Dear Blogging Tories,
Please take a moment to review the many, many instances where you trotted out the dusty adscam scandal to make blanket assertions about how corrupt the Liberals are/were. Evidently, it was perfectly fair game to cast your many aspersions upon the reputations of any and all Liberals as crooked, corrupt and rotten. You made it work for yourselves in a campaign of constant mud flinging and as we all know, the ends justify the meanies. Or something like that. Unfortunately, tables have a funny habit of turning, goose meet gander.
I recall an Airfarce joke I heard on the radio one sunny day, what's 12 inches long and hangs between Ronald Reagan's legs? Brian Mulroney's tie. Parumpum! See, there was a certain, let's call it greasy quality about Mulroney. The tag Lyin' Brian got used and stuck for a reason. The dude just seems shifty. He's a veritable sincerity vacuum, he can suck the integrity out of a room just by lifting that shovel of a face and blinking. He was the sort of lad that would french a pit bull's arse if he thought there was a nickel poked up inside.
He was the hate part of this nation's love/hate relationship with Pierre Trudeau. PET cast such a long shadow that Mulroney spent his entire career in eclipse and he resented the hell out of that. Where Trudeau was brash and charming, Mulroney was merely smarmy. Where Trudeau had vision and passion, Mulroney had avarice and ambition. Trudeau knew his own mind and right or wrong, was a fearless statesman, Mulroney always recognized power and curried favour. Neither man was ever short on arrogance. I don't recall any tales of Trudeau being crooked. Mulroney on the other hand continues to be haunted by tales of his dubious dealings.
Once upon a time, Mulroney accepted $300,000 in cash money from a man named Karlheinz Schreiber. This rather grand sum was somehow connected to a deal for Airbus planes going to Air Canada. Mulroney has lied about these dealings on numerous occasions and to his credit he has fibbed with gusto. Up until this week our good buddy Stevie was willing and eager to help cover the tracks of his pal Brian,
"Because Mulroney won't talk, Prime Minister Stephen Harper should create an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of these questions. But Harper has rejected all demands for such a probe.
"This is not a route that I want to go down, and I don't think that if the Liberal party thought twice about it, it is a power they would want to give me," Harper said defiantly last week. Those words were a blatant threat to the Liberals, who along with the NDP have been demanding an inquiry, that he would launch probes into business dealings by Chrétien and former prime minister Paul Martin."
Isn't that adorable. Stevie won't do the right thing because if they make him, he'll just have to go on a vengeance hunt across the aisle. You see kids, it really is all about getting tough on crime. Hell, if you have the audacity to smoke a joint, be it for a mellow buzz or for analgesia, well you belong in jail you rotten fuck. And if you accept big money under the table from foreign business associates, lie about those dealings, put off filing the money as income for a few years, withhold pertinent details from investigators and then sue and collect a large award based on the flawed findings of those investigations, well what's the problem? That's just business as usual down at con central station.
Let's be clear, Harper refused to even look into this issue and when pressured, he responded with purely partisan threats. That is because it's only wrong when the other team does it. But what happens when the pressure doesn't diminish but increases, despite some of that old vitriol? Why you start hiding the bodies and covering up, that's what happens silly,
"Internal federal documents reveal the secrecy and sensitivity with which the Conservative government is handling allegations involving Brian Mulroney and the Airbus affair.
Briefing notes obtained by The Canadian Press advise two cabinet ministers to say that they were never briefed about the matter.
The notes were prepared for Justice Minister Rob Nicholson and his predecessor, Vic Toews.
Correspondence records show that one bureaucrat suggested to his political bosses that they remain silent to avoid fuelling the scandal."
Of course it looks a little shitty when the Canadian Press gets hold of documents like that. 'Cos gosh if that doesn't just smack of active complicity after the fact. Trust the cons to prove that old saw, there's honour among thieves. So the pressure stays on and whattayaknow somewhere in Conville there's a dry drunk ex-PM under a bus,
"In an abrupt about-face, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced a review of Brian Mulroney's dealings with a controversial businessman and cut off contact with the man he valued as a political adviser.
Friday's reversal came just a day after new allegations from Karlheinz Schreiber threatened to draw Harper himself into the tangled Mulroney-Schreiber-Airbus affair."
As Gomer Pyle famously observed, "Surprise, surprise, surprise." Harper, perhaps the most selfish twat to waddle onto the Canadian political stage in many decades, is loyal to a fault. That is to say, he's loyal until it starts to look like the wrong doings he turns a blind eye to, start reflecting on him.
"For days Harper had repeatedly dismissed Liberal demands for a probe into allegations involving $300,000 in cash payments to Mulroney by Schreiber.
But the same prime minister who had responded with taunts and threats to counter-investigate former Liberal prime ministers delivered a bolt out of the blue on Friday afternoon."
Because when your fat ass is slipping into the fire you can always pull a 180 and try to beat the news cycle,
"Schreiber's affidavit alleges that Mulroney was still serving as prime minister in June 1993 when he agreed to enter into a business arrangement.
It says a Mulroney adviser once asked him to transfer funds, in connection with Air Canada's 1988 purchase of Airbus planes, to Mulroney's lawyer in Switzerland.
As for Harper, the affidavit claims that Mulroney told Schreiber about an upcoming visit to the current prime minister's country estate in July 2006. It alleges that Mulroney promised to discuss Airbus with the prime minister at his retreat in Harrington Lake, Que."
And what does a tubby, selfish fuck do when it looks bad? He tucks tail and runs because there's nothing more important than self preservation,
"But Harper said the allegations are serious enough to threaten the integrity of the prime minister's office.
He announced that he will appoint an independent arbiter to look into the matter and recommend what the government should do."
It remains to be seen what sort of bullshit, sneaky closed-door charade Harper tries to set up.
"Liberal Leader Stephane Dion told reporters that Harper's appointment of an independent adviser to look into the matter doesn't go far enough and that he wants a public inquiry.
He said now that Schreiber's affidavit has been made public and names Harper that Harper seemed "desperate to look like he is still taking action when he actually offers nothing but delay."
Dion says the allegation raises troubling questions such as why the Justice Department's investigation into the matter was stopped.
"He (Harper) is saddled with the appearance of conflict of interest," Dion said. "As such, his impartiality could come under question as further decisions on how to proceed are taken."
But nothing says serious to Stevie Harper like a threat to his own soft set-up. And if his BFF (Sorry Stockie, he just doesn't love you that way) becomes a political liability then it's under the bus with him.
"He bluntly declared that he had not spoken with Mulroney in advance of his announcement, and warned members of his government to follow his lead.
"I think it will be incumbent on me and also upon members of the government not to have dealings with Mr. Mulroney until this issue is resolved," he said.
It was a far cry from last spring, when Harper was toasting Mulroney at a public gala and comparing him to Ronald Reagan and Pope John Paul II as historic figures in the fight against communism."
I'm willing to guess that Stevie and Brian won't be sharing fluids again for the next little while. But I'm just going to take solace in the fact that the Gomery enquiry can now be put to rest. There's a new scandal in town and it even has fat Stevie's name on it. And that just lets me say that I've had enough of the Cons and their culture of corruption and white collar crime. Ain't it a shame that these two Conservative Prime Ministers are now tainted in scandal involving vast sums of money and cover ups.
So Blogging Tories, you can now take all of your pious sanctimony and roll it up tight and poke it where the sun don't shine. Oh and if there is any cosmic justice the sins of the father will be visited upon the son and Ben Mulroney will spontaneously combust on camera. That would be the only footage of that plastic booger worth seeing. I hope there's some jail time in Brian's future.
Lots more fun reading to be had on the Google news.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
The word "idiot" is just so harsh, don't you think?
SF Gate's Mark Morford is not optimistic about where all this is headed:
American kids, dumber than dirt
Warning: The next generation might just be the biggest pile of idiots in U.S. history
I have this ongoing discussion with a longtime reader who also just so happens to be a longtime Oakland high school teacher, a wonderful guy who's seen generations of teens come and generations go and who has a delightful poetic sensibility and quirky outlook on his life and his family and his beloved teaching career...
It's gotten so bad that, as my friend nears retirement, he says he is very seriously considering moving out of the country so as to escape what he sees will be the surefire collapse of functioning American society in the next handful of years due to the absolutely irrefutable destruction, the shocking — and nearly hopeless — dumb-ification of the American brain. It is just that bad.
Perhaps, Mark, but referring to them as "idiots" is just plain classless, don't you think? Up here in the Great White North, we're more tactful than that -- we use the term "Blogging Tories." It's more polite, and everyone still knows exactly what we're trying to say.
You're welcome.
(Via one of my new faves, "Rigorous Intuition".)
A day late and a brain cell short.
Whoopsie ... someone better tell Fred to pay attention. I don't have the time to save him from himself every day.
I believe the phrase you're looking for here is "selective outrage."
SHRIEK! SHRIEK! SHRIEEEEKKKK!
On the other hand, when Canada's right-wing darling National Post gets caught peddling a bogus story about Iran and Jews and badges, well, they know better than to just tweak a headline. Presto ... nothing up my sleeve.
Honestly, I need more of a challenge here.
BY THE WAY, IT GETS BETTER: It's not just the carefully-chosen, right-wing outrage here that's the story. See, the way it works is, the Toronto Star started things off with this original headline:
which, as most non-imbeciles will recognize, is an obvious hommage to a line that Gerald Ford is given credit for (but probably never actually said). In short, it was actually rather amusing, but only for people who have a clue.
Not surprisingly, that headline was picked up by the aggregator National Newswatch (NNW) and accurately reproduced verbatim:
Unfortunately, by the time certain mentally-defective members of Canada's Bonehead-o-sphere got around to following the links, the Star had changed the online headline to something a bit less acerbic so that the text no longer matched, at which point the aforementioned wankers (apparently unaware that web pages can actually, you know, change) went into Full Metal Wanker Alert and accused NNW of playing fast and loose with journalistic standards:
News aggregator National Newswatch tries to outpinko the Toronto Star.
Yes, that's our very own Neo from "Halls of Massive Dementia", who will not be out-Janked and is all over this discrepancy like Richard Evans on NAMBLA's home page as he decides to take NNW out to the woodshed by e-mail and, for his trouble, gets rapped sharply on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper:
"Wow... how quick people turn on the messenger. That headline was taken directly from the source!!!"
"The TO Star obviously took heat over it and changed it. Since when did NNW start torquing headlines? I have posted a screen shot of the original headline as it appeared in the TO Star when it first went up this AM. The screenshot is from Google News' cache of the story."
"I thought you had more sense than that!"
At this point, jokes involving Neo and having any sense pretty much write themselves, don't they?
