Should Blogging Tories "Hunter" and Maria "Dodo" Nunes be marked for death? No.

Of course not, don't be silly, that's not the way we progressives deal with our ideological opponents. But under the circumstances, it seems like an almost reasonable question since both Hunter's and Maria's panty-moistening hero -- one Sarah Palin, the Hillbilly from Wasilla -- has (as mentioned in my previous post) publicly announced that the proper way to deal with political opponents is to "reload", "aim" and "fire", complete with crosshair graphics.

How ... novel.

And how fantastically irresponsible, given the rancid racism and eliminationism that had been spewing from her followers during the 2008 presidential campaign. One would think that anyone with the sense God gave a sack of soup would have figured out by now that American political language loaded with allusions to targeting and gunfire is just not somewhere you want to go these days since, when conservatives are involved, that generally ends badly.

So, at this point, it seems safe to ask how either Hunter or Maria would feel if someone wrote a blog post or produced a YouTube video, listing them by name, replete with weapon-related imagery and publishing a map showing where they live under the graphic of an obvious rifle sight.

Boy, I'll bet there would be squealing. Without a doubt, the Canadian Idiot-sphere would be in a state of high dudgeon, screeching hysterically about murderous leftards and what not, yessir. And yet ... and yet ... when it's one of their heroes, well ...



How depressingly predictable.

In any event, given that Hunter and Maria are such unabashed groupies of Palin, it seems only fair to ask them how they feel about this latest little spate of similarly-unabashed eliminationism. And it gives us a chance to finally admit that Hunter was, against all odds, right about something when she wrote, so presciently, so long ago:

What was gained? Nothing, except showing how scared the lefties are of Sarah Palin.

Scared of Sarah Palin? Yes, Hunter, at this point, it's safe to say that lefties are "scared" of Sarah Palin. They're scared that she's going to get them killed. And I'd say they have good grounds for fear at this point.

I'd personally ask Hunter and Maria what they think of Palin's latest stunt, but I already know what I'd hear: "Oh, man, those lefties take everything so seriously, HA HA, it's just a metaphor!" And we'd hear no more ... until someone died violently. But, at that point, it wouldn't be their fault, would it?

It never is.

P.S. If memory serves, it was Canada's Blogging Tories who were clutching their pearls with great emotion upon the publication of the photo representing the alleged Liberal fantasy of the assassination of Stephen Harper.

I await the inevitable, similar outrage here.

Still waiting ...

AFTERSNARK: When you've lost a deranged right-wing loon like Elizabeth Hasselbeck, well, you've pretty much given up on that portion of the electorate that represents even remotely sentient thought.

Yeah, about that whole "civility" thing ...

Dear stupid, idiot wankers: Rather than whining so incessantly and pitifully about how rude I am to describe people as "douchebags," you should realize that you are the wrong ones to be lecturing the rest of us about politeness.

It's just an observation.

DOUBLE PLUS GOOD BONUS TRACK: Nothing subliminal here, no sir (emphasis tail-waggingly added):

Sarah Palin is Out of Line

Regardless of your stance on the recent Democratic victory on passing the biggest health care reform ever to strike the country, Sarah Palin is clearly out of line with her recent actions.

Nearly a year ago, Palin stated that Obama's proposed reform would lead to "death panels." Now, this not so classy woman has taken it a step further and released a graphic telling voters to "reload" and "take aim" at Democratic representatives that voted in support of the health care bill. This image included cross-hairs over the senators' locations.

Responding to outrage that this clearly encouraged actual violence, Palin supporters told critics to shut the fuck up or they would hunt them down and kill them.

Kathy Shaidle: All mouth, no follow-through.

As I recall, it was only days ago that Canada's Littlest Racist was running her festering gob:

PS: I dare just one of you to come up to me and "express your concerns" to my face at UWO. We both know you don't have the balls.

Lots of bravado there, Kathy. Refresh my memory ... how did that work out for you in Ottawa? Oh, right:

Right-wing antagonist Ann Coulter cancelled a University of Ottawa address last night after organizers decided it wasn’t safe to speak.

The move followed boisterous demonstrations outside that sponsors of the appearance feared could turn violent.

“There was a risk there could be physical violence,” said Canadian conservative activist Ezra Levant, who was scheduled to introduce Ms. Coulter.

Here's a suggestion, Kathy: Don't let your mouth write a cheque your ass can't cash. You just end up looking stupid.

Well, OK, stupider.

Regarding civility and blowing goats.

If you haven't yet invested the time to check out the entire comments section over at Mr. Kathy Shaidle's place, well, you have no idea what you're missing.

Whoopsie.

Blogging Tory Natasha at "Moose and Squirrel" provides some unintentional hilarity:

... I did recognize the young Muslim woman; I sat right next to her while she alternately texted fellow Muslims ...

You know, I can remember when it was considered unspeakably gauche and classless to peek at what strangers were texting. But I guess I'm just dating myself now.

What do you do with such irredeemable wastes of skin like the Blogging Tories?

Ask Roger. Roger knows. Roger understands.

Because total dickishness should be recognized.

In what has become a tedious ritual, Blogging Tory Paul E. Marek will join his fellow Canadian conservatives in celebrating WWF Earth Hour by, as he puts it:

... turning on the lights, driving around town, and enjoying modern technology ..."

for no reason other than to be ornery, obstinate and diasgreeable with people who actually give a crap about the planet we live on.

We look forward to Paul's similarly contrarian attitude when we here in the Not-Batshit-Crazy-o-sphere celebrate the upcoming "Don't Stick Your Head in a Microwave" Day, followed by National "Don't Slam Your Wang in a Car Door" Month.



THE CRIPPLINGLY CHILDISH DOUCHEBAGGERY BEGINS: Here's Blogging Tory "Iceman":

I always look forward to Earth Hour every year, as an opportunity to burn as much electricity and fossil fuels as possible. Use extra toilet paper on every wipe, leave my car idling in the driveway, crank Eve of Destruction by Barry McGuire on the stereo, flush the toilet as much as possible even when not necessary, and so on and so forth. If other people are going to be slacking off, the rest of us need to pick up our work boots and make up the difference...

If there are people out there that are going to do this whole blackout routine, then the rest of us need to pull up the slack. We need to make up the difference, such that when the eggheads review the results from the power grid, there is no measurable impact.

Next up: BTer Diogenes Borealis:

Read the whole thing, and then join me tonight in turning on all the lights during Earth Hour to show your defiance against this ridiculous mass mania.

"Moose and Squirrel":

Take the ‘LIGHTS ON’ pledge for Earth Hour!

I'm guessing I could go on but, really, what's the point?

Christian AND conservative: A lethally stupid combination.

Blogging Tory "Christian Conservative" goes all Steve "Inspector Gadget" Janke and figured he's exposed something critically important:

The context of Coulter's "Camel" comment

Gotta LOVE the media spin, eh? Oh, the heartless right-winger insults a Muslim girl. Anyone care for some context?

Several friends of mine were at the London event, and I had a chance to talk to one of them this evening. And he shed some very interesting light on what really went down that night.

First of all, there's the "UNCUT" version of what actually happened... see it for yourself. Notes follow:...

First observation... looks like this girl is reading her question off a Blackberry. Was perhaps she "fed" the question, I wonder?

