Yo, whassup dawg, Shorty be gettin' on my last nerve.

Trying to sound bitchin' hip and cool. And failing.

Tweety, meet cojones. Cojones, Tweety.

Oooooooooh ... someone finally grew a pair:



If this happens more than once, it could be a pattern. We can only hope.

P.S. Shorter wingnuts: "After several months in office, thousands of murdered Americans in a single day wasn't George W's fault. After less than two months in office and dealing with a financial collapse that was years in the making, it really is all Obama's fault."

See how that works?

Yeah, about those threats of physical violence ...

Back here, I suggested that, since the matter was closed, I saw no need to post a screen cap of commenter TangoJuliette's blatant threats of physical violence against my person. However, given Red Tory's comment here:

And to think that she's a regular over at Joanne's House of Civility. Heh.

well, the irony is simply too delicious to pass by. Given that JoJo is perpetually delicate of constitution and cannot abide even the mildest of intemperance in her comments section (despite being a totally dishonest cretin), it seems only proper that we show her what sort of vicious troll she entertains over there:



There you go, JoJo. So the next time you get all up in my grill about my language, well, why don't you piss off? That's a good girl.

As God is my witness ...

SUZANNE and her like-minded commenters are completely and pathologically insane.

You read that right, boys and girls – "Susan Peterson" believes that it would have been better for the doctors to perform a hysterectomy on that poor 9-year-old baby rather than an abortion. And yes, as far as I'm concerned, she is still a baby.

I need a drink as big as my fucking head after reading that horror show.

Don't sweat it, dude, ...

... I hear she was a tramp, anyway.

Your conservative family values.

Safety pin rage!

Uh oh ... apparently, someone's diaper is on a little too tight.

American humour, as it were.

I'd take offense if it wasn't depressingly accurate.

Heh.

Indeed.

My favourite line: "This is an opportunity to position ourselves to be among the first to go forward when the economy is restored." Harper’s into the "we can use this recession to our advantage" portion of his address — which would be fine if he’d deployed even a single word to describe, relate to or empathize with the plight of the many thousands of Canadians behind the grim statistics. If he were any more tone deaf he’d be wearing a T-shirt reading, "Recessions Rock!" This is a guy who’d show up at an airplane crash and talk about amazing it is the black box doesn’t have a dent on it.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

And that's why I read Impolitical. And why you should, too.

One of these things is not like the other.

Stupid. Not stupid.

You're welcome.

Jim Flaherty: You lying, fucking douchebag.

Stolen shamelessly from Red Tory:



In all fairness, the quotes listed in that clip all date from late 2008. It would, of course, be far more amusing to find actual economists who predicted the current meltdown from, say, at least a couple years back. You know ... kind of like this (emphasis leg-humpingly added):

On Sept. 7, 2006, Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University, stood before an audience of economists at the International Monetary Fund and announced that a crisis was brewing. In the coming months and years, he warned, the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and, ultimately, a deep recession. He laid out a bleak sequence of events: homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt. These developments, he went on, could cripple or destroy hedge funds, investment banks and other major financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Yeah, kind of like that.

Jim Flaherty: Worthless, lying, fucking cocksucker of a total douchebag.

SNAP! Yeah, kind of like that, too.

AFTERSNARK: One is curious whether anyone is going to call Flaherty on his lying, fucking douchebaginess. Like, say, during Question Period:

"Mr. Speaker, during his appearance before the Senate, the lying, fucking douchebag of a Finance Minister claimed that not a single economist predicted the current financial debacle. In fact, numerous economists predicted exactly that. For example, I have here an article from the New York Times discussing economist Nouriel Roubini back in 2006 ... read from article here ...

"Would the lying, fucking douchebag of a Finance Minister like to correct the record? Or would he prefer to remain the lying, fucking douchebag that he is?"

Hello? Liberals?

Dear TangoJuliette:

Miss the point much?

[ADDENDUM: The link above no longer works. See comments.]

P.S. Oh, and TJ? Love the threats of physical violence. They're so ... so ... Blogging Tory. I'm sure Stephen Taylor would be proud.

P.P.S. I've screen-capped that comment, just in case Paul has a sudden attack of not-stupid and deletes it.

Good.

Those pious retards can't die off fast enough for me.

Satire is officially dead.

Over at "Halls of Wingnuttia," Blogging Tory "Neo Conservative" takes a break from giggling over the violent deaths of minorities to, well, make a total ass of himself:



It occurs to me that someone who gets such a raging woody over the murders of Toronto's minorities and giggles about such things on a daily basis really doesn't have the moral high ground to be using the word "compassionate" in a sarcastic manner. If you catch my drift.

Especially when you've thrown around the phrase "Taliban Jack" yourself on occasion. Then you just look like an asshole.

Lies my lying douchebag of a Prime Minister told me.

It's not like Stephen's even trying to be vaguely believable anymore.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Another Stephen Harper clusterfuck accomplishment.

P.S. I'm guessing that this will, somehow, be redefined as "supporting the troops" over at the Blogging Tories. It only remains to be seen how. You know it's coming.

P.P.S. I hope that Celestial Junk's Paul's son "Junker" isn't somehow put at risk because of this hideous screwup. That would be awful.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

Sweet Jesus on a cracker, what kind of technologically illiterate fuckery is this? Yeah, this pretty much sums it up.

Web 2.0 meets Dumbshit 0.01.

BONUS DUMBSHIT: It just gets better.

Would wanting to kill you make someone a "relapsed" Catholic?

God loves you. Some of his followers, on the other hand ... well, not so much.

Because you still have to keep the wingnuts happy.

Self-proclaimed "scientist" Stephen Taylor pulls out his dog whistle:

Barack Obama rightly advances scientific research, it’s the moral elitism which is offensive

Yesterday, President Barack Obama reversed the Bush administration’s ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. For many in the scientific community, this means increased funding for their projects and to patients it means hope for more cures for terrible diseases and ailments. I believe that the selective withholding of federal funds from this area of research was done for political reasons to satisfy a certain “moral” base of voters. Because of this, I’ve been cynical of Bush’s decision; it was public policy made on a sort of moral elitism...

While I share the victory and cautiously applaud Obama’s announcement, I sympathize with those who hold strong and fundamental views against this sort of research done in their name. Issues of life that intersect with public policy never produce perfect victories for everyone nor for either side individually.

No, no, no, Stephen, too wordy. Here, let me tighten that up for you:

While I applaud the actual science, I will still publicly sympathize with the ignorant, know-nothing, Bible-whomping, flat-earth, fetus-fetishizing yahoos that are upset by this, because I'm not so stupid that I don't recognize my base.

Yeah, that's better. That's tight.

UH OH ... Apparently, there's some dissension in the Blogging Tory ranks. Stephen might want to have a chat with Patrick. That kind of public disagreement is just ugly, don't you think?

I think I just wet myself.

Behold, the crippling dumbfuckitude:

Blaming the last guy is the game for losers.

Yes, that was a Blogging Tory who wrote that. Go figure, eh?

P.S. I'm sure I'm having way too much fun with this.

