you as unhinged, deranged, leftard, terrorist-loving, God-hating, amoral, intolerant moonbats to chide you for your lack of civility.

FREE AT NO EXTRA CHARGE: In responding to the above, the intellectual level over at "The Politic" asserts itself in an ugly way:

R West wrote:

By evolution, do you mean small changes in an animal ie changes to the bill size, or the change from a one cell organism to a man. There is evidence for the former, not the latter. Evolution as an explanation life is a just-so story about what happened in the past and has nothing to do with real science. Darwin said that once the once the fossil record was better known, his theory would be shown to be true, 150 years latter, all we see are species appearing suddenly with no recognisable ancestor. Natural selection means that there needs to be something to select. The information in the genetic code cannot come from nothing, anymore than a computer program can come into a random string of 1’s and 0’s

On the other hand, God exists. You got a problem with that?

Gie us a wee dram...

Alright folks, I am back from Scotland where i ate, drank, saw ruins, saw unruins, drank, ate, saw castles, saw cathedrals and looked the wrong way before crossing the street. Very sneaky thing of having the cars lurking about on the wrong side of the road. Allow me to say that the girls in Glasgow's west end are transluscent and lovely, the people are incomprehensible, kindly and generous and the architecture is jaw dropping. Even as an atheist, it was humbling to walk into St. Giles and Glasgow cathedrals both magnificent examples of human ingenuity, effort and faith. I had wireless issues with my laptop and only spent about fifteen minutes online over the last 17 days. What a refreshing treat to watch the evening news without the frenetic scrolling, panic inducing fever of the Americas. News presenters were articulate and the shows weren't bombastic productions with throbbing graphics and overwrought music cues. Civilized. I can't wait to go back. Thank you Scotland, land of my ancestors with their fetish for stone fencing, mile upon mile of it.

So here I sit, placating the wounded indignation of my cat and trying to shake off the jet lag. I'll be catching up on the doings of the world and then I shall return to semi-regular screeding. Cheers.

Get down ...

... get back up again!

Dinesh D'Souza: The gift that keeps on giving.

It's going to be some kind of busy here at CC HQ for the next little while, so posting is going to be a bit scarce, but there's just so much wingnuttery goodness in Dinette D'Setta's aforementioned post on God that one has to address the following, eye-rolling paragraph:

So far Hitchens and his fellow atheists have had it relatively easy. Hitchens has been going around the country debating pastors. Pastors are supposed to be models of Christian charity. This means that Hitchens can call them names but they cannot call him names. Pastors are required to turn the other cheek, while Hitchens gets ready to kick them in the rear end. Moreover, pastors are not used to fending off attacks from people who deny the validity of the gospels and, in Hitchens’ case, even cast doubt on the historical existence of Jesus Christ. How can you quote Scripture to a man who denies the authority of Scripture to adjudicate anything?

(Pause.)

Let me translate that for you: "When it comes to a discussion of the existence of God, how dare atheists like Hitchens not accept the basic premise of the historical authenticity and innerancy of Holy Scripture? Why, the nerve!"

Dinesh has a point since, when I get into a debate, I like to simplify things by conceding my opponent's position right off the bat. It just saves time, ya know?

Please tell me that this is a joke.

[Updated below, for the sake of vacuous cementheads like commenter "fergusrush."]

[Whoa ... apparently, we've just been infested with a pile of "crooks and liars." And to think this was such a nice neighbourhood. :-)]

Neo-con hero Dinesh D'Souza certainly knows the audience for whom he's writing:

... Consider [Christopher] Hitchens’ discussion of one of the classic Christian proofs for the existence of God. Hitchens takes up Anselm’s so-called ontological argument, and he makes short work of it. Basically Anselm argues that God is, by definition, a being than which no greater can be conceived. But if God is such a being, he must exist. Why? Because if it didn’t, then he would be a being than which a greater could be conceived.

Anselm’s argument seems like a theological rabbit pulled from a rhetorical top hat. Yet when you ponder the logic. it is surprisingly strong.

And, yes, this really is what passes for deep thought in the wankersphere. Is it too early to start drinking heavily?

MY, ONE DOES GET COMMENTS. And right on cue, regular commenter and defiler of all things logical "fergusrush" reads this snippet from Dr. Dawg:

Atheists surely do not have to define what it is they don't believe in. Good grief!

to which the ferg blows a gasket and descends into logical absurdity thusly:

No, dawg, of course not!! Heaven forbid they should have an idea of what it is they are strenuously denying the existence of.

Dr. Dawg is, of course, entirely correct, since when someone professes to be an atheist, one is simply stating a lack of belief in a particular supernatural deity, nothing more. Said deity does not have to be completely defined and, in fact, a poorly-defined deity makes said lack of belief even more logical and defensible.

I'm guessing poor fergie simply has no clue what the word "atheism" actually means, so I'll be happy to help him out. After which I would hope that ferg would understand the insipid lack of sense in describing an atheist as someone who is "strenuously denying the existence" of anything. But having read enough of ferg's contributions to this site, I am decidedly not optimistic.

BONUS TRACK: With all due respect, here's what you can do with your "perfect" God.

That's some serious irony you got going there, Steve.

Junior Detective and self-described independent, freelance journalist Steve Janke has his ballsack in a knot over apparent ideological leanings by members of the fourth estate:

Richard Brennan is a reporter for the Toronto Star's Ottawa bureau.

As a reporter, Brennan has a responsibility to maintain a certain level of even-handedness. That doesn't mean a reporter has to like everyone, but there has to be an attempt to present an image of fairness.

One thing is to avoid the propaganda used by politicians.

So when Richard Brennan allows himself to be interviewed by the hard-left online website Harper Index, why does he sound like an NDP attack dog?

The eJankulator then goes on to give Brennan (and others) some words of advice:

1. Reporters are not to be interviewed by other publications.
2. Reporters are not to become news stories unto themselves.
3. Reporters are not to make statements that undermine their ability to present themselves as unbiased reporters.
4. Reporters are not to act in a manner that would undermine the ability of the Toronto Star as a whole to deal with politicians on all points of the spectrum.
5. Reporters are not to provide sound bites that could be used by one political party or another in partisan material.

Whoops, you forgot one, Steve -- "reporters" are not to become so outrageously libelous and/or slanderous that they get sued by the politicians they smear, whereupon they have to publicly apologize for their transgressions.

Whaddya think, Steve? I think that should be rule 6. But that's just me.

Nice family you got there ...

... be a shame if anything happened to it.

Would someone explain to Mark Steyn the meaning of "irony?"

"Canada's Leading Asshole" Mark Steyn is so all about the scientific accuracy:

A COUPLE of days before Al Gore was awarded his Nobel Peace prize, Michael Burton, an English High Court judge and apparently a fine film critic, ruled that Al's Oscar-winner An Inconvenient Truth was prone to "alarmism and exaggeration" and identified nine major factual errors.