P.S. Be sure to read the comments at Neo's place. It's tough to choose between the adjectives "stupid" and "classless," but I'm fairly sure you wouldn't go wrong with either of them.
AFTERSNARK: Canada's "fourth-best blog" weighs in as only the Premature eJankulator can:
And while the Toronto Star is at it, maybe it ought to deliver an apology to National Newswatch. He's been taking a lot of heat for simply repeating the headline the Star subsequently decided was not up to their professional standards.
That's right, Steve -- it's only fair that, if the Star chooses to update its online headline, it should have the courtesy to follow all those backlinks to make sure everyone's OK with that.
Lord, but I live for the day when Steve is put in charge of an actual newspaper. Oh, the hilarity that would ensue.
"GREAT MINDS THINK ALIKE." Or is it, "Fools seldom differ." I always get those two confused.
Friday, November 09, 2007
I need a word more contemptuous than "deluded".
Um ... wow. I mean, just, wow:
Conservative blogging in Canada rocks!
The results of the 2007 Weblog Awards are in, and the the [sic]slavishly obedient, mouth-breathing freeperspeople have made it clear. In Canada, conservative blogging is tops!
Here are the results of the 2007 Blog Awards in the Best Canadian Blog category:
- Small Dead Animals
- Raymitheminx
- Five Feet of Fury
- Angry in the Great White North
...
In celebration of my lock on fourth, I've rolled out a new version of my banner. Actually, I'm teaching myself how to use Adobe Illustrator, but heck, the timing was just right.
Congratulations to everyone who was selected out of the scores of nominations to stand as examples of the best Canadian blogging has to offer. And thanks to everyone who thought I was the best of the best. I appreciated each and every vote.
And on a partisan note, I can't help but notice that the four of the top five spots were handily won by representatives of Canada's conservative blogging community.
Yes, Steve, these awards were all about quality. After all, how can you object to an awards contest that bestows that kind of recognition on a pathological liar and bigot, followed (in third place) by a screeching, racist hatemonger? And, hey, nothing says quality bloggy goodness like an obsession with toothpaste and Cindy Sheehan's bodily fluids. Oh, and saying things so stupid and libelous, you get sued for it. That, too.
Congrats, Steve. In terms of pure batshit craziness and an utter lack of grip on reality, you've now entered SUZANNE-level territory. I didn't think that was even possible but, what the heck, you can still surprise.
Just 'cuz.
A quick refresher. And a Firedoglake-sized smackdown.
I must say, blogging sure is easy when someone else does all the heavy lifting.
Sometimes, the stupid is just overwhelming.
As God is my witness, I have no idea where to even begin to disembowel this retardedness. And the equally moronic followup.
AFTERSNARK: Since Denyse insists that the shooter's belief in "social Darwinism" should be relevant, one can only assume that she would hold Christianity equally responsible when its adherents beat their children, sometimes to death.
Well, Denyse? How about it? We wouldn't want to be hypocritical here, would we? And, no, we're not done here.
If it's Kate, you know it's dishonest.
Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ mindlessly and obediently pushes the latest pig-ignorant, neo-con talking point:
The founder of The Weather Channel doesn't mince words.
Um ... for those of you who are interested, that would be this worthless, disreputable hack:
Right Wing Trumpets Global Warming Denial Of Discredited ‘TV Weatherman’
Yesterday, John Coleman, a founder of The Weather Channel, wrote an article for the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, a right-wing climate change skeptic site, claiming man-made global warming is just a “scam“:
It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create in allusion of rapid global warming.
As proof that the scientific consensus is a hoax, Coleman writes:
I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. … I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct.
The conservative blogosphere is pushing Coleman’s junk science today. Matt Drudge links to Newsbusters’ “marvelous” take on Coleman this morning. Red State, Qando, Sister Toldjah, and the Free Republic also join in by approvingly linking to Coleman’s piece.
The right wing should check Coleman’s credentials before touting his “scientific” work. As Coleman admits, his “expertise” is in weather — not climate change science. In fact, he “has been a TV weatherman since he was a freshman in college in 1953.”
Kate McMillan and "Small Dead Animals" -- diminishing the value of blog awards since God knows when.
P.S. In addition, DeSmogBlog is all over this like Patrick Ross on Werner Patels.
Dear American wanks: So ... how are things working out down there?
And after almost seven years of neo-con dumbassitude and Bushonomics down south, it behooves us to check in and see how things are going. Let's see here:
- Trashed currency? Check.
- Eviscerated economy? Check.
- Record national debt? Check.
- Housing market in tatters? Check.
- Rampant increase in bankruptcies? Check.
- Massive, illegal violations of privacy? Check.
- Jaw-dropping oil prices? Check.
- Increasing numbers of uninsured? Check.
- Rising infant mortality rate? Check.
- Rising maternal mortality rate? Check.
- Skyrocketing hunger and homelessness? Check.
- Erosion of civil rights? Check.
- Deteriorating national infrastructure? Check.
- Crumbling military readiness? Check.
- Diminished international reputation and loss of credibility? Check.
- And lots and lots of dead Americans. Check.
In short, pretty much what you expected. At least they're predictable.
And if you don't like their principles ...
... just wait 15 minutes.
On the one hand, the ousting of racist, Canadian screech harpy, torture proponent and creepy stalker Rachel Marsden is apparently just another leftist, moonbat conspiracy:
Clancy fell for letters that came, not from SUn readers, by [sic] from an email campaign by the biggest leftist blog in the USA, the Daily Kos.
http://www.dailykos.com/tag/Rachel%20Marsden
On the other hand, sometimes the intellectually-stunted Right can really get behind a good public freeping:
Right Wing Campaigns To Get Climate Skeptic’s Blog Named ‘Best Science Blog’ In Weblog Awards
But the right blogosphere has made Climate Audit’s shot at the Weblog Award a cause celebre and are using postings and “endorsements” to rally their support to push for a skeptic to be named “Best Science Blog”: ...
Freeping: It's not just for wankers anymore but, apparently, they're the only folks who are entitled to it.
Can a Medal of Freedom be far behind?
"Hey, Al ... you spent two and a half years being a greasy little fuck that lied to Congress, condoned torture, broke the law and embarrassingly politicized the Justice Department. What are you going to do now?"
"I'm going to Disneyland!"
There's simply no way you can be a conservative and a failure at the same time, is there? Just ask Rachel Marsden.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
In which we respond to comments on tasers...
Okay, I'm pulling this out of the comments to have a look at. In a recent post over at Dawg's Blawg, the issue of police abuse of tasers was brought up, with a pile of video for reference. For the most part the video is pretty convincing that, for some cops at least, there is a tendency to zap first and ask questions later. Tasers are increasingly being deployed as "non-lethal" weapons for subduing unruly citizens. Some argue that they are the safe alternative to the use of firearms. But it just seems a tad too easy to draw a taser and shock someone in instances where there is absolutely no question that a gun would be excessive force.
Now, there aren't a lot of videos floating around of people getting zapped for posing a threat to public safety or the safety of officers. Not much outrage or glamour in a video of appropriate use of force. And while the number of deaths resulting from taser use climbs, an argument can be made that while not non-lethal, they are certainly far less lethal than a 9mm. I'd much rather see someone taken down with a taser than having their brains splashed on the pavement. Police departments take the use of firearms very seriously. Discharging a gun will lead to paperwork, reports and inquiries in most jurisdictions. The same scrutiny doesn't seem to be applied to the taser.
Dr. Dawg's argument was essentially that police and security officers are too damn quick to blast someone with the volts. The flash point in his comments had to do with one Andrew Meyer who was tasered for resisting arrest after making an ass of himself at a speech by John Kerry.
Dawg's piece began,
"The University student in Florida who was Tasered for running over his time at a campus meeting where John Kerry was speaking has bowed to Authority, written apologies to the cops, the university and and the university president, and escaped jail for whatever charges the state of Florida was going to bring against him."
And thus began a kerfuffle with KEvron, who took exception to the framing of the argument. At issue was the excuse for the wire job performed on Meyer. The incident began with Meyer monopolizing a microphone during a Q&A with the senator, refusing to step away when asked and behaving like a complete dick. Security came in and tried to physically remove Meyer from the room, he kicked up a fuss and resisted. For his troubles he received some complimentary voltage. It made for pretty dramatic video. A lot of people were outraged that Meyer was zapped. Some others, including CC and Red Tory, felt that Meyer might have staged his antics for Youtube and got more than he bargained for. In short, Meyer could have avoided the pain by cooperating, or at least not resisting, after acting like a squealing douche. That isn't a very sympathetic argument but it does ring true. Even so, despite being characterized as an authoritarian bully, CC went on to say,
"Did Meyer really deserve to get Tasered for what he did? Probably not. Did the cops over-react? Probably. Am I shedding any tears over Meyer's beatdown at the hands of some of UF's finest? I slept just fine last night, thanks."
Not exactly pacific but if you come here looking for unicorns and kittens, well sometimes there's a kitten but that's just 'cos we like kittens. The essence of CC's point was that the foolish abandonment of common sense led to a situation that needn't have escalated to such a degree. Which brings me to the reason for this post. Framing. In KEvron's estimation, Dr. Dawg perpetrated a fraud or was willfully dishonest in the framing of his piece by stating that Meyer got the volts for "running over his time". But I submit that each and every one of us, regardless of slant, is guilty of framing arguments to suit the desired result. Looking at the totality of the videos on Dawg's post, I agreed that the taser is just too easy a recourse for the lazy and brutish types that occasionally make it through the academy. There is a growing and disturbing body of evidence to support that argument.
I'm not anti-authoritarian. I understand the need for authority and enforcement but I also want to be sure that enforcement is controlled, reasoned and works with a minimum of violence. I've seen the best and worst of authority in action, from hero to monster. We'd all prefer to have heroes around but I'd happily settle for officers that are basically decent folk doing a tough job. I'd also like to see the use of tasers treated with the same level of scrutiny that firearms receive.
kevron said...
"sorry to have to post this here, but dr phrawd has banned me at his blog."
Having gone back to look over the exchange in question, it echoes the larger issue, did KEvron really deserve to get banned for what he wrote? Probably not. Did Dawg over react by banning KEvron? Probably. Now that I've been pulled into the discussion, will I lose any sleep over it? Not a lick. For the record, here's a brief recap of what brought about the ban,
"KEvron says:
"does "honesty" fall under the definition of decency?" "lol! you're a fraud!"
and following the appearance of the excrement that posts from 'neath a mullet, the ever tainted Patrick Ross, things began to degenerate into flamery. When asked to desist, the Rosshole complied, KEvron did not. Voila, booted. Which brings the issue into this yard as a result of my comment, that began,
"For what it is worth Dawg, I'm on board here."
and to which KEvron responds...