There’s no whore like a Reformatory whore.

Shorter Junior MacKay: Pick me! Pick meeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!11!1!!1!1!!!

The joy of Twitter.

When Web 2.0 meets Wanker 0.01.

How can we miss you if you won't fuck off already?

What she said.

Only if you have a strong stomach.

Just in case you don't get enough slimy, douchebaggy, tap-dancing weaselitude in your life ...

P.S. The comments. You'll want to read the comments.

Chicks with brains.

Apparently, I am supposed to direct your attention thusly. Those of you who are my regular readers will probably appreciate the content. Those of you who are Blogging Tories will simply be confused by all that high-falutin' edumakashun stuff.

Dear Texas:

You are so fucked.

The Angry, Angry ... Left?

Methinks one wingnut's life just got a lot less private.

Happy International Women's Day

She Speaks

Every year on the Sunday closest to March 8, Flush Ink Performing Arts in cooperation with the International Centre for Women Playwrights and the City of Kitchener presents "She Speaks", an evening of staged readings of short plays and excerpts of longer works by emerging and established women authors. The work is always interesting and compelling and covers the gamut of human emotion and theatrical style. 

"She Speaks" will be taking place this evening, Sunday, March 8 in the Kitchener City Hall, Council Chambers at 200 King Street West in Kitchener. There is no fee for admission though we are accepting donations at the door, all of which will go to The Women's Crisis Services of Waterloo and to the International Centre for Women Playwrights. There will be talk back sessions with attending authors. Come on out and celebrate the living art of theatre in a relaxed and inclusive setting.

Disclosure: I am a member of the board of directors of Flush Ink Performing Arts.

That is the question ...

... isn't it?

Stupid, dumbshit wankery in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Which of Stephen Taylor's Blogging Tories will be the first to, like, go full-metal shrieky over this? I'm betting Paul -- he has a history.

Canadian IDiot Denyse O'Leary, and the joy of short-term memory.

You know, Denyse, we'd take your accusations of brutal, relentless censorship of Darwinian criticism more seriously if you didn't simultaneously brag about Darwinian critics being published in Forbes.

It's just an observation.

50 Ways To Leave Your Intellect.

Pretty much everything you needed to know about Justin "Raging Wanker" Hoffer. And other truly stupid people.

LuLu on hiatus.

Dear darlings:

Now that February sweeps are over and we appear to have safely won our timeslot yet again, I’m going to become more than a little scarce. No doubt this will absolutely thrill certain areas of the blogosphere.

Things are about to get stupid busy at work -- thanks to the federal government’s version of March Madness -- but I’ll pop in as much as I can. Play nice and I might bring back presents.

Kisses,
LuLu

Perché il mio nonno dice così.

Caro Cardinale Giovanni Battista Re:

La madre degli idioti è sempre incinta.

Vaffanculo a lei, la sua moglie, e' la sua madre,
LuLu

E ancora ... A correre e cagare ci si immerda i garretti.

One of these things is not like the other.

Stupid, hysterically gullible, dumbass motherfucker Blogging Tory. Reality.

You're welcome.

P.S. Stephen Taylor ... proud ... etc, etc. You know the drill.

P.P.S. The amazing thing about Paul's mouth-breathing moronicity is that his post is from March 7, whereas the Media Matters rebuttal to that myth comes from back on January 17. Not only is Paul publishing bullshit, he's publishing really, really old bullshit as if it's news.

They really are "slow" in both senses of the word.

AFTERSNARK: After being called out on his dumbassery via a link to that impeccably-researched and irrefutable Media Matters article, Blogging Tory Paul makes it clear that you can take your reality and fuck right off thusly.

Of such overwhelming and deliberate ignorance are the Blogging Tories composed.

Um ...

... huh?

An oldie but a goodie.

And something a bit weirder:

When stupid, retarded, racist Blogging Tory bigots blog.

The execrable Blogging Tory known as "Raphael Alexander" puts his jaw-dropping ignorance on display here:

The [U.S.] Fairness Doctrine was attempted via a front door approach in 1987, that tried to force broadcasters to grant equal airtime to opposing political viewpoints. Critics of the amendment to the bill say it’s a backdoor attempt to push through the Fairness Doctrine to undermine the popularity of conservative broadcasts: ...

Here's a suggestion, boys and girls -- let's see what the Fairness Doctrine actually represents (emphasis tail-waggingly added):

A short history of fairness

The necessity for the Fairness Doctrine, according to proponents, arises from the fact that there are many fewer broadcast licenses than people who would like to have them. Unlike publishing, where the tools of the trade are in more or less endless supply, broadcasting licenses are limited by the finite number of available frequencies. Thus, as trustees of a scarce public resource, licensees accept certain public interest obligations in exchange for the exclusive use of limited public airwaves. One such obligation was the Fairness Doctrine, which was meant to ensure that a variety of views, beyond those of the licensees and those they favored, were heard on the airwaves. (Since cable’s infrastructure is privately owned and cable channels can, in theory, be endlessly multiplied, the FCC does not put public interest requirements on that medium.)

And that is why the Fairness Doctrine -- dealing as it does with a finite, publicly-owned resource -- is actually a good thing, and why howlingly ignorant fuckwits like "Raphael Alexander" should absolutely shut the fucking fuck up.

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

P.S. I'd suggest that Blogging Tory co-founder Stephen Taylor must be terribly, terribly proud, but he's kind of busy these days helping organize the Manning Networking Conference & Exhibition, where one can be diversely exposed to diverse viewpoints from such diverse speakers as the Manning Centre's Preston Manning, former Reform MP Deb Grey, the Fraser Institute's Tasha Kheiriddin, the National Post's Karen Selick, the Fraser Institute's Gordon Gibson, the National Post's Terence Corcoran ... I think you can see where I'm going with this, right?

AFTERSNARK: To truly appreciate Raphael's appalling ignorance, one need only consider this revealing snippet of his:

It’s a typical liberal initiative to interfere in the free speech and expression of private broadcasters, so we can’t be too surprised about that.

Raphael is, of course, utterly out to lunch when he refers to "private" broadcasters, as the Fairness Doctrine deals wholly and exclusively with the public airwaves. Such critical distinctions are, of course, lost on wanks who are as depressingly unknowledgeable as Raphael. It is, however, what makes him such a splendid Blogging Tory. It's kind of a requirement, if you hadn't noticed.

"Anti-Semitism," as it were.

Shorter Israel groupies: "Sure, we can agree that Israel's foreign policy and treatment of the Palestinians is deplorable, but it's unfair to take the most extreme members of an ideology and extrapolate that to denigrate every single member."

Identifying the irony contained therein is left as an exercise for the reader.

And this is why we mock them -- because they're idiots.

Remember the Richard Lenski affair? Sure you do, when the absolutely funniest, falling down, pants-pissingest part was Lenski's savage takedown of Andrew Schlafly thusly:

First, it seems that reading might not be your strongest suit given your initial letter, which showed that you had not read our paper, and given subsequent conversations with your followers, in which you wrote that you still had not bothered to read our paper. You wrote: “I did skim Lenski’s paper …” If you have not even read the original paper, how do you have any basis of understanding from which to question, much less criticize, the data that are presented therein?

