"No, seriously, is this thing on?"

This is the sort of thing that tends to happen when you frantically re-title your talk from "The genius of Karl Rove and the well-oiled GOP election machine" to "Why are voters so fucking stupid?"

The Jonah factor is just the final nail in the coffin.

Your "liberal" media ...

... Republican man-crush edition.

ON THE OTHER HAND, left-wing hero worship can go suck eggs.

Children, don't try this at home -- I'm a professional.

Sure, blogging's fun ... until someone loses an eye.

Mark Steyn -- the cold sore that just won't go away.

Apparently, it's the Globe and Mail's turn to weigh in on Mark Steyn:

Mark Steyn is a wonderful and prolific journalist, Canadian by birth, American by residence. I first encountered his writings in Britain's The Spectator, one of the most elegant political and literary magazines published in English. An urbane, witty, insightful observer of U.S. politics, he shared the magazine's moderate conservative point of view.

How, then, could he write America Alone? It is quite possibly the most crass and vulgar book about the West's relationship with the Islamic world I have ever encountered.

Fucking liberal media, right?

The Backseat Blogger "Court Challenges Program" challenge: Fun for the whole family.

Since this is now the second time Backseat Blogger has called my rhetorical talents into question, it's time to settle this one way or the other.

In the comments section here, BB accuses me of cutting and running from a legitimate argument:

CC definitely likes to snark. More than a few 'Blogging Whories' are on his hate list.

Challenge him on his arguments though he folds like a house of cards.

This accusation is apparently based on an earlier post by BB, in which he took swipes at both the Status of Women Canada program and the Court Challenges Program, and to which I responded only briefly to his SWC idiocy. In BB's mind, the fact that I didn't demolish every aspect of his entire post somehow suggested that I high-tailed it out of town in abject fear of his overwhelming intellectual and rhetorical superiority. Let me disabuse all of you of that notion forthwith.

In the first place, anyone who writes the following:

So what if I’m late to the program? I mean in our hyperactive news cycles these stories are OLD news…. except for the silly Progressive Bloggers and their stupid ‘you’ve come far enough baby’ campaign.

So what about these programs. I will cheerfully admit that I know virtually nothing about SOW beyond the fact that the minister responsible cut back its funding recently. Cue howls of protest from the usual suspects.

really doesn't have any claim to the moral high ground when it comes to intellectual discourse. Anyone who cheerfully admits he knows nothing about a particular topic, and yet proceeds to slag it in public doesn't have a truckload of credibility, if you catch my drift. But that's not the real issue here.

BB seems to think that, whenever he throws down the gauntlet, I have some sort of obligation to drop whatever I'm doing and respond. I hate to break it to BB but it doesn't work that way.

All of us have our own interests and hobby horses we like to ride. I don't feel any overwhelming duty to react to everything BB writes. In fact, the main reason that I said nothing about the CCP is that I simply didn't know enough about it to comment intelligently. (See how that works, BB? I don't really understand a topic? I keep my mouth shut. What a concept, no?)

But if BB wants to make this personal, no problem -- we can do that. If BB really wants to get into a discussion related to the CCP, here's what we're gonna do.

I want BB to write a thorough criticism of the CCP, defending the CPoC's decision to cut funding for the CCP:

For example, the Court Challenges Program which funded equality and language-rights groups to challenge federal laws -- an initiative long disdained by Conservatives -- is getting the axe.

I realize he's already done that in his earlier post, but I don't want to take advantage of what he might have written in the heat of the moment. I'm offering him the chance to go back, take another look, tidy up his arguments and produce what he considers the definitive piece on why the CCP deserved to get whacked. 'Cuz, here at CC HQ, we're nothing if not fair. And once he finishes that, that's where the fun starts. Because once BB has done that, he can drop me a note and a copy of the new piece and I'm going to post it here, at which point I'm going to ask my readers to tear it to pieces.

"Hang on," BB might howl in my direction, "that's not fair! I was challenging you to refute my argument, not everybody!" To which I would justifiably reply, "Piss off and stop wasting my time."

It's been my experience that wankers in general are only interested in having an "intellectual" discussion on "the issues" if they get to control the format of said discussion. Have you ever noticed how often these wanks think a debate is the best possible forum for getting at "the truth?" In their minds, there's no better way to cut through the crap than to give one person exactly 30 minutes, then the other person 30 minutes, then each person have 5 minutes for closing comments, and so on. Very scheduled, very choreographed, and utterly, utterly useless.

I don't do that shit. It's why I have a public blog, with an open comments section -- so that anyone (with the exception of total dickheads) is free to express an opinion. You don't like something I wrote? Say so. The lines are open. And it's why, if BB wants to suck it up and play this game, then his submission will be fair game for all of my readers. If he sincerely wants to know whether or not his argument is crap, then he should welcome input from everywhere.

(I will, of course, put some reasonable restrictions on what I allow as comments. As long as it addresses the issue and has substance, it stays. If it's just idiotic, vacuous invective -- no matter who it's from -- it's gone. Fair?)