"but you gotta wonder: why does the dr (i'm assuming his title is honorary) present his argument in bad faith ("....Tasered for running over his time at a campus meeting")? seems to me that, in presenting a false account of the events, dr phrawd has effectively established a shaky foundation for his position. what good is that? well, it aids in focusing attention to incidental details (sen kerry's attendance is the only reason the story came to international light) of this particular case rather than honestly address the question of arming police with tasers. in drawing attention away from the basic issue, and toward the details specific to this case, phrawd hopes to apply some "guilt by association". also, phrawd's confabulation puts progressives/liberals/democrats in the indefensible position of having to insist that sparky and his kind should be "tasered for running over his time at a campus meeting", to which, of course, none would ever agree, but that doesn't prevent phrawd from making the accusation none the less (did you catch where i was called indecent for objecting to phrawd's false account?). no, phrawd couldn't care less about tasers; his true intentions are petty and sad."
My question then, is how are the charges of dealing in bad faith, falsity, phrawd and shakiness of foundation in any way convincing? Dr. Dawg has been consistent in his arguments from the day of the incident in question. I don't see how the circumstantial details are of much import, sure it was during a Kerry appearance but the internet got lit up when the guy was tased in a California university library. From what I could see, Dawg's article and examples were overwhelmingly focused on the issue of tasers and their official misuse. Kerry was a detail that set the time and place of a particular incident, no more. I think you are reaching way too far by asserting that Dawg, "puts progressives/liberals/democrats in the indefensible position of having to insist that sparky and his kind should be "tasered for running over his time at a campus meeting". Really, that's just a bunch of doo-doo. Dawg approached the issue from his own consistent point of bias. He feels strongly about the police misuse of tasers and I don't exactly feel too comfie knowing how easily they can be deployed to shut up a loud mouth. Hence my comment, "The taser is the weapon of convenience for lazy, authoritarian brutes."
"KEvron says: look: we live in a society that values the rule of law. without enforcement, our laws are meaningless. we, as citizenries, have asked people to enforce our laws and to defend us from criminal elements. this is a very dangerous job, so we provide these people with the necessary equipment, training and guidelines to perform this job. we invest in them the authority to enforce our laws, and we implement methods to try to prevent abuse of this authority. yes, despite our best efforts, authority is often abused (the same can be said of democracy and of capitalism), but the alternative - abolishment of the institution - is unacceptable, so we endure and remain vigilant."
Kev, you're arguing out both sides of your mouth. Yes, we value the rule of law. We also expect and should demand that the people we hire to defend and enforce those laws, also obey them. Yes, their jobs are dangerous and stressful but can you argue that a citizen that fails to behave is a criminal element or a mortal threat? It is the breakdown of the training, guidelines and official oversight that leads to the abuse Dawg decries. Abolition is not the only alternative and you know it. Now *that* is an argument made in bad faith. Neither Dawg not I nor anyone that isn't loopy is seeking to abolish police or the rule of law. And while we're busy enduring the admitted abuses of authority, it is Dawg who is sounding the call for vigilance.
"KEvron says: weapon of convenience.... should we demand that, in defense of our laws, police should be issued weapons which inconvenience them? is it fair to ask that they further risk their own lives in their mission?"
That's one awful tall pony your riding there Kev. If you want to twist my words and meaning you'll really have to do better than that. At no point has anyone sought to inconvenience or place the lives of police in jeopardy. I don't favour stripping them of tasers. What I do believe is important, is that their use be strictly governed. In any number of cases of abuse, the officers in question use tasers not because they are in any peril but to force compliance. Get on the ground...zap. Get out of the car...zap. Shut up and quit yelling...zap. Go look at the videos that Dawg posted. How many of those officers were in any peril? That senior citizen or the 11 year old kid posed a threat? Get real. We all understand the risks that police take and the world is tilting toward more violence all the time. But tasing has become a tool to punish on the spot and force instant compliance. It is not being used for protection. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.
"KEvron says:
"for lazy, authoritarian brutes".... an unfair assessment, and highly inflamatory rhetoric. their authority comes to them from the citizenry, and their weaponry is issued to them with the consent of the citizenry."
In what way is it unfair to point out an element within the police community that abuses their power, position and weaponry? The authority we grant them comes with the condition that it be used fairly and in compliance with the same laws we hire them to uphold. We give them leave to carry arms with the understanding that they are to be used as a last resort. If they behave otherwise then they are simply being lazy for not working to resolve conflict peacefully. They are being authoritarian, rather than representing authority, by using force to achieve utter compliance and they are brutes when they use brutal violence to achieve ends that could be met by other means. I wouldn't approve of breaking a citizens fingers until they complied at a traffic stop and I don't approve of tasing there either. We employ peace officers to uphold law and keep the peace, not to use violence against the citizenry without just cause.
"KEvron says: i'm not opposed to antiauthoritarianism; quite the opposite, really. but i prefer to be pragmatic in that pursuit, and that pragmatism begins by being honest with myself."
Might I recommend that you reassess that pragmatic self-honesty. I think your feelings were hurt and you lashed out. Your arguments are as twisted as you accuse Dawg's of being. You set up a line of strawmen to knock down and the over all effect is to irk me a tad. I reserve the right to disagree with anyone but I hope that I am fairer than you've been here. I don't ban anyone, so you are welcome to have your say, but I don't suffer fools easily.
Now, there aren't a lot of videos floating around of people getting zapped for posing a threat to public safety or the safety of officers. Not much outrage or glamour in a video of appropriate use of force. And while the number of deaths resulting from taser use climbs, an argument can be made that while not non-lethal, they are certainly far less lethal than a 9mm. I'd much rather see someone taken down with a taser than having their brains splashed on the pavement. Police departments take the use of firearms very seriously. Discharging a gun will lead to paperwork, reports and inquiries in most jurisdictions. The same scrutiny doesn't seem to be applied to the taser.
Dr. Dawg's argument was essentially that police and security officers are too damn quick to blast someone with the volts. The flash point in his comments had to do with one Andrew Meyer who was tasered for resisting arrest after making an ass of himself at a speech by John Kerry.
Dawg's piece began,
"The University student in Florida who was Tasered for running over his time at a campus meeting where John Kerry was speaking has bowed to Authority, written apologies to the cops, the university and and the university president, and escaped jail for whatever charges the state of Florida was going to bring against him."
And thus began a kerfuffle with KEvron, who took exception to the framing of the argument. At issue was the excuse for the wire job performed on Meyer. The incident began with Meyer monopolizing a microphone during a Q&A with the senator, refusing to step away when asked and behaving like a complete dick. Security came in and tried to physically remove Meyer from the room, he kicked up a fuss and resisted. For his troubles he received some complimentary voltage. It made for pretty dramatic video. A lot of people were outraged that Meyer was zapped. Some others, including CC and Red Tory, felt that Meyer might have staged his antics for Youtube and got more than he bargained for. In short, Meyer could have avoided the pain by cooperating, or at least not resisting, after acting like a squealing douche. That isn't a very sympathetic argument but it does ring true. Even so, despite being characterized as an authoritarian bully, CC went on to say,
"Did Meyer really deserve to get Tasered for what he did? Probably not. Did the cops over-react? Probably. Am I shedding any tears over Meyer's beatdown at the hands of some of UF's finest? I slept just fine last night, thanks."
Not exactly pacific but if you come here looking for unicorns and kittens, well sometimes there's a kitten but that's just 'cos we like kittens. The essence of CC's point was that the foolish abandonment of common sense led to a situation that needn't have escalated to such a degree. Which brings me to the reason for this post. Framing. In KEvron's estimation, Dr. Dawg perpetrated a fraud or was willfully dishonest in the framing of his piece by stating that Meyer got the volts for "running over his time". But I submit that each and every one of us, regardless of slant, is guilty of framing arguments to suit the desired result. Looking at the totality of the videos on Dawg's post, I agreed that the taser is just too easy a recourse for the lazy and brutish types that occasionally make it through the academy. There is a growing and disturbing body of evidence to support that argument.
I'm not anti-authoritarian. I understand the need for authority and enforcement but I also want to be sure that enforcement is controlled, reasoned and works with a minimum of violence. I've seen the best and worst of authority in action, from hero to monster. We'd all prefer to have heroes around but I'd happily settle for officers that are basically decent folk doing a tough job. I'd also like to see the use of tasers treated with the same level of scrutiny that firearms receive.
kevron said...
"sorry to have to post this here, but dr phrawd has banned me at his blog."
Having gone back to look over the exchange in question, it echoes the larger issue, did KEvron really deserve to get banned for what he wrote? Probably not. Did Dawg over react by banning KEvron? Probably. Now that I've been pulled into the discussion, will I lose any sleep over it? Not a lick. For the record, here's a brief recap of what brought about the ban,
"KEvron says:
"does "honesty" fall under the definition of decency?" "lol! you're a fraud!"
and following the appearance of the excrement that posts from 'neath a mullet, the ever tainted Patrick Ross, things began to degenerate into flamery. When asked to desist, the Rosshole complied, KEvron did not. Voila, booted. Which brings the issue into this yard as a result of my comment, that began,
"For what it is worth Dawg, I'm on board here."
and to which KEvron responds...
"but you gotta wonder: why does the dr (i'm assuming his title is honorary) present his argument in bad faith ("....Tasered for running over his time at a campus meeting")? seems to me that, in presenting a false account of the events, dr phrawd has effectively established a shaky foundation for his position. what good is that? well, it aids in focusing attention to incidental details (sen kerry's attendance is the only reason the story came to international light) of this particular case rather than honestly address the question of arming police with tasers. in drawing attention away from the basic issue, and toward the details specific to this case, phrawd hopes to apply some "guilt by association". also, phrawd's confabulation puts progressives/liberals/democrats in the indefensible position of having to insist that sparky and his kind should be "tasered for running over his time at a campus meeting", to which, of course, none would ever agree, but that doesn't prevent phrawd from making the accusation none the less (did you catch where i was called indecent for objecting to phrawd's false account?). no, phrawd couldn't care less about tasers; his true intentions are petty and sad."
My question then, is how are the charges of dealing in bad faith, falsity, phrawd and shakiness of foundation in any way convincing? Dr. Dawg has been consistent in his arguments from the day of the incident in question. I don't see how the circumstantial details are of much import, sure it was during a Kerry appearance but the internet got lit up when the guy was tased in a California university library. From what I could see, Dawg's article and examples were overwhelmingly focused on the issue of tasers and their official misuse. Kerry was a detail that set the time and place of a particular incident, no more. I think you are reaching way too far by asserting that Dawg, "puts progressives/liberals/democrats in the indefensible position of having to insist that sparky and his kind should be "tasered for running over his time at a campus meeting". Really, that's just a bunch of doo-doo. Dawg approached the issue from his own consistent point of bias. He feels strongly about the police misuse of tasers and I don't exactly feel too comfie knowing how easily they can be deployed to shut up a loud mouth. Hence my comment, "The taser is the weapon of convenience for lazy, authoritarian brutes."