You know where this is going, don't you? Yes, yes, you do, whereupon Justin "Raging Wanker" Hoffer, given that very link so he can see how evolution works in the laboratory, hilariously responds thusly (emphasis leg-humpingly added):

As for the link with the experimental evidence, I'd have to read the paper itself, but at first glace [sic] appears to be proof of adaptation, not evolution. I'd have to read the paper itself, and I'll do that. Regardless, it is unlikely to change my view that under certain circumstances, evolution was guided by G-d.

Shorter Young Angry Raging Wanker: "I haven't read the evidence I've been shriekingly demanding of you, but I want to assure you all that I will almost certainly dismiss it once I do."

And that is why we mock you, Justin -- because you are a waste of intellectual effort. I just had no idea you were going to prove it so obviously and deliciously.

Israeli Apartheid Week, as it were.

Shorter Israel groupies: "I don't get it. All we do is herd them into the world's largest concentration camp, deprive them of basic liberty and necessities, steal their arable land under the guise of security, bulldoze their olive groves, take their water, prevent the delivery of humanitarian supplies and, on a regular basis, launch savage attacks with the world's most fearsome weaponry that slaughter countless Palestinians including women and children, and now no one wants to hang with us. What's up with that?"

And suddenly, Raging Wanker got vewwwy, vewwwy quiet.

For someone who's fit, young, angry, loud and raging, Blogging Tory Justin Hoffer sure went silent in a hurry once people lined up to kick the living crap out of him.

Stephen Taylor must be so proud. Justin must be part of the new BT Diversity Program -- you know, giving retards a chance to blog as well.

None dare call it "censorship," bitch.

Oh, dear ... someone's making a free speech martyr of Kathy Shaidle yet again. I'm guessing that, given her recent ugly notoriety, Canada's Jews would rather whack off parts of their privates than give her yet another soapbox to spew from.

I wonder if the recently-acquired Mr. Five Feet is having buyer's remorse yet.

Smackdown.

Is it too late to bring back the death penalty? Oh, wait ... that's the U.S. They still have it. Carry on, then.

Sweet Motown Jesus and the Pips.

Five Feet of Pick Your Prejudice™ has a handgun license. Which probably makes her Five Feet of Armed and Really Fucking Dangerous™ to the city of Toronto as a whole.

Is it just me or does this speak volumes about the vetting process – and I use the term loosely – currently in place? I don’t think it’s just me.

Saturday Morning Cartoons.

I say, I say ... when’s the last time we had a Foghorn Leghorn cartoon, boys and girls?



Coffee? Yes please, don’t mind if I do.

Poking the (old) retard.

Once upon a time, our favourite cyberstalking mullethead was all about the Franken-Coleman dustup in Minnesota, and how the Franken camp was LOL ROTFL stupid and moronic and criminals and stealing that election and everything. Yeah, Twatsy got a few blog posts out of that.

Curiously, since about mid-January, Twats has totally shut the fuck up about that. I'm guessing stuff like this is why.

Good thinking, Twatsy. If I'd made that much of an asshole of myself, I'd quietly try to change the subject and pretend I never brought it up either.

I've been "Wonketted".

Wonkette, Kathy Shaidle. Kathy, Wonkette. And if you read down the comments far enough, well, let's leave that as a surprise. (Here's a direct link to the Salon article.)

OH, ALL RIGHT, I'll save you the time. But, really, they're all worth reading.

P.S. What's a "taquito?"

SCOTT TRIBE SHOOTS ... HE SCORES! In my haste, I totally failed to notice that Salon linked to Canadian blogger Scott Tribe. I'm betting Scott's getting a Sitemeter meltdown right about now.

More Catholic Villainy

SUZIE-ALL CAPS is pro-child rape. By her own logic, supporting the right to choose makes one pro-abortion thus denying said clinical treatment to an incestuously raped and impregnated pre-teen must mean that she is in favour of raping children. Yay catholic values!

Gosh, that little girl is lucky we're on the new testament. Time was the family would have stoned the little harlot to death in the public square. Catholic shari'ah is just so much better than the other brand of insane theocratic evil. What is it with catholicism and kiddie rape anyway? Fucking twisted evil death cult.

Um ... OK.

Not sure what that's all about, but it sure do drive the traffic.

Oh, dear God.

Who else?

P.S. I was going to leave a comment there, but what's the point? Justin is your typical Blogging Tory -- hideously, embarrassingly, gloriously, spectacularly ignorant, and proud of it.

And for those of you who want evidence for evolution, here you go. Enjoy.

AFTERSNARK: Not surprisingly, Justin's first scientifically illiterate commenter brings up the "junkyard 747" analogy, as if that's supposed to be devilishly clever:

I have more faith that a whirlwind swept through a junkyard at one end, and came out the other end with a 747 jumbo jet created and flying on path to Narita airport.

At which point we're all supposed to gasp in shock, and think, "Wow! That really is improbable!" Except for one awkward detail.

Wankers like Justin and their ignorant groupies love to bandy about analogies that involve wildly improbable events, such as tornadoes assembling airplanes, or entire amino acids magically forming in a single step. "Oh, man," they howl, "that sure is improbable, isn't it? Like, you know, 75 billion jillion skillion gazillion to one, har har!" But here's the problem.

If you really want to discredit something as wildly improbable, then you kind of have to be prepared to present a more probable alternative. As in, OK, if it didn't happen by what you call "chance," how did it happen? To which the ignorant wanker will start to mention "divine intervention" and that's where the roof caves in.

Because if you want to talk probabilities, then, by all means, feel free to calculate the probability of God. No, really. Because it's amusing to hear people laugh and laugh about the statistical unlikelihood of things like amino acids and proteins and single-celled organisms, and when you politely ask them what they propose instead, they casually answer, "Oh, an all-powerful divine being."

Uh huh.

So, my dear wankers, by all means, if you want to talk math, let's talk math. Specifically, I want to see your calculations regarding the probability of the existence of God. In detail. Show your work. Skip no steps. List all initial assumptions. Remember to carry the three.

You want to play with numbers, fine -- let's play with numbers. Because it's damned amusing to see people who profess absolute astonishment at the probability of simple biological processes turn around and, in the next sentence, quite off-handedly accept an ominscient, omnipotent, infinite Supreme Being as a statistically viable alternative. Yeah, that's logic.

So let's go, wanks. Especially you there with the junkyard and the 747. Let's see some legitimate analysis. Or, barring that, how about you just shut the hell up?

That is the outside of enough.

Dear SUZANNE:

After reading your disgusting, mouthbreathing equivocations in reaction to this horror, you can shut the fuck up forever, you heartless, misogynistic bitch.

I weep for your children.

Contemptuously yours,
LuLu

And furthermore ... How the fuck does any sane person use the word "allegedly" when describing the rape of a 9-year-old girl? I need a drink.

And further furthermore ... JJ's all over this.

Because she's an idiot, that's why.