Yes, that would be Mark Steyn, seriously suggesting that someone else could have used a fact checker:

Incidentally, I stopped writing for the Times a few years ago because their fanatical "fact-checking" copy-editors edited my copy into unreadable sludge.

So many punchlines, so little interest in picking the best one.

Simple answers to simple questions: Oct 16, 2007.

Question: Whenever anyone, anywhere, for any reason whatsoever, criticizes glorious leader Stephen Harper, can they always be contemptuously and childishly dismissed as "whiners?"

Answer: Yes.

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

Sometimes playing to your demographic isn't such a bad idea.

Oooooooh ... 19 per cent of the vote. That's actually fairly impressive. Where did Dick get all that support? Oh, wait ... never mind.

They're so adorable when they're that optimistic.

Reacting to the aforementioned Stephen Harper Press Centre and Institute of Conservative Stenography and Dancing Bears, Macleans blogger Kady O'Malley seems to be giving her colleagues in journamalism more credit than they appear to deserve:

No more. This - - this monstrous plan, this must serve as our wakeup call. We are journalists. We are not typists. We work on behalf of the people, not government - not this government, nor the next one, or any government in waiting that might, on reading this article, be hoping, in its heart of hearts, that this is one thing that the Prime Minister will be able to do, in order to spare them from doing the same in the future.

We are the fourth estate. We do not have to justify our existence, or our need for independence, to anyone. We are not a tame lion. If this goes ahead, it's time to roar.

Yeah, that'll happen; right after my hot tub date with Cameron Diaz, that'll happen. Is anyone feeling any more optimistic than that?

The Blogging Tories get their Al Gore marching orders.

And like the slavishly loyal and obedient howler monkeys that they are, numerous Blogging Tories reproduce the latest anti-Gore talking point, this one involving super-duper, mega-expert meteorologist William Gray.

Yeah ... that would be this William Gray. I'm sure you're shocked.

Yeah, about that prudent fiscal restraint ...

On the one hand:

... Prime Minister Stephen Harper warned that "recent volatility in financial markets needs careful management," Canada's forestry and manufacturing sectors are facing "tough times," and there is "weakness" in some export markets.

"At the same time, strong growth in other areas is driving up the cost of living," such as housing prices, beyond what many can afford, he said.

So, "we have to keep our spending prudent, keep reducing the debt, and keep lowering taxes for individuals, businesses and families," Harper concluded.

On the other hand, well, welcome to the new Pravda on the Rideau:

PMO working on government-controlled media centre

The Prime Minister's Office has been secretly working on plans to build a government-controlled briefing room, which would supplant the current National Press Theatre.

The plan, with an estimated cost of $2 million, has been in the works since at least last year, reveal documents obtained by the Toronto Star under the Access to Information Act...

Harper has had a sometimes frosty relationship with the national press corps, stemming from his staff's tight control over news conferences and lack of accessibility to MPs and cabinet ministers.

The new facility could impose even stricter measures, giving the PMO control over who may enter and possibly what gets filmed and broadcast...

A hand-drawn sketch of the facility also shows a space for "maybe permanently installed cameras with feeds to media."

That suggests that the news cameras could be controlled by government employees instead of independent media journalists, reports the Star.

When reached for comment about this massive financial expenditure in order to carefully choreograph government public relations, numerous members of Canada's Blogging Tories stopped shrieking hysterically about the liberal bias of the CBC just long enough to opine that they thought it was a good idea.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a retraction.

It was Mark Twain who once wrote, "A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes."

Not surprisingly, you can find the initial lie over at Kate's septic tank of a blog:

Oops - In the wake of a British court ruling that the "documentary" contains material errors of fact, a "call to return Inconvenient Truth Oscar" A nice gesture, if altogether empty. After all, Michael Moore still has his.

And now that Kate is quite finished being a total douchebag for right-wing misrepresentation, we can let Tim Lambert set the record straight.

And, no, I'm not actually going to suggest that some of the wanks who made that initial accusation have the courtesy to post a correction and an apology. I long ago outgrew that childish delusion.

The bottomless bucket o' irony.

Has anyone else noticed the irony of an entire ideological demographic that, on the one hand, viciously savages a 12-year-old accident victim yet, on the other hand, courageously leaps to the defense of a battle-hardened four-star general because some people are allegedly being mean to poor little him?

Really, this is the gift that keeps on giving, isn't it?

Heh.

Indeed.

I'm just sayin'.

There's some definite entertainment value in the right-wing Dumbshit-o-sphere howling with rage and denigrating an Oscar-winning documentarian who just won the Nobel Peace Prize, when this is who they've been slavishly worshipping and fawning over for the last several years:



The irony really is overwhelming, isn't it?

Stenography, as it is done.

Once again (and true to form), the Blogging Tories' "Wayne" weighs in on a deep and profound intellectual discussion with his standard, "Hey ... what he said."

And following the link leads us to Wayne's conflicted BT colleague "Gay and Right" Fred, who educates us thusly:

An inconvenient peace prize...

Nice editorial from Bjorn Lomborg....

Lomborg ... Lomborg ... ah, yes ... that Bjorn Lomborg.

What he said. :-)

AFTERSNARK: If you're not quite sure what I mean by "stenography," well, it's just easier to show you.

Just another day in Wingnuttia.

And in today's news, shrieking, right-wing whackjobs everywhere took a short break from attacking a 12-year old to attack an Oscar-winning documentarian who just won the Nobel Peace Prize.

You just can't make this stuff up, can you?

Simple answers to simple questions: Oct 12, 2007.

E. J. Dionne Jr. asks a simple question:

Conservatives claim to be in favor of stable families, small businesses, hard work, private schools, investment and homeownership. So why in the world are so many on the right attacking the family of Graeme Frost?

Answer: Because they're hateful, reprehensible, hypocritical assholes.

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

Those popping sounds you hear ...

... are freepers' mostly vacuum-filled skulls self-destructing.



Yeah ... kinda like that.

LET THE BATSHIT CRAZINESS BEGIN: And over at Five Feet of Feces™, cowardly, shrieking racist Kathy Shaidle takes logic and nails it bleeding to a large piece of wood:

If Al Gore is a decent man, thirty years from now, having finally admitted he was wrong about global warming, he will endow a new prize, to be presented annually to a man or woman who tried to undo the incalculable damage done by An Inconvenient Truth.

As opposed to the allegedly minor inconvenience that would result from ignoring climate change for thirty years, only to finally realize that it was real and that it's now far too late to do anything about it. Yeah, that's a much smarter long-term strategy.

Where the fuck is the Rapture when you desperately need it?

You can feel the intellectual vacuum from here.

Buckle up, kids ... it's about to get truly frightening:

... Laws of logic are God’s standard for thinking. Since God is an unchanging, sovereign, immaterial Being, the laws of logic are abstract, universal, invariant entities. In other words, they are not made of matter—they apply everywhere and at all times. Laws of logic are contingent upon God’s unchanging nature. And they are necessary for logical reasoning. Thus, rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God.