"KEvron says: look: we live in a society that values the rule of law. without enforcement, our laws are meaningless. we, as citizenries, have asked people to enforce our laws and to defend us from criminal elements. this is a very dangerous job, so we provide these people with the necessary equipment, training and guidelines to perform this job. we invest in them the authority to enforce our laws, and we implement methods to try to prevent abuse of this authority. yes, despite our best efforts, authority is often abused (the same can be said of democracy and of capitalism), but the alternative - abolishment of the institution - is unacceptable, so we endure and remain vigilant."
Kev, you're arguing out both sides of your mouth. Yes, we value the rule of law. We also expect and should demand that the people we hire to defend and enforce those laws, also obey them. Yes, their jobs are dangerous and stressful but can you argue that a citizen that fails to behave is a criminal element or a mortal threat? It is the breakdown of the training, guidelines and official oversight that leads to the abuse Dawg decries. Abolition is not the only alternative and you know it. Now *that* is an argument made in bad faith. Neither Dawg not I nor anyone that isn't loopy is seeking to abolish police or the rule of law. And while we're busy enduring the admitted abuses of authority, it is Dawg who is sounding the call for vigilance.
"KEvron says: weapon of convenience.... should we demand that, in defense of our laws, police should be issued weapons which inconvenience them? is it fair to ask that they further risk their own lives in their mission?"
That's one awful tall pony your riding there Kev. If you want to twist my words and meaning you'll really have to do better than that. At no point has anyone sought to inconvenience or place the lives of police in jeopardy. I don't favour stripping them of tasers. What I do believe is important, is that their use be strictly governed. In any number of cases of abuse, the officers in question use tasers not because they are in any peril but to force compliance. Get on the ground...zap. Get out of the car...zap. Shut up and quit yelling...zap. Go look at the videos that Dawg posted. How many of those officers were in any peril? That senior citizen or the 11 year old kid posed a threat? Get real. We all understand the risks that police take and the world is tilting toward more violence all the time. But tasing has become a tool to punish on the spot and force instant compliance. It is not being used for protection. That is the problem that needs to be addressed.
"KEvron says:
"for lazy, authoritarian brutes".... an unfair assessment, and highly inflamatory rhetoric. their authority comes to them from the citizenry, and their weaponry is issued to them with the consent of the citizenry."
In what way is it unfair to point out an element within the police community that abuses their power, position and weaponry? The authority we grant them comes with the condition that it be used fairly and in compliance with the same laws we hire them to uphold. We give them leave to carry arms with the understanding that they are to be used as a last resort. If they behave otherwise then they are simply being lazy for not working to resolve conflict peacefully. They are being authoritarian, rather than representing authority, by using force to achieve utter compliance and they are brutes when they use brutal violence to achieve ends that could be met by other means. I wouldn't approve of breaking a citizens fingers until they complied at a traffic stop and I don't approve of tasing there either. We employ peace officers to uphold law and keep the peace, not to use violence against the citizenry without just cause.
"KEvron says: i'm not opposed to antiauthoritarianism; quite the opposite, really. but i prefer to be pragmatic in that pursuit, and that pragmatism begins by being honest with myself."
Might I recommend that you reassess that pragmatic self-honesty. I think your feelings were hurt and you lashed out. Your arguments are as twisted as you accuse Dawg's of being. You set up a line of strawmen to knock down and the over all effect is to irk me a tad. I reserve the right to disagree with anyone but I hope that I am fairer than you've been here. I don't ban anyone, so you are welcome to have your say, but I don't suffer fools easily.
One last big push.
I think they're comfortably in second, but let's show a little last-minute Beaver love. 'Cuz you can never have enough high-quality Beaver.
Bye bye, Rachel.
Apparently, good things really do come in threes. First, there was Rachel Marsden's quiet departure from the National Post not long after, well, this delightful production; then she turned out to be too demented even for Fox; and, finally, well, yeah, you knew it was just a matter of time:
Sun Media Column Statement:
"Attention terrorists and Islamofascists: You can now read the Toronto Sun without having your delicate sensibilities offended, as my weekly column is no longer with Sun Media.
Which inspires the obvious question -- who will have the requisite lack of any sense whatsoever to give Rachel a job now?
Ah, Ezra, where are you when we need you?
HAHAHAHAHAHA!! Sometimes, I really love me some blogosphere.
LA MARSDEN'S GREATEST HITS: Really, it might worth doing an entire series. I'd start here although, come to think of it, that might be a tough act to follow, douchebaggery-wise.
Cock gun, aim carefully at happy sack, squeeze trigger sloooooowly ...
It's like the scene from Monty Python's "Life of Brian" where the Judean People's Front crack suicide squad comes rushing up excitedly to Brian's aid -- only to suddenly all stab themselves to death -- when Blogging Tory "Diogenes Borealis" rears back with a wicked "I told you so," only to blow off his nads in one smooth move.
DB figures he's got the drop on yours truly here:
Evangelicals for Giuliani
I love to say "I told you so". Back in March I wrote a post praising Rudy Giuliani's brand of conservatism and suggesting that it was a model for the direction of both the Republican Party and the Conservative Party of Canada. I was promptly lambasted by uber-crank Canadian Cynic who called my post a dispatch from "Wankerland North" and said:
Yeah, Eric, why don't you promote Rudy Guiliani [sic] as a presidential candidate? I'd love to see how that turns out.
So, it was with a bit of a smirk that I learned that Giuliani has now been endorsed by Christian evangelist Pat Robertson:
"To me the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists," Robertson said in his opening statements. Robertson added that the United Stated needs a "leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead" and that leader was former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, R-N.Y.
Critics of Giuliani who think that his past pro-abortion & pro-homosexual positions make him unacceptable to the Christian Right in the US are deluded, in my opinion.
DB's major intellectual gaffe is to think that Pat Robertson represents the "Christian Right." This is, of course, total airheadedness.
Robertson does not represent the Christian Right. Instead, he more accurately represents the Totally Loopy, Batshit Fucking Crazy, Bible-Whomping, Voices-In-His-Head, Lunatic Demographic that even many evangelicals are backing away from in horror slowly as they recognize his overwhelming madness.
Even conservatives like the whackjobs at "Renew America" have figured out that a Rudy nomination represents a Republican death sentence:
A Giuliani nomination dooms the GOP and maybe America
Chuck Baldwin
October 5, 2007
... I told Dr. Corsi, "A lot of conservative Christians will never vote for Rudy Giuliani." I will even go so far as to say that no genuine Christian conservative could possibly vote for Giuliani. And, no, it does not matter that Hillary Clinton might be elected President as a result. A Giuliani or Clinton choice is tantamount to a choice between Nero or Caligula...
If Giuliani obtains the presidential nomination, one of two things will happen: he will lose the general election and facilitate massive Republican losses in both houses of Congress, or he will win the election and turn the GOP into a Big-Government, police-state, warmongering leviathan that will forever corrupt the Party, turning it into something reminiscent of Nazi Germany. America loses either way.
Yes, DB -- Rudy Giuliani is a mobbed-up, pro-gay rights, pro-choice, thrice-married adulterer that scares the shit out of even the Far Right, but Pat Robertson's blessing is going to make it all better. Sure it will. You just keep thinking those happy thoughts as Rudy happily drives that ship of fools right up onto the rocks and takes the entire Republican Party with him. And I'm going to buy a big bag of popcorn and just enjoy the show.
I swear, if blog posts like DB's got any dumber, they'd be written by Dr. Roy. And that's some scary territory you just don't want to enter.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Nothing personal, Rachel, but I want you dead.
Normally, I draw the line at wishing physical harm on anyone but, in her case, I'll make an exception. And if there is a God, make it slow and painful. You know -- like torture.
Yes, you owe me --- and now I'm collecting.
Over the years, I've given you thousands of blog posts free of charge, and now it's time to pay the freakin' piper. As much as I really don't care for online blogger award contests, I want you all to take a minute out of your sad, masturbation-filled lives and go here, and vote for "The Galloping Beaver," for no other reason than they deserve to win. Or at the very least, come second.
Just this one time, don't argue with me. We'll both be happier for it.
More on the book launch...
Regarding the book launch for Matthew Bin, there is a Kitchener date for those of us that don't drive. By the way, despite the sketchy layout of the front page at On Guard For Thee, there are listings for events under the What's New menu. Perhaps it is just that I'm using Safari but the page loads with images obscuring text, perhaps Matt should have a look at that there HTML.
Here is the date for the Kitchener launch (and not to pick nits but that should be Caffe Gallery Bolero, a damned fine spot to eat with spectacular home made desserts).
DECEMBER 2 : OGFT / TWICE IN A BLUE MOON
Co launch with author Marrianne Paul
2:00PM to 4:00PM
Caffe Galery Bistro
9 Water Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
And for those of you outside the viewing area, you can short circuit the process and order your copy here.
Congrats Matt!
Here is the date for the Kitchener launch (and not to pick nits but that should be Caffe Gallery Bolero, a damned fine spot to eat with spectacular home made desserts).
DECEMBER 2 : OGFT / TWICE IN A BLUE MOON
Co launch with author Marrianne Paul
2:00PM to 4:00PM
Caffe Galery Bistro
9 Water Street North
Kitchener, Ontario
And for those of you outside the viewing area, you can short circuit the process and order your copy here.
Congrats Matt!
No, you DON'T have anything better to do tonight.
So you might consider spending an evening with regular CC commenter Matthew Bin, who is doing a book launch in Guelph for this. The location is the Guelph Armoury, at 7:00 p.m., which would be useful information for Matt to have on his home page, don't you think?
Man, do I have to do everything for you folks?
Hey, Kevin! Here! Up here, dammit!
While Kevin Drum's recent contest to find the absolutely wingnuttiest post in all of Wingnuttia was time well spent, I'm still a bit yanked that he passed on every possible contender written by our screeching contingent of Canadian loons. I mean, really, look at Kevin's eventual winner:
A Stroke of Genius?
It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
Well, you get the idea. But, really, how is that so different from, say, this:
Best article ever written?
I have been patiently waiting for the Western Standard magazine to post Mark Steyn's latest column online, because I feel it is quite possibly the best op-ed I've ever read.
Or this:
Telling it like it is
...
One of the reasons I've always liked Dick Cheney is that he doesn't beat around the bush.