Canadian IDiot Denyse O'Leary adores Phil Skell. Phil Skell is a dishonest douchebag. That is all.

Dear free speech warriors:

Your thoughts?

Dear Stephen Taylor: Regarding Preston Manning's nutsack ...

My dear Stephen Taylor:

Can I call you "Steve?" Good. Now, Steve, what we have here is what I like to call a "situation." Or what you might call a potentially monstrous and embarrassing clusterfuck. So try to pay attention.

I realize you're a bit busy these days, what with the planning for your upcoming Wankerpalooza and all, but we here in the Progress-o-sphere have a bit of a problem you might be able to help with.

It involves a Canadian citizen by the name of Abousfian Abdelrazik who ... oh, hell, I'll let Dr. Dawg explain it since he's been all over this story for quite some time. Take your time, Steve, read it carefully, soak in the details. In short, what we have here is a Canadian citizen who's been languishing in Sudan and is simply trying to come home. That's all, nothing more -- he's an innocent Canadian citizen who was railroaded by CSIS and is, at the moment, trying to do nothing more than return to his family here in Canada. And that's where you come in, Steve.

You see, Steve, your own prime minister Stephen Harper has been yapping on constantly about how he stands up for Canada. Curiously, though, he seems to be utterly, utterly uninterested in the plight of Mr. Abdelrazik, for whom he hasn't bothered to even get out of his chair. I find that odd, don't you, Steve? So I think we can all rest assured that Fat Stephen has no intention of standing up for Mr. Abdelrazik. And, Steve, that's where you come in.

As you've harped on a number of times, you now hold the prestigious post of "Fellow" of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. I'm sure that's very impressive, and I'm sure that comes with a super-neat decoder ring and handshake and everything, but I digress. This is serious.

You see, Steve, when I think of "democracy" and "standing up for Canada," I think of, well, standing up for our citizens, be they here or stuck in a Canadian embassy overseas simply because our porcine, waste-of-skin prime minister is too goddamned fucking lazy to get off his doughy ass and make a simple phone call that would probably clear this up once and for all. But you, Steve, well, you're obviously a man of influence, so I'm curious as to why you're not blogging about this.

After all, Steve, as you like to brag to that hot chick at the bar (who, sadly, turned out to be a lesbian and it's weird how that always seems to happen to you), you're all about, you know, the "democracy" and all. And if we were to check out the street cred of the Manning Centre itself, why, right there on the "About" page, we learn that that august organization is, like, totally about "Individual freedom" and "Strong families." And if there's a Canadian citizen who seriously needs some individual freedom right about now to get back to his family, it's Mr. Abdelrazik. Which makes me wonder, Steve ... where exactly have you been on this issue for the last little while? And why haven't you blogged about it just a little bit?

I do realize, Steve, that you might need to ask for permission first. That's cool -- we all understand that you're pretty much bought and paid for. But I'm not sure I'd check in with your Blogging Tory buds on this one since -- let's be frank -- your Blogging Tories are the most loathsome group of rancid bigots on the landscape at the moment. As you can see, Mr. Abdelrazik is of a dusky complexion so I'm fairly sure neither Kate McMillan nor the shriekingly racist "Raphael Alexander" would give a fuck about him. And "Neo Conservative?" I'm guessing he'd just like to put a bullet in Mr. Abdelrazik's head, then snicker about it on his blog afterwards. So, no, I don't think I'd consult with your BT homies on this one. I think we both know that wouldn't turn out well.

But given how you keep yapping on about freedom and democracy and yadda yadda yadda, I don't see why you couldn't just show some of that compassionate conservatism I keep hearing about and take a stand on this. In short, Steve, what I'm suggesting is that, despite how busy you are at the moment playing youthful ward Dick Grayson to Preston Manning's Bruce Wayne, I'd like you to, very gently, put down Preston's nutsack, and hie thee to a computer and take a few minutes to bash out a post asking your prime minister, Jabba the Steve, to do something to get Mr. Abdelrazik home. And here's where I think it gets interesting.

Because I think this is a seminal moment for you, Steve. Given the constant gum-flapping about standing up for freedom and democracy and ponies and rainbows by your party, and your prime minister, and your precious Manning Centre, this is where we get to see if you actually walk the walk, or whether -- like all the rest of the hot air and bluster that emanates from you -- it's all pure bullshit.

There's a Canadian citizen in trouble, Steve. He's been fucked over and left to rot overseas. And he wants to come home. And for all your high-falutin' moralizing, neither you nor your party nor your Manning Centre have done squat about it. And now we all get to see just how much you value actual freedom and democracy.

So, Steve, what's it to be? Actual standing up for Canadians? Or are you just as full of shit as we all think you are? Tough decision time, Steve. I believe your rep is on the line here. Feel free to choose carefully, since this is not something you'll be able to live down in a hurry.

Yours cynically,
CC

P.S. Say "Hi" to Preston's nutsack for me. I'm sure the two of you will be very happy together.

Transparency! Accountability!

Oopsie!

Um ... OK, that's weird.

Let me see if I understand this -- the Stephen Harper Party of Canada, elected on a platform that included "transparency" and "accountability", is willing to force an election in order to avoid being, well, transparent and accountable.

Do I have that right? Really, I'm hoping I don't have that right. Because if I have that right, that's totally fucking retarded and douchebaggy.

It's just an observation, really.

Has anyone else noticed how the people who are prepared to go totally, fucking, batshit, screeching crazy if their annual income over $250,000 gets taxed a bit more are the same ones who are quite convinced that raising the minimum wage ever so slightly would be a very, very, very bad thing for the economy?

It's just an observation. Really.

Clueless, Wendy. Wendy, clueless.

Shorter Wendy "Squueeeeeeeeeeee!1!!11! Mark Steyn!!!!11!111!!" Sullivan: I wonder if the global economic meltdown can somehow be blamed on women in the workplace? I'd give that some more thought but I'm super busy at work right now.

Yes, the cognitive dissonance truly is breathtaking.

The eminent Dr. Dawg speaks.

You listen. And give -- I already have.

And furthermore ... Not only is it the right thing to do, your donation will have the added attraction of getting poor "Raphael's" (no, that's not really his name) racist, real Canadian man-panties in the bunchiest of bunches.

Poking the (new) retard.

If it's a day that ends in 'y', then Blogging Tory Justin "Raging Wanker" Hoffer has posted something retarded. Let's check:

Minimum wage increase in Alberta a bad idea.

The minimum wage in Alberta is going up. This is a very, very bad idea.

When minimum wage goes up, a business owner is forced to find a way to compensate for the lost earnings. He'll either raise his prices or employ less people. It causes inflation and eliminates jobs.

Oh, nooezzzz!1!!!111! Paying people $8.80 per hour instead of $8.40 will, like, you know, totally cripple the provincial economy!! Because, like, you know, that's going to totally restructure money and everything.

By the way, here's the part of the article that Justin linked to that he apparently didn't bother to read:

The new minimum wage is still a far cry from the average hourly wage in Alberta. That’s $23.90.

Dear Justin: EPIC FAIL!!

AFTERSNARK: One wonders if morons like Justin ever actually think about what they're typing. Let's do some math, shall we?