The materialistic atheist can’t have laws of logic. He believes that everything that exists is material—part of the physical world. But laws of logic are not physical. You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic. Laws of logic cannot exist in the atheist’s world, yet he uses them to try to reason. This is inconsistent...

Rational thinking, science, and technology make sense in a Christian worldview. The Christian has a basis for these things; the atheist does not. This is not to say that atheists cannot be rational about some things. They can because they too are made in God’s image and have access to God’s laws of logic. But they have no rational basis for rationality within their own worldview.

As science blogger John M. Lynch suggests, you are now stupider for just having read that.

Simple answers to simple questions: Oct 12, 2007.

Blogging Tory Raphael asks:

I see a few Blogging Tories are quick to defend Ms.Coulter with her virulent and lunatic statements which have now culminated in outright outlandish xenophobia. Damian first sensibly called her out for her outrageous suggestion that Christians are "perfected Jews". Is this the kind of person "conservatives" admire?

Answer: Yes.

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

THE JOY OF RIGHT-WING SEMANTICS: Over at Little Green Fascists, they're all excited about exposing that pernicious, liberal media bias:

Notice that they directly quote Coulter as saying:

...America would be better off if Judaism were “thrown away”...

But if you read the transcript, you’ll discover that Coulter never said this.

Donny Deutsch did, however.

Why, yes, let's go to the transcript, shall we?

Deutsch, pressing Coulter further, asked, "We should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians?" She responded: "Yeah."

All right, then ... for a minute, we all thought Coulter had said something hideously offensive and insulting. It's a good thing Fox News was there to clear things up. What would we do without them?

Let's talk about hiding behind kids, shall we?

There's an increasingly-annoying right-wing talking point, accusing the Democrats of "hiding behind" 12-year-old Graeme Frost when they chose him to explain how the SCHIP program had helped him. John Cole rips that particular idiocy to shreds by pointing out how all Frost had been chosen to do was to explain how SCHIP had helped him, and how he wished it would be available to help other kids as well. Nothing untoward, nothing sleazy, nothing underhanded.

On the other hand, if you want to see pure cowardice in action, you can't do better than former head of the National Republican Congressional Committee Tom Reynolds knowing he's about to give a press conference where reporters are about to dissect him for allegedly knowing about serial Internet stalker Mark Foley and ... well, let's let the transcript expose Reynolds' douchebaggery to the world:

In the fine tradition of George W. Bush standing under the "Mission Accomplished" sign, or any one of the Katrina backdrops (where no expense was spared to bring power to an area for a photo op, and then just as quickly cut off), we now have the head of the NRCC, Tom Reynolds, using small prop children as set decoration in a press conference devoted to the topic of…yes, predatory online sexual solicitation of minors.

Even the reporters present could not contain themselves:

Reporter: Congressman, do you mind asking the children to leave the room so we can have a frank discussion of this, because it's an adult topic. It just doesn't seem appropriate to me.

Reynolds: I'll take your questions, but I'm not going to ask any of my supporters to leave.

[]

Reporter: Who are the children, Congressman? Who are these children?

Reynolds: Pardon me?

Reporter: Who are these children?

Reynolds: Well, a number of them are from the community. There are several of the "thirtysomething" set that are here and uh I've known them and I've known their children as they were born.

Reporter: Do you think it's appropriate for them to be listening to the subject matter though?

Reynolds: Sir, I'll be happy to answer your questions, I'm still, uh…

Yes, that's Reynolds, knowing that he was going to get chewed up and spit out, frantically calling in the troops and surrounding himself with children in order to cow the journalists into civility. Strangely, the Dumbass-o-sphere didn't seem to have a problem with that. Go figure.

Your "liberal" media in action.

It doesn't matter how warped or twisted is your imagination, right-wing reality is two steps ahead of you. Who's responsible for the neo-con jihad against 12-year-old Graeme Frost and his family? That's right, you guessed it -- the Democrats:

CNN Pins Blame On Democrats For Right-Wing Smear Of 12-Year Old Boy

This morning, CNN aired its first report on the right-wing smear campaign against 12-year old SCHIP recipient Graeme Frost. CNN pinned the blame on Democrats for assault on the Frost family.

CNN’s John Roberts reported: “Some of the accusations [against the Frosts] may be exaggerated or false. But did the Democrats make a tactical error in holding up Graeme as their poster child?” A CNN political analyst then placed the blame squarely on the Democrats’ shoulders:

I think in this instance what happened was the Democrats didn’t do as much of a vetting as they could have done on this young man, his situation, his family. […]

More and more, Congress is acting less like a deliberative legislative body, and more like a political campaign. We’ve been seeing the politicization of every aspect of government.

The next thing you know, things will get so weird that the Democrats will somehow be responsible for disgraced Republican congressman Mark Foley's Internet stalking of teenage boys.

Oh ... wait.

It's embarrassing when your best snark can't even keep up with reality.

It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

"Halsey and Bonnie Frost -- your kids were once in a car accident that left them in a coma -- what do we have as prizes for the both of you? Oh ..."

When Halsey and Bonnie Frost agreed to go public with how the State Children's Health Insurance Program helped them after a car crash left two of their children comatose, the Baltimore couple expected to hear from critics of government-funded health care.

But while the Frosts were helping a bipartisan majority in Congress sell a plan to expand the program, they were not prepared for comments such as this one, posted over the weekend on the conservative Web site Redstate:

"If federal funds were required [they] could die for all I care. Let the parents get second jobs, let their state foot the bill or let them seek help from private charities. ... I would hire a team of PIs and find out exactly how much their parents made and where they spent every nickel. Then I'd do everything possible to destroy their lives with that info."

Yes, that does sound a bit tasteless, but let's not forget, CC once told a grieving Canadian military mother to pretty much fuck right off for using her emotional distress for political propaganda. So it all balances out, and we're good here. Isn't that how it works?

Somehow, the name "Dick" just works, doesn't it?

Oh, yawn ... just when you think Richard Evans can't possibly get any more childish, he still has the power to amaze:



It's not clear whether Richard knows he's lying, or whether he actually believes his own delusions. Either way, it's kind of creepy, isn't it?

Smithers ... release the hounds!

Canada's Leading Asshole™ Mark Steyn has no problems beating up on a 12-year-old:

The Democrats chose to outsource their airtime to a Seventh Grader. If a political party is desperate enough to send a boy to do a man's job, then the boy is fair game.

Well, now .. what have we here?


I believe our mission here requires no explanation. Who is this girl? And how quickly can she be destroyed utterly?

Quickly, now, a recap: We know her name is "Rebecca" and she is seven years old. Apparently, she goes to school, and her mother recently(?) had an abortion. Who is this mother? What is her name? Where does she work? Is she rich? Was her abortion funded by the taxpayers? Why is she not using birth control? Does she attend church? Does the rest of her congregation know about this recent development and, if not, why the hell not?

And as for Paul R. Nelson, apparently, he has four beautiful children, with a fifth on the way. What are their names? Are any of them in school? Which school?