Now, granted, neither of Adam's pieces has the unadulterated, drooling, mindless sycophancy of Hinderaker's post (what does?) but, then again, Adam pulled this off twice. Surely that has to count for something.
It's a context thing: Part 361.
Ah, the good old days, when Stephen Harper's Conservatives were driven by principle:
Canada cuts relations with Palestinian Authority
Updated Wed. Mar. 29 2006 10:19 AM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Canada is cutting aid and relations with the Palestinian Authority, Ottawa announced shortly after the Hamas government formally took power Wednesday.
The decision makes Canada the first country besides Israel to cut off aid.
"The contingency is that until such time as we see a change in position from the Hamas government and the Palestinian Authority, there will be no direct contact, and there will certainly be no aid flowing through that government," Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay told reporters Wednesday.
Nowadays? Ehhhh ... not so much:
Harper silent on Pakistan crisis
Canada adopts `wait-and-see approach' concerning sanctions
Nov 07, 2007 04:30 AM
OTTAWA–The Canadian government has decided to continue for now its $50 million aid program to Pakistan, despite Gen. Pervez Musharraf's imposition of emergency rule.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who is travelling in British Columbia, remained silent on the escalating crisis for the third straight day yesterday, but an official with the Canadian International Development Agency said the government is taking a "wait-and-see approach" before it makes any decisions.
"We are monitoring the situation in Pakistan closely to determine what adjustments may be required to the aid program as events unfold," Bernard Beckhoff, a spokesperson with the government aid agency, wrote in an email.
When questioned about the apparent inconsistency, Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay replied, "Well, sure, it would be awkward if we had any principles. Lucky thing, that, eh?"
Reelity iz hard werk.
Somewhere on a planet with tangerine trees and marmalade skies, Canada's Lowest Common Denominatrix™ waxes euphoric (all emphasis added):
Glimpsing The Impossible
Victor Davis Hanson;
We don't know what the future will bring, but so far the period between May and November 2007 ranks as one of the most dramatic changes in the perception of a war that we've experienced.
And if the past is any guide, there will be fundamental political adjustments from the trivial of pundits repositioning themselves by simple silence about the war, or suggestions they were never really anti-war, or that the improvements came only because of their principled criticism — to the fundamental of having the entire leadership of the Democratic either ignore Iraq, claim the victory was not worth the commensurate cost of the last four plus years, or take proprietorship over Gen. Petraeus's success — anything other than demanding a timetable for complete withdrawal with an admission of de facto defeat in the manner of the now infamous NY Times editorial.
On the other hand, back here on Non-batshit-crazy-world, well:
The U.S. military announced six new deaths Tuesday, making 2007 the bloodiest year for American troops in Iraq despite a recent decline in casualties and a sharp drop in roadside bombings that Washington links to Iran.
With nearly two months left in the year, the annual toll is now 853 — three more than the previous worst of 850 in 2004
And that's why "Small Dead Animals" is Canada's best blog, and you're not.
You should have thought about that argument a bit harder, Mike.
Blogging Tory Mike McGuire launches a devastating, media-related attack ...
The next time some lefty complains about Fox News's bias...
Please kindly remind them of this. [MSNBC considering giving Rosie O'Donnell her own talk show.]
Then, sadly, in his very next sentence, little Mikey cocks the trigger and blows off his own nads (rhetorically speaking):
I don't object to MSNBC doing this, if anything it's smart business methinks.
Finally, even with nothing remotely resembling logic as a foundation, Mike goes for the big finish:
I just hate when the lefties scream about FNC being overtly conservative when there is a news channel as overtly liberal. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander as well.
That's right, Mike -- because considering a new talk show that would boost ratings and represent nothing more than a news organization trying to maximize their profit in a free market is just like Fox News' relentless, 24/7 barrage of White House-driven, neo-con propaganda. I don't see any difference. Do you see any difference?
Now, someone give Mike his graham crackers and tuck him in. There's a good boy.
But let's not leap to any conclusions, shall we?
Shorter Backseat Blogger: "Man, the wacky things some people believe in the name of their idiotic, retarded religion ... OK, movin' on then ..."
Harper, Porcine Copulater
In yet another break with Canadian tradition and values, Stephen Harper and his new government are declining to act as co-sponsors of the United Nations resolution seeking a global moratorium on the death penalty. CTV.ca is carrying the Canadian Press story.
Evidently, the refusal to advocate for Canadians so sentenced abroad, is only the first step in Mr Harper's efforts to steer our nation into a new dark age where state sanctioned murder can pretend to be justice. Apparently the act of co-sponsoring the resolution would have tuckered out the New Government of New Canada.
"An official with the Foreign Affairs Department says Canada will vote in favour of the resolution when it comes to the floor of the UN General Assembly in December, but will not sponsor it.
"There are a sufficient number of co-sponsors already, and we will focus our efforts on co-sponsoring other resolutions within the UN system which are more in need of our support," said Catherine Gagnaire."
Indeed, why show leadership when there's no blood to be spilled. This wussy resolution flies in the face of the Harper vision of Canada as a rough and tough nation, ready to make war and show those other countries what we're made of. As long as he isn't at risk of course, the fighting and dying part is for easterners, poor folk and Quebecers. Besides, co-sponsoring sounds like an awful lot of work. Right?
"Canada's former ambassador to the United Nations, Paul Heinbecker, said co-sponsorship doesn't involve much effort -- a simple phone call or the raising of a hand during a meeting.
He said in the absence of a radical change in the wording of such a mainstream resolution, the decision not to co-sponsor signifies a departure for the Canadian government.
"You can only take these as signs of how the government wants to be seen," Heinbecker said."
And given that the United States would vote against such a resolution on the floor of the General Assembly, Stephen Harper's government would like to be seen as the little fat kid that hangs around, kissing up to the Bush/Cheney regime. This is a declaration of war against the values of the Canadian public. Stephen Harper has determined to remake this dominion to suit his own petty world view.
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters last Friday that his government had no intention of reopening the debate on capital punishment, although opposition critics have accused his party of revealing its true desires through the policy change."
Half a truth is as good as a whole lie. Harper really doesn't intend to re-open the debate on the death penalty. He clearly doesn't give a fuck what Canadians think, want or believe. He has decided that he and his reactionary little buddy Stockwell know what is good for us. He is remaking Canada in his own image, that of a puffy, pretentious prig with delusions of potency.
Evidently, the refusal to advocate for Canadians so sentenced abroad, is only the first step in Mr Harper's efforts to steer our nation into a new dark age where state sanctioned murder can pretend to be justice. Apparently the act of co-sponsoring the resolution would have tuckered out the New Government of New Canada.
"An official with the Foreign Affairs Department says Canada will vote in favour of the resolution when it comes to the floor of the UN General Assembly in December, but will not sponsor it.
"There are a sufficient number of co-sponsors already, and we will focus our efforts on co-sponsoring other resolutions within the UN system which are more in need of our support," said Catherine Gagnaire."
Indeed, why show leadership when there's no blood to be spilled. This wussy resolution flies in the face of the Harper vision of Canada as a rough and tough nation, ready to make war and show those other countries what we're made of. As long as he isn't at risk of course, the fighting and dying part is for easterners, poor folk and Quebecers. Besides, co-sponsoring sounds like an awful lot of work. Right?
"Canada's former ambassador to the United Nations, Paul Heinbecker, said co-sponsorship doesn't involve much effort -- a simple phone call or the raising of a hand during a meeting.
He said in the absence of a radical change in the wording of such a mainstream resolution, the decision not to co-sponsor signifies a departure for the Canadian government.
"You can only take these as signs of how the government wants to be seen," Heinbecker said."
And given that the United States would vote against such a resolution on the floor of the General Assembly, Stephen Harper's government would like to be seen as the little fat kid that hangs around, kissing up to the Bush/Cheney regime. This is a declaration of war against the values of the Canadian public. Stephen Harper has determined to remake this dominion to suit his own petty world view.
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper told reporters last Friday that his government had no intention of reopening the debate on capital punishment, although opposition critics have accused his party of revealing its true desires through the policy change."
Half a truth is as good as a whole lie. Harper really doesn't intend to re-open the debate on the death penalty. He clearly doesn't give a fuck what Canadians think, want or believe. He has decided that he and his reactionary little buddy Stockwell know what is good for us. He is remaking Canada in his own image, that of a puffy, pretentious prig with delusions of potency.
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
"Reality? Thanks, but I have other plans."
The ever-so-perky, Michael Yon-inspired optimism of Crazy Kate:
“Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated,”
Yon;
Speaking through an interpreter at a 31 October meeting at the Iraqi Islamic Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad, Sheik Omar said that al Qaeda had been “defeated mentally, and therefore is defeated physically,” referring to how clear it has become that the terrorist group’s tactics have backfired. Operatives who could once disappear back into the crowd after committing an increasingly atrocious attack no longer find safe haven among the Iraqis who live in the southern part of Baghdad. They are being hunted down and killed. Or, if they are lucky, captured by Americans.
Posted by Kate at November 1, 2007 6:15 PM
And then, of course, there's the real world:
Deadliest year for US troops in Iraq
BAGHDAD - The U.S. military announced six new deaths Tuesday, making 2007 the bloodiest year for American troops in Iraq despite a recent decline in casualties and a sharp drop in roadside bombings that Washington links to Iran.
With nearly two months left in the year, the annual toll is now 853 — three more than the previous worst of 850 in 2004.
Small Dead Animals: Because if Michael Yon didn't say it, it can't be true.
Weepy Pete's Big Day
Defence Minister Peter MacKay is unharmed after being successfully bundled away from a Taliban rocket attack near Kandahar. CTV reports,
"His security detail very quickly jumped into action, grabbed all their gear, rushed to a light-armoured vehicle and basically scuttled Mr. MacKay away to safety," Bill Graveland, a reporter for The Canadian Press, told CTV Newsnet from Kandahar on Tuesday."
The Taliban were apparently fooled into thinking that increased helicopter activity in the area meant the presence of someone important. It was only Peter MacKay. It is unclear if a neighbour's dog will be airlifted into the area for photo opportunistic pictures and solace. Having replaced the tainted and ineffectual Gordon O'Connor as Minister of the Defence Lobby, weepy MacKay was making his first trip to the region. After successfully retreating back to the Kandahar Air Field, MacKay delivered the following analysis of events to the press,
"There was an explosion. It was a loud bang," said MacKay. "When it happened, we heard the explosion, we heard the whistle overhead, we were told to get down and we did."