The province says there are about 20,000 workers earning minimum wage — mostly teens 15 to 19 years old in the food and hotel services industry.

So ... we have an increase in the Alberta minimum wage from $8.40 to $8.80, which will -- according to the province itself -- affect some 20,000 workers. A little multiplication -- 20,000 employees x 40c per hour x 40-hour work week -- equals a total effect across the entire province of ... $320,000.

That's right, Justin -- the province-wide effect of that vicious, crippling minimum wage hike would be less than one-third of a million dollars per week, spread across the entire province. Yes, I can certainly see how that kind of massive financial restructuring and wealth redistribution would absolutely devastate Canada's economic engine.

By the way, Justin, that was sarcasm. Just in case you needed help in recognizing it.

Yeah, I'm a bad mofo, you betcha.

Apparently, I am a seriously dangerous dude:

In the lefty blogosphere, it doesn't get much more fundamental than Red Tory and Canadian Cynic - each regularly lauded as leading idea-generators for progressive types. When they go after you, they are more lethal than hungry wolves.

Jesus fucking Christ, Chucker ... would you like some Bactine for those bite marks? Pansy.

And now ... breakfast kitteh!

So easy ...

... it should be illegal.

Have goalposts, will travel.

Shorter Suzie ALL-CAPS: What is this "pro-choice" of which you speak?

Yo, Chucker!

Do you ever have trouble typing with Stephen Harper's dick in your mouth? I'm just curious.

Every Morning

I'm sure this is how Jim Flaherty, Munchkin of Finance, rises to greet the day.

The Angry, Angry ... excuse me?

OK, this is kind of rude. I'm guessing that anonymous blogger "Raphael Alexander" should have another op-ed piece in the National Post on the "moral bankruptcy" of the Left in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

CURIOUSLY, Blogging Tory "Gay and Right" Fred has nothing to say about this. Fred's got his hands full worrying about the Jews. Dead gays don't seem to make it onto his radar screen. I find that odd. But that's just me.

What Zorph said.

Indeed. I'm sorry, was that uncivil? Fuck off.

There's dumb ...

... and then there's Justin "Raging Wanker" Hoffer dumb. Really, the comments are worth the price of admission.

P.S. Recall that we made fun of that collective idiocy back here. ABC News has since rewritten that article because they must have finally figured out how retarded they looked. Sadly, retards still don't get it.

AFTERSNARK: It's almost impossible to adequately mock "Raging Wanker" Justin the way he deserves, but let's pick on this claim:

So the people are dropping their income because it isn't worth as much to work harder.

No, Justin, you indescribable moron, they're not. They're stupidly dropping their income because they literally believe that having a lower income will increase their take-home pay. What part of that are you having such difficulty understanding?

Please tell me that Justin is studying for a career in high finance. That would be just too precious.

P.S. I thought Jews were supposed to be really good with money stuff. Go figure.

BONUS BEATDOWN: In which I yank down Justin's panties and give him a good spanking. And not in a good way.

Your Blogging Tory funny.

Blogging Tory and Conservative Party comfort girl Jo-Jo wonders how long this can continue

How much more damage can Dalton do to Ontario?

If I have to explain the unintentional irony, you really need to start paying attention.

Pimp that talking point, baby. Pimp it!

Who's your daddy?

Within 24 hours of calling Rush Limbaugh “incendiary” and “ugly,” RNC Chairman Michael Steele had bowed down before the radio host, declaring, “There was no attempt on my part to diminish [Limbaugh’s] voice or his leadership.” When Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked about the episode today, Gibbs suggested Steele’s reply proved that Limbaugh is in fact the head of the Republican Party:

GIBBS: I was a little surprised at the speed in which Mr. Steele, the head of the RNC, apologized to the head of the Republican Party.

That's the ticket -- be absolutely relentless in describing the GOP as being run by Rush Limbaugh. You know they can't complain because, if they do, Rush will give them the world's wickedest cock-slapping.

This is going to be such fun.

HEH. And another conservative darkie takes his rightful place at Massa's knee. I think we can safely say that Bobby Jindal's presidential aspirations are over.

Um ... what?

Come again?

Rush Limbaugh: "Let me tell you who we conservatives are: We love people."

Um ... no, Rush, as a conservative, you don't. Because, quite simply, if you look around today, it would be hard to find a group more utterly and seethingly filled with roiling, white-hot hatred than modern conservatives.

You hate gays. You hate women. You hate kids. You hate minorities. You hate liberals. You hate anyone who's pro-choice. You hate hippies. You hate atheists. You hate feminists. You hate intellectual "elitists." You hate the poor. You hate Muslims. You hate pacifists. You hate socialists. You hate Palestinians. You hate the French.

Really, Rush, it's almost impossible to find someone you folks don't hate. And trust me -- as a Canadian, I know something about horrible, hate-filled conservatives.

Yes, "Raphael," feel free to tell us all about moral bankruptcy.

Having recently made it clear that he doesn't give a fuck about Canadians that aren't the same colour he is, anonymous blogger "Raphael Alexander" presumes to lecture us on morality. And the National Post sinks a little lower into the tailings pond.

AFTERSNARK: Already gone from the CC HQ "Sent" box:

I'm curious, Mr. McParland -- when did the Post decide that it was acceptable behaviour to allow people to be published as full commenters without giving their real names, as "Raphael Alexander" has been doing lately? (You *do* know that's not his actual name, right?)

If Mr. "Alexander" can be published thusly, I think I deserve a shot at it as well. Wouldn't you say that's fair?

CC

I'll let you know how this turns out.

Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

The crippling stupid.

Stephen Harper takes a steaming dump on Canada's military.

"Support the troops!", they've been constantly screaming at us. Month after tedious month, Canada's dumbshit, keyboard commando wankers (you know -- the ones whose military experience consists of upgrading to every new version of World of Warcraft the moment it hits the store shelves) have been howling incessantly, "It's your job to support the troops! If you don't support the mission," they screech ignorantly, "then you don't support the troops!"

Hmmmmmm, you think, support the troops? And how exactly does one do that, anyway? Well, there are a number of ways. You give them good leaders. And a well-defined mission. With a fairly unambiguous goal and exit strategy. And top-notch tools and equipment. And you wear a red T-shirt.

Hang on. What was that last part? Red T-shirt? Why, yes ... apparently, it's critically important to wear a red T-shirt on a Friday. Um ... OK. And the point of that is?

Oh, I get it. You see, having a bunch of goobers wear red back here will, of course, in no way make our troops safer over there. Or protect them from sniper fire. Or shield them from the devastating effect of improvised explosive devices. No, the rationale for wearing red is not something material or tangible.

It's emotional. It's to let our military know that we're thinking about them. Because along with all of the tools and equipment and leadership we can give them, it is apparently just as important to let them know constantly that we're worrying about them, and praying for them and, above all, that we have confidence in them and that we know they're up to the task and that, by God, we know that, no matter the danger, they can get the job done.

Which is precisely why our very own Prime Minister Stephen Harper, when he publicly admitted that we can't win in Afghanistan, took the world's biggest dump all over them.

