Sandy Crux: Lying propagandist.

God Almighty, here it comes again -- Blogging Tory and self-described "non-partisan" blogger Sandy Crux regurgitates yet another incarnation of her hopelessly dishonest list of Captain Charisma's "accomplishments." And why do I use the word "dishonest?"

Because, quite simply, Sandy not only pads that list with utterly vacuous rubbish, but she even violates her own rules for list inclusion (a set of rules which she conveniently doesn't display anymore -- more on that later). And now, to work, disemboweling Sandy's craptacular collection of achievements.

First, can we dispense with accomplishments that are nothing more than political photo-ops and feel-good acts? Such as Sandy's latest addition, 'Updated May 10th, 2008 – to include the restoration of Canadian citizenship to John Babcock, the last WWI veteran still living. See under “military.”' Now, no disrespect to Mr. Babcock but, whoop-de-fucking-doo. This is an "accomplishment?" Since when? It may be a nice gesture, but I doubt it's worthy of governing party bragging rights, Sandy, if you catch my drift.

(To Sandy's credit, she's quietly removed a couple overwhelmingly stupid earlier entries on that list, such as that Stephen Harper honoured Canadians at Vimy Ridge, or that he 'Improved national unity by passing the motion to confirm “Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada;”', a claim I documented back here and which is now mercifully absent from Sandy's hacktacular list. But let us not dwell on Sandy's past misdeeds. Onward.)

One can, in much the same manner as the above. wipe out at least a couple entries from that list as being what you'd call "no-brainers." Like these two: '* A crack down on street racing; * A crack down on money laundering by organized crime and terrorists;'. Whoo hoo! A crackdown on street racing! Now that took political courage, didn't it, Sandy? But it gets even funnier when Sandy is clearly proud of Stephen Harper and his Harperettes for just doing what is required of the governing party. Believe, if you can, that Sandy lists the following as "accomplishments": 'Budgets for (2006), (2007), and (2008)'.

Yessir, we can all take pride in the fact that the CPoC managed to ... present and pass a budget for three straight years. Although, given their collective retardedness, perhaps there really is room for some quiet pride there. One never knows.

And then there are hideously slanted "accomplishments" like, say, this one: '$9 million for Canada’s National Museums — capital infrastructure projects', a claim I handily disposed of previously. Along with a few others. But here's where it gets truly entertaining.

While you won't read it at Sandy's latest ridiculous version of her list, a very early version made the following promise as to what would qualify for inclusion:

To the best of my knowledge, this written “Harper government record” does not include political promises or spin, legislation that is not yet law, proposed plans that have not yet been adopted or proposed policies that involve provincial and territorial jurisdictions (e.g., child care spaces and patient wait times).

Wow. So Sandy promises to not include issues that involve "provincial and territorial jurisdictions (e.g., child care spaces and patient wait times)." And yet ... and yet ... there they are in Sandy's latest write-up -- bragging about accomplishments involving both of those topics. Apparently, Sandy has no qualms whatsoever reneging on her previous restrictions. Bad propagandist, Sandy. No biscuit.

One could go on shredding Sandy's asinine list of achievements, but the best part -- the absolutely funniest part -- of Sandy's partisan hackery can be found in a recent comments section, where she writes:

One final point: Receiving comments like yours is actually good news. It means the message about the list of Harper Gov’t Accomplishments is getting out — and really annoying the opposition and its supporters.

Wow. So, if I read Sandy correctly, the fact that people are annoyed with her appalling bias is simply evidence that she's making a difference, and not that she's just a pathetic, lying hack. I'm glad she pointed that out since I think it's well-established that we here at CC HQ are constantly annoying the crap out of Canada's wingnuts, wankers and whackjobs, which can only mean (according to Sandy's logic) that we're right. How satisfying.

I'll keep that in mind, Sandy. Especially when Suzie All-Caps gets miffed with us again. That'll just prove how correct we are. Again.

AFTERSNARK: I would be remiss if I didn't point out the most deceptive property of Sandy's list. Let's refresh our memory as to one of Sandy's earlier qualifiers for list inclusion:

To the best of my knowledge, this written “Harper government record” does not include political promises or spin, legislation that is not yet law, proposed plans that have not yet been adopted ...

And yet, if you examine closely the links to alleged corroboration of Sandy's accomplishments, you find a disturbing number of them taking you straight to a page under the domain "gc.ca." In short, those links don't represent independent substantiation of Sandy's claims. Rather, they're simply CPoC press releases, which are utterly meaningless. But they're apparently good enough for Sandy to take to the bank.

God, what a hack. Did I mention what kind of hack Sandy is? Yeah, she's a hack.

Dear Sandy: About you and your drooling readership ...

Several days ago, there occurred a quiet yet significant development in the ongoing saga involving dishonest hack and cowardly Stephen Harper propagandist Sandy Crux to which I would like to draw your attention, and it all involved her list of Harper's alleged "accomplishments" and a comment I left at her craptacular web site here:

Ms. Crux:

I love the way you give PMSH credit for “Chinese Head Tax Eliminated;”. The fact that it was, in reality, repealed in 1947 should in no way stop you from giving credit to Stephen Harper for it.

Obviously, I was tweaking Ms. Crux for her hopelessly-addled claim that Harper was responsible for repealing the Chinese head tax when, in fact, all he had done was acknowledge it and arrange for historical reparations. To Sandy's credit, after she clued in, she acknowledged her error and fixed her list thusly:

CC– Thank you for the heads up re the Chinese Head Tax. I obviously made an error there and I have gone in and corrected it.

So ... end of story? Actually, no. Because as innocuous as this incident seems, there are two important lessons we can draw from it.

First, Sandy Crux is an ignorant retard. Seriously, she is breathtakingly (and even dangerously) stupid. And why is that? I'm glad you asked.

Most people might suggest that, hey, CC, cut her some slack, so she miswrote, it happens to the best of us, she fixed it right away after it was pointed out to her, so what's the big deal? The big deal is that this was not simply an erroneous historical claim that was made spontaneously in the heat of conversation. If it was, then, sure, it wouldn't be a big deal. But that's not what Sandy's up to, is it?

Rather, Sandy has taken it upon herself to become Stephen Harper's personal fluffer, and create a list of his official achievements, and spread it far and wide, and even get it onto YouTube, so to make a mistake of that magnitude is most emphatically not forgivable. To write something that idiotically inaccurate is fine if you're just dashing off a blog post. It's not acceptable when you're determined to pimp that list and stick it under the noses of the media every chance you get.

If that's your plan, then you have a responsibility to do some serious fact-checking, and not publish stupid shit like that. Because once you realize that Sandy is capable of making such ridiculous claims, then it's not unreasonable to conclude that the rest of her list is probably equally bullshit and can't be trusted. But that's not even the best part. Oh, no, not even close.