These are, as I'm sure you can appreciate, critical questions that must be answered so that, for the sake of civil discourse and a deep and abiding respect for children, Rebecca and her family can be identified, located and crushed without remorse or mercy for being right-wing political tools of propaganda.

This is your mission and, as always, if you or any member of your IMF team is caught and killed, we here at CC HQ will disavow any knowledge of anyone so unspeakably stupid as to take anything we say even remotely seriously.

There's "raising the bar," and then there's ...

Pardon us while we, like, totally re-calibrate our right-wing whackjob-o-meters:

Dead Reverend's Rubber Fetish
Autopsy: Pastor found in wet suits after autoerotic mishap

OCTOBER 8--An Alabama minister who died in June of "accidental mechanical asphyxia" was found hogtied and wearing two complete wet suits, including a face mask, diving gloves and slippers, rubberized underwear, and a head mask, according to an autopsy report. Investigators determined that Rev. Gary Aldridge's death was not caused by foul play and that the 51-year-old pastor of Montgomery's Thorington Road Baptist Church was alone in his home at the time he died (while apparently in the midst of some autoerotic undertaking). While the Montgomery Advertiser, which first obtained the autopsy records, reported on Aldridge's two wet suits, the family newspaper chose not to mention what police discovered inside the minister's rubber briefs.

I'm sorry ... there's just no way we can't go there, is there?

There is a dildo in the anus covered with a condom.

Don't you miss the old days when a blowjob in the Oval Office involving consenting adults was enough to send the entire country into fits of gibbering, moralistic panic? Yes, those were good times, weren't they?

AFTERSNARK: The comments, oh, dear God, the comments.

If you want to bitch slap Kathy Shaidle, you'll have to stand in line.

This time, it's the boys from "Sadly, No" who lay the snarkilicious beatdown on Kathy and her new digs, Five Feet of Feces™.

Who says Canada can't compete on the international stage of shrieking, deranged, hateful, spittle-flecked wingnuttery? You Americans, with your Ann Coulter, and your Michelle Malkin. Ha! We laugh at you, and your puny, second-rate bigotry and homophobia. Now go away, before I taunt you a second time.


DOUBLE PLUS GOOD AFTERSNARK: The boys at SN draw your attention to one of Shaidle's claim to fame -- her poetry:

Contacts With Trotskyites

I discovered one hundred dollars too late that
my round wire glasses
attract a certain type of man
attracted to an uncertain type of woman and you know
the least they could do is conceal their disappointment when,
to quiet their drunken insistence, I finally do remove them.
They mumble their "You really should get contact lenses" party line,
then suddenly have to go home...

Yes, you know exactly where this is going, don't you?

Into the wayback machine, Sherman.

And for no reason whatsoever, it's always amusing to remind ourselves that Mark Steyn is a blithering retard.

You're welcome.

Unhinged Catholic, redux.

Shorter Kathy Shaidle: "Speaking as a Roman Catholic charged by Jesus Christ to love my fellow man and care for the less fortunate, poor people can just go fuck themselves. You got a problem with that?"

Time to reap the whirlwind, eh, Dick?

I know -- really, I know -- that I should be a bigger man and just leave this alone but, well, you'll see why that just wasn't gonna happen. Behold, the amusing, new spamiliciousness of Richard Evans' blog, "Let Litigiousness Reign":



And why would I give a crap that Dick is now unintentionally hawking erectile dysfunction drugs? Maybe it's because of this just a bit further down that same web page:



Yes, the fact that Dick is now promoting boner pills is somehow my fault, which gives me the opportunity to make a few observations, to wit:

• I had nothing to do with that hack, directly or indirectly.


• I have never, ever encouraged anyone to perform that kind of online vandalism.


• I most emphatically do not approve of that sort of thing, even against someone as loathsome, vile, bigoted and child sex-obsessed as Richard Evans. So if anyone is doing that on my behalf, well, just knock it off. Are we clear?

And now, having said all that, I will suggest that, having defamed me, tried to out me, put a $500 bounty on my head and threatened to drag me into court, I don't really see that Dick has any moral high ground here to be bitching about anything.

Reap what you sow, Dick. I don't approve of that bit of vandalism but, really, given your recent behaviour, it's not like I'm going to lose any sleep over it. When you make an entire blogging career of promoting hate and threatening people, you can't really bitch and moan when someone finally has enough and decides to have some fun with you.

A world of philosophy in eight little words.

"That's why I don't care about the poor." Mark Steyn couldn't have said it better.

Oh, wait ... he did.

TBOGG'ED! I'm sorry ... I only this second noticed that TBogg is all over this, too. Sometimes, drooling, screeching hatred for the less fortunate knows no national boundaries.

NOT QUITE DONE HERE: Not surprisingly, Dave and RT have something to say about this, but here's the part that truly creeps me out.

Regular readers might remember the utterly fake outrage when I posted the personal information of the NAMBLA-obsessed Richard Evans, including his address and the names of his wife and kids, all of which was obtained from publicly-available information off of Richard's own web sites.

Which, of course, makes me wonder when I'm going to see similar outrage from those very same hypocritical wanks regarding this:

Michelle Malkin, incensed by the presence of the children engaging in SCHIP advocacy, has now gone the extra mile:

Update 2:50pm Eastern: I just returned from a visit to Frost’s commercial property near Patterson Park in Baltimore. It’s a modest place. Talked to one of the tenants, Mike Reilly, who is a talented welder. He said he had known the Frosts for 10 years. Business is good, he told me, though he characterized Frost as “struggling.” Reilly was an outspoken advocate for socialized health care without any means-testing whatsoever and an insistent critic of the Iraq war. Despite all that, he did agree with me that going without health insurance is often a matter of choice and a matter of priorities. Or maybe we were speaking two different languages.

I also passed by the Frosts’ rowhouse. There was an “01 – 20 -09″ bumper sticker plastered on the door and a newer model GMC Suburban parked directly in front of the house. I’ve seen guesstimates of the house’s worth in the $400,000 plus range. Those are high.

Citizen journalists, at your doorstep. Maybe she can get some of her flunkies at Hot Air to sit with binoculars and see what they have for dinner.

The ideological Right and their new motto: "Our kids are precious; your kids are fair game."

Yeah, that's kinda bad timing, don't you think?

Oct 5, 2007:

MacKay calls Liberal's trip to Afghanistan a stunt

It is irresponsible for the Liberal defence critic [Denis Coderre] to travel to Afghanistan without the Conservative government's approval, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Friday...

"Mr. Coderre is engaged, in my view, in a dangerous and elaborate stunt, a publicity stunt on his part," MacKay said, arguing that troops in Afghanistan could be put in unnecessary danger if Coderre were kidnapped and they had to try to save him.

"It's irresponsible. It puts people at risk. It puts soldiers at risk."

Oct 6, 2007:

Maxime Bernier, Bev Oda make unannounced trip to Afghanistan

October 6, 2007 - 2:16

THE CANADIAN PRESS

KABUL, Afghanistan - Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Bernier and International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda are visiting Afghanistan.