After all the howling, and the pissing, and the whining, and the insults about patriotism, and the demand that we put partisan politics aside and show emotional support for our military and let them know how much we believe in them, Stephen Harper casually just called our fighting men and women the world's biggest losers.

"Yeah," Stephen says, "we'll send you to Afghanistan to get shot, and blown up, and spend a year or two in sweltering heat, and in the end, you know, it won't make a difference. Because you're going to lose."

Thanks, Stephen. Because when our soldiers need some moral support and encouragement as they're being picked off one by one, what's really going to lift their spirits is their own Prime Minister telling them that they're fucked and, when it's all over, they'll have died for nothing. Good job, Steve. Way to perk up the warriors overseas.

But what really gripes my wagger are the worthless wanks who, having screamed for the heads of anyone classless enough to have said the same thing months ago, are suddenly all about the historical revisionism. "Of course we can't defeat the insurgency," they're now saying, "everyone knows that." Really? We do? And wouldn't it be nice if some of those wanks could now point to their own sites and show us a single example of when they were saying that very thing? Yes, I'd like Canada's dumbshit wankers to now pony up and start posting examples where, in the midst of all their shrieking, jingoistic, patriotic bluster, they were also saying, "Oh, and by the way, we're not going to win, anyway. Just so you know."

Sure, I'd love to see some of that history, kids. Stop by and leave a URL in the comments section. Because (and correct me if I'm wrong) I'm pretty sure that, when any of us in the real world made that kind of suggestion, we were immediately vilified as troop-hating terrorist lovers.

So let's go, wanks. I want to see those links. And if you can't produce, then I'll be expecting that heartfelt apology as soon as you can get around to it. And that apology? You better fucking mean it. Seriously.

LET'S WELCOME OUR FIRST CONTESTANT: It seems only fitting that our first weasel is that rancid bigot that goes by the nom de blog of "Raphael Alexander":

Stephen Harper has been in the media indirectly undermining the mission in Afghanistan by doing something that few politicians dare to do: tell the truth.

Um ... yes, Raph. That would be the same "truth" that had Canada's shrieking, fuckwit wankers howling for peoples' unpatriotic heads not that long ago when other people said it. I guess it's different when your hero Fat Steve is saying it. It always is. And Raphael inspires you to lunge for the nearest barf bag with:

While I’m a little irritated that the same group of Conservatives who were impugning the patriotism of Canadians for suggesting the exact same things years ago, we can finally all arrive on the same page.

That "page" being where we on the Left have been all along, being pilloried for it, but now that the ignorant Right have finally arrived here, they should be given credit for telling the "truth."

It must be nice to never, ever, ever be wrong about anything. Where can I get a gig like that?

Bye bye, GOP.

Two simple observations:

• Rush is in charge, and


• Holy fuck, he's stupid.

It's different in Canada. We have totally different ignorant conservative douchebags running things.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Over at TPM, they're talking about Rush-related hang time. And as JJ pointed out, right-wing suckup David Frum can't even get to the end of an op-ed piece before he resumes softly stroking Rush's massive wang. That's a hang time of, what, David? About two minutes?

I am going to get in SUCH shit for this.

Shorter Stephen Harper: "Dear Ms. Watkins: Fuck you and your grief."

(I had no plans on bringing up that memory but since the Rev. thought it worth mentioning, I figured it was worth a link.)

AFTERSNARK: Let's be clear about what just happened here. The reason I took such umbrage with the aforementioned Ms. Watkins so long ago was her attitude of, "Now that my son is dead, it's necessary for other peoples' sons to die as well so I can feel good about it." And here's where the fun starts.

You see, it's not that Harper has finally twigged to the fact that Afghanistan is unwinnable and that he's not going to throw more lives at it. That in itself would be bad enough and would be a resounding slap in Ms. Watkins' face. Oh, no, let's look at Stephen's actual words:

"Frankly, we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency," Harper said in an interview that aired Sunday on CNN. "My reading of Afghanistan history is that's it's probably had an insurgency forever of some kind."

Note well that that revealing admission doesn't just represent the scales falling from the eyes recently. Fuck, no, it admits to a historical lesson that Harper is admitting should have been obvious from the very beginning. In short, Harper is plainly admitting that Afghanistan was doomed to failure from the beginning, which implies that all of those Canadian lives were tossed away for the sake of Stephen Harper's posturing and strutting on the world stage.

At least I had the decency to restrict my ire to one person. Harper, on the other hand, just told the mothers of all those dead Canadian soldiers that their kids died for nothing, and he knew it was going to be like that all along.

I await the Blogging Tories and their newfound anger. Directed at the right person this time.

CLARIFICATION: Obviously, Harper isn't responsible for the lives that were lost before he was elected. But he can certainly be held accountable for what happened after that.

OH, MY: Shorter Blogging Tory and Keyboard Commando "Papa" Junker: "It's a military necessity that other peoples' kids died so that mine probably won't."

One of these things is not like the others.

Barack Obama's science advisor:

John P. Holdren, who served as AAAS president and chair of the Board in 2006 and 2007, was tapped to serve as Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. In that capacity, he also will co-chair the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), Obama announced during a 20 December radio address...

Holdren is the Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy and Director of the Program on Science, Technology, and Public Policy at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He also holds the positions of President and Director of the Woods Hole Research Center.

Barack Obama's Energy Secretary:

President-elect Barack Obama has chosen Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist who heads the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, to be the next energy secretary, ... Chu, the son of Chinese immigrants, won the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1997 for his work in the "development of methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light."

And Canada's Minister of Science and Technology? A chiropractor. With anger management issues.

As a Canadian, I am so proud.

Those dead soldiers, Stephen? Yeah, they're yours. Own them.

Once upon a time, Canada's commitment in Afghanistan was scheduled to be completed, well, right around now, wasn't it? February/March 2009? I'm too lazy to look it up but it sure seemed to be about now.

Then Il Douche pushed to have that mission extended until 2011. Yeah, that was Stephen Harper's doing. Hell, that was even one of his official accomplishments according to official fluffer and poster girl for leakproof, adult diapers Sandy Crux. And now ... oh, dear.

So let me put this as diplomcatically as I can, Stephen. From here on out, any dead Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan are yours. You own them. You pushed to have this mission extended, and now you're admitting that, well, it doesn't look like anything there is ever going to change so, in effect, you're getting your kicks out of two more years of dead Canadian troops because you wanted to play boy soldier and since you were too much of a pants-pissing little turd to go over and get shot at personally, you decided to do the next best thing and send over others to die for you so you could feel macho.

(And it's not like dead Canadian troops are even a bad thing, right, Steve? Apparently, getting the occasional Canadian soldier offed has its upside. But I digress. Onward.)

In any event, Steve, starting now, dead Canadian soldiers belong to you and you alone. And when (if?) we finally pull out of Afghanistan in 2011 and nothing will have changed, we can look back on two years worth of additional dead Canadians and we'll know -- yes, we will -- that they're dead because that's just one of the ways you got your jollies.