What's truly revealing is how long that claim went unchallenged until I called her on it. First, it's hard to tell when that particular claim was originally made because Sandy has a truly annoying habit of going back and adjusting her previous lists to remove any evidence of her earlier, ignorant fuck-ups, but we can at least establish that a variation of that list appeared as far back as April 20. And what does this mean?

It means that it's quite possible that Sandy was making the Chinese head tax claim for up to three weeks until I corrected her. So what, you ask? Here's why so what.

What that means is that, for up to three weeks, Sandy's adoring groupies were falling over themselves with praise for her work, lauding her accomplishments and promising to help in any way they could in getting that list out in front of the public, but not a single one of them recognized that one of her claims was totally, utterly bogus. Which leads us to one of two possible choices.

The first possibility is that Sandy's entire readership are absolute fucking idiots. Every one of them. Without exception. Really, how else would you explain the endless fawning over Sandy's work, while not one reader picked up on that historical howler? Morons, the lot of them. Or ...

... the other possibility -- which is even creepier -- is that they might have noticed that but just didn't give a shit because they simply don't care about accuracy. They're not interested in facts, they're interested in propaganda regardless of its truth value.

So, really, given that that claim went unopposed for three weeks, you can safely conclude that Sandy's readership are either a) really fucking stupid, or b) really fucking dishonest. Pick one. There is no door number three here; those are your only two choices. And, of course, the inherent entertainment value here is that, while all those readers were lining up to slobber all over Sandy's list, it fell to me to point out the inherent craptacularity of that one claim.

Don't you find that ironic? Sandy's fans can't suck up to her enough, but it's only me that goes to the trouble of keeping her honest since no one else seems even remotely interested in doing that. And that's because, when it comes to fact-checking, only one of the two of us is interested in actual accuracy. And hint: it's not Sandy.

P.S. By the way, Sandy, just to save you the trouble of having to intellectually struggle with the ramifications of this post, this is not about me. Rather, it's about your hopelessly stupid or dishonest readership, so let's not turn this into a discussion of my civility, shall we? I'm the one who cares enough about accuracy to try to keep you in line, so you might want to have a word with your readers and ask them why they don't give a fuck about honesty. Seriously, I think that's a conversation you might want to have. You might even learn something from it, but I'm not about to hold my breath.

Dear Sandy: Please stop, you're embarrassing yourself.

Oh, dear God, here we go again. Here, let's demonstrate the dishonesty of that new list right from the get-go, shall we?

1. Federal Accountability Act; (link)

And then there's reality (emphasis added):

Tories' cronyism rampant, critics say

Two important provisions of the much vaunted accountability act haven't been implemented

Jan 01, 2008 04:30 AM

OTTAWA - When the Conservatives were elected, they promised to do business differently. No more cronyism, no more backroom deals with party hacks. They were going to clean up Ottawa.

However, critics say Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has appointed hundreds of people with Conservative ties – the kind of cronyism the Conservatives and their predecessors used to howl about.

When the federal government was patting itself on the back last month on the anniversary of the passage of the Federal Accountability Act, it failed to mention that two key components – the appointments commission and the lobbying provisions – have not been implemented...

The Accountability act, drafted by the Tories in response to the Liberal sponsorship scandal, passed the Commons and Senate and received royal assent in December 2006, but a separate cabinet order is required for many provisions to come into force. There is nothing forcing cabinet to establish the appointments commission.

And here's the best part, Sandy, you indescribably insufferable twatwaffle:

Treasury Board President Vic Toews told the House of Commons these two components of the Accountability Act are very complicated and require time to draft. A government official said it could be another six months before the new lobbying rules come in and, as for a public appointments commission, that may never happen.

Did you catch that, Sandy? No, seriously, do you understand what just happened in that paragraph? It's not just bitter members of the Opposition here; rather, it's a member of Stephen Harper's own cabinet admitting openly that those two features of the Accountability Act still don't exist, and one of them might never exist.

So, Sandy -- and I say this with all due respect -- put a fucking sock in it. You're not publicizing a list of the CPoC's actual accomplishments, you're simply and mindlessly regurgitating dishonest, meaningless Conservative propaganda.

Here's a thought, Sandy: why don't you find a less intellectually taxing hobby, like knitting? And leave political punditry to the smart people. You are so not qualified for what you're trying to do here.

SANDY MUST BE SO PROUD: And while we're on the subject, perhaps Sandy might want to appreciate just how well that whole Federal Accountability Act is working out. Hmmmmm ... not so well, it seems:

Accountability act creates PS 'Dilberts'
Bureaucrats afraid to take action for fear of breaking new rules, think-tank says

Kathryn May, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Friday, October 05, 2007

The rules-laden Federal Accountability Act is backfiring and creating a bureaucracy of risk-averse "Dilberts" who keep their heads down, don't trust anyone and put process ahead of getting things done, warns a report by Ottawa think-tank Public Policy Forum.

The newly-released report, which draws on interviews with 50 leaders in the public and private sectors, including former prime ministers Joe Clark and Paul Martin, concludes that the Conservatives' signature legislation went so overboard with rules, regulations and parliamentary watchdogs looking over bureaucrats' shoulders that it is killing morale and stifling innovation, creativity and effective leadership.

In other words, that Act has created an entire population of cowardly, mindless public service drones. The perfect Blogging Tories, as it were. Yeah, that's something to be proud of, isn't it?

JUST FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT VALUE, let's see if a single one of Sandy's adoring worshippers points out the flaw in the FAA that I mentioned -- that two of its signature clauses have yet to be implemented. Or, more predictably, will they just fall over themselves in fawning adoration of Sandy's latest list, with no interest whatsoever in its actual accuracy?

I'm going with "fawning adoration." I'll give you odds.

BY THE WAY, just to hammer this home, it's worth pointing out how Sandy is, quite simply, lying. From this comment, we have Sandy making a bold pronouncement on the accuracy of her list (emphasis added):

There is no spin here as far as I am concerned and I know what spin looks like. Since I had to narrow down the long list into 25 “greatest hits,” I left out long term plans and strategies.

Except that, as I established above, the FAA has not been implemented as promised, yet Sandy is still listing it as an actual "accomplishment." The pathological dishonesty of that woman defies words.

OHGODOHGODOHGODOHGODOHGOD ... Responding to this comment, Sandy takes careful aim and blows off both of her feet:

Here is what the Merriam-Webster dictionary says:

the act of accomplishing–
1: completion
2: something that has been accomplished : achievement ...

... But, using the above definitions of accomplishments, my list is doing just fine.

And yet, as I have so indisputably pointed out, the Federal Accountability Act is most emphatically not completed.

Sancy Crux: Liar for hire. Will propagandize for food.