Clearly, Peter MacKay's expertise is equal to the task. Undaunted by the event, MacKay will stay on in the embattled area to perpetuate the misinformation he was sent to spread. Aiding in that task was Colonel Stephane Lafaut,
"...Lafaut, commander of the Canadian Operational Mentor Liaison Team, said the attack shows how desperate the Taliban have become since coalition forces have limited their movement in the region."
Yes, the Taliban have been reduced to rocket attacks that injured four Canadian soldiers and sent a cabinet minister scuttling for safety. Surely a sign of progress and another corner turned in that troubled land. MacKay will continue his mission, such as it is,
"MacKay is supposed to be using the trip to trumpet successes in Afghanistan, including an economy that has tripled in size and improvements in access to health care and education."
Isn't it amazing what heroin and the arms trade can do for an economy?
"His security detail very quickly jumped into action, grabbed all their gear, rushed to a light-armoured vehicle and basically scuttled Mr. MacKay away to safety," Bill Graveland, a reporter for The Canadian Press, told CTV Newsnet from Kandahar on Tuesday."
The Taliban were apparently fooled into thinking that increased helicopter activity in the area meant the presence of someone important. It was only Peter MacKay. It is unclear if a neighbour's dog will be airlifted into the area for photo opportunistic pictures and solace. Having replaced the tainted and ineffectual Gordon O'Connor as Minister of the Defence Lobby, weepy MacKay was making his first trip to the region. After successfully retreating back to the Kandahar Air Field, MacKay delivered the following analysis of events to the press,
"There was an explosion. It was a loud bang," said MacKay. "When it happened, we heard the explosion, we heard the whistle overhead, we were told to get down and we did."
Clearly, Peter MacKay's expertise is equal to the task. Undaunted by the event, MacKay will stay on in the embattled area to perpetuate the misinformation he was sent to spread. Aiding in that task was Colonel Stephane Lafaut,
"...Lafaut, commander of the Canadian Operational Mentor Liaison Team, said the attack shows how desperate the Taliban have become since coalition forces have limited their movement in the region."
Yes, the Taliban have been reduced to rocket attacks that injured four Canadian soldiers and sent a cabinet minister scuttling for safety. Surely a sign of progress and another corner turned in that troubled land. MacKay will continue his mission, such as it is,
"MacKay is supposed to be using the trip to trumpet successes in Afghanistan, including an economy that has tripled in size and improvements in access to health care and education."
Isn't it amazing what heroin and the arms trade can do for an economy?
The North and South of Lies and Liars
The most excellent Crooks & Liars has the video of White House propaganda catapultist, Dana Perino, flinging the richest and steamiest of horse shit. When confronted with questions regarding the situation in Pakistan, Perino, with a straight face, took the following position,
"Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?
MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no."
I'm sorry. But that is one of the fattest fucking lies I have ever seen delivered. At that point the gathered reporters should have just got the hell up and left. It is no longer even remotely likely that the Bush administration will deal in good faith. For six years, Bush, Cheney and a chorus line of sinister bastards have made it their mission to subvert, restrict and shred the Constitution of the United States of America at every turn. They have no credibility. They are corruption. FISA, Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions, unlawful combattants cum detainees, massive domestic wiretapping, Blackwater mercenaries, black site prisons, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, torture, torture, torture, Habeas fuckin' Corpus...hell, there isn't enough left of that noble document to wipe a flea's ass.
I miss America. It was the big, brash, loud mouthed character next door that did a lot of stupid and annoying things but for the most part it's heart was in the right place. Now it's the chief exporter of murderous fibs, unchecked gluttony and wanton disregard. It makes me sick inside to see what has become of the "greatest nation on earth" and it makes me furious to see our own petulant, bullshit, new government licking their chops for the opportunity to more closely emulate that coven of villains. How dare a Canadian Prime Minister dismiss the values of this nation when it comes to capital punishment? It is not his job to supplant the democratically resolved position of the people of this nation with his own medieval notions. The out-sourcing of state sanctioned murder is not a Canadian value. It does not speak to getting tough on crime, it merely condones resolving one crime by committing a second crime.
If Stephen Harper is so sanguine about capital punishment then perhaps he'd be perfectly happy with other judicial barbarisms. There is a very small rate of petty theft in Saudi Arabia because the loss of a hand is a severe risk to take. Perhaps, as the Conservatives begin to show their true colours, we can dispense with the pretenses of civility and Stockwell and Steve can institute their own fundamentalist, cracker shari'ah. Spare us the lies and deceptions, quit pretending to the center, the cons are just that, a con. The sooner Canada sees through the smoke and shite steam, the sooner we can return to our values of basic decency and humanity.
"Q: Is it ever reasonable to restrict constitutional freedoms in the name of fighting terrorism?
MS. PERINO: In our opinion, no."
I'm sorry. But that is one of the fattest fucking lies I have ever seen delivered. At that point the gathered reporters should have just got the hell up and left. It is no longer even remotely likely that the Bush administration will deal in good faith. For six years, Bush, Cheney and a chorus line of sinister bastards have made it their mission to subvert, restrict and shred the Constitution of the United States of America at every turn. They have no credibility. They are corruption. FISA, Guantanamo, extraordinary renditions, unlawful combattants cum detainees, massive domestic wiretapping, Blackwater mercenaries, black site prisons, Iraq, Iraq, Iraq, torture, torture, torture, Habeas fuckin' Corpus...hell, there isn't enough left of that noble document to wipe a flea's ass.
I miss America. It was the big, brash, loud mouthed character next door that did a lot of stupid and annoying things but for the most part it's heart was in the right place. Now it's the chief exporter of murderous fibs, unchecked gluttony and wanton disregard. It makes me sick inside to see what has become of the "greatest nation on earth" and it makes me furious to see our own petulant, bullshit, new government licking their chops for the opportunity to more closely emulate that coven of villains. How dare a Canadian Prime Minister dismiss the values of this nation when it comes to capital punishment? It is not his job to supplant the democratically resolved position of the people of this nation with his own medieval notions. The out-sourcing of state sanctioned murder is not a Canadian value. It does not speak to getting tough on crime, it merely condones resolving one crime by committing a second crime.
If Stephen Harper is so sanguine about capital punishment then perhaps he'd be perfectly happy with other judicial barbarisms. There is a very small rate of petty theft in Saudi Arabia because the loss of a hand is a severe risk to take. Perhaps, as the Conservatives begin to show their true colours, we can dispense with the pretenses of civility and Stockwell and Steve can institute their own fundamentalist, cracker shari'ah. Spare us the lies and deceptions, quit pretending to the center, the cons are just that, a con. The sooner Canada sees through the smoke and shite steam, the sooner we can return to our values of basic decency and humanity.
Please not to use the words "Democrat" and "backbone" in the same sentence.
Shorter John Conyers: "Don't you step across that line. I mean it. Really, if you step across that line, I'll ... Damn! All right, don't you step across that line. I'm serious this time. I'm not kidding, I'm ... Damn! OK, this is it ..."
EXERCISE FOR THE READER: Identify the eye-rolling irony here.
Man, someone never saw THAT coming.
Shorter Brent Wilkes: "Wait a minute! You can't convict me -- I'm a Republican!!"
IOKIYAW[*].
Blogging Tory and Fred Thompson groupie Mike McGuire wants you to know that if a Democrat had a convicted drug dealer on his staff, well, that's just what you'd expect from those valueless, amoral, Godless, terrorist-loving leftards.
Or something like that.
[*] "It's OK if you're a wingnut."
Monday, November 05, 2007
The cognitive dissonance should be spectacular.
I can't wait for the inevitable train wreck here. First, once again, there's this recent development:
But get yourself convicted of having sex with teenagers in Cuba -- that noted bastion of democracy, fair trials and the rule of the law -- and your government's response is "Gee, good luck with that." In the case of Edmontonian Perry King, who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has turned his back on past practice of arranging to at least have sentences served in Canada.
Why, yes, and does it surprise anyone that Canada's conservatives (right-wing punditry included) aren't breaking a sweat over murderers, or (alleged) statutory rapists, or whoever they decide just makes them feel all icky?
So one can't help but wonder how well this is going to go over with Canada's law-and-order wingnuts:
AFGHANISTAN ESTABLISHES DEATH PENALTY FOR MISSIONARIES
KABUL, JAN. 8, 2001 (ZENIT.org).- From now on, anyone who converts to Christianity, preaches the gospel, or proselytizes in Afghanistan can be condemned to death. The decision was decreed by Nohammad Omar, leader of the Taliban movement, which over the past 4 years has imposed the "shariah" in virtually the entire Afghan territory. The "shariah" is Islamic law applied to civil society. The news was confirmed today by Vatican Radio.
In addition, the measure provides for other punishments; for example, the proprietors of bookstores selling offensive books or sources for the propagation of "false beliefs," will be punished by 5 years of imprisonment. The harsh measures of the Taliban leader are justified by stating that they defend the country from alleged attempts of unidentified "enemies" of Islam, both within and without, who seek to "corrupt Muslims by offering them economic incentives if they convert to Christianity or Judaism."
Granted, the above was in effect only when the Taliban was running things in Afghanistan, but it's not hard to identify numerous countries around the world where Christian evangelism is just plain illegal, and may result in deportation, jail time or, in extreme cases, a death sentence. To which one might, if one were a bit shallow, simply say, "Hey, you knew the laws when you stepped off the plane so, good luck with that." Yes, I'm sure Steve Harper and his slavishly obedient Harperettes will be absolute bastions of consistency here.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Sometimes, I crack me up.
Plus ca change ...
Oh, man ... we've all seen this bad movie before, haven't we?
Some things never do change, do they?
Well, it didn't take long to loosen THOSE standards.
Gosh, it seemed like Canada's Cons had a fairly explicit standard for when they were going to abandon Canadian citizens to the legal system of other countries (emphasis tail-waggingly added):
"We will not actively pursue bringing back to Canada murderers who have been tried in a democratic country that supports the rule of law," [Public Safety Minister Stockwell] Day told Parliament.
Fair enough, I guess, as long as we're absolutely, crystal-clear on the criteria being used to ... hang on ... what's this?
But get yourself convicted of having sex with teenagers in Cuba -- that noted bastion of democracy, fair trials and the rule of the law -- and your government's response is "Gee, good luck with that." In the case of Edmontonian Perry King, who has steadfastly maintained his innocence, Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day has turned his back on past practice of arranging to at least have sentences served in Canada.
"Based on the nature of these offences" -- and note the Old Testament judgment inherent in those words -- "there is concern the offender's return to Canada would constitute a threat to the security of Canada," Day ludicrously explained of a man convicted of having relations with girls aged 15 and 16.
Wow. It sure didn't take long to go from "convicted of murder in a democratic country" to, well, "convicted of something not murder in a Communist dictatorship." That pretty much redefines the concept of "slippery slope," doesn't it?