Ignore, if you will, the nad-scrunching irony of a Blogging Tory complaining about other people possibly being fed robotic talking points. No, seriously, get a grip and gather yourself so we can move on because, really, it only gets funnier.

Now, why would Fatima Al-Dhaher have read her question off of a Blackberry? Hmmmmmm ... an excellent question. Could it be perhaps that she was nervous and wanted to have it in front of her so she didn't mess up asking it? Is there any evidence for that? Like, perhaps, that I made that very same claim in this very forum three whole days ago (all subsequent emphasis added for the intellectually impaired):

Sadly, Al-Dhaher (who admits to being nervous as she was asking her question) didn't have the presence of mind to pull off the perfect comeback.

And where did I get my information? Why, here:

Al-Dhaher said she attended the lecture "with an open mind" and had not planned to ask a question. However, when Coulter began making remarks about homosexuals, African-Americans and Muslims, she felt the need to speak up, she said.

"I just thought that it was despicable and I thought that I should speak up against it," Al-Dhaher told CTV News Channel Tuesday afternoon. "So, I wrote on my phone because I was afraid I'd get nervous up there and forget my question."

You know, one of many places where anyone who wasn't a useless retard could have learned that little tidbit.

And that's where I stopped reading "Christian Conservative." Really, I just stopped. Too much stupid all in one place. Let me know if I missed anything.

AND THE FAX MACHINES BEGIN TO HUM ... Ironically, Canada's conservatives have now been handed talking points about how to accuse someone else of (you guessed it) being handed talking points.

Over here, Mr. Arnie "Five Feet of Kathy Shaidle's Strap-on" Lemaire gets his instructions, and follows them to the letter:

Frumpy has a pic of the outraged Muslima reading her "question" to Ann Coulter from a blackberry, leading me to suspect that like the Maclean's sockpuppets this kid did not act uninstructed.

Canada's Blogging Tories, feigning outrage about others being carefully instructed sockpuppets. Fuck, but that's adorable.

LET THE PUBLIC SPANKING BEGIN: At this point, the commenters show up at ChCon's to, politely, tell him he's full of crap. Here's ChCon, early on in his blog post:

Apparently this young Muslim girl only showed up for the Q&A session, and didn't even listen to what Ann had to say.

Love the "apparently" qualifier, ChCon -- smear someone without feeling you need to provide any actual evidence. Very clever. Sadly for ChCon, commenter Brian Busby points out that ChCon's fellow BTer "moose and squirrel" reveals ChCon to be full of crap:

... I did recognize the young Muslim woman; I sat right next to her while she alternately texted fellow Muslims and scribbled furiously in Arabic using the pen she borrowed from me.

But we see the Blogging Tory strategy quickly taking shape -- make up all sorts of irresponsible shit and throw it all against the wall, seeing what sticks. I'd remind ChCon about that whole "bearing false witness" thing, but I suspect it would be lost on him.

Sure, let's talk about "hate speech."

Has anyone else noticed that the Canadian whingers who are cavalierly dismissing any notions of hate speech from eliminationist Ann Coulter are the very same ones who see vicious, raging, racist anti-Semitism behind every innocuous bit of criticism and, by God, we need to put a stop to that kind of seething, public, Jew-hating hatred right fucking now!!!1!1!11!

Have you noticed that? I've noticed that.

Ah, irony, where is thy boot to the head?

In which Blogging Tory Brenda/"Hunter" disses bloggers who ruthlessly censor their comments sections. No, seriously, that's what she's bitching about.

The mind reels.

BONUS SCREECHING TINFOIL HAT DUMBWHACKITUDE: Really, who else but Maria?

Whoops, I guess that should have been redacted, too.

I told you to cross out that part:

The accusation that detainees were killed by Afghan army or police officers comes from a Canadian soldier with the Royal Canadian Regiment who served in the Panjawi district. Upon returning to Canada, he told a military doctor treating him for stress about his concerns.

"After they handed over the detainee, the local authority would walk the detainee out of range and the detainee would be shot," says a 2008 report on the soldier's claims. "This occurred on more than one occasion."

Canada's Blogging Tories will undoubtedly seize on what comes next:

The doctor told investigators about his patient's allegations since they involved possible criminal activity. He added that those who return from Afghanistan with stress-related conditions sometimes exaggerate, and that the killings may never have happened.

Those same Blogging Tories will, unsurprisingly, not bother to read the very next paragraph:

"However, the condition that he does have would not give him any reason to lie. Therefore, he may be telling the truth," the report said.

In addition, the BTers will blame the Liberals. I'm pretty sure about that.

ALL QUIET ON THE BT FRONT: Unsurprisingly, Canada's Blogging Tories are still rousing themselves from a good night's sleep and putting on the coffee before they wander off to the fax machine for today's talking points:



Would anyone like to predict how the rest of the day is going to go?

You want the truth!?

You can't handle the truth!!!

Idiotic decisions

I was front row centre at the Ann Coulter "protest" on Tuesday night so I want to clear up a few misconceptions about what happened.

First, barring posters to advertise the event on campus created a lot of confusion and that decision was a big blunder by the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO). Most people had learned about the Coulter event only a few days prior from the mainstream media. We had no idea that we needed to pre-register online to attend.

The U of O Campus Conservatives who organized the event did a very poor job. They were close to an hour behind schedule before they announced to the large crowd of then-agitated students that if we weren't registered, we weren't getting in. It was chaos when frustrated fans and critics of Coulter were then penned inside the building, the organizers were blocking entry into Marion Hall and the large crowd outside made it to difficult to leave.

It's sad that Coulter and Ezra Levant will go around trumpeting this as some free speech disaster when the truth is that this event was cancelled due to extremely poor planning by the organizers, some idiotic decisions by the SFUO and some prankster pulling a fire alarm.

Alex Sellick,

Ottawa

By way of rebuttal, Ezra Levant promised to track down where Mr. Sellick lives, and sue his ass off. Or something like that.

OFFS!

Jesus, can some people get any dumber?



Thousands, I tell you! I read that on the Internet somewhere.

Whingers, start your eliminationism.

Over at Josh Marshall's "TPM," a thread involving Ann Coulter at U of Ottawa attracts the most interesting people:

I think you are way off base here. Coulter wasn't afraid of anyone, certainly not for calling her 'ugly'. The police were afraid the large mob of leftists armed with sticks and rocks were a threat to public safety, so they asked the organizers to cancel the event. Now, I'd have much preferred it if they simply opened fire on the leftists and slaughtered them in the streets (but then I'm always hoping for that), but in Canada they seldom do things like that (and unfortunately since the good old days of Kent State we haven't done much of it either).

No, this was a typical example of the left's view of free speech. They welcomed Angela Davis (the terrorist/murderer) and threaten Coulter with either prosecution or attack by an angry mob. Free speech to a leftist means the freedom to espouse leftist views only, anything else is cause to scream, throw rocks, set off alarms, disrupt, and shout down so that no opposing view can ever be heard.

In unrelated news, Canada's conservatives would like to lecture you on honesty. And civility. Especially civility.

Dear conservatives: STFU.

If you can get past the overloaded server, you need to read this.

Ezra Levant: Dishonest as usual.