They're to meet today with their Afghan counterparts as well as Afghan President Hamid Karzai in Kabul.

The two ministers will also be touring Canadian-supported development projects in the war-torn country.

Where's a United Way agenda item when you need one?

AFTERSNARK: As Impolitical points out here:

Junior MacKay's sounding like he's in a bit of a pickle. We know his government wouldn't allow the Liberal Defence critic to visit the mission in Afghanistan, so Denis Coderre went himself. Now Junior's sounding like he's regretting the government's actions and is in full CYA mode ...

As I suggested last weekend, Junior and the boys better hope nothing happens to Coderre or they're up the creek...

No joke. One can only hope that MacKay realizes what kind of deep shit he's in if something happens to Coderre, who was forced to make his own unorthodox travel arrangements to get to Afghanistan while MacKay must have known all along about the upcoming Oda/Bernier junket, on which Coderre could have simply hitched a ride.

Oh, yes ... if something should befall Coderre, Peter MacKay's political career is so over.

Must ... resist ... cheap shot ...

Oh, screw it ... what is wrong with this picture?



And, no, I'm not going to link. What would be the point?

It's why you read Chester.

Blogging Tory Paul MacPhail gets all soppy and misty-eyed over the latest gin-soaked, self-indulgent blithering from Christopher Hitchens. Whereupon Chet puts on his Vibram-soled, official issue Surete du Quebec work boots and administers to Hitchens the savage beating that he so thoroughly deserves.

Canada's progressive bloggers: When you want something deep and profound to think about. Canada's Blogging Tories: When you want something trite and vacuous to make fun of.

Even Bible-whomping SDA whackjobs have their limits, ya know.

Shrieking, deranged Canadian Catholic Kathy Shaidle discovers (no doubt to her surprise) that even Kate's regular, drooling audience members have had enough of her.

SDA readers maxing out on hate? What is the blogosphere coming to?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In a delightful example of bureaucratic overkill, we have the following gem:

WASHINGTON - The State Department has issued new guidelines to rein in and monitor Blackwater USA, the private contractor that provides heavily armed security for U.S. diplomats serving in Baghdad.

Under orders issued by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, video cameras will be mounted in Blackwater vehicles and federal agents will ride with the security contractors who escort diplomatic convoys.

Yes, we now have federal agents watching the security contractors who guard the American members of Congress over there. When those federal agents are put under the jurisdiction of the State Department, who report to the President, who is officially subject to oversight from members of Congress, the circle of life will be complete. And you'll notice that you, the American citizen, are not involved.

"Can you hear me now? No? Can you hear me now? No? ..."

"... can you hear me now?"

And sometimes, the market gets it right.

So, another ideologically-slanted propaganda rag is going tits up because it just can't make a go of it financially and no one wants to read it? Well, that's what you call the conservative free market in action, isn't it? You publish worthless, biased crap, no one wants to buy it, it goes away, only the popular prosper, yes sir, capitalism at its finest and ... and ... ummm ... oh ... it was the right-wing Western Standard?

(Pause.)

It is, of course, a sad day when a voice of true Canadian conservatism goes silent. Yes, it's a shame. It will be missed.

We now return you to your regular neo-con frothing about letting the unfettered market have its way and how only the strong survive.

AFTERWHA ...? In the comments section there, Joan Tintor emerges briefly from the hermetically-sealed Blogging Tory bubble to play the "whiny diversity" card:

Sad news indeed. Can't wait to see what those who claim to defend diversity in media will say.

Posted by: Joan Tintor | 5-Oct-07 5:25:57 PM

Tintor then scurried back to the safety of the Blogging Tories, where the weekly BT shriekfest to defund the liberal, leftard, socialist CBC was already in full swing.

Would you like an extra chair for your second personality, Mr. Harper?

When it comes to pointing out Stephen Harper's multiple personality disorder, well, it's hard to keep a good Wingnuterer down.

Personally, though, I remember where I've seen that kind of behaviour before:


When Steve-O starts whapping live fish on rocks and biting their heads off, don't say I never warned you.

That's why they call it crime AND punishment, Larry.

No, you don't get a do-over in the legal system:

Larry Craig Denied Withdrawal By Stern, Unforgiving Judge
Washington, Oct. 4

Turning a deaf ear to Craig’s pleas, the judge informed him that his initial plea to submit himself to the judge’s discretion was given “unambiguously and without coercion”. In light of this fact, the judge would not permit any withdrawal, and swore to see to it that Craig took the full punishment coming to him.

Craig was visibly shaken by the intensity of the judge’s position. “I’ve never been in this situation before in my life,” Senator Craig announced between what sounded like gasps of disbelief. “I cannot recall ever having been this far on the bottom before, and I don’t quite know what to do next”.

Questioned later outside the courtroom, Craig was still struggling to come to terms with this latest development:

"It's outrageous. The judge seemed to think that, just because I pleaded guilty that I meant it or something. And then he went on about this stuff called 'accountability' and 'personal responsibility'. What the fuck was that all about?"

As Craig was led away by his lawyer, he was heard to exclaim, "Sentencing? Sentencing? What the hell!? How can I be guilty? I'm a Republican, for God's sake!!"

Oh, that gosh-darned "liberal" media.

What is wrong with this picture?

"Welcome to Microsoft technical support ..."

"... how may I misinform you?"

Richard Evans, the Calgary Sun and setting the record straight.

Oh, sigh.

It was Aldous Thomax Huxley who, when once asked why he didn't continue to defend biological evolution against a particularly badly-educated and oft-refuted opponent, responded, "Life is too short to occupy oneself with the slaying of the slain more than once." Nonetheless, I apparently have to dig up the festering corpse of Richard Evans one more time, just to give it a few final whacks before burying it once again for good.

All of this would be in response to this piece in today's Calgary Sun for which I was interviewed by one Shawn Logan -- an interview, I would like to point out, I did not initiate and which I wasn't really enthusiastic about granting until I learned that Richard had already had his say, which forced my hand since I wanted to make sure that anything that was published wasn't simply Richard's one-sided, dishonest rantings. As it turns out, that was a wise move on my part. And now, to business:

An aldermanic candidate in the Oct. 15 municipal election has escalated a blogging duel by offering a $500 reward for his nemesis' identity on his website.

Ooooooh ... I am officially a "nemesis". Is there a prize for that? Is there a club t-shirt? In any case ... onward:

Richard Evans, who is running in Ward 4, said an anonymous blogger has been defaming him on his website and posting his address, phone number and the names of his wife and two children.

That would be Richard's address and phone number that is publicly available by querying any of his registered domain names, and his personal family information that he's posted for the world to read here. Sadly, there goes my reputation for being James Bond. But here's where it gets good:

Evans, who has been operating his Let Freedom Reign blog for years, said he posted the bounty because he wants to sue the Waterloo, Ont.-based blogger and he's worried the online battle may hurt his election hopes.