HOLY FUCK, IT JUST GETS BETTER: From Sandy Crock's list:

8. Canada’s Action Plan for Clean Water — Randle Reed [sic] clean up;

Ignore the fact that Sandy is such an illiterate that she can't even spell "Randle Reef" correctly. And ignore the fact that her substantiating link for that claim is (predictably) just another "gc.ca" government propaganda web page, let's see how that Randle Reef thing is going, shall we? (emphasis added)

Randle Reef is an underwater deposit of 630,000 cubic metres of heavily contaminated coal tar (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) that was deposited there over a long period of time, from industrial operations that have since closed operations. In Canada, it is second only to the Sydney Tar Ponds as a site contaminated by coal tar. The eight-year clean-up is expected to begin in 2008 and be completed by 2016.

Well, how about that? An official Sandy Crux "accomplishment" that hasn't even begun yet. Ah, but that's OK -- the Harperites wrote something about it; therefore, they must be given credit for it. Thus it works in Sandy's world.

(Wag of the tail to Red Tory in the comments.)

Yeah, Sandy, about those "accomplishments" ...

Rest assured that we have barely begun to expose Blogging Tory Sandy Crux's list of alleged CPoC "accomplishments" for the dishonest, partisan hackery that it is but, before we hit the road this morning, I think it would be entertaining to once again examine that wretchedly deceptive list to note, not what's on it, but what is strangely missing.

For instance, isn't it odd that, amongst all those stellar achievements, there's absolutely no mention of Brenda Martin? Why is that, Sandy? Wouldn't it make sense to brag, front and centre, about how Steve and the Stevettes leapt to the defense of an unfortunate Canadian woman incarcerated in a Mexican prison for over two years without trial, and successfully brought her home? You'd think that would be an "accomplishment" worth crowing about, and yet ... dead silence. How curious. Why is that?

Or how about this one, Sandy?

Tories to cut funding for womens' advocacy work

OTTAWA -- The federal Conservative government says it will no longer fund women's groups that do advocacy, lobbying or general research, leaving some to wonder what's left.

The drastic change to the mandate and operation of Status of Women Canada also drops the word "equality" when listing the agency's goals.

Given how proud Sandy and her hacktacular BT colleagues are about fiscal responsibility and slashing unnecessary expenses, one has to wonder why Sandy isn't suitably proud of that Harper Party of Canada "achievement." And yet, you will search her list in vain for any reference to that. Puzzling, no?

Similarly, one might be curious as to why Sandy isn't bragging about this:

Tories chop two legal programs

Funding to two federal legal programs, the Court Challenges Program and the Law Commission, were cut last week, leaving many in the legal community up in arms.

As part of an announcement by the government that it had identified $1 billion in total program cuts, it will save $5.6 million over two years by eliminating the Winnipeg-based Court Challenges Program. The program was set up in 1994 as a national, non-profit organization aimed at providing financial assistance for important court cases that advance equality and language rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

So what's the deal, Sandy? How exactly do you decide what makes it onto the list and what doesn't? Given how proud you are of numerous CPoC budget-related items, why the deafening silence when it comes to the slash-and-burn approach of the CPoC to social programs? Surely it's not because you're perhaps ashamed of those achievements?

Or maybe you had just forgotten about them. No problem, Sandy ... we here at CC HQ and our readers will be happy to help you out. So I call on all of the CC regulars to scour the Harper record, pick out the good stuff, and drop Sandy a note. She's clearly a busy person, so it's only right that we lend her a hand to make sure her list is delightfully representative of the real Stephen Harper and his loyal gaggle of demented, Bible-whomping, right-wing fuckwits.

No, no, Sandy, don't thank us. It's what we live for. Really.

P.S. If I were you, Sandy, I'd definitely add this under your sub-heading of "Accountability." It just so belongs there, wouldn't you say?

Your weekly Sandy Crux-itude.

I swear, if my list of Sandy Crux smackdowns gets any more comprehensive, I'm just going to bundle them up and sell them online for $5 a pop. Hey .... In any event, let's tear yet another of Sandy's vaunted CPoC "accomplishments" another orifice:

Nahanni National Park expanded by 5000 [sic] square kilometers; (Link)

OK, it's hard to see how you can complain about that. Unless, of course, unlike Sandy, you take the time to, you know, read some shit and stuff. Let's start at the very link she provides:

Ottawa is expanding the size of the Nahanni National Park, adding more than 5,000 square kilometres to the rugged reserve in the southern Northwest Territories, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced Wednesday.

"This is arguably the most important act of environmental protection in a generation," the prime minister said Wednesday. The government plans to add 5,400 square kilometres of land within the Greater Nahanni ecosystem, barring it from any kind of further development.

All right, then, what's to bitch and moan about here? I'm glad you asked. (Ignore the fact that Sandy can't even get the size of the increase correct -- it's not 5,000, it's "more than 5,000," as in, 5,400. that's simply another demonstration of how Sandy doesn't even read the stuff she links to. What a cretin. But I digest. Onward.)

The above is (as Sandy points out) merely an increase in the size of the park. So how big was it in the first place? Ah:

That would bring the total area under interim protection for the park — home to spectacular mountains and rivers, grizzly bears, lynx, wolves and other wildlife — up to 28,000 square kilometres. All told, the park now encompasses an area four times the size of Prince Edward Island.

Simple arithmetic tells me that beefing up the park from its earlier 22,600 square kilometres by an additional 5,400 square kilometres represents an increase in size of 23 per cent. Sure, that's cool ... but where did that original park come from in the first place? Ah hah. Hilariously, one need only read further down in the same article to which hopeless hack Sandy has linked (emphasis gleefully added):

Known for its spectacular river, deep canyons, huge waterfalls and boreal forest, the Nahanni National Park Reserve attracts adventure visitors to the Northwest Territories every year.

Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, struck by the area's beauty, established the reserve in 1972 to protect it from proposed hydro-electric development. The United Nations designated it as a world heritage site in 1978.

Yeah, that's rich. While Sandy gets absolutely moist and creamy over Captain Charisma's increase of 5,400 square kilometres, we are apparently not supposed to notice that it was Pierre Trudeau who established the initial 22,600 square kilometre preserve. That's right, boys and girls -- pay no attention to that evil, tree-hugging Liberal behind the curtain who started things in the first place. But wait -- there's so much more.

We can, at least, give the CPoC the credit for coming up with the idea of the increase on their own, right? Well, no:

Justin Trudeau joins campaign launch to expand Nahanni National Park Reserve
Posted on May 11, 2005

Son of a bitch ... Sandy so badly wants to give all the props to her hero Stephen, and those fucking Trudeaus keep gumming up the works. No matter. All's well that ends well. Nature has been conserved, and we're all happy. Right? Right? Well, no, not quite. And, once again, we can simply return to the very article to which Sandy linked but clearly never bothered to read, mostly because she's dumb as a sack of sand, and twice as fucking lazy (once again, emphasis added):

But Herb Norwegian, grand chief of the Dehcho First Nations, which includes the park area in its territory, was not overly impressed with the announcement. He said governments have talked about expanding the narrow corridor along the river to include the watershed since 1972.