Holy Christ, but Ezra Levant is a sleazy little douchebag. Here's Ezra, whining piteously in the pages of the Ottawa Citizen (all emphasis added):

It was not anti-Coulter hate that shut down her speech at U of O. Hate is a human emotion, not an action. Nor was it mere hateful words. Words can be noisy, but they can only hurt feelings. Rather, it was the assessment of police, campus security and Coulter's own bodyguard that there was too much physical danger to Coulter and the audience to proceed. As Ottawa Police Sgt. Dan Beauchamp said, "it's a public safety issue."

Wow, that sounds sinister ... until you read the actual position of Ottawa police, as reported in the Vancouver Sun:

Ottawa police spokesperson Alain Boucher said the police did not shut down the event, but said a different venue was needed to hold the crowd of around 1,500 people.

"We strongly suggested that this venue was not large enough to accommodate all the people that had attended," he said. "We had safety concerns with the sheer number of people that were there...with different views on issues."

In short, the concern of Ottawa police was not potential violence from unruly protesters, but simply that the room Ezra and his fellow dingbats had booked was too small.

In short, Ezra is lying. Again. Try not to look surprised.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! I seriously loves me some Google blog search:



Is that adorable or what?

Dear U of Calgary: Brace yourself.

Yes, yes, I really have other things I should be doing, but this is just too precious. Why things went horribly, horribly wrong at the U of Ottawa:

Ottawa police spokesperson Alain Boucher said the police did not shut down the event, but said a different venue was needed to hold the crowd of around 1,500 people.

"We strongly suggested that this venue [which reportedly could hold 400] was not large enough to accommodate all the people that had attended," he said. "We had safety concerns with the sheer number of people that were there...with different views on issues."

No problem, Ezra and his fellow geniuses are on the job, and they won't allow that kind of mind-numbing stupidity to happen again, right?

CALGARY -- The University of Calgary is increasing security for U.S. commentator Ann Coulter's visit on Thursday in light of the raucous demonstrations at the controversial right wing pundit's cancelled speech in Ottawa Tuesday.

Security will be "significantly augmented," university provost Alan Harrison said Wednesday.

The university isn't hosting the event, but is providing the venue. Extra costs will be billed to the organizers, Harrison said. The venue has seating for about 400.

Honestly, those people are like puppies with a ball and a blanket. Once you hide the ball, it's like it never existed.

I STAND CORRECTED: Canada's Official Jew speaks:

Due to huge demand, the venue has been moved to the Red and White Club, at McMahon Stadium at the University of Calgary. Doors open at 7 p.m. It's a much larger venue than the science theatre that had been previously booked.

So let's see if Coulter is any more prepared to engage in actual intellectual discourse this time, or whether she'll tell Muslims that they can just go ride a camel.

When truly stupid people blog.

Via JJ, we learn that howling anti-choice loon John "Paycheck" Pacheco is sad:



Unruly thugs not allowing 1500-2000 of the public to hear Coulter's talk? Quite the trick, John, given that the organizers booked a room that held only 400 but, hey, don't let reality get in the way of your drooling imbecility. Why break with tradition now?

The level of stupid is truly awesome.

I give you ... from Kate McMillan's Delisle House of Dumbth, commenter "Kyla":



Further snark on my part would be superfluous, no?

If you want to sue Ezra Levant, you'll have to stand in line.

Shocked, I am! Well, not really.

After all of Ezra Levant's screeching, panty yanking and pearl clutching, it would appear that Ann Coulter's aborted presentation at the U of Ottawa was a MASSIVE con job -- no legitimate threats of death or violence, no unruly mob, no physical danger to Coulter and, in the end, it appears to have been Ezra himself who called the whole thing off. Not the Ottawa police, not the university ... Ezra.

Which leads me to suggest that if I was fairly high up the food chain at either the Ottawa police or the university, I might be combing through all of Ezra's hysterical bleatings from the last several days, and enumerating the grounds for a defamation suit. Because Ezra, quite simply, has a bad habit (as we have previously established here at CC HQ) of making shit up. And if Ezra is now claiming that it was either the police or the university that made the decision to cancel Coulter's presentation, then all the evidence suggests that he's lying.

In any event, given Ezra's talent for sleazy confabulation, it seems only proper that anyone feeling defamed by Ezra lately might want to have a quiet chat with their lawyer. At least for the entertainment value.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

When even one of SDA's wingnut regulars calls you on your bullshit, you have been well and truly spanked in public.

AFTERSNARK: The bonus is, of course, co-organizer Kathy Shaidle herself in one of the first comments there:

Exactly, Kyla.

What.

A.

Lawsuit.

Breach of contract, loss of income, not to mention the organizers' expense $$$ now down the drain

Bwa ha

Huh. I suspect that's going to be a pretty tough suit to win, given that it was one of the organizers who cancelled the event, for no apparent reason. But now that Shaidle has mouthed off about suing, let's be patient and see if she follows through, shall we?

Don't forget -- Ezra's pulled this kind of shit before.

The next couple days threatens to be seriously busy for your humble scribe, so I'll recommend all the guys and gals over at Progressive Bloggers if you want to stay on top of your Ezra Levant-flavoured whiny-ass-titty-baby-ness, but for those people who are getting the suspicion that all this Ann Coulter-related free speech "repression" and weepy martyrdom has all been niftily choreographed from the inside, let me remind you that Ezra's pulled this crap before.

I'm just sayin'.

BY THE WAY, WHO PULLED THE PLUG? In the midst of all the contradictory bullpoop that's being spread, there's a simple question that demands an answer: Who made the decision to cancel the talk?

I'm not asking who might have recommended or advised or suggested or any vague, tenuous, non-committal rubbish like that. At some point, one person must have made the decision and had the corresponding authority to say, "That's it, it's over, it ain't happening."

According to Kady O'Malley, Ottawa police are absolutely adamant that they did not make that decision. So who did? As I said, it's a simple question. And it really, really deserves an answer.

WATBs!

It should come as no surprise that the mighty conservative right are reduced to the stink of piddle when confronted by opposing views. The carefully starched, pleated and doubled standards they operate by are nakedly exposed in the gale of tears and whining put forth by incessant attention whore Ezra Levant and visiting beard, the skellatrix Coulter, in the wake of their cancelled gathering in Ottawa. They are simply too delicate and weak of constitution to take their own brand of medicine. Where are the howls of outrage from these quivering babies when they witness the misbehaviours of their fellow travellers? Well there are none. Over the last months we've seen them invade townhall meetings and shut them down with endless racket and disruption. They hurled invective at the disabled and plot to suppress speech as a standard play in their manual of dirty tricks. They've stood by the divine right of their ilk to protest their president with guns strapped to their bodies. Their threats of violence are open and implicit, their acts coarse and intimidating and none are supposed to question them. And here comes Coulter and the circus of ninnies, Ezra and Kathy, full of bluster and bile but only too ready to fold up and whimper at a polite note of warning and a few cross words of protest.

The video from Crooks & Liars is a case in point, go to about the 5 minute mark. If you've never experienced one of these professional grade megaphones up close, let me assure you there's a good reason that there are warnings about proximity and direction. They can cause real pain and real hearing damage. The upstanding conservatives see nothing wrong with stalking a reporter through a crowd and repeatedly jamming this device in her face. Nothing near this level of direct intimidation took place in Ottawa. The fire alarm was a stupid and unnecessary stunt, regardless of who pulled it. But it really would be nice if the weeping Ezras took their medicine with a modicum of grace.

That overpowering stench of urine? Yeah, that would be Ezra.