I'm guessing this whole selection criteria is going to get more open-ended by the day.
Sure, Spanky, that's the conclusion I'D draw.
Shorter Aaron (Spanky) Unruh: "Yet another conservative political candidate is exposed as a lewd, porn-viewing exhibitionist; therefore, liberals are prissy, moralistic scolds."
In class, Spanky, we'd be asking you to show your work.
Sunday, November 04, 2007
... and if you don't like those fiscal principles, well, they've got others.
Shorter Stephen Harper, Sept 27, 2007: "It is vitally important that we invest every available penny in paying down our federal debt, since there is no higher priority."
Shorter Stephen Harper, Oct 30, 2007: "Oh, man, we are swimming in so much fucking cash, tax cuts for everybody!! Let the good times roll! Whoo hoo!!"
Shorter Canadian, dumbass motherfuckers, Nov 4, 2007: "Where the hell do you get the nerve to suggest that the surplus be used to benefit Canadians? Don't you know there's a federal debt to pay down!?"
My neck hurts.
Saturday, November 03, 2007
The Mark Warner saga: What the hell?
So ... let me see if I understand this: Mark Warner, a black immigrant who is an international lawyer and who holds two Masters degrees, and is further concerned about issues like poverty, health and housing, was running as a Conservative!?
How the fuck did that work?
Suddenly, the parallels are starting to creep me out.
Well, who didn't see this coming:
Schumer, Feinstein to Support Mukasey
By Paul Kiel - November 2, 2007, 4:52PM
The key swing votes have swung. Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) say they're voting for, meaning that Michael Mukasey will make it through the Senate Judiciary Committee and almost certainly be confirmed as the next attorney general.
You poor Americans -- you have a leader whose party doesn't even have a majority, who's submitting one vile bit of legislation and one horrendous nomination after another, and you have an "opposition" that just rolls over and plays dead on all of it. I feel so sorry for you. Now up here in Canada, we ... we ... um ... actually, never mind.
I should have thought about that argument a bit harder, really.
OH, SWEET JESUS ... Look who's downplaying waterboarding now.
P.S. "Rachel who", you ask? Ah, forgive me ... where are my manners?
Friday, November 02, 2007
What kind of fuckery is this?
I'm kinda busy today, but I'll try to make time for this. Feel free to get there ahead of me.
JESUS FREAKIN' GOD. Seriously, you have to read some of the stories from people that Denyse O'Leary, the second-dumbest blogger in Canada (no one will ever take that title away from Dr. Roy), thinks constitute proof of some sort of vile, left-wing conspiracy against Intelligent Design.
Really, how do you even get past the first sentence here?
Working from empirical data and using the highly respected scientific tool of dimensional analysis, I have discovered fundamental errors in modern physics.
Well, of course you have. But no, keep reading ... it just gets better:
Not only is the foundation of modern physics slightly wrong, but the resulting physics indicates the physical Universe has a non-material cause (God?). The theory is not only mathematically correct, it is also practical and produces equations predicting the structural parameters of subatomic particles and atoms. It also provides a mathematically correct, Newtonian based Unified Force Theory...
I have also written "Secrets of the Aether," which describes the theory in greater detail. I realize how many scientists must be disappointed to learn that basic Newtonian physics can prove the physical Universe arises from an omniscient, non-material creative force.
And to think all this utter quackery is being collected in one place. The entertainment value is indescribable.
Um ... hang on ... THAT wasn't supposed to happen.
And just as you would have expected:
About 25 per cent of the [recent Conservative] tax relief is earmarked for businesses - hit hard by the rising dollar - and will make Canada's corporate tax rate the lowest among major industrialized economies by 2012.
Because, as we all know, lower corporate taxes make for happier companies and more jobs and ... and ... uh ...
'Horrible' Chrysler news means thousands of Canadian job losses: Hargrove
17 hours ago
TORONTO - The latest job cuts at Chrysler LLC will cost thousands of Canadian jobs directly and at parts suppliers - some of which may face bankruptcy - Canadian Auto Workers president Buzz Hargrove said Thursday.
The automaker's elimination of the third shift at its Brampton sedan assembly plant will cost 1,100 jobs at the factory west of Toronto, he said, adding an estimate that each assembly job ripples out to 7½ related jobs in the wider economy.
Thursday's "horrible" news from newly privatized Chrysler - cutting a total of as many as 12,000 jobs in North America, on top of 13,000 whose elimination was announced in February - also means an undetermined job loss at the minivan plant in Windsor, Ont., which assembles the Chrysler Pacifica crossover vehicle that is being discontinued.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain that's not how it was supposed to work out.
Here, let me make that torture question a little more personal.
If there's a single lesson to be learned from the current Senate confirmation hearings of Michael Mukasey for U.S. Attorney-General, it's that the Democrats are -- what's the phrase I'm looking for? -- oh, right: fucking retards. Quite simply, if there's a group of more intellectually-stunted dimbulbs anywhere on the planet, I would have no idea where to start looking.
As casual observers probably know, Mukasey is driving the Democrats on the committee absolutely bugfuck with his refusal to condemn waterboarding as "torture," so let's dispense with that issue tout de suite. There's a simple reason none of these folks is going to get a straight answer on waterboarding out of Mukasey (or, for that matter, any other AG nominee who would serve under Bush), and that is that, if water-boarding is accepted as torture, then every single member of the Bush administration who officially condoned that practice (from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales on down) would instantly be liable to prosecution for war crimes.
Yes, it's that simple, and it's why either 1) Mukasey will never, ever take a position on that, or 2) if he finally did accept it as torture, his nomination would be yanked by the White House faster than Patrick Ross jerking off Werner Patels. But that's not why we're here.
Why we're here is to be hideously depressed by the inability of a single Dem to figure out how to paint Mukasey into a corner rhetorically. First, Mukasey refused to answer the question about waterboarding because he claimed he didn't have a clear understanding of what it involved. Now, no one believed a word of that but, just to be pedantic, a number of Dems sent Mukasey an actual letter explaining the protocols.
Once that tap-dancing bit of evasion was nullified, Mukasey then took the position that, well, this whole "waterboarding" thing was "hypothetical" and, since he'd never actually seen it done, he really couldn't comment on it. And that's where we are now, with Mukasey simply stonewalling and the committee Dems clawing their eyes out in frustration as to where to go from here. So I'm going to make a couple suggestions.
First, in order to dispense with this whole "hypothetical" dodge and weave, if it were me, I might say something along the lines of:
"All right, Mike, so your position is that you can't condemn as torture something which, in your opinion at the moment, is "hypothetical." Let me ask you this, then -- say someone captured on the field of combat was taken prisoner, stripped naked, and had jumper cable clamps attached to their genitals, which were then connected to a car battery in order to get information out of them. Would you consider that torture?"
What are Mukasey's options? Can he possibly still dodge the question? Is there any reasonable person who would deny that that constituted torture? But if Mukasey staunchly held out, well, it's a simple job to just up the ante with something like:
"You're still not sure, Mike? OK, well, what if on top of that, they had knitting needles driven under their fingernails one at a time with a ballpeen hammer? Are we getting any closer to what you'd consider "torture" yet or not? No? Well, then, how about ...
And you can see where I'm going here. The description of abuse can be increased to the point where any sane person would have to finally admit that it's torture, and if Mukasey does, then we've established that, yes, he is capable of passing judgment on pure hypotheticals, at which point his entire defense based on hypotheticality collapses. But if that strategy sounds long and involved, there's actually an easier way.
Once Mukasey was sufficiently educated on the finer points of waterboarding, the question could be rephrased to make it a bit more, well, personal:
"OK, Mike, now that you have an adequate understanding of the process of waterboarding, let me ask you -- if one of our American troops was captured on the field of combat, and he was treated that way by his al-Qaeda captors, would you consider that 'torture'?"
And that's where every single member of the U.S. military should sit up straight and wait for the answer with bated breath, because now they have a vested interest in Mukasey's response, and for a very simple reason: If Mukasey can't unequivocally condemn waterboarding as torture, he has just given the terrorists carte blanche to treat captured American military personnel that way, with no fear of being tried for war crimes in the future. After all, even a moderately competent lawyer would be able to say, "Torture, Your Honor? Oh, I don't think so. After all, I have this videotape from CNN showing America's own Attorney-General admitting that he doesn't classify waterboarding as torture. And if he doesn't think it's torture, well, why should you?"
Yes, Mukasey would really be between the proverbial rock and a hard place. Either he protects the troops, or he protects his GOP masters. Quite simply, he can't do both, and it would be interesting to see who he'd sell out first. So why is not a single Democrat putting it in those terms? Why are they perpetually having circles run around them rhetorically by the Republicans?
If you're even vaguely left-of-centre, one would think that, given a choice, you'd normally be rooting for the Dems down south. At the same time, though, you have to wish that, somehow, somewhere, they could find some members who weren't such appalling cementheads.
But I'm not holding my breath.
Stupid cultural humour.
A guy from Alberta and a guy from Ontario are fighting over a lantern that they just ran across when, suddenly, a genie pops out and grants them each a wish.
"Oh, that's easy," says the guy from Alberta, "I want you to build an impenetrable, 100-foot wall around Alberta, so we can protect our conservative, God-fearing culture from all those Eastern Canada Liberal assholes."
"Done," says the genie. "And you?"
The guy from Ontario just smiles and says, "Fill it with water."
Those who don't remember history, and all that.
May 1, 2003:
April 27, 2005
Nov 1, 2007:
“Al Qaeda in Iraq is defeated,”
Yon;
Speaking through an interpreter at a 31 October meeting at the Iraqi Islamic Party headquarters in downtown Baghdad, Sheik Omar said that al Qaeda had been “defeated mentally, and therefore is defeated physically,” referring to how clear it has become that the terrorist group’s tactics have backfired. Operatives who could once disappear back into the crowd after committing an increasingly atrocious attack no longer find safe haven among the Iraqis who live in the southern part of Baghdad. They are being hunted down and killed. Or, if they are lucky, captured by Americans.
Posted by Kate at November 1, 2007 6:15 PM
Wake me up when the stupid stops.
BONUS TRACK: Apparently, those whose lives might genuinely be affected don't quite share Kate's perky optimism. Then again, perky optimism is easy from thousands of miles away. It's funny how that works, isn't it?
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Syncrude and the Alberta Government hate grannies.
You know, despite all of the denials and pshaws from our good pals on the right, you just can't put bullshit under a granny's nose and expert her to declare it pudding. When 85 year old Liz Moore visited Canada, she took a tour of the tar sands mine run by Syncrude in Fort McMurray, Alberta. Little surprise that she reacted with disgust at the scale of devastation necessary to plunder the resource. She gave an interview to E-Magazine in which she had this to say, “I was appalled at what I saw—the devastation of the land,” so she took action. “I came home and decided people in the U.S. needed to hear about this, because we’ll be buying more and more oil from Canada.”