"This has been negotiated and Canada hasn't fulfilled their agreement and that's what this is about. It's catch-up for Canada," he said.

While environmentalists welcome the Nahanni expansion, they have been pushing for inclusion of the entire watershed, which would involve up to 38,000 square kilometres. However, that expansion would also likely include the site of a zinc mine with an ore body worth an estimated $2.5 billion.

Yeah, there's the catch -- let's conserve priceless nature, as long as that doesn't get in the way of commercial mineral development. So, to recap, unlike Sandy's fawning portrayal of the heroic Conservative Party of Canada giving a crap about nature, we have:

• The park was, in fact, originally founded by the villainous Liberal Pierre Trudeau.


• The CPoC simply increased the size of the park by about one-quarter.


• Others had already (for many years, in fact) been calling for an increase of some kind.


• That increase wasn't even remotely as large as people had been proposing, and did absolutely nothing to address concerns of protecting the entire watershed, and was clearly designed to not get in the way of commercial exploitation of the area.

Other than that, Sandy, a job well done. If you're a complete idiot.

AFTERSNARK: It is amusing to read the gushing, unrestrained hyperbole:

"This is arguably the most important act of environmental protection in a generation," the prime minister said Wednesday.

Really? That important? Gosh, if that's how they feel about the simple addition of 5,400 square kilometres, one can only imagine how complimentary Sandy would be about the initial creation of the 22,600 square kilometre preserve. Hmmmm ... how curious ... no mention at all. Oh, wait, I see the problem here (emphasis added):

"This is arguably the most important act of environmental protection in a generation," the prime minister said Wednesday.

Exactly. See, if you get to define where you want to start measuring from, just make sure you start measuring recently enough so that the initial creation of the preserve falls outside of your interval; otherwise, you'd have to give that fucking Pierre Trudeau some credit, and we sure as hell can't have that, can we? It's sort of like Republicans who brag about how there hasn't been a single terrorist attack on American soil under Bush for the last six years. (Of course, if you go back seven years, well, there was that spot of unpleasantness in the fall of 2001 so let's cut it off at six years -- it just reads better.)

Anyway, I think you get my point here. Well, most of you do. Patrick Ross, on the other hand, will read this and immediately conclude that I hate nature. It's just the way his brain is wired.

Dear Sandy: Let me start my own list ...

... of how hopelessly addled and/or dishonest you are. Let's pick on another of Sandy's alleged completed "accomplishments," shall we?

22. Introduced an Arctic agenda and construction of 8 patrol ships;

In the first place, the article at that link is yet another "pm.gc.ca" CPoC propaganda announcement and, further, it says nothing about any Arctic patrol ships. I know ... let's let Google do the work, whereupon we find:

Ottawa buying up to 8 Arctic patrol ships

The federal government will fund the construction of six to eight new Arctic patrol ships to help reassert Canada's sovereignty over the North, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Monday.

Excuse me? "up to 8?" I'm sorry, Sandy, but "up to 8" and "six to eight" does not equal exactly eight, does it? It's embarrassing that Sandy can't even handle simple English or single digits correctly, but wait ... it gets so much better:

Ottawa to acquire 6 Arctic patrol ships: Sources

OTTAWA – A key federal cabinet committee has given the go-ahead for a plan to construct six corvette-sized Arctic patrol vessels, The Canadian Press has learned.

The cabinet priorities and planning committee approved the program to build the 100-metre-long, 6,000-tonne warships within the last 10 days, according to defence and political sources.

Yeah ... so we're looking at six, not eight. But that's close enough for Sandy, right? Hold on ... what's this? Let's keep reading: (emphasis added)

The patrol vessels, which are almost as large as the navy's frigates, are a step down from the armed Arctic icebreakers that the Conservatives promised in the last election campaign and will likely not be in service before 2015.

Oh. So what we, the Canadian public, were promised, and what we're getting are two noticeably different things. And, of course, there's the absolutely best part:

"... will likely not be in service before 2015."

Which, naturally, doesn't stop Sandy from claiming eight utterly non-existent, scaled-down Arctic patrol ships as another completed accomplishment of King Stephen.

Really, when it comes to right-wing propagandist Sandy Crux, you could make an entire career out of showing how that woman lies.

P.S. Yes, I realize it sounds overly pedantic, but the fact that serial liar Sandy Crux was either too fucking stupid or too goddamned lazy to verify that the final number of proposed patrol ships was six, not eight, simply shows how utterly unqualified she is for the project she's taken on. Someone who can't even be bothered to take the 15 seconds it requires to verify something that obvious is simply too imbecilic for words. But, as luck would have it, she's a Conservative, so no one even notices the difference.

THANKS, PSA. My co-blogger PSA comes to the rescue, giving us a link to TGB'S Dave who, unlike right-wing propagandist Sandy Crux, is not a useless retard, and generally knows of what he speaks:

The Arctic patrol ships are jokingly referred to, in the naval bazaars, as Slush-Breakers. Most are viewing them as a useless item which is little more than a poorly thought-out political pipe-dream. Not to mention that in any conversation with anybody in the navy about how useless, but expensive, these ships will be, no one has yet come up with a plan on how to man them.

Read the whole thing, since you know that Sandy never will.

We mock them because they're retards.

This whole "fixed" election date fiasco is generating just buckets of entertainment, and no one is more entertaining than official Stephen Harper fluffer Sandy Crux, who is adamant that the new rule clearly doesn't apply to Yo, Harper! because, well, something to do with having a minority or something.

In any event, Sandy reasons thusly:

(16) Fixed Election Dates — An Act to Amend the Canada Elections Act (Bill C-16), passed May 3, 2007 (Link) is an Act primarily for majority governments since minority governments can fall at almost any time when the opposition express a lack of confidence in the government. (Revised August 24, 2008)

Pause.

What the fuck does that drivel even mean?

So Sandy wants to claim first that the new law applies only "primarily" to majority governments? But that obviously means that it does not apply exclusively to majority governments -- as in, it also applies (even if not "primarily") to minority governments as well. In other words, it applies (and try to follow me here) to all Canadian governments.

See how that works? Did you follow that? Please tell me you followed that because I really don't want to have to explain it a second time. In short, using Sandy's own prose, we can conclude that the vaunted Fixed Election Law applies to, well, everyone.

But wait. That can't be right.

Because, as you can see, Sandy links to the National Post, which takes the position that the legislation is, in fact, not binding at all. And why is Sandy doing this? Because, Sandy, being one of the stupidest Ph.Ds on the planet, is desperately trying to defend Dear Leader from the accusation of breaking his promise, and the only way she can do this is to contend that that legislation does not, in fact, stop Stephen Harper from calling a snap election.

Which means (and we're almost there) that Sandy, in leaping from Stephen Harper's genitals to his defense, must (and let me stress this, must) take the position that the legislation has no actual power. And yet, having now clearly staked her entire argument on the claim that the legislation is, in fact, non-binding, she continues to claim that it still represents an "accomplishment." Go figure.