Good thinking, Richard, because nothing says "downplay the controversy" like escalating a public blog war involving accusations of white supremacist thinking and pedophilia. Clever plan, Richard ... how did that work out, by the way? Oh ... not so well, I see. Pity. But let's talk about that whole "lawsuit" thing for just a minute, shall we? Because it was less than a week ago when I wrote this:

Gosh, just look at the calendar ... only a couple more weeks until the Calgary municipal election, where all the evidence suggests that white supremacist and NAMBLA advocate Richard Evans is going to get flattened like a toad under a steamroller.

At which point Richard got himself a little woody over the fact that I had accused him of being a white supremacist and, man alive, he was so going to sue my ass from here to Sunday. Except for one small, ugly detail -- this:

Isn't that interesting?

Somenamedia.com is a domain that is owned by Richard Evans of Calgary Alberta, and for which he has total control.

Now, being somebody who understands the concept of property rights, I don't hold with this idea of "cybersquatting". Richard owns the domain. He paid for it. It's his. He can do anything he wants with it.

The fact that he himself has nothing to do with Somena, or the Somena people is irrelevant. The domain belongs to him.

The question now is.. why would he point it to Stormfront? That's an interesting choice non? This is a website inhabited by white supremacists neo-kkk types and people who generally wouldn't ever invite me and my non-white children and family over for a BBQ or whatnot.

I can only conclude, that Richard Evans is a supporter of, promoter of Stormfront, since he is ultimately directing people who would have come to my website, (but for a typo) over to Klan central.

Proof that Richard Evans, of Calgary Alberta is indeed an openly racist bigot.

That's right -- that's Somenamedia's Meaghan Williams openly suggesting that Richard is a white supremacist, to which Richard, curiously, responds not with outrage and threats of lawsuit, but with ... well, let's let Richard's words speak for themselves in the comments section there:

Richard said...

Yeah, about that... I've decided to keep somenamedia pointed to it's current destination for the next little while... Watching you stew in your own hatred is amusing...

Why, that doesn't look like outrage at all. In fact, it looks like someone being absolutely gleeful about what he's done, and is just plain revelling in the accusations of being a racist and a bigot. Which kind of undercuts Richard's alleged lawsuit against me, doesn't it? If it didn't bother him then, well, he's going to find it hard to convince a judge that he has any right to be upset about it now, don't you think? Man, I'm betting Richard is wishing he could have a do-over on that comment.

And, finally, let's skip over the mundane details of that Sun article to get to the last line, where we read:

Evans said he used the redirecting ploy, but it was only a response to what he said were continued attacks from the blogger.

Um ... say what? As I demonstrated above, it was less than a week ago that Richard claims he finally has the smoking gun evidence for a defamation lawsuit against me, but the existence of his look-alike, NAMBLA-redirected domain canadiancynic.net goes all the way back to July 2 of this year. Whoopsie. That's just a bit inconvenient, don't you think?

And in conclusion, how best to summarize all this? Oh, right ... Richard is totally fucked. And having given him one last good boot to the head, I'm going to leave him to fester in his own racist juices, and I'm going to move on. As Huxley suggested, life is too short for some crap, and Richard Evans is precisely that kind of crap. Onward and upward. Time to rinse all this muck off of me and get back to real blogging.

Curiously, the air smells fresher already. Funny how that works, isn't it?

P.S. Amusingly, Mr. Logan brought up the name "Werner Patels" sometime during the interview. If I recall correctly, my response to that involved the phrases "schizophrenic" and "multiple personality disorder," at which point Mr. Logan wisely decided to move on. Good thinking.

TOTALLY AMUSING OBSERVATION: Yeah, I'm guessing this isn't the effect Richard was going for.

Dear Cjunk: Let me explain that for you.

Over at Small Dead Brainstems, guest poster Cjunk labours under an unfortunate misconception:

So, let me get this straight; if I make the argument that a religion or creed is fundamentally flawed ... I'm a bigot ... right?

Of course not, Cjunk ... unless you happen to be an atheist, at which point any thoughtful and well-researched criticism of someone's religious position only proves how leftards are a bunch of howling, deranged, intolerant, God-hating, communist, baby-killing dingbats.

I'm glad I could clear that up for you.

"What? Was it something I said?"

Self-proclaimed political intellectual Gerry Nicholls goes a wee bit over the top in drawing a historical analogy:

My son is graduating from high school on Friday.

And in order graduate, he not only had to pass his academic courses, he also had to complete a minimum of "40 hours of mandatory Community Involvement."

This is supposed to develop "a sense of civic responsibility and strong community values."

So civic responsibility, in other words, means forcing kids to work for no pay.

To me that sounds like slavery.

Later, responding to polite suggestions that it was perhaps inappropriate to compare his son's community service with the forced resettlement, indentured servitude and centuries of brutal treatment of countless Africans, Nicholls replied, "Geez, you make a simple comparison around here and you get absolutely lynched. What? Why are you looking at me like that?"

So long, Zorph, and thanks for all the fish.

Over at The Wingnuterer, Zorpheous has that brief moment of clarity I should have, and hangs it up. So, in Zorph's honour and recognizing his background in all things high-tech:



I'm still trying to figure out which end of the line Zorph would be on. It's a puzzler.

One of these things is not like the others ...

When the grassroots organization MoveOn went after Gen. David Petraeus' credibility with a full-page New York Times ad, the reaction from the Wingnut-o-sphere was swift and brutal:

House overwhelmingly condemns MoveOn ad

The House on Wednesday passed by a wide margin a resolution that condemns an ad from liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org that referred to Gen. David Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”

Republican leaders had been calling for congressional action since the ad first ran in The New York Times ahead of Petraeus’s testimony on the situation in Iraq. The requests for action in the House grew louder after the Senate approved a similar measure with broad bipartisan consensus.

House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) hailed the outcome of the 341-79 vote and praised GOP lawmakers for taking the lead on the issue.

And when right-wing radio show host Rush Limbaugh similarly disparaged U.S. service members who support a withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," the backlash was once again ... uh ... once again ... ummmm ...

Rep. Kingston Introduces Resolution ‘Commending’ Rush Limbaugh

Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gave a speech on the Senate floor condemning Rush Limbaugh for calling troops who support American withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He urged his colleagues — both Democratic and Republican — to sign a letter of disapproval to the CEO of Clear Channel.

Instead, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) — who voted to criticize MoveOn.org — has decided to commend Limbaugh. Today at 3:16 PM, Kingston introduced a resolution “[c]ommending Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad.”

OK, that can't be right. Someone's just funnin' with me, that has to be it.

Funny you should mention that, Paul ...

Over at "Celestial Junk," Blogging Tory "Paul" takes exception to the depressing, intellectual stagnation that is Islam:

While the Rest of Us Moved On

Can Islam walk lockstep with civilization and contribute positively to the world? Or, is it forever stuck in a 1400 year old mode that, unless completely revamped, will forever put Islam at odds with civil human interaction and modern modes of life:

Coincidentally, many of the GOP's most prominent members share Paul's concern:


Whoops, wrong video ... how did that get in there?