When the going gets tough, the allegedly tough frantically piss themselves:

... contrary to what Coulter seems to suggest in a brief phone interview with Macleans.ca scribe Colby Cosh, it was not the police who "shut it down." I spoke with Ottawa Police Services media relations officer Alain Boucher this morning, and he told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was her security team that made the decision to call off the event. "We gave her options" -- including, he said, to "find a bigger venue" -- but "they opted to cancel ... It's not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision."

Clorox, Ezra. Clorox is good for getting out those ugly urine stains. I've heard that.

The embarrassing history of Ezra Levant.

While Ezra is currently running his mouth non-stop, bitching and whining about censorship, perhaps one of those media people can get in a question edgewise and ask Ezra about this:

[British MP George] Galloway is not a Canadian citizen; he does not have a right to come to Canada (nor any other rights guaranteed to our citizens). He would be a guest, and he is being turned away for security reasons...

I don't see this as a free speech issue; I see it as a sovereignty issue -- keeping out an undesirable foreigner who has no right to be here, and who boasts about violating our criminal code.

Good riddance...

... my main point is that Galloway has no "right" to come to Canada. He's not Canadian.

I'm all for his free speech -- elsewhere.

Yeah, if someone could ask Ezra about that, that would be just ducky.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh, man, that's gotta be awkward:

CTV's Daniele Hamamdjian said "a combination of overcapacity and utter disorganization" contributed to the collapse of the event.

Prior to the cancellation, Hamamdjian said only a small number of students were tasked with verifying the names of the people who had signed up to attend Coulter's talk.

"It was a disaster in terms of just organization, which is probably one of the reasons why it was cancelled," Hamamdjian told CTV News Channel from Ottawa on Wednesday morning.

Police eventually showed up to the scene and blocked the door to the building, but Hamamdjian said she doubted whether the combination of protesters and disorganization actually constituted "a physical risk to Ann Coulter."

Don't hate them because they're repressed. Hate them because they're incompetent dumbshits.

The unbearable vacuity of Ann Coulter.

If Canada's conservatives had any pride or principles whatsoever, they would be MASSIVELY pissed with hatemonger Ann Coulter right now, since Coulter -- unintentionally, I'm sure -- spectacularly exposed modern conservatism's intellectual bankruptcy in the most glorious way imaginable.

Return with me, if you will, to the evening of March 22 at the University of Western Ontario, and pay close attention to the exchange here:

Fatima Al-Dhaher, a political science student from London, rose and spoke about comments Coulter made after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

The firebrand Republican had suggested Muslim countries be invaded, their leaders killed and all Muslims converted to Christianity. She later suggested Muslims denied air travel take “flying carpets” instead.

“As a 17-year-old student of this university, Muslim, should I be converted to Christianity? Second of all, since I don’t have a magic carpet, what other modes do you suggest,” Al-Dhaher said to loud and sustained applause.

“I thought it was just American public schools that produced ignorant people,” Coulter replied, prompting her own round of applause.

Coulter then noted many Japanese were converted to Christianity after the Second World War and “we haven’t heard a peep out of them.”

To shouts of “Answer the question,” Coulter finally replied “What mode of transportation? Take a camel.”

HA HA! Take a camel! Oh, man, that's fucking funny. But seriously. No, really, but seriously, and that's precisely why Coulter -- and by extension, her adoring groupies -- are utterly irrelevant to anything resembling serious political discourse. Because once you got past what was a snotty, pathetic, racist retort, what should have followed was an actual answer.

Because Ann Coulter has (if memory serves) publicly and, by all accounts, seriously suggested that Muslims should not be allowed to fly. But if that's her position, and if she wishes to pass herself off as an actual pundit, then she kind of has an obligation to subsequently explain just how the world's hundreds of millions of Muslins should travel if they need to go long distances.

This is precisely the issue that political science student Fatima Al-Dhaher was raising -- it was a deadly serious question to a deadly serious position, and Al-Dhaher absolutely deserved a deadly serious answer. Instead, what she got was ignorant, childish, content-free, racist snark ... which would have been minimally tolerable had Coulter continued on with, "But, seriously, blah blah blah ...".

Sadly, Al-Dhaher (who admits to being nervous as she was asking her question) didn't have the presence of mind to pull off the perfect comeback. She should have waited until the reported "cheers and jeers" after Coulter's answer died down, then calmly but firmly replied, "No, seriously, how do you propose Muslims travel if they're not allowed to fly?" That would have been the most awesome comeback, because it would have put Coulter entirely on the defensive. There would have been an increasingly awkward silence as it became obvious that Al-Dhaher wanted a real answer, and Coulter was utterly unable to provide one.

But, quibbles aside, that exchange is priceless simply for exposing Coulter for the intellectual empty vessel that she is. Coulter and her groupies love to portray her as a pundit, as a political commentator, and so on. She is none of that. She is a vacuous hatemonger. She contributes nothing of any value to intellectual discourse. Her entire presentation consists of simply shrieking about people and things that she hates, and insulting her critics. There is no content. There is no analysis. There is no thought-provoking punditry. There is no attempt at actually addressing the issues. Quite simply, there is no "there" there. And a CTV news piece managed to nail that beautifully (emphasis added):

Coulter said Tuesday that her comment about taking flying carpets was a joke that was made during an interview with The Guardian newspaper about racial profiling, and had been taken out of context.

"I can say it a lot quicker with a joke, and by the way, they wouldn't be bringing me in here for a speech if I never told a joke, if I never used satire," Coulter told CTV's Power Play Tuesday. "It's not so much a joke, it's satire because there's a political point behind my saying that they can take flying carpets."

Coulter did not elaborate on what her political point actually was.

That's because she didn't have one. She never does. She is, as I have described, the perfect intellectual empty vessel. No meaningful ideas, no serious proposals, no content. And, as I suggested, if Canada's conservatives had even the slightest sense of self-respect, they would be furious with Coulter for portraying them as similarly empty vessels, devoid of actual thought and incapable of anything resembling serious discourse.

But that's not going to happen, is it?

Military secrecy for me, but not for thee.

(CC NEWS) -- In a disturbing development, Canada's military has just revealed that it will no longer report on soldiers wounded on the battlefield, except on an annual basis.

In a written statement Tuesday, Canada's task force commander, Brig.-Gen. Dan Menard, said the directive was necessary.

The army does not want militants "to link the number of wounded with any particular incident," he said.

"If the insurgents knew how many soldiers were wounded in each particular incident, they could use this information to improve their tactics in the future and cause more Canadian casualties."

Continued Menard, "Of course, we'll be doing exactly the opposite going the other way, in that we will immediately and gleefully announce all of the innocent civilians -- women and children included -- massacred due to our disorganized and indiscriminate bombing raids. That'll put the fear of our Christian God into those ragheads, let me tell you. Front page news, fuckin' A!""

Menard went on to enthusiastically describe the wicked, kick-ass power of rocket-powered grenades and what they can do to a human skull, until an aide frantically drew the press conference to an end and hustled Menard off.

Here, let me tighten that up for you.

The entire bitching, moaning and whining Blogging Tory circle jerk: "The fact that hundreds of people gathered to protest Ann Coulter just proves that free speech in Canada is dead!"

Yes, they are truly that stupid.