Sandy Crux, boys and girls: When Ph.D.s go horribly, horribly wrong.

Oh, for fuck sakes, Sandy!

And just like the latest outbreak of cold sores, we have Blogging Tory Sandy once again disinterring the moldering remains of that hopelessly deceptive list of CPoC "accomplishments."

Why "deceptive," you ask? Because, as we've noted before, Sandy gets to cherry-pick what she considers a big deal, then proceeds to spin wildly. For instance, here's one of Sandy's vaunted CPoC accomplishments:

Provided funds to help provinces reduce patient wait times — $612 million in new funding;

Um ... Sandy? Been there, done that. But feel free to try again.

P.S. I'm amused by this so-called "accomplishment" on Sandy's list:

Budgets for (2006), (2007), and (2008);

As Jim Bobby would say, "Whoooeeee!" Big whoop.

JUST 'CUZ I'M FEELING ORNERY, let's take a look at just one of Sandy's alleged "accomplishments" to see just how dishonest a human being can be. I'm thinking of this one:

$9 million for Canada’s National Museums — capital infrastructure projects

Wow. That sure looks impressive, don't it? Until you read the fine print (emphasis added for the hard of thinking):

The government will also invest $ 9 million over two years in the renewal of four of its National Museums (The National Gallery of Canada, The Canadian Museum of Civilization, the Canada Science and Technology Museum and the Canadian Museum of Nature) to address operating and infrastructure pressures.

Well, how about that? It's looking good ... until one reads the very next sentence:

This investment is not new as such since it appears to come from money in the Museums envelope identified in the $ 1 billion reallocation exercise which preceded the budget.

Yeah, that kind of takes the lustre off of that, doesn't it, Sandy? And, of course, I've saved the best for last:

The cuts to the Museum Assistance Program funding and the Canadian Volunteerism Initiative, among others, show a lack of understanding of the importance of the contributions these sectors make to Canadians` quality of life.

The Museums Assistance Program (MAP) funding, which was cut by $4.6 million under the government’s pledge to find efficiency, has funded many collections and museum upgrades across Canada, including significant projects at the Royal Alberta Museum and Art Gallery of Alberta.

Yeah, it really does take some steely nerve to brag about funding museums with money already earmarked for exactly that purpose already, while quietly omitting the massive funding cut to those very same institutions. Most people might be embarrassed to be that despicably dishonest. But remember ... this is Sandy we're talking about here. Shame simply isn't part of the discussion.

Would anyone else like to play? Perhaps Dave wants to tackle the military-related items in that list. And perhaps we should start a permanent list.

"Crock-of-the-Matter": The bigotry of intellectually dishonest expectations.

You certainly can't find this surprising:

Harper government record - in only 2 yrs!

I plan to post this “Harper government record” at least once a week over the next few months.

Good thinking, Sandy. I, too, have found that the typical Blogging Tory attention span can be measured in days so better safe than sorry. But let's talk about that list of accomplishments, shall we? I'm happy to see that you're going to be rigourously discerning:

To the best of my knowledge, this written record does NOT include political statements, spin or promises. It also does NOT include legislation that is not yet law, proposed policies that involve provincial and territorial jurisdictions (such as child care spaces) or links to the CPC website. Rather, all links are either from federal government department sites, community sites or Canadian news organizations.

OK, then ... just the facts, ma'am, is that it? And on that note, to work:

Crack down on street racing;(link)

Um ... whee. I'm sorry, Sandy, but passing relatively popular legislation is your idea of a noteworthy accomplishment? Low expectations, indeed, my dear. Onward:

Prime Minister Harper honours Vimy Ridge and its legacy; and (Link)

I'm sorry ... I didn't think anything could get more vacuous than that previous entry but Sandy sure showed me, didn't she? And so, for the sake of brevity, let's ignore the other utterly meaningless entries in that list and pick on something significant, shall we? Such as, oh, this one:

Introduced a balanced, achievable plan to reduce Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions 20% by 2020 and cut air pollution in half by 2015; (Link)

Um ... say what? There's a plan? An honest-to-God plan? With perhaps targets and goals and benchmarks and protocols and everything? Oh, man, I have to see this. Uh oh ...

The speech underlines that the government intends to reduce greenhouse gases 20 per cent by 2020 over 2006 levels through its latest environmental plan. That commitment that has been deemed doubtful by groups as diverse as the C.D. Howe Institute and the Pembina Institute.

I'm sorry ... come again. The Harper Party of Canada "intends" to reduce greenhouse gases through its "plan" which even the right-leaning CD Howe Institute doesn't take seriously? And I thought this list was for actual "accomplishments" only, Sandy, dear. Tossing in a vague "plan" that makes promises for something over a decade down the road does seem to be stretching that definition, wouldn't you say? Ah, but the fun is only beginning. Let's read on:

“Signed Patient Wait Time Guarantee agreements with all provinces and territories; (Link)

Yeaahhhhh, about those "guaranteed wait times," Sandy, honey, we've kind of gone down that road before, remember? And as far as this is concerned:

Mandates stricter rules for lobbyists and implements a five-year ban on lobbying by Ministers, their aides and senior public servants;

... well, yeah.

(I am also amused that Sandy claims an actual implementation on the five-year lobbying ban, despite the fact that that Globe article states quite clearly:

However, the Conservative government is still facing internal opposition to its requirement that retired senior bureaucrats and ministerial aides not become lobbyists for five years after they leave public service.

It would seem that that ban isn't quite the done deal Sandy suggests.)

I'm sure the smarter among you can see the pattern forming here. Maybe I'll post this again in a week just to make sure I get the dumber ones, too.

OH, THE FUN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE. It occurs to me (being the evil prick that I am) that it would be entertaining to have a point-by-point rebuttal of Sandy Crock's list, which is why I took a minute to create the brand, spanking new blog "The Harper Record".

It'll take a day or two for me to get cracking on it since I'm kind of swamped at the moment, but if anyone wants to play along and pick some item from Sandy's list and rip it a new orifice or two, feel free to drop it to me in e-mail in blog-ready form, and we can get rolling.

It's going to be fun for the whole family, wouldn't you say?

Sandy Crux: Accomplishments and douchebaggery. A tragedy in two parts.

In the beginning:

In 2006, the Conservatives committed to building up to a military of 75,000 regular forces and 35,000 reserves within five years of taking office.

OK, that's cool. Ambitious, but cool. Uh oh ...

Last year, DND said it needed six years to meet that goal due to the rate of retirements.

All right, so it'll take a year longer than they promised. I guess we can live with that. Oh, crap:

The target has now been downgraded to 70,000 full-time soldiers and 30,000 part-timers, but there is no longer a timeline.