Two years worth of dead soldiers, Stephen. I'm sure you'll be very happy together. Well, you'll be. They won't. They'll be dead, remember?

Would someone like to start a list?

OOPSIE: Now that Fat Steve has openly admitted that we're not going to win over there, someone might want to wake up Papa Junker and clue him in.

CLASS PROJECT: It's interesting that Harper is only now figuring out that the "war" in Afghanistan is unwinnable. Wouldn't it be fun to go back and see who might have been trying to explain this to him over the last several months? Wouldn't it be just hilarious if it was, say, "Taliban Jack" Layton?

I have no idea, I just think digging up something like that would have tremendous entertainment value.

Dead movement walking.

Dear Stephen Taylor: Pay close attention. Eerie, isn't it? It's like looking into your future.

Somewhere, a children's table is missing its idiot.

I swear, I have no witty comeback for this. Writing Justin's entry for "Meet Your Blogging Tories" is going to be some kind of challenging, as I might have to re-read my DSM-IV.

The Permanent Campaign & Smear Politics

One of the best blogs on either side of the political spectrum is impolitical and I find I am rarely in disagreement with the writings there. However when it comes to the support of Ignatieff I find myself at odds. To Iggy's credit he is very well spoken and he has proven to be just as greasy a political operator as his opponents. It is also not surprising that he is perceived by the Cons as a legitimate threat. So news that Harper's flying monkeys are set to begin a new cycle of attack ads isn't much of a surprise. It isn't as though the Cons are an especially creative lot.

The Conservatives are scouring hundreds of hours of videotape as they prepare to pummel their key rival Michael Ignatieff with attack ads leading up to the next election.

And what a jolly pastime that must be for the legion of Steve's hairless weasels hunkered down in their basement redoubts. And the saddest thing of all is that these worthless cretins, both Liberal and Conservative are so blinded to the realities of the land they are supposed to be serving that the most pressing issue to any of the bastards is the next election. And the next election. And the next election. The corrupt idiot Liberals are desperate to return to the power side of the Commons at any cost and the corrupt idiot Conservatives are desperate to lock up that elusive majority that they haven't earned.

So get ready for the next round of attacks courtesy of the puffin mongers.

The Tories already have anti-Ignatieff ads ready to air at a moment's notice, and are also combing through a lifetime's worth of musings from his career as a public intellectual.

Given how very much Ignatieff enjoys the sound of his own voice and his many dubious pronouncements as a private citizen and pompous intellectual at large, the Cons will have lots to work with. Mind you, it will be difficult for the Cons to navigate criticism around Iggy's moronic cheerleading for the Iraq war, which he strongly supported until he didn't. They can't afford to pull the sheets off that one 'cos Steve was cuddled up in that bed too. And they'll also be hard pressed to come up on the rosy side of Iggy's waffling about torture. After all, they themselves condone the continued, illegal incarceration and "enhanced interrogation" of a Canadian child soldier. Not to mention their response to Canada's suspect handling of detainees in Afghanistan.

I do agree with impolitical as regards the skewed priorities of the Cons, given the state of the economy and the legitimate issues facing Canadians who aren't teat suckling pols. But with Iggy stumping it up on behalf of the toxic tar cartel in hopes of making electoral inroads in Alberta, his priorities are every bit as wrong. Neither of our two major political parties are working in the best interests of the nation. A new round of noxious attack ads on the horizon, colour me not surprised.

Where I differ with impolitical is in the result of those sorts of ads, past and present.

You know, it seems like so long ago that the Conservatives had the luxury of indulging in the silly shrugging Dion campaign. It's likely, however, that the same feat of deploying such negativity successfully against Ignatieff will prove much more difficult this time around.

On the one hand I can agree that a new round of smears won't be as effective. Canadians are tired of the puerile nonsense pouring out of Ottawa. Anti-intellectual bigotry won't play as well in much of Canada as anti-Francophone bigotry. We will see how well the cult of the leader has taken root among the Grits. The Liberal response to this round of attacks will be telling as I suspect quite strongly that Michael Ignatieff and his backers were complicit by their silence in the character assassination of Stephane Dion. The Conservative attacks played quite tidily to their ends. I found it remarkable that the Liberal Party had no effective answer to the negative ads by their rivals. Where were the heavy hitting Liberals when their leader was being dragged through the muck? I don't recall much in the way of a response because there wasn't much of a response. Iggy and the factionally strategic Liberals sensed that their leader was vulnerable so they hung the poor bastard out to dry.

Where I really part ways with my esteemed peer is in the details.

To see frivolous personal attacks in the midst of all this, it's hard to believe it will play in the same way. Such attacks bounced off Obama.

Obama was facing an almost comically bad opponent. McCain had very limited support from within the Republican machine and was never fully accepted by their base. McCain and his joke of a running mate ran smears, sure, but they also ran an inept, ham-fisted clusterfuck of a campaign. The innate bigotry of large portions of the populace, the smears and fear of change all combined to see Obama win by a not staggering margin. With Obama's rhetorical skills, youth and decent looks opposing an angry, kook in the wake of a ruinous eight years of Dubya... a rational voting public would have returned a landslide. And still, some of the smears maintain a grip on the public down in crazyville. The muslim name, the birth certificate, all of those stupid smears still have some traction. So while it is true that Iggy is no Dion, he sure isn't an Obama either.

If the Conservatives think they're going to tell Canadians that Ignatieff is not really Canadian, that he's a "fair-weather" Canadian in some kind of patriotic litmus test...can't say the recent precedent looks promising for them.

This isn't the attack of the kerners and their obsession over a birth certificate. Hell, I think Ignatieff is a fair weather Canadian. I think he returned to the country because he saw an opportunity to burnish his resume, to secure his legacy as a great man. I don't need Stephen Taylor's mouth breathing, team shit-for-brains suggesting it. I don't need to see another round of poorly crafted teevee spots to put the idea over. From where I sit, Iggy is just the calculated sort of selfish goof to inspire that idea to spring to mind unassisted.

Ignatieff is not Dion. As much as I respected and supported Dion, Ignatieff has proven thus far that he's quite able to handle himself in engagement with the Conservatives.

No indeed, Iggy is not Dion. Foolish or not, Dion was a man of principle who went out on a limb with an environmental plan that would be hard to sell. Now Iggy is trying to portray strip mining tar sands as an issue of patriotic pride. He is more capable of answering a smear than Dion but that isn't a sign of greater intellect or nobility, it is a matter of better communication skills in English. Iggy will understand and respond better to the low rent tactics of the Cons because he isn't above those same dirty politics. He'll say what he thinks will get him a vote and he'll do what he thinks will get him a vote. He and Harper deserve each other. The rest of us deserve much better than either of them.

Ignorant asshole.

That is all.

Um ... duh?

Apparently, Secretary Gates suffered a major BFO (a Blinding Flash of the Obvious for the great unwashed) on this morning’s edition of Meet the Press.

GATES: I think that probably President Obama is somewhat more analytical, and he makes sure he hears from everybody in the room on an issue. And if they don’t speak up, he calls on them.

Q: A marked difference from his predecessor?