Ann Coulter: Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Oh, NOEZ!!1!1!1! Raging, xenophobic, racist gasbag Ann Coulter -- who has made an entire career of hating pretty much everyone and calling for the violent execution of those she disagrees with -- finally pushes people past the breaking point:

American right-winger Ann Coulter's speech at the University of Ottawa was cancelled Tuesday night due to security concerns after thousands protested outside the venue.

Too fucking bad. And all you progressives who are now lamenting this as an unfortunate over-reaction which makes us look intolerant? Yeah, you can put a fucking sock in it, too.

P.S. You realize, of course, that the pathetic, whiny residents of Canada's Dumbass-o-sphere who are now lamenting the deplorable state of "free speech" in this country are the very ones who were, not that long ago, cackling gleefully over British MP George Galloway being barred from entry to Canada. I guarantee that not a single one of those useless dickwads will recognize their own hypocrisy.

P.P.S. To Canada's Littlest Bigot Kathy Shaidle, who mouthed off thusly:

P.S. I dare just one of you to come up to me and "express your concerns" to my face at UWO. We both know you don't have the balls.

As the saying goes, Kathy, you vile, little racist ratbag, ask and you shall receive. Apparently, several hundred people were more than happy to "express their concerns" in Ottawa and hand you and your fellow bigots your heads on a plate. And, curiously, none of the news reports appears to describe you out there, kicking ass and taking names.

What was that about "balls" again?

And here's where we juxtapose ...

There are good people:

One of Canada's most-decorated Olympic athletes – Clara Hughes – stopped by the CP24 newsroom on Tuesday afternoon to talk about her involvement in a special charity.

Hughes was here to talk about her involvement in Right to Play, a charity that brings sports and equipment to children in disadvantaged areas of the world.

And there are total assholes:

January 22, 2009 | By Canadian Press

The international humanitarian organization Right to Play has been told by the International Olympic Committee it is not welcome at the Vancouver 2010 Winter Games, or future Olympics.

If Clara Hughes hasn't told the former VANOC executive and the IOC what kind of execrable douchebags they are, what's stopping her?

She's just skankerrific!

Dammit, Janet! asks why Ann Coulter dresses like such a skank. Kathy Griffin has oddly similar thoughts:

Revisionism!

"Ron" from UWO, after some double-checking, assures us that both Ann Coulter and her psychologically-crippled groupies are equally deranged:

CC,

I just spoke to another person I know who was in the audience, and he attested to the fact that she did say that when a Dem is in charge, taxes go up and the World Trade Center goes down. Unbelievable. And no one even tried to call her on it... I can't believe I didn't even notice the inaccuracy until hours later....

Ron

In unrelated news, Canada's Blogging Tories would like to assure you that there will be no deficit, climate change is a hoax and the Earth is 6,000 years old.

For the love of God, ...

... don't look directly at them!



P.S. Nice bra, Ann. At least you know your audience.

Here, let me tighten that up for you.

Shorter hypocritical, Canadian wankers: "As frothing, rabid defenders of Israel who go completely, totally and utterly batshit, panty-yanking, shirt-rending crazy at the merest wisp of a tentative suggestion of anti-Semitic criticism of absolutely anything Israel ever does under any circumstances, how dare anyone tell Ann Coulter what she can and can't say!"

I'll take door number three, Suzie.

Regarding claims of Catholic priests buggering children, staunch Catholic Suzie All-Caps writes:

But we need to get to the bottom of this. Are these "false memories" or malicious slanders?

Or maybe something else! I hear there's a third possibility.

When evil, deranged, retarded web designers go bad.

Jesus Christ.

Apparently, Blogging Tories think Muslims should be executed.

No, of course none of them actually wrote that, but let me lead you along the road of irrefutable logic, if I might.

As I read it, quite a few Blogging Tories are howling over, well, this:

Ann Coulter is speaking in Canada this week, and a senior University of Ottawa administrator has warned her to use “restraint, respect and consideration” when speaking at the school.

In an email sent to Ms. Coulter on Friday, a copy of which has been obtained by the National Post, Mr. Houle wrote: “Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or “free speech”) in a manner that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here.”

He continued, “Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.”

Apparently, quite a number of BTs are just peeing themselves over this disgusting, leftard attempt at censorship. But let's see just how firmly they believe their position, shall we?

Let's say Coulter was backstage, getting ready to go on, and turned to one of the organizers (say, a Blogging Tory) and said, "You know, I'm not sure what I'm allowed to say and what I'm not. Is it OK if I publicly call for all Muslims to be violently executed?"

Pause.

Now, my dear Blogging Tory, if this were being asked of you, you have an awkward decision to make. Because if you caution Coulter against such incendiary statements, you have, in fact, just done exactly that which you are currently howling over. It would be more than slightly hypocritical to mock anyone advising Coulter to remain civil and not incite hatred if you, when asked directly, would give her exactly the same advice.

So here's the question I will publicly challenge any and all Blogging Tories to address: If you were backstage with Coulter before a Canadian speaking engagament, and she turned to you and asked you if it was all right to publicly call for the mass murder of all Muslims during her talk, how would you answer? And let's see how quickly you get dragged down in the morass of your own hypocrisy and logical inconsistency.

Is there a single BTer up to the challenge? I'm guessing not.

Ron from UWO, take it away!

Yesterday's e-mailer "Ron" from UWO gives us the dirty low-down:

Hi CC,

This is a reply I tried to post in the thread on the post you made, but could not due to length limits.

This is Ron from UWO. I assure you that it was real. And there were many people at the event that were of comparably limited civility. They endorsed this event as an opportunity for civil discourse, but the only person who showed any respect for civility was Ezra Levant.

During set up, one of the hosts - his name was Andrew Loewen (I've probably spelled that wrong) - made the following quips:

* "Testing. Testing. Obama is a socialist. Testing." (lots of crowd approval)

* After apologizing for a few set-backs in them getting things underway, he said that they must have a liberal on their staff... Big pop from the audience.

* In reminding people that no laptops were allowed, he said that if a security guard catches you with your fingers in your laptop, you may lose your fingers when he slams it shut on them. And of course many in the crowd laughed approvingly. Good old conservative authoritarianism.

Other statements, mostly from Coulter:

* Throughout the event, the speakers kept giving the impression that conservatives are the original and most loyal defenders of free speech, while liberals continue to trample it. There was a recurring theme of liberals being stupid, incompetent, hypocritical, and uninterested in protecting free speech. Coulter also dropped a few fairly mild insults to gays.

* During the Q & A a 17 year old female Muslim student quoted Ann Coulter's statement encouraging 1) the US to invade the Islamic nations, kill their leaders and convert their citizens to Christianity; and 2) for Muslims to be banned from airplanes, and that if they need to fly they should take their magic carpets. The girl asked if 1) she should be forced to convert, and 2) given that she doesn't have a magic carpet, what should she do if she needs to fly somewhere. Coulter didn't much address the first question, but addressed the second one by telling her to take a camel! (not that camels fly but, you get the drift).

There were some inappropriate behaviours done against the event. One person sent out a fraudulent email telling everyone that the event had been moved to a different far-away facility. Inappropriate, uncalled for and immature. Also, apparently a politician in Ottawa - don't know who or what rank - tried to put limits on what Coulter would say. I'm not sure how he went about this. However, I think she should be able to say what she wishes.

General event information:

Every seat in the auditorium was filled. A friend told me that there were 700 seats, but I think that might have been an over-estimate.