OK, then, not looking too good. But how are we doing so far? Well, shit:

Military shrinking all the time instead of growing

David Pugliese, CanWest News Service
Published: Thursday, November 15, 2007

... The size of the Canadian Forces in March, 2007, was 63,779, according to the report. But the size of the military's trained effective strength, a term for troops actually available, dipped from 52,533 in 2006 to 52,459 this year, it added. That's because of an increase in retirements and those personnel on long-term medical rehabilitation.

And my point? Yeah, you know where I'm going with this, don't you?


And if we follow that final link above, we read:

Minister MacKay provided details as to how the Canadian Forces will grow and evolve under the Canada First Defence Strategy. They include:

* Expanding to 70,000 Regular Force and 30,000 Reserve Force;

So, let's recap. The Cons initially promised 75,000 regulars and 35,000 reservists within five years of taking office. Then the timeline slipped a bit. Then the numbers shrank significantly. And, to top it off, the numbers are actually going in the wrong direction altogether. Therefore, using Sandy Crux reasoning, we can of course conclude:


Stupid, worthless hack. But wait ... we're not done here. Because there's actually a more important point to be made.

As my regular (long-suffering) readers are well aware, besides being a hopeless retard, Blogging Tory Sandy Crux is also a shrieking paranoid:

Opposition don’t want to hear Tory accomplishments

Sandy seems to think that we here in what I like to call "reality" are somehow embarrassed by the overwhelming success of Stephen Harper and his biker chick-fucking Harperettes over the last two years. Far from it, Sandy, dear. In fact, let me explain how this really works.

I don't think we in Leftardville should try to downplay Sandy's list. I don't think we should try to minimize it. Rather, I think we should spread the word about that list, so that others who are not batshit fucking crazy whackjobs can come see for themselves the dishonest desperation of the CPoC and its hideous propagandists.

Let us not shun the Sandy Crux list of "accomplishments." Instead. let us promote it. Let us celebrate it. Let us absolutely revel in the list, and in its inherent dishonesty and dumbassitude.

I challenge you all to take the list, and pass it on to friends. In particular, pass it on to members of the media who need a good chuckle and don't mind cleaning up after they wet themselves with laughter.

Yes, by God, the country needs to understand the record of Stephen Harper and his gang of pathetic sad sacks, and it's truly convenient that Blogging Tory Sandy Crux has documented it all for us. Unintentionally, of course, but documented it nonetheless, and for that we should be eternally grateful.

So get to work. You know what you have to do. It's your mission, and I know you won't let me down.

There's normal stupid, and there's Sandy Crux-level stupid.

The Blogging Tories official stenographer and Stephen Harper cheerleader is outraged:

Taxpayers paying Tory tab — what poppycock!

The anti-conservative bias in the Canadian media over the last few days seems to be just plain petty, if not downright misleading. For example, Kevin Donovan suggests in today’s Toronto Star that Canadian taxpayers are picking up Tory ministerial expenses so that the party can raise money. If that were true I would be all over the government’s case as well because I too expect accountability. But, to suggest that it is always wrong when federal members of parliament — no matter which political party they represent — combine public duties with party duties, is clearly over the top.

But Sandy, dearie, sweetie, you ignorant twatwaffle -- that's not the accusation here. Let's read what is actually being suggested, so no one is hornswoggled by Sandy's depressing combination of stupidity and dishonesty (emphasis added):

Democracy Watch co-ordinator Duff Conacher wants the government to clean up its act.

"It's a privilege to travel the on taxpayers' dime, not a right. The (political) party should be paying for part of these trips," said Conacher, whose group seeks greater honesty and accountability from government. "They also should be required to prove that proper government business was the reason for the trip and the auditor general should audit this every year."

See that "part of" phrase up there, Sandy? No, really, take a good look so you know what I'm talking about here. No one is suggesting that the Cons (and how that abbreviation is becoming more appropriate by the day) never, ever, ever combine the peoples' and party business. That would be an immensely idiotic thing to propose, and no one is proposing it.

What is being proposed is that if there is such a combination, the Party simply pick up the tab for whatever portion is related to Party business, nothing more. How hard is that to understand, Sandy? No, seriously ... how exactly did you not grok the significance of that "part of" qualifier? But does Sandy understand the idea of partial reimbursement based on what percentage of the trip relates to Party matters? Fuck, no:

What exactly is the Star suggesting? That when any federal parliamentarian travels anywhere in Canada on business he or she can’t do anything else why he or she is there?

No, Sandy, that is quite clearly not what the Star is suggesting, so please stop being such a shrieking, hysterical dipshit. Just for a change. Who knows ... not being a perpetual imbecile might actually grow on you.

Oh, crap ... who am I kidding? This is Sandy we're talking about.

Sandy would tell you, but then she'd have to kill you.

Good golly, it was only days ago that right-wing shill and partisan hack Sandy Crux was getting all moist over her hero Stephen Harper and his "accomplishments" ... like this one:

16. Approved Manley Report on Afghanistan and extended mission until 2011;

Yes, that's certainly something to brag about. Or at least it was until ... well, let's let Sandy give you the depressing new developments:

Manley says Cdns still in dark about Afghanistan

While I normally have immense respect for John Manley, I am a little puzzled over his recent remarks. In an interview with CBC he apparently complained that Canadians were still in the dark about the Afghanistan mission. Suggesting, of course, that the recommendations in his panel’s report that the prime minister be more forthcoming with information, was not being followed.

Yeah, that's a bit odd, since it puts Sandy in the awkward position of bragging about an "accomplishment" that we, the public, really still don't quite grok. And how does Sandy propose to salvage the situation? Oh:

Well, I for one am not in the dark any more than at any other time in my life when our troops have been in harms way. In fact, I would ask just how much any government, liberal or conservative, can tell the population without giving away information to the enemy?

Ah, I see. So ... we can all take pride in the Manley Report and its implications, except when we actually want to know what those implications are, but telling you might gave away important security secrets to the bad people, so we can't and, therefore, you'll have to take our word for it. Translation: "I wish I could tell you ... ooooh, if you only knew what I knew."

Luckily, this still counts as an "accomplishment," and Sandy's good with that. Which is all that matters. But if you want to know more, you can follow Sandy's link to this website, where everything you need to know is available to the reading public. Even, curiously enough, to the bad people.

Is any of this making sense?

So, Sandy ... how's those "accomplishments" coming?

Blogging Tory and uber-partisan Conservative Party hack Sandy Crux continues to flog her laughingly one-sided list of Stephen Harper "accomplishments," but the irony of it gets a bit thicker every day:

The Federal Accountability Act was passed which: (Link)

* Provides protection for whistleblowers;
* Bans political contributions by corporations and unions;
* Reduces personal political donations from $5000 to $1000 per year;
* Strengthens the power for the Auditor General to ‘Follow the Money;’ and
* Added fixed election dates.

Yes, Sandy ... Stephen Harper and "accountability." How exactly does that work again?