Slow news day at CNN.

Yeah, things are dragging when they have to fill out their "From the Blogs" section thusly:



Good thing I was all polite and genteel.

'Cuz it's all about the kids, remember?

Family values, yes sir, it's all about the family values:

Bush vetoes expansion of kids' health insurance program

President Bush on Wednesday vetoed legislation expanding a children's health insurance program by $35 billion over five years.

I'd love to end on a snappy punchline but ... I got nuthin'.

Dick Evans: Pulling back the curtain, and time to move on.

As droningly monotonous as this has become, I believe we can finally put this issue to rest and get back to the important job of whapping around those of Canada's conservatives who are not constantly driving traffic to web sites that promote pedophilia.

In response to Dr. Dawg's rebuttal to Dick here:

No matter how you try to spin it, CC seems quite happy with the idea that a 45 year old man can have sex with a 14 year old boy.

CC said no such thing, anywhere. Hence, you have defamed him under the law. Keep digging.

we can finally see that Dick has nothing, as this is the best he can do:

If CC hadn’t been sanitizing his comments sections, you’d see otherwise:

My comments section? Dick's accusation is based on something from my comments section!?!? And one that he simultaneously admits has been "sanitized," which suggests that he's got absolutely nothing!!! God Almighty, but is it even physically possible to be stupider than that?

But wait ... let's give Richard the benefit of the doubt and see what he's yammering on about, as we follow his link to the comments section in question here, where we find ... squat. And in terms of "sanitizing" comments to perhaps remove the incriminating evidence, we can see that there are exactly two comments that have been deleted: the first by its own author (whoever that might have been), and the second by me because it was from Richard himself, which is painfully obvious as you can read from the comment that immediately follows, in which I tell him to please just fuck off.

So that's the foundation of your smear campaign against me, is it, Dick? A comments section that doesn't even remotely suggest what you've been claiming all this time?

Oh, man, that's delightful. In short, you got nuthin'. Your bluff has been called, and you're now standing out there all alone, with your nutsack swaying in the breeze. Suddenly, that whole idea of legal action is looking more and more appealing by the minute.

I don't know what I'm going to do with this, but I'm going to give it some thought. And while I'm doing that, Dick, you might want to sit down with the wife and kids and ask them how keen they are on getting dragged through whatever I can dream up if you keep pissing me off. And trust me, Dick, if you keep pissing me off, I will dream something up.

Have a nice day, Dick.

AND THE INDESCRIBABLE DOUCHEBAGGERY CONTINUES: Apparently, one of Richard's adoring fans has shown up over in Richard's comments section, and insists on, well, making shit up:

And now Candian Cynic has a threat up about Richards wife and children.

don’t know what I’m going to do with this, but I’m going to give it some thought. And while I’m doing that, Dick, you might want to sit down with the wife and kids and ask them how keen they are on getting dragged through whatever I can dream up if you keep pissing me off. And trust me, Dick, if you keep pissing me off, I will dream something up.

What a class act you guys all support. It must feel just fantastic to be on his ‘team’. I mean, honestly you are defending this guy against a lawsuit while he threatens people’s families.

Frankly, that is exactly what I find about the ‘left’ totally disgusting. The end always justifies the means, right?

Duh.

Since I admittedly chose my words badly, let me clarify this. I have nothing against Richard's family. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, I feel intensely sorry for them at this point, and I'm almost tempted to find out how to get ahold of his wife so I can recommend a good womens' shelter. But that's not the point here.

I wasn't suggesting that I was going to drag them through anything. I was suggesting that, if Richard was determined to escalate this, then things were going to get ugly and they were going to get dragged through whatever happened, just based on being there, nothing more. Unfortunate but related bystanders, as it were.

Are we good now? Do we understand one another? And can I expect a retraction from Richard's boneheaded commenter?

No, no, I was just joking with that last part. After all, being a conservative means never having to say you're sorry. Or sentient.

AND THEY'RE OFF ... AND RUNNING. Well, you knew that was coming:

... when that mouthy little turd starts to threaten a persons family he must be identified for obvious safety reasons.

Yes, we now have our new, unstoppable, right-wing talking point. Despite the fact that I have now clarified what I meant, the claim that I threatened Richard's family has now taken on a life of its own and cannot possibly be contained, and it will, of course, be used as a whole new justification for why I must be exposed to the world. After all, since the original rationale has now crashed and burned, a new one must be constructed to take its place as quickly as possible.

Apparently, these people can fabricate myths just as fast as one can debunk them. You can't possibly be surprised anymore.

Richard Evans: The early days.

It explains so much, doesn't it?

What? Gays should have RIGHTS? Since WHEN!?

Firedoglake's TRex offers the setup:

Late Nite FDL: The Dubious Joys of Right-Wing Infantilism

One of the most disingenuous and, well, insulting tacks on the part of Righty pundits of late has been their sudden concern to the rights of gay Iranians.

And, right on cue, Blogging Tory "Fred" strides briskly into the whirring blades:

Where's the leftist outrage at Ahmadinejad????

You'd think that his comments on gays would have infuriated the left....

If the Blogging Tories were any more predictable, I could write these posts a week ahead of time and only have to change the "post" date.

PZ does Canadian crackpot Denyse O'Leary ...

... and not in a good way.

Who are these people? And why are they all CC?

[UPDATE: It would appear that studly, legalistic he-man Richard Evans is so whiningly, pants-wettingly afeard of your humble scribe that he's blocking redirects from this site to his septic tank of a blog "Let Freedom Reign," so you might have to copy and paste links manually into your browser. Of such annoyances are the macho, tertosterone-filled howler monkeys of the Right-o-sphere comprised. Man, but I would hate to have Richard's underwear laundry bill.]

Apparently, we are all me now. But here's the best part from Dick's "No Libs" co-blogger "Gamil Gharbi":

Red Tory was found out,

and CC who votes for old men to have sex with 14 year olds,

Really? I voted for that? I'm pretty sure I never did that. Shriek! Defamation! Libel! Slander! Lawsuit!

Like I give a shit what one of Richard's co-bloggers thinks. But if I did give a shit, well, since GG above uses a pseudonym, I'd probably have to serve the defamation lawsuit through the owner of that blog. That would be Richard, of course. Who lives at 107 Beddington Cres. NE, Calgary, T3K 1N4. Where he resides with his wife of 11 years Corinne, and his two adorable children, Courtney and Tyler. And who can be reached by phone at 403-333-7035.

So, really, Dick ... are you sure you want to play this game, when your own co-bloggers are so obviously defaming me on your blog? Seriously, is this a road down which you want to travel, with the hilariously deranged Weiner Prattles as your star witness? Is that your idea of a kick-ass, bulletproof legal strategy? 'Cuz if I were you, I might want to talk to someone who is an actual lawyer, and not one who delusionally plays one in the blogosphere. I'm just sayin'.