My estimate is that something like 60-65% of the crowd were Coulter-supporters.

Ezra Levant introduced Coulter. Y'know, the only thing that made me question him was that he spoke well of Ann Coulter. I tended to either agree or to disagree but not be outraged by most of the rest of what he said.

Coulter got multiple highly enthused standing ovations, and very energetic and approving responses to comments that progressives in the audience found ridiculous. I'm new to London. I had no idea how many far right conservative Christians there were around here. I saw a number of people holding Coulter books to be signed. One person wore an NRA hat. A number asked questions in which they described the pathetic watered down healthcare bill as a socialist takeover.

What did Coulter talk about? She spoke of double standards in holding liberals versus conservatives up to scrutiny for encroaching upon political correctness boundaries (e.g., how Harry Reid was easily forgiven for his comments that Obama has a good chance of being elected because of his light skin complexion and his ability to turn off his black accent; a few other comments by other liberals such as Bill Clinton were given, and she compared the media response to the big Barrack the Magic Negro Rush Limbaugh thing). That was a big theme. And then there was just lots of liberals are stupid, incompetent, naive, and not strong at protecting freedoms. Oh, another big thing was that she accused the US news media of not subjecting Obama to much scrutiny, but just cheering him on and telling him "good job" for everything he does. She also said that he did not bring executive experience to the Presidency, and she spoke of the way the media spoke of the milestones of this first black president as if they were speaking of the milestones of an infant ("look! he's taking his first steps!").

Coulter said a number of things that I chuckled at. The funniest thing she said, in my opinion, was "Whenever a Democrat gets elected, my taxes go up and my World Trade Center goes down!" That's funny stuff.

Kathy Shaidle didn't do anything attention-grabbing, nor was she involved in the presentation.

There's a brief admittedly poorly organized summary of the event.

-Ron

Oh, wait ... additional hilarity at no extra charge:

Hi CC,

One thing that I forgot to mention. I don't know how this went by me, but that line that she made that I thought was funny - the "when liberals are in power my taxes go up and my world trade center goes down" - uhhh, Bush was in office at 9-11, and had been for 8 months... This leads me to wonder if perhaps I misheard her, but I don't know what else she might have said. Whom else is she going to attribute raised taxes to? The fact that no one seemed to call her out on that one makes me wonder if I might have misheard something, but I don't know what else she could have said...

-Ron

Dear UWO:

Please identify any UWO students who were there and applauding Ann Coulter ... and expel them. Those are not teachable people.

AFTERSNARK: I'm still waiting for Ezra Levant to hurry up, take Coulter's advice and get "perfected." God knows, he's inferior enough as it is.

BONUS TRACK: Really, you can never get enough of this:

Sure, let's talk about civility.

I truly love my readers. Via private e-mail, "Ron" from UWO sets the stage:

I am currently a student at the University of Western Ontario in London Ontario. Today Ann Coulter will be speaking at our campus. I am forwarding you a mass email that I and all other attendees just received from Kathy Sheidle [sic] (fivefeetoffury.com). For American bloggers who may not be familiar with her, she's basically Canada's Michelle Malkin or Ann Coulter. [Ed: Um, no. She's way uglier.]

And away we go:



That is seriously adorable, isn't it?

BONUS IRONY: So Kathy is a big fan of 1) Ann Coulter, and 2) Jews. Perhaps she can ask Coulter about this:

Coulter: We want 'Jews to be perfected'

... When [CNBC host Donny] Deutsch responded, "It would be better if we were all Christian?" Coulter said "Yeah."

Deutsch, himself Jewish, continued to press Coulter on her remarks, asking, "We should just throw Judaism away and we should all be Christians then?"

"Yeah," Coulter responded, adding "Well, it's a lot easier. It's kind of a fast track."

"You can't possibly believe that," Deutsch responded. “You can’t possibly. You’re too educated.”

"Do you know what Christianity is?" Coulter replied. "See, we believe your religion, but you have to obey. We have the fast track program."

Later in the interview Deutsch asked Coulter if she doesn't want any Jews in the world, Coulter responded, "No, we think - we just want Jews to be perfected, as they say."

"Wow, you didn't really say that, did you," Deutsch said.

Yeah, Donny, she went there. Deal with it.

Here, let me tighten that up for you.

Shorter Suzie All-Caps: "As someone who believes unconditionally and unquestioningly in the existence of an invisible, immaterial and intangible sky monster, a virgin birth, water magically becoming wine and the Sun standing still, I really haven't seen enough evidence for this so-called, alleged abuse to take those accusations seriously."

Do I have that about right?

New Album Debut!

[Moved up to hang out here for a bit -- newer infantile snark below. And updated to include wicked, kickass video.]

After many months of work, I am really proud to announce the release of a new album of 13 original songs. I'd like to thank CC, my bloggospherian friends, our readers and commenters for support, encouragement, mockery and hijinks. CC liked this song so...



Here's the skinny. The songs are only available, for the time being, through Bandcamp. To celebrate the release, the first four songs are available as free downloads in the format of your choice (yes CC, that includes Ogg Vorbis, nerd) the individual tracks are available on a 'pay-what-you-will' basis with a 50 cent minimum. The whole album, 13 new songs plus 4 bonus tracks, is also 'pay-what-you-will' with a minimum of 5 Canadian dollars. Shaken is licenced under the Creative Commons with an attribution non-commercial licence. That means you have permission to make copies of the songs, you can share copies of the songs and you can even cut them into pieces, twirl them about and use them in derivative works provided I am credited. What you can't do is turn around and sell copies without my permission. And if you would like to have a copy of Shaken but don't have Paypal, drop me a line and I'll get a download code to you. Cheers! Thanks! Enjoy!

"And now, an eliminationist that needs no introduction ..."

Canada's Blogging Tories would like to take a short break from bitching, whining, kvetching, moaning and in general yanking their panties and clutching their pearls about how lefties can be such mean people and use bad language, in order to welcome Ann Coulter to Canada.

Yes, that Ann Coulter.

Feel free to come up with your own snark here.

P.S. As I read it, the Dumbass-o-sphere is currently all a-twitter over someone's threat to have Coulter arrested for hate speech. And if they get their hands on the person responsible, by God, they'll beat the living shit out of them.

As opening lines go, ...

... really, is it even possible to be less self-aware?

"Don't hate me because I'm a desperate, two-faced hypocritical hack!"

Shorter David Frum: "Is it too late for me to try to salvage my credibility? Please?"

The joy of Sitemeter, 2009.

Oh, for fuck's sake ... grow up, Mr. Jago:

Ranking Canada’s “Top” 25 Political Blogs

January 6, 2009 by Dirk
...
Are we to believe that Werner’s blog makes both lists,17th and 15th,while SDA,yuk,a blog that receives upwards of 10,000 hits daily appears on neither ? Are we to believe that Werner’s blog out ranks Calgary Grit,Inkless Wells,Canadian Cynic,or Dawg’s etc etc ?….of course not.
...
Robert Jago on January 8th, 2009 10:03 AM
...
B: I freaking hate Canadian Cynic, in fact I’d love to see that site dropped from the list. But facts are facts, people read that ass of a blog and it makes the list every month. Not enough people are reading my site at the moment, so it got dropped this month. Facts etc … If I were cooking the results, my site would be on the list, and CC would not.