OTTAWA - The federal Conservatives have quietly killed a giant information registry that was used by lawyers, academics, journalists and ordinary citizens to hold government accountable.

Oh, and Sandy? Speaking of "strengthening the power of the Auditor General," well:

OTTAWA–Ottawa's financial watchdog says she won't go along with draft government rules that she says would undermine the independence of officers of Parliament like herself.

Auditor-General Sheila Fraser found allies yesterday who condemned the Conservative proposal, which could mean that Parliament's officers must vet their public statements through a wing of the Prime Minister's Office, as an unprecedented attack on the independence of the officers, who are supposed to work at arm's length.

I'm guessing none of that is going to show up in Sandy's vaunted list. Call it a hunch.

Here's some free advice, Sandy: Find a nice hobby for retirement, and leave the political pontification for actual grown-ups. You're just not that good at it.

You can hear the Sandy Crux backpedaling from here.

Oh, man, the entertainment value. Once again, let's revisit "non-partisan" Blogging Tory Sandy Crux and her vaunted list of CPoC accomplishments, shall we? Recall that, once upon a time, Sandy's list contained the following alleged accomplishment:

Signed Patient Wait Time Guarantee agreements with all provinces and territories;

a bit of braggadocio that I disposed of handily here. Now, one can only assume that someone has pointed this out to Ms. Crux since her updated list linked to above now has the somewhat wimpier entry:

Provided $612 million in new funding to help provinces reduce patient wait times;

Well, now, that's quite the backpedaling, isn't it? So Captain Charisma really hasn't done anything in terms of reducing wait times (despite that being one of his original campaign promises). Instead, he's (oh, this is so delightful) simply thrown money at the provinces and told them to take care of it.

One wonders how this still qualifies as part of the Harper government "record" if the CPoC didn't actually enforce those wait times, but it gets even funnier when you read Sandy's opening disclaimer where she makes it clear what counts as an accomplishment and what doesn't:

To the best of my knowledge, this written “Harper government record” does not include political promises or spin, legislation that is not yet law, proposed plans that have not yet been adopted or proposed policies that involve provincial and territorial jurisdictions (e.g., child care spaces and patient wait times).

Indeed. Sandy, sweetie, you really need to make a choice here and get off the fence. You can't, on the one hand, claim victory here in terms of patient wait times, only to dump the responsibility for enforcing said wait times in the laps of the provinces. In short, you can't take all of the credit and none of the blame. And, by the way, what's with this strategy of just throwing money at a problem? Last time I looked, that was such a liberal thing to do. When the hell did that change?

SPEAKING OF ACCOMPLISHMENTS, you have to wonder how Sandy managed to justify this one:

Improved national unity by passing the motion to confirm “Quebecois as a nation within a united Canada;”

Wow. "Improved national unity?" It doesn't get much more nebulous or less quantifiable than that, does it? I believe the phrase "the bottom of the barrel" suggests itself here.

I guess that's what you call "proof."

ZOMG!!! It's not only deluded, advanced senility victim Sandy Crux that calls Stephen Harper's unrealized propaganda announcements "accomplishments." Apparently, Stephen Harper does, too. So there you have it -- you can all shut up now.

OH, GOD, THE PATHOLOGY OF IT ALL. I know I've linked to it just recently, but this pathetic screed by Sandy in which she tortures the English language beyond all reasonable bounds has a bit of unintentional hilarity.

In trying to claim as "accomplishments" things that haven't actually, like, happened, Sandy has the nerve to link to dictionary.reference.com for a particularly forgiving definition of that word, to wit: "an act or instance of carrying into effect."

And yet ... and yet ... if we go to the very same link Sandy provides and read the definition for ourselves, and take the trouble to read the very next word in the supplied definition, what we see is (emphasis added), "an act or instance of carrying into effect; fulfillment".

Wow. That was some convenient spot where Sandy stopped quoting, wasn't it? One might claim that she was hideously dishonest, if one hadn't already written her off as depressingly retarded.

And no, we're not done here. Sandy-bashing: it's what's for dinner.

You don't need to read past the headline.

And after having taken credit for every goddamned thing that ever happened anywhere in Canada over the last two and a half years, Stephen Harper and his perky collection of narcissistic, KoolAid-swilling brownshirts is finally willing to let others get involved:

Tories brace for deficit, plan to share blame

The Stephen Harper Party of Canada: Privatizing the credit and socializing the blame since 2006.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Oh, this is precious. Sandy Crux's rancidly misleading and dishonest list of CPoC "accomplishments" seems to have ended up here, where failed CPoC Guelph candidate Gloria Kovach appears to have stolen chunks of Sandy's list wholesale.

Tha amusing part is that Kovach gives Sandy no credit whatsoever, and even stakes ownership of all that content with, "This website is the property of the Gloria Kovach Campaign and may not be reproduced in whole or in part without express written permission."

Poor Sandy. So badly wanting credit for all her work. So badly getting boned up the ass by people who stole it and didn't even mention her name. That has to hurt.

BONUS TRACK: Perhaps the funniest thing Sandy Crux ever did with respect to her festering compost heap of CPoC "accomplishments" was to try to restrict its freedom for reproduction to only her ideological fellow travellers. James Bow lowered the boom on Sandy for that here. And James doesn't lower the boom lightly.

Dear Sandy: About that non-partisanship ...

Blogging Tory Sandy Crux (who still hilariously refers to herself as "non-partisan") manages to mangle the latest news:

This week Liberal Leader Stephane Dion has been calling on PM Harper to fire Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn. Why?

Yes, Sandy, why? Ooooooh, I can't wait for Sandy's answer to this one:

Because, Dion says, Lunn has shown incompetence because he only released a damning report by Auditor General Sheila Fraser this week — a report Lunn allegedly knew about since last September; and because he hasn’t been able to clean up all the issues at the Atomic Energy Agency of Canada (AECL), especially at Chalk River where the medical isotopes are produced.

Um ... no.

In fact, Sandy, regardless of what Dion said, Lunn's problem is bigger than that, as you can read here (emphasis added):

OTTAWA — The head of Canada's Nuclear Safety Commission is accusing Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn of improper interference with the agency...

Mr. Lunn's letter, and comments made by the minister during a Dec. 8 telephone conversation “are examples of improper interference with both the institutional independence of the CNSC and with the administration of justice,” said Ms. Keen...

And, one might add, there's already precedence for resignation for that kind of inappropriate behaviour, as blogger Impolitical explains in detail here. One would think that that's the kind of detail that might be useful to know, and to pass on to one's readership.

Then again, Sandy is a Blogging Tory -- like you expected any better from her?

Teh Overwhelming Stupid: Crux-of-the-Matter edition.