It's your call, BB. If you're up for this, let me know. Then take as long as you need to write out your position, get it to me, I'll post it here, and the readers can have their say. That's how real dialogue works.

But if all you're going to do is bitch and whine about how I can't eviscerate every little thing you write, well, you can stop wasting my time. All that means is that you really don't give a shit about actual discussion, all you want to do is play "gotcha." And, frankly, I don't have time for infantile crap like that. I grew out of that about 20 years ago, and you should, too.

Your move, BB. Put up or shut up.

BY THE WAY, I'm a bit put out at this from BB:

CC definitely likes to snark. More than a few 'Blogging Whories' are on his hate list.

I'm not sure what BB's getting at with that reference to "Blogging Whories" in quotes since, to the best of my knowledge, I have never used that phrase in any post I've ever written, unlike some of the Blogging Tories themselves who routinely use words like "Fiberals" or "Lie-berals."

A small retraction on your part might be in order, BB.

BONUS TRACK: You really should read the entire comments section here where this sentiment:

So ...... the Cynic gets to make up his own facts while criticizing others with the very same claim!
I've seen many of his posts and most of them can be boiled down to this "I'm smart and your [sic] not so don't bother saying anything!"

can be found sandwiched in the midst of the following intellectually upstanding excerpts:

Pointing out lefties are factualy [sic] challenged is comparable to pointing out rain is wet, I mean really why pick a fight with them? Pity them for they know no better and refuse enlightenment as contrary to thier [sic] brainwashing.

There's no redeeming people like Canadian Cynic. If anything, he's probably a big embarrassment to their side, because the only way he knows how to make a point is to make adolescent attempts at cleverness that people who are logical can see right throw [sic].

... A "reality-based community"? I don't know what kind of world you and Canadian Cynic live in, but it's not the real one, last time I checked.

The only reason the left feels a need to respond is because they know we are right and the truth drives then [sic] crazy after getting their own way in the MSM for years.

I recently bought a book by Ron Dreher because it was trashed by the left. I had no intention of buying Steyn's book until the left trashed it. Not only did a [sic] buy a copy, I have bought extra copies for xmas to give for gifts and I recommend it to everyone I know.

They trash you because you are getting under their skin, so keep doing it. The left are mad because no one reads their shit. How many times have you seen leftwing drivel and the comments section is zero.

Hate is all they know, that's why they are socialists...

OK, point taken. I guess I now have a new intellectual standard to live up to. I'll give it my best shot.

Apparently, we should all step back and take a deep breath.

Oh, dear. Apparently, I have breached the bounds of decorum, so it would seem incumbent on me to demonstrate more restraint and more politeness, to perhaps better emulate the manners and civility of our right-wing colleagues and ... um ... hang on a sec ... be right back ...

Sorry, where was I? Oh, yeah ... something about decorum and civility.

The evils of high technology.

Apparently, that "not bearing false witness" stuff is overrated:

... After two weeks, a meeting took place in the principal's office, wherein [history teacher] Paszkiewicz denied making many of these [offensive and demeaning] comments, claiming that [student Matthew] LaClair had taken his remarks out of context. Paszkiewicz specifically denied using the phrase, "you belong in hell." He also asserted that he did nothing different in this class than he has been doing in fifteen years of teaching.

At the end of the meeting, LaClair revealed that he had recorded the remarks, and presented the principal with two compact discs. The teacher then declined to comment further without his union representative.

And those video cameras? Yeah, they're tools of the Devil, too. And don't even get me started on YouTube.

Place your bets: Garth Turner edition.

Some definite "Hmmmmmmm" factor here:

OTTAWA (CP) - Independent MP Garth Turner is threatening to expose what he terms "disturbing insights" into the workings of Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservative government.

The former Tory member of Parliament has scheduled a news conference for Tuesday, promising to reveal what's contained in correspondence between his staff and the prime minister's office since he was ousted from the Conservative caucus. "The big issue right now is not me, but rather some disturbing insights into how the 'new' government is actually working," Turner wrote.

Dude, when you get my hopes up like that, you better deliver the goods. Nothing's more annoying than to be aroused and left hanging.

It's deja vu, all over again.

Remember how Commander Codpiece, throughout his entire life, simply moved from one disaster to another, always counting on his name and Daddy's friends and business connections to bail him out of his latest clusterfuck?

Well ... guess what.

Mark Steyn redux, the myth of Regnery Press "bestsellerism" and some homework for my readers.

As Ti-Guy suggests in an earlier comments section, there's more to Regnery Press' "bestsellers" than meets the eye. It doesn't take much work with Google and the phrases "regnery" and "bulk purchases" to come up with the scoop:

In a quick smack-down, Sidney Blumenthal has flattened Ann 'Thrax' Coulter over her phony best-seller, Treason.

In case you haven't noticed, Coulter’s book stands alone on the New York Times Best Seller List with a dagger next to its title – signifying bulk purchases.

It’s been that way with all of the right-wing alleged best-sellers from Whacko Regnery (Thrax's former publisher) to Crown Books, a division of Random House, whose 'Crown Forum' is the current shame of publisher's row.