So, being one hip and savvy gran, she created a website that detailed the scars she saw being carved into the earth, oilsandsofcanada.com. And as we know, no good deed goes unpunished. The Government of Alberta and Syncrude sicced their lawyers on her. Her site is basically a Power Point presentation with slides showing the state of the land that she saw and photographed, with some facts, figures and information. However, at the outset of the tour, she had signed a waiver giving the Petro-piggies the right to limit use of images she had taken. She was ordered to remove certain images or face legal action. After all, when a little old lady tries to speak her mind, massive corporations and arms of government just have to crush them.
The small print on the waiver gave them the right to make the demand and she has complied to the letter of the law. Each slide she removed has been replaced with a large "Censored" accompanied by a link to a description of the picture that was removed and who ordered the removal. In some instances, private citizens and organizations have come forward with similar pictures to replace those that were pulled. A Syncrude spokesknob told the Globular Mail that, "We see this as an issue of copyright, accuracy and quality”. While I'm not sure how they can justify claims of copyright over images created by another person, they can certainly exercise the terms of the signed waiver. Perhaps they are simply referring to the vulgar devastation of the land as a copyrighted creation. As for issues of accuracy, well, I don't know about you but when there's billions upon billions of dollars to be reaped, I'll trust the little old lady instead of the rapacious corporation, thanks.
The fabulous Dave over at the Galloping Beaver has posted an excellent summary highlighting a major piece published in the Guardian. Nothing says accuracy and quality quite like an open pit of destroyed land the size of Florida and visible from space. The long term price we'll pay for refusing to rein in our gluttony will be a massive shock to the small minded, short sighted twats that think this will all last forever. Mr. Harper and his cadre of money hungry accomplices will gladly roll back environmental standards to keep the oil flowing and the rest of us are just going to stand aside. The easy life is just too easy. Besides, most of us don't have the balls of a little old lady and changing our habits would be an enormous burden in this big box world of ours.
So, being one hip and savvy gran, she created a website that detailed the scars she saw being carved into the earth, oilsandsofcanada.com. And as we know, no good deed goes unpunished. The Government of Alberta and Syncrude sicced their lawyers on her. Her site is basically a Power Point presentation with slides showing the state of the land that she saw and photographed, with some facts, figures and information. However, at the outset of the tour, she had signed a waiver giving the Petro-piggies the right to limit use of images she had taken. She was ordered to remove certain images or face legal action. After all, when a little old lady tries to speak her mind, massive corporations and arms of government just have to crush them.
The small print on the waiver gave them the right to make the demand and she has complied to the letter of the law. Each slide she removed has been replaced with a large "Censored" accompanied by a link to a description of the picture that was removed and who ordered the removal. In some instances, private citizens and organizations have come forward with similar pictures to replace those that were pulled. A Syncrude spokesknob told the Globular Mail that, "We see this as an issue of copyright, accuracy and quality”. While I'm not sure how they can justify claims of copyright over images created by another person, they can certainly exercise the terms of the signed waiver. Perhaps they are simply referring to the vulgar devastation of the land as a copyrighted creation. As for issues of accuracy, well, I don't know about you but when there's billions upon billions of dollars to be reaped, I'll trust the little old lady instead of the rapacious corporation, thanks.
The fabulous Dave over at the Galloping Beaver has posted an excellent summary highlighting a major piece published in the Guardian. Nothing says accuracy and quality quite like an open pit of destroyed land the size of Florida and visible from space. The long term price we'll pay for refusing to rein in our gluttony will be a massive shock to the small minded, short sighted twats that think this will all last forever. Mr. Harper and his cadre of money hungry accomplices will gladly roll back environmental standards to keep the oil flowing and the rest of us are just going to stand aside. The easy life is just too easy. Besides, most of us don't have the balls of a little old lady and changing our habits would be an enormous burden in this big box world of ours.
And the Rosshole blows another one, figuratively speaking.
Back in September, the Axis of Douchebaggery figured he had this one in the bag:
So, apparently Canadian Cynic changed his mind. After yesterday suggesting that it was alright for police officers to Tazer Andrew Meyer because he "deserved" it, today he's apparently changed his mind...
Perhaps the most ironic thing about the entire situation is [CC's] argument that the violence used against Meyer is dismissable because he was being "stupid".
Poor Patrick -- I think this makes him 0-for-infinity:
A University of Florida student who was shocked with a Taser after persistently questioning Sen. John Kerry won't face criminal charges and has apologized for his actions, his attorney said Tuesday.
Andrew Meyer, 21, yelled "Don't Tase me, bro!" as he scuffled with officers during the campus speech last month. In letters to the university, its president and the campus police department, he apologized, attorney Robert Griscti said.
"I made the decision to supersede the rules, and for that I apologize," Meyer wrote. "I should have acted calmer and obeyed the directives of the officers. If I had, none of the subsequent issues would ever have arisen."
Tune in next week when Patrick disagrees with me again, and gets his ass handed to him on a platter.
Patsy Ross: The Washington Generals of the Canadian blogosphere.
(Wag of the tail to RT.)
BY THE WAY, I tossed a comment from the Rosshole himself, not because I disagreed with it, but because it was little more than a link back to his blog. If you want to blogwhore, at least make it worth my while. But if your comment is nothing more than, "Hey, come read this thing I wrote at my place," well, it's going to get tossed.
Go find your own audience.
It's quiet over there, Kate ... too quiet.
And once upon a time, control of the provinces of Iraq was, slowly but surely, being turned over to the Iraqis, and there was much rejoicing in the Retard-o-sphere as the denizens of SDA stroked themselves into blissful ecstasy over how terrifically the Global War on Terror™ was going.
And it came to pass, just a few days ago, that an eighth Iraqi province was turned over to the Iraqis, and yet from the Retard-o-sphere, there was a puzzling silence and lack of celebratory braying, and lo, once you dug into it a bit deeper, you started to see what was going on:
U.S. forces to turn over security in Karbala
The Associated Press
Published: October 28, 2007
BAGHDAD: U.S. forces will turn over security to Iraqi authorities in the southern Shiite province of Karbala on Monday, the American commander for the area said, ...
OK, that sounds promising, so why isn't Canada's favourite neo-con screech harpy shouting this from the rooftops? Oh ... here's why:
... despite fighting between rival militia factions that has killed dozens.
Karbala will become the eighth of Iraq's 18 provinces to revert to Iraqi control, though U.S. President George W. Bush had predicted in January that the Iraqi government would have responsibility for security in all of the provinces by November.
The target date has slipped repeatedly, highlighting the difficulties in developing Iraqi police forces and the slow pace of economic and political progress in areas still troubled by daily violence.
Who -- I ask you, who -- could have seen that reaction coming? Oh, look:
And since cheerleading wanks like Kate were so excited when things were going "well," one should, of course, expect that they'll be fair and balanced and report on when things like this start to go south in a hurry, because that would be the "fair and balanced" thing to do, right? Right?
Thank you, thank you very much. I'm here until Thursday, don't forget to tip your waitress.
People who should simply have "Whoops, my bad" on their speed dial.
SHRIIEEEEEEEEKKKKKK!!!
Iran: Jews, Christians Must Wear Badges
In a move reminiscent of the Nazis forcing Jews to wear a Star of David insignia, Iran’s parliament has reportedly passed a law requiring Jews, Christians and other religious minorities to wear color-coded badges to identify them as non-Muslims.
The law would also set a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear "standard Islamic garments.”
Uh oh ... never mind, carry on:
Experts say report of badges for Jews in Iran is untrue
Chris Wattie, National Post
Published: Friday, May 19, 2006
Several experts are casting doubt on reports that Iran had passed a law requiring the country's Jews and other religious minorities to wear coloured badges identifying them as non-Muslims.
The Iranian embassy in Otttawa also denied the Iranian government had passed such a law.
On a more recent note, in exciting, spine-tingling, terrorist-related news:
Fox News: Al Qaeda is causing the CA wildfires.
This morning on Fox News, hosts of the show Fox and Friends blamed the wildfires in California on a new culprit: al Qaeda. They pointed to a 2003 FBI memo, which raised the possibility that al Qaeda may try to set wildfires around the western United States.
Yeah, you just know what's coming, don't you?
Officials: Boy With Matches Started Fire
By DAISY NGUYEN – 17 hours ago
LOS ANGELES (AP) — Officials blamed a wildfire that consumed more than 38,000 acres and destroyed 21 homes last week on a boy playing with matches, and said they would ask a prosecutor to consider the case.
The boy admitted to sparking the fire on Oct. 21, Los Angeles County sheriff's Sgt. Diane Hecht said Tuesday. Ferocious winds helped it quickly spread.
"He admitted to playing with matches and accidentally starting the fire," Hecht said in a statement.
I'm thinking the Dumbass-o-sphere should simply order their "Oh, crap, we fucked up again" cards from Office Depot in lots of 500. It would save everyone just buckets of time, don't you think?
Dear wanks: How's that prognostication coming?
Quickly, Sherman ... into the wayback machine, where we find the usual suspects making the same, stupid predictions:
November 29, 2004
Take $10 off the Price of Oil
by Steve H. Hanke
Steve H. Hanke is a professor of applied economics at The Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.
Oil prices have more than doubled since 2001, hitting $55 per barrel in mid-October. This price surge has produced a great deal of handwringing and gloomy predictions. Doomsters claim that output simply can't keep up with demand--that we have entered a new era of permanently high oil prices.
Not to worry, though, since Steve is apparently a graduate of the Bill Kristol School of Being Perpetually Fucking Wrong About Every Goddamned Thing in the Universe:
Before we jump on this bandwagon, let's take a look at the price behavior of WestTexas intermediate crude oil. If we adjust prices to today's dollars, the average oil price from 1988 through October was just under $28, and 95% of the time the price fell within a range of $14 to $41.
Oh, let's just leap ahead to the fuzzy, sparkle rainbow, hand-clapping conclusion, shall we?
I predict that the further consequence would be to send oil prices down close to the historical average, which is just under $30.
And how's all that optimism working out there, Nostradamus? Whoops ...
And remember, when the U.S. invades
You read it here first.
Just for the entertainment value.
Apparently, there's a new meme in town -- you're supposed to image Google on your name and see what comes up. All righty, then ...
Hmmm ... not quite what I was expecting. Who is this "Red Tory" person, and why is he stalking me?
Hey, Mom! Look at Me! -- Part deux.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