After throwing down the gauntlet regarding all that despicable anti-conservative media bias, Blogging Tory Sandy apparently wants to make sure we understand the rules as she produces her list of "Bias: It Looks Like This":

No matter who is the governing party of Canada, it is important to keep track of their record. As such, I have only included actions that have already been taken by the Harper Conservative government and/or legislation that has already passed. I have not included political statements, spin or promises. The topics are on the Environment, Tackling Crime, Accountability, Child Care, Health Care, Sovereignty, and Lowering Taxes.

Hmmmm ... so let's pick something from that list to examine more closely, shall we? How about ... this one?

Signed Patient Wait Time Guarantee agreements with all provinces and territories;

Yes, Sandy, that does sound impressive ... until you look a little more closely:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper says he has fulfilled his pledge to establish medical wait-times guarantees across Canada, but critics say the deal falls short of his campaign promise...

The creation of a wait-times guarantee was one of the Conservatives' five priorities in the last election campaign.

But the deal does not come into effect until 2010, and provinces only have to promise timely treatment in one of several priority areas:

* Cancer care
* Hip and knee replacement
* Cardiac care
* Diagnostic imaging
* Cataract surgeries

And that's a problem why? Oh ... right:

The Conservatives had promised in the last federal election campaign that they would ensure guarantees in all of the above areas.

"If we focus on one part of the continuum, we're just shuffling chairs on the deck," said Dr. Chris Simpson of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society.

Yeah, that's kind of an important detail, wouldn't you say? And given that the provinces need only make a guarantee in one of those areas, and that those same provinces get to pick the area, which one do you think they'll select? Go on, give it some thought ... it'll come to you:

Harvey Voogd of the Alberta-based Friends of Medicare group told The Canadian Press the provinces would likely sign up for an area they have already been working to address.

"No government's going to walk away from a pot of money," Voogd said.

"Nobody has signed on to a difficult wait time, all have signed up for wait times they're already beavering away at or successfully meeting.

Why, yes ... given a choice, why not just pick the issue that you already have a handle on? Does life get any better than that?

Seriously, Sandy, I know you mean well, but you and your BT colleagues are the last people who should be trying to document media bias, given how hopelessly incompetent and biased you are to begin with.

Take my advice -- just let this go before you embarrass yourself any further.

P.S. Given that Sandy's hideously dishonest and worthless list is probably going to become a mindless, right-wing talking point in short order, perhaps we need to collectively eviscerate it and post said evisceration. As an example, after crowing about how the Stephen Harper Party of Canada 'Invested $400 million in the Canada Health Infoway to develop electronic health records and reduce medical errors”;', curiously, we read nothing about, oh, this.

And I would have thought that would be equally newsworthy. Silly me.

P.P.S. And whatever happened to those 125,000 new child care spaces, Sandy? Just curious. Perhaps Sandy could balance her list with another of Harper's broken promises. You know, like this. After all, it would be the fair and unbiased thing to do, don't you think?

There's reality. And then there's Crazy-Assed Racist Redneck.

Not surprisingly, Kate is positively a-twitter with delight over the piece of cinematic crap that is "Path to 9/11" (emphasis added):

I'm going to sit down in a few minutes to watch this, but those in time zones further east are already blogging their take;

If they'd kept their mouths shut, this would be about the terrorists, which would be bad enough. Now it's about the terrorists and the Democrats.

[...]

Clinton looks very bad. So does Sandy Berger.

And then there's the opinion of someone who isn't as dumb as a sack of hammers:

Disney/ABC defames Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger

Disney/ABC just broadcast a scene that never happened. Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger refuses to give the order to capture or kill bin Laden, even though our guys had him in their sites. Only problem, it never happened. This scene was the biggest problem in the entire show, Disney/ABC has known about this problem since early last week. But they chose to leave the scene in, simply cutting the part where Sandy Berger hangs up the phone. Gee, big change.

Disney/ABC just lied to the American people about Sandy Berger being responsible for Osama bin Laden being alive today. And there was no indication in the broadcast, by Disney/ABC or the local affiliate, that the scene was fictitious.

I cannot think of a greater libel than to tell millions of people worldwide that you are responsible for Osama bin Laden not being stopped before September 11. Disney/ABC just put the blood of 3,000 Americans on Sandy Berger's hands.

May he sue them for millions.

Canada's Kate McMillan: When genuine journalism is occasionally tempting, but being a lying sack of shit is so much more satisfying.

BONUS TRACK: As I pointed out just a few days ago, defaming Berger seems to be all the rage these days in the Canadian wanker chamber. Not that you can blame them. I mean, it's easier than, you know, actually knowing stuff.

Dear Sandy: About those "accomplishments" ...

Yes, it might seem like abusing a deceased equine but, given that Sandy Crux's list of alleged Stephen Harper achievements is picking up a head of steam, it behooves us to point out how most of that list is a pile of festering weasel crap, rank with dishonesty and partisan hackery. But hey, this is Sandy we're talking about, so did you really expect any different?

Just for the fun of it, let's pick on this one: "Reduced debt by $37 billion, including $10.2 billion with 2008 budget". Yeah, that sure sounds impressive, don't it? And what's not to like? Clearly, Steve Harper and his biker chick-fucking Harperettes are finally running the country properly, unlike those horrifically irresponsible Libruls who ... who ... hang on, what ho?

Canada’s federal debt at the end of 2005-06 is now $481.5 billion, down $81.4 billion from its peak of $562.9 billion in 1996-97.

Wow, that is some serious debt reduction there. And 1996-2005. Um ... refresh my memory, who exactly was running the country then? Oh, right ... the Liberals. In other words, while Sandy is crowing over the CPoC's debt reduction, she conveniently (and, not surprisingly, dishonestly) ignores the fact that the Liberals were reducing the federal debt by an average of just over $9 billion a year for nine straight years. In short, the CPoC is doing nothing that the Liberals weren't already doing for a decade before them.

But wait ... it just gets funnier. The link above indulges in a little CPoC bragging thusly:

Canada’s New Government is also reducing the national debt by $13.2 billion, one of the largest debt reductions in Canadian history. Minister Flaherty explained that this debt reduction is the result of strong revenue growth, reflecting the strength of the economy, and lower-than-expected program expenses.

$13.2 billion. Man, that is some serious debt reduction in a single year. And how did Steve and the Stevettes manage that? Oh ...

Information about the $13.2 billion surplus is contained in the Annual Financial Report of the Government of Canada, which was released today and reviews the government’s financial performance for the 2005–06 fiscal year.

In other words, that was the surplus that was simply handed to them by the outgoing Liberal government. I'm sorry, Sandy, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to accept a honking big pile of cash with one hand, and just pass it over and apply it to the national debt. I have lumps of stuff in my cat litter box that are capable of that, so that's not really cause for stroking yourself into an orgasm of right-wing "accomplishment," if you catch my drift.

And, yes, it really is time to take Sandy's list seriously, and rip it several new orifices for the pack of rancidly dishonest lies that it is. Give me a few days, and I'll set it up. In the meantime, if you're bored, start going through that list and doing your own research. When I need your input, I'll let you know.