GATES: President Bush was interested in hearing different points of view but didn’t go out of his way to make sure everybody spoke if they hadn’t spoken up before.

In other news, water is wet, the sky is blue and “Raphael Alexander” is an assumed identity.

But you already knew that.

Awwwwwwwwkward ...

It occurs to me to suggest that someone who has just been "outed" as blogging under a pseudonym all this time really shouldn't have written this not that long ago. The phrase "conflict of interest" leaps to mind.

Apparently, principles are a context thing.

Shorter Blogging Tory "Paul": "Not long ago, I was absolutely infuriated by self-serving, political dishonesty. Today, eh, not so much."

AFTERSNARK: Notice carefully how Paul so utterly predictably moves the goalposts when he quotes "Gateway Pundit":

The radical left is attacking Bobby Jindal over his story regarding Hurricane Katrina and Sheriff Harry Lee.

The people from Louisiana has heard this story a million times.

The key point to be killed is the radical Left, with Keith Olbermann, claims the story is false because Jindal was not on the ground in New Orleans during the Katrina mess.
** NOT TRUE **
In fact, Jindal was the *only* elected official who was on the ground.

But the majority of us over here on "the radical left" aren't attacking Jindal's claim about being "on the ground." Rather, we are quite clearly and explicitly laughing at his now thoroughly-debunked fable regarding Sheriff Harry Lee and boats -- a fable which even the Jindal camp has admitted was fabricated:

... Jindal's staff now admits that that actually didn't happen. Instead of being there and being part of the story, Jindal's reps now admit that days later Jindal overheard Lee telling the story to someone else. And Jindal retold the story he'd been told while inserting himself into it as part of the story.

Not surprisingly, though, rather than admit that all those radical lefties are correct, Paul simply redefines the claim to make it, technically, accurate: "He was so there! Um ... you know, 'on the ground.' He was! He was! He really was!"

And if he was, well, good for him, Paul, but that's not what we were arguing about, was it? Feel free to rejoin the discussion when you're ready to debate like a grown-up, m'kay?

And that is why we mock them.

Sunday Funnies.

Just a little something to amuse you while I head into the office for the day. Now behave yourselves while I’m gone, darlings because I will not hesitate to ground your asses.

Well, it could have happened that way.

Stick a fork in his presidential aspirations -- he's done. And if I were you, Jonathan, I'd find a new role model. I hear Rush Limbaugh's available.

FOR THE HARD OF THINKING, the new spin is that Jindal is only claiming that he was enraged about the boat fiasco some days after the fact. But that clearly doesn't square with his exact words during his recent TV address:

During Katrina, I visited Sheriff Harry Lee, a Democrat and a good friend of mine. When I walked into his makeshift office I'd never seen him so angry. He was yelling into the phone: 'Well, I'm the Sheriff and if you don't like it you can come and arrest me!' I asked him: 'Sheriff, what's got you so mad?' He told me that he had put out a call for volunteers to come with their boats to rescue people who were trapped on their rooftops by the floodwaters. The boats were all lined up ready to go - when some bureaucrat showed up and told them they couldn't go out on the water unless they had proof of insurance and registration. I told him, 'Sheriff, that's ridiculous.' And before I knew it, he was yelling into the phone: 'Congressman Jindal is here, and he says you can come and arrest him too!' Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people.

Read that last sentence again:

Harry just told the boaters to ignore the bureaucrats and start rescuing people.

One more time, paying careful attention to ...

... start rescuing people.

That's normally what we non-retards refer to as, you know, happening in the future. So no matter how Jindal and his flunkies try to rewrite history, there is absolutely no question that Jindal made the claim that he was on the ground, as it was happening, in the sheriff's office, yapping about the boat bureaucracy.

Of such dishonesty is right-wing spin constructed. And, sadly, believed. But only by very stupid people.

Faggots are funny.

At least, that's what I think the joke is here:



There's so much more here, which makes this all the more delicious.

Limbaugh/Coulter in 2012. Yeah, that'll happen:

Dear "Raging Wanker" Justin:

Just. Stay. Down.

Meet yer Blogging Tories!

[Moved up a bit to get some extra, Sunday morning coverage.]

Lately, there's been some chatter here at CC HQ about moving to Wordpress. And switching to a better brand of bourbon, but that's neither here nor there. Um ... where was I? Bourbon. No, Wordpress.

So I says to myself (because that's what I call myself when I'm talking to myself), how should we do this carefully and meticulously and, above all, with the greatest possibility for totally disastrous consequences? Why, that's easy -- by getting things going with a test run. A "starter" blog, if you will.

Ladies and gentlemen -- meet your Blogging Tories.

Now, I know what you're thinking because I've rummaged through your trash and found the receipts. But this is going to be such fun, 'cuz here's the plan. We (and by "we," I mean all of us including you -- well, mostly you) are going to devote an entire blog to what I'm going to call the Blogging Tories' Greatest Hits. In short, post after post of what makes Stephen Taylor's BTs what they are today -- the most pathetic collection of anti-intellectual, feeble-minded racists, bigots, whiners, doughheads and douchebags you can cram together into a single aggregator before it goes critical in a massive explosion of stupid.

Each BT worth smacking will merit an entire post of, well, smack. And this is where you come in because we're going to divvy up the work. In your copious free time (since, as we all know, liberals are chronically unemployed and spend all their time lying on the couch snarfing pecan sandies and playing with themselves), you can lay claim to one of Stephen Taylor's stable of dweebs, dorks and shrews, and slowly and lovingly eviscerate them. I could go into detail but, what the hell, here's the gold standard to which we can all aspire. Yeah, it's intimidating but, what the hell, ya gotta shoot for the stars.

The point of all of this is actually journalistically meaningful -- to introduce to the world the underlying political philosophy of Canada's conservatives, to educate new readers to the thought processes of Stephen Taylor and his intellectual comrades, to ... no, no, really, it's just to mock them mercilessly and hold them up to the ridicule they so richly deserve. But there are rules. There are always rules. At least a couple.

First, everything has to be substantiated. Links are good. More links are better, because the best way to hang someone is by their own words.

And second, brutal honesty. You can't spin, or distort, or quote out of context. Unlike Stephen Taylor's collection of weaselly sycophants, we (and, again, by "we" I mean other people) will disembowel those deserving BTs solely based on an accurate portrayal of their own posts and comments. We will not misrepresent them. We won't need to. It would be redundant.

So, who's in? Feel free to select a BT you're going to go to town on. It's like adopting a pet, but with much less emotional investment. Me, I think I'm going to take care of one "Neo Conservative," mostly because he's going to be so little of a challenge. I mean, after I quote him 173 times making fun of murdered minorities, readers will almost certainly get the point I was trying to make.

So give it some thought, and we'll get this show on the road. And we'll get better bourbon, but you don't need to worry about that. It's not for you.

CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE: To respond to RT's comment, if you decide to contribute a piece about a particular Blogging Tory, you'll get full credit for it on that piece, and you can certainly cross-post it at your own site -- we'll even link to it from that piece. And nothing says those posts can't be enhanced over time.