And fuck you, too, Jago. There. Now I feel better.

When stupid Blogging Tories blog stupidly.

Not content with hideously misrepresenting blogger Jeff "BCer in TO" Jedras, then defaming Liberal MP Dan McTeague to the point where McTeague gives him a sound spanking, Blogging Tory "Paul" demonstrates that he has learned nothing as he whips out his dick and slaps it down on the table, yammering on about how it's just not fair that other people get to be irresponsible:

"Conservatives: Our principles do not apply to us."

Really? McTeague felt the post was unfair, because even though the campaign literature had indeed contained incorrect info, the lawsuit launched against him was dismissed. And while the person who pursued the lawsuit against McTeague seems to have a personal vendetta, the fact remains that Jaffer was only convicted of careless driving. And yet McTeagues Liberal party members seem to have him convicted of cocaine possession.


Liberals, our principles are lower than the other guys, so don't complain about us.

Let us try (in vain, I'm guessing) to educate Paul on the absurdity of this claim of his:

And yet McTeagues Liberal party members seem to have him convicted of cocaine possession.

They have done no such thing, Paul. Rather, they have simply pointed out what seems to be an undeniable fact -- that Jaffer had cocaine on him when he was stopped.

"But wait," you screech (incredibly stupidly, I might add), "that charge was dropped!!1!!!1!" Why, yes, it was, and for a number of possible reasons, including:

A rookie Ontario Provincial Police officer failed to follow proper procedures during a strip search of Jaffer, 38, causing the Crown to conclude the case would be open to a Charter challenge, the Star has learned. While the OPP opposed Jaffer only being charged with careless driving, the Crown took a steadfast position, sources say.

In short, improprieties during the bust made the Crown think that it would be difficult to make that charge stick, so the Crown reluctantly let it slide. But (and here's the tricky part, Paul, so pay attention) the dropping of the charge did not make the cocaine magically disappear. In fact, no one is denying that there was cocaine. Jaffer beat the rap on a technicality, which in no way allows him to now claim that the cocaine was never there.

See how that works, Paul? At this point, Rahim Jaffer can -- quite accurately -- claim that he has never been convicted of possession of cocaine, because he hasn't been. Conversely, though, the rest of us -- based on all of the reporting available to us -- can safely state that Jaffer was in possession of cocaine when he was pulled over.

No one need "convict" Jaffer of anything, Paul. We need simply observe that all of the evidence suggests that he had coke in his car when he was stopped. That's not a legal argument, Paul. It's just an observation. And it involves no hypocrisy whatsoever.

Sadly, only people who are not truly stupid will understand the distinction.

JESUS, MARY, MOTHER OF GOD: Paul is still yammering on in his comments section, utterly unable to understand the simple concept I'm explaining here. Somehow, the word "stupid" seems sadly inadequate.

This is the definition of "stones."

Great moments in Conservative accountability.

Stephen Harper lays down the law:

The PMO says Prime Minister Stephen Harper will issue an edict to his ministers, reminding them that they're not above the law.

"Say what!?" bellowed Minister for Public Safety Vic Toews, speeding through a school zone with a 14-year-old in his lap and brandishing a half-empty bottle of Jack Daniels out the window, "Who the fuck's idea was that!?!?"

Come on ... somebody had to mock it.

Pope: "Shocked, I am, by these accusations!"

What's your favourite passage?

(Wag of the tail to CNN.)

Dear bocanut: Let's talk about stalking.

A blogging colleague yesterday dropped me a note, claiming that he'd just received an e-mail from one "bocanut," containing said colleague's actual, physical address and asking if that was really him. That's just plain creepy, bocanut, and you should seriously consider whether that's a road down which you wish to travel.

Oh, by the way, this is bocanut. He's single and looking. Apparently, being a creepy, obsessive stalker is considered attractive in Alberta.

A single line, if you would, ladies. No shoving.

The joy of journamalism!

Whoopsie! Heh. (Figure it out.)

DOUBLE HEH. As commenter Chris points out, Blogging Tory "Paul" is having a bad week when it comes to defaming people on the Intertoobz and getting spanked for it.

These really are hopelessly stupid people, are they not?

BONUS RETARDEDNESS: Who else but Brenda/"Hunter" could suggest something this moronic in the comments section there?

Ah...the threat of legal action ... It seems lots of lefties use the threat of legal action knowing that the average blogger is just someone trying to get their opinions out to the public. Look at what they are doing to Ezra Levant.

Conversely, one could word that, "It seems lots of righties are so mind-numbingly, nad-crushingly stupid that they frequently bring the threats of legal action upon themselves."

Yes, that reads so much better, does it not?

Conservatives to grieving widow:

Fuck you and your grief.

You have no idea what kind of satisfaction it gave me to write that.

You go, Chris!

When Christopher Hitchens is sober, he is truly something to behold.

Compassionate conservatism, as it were.

Blogging Tory JoJo wants to assure you that her whole "pro-life" outlook works only in a very, very narrow context:

When one of them loses a nose or ear ...

That’s the day I’ll worry about whether or not Afghan soldiers tortured Afghan detainees.

Let's not let any of those squalid details get in the way:

"According to our information, the likelihood is that all the Afghans we handed over were tortured. For interrogators in Kandahar, it was a standard operating procedure," Colvin said.

He said the most common forms of torture were beatings, whipping with power cables, the use of electricity, knives, open flames and rape.

If I suggested that I'd dearly love to give JoJo a good beating with a power cable but I'd be very careful to avoid her nose and ears, would that make me a bad person?

Conservative ministers behaving assholishly.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Are there any actual grownups in that party?

P.S. What we desperately need is someone who surreptitiously video'ed the whole thing on their mobile phone. Oh, man, the entertainment value ...

BY THE WAY, do you know what the most revealing part of this whole ugly episode was? It's not Blackburn's ignorance in not knowing federal airline law. It's not even his angry petulance in arguing about losing his booze. No, it was the incredibly infantile behaviour in demanding that someone discard the tequila in front of him.

Really, how childish do you have to be to finally understand that you're not taking your liquor on board, so you might as well pour it out so no one else will get it? I'm guessing that most people who aren't insufferable assholes (read: Conservatives and Blogging Tories) would simply accept that they screwed up, turn to some random person coming out of the gate area and say, "Yo, here you go. Happy Tequila Day! Enjoy!"

That's what I'd do. But, then again, I don't live my life with the attitude of, "Well, if I can't have it, nobody else can." In short, I'm not that kind of intellectually childish douchebag.

Ask a stupid question, Margaret ...

The Globe's Margaret Wente apparently rouses herself slowly and painfully from the bar to ask one of the dumbest questions imaginable, and is promptly roasted by the Dawg. But this inspires me to ask a (sort of) similar question:

Why are all female, Canadian conservative bloggers (or ubiquitous commenters) -- apparently without a single exception -- such hideous, vile, despicable wastes of skin, whose only value might be as organ donors if any self-respecting remotely human body wouldn't reject their offerings out of sheer outrage at having anything to do with them?

You think I jest? Shirley, I do not. Let us enumerate the unspeakable horrors: Kate McMillan, Kathy Shaidle, Brenda/"Hunter", Maria "Dodo Can Spell" Nunes, "Blue Like You" Joanne, Wendy "Right Girl" Sullivan, Steve Janke, Suzie All-Caps, Sandy Crux, "CanadianSense", "wilson", "sassylassie" ... really, must I go on?