Disclaimer: No information that was not already publicly available was harmed in the making of this blog post, which explains exactly how you can contact Richard or his adorable family if you need to serve legal papers for whatever reason.

You're welcome.

P.S. By the way, Richard, if I had two kids whose home address was now splashed all across the Intertubes, I'm pretty sure the last thing I'd be doing is linking to and promoting a web site that advocated sex with, you know, children. But that's just me. 'Cuz I'm not a total fucking retard.

YEAH, IT'S BEEN SWELL BUT ... apparently, even some of Dick's co-bloggers over at LFR are getting a bit creeped out by Dick's NAMBLA fetish and are beginning to inch slowly toward the door:



A wise choice, Monty. I mean, it's not likely that you'd get caught in the crossfire of any legal action but, really, why take the chance? If Dick's going to go down in flames and drag his family with him, there's no point in you following along, is there?

BY THE WAY, I really hate dragging this out 'cuz there's so much more wingnuttery craziness we could be poking fun at, but I'm fascinated by this claim by the Dickster here:

CC seems quite happy with the idea that a 45 year old man can have sex with a 14 year old boy.

Now, for the life of me, I have no idea where I might have said that. Or insinuated it. Or implied it. Dick has been yammering on endlessly with this accusation, but I am absolutely baffled as to where it originates. And if it's not true, well, that's kind of what you'd call "defamation," isn't it?

Can anyone help and provide a link to where I said the above? Because I'd sure like to know.

When dangerous weiners attack.

Oh, dear God ... Richard Evans, Weiner Prattles and Patrick Ross putting their collective intellects together ... you just know this isn't going to end well:

lads and lasses...

I'm off to the airport and then I'm off to Scotland. I shall be gone for just over two weeks. Don't wreck the country while I'm gone and Richard, stop picking at it or it will never get better. Have fun my many darlings, I'll hoist a monomalt to you all.

And sometimes, high-tech isn't all it's cracked up to be.

Weiner's theory, which is his.

Political pundit and Richard Evans legal adviser Weiner Prattles ponders the question of why right-wing blogs are just plain kicking ass and taking names:

First, conservative bloggers tend to be the ones with a bit more common sense and therefore don't engage in the same kind of brainwashing (e.g., "political correctness") as left-wing bloggers (in that respect, left-wing bloggers are no different than the MSM and therefore hardly worth the read).

Yes, that "bit more common sense" is an eminently good point since ... since ... umm ... I'm sorry, I was momentarily distracted by all that shrieking, hysterical pants wetting. Where was I again?

Your Blogging Tory wingnutaliciousness, Oct 2, 2007.

On the one hand:

Lorne Gunter has it right

On the other hand:

Lorne Gunter gets it wrong

In disagreements like this, it's almost always a safe bet to see what Dr. Roy thinks, then bet the mortgage and your leukemia medication against it. It's never failed before.

Really? What was your first clue, Jane?

CTV's Jane Taber shows off her mad journamalism skillz when speculating on why PM Stephen Harper cancelled his attendance at this year's Parliamentary Press Gallery dinner:

"I don't think he likes us, plain and simple."

News flash, Jane: Most of us Canadians who want our reporters to do actual reporting don't much like you, either. I'm just sayin'.

Steak: It's what's for dinner.

Don't bother trying to correct him, you'll only harsh his mellow.

Over at SDA, they're just chock full of the good news, dead troop-wise:



Of course, life always looks rosier when you can only count to 45:



There's a certain depressing resignation when you realize they've given up on spin, and have simply descended into making stuff up.

There's perky optimism ...

... and then there's just frighteningly delusional. I'll take a piece of that action, Frank. Seriously.

We're number ... four?

And what exactly does this get me? A toaster? I could use a new toaster.

Dear Richard: Let me explain the English language to you.

Oh, sigh ... fresh out of the CC HQ mailbox:

Without prejudice

Canadian Cynic;

On Sunday September 30, 2007, on your blog Canadian Cynic, you made the accusation that I am a white supremacist and that I advocate for the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Those accusations are patently false and constitute defamation. As such, I am demanding that you retract said statements and post a formal apology. Failure to do so will result in legal action being taken against you.

In regards to your posting of October 1, 2007, you should be wetting your pants CC. You've ticked off enough people that someone, somewhere, is going to gladly give me the information I need in order to speed up the process of taking you to court.

Ignore this e-mail at your own peril CC as it's one of steps I need to perform in order to get the ball rolling.

Cheers

Richard

http://no-libs.com

OK, Richard, let me explain this to you really slowly. You suggest that my recent claims are "patently false." Let's take a minute and see what that phrase actually means, shall we?

adv.

In a patent manner; openly, plainly, or clearly: a patently false statement.

See what that's suggesting, Richard? That what I wrote is absolutely, unmistakably, trivially incorrect, right? And yet, when we look at the actual facts regarding, say, NAMBLA, we notice almost immediately that it was you who registered the domain http://canadiancynic.net, and it was you who redirected it to NAMBLA. In other words, it was you who, leeching off of the moderate popularity of my site, conspired to drive reader traffic to NAMBLA so that those readers could see what NAMBLA had to say. Ergo, since it was you who did everything in your power to redirect web traffic to NAMBLA, it is not at all outrageous to suggest that you are a NAMBLA advocate. Q.E.D.

Is that claim false? Quite possibly. Is it patently false? Not even remotely. Your registered domain, Richard, and your redirection. And when you deliberately and explicitly send people to a web site that advocates pedophilia, I don't think it's unreasonable for people to conclude that there's something there you really want them to read. (In fact, Richard, one might even suggest that you being a NAMBLA advocate is the logical conclusion to draw, and that the burden of proof is on you to disprove it. Isn't that a hoot?)

Now, Richard, I'm going to get back to work, and you can piss off. Think you can handle that? Good boy.

BY THE WAY, just in case you came in late, what follows is the screen image that you got to read for several seconds before you were redirected to the NAMBLA home page from canadiancynic.net:



Yeeeeeeah ... Richard is the one who's driving traffic NAMBLA's way but, somehow, I'm the one "enabeling" them. Go figure that one out.

Oh ... dear ... Lord ...

The comedic potential here is endless, isn't it? Dick Man and his youthful, deranged ward, Weiner Boy.

Damn ... I think I just wet myself.

ACCESS DENIED? Are you serious? God Almighty, but the Right are a bunch of snivelling jamtarts, aren't they? Here, here's the opening ... that should be more than enough for your morning's shits and giggles.



That's it, Richard ... take legal advice and assistance from Werner Patels. What can possibly go wrong?

... and if you don't like those facts, well, Mark has others.

Macleans magazine continues to market to the reality-challenged and intellectually-diseased by publishing Mark Steyn. One wonders if Macleans will ever consider saving commenters' time by making reader feedback on their content multiple choice, with one of the choices being, "Jesus, Mary and Joseph, for the love of God, what the fuck ...?"

(Wag of the tail to e-mailer LP.)