Is there, in fact, a single prominent right-wing female bloggy voice that isn't some repulsive combination of deranged, batshit crazy, racist or just plain sack-of-soup ignorant? No, seriously, feel free to offer up a name. Because as God is my witness, I'm trying and nothing's coming to me.

And don't get me started on the journalists. Barkara Kay, Christie Blatchford, ...

What you won't read in the news

Turns out our military isn't being 100% straight about what's happening in Afghanistan.

Which is worse: a policy that allows the military to obscure from the people it serves what is actually going on, or a media group that willingly joins in with the scheme?

Openness. Accountability. Bullshit.

Paging Captain Canada Stephen Taylor! Captain Canada to the useless douchebag phone, please!

Yo, Stephen! Now that your delightful wanker conference is over and you've returned to your gig at the Manning Centre for The Frantic Fluffing of Other Wankers, a question if I might, regarding the following:

At first the Conservatives, who voted against the motion, said they considered it "non-binding" and indicated they would continue to send out the 10-percenters.

I'm curious, Stephen ... given your alleged expertise with Canadian democracy and stuff like that, perhaps you could explain the curious consequences of a minority government deciding that it simply isn't going to abide by the will of Parliament. Really, I'm pretty sure that has some fascinating ramifications, so when you get a minute, feel free to put down the steak knife and fill us in on what we can expect when the governing party can simply decide that it's no longer interested in the official voting opinion of the rest of Parliament. I'm sure you will not fail to entertain.

P.S. I'll understand if Stephen has more pressing matters to resolve first.

They were for 10 percenters, before they were against them.

Um ... what?

The fight over mail-outs from MPs known as "10-percenters" heated up on Parliament Hill Wednesday, as the Conservatives chose to ignore a vote to ban the flyers -- only to have the PMO later endorse the principle behind the initiative.

At which point Stephen Harper hung Con MP Steven Fletcher out to dry, then bit the head off a live kitten. Or something.

JESUS, BUT STEVEN FLETCHER IS A DISHONEST DOUCHEBAG. I'm getting seriously tired of these asinine refutations that deliberately misrepresent someone's point of view. Here's Fletcher:

"On the issue of the ten percenters, I do not know what the party opposite has against freedom of speech."

Fuck you, Steven, that's not the argument and you know it. By way of analogy, let me suggest what might get the point across. If I happen to run into Steven Fletcher at some point, I will start beating him soundly with a baguette. If he complains, I will respond:

"What's the problem, Steven? What do you have against physical fitness? This is an extremely aerobic activity, good for my cardiovascular. And if I vary the stroke, I can work various muscle groups as well. For instance, if I pummel you around the head and shoulders, I'm exercising my lats and delts. Lower down, those all-important abs and obliques. And if I put the baguette aside and simply hoof you in the nads over and over, well, let's not overlook the benefit to my gluts and quads. So, really, Steven, why are you so adamantly opposed to physical fitness?"

I'm thinking, though, that Fletcher is way too stupid to understand the point I would be making. Not that I'd care.

Awwwwwwwkward.

Whoopsie.

Baby's got her brand new shots.

The little princess during her first trip to the vet ...



... having no idea what kind of bad craziness is about to go down. It seems like only yesterday:



Yeah, that's her at the back, looking all sweet and adorable. Now she's just evil. I have the scars to prove it.

Those popping sounds you hear ...

... are Israel-worshipping wingnut heads exploding all over the Dumbass-o-sphere.

(Wag of the tail to 900ft Jesus.)

Journamalism!

During which Blogging Tory Paul makes a total buttplug of himself, while Jeff Jedras slowly and methodically disembowels him in his own comments section.

And that's how journamalism is done.

BY THE WAY, Paul, spelling Helena's last name as "Geurgis" rather than correctly as "Guergis" makes you look like an ignorant tool. I'm just sayin'.

UNSURPRISINGLY, even though Blogging Tory "Paul" starts to realize he was being an irresponsible douchebag and begins tap-dancing furiously, you will see no public retraction or apology to Jeff Jedras anywhere on his blog. That's because he's a Blogging Tory. I trust that requires no further explanation.

Don't rush him.

He's thinking as fast as he can.

Apparently, even useless, sycophantic wingnuts have their limits.

Shorter Blogging Tories: "After great deliberation and agonizing soul searching, some of us have decided that a deranged, psychotic, internationally reviled, self-absorbed prima donna head case with anger management issues and a drunk-driving, coke-snorting husband might not be the best choice for a federal cabinet minister. But it was a tough call."

Easy there, big fella.

Over at Stephen Taylor's House of Perpetual Dumbth, Canada's Official Jew Ezra Levant can barely contain the excitement in his Incredible Hulk Underoos:



I am, of course, moderately curious as to why someone who publicly promoted the killing of New York Times employees, suggested joked that someone poison a sitting Supreme Court Justice, and encouraged the idea of international assassination isn't considered a security risk and barred from entering the country.

Oh, right, she's a conservative. Apparently, they play by a different set of rules.

THE ADULATION IS UNDERSTANDABLE: Actually, it's easy to see why Ezra is so fond of Ann Coulter -- the commonality of painful ignorance:



That really is one dumb broad.

HEH. Commenter Ti-Guy reminds us that Ann Coulter has nothing against Jews, she just wishes they'd hurry up and finish growing up into proper Christians. Someone should really ask her about that if there's a Q/A session. Especially if Ezra's within earshot.

I need a word more demeaning than "retarded."

A disturbing peek into the finely-honed intellect that is today's Canadian conservative:

Liberals: So You Wanna Save Taxpayers $10 Million? But What About...

...the Taxpayer subsidy for political parties, valued at $30 million?

Or we could save even more money by not arbitrarily calling $300 million federal elections in defiance of one's own fixed election dates legislation. It's just a thought.

Conversation around the punch bowl must be awkward.

In light of recent events involving white supremacists with anger management issues and access to firearms, it occurs to me to ask just how uncomfortable it must be when Canada's drooling wankers get together to socialize and the swastika-emblazoned neo-Nazis accidentally bump into the mindless, robotic Israel groupies.

I wonder how Kate McMillan handles that.

As long as she didn't spit on a reporter or punch a wall, ...

... let's count that as a victory and move on.

The Stephen Harper Party of Canada: Supporting gender equality by giving even screamingly incompetent women the chance to do important shit, as long as you don't let that leash out too far.

That's gonna leave a mark.

Ouch:

As far as Cardinal Brady is concerned, the path he must follow is clear. The Nuremberg “only following orders” defence did not work in 1945, and it should not be permitted to work now.

When an Irish editorial starts comparing you to Nazi Germany, you have a serious PR problem.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Jesus Christ, what a whiny little runt:



What? I said "runt."

(Wag of the tail to Buckdog.)

P.S. I really hope Guergis goes through with her threat to sue. Because if she does, I'm guessing her next encounter with an Air Canada employee might go something like this:



I can dream, can't I?

Canada's Blogging Tories do not care about people shot to death by deranged neo-Nazi white supremacists!

Right, Maria? Isn't that how it works?

P.S. Neither that repulsive dimwit nor her equally drooling groupies will have the foggiest idea of their howling hypocrisy here. I'll bet my left nad on that.

P.P.S. My left nad assures me it's not worried.