Each and every one of them – Limbaugh, Gary Aldrich, you name it – lands on the list because right-wing angels buy up huge numbers of copies in bulk. What they do with the books – hand ‘em out to ditto-heads, salt 'em away in warehouses – is anybody’s guess. Just as long as it keeps up the appearance that demented lunatics like Coulter have a huge popular following out there that buys books.

At long last, someone has exposed this racket – who else but the intrepid Sidney Blumenthal?

'What I think the key question is for Ann Coulter and all these other right-wing writers is, why is there a dagger in the New York Times best-seller list next to their books?' Blumenthal recently told the New York Observer.

'That means that someone is buying their book in bulk to put them on the best-seller list. These are bogus best-sellers,' Blumenthal said. 'I want to know why [Ms. Coulter] won't come clean and explain which rich right-wing sugar daddies are putting her on the best-seller list.'

Now, I'm a bit swamped today so I'm going to leave it as an exercise for my readers to pick up the thread here and start nosing around to see what the deal is with Steyn's book. Think of it as showing Steve Janke how to do real investigative journalism.

All comments welcome, but I draw the line at anything involving Cindy Sheehan's private parts. After all, we here at CC HQ have standards and, every so often, we take the time to remind ourselves what they are.

About Mark Steyn and his persecution complex ...

At the moment, there appears to be much moaning and wailing in the Canadian wankersphere about how the evil empire Indigo Books & Music is conspiring against legendary Canadian wingnut Mark Steyn and boycotting his latest offering of rancid, right wing shrieking.

Sadly for Steyn, even the National Post has managed to figure out what's really going on here:

Mr. Steyn has charged that Indigo and its chief executive officer, Heather Reisman, underestimated demand for his book as a means of "boycotting" it.

Yes, yes, we're well aware of Steyn's manic fits of hallucination. So what's really happening? (emphasis added)

Sorya Gaulin, vice-president of public relation for Indigo, sought to quell the brouhaha yesterday, saying the company has in no way sought to boycott the book.

The company offered America Alone for sale as soon as it came out in September, but it quickly sold out, she said. Ms. Gaulin could not say how many books were originally ordered.

"Upon realizing we had grossly underestimated the demand for this title, Indigo immediately reordered several thousand more books, but Mr. Steyn's U.S. publisher was unable to fulfill our order because they, too, underestimated demand in the U.S. and Canada," Ms. Gaulin said.

Like other book stores in Canada, Indigo is now waiting for shipments that are expected to arrive this month, she said.

Mr. Steyn's U.S. publisher, Regnery, has said the book is in reprint and that all back orders will be filled...

In Ottawa, the Steyn book is available neither at Chapters nor at such independent bookstores as Nicholas Hoare. A clerk at the Nicholas Hoare bookstore said the book has been difficult to obtain for Canadian retailers.

Well, how about that? Apparently, it's Regnery that couldn't keep up with the demand and keep either Indigo or other bookstores properly stocked.

One can, you would imagine, finally tell Steyn to put a fucking sock in it at this point, which is pretty much what Indigo's Gaulin does here, and good for her. Every little finger flick to Steyn's nads just makes the world a better place.

P.S. And we will link to one Derryl Murphy's take on this, just 'cuz we like the name of his blog, and are really pissed that we didn't think of it first.

"We'll just put you down as 'undecided,' OK?"

Shorter Defend Marriage K-W: "So, when you said you wouldn't piss on us if we were on fire ... you meant that in a good way, right?"

Just how unspeakably stupid IS Mark Steyn?

For me, one of the ongoing mysteries of the right-wing wankersphere is how many of the most prominent, revered and oft-quoted pundits are, for the most part, people so imbecilic that I wouldn't trust them to wash my car.

Here, Canada's Mark Steyn manages (unintentionally, I'm sure) to refute months worth of asinine, American right-wing talking points:

On the radio a couple of weeks ago, Hugh Hewitt suggested to me the terrorists might try to pull a Spain on the U.S. elections. You'll recall (though evidently many Americans don't) that in 2004 hundreds of commuters were slaughtered in multiple train bombings in Madrid. The Spaniards responded with a huge street demonstration of supposed solidarity with the dead, all teary passivity and signs saying "Basta!" -- "Enough!" By which they meant not "enough!" of these murderers but "enough!" of the government of Prime Minister Aznar, and of Bush and Blair, and troops in Iraq. A couple of days later, they voted in a socialist government, which immediately withdrew Spanish forces from the Middle East. A profitable couple of hours' work for the jihad.

I said to Hugh I didn't think that would happen this time round. The enemy aren't a bunch of simpleton Pushtun yakherds, but relatively sophisticated at least in their understanding of us. We're all infidels, but not all infidels crack the same way. If they'd done a Spain -- blown up a bunch of subway cars in New York or vaporized the Empire State Building -- they'd have re-awoken the primal anger of September 2001. With another mound of corpses piled sky-high, the electorate would have stampeded into the Republican column and demanded the U.S. fly somewhere and bomb someone.

Note what little Markie is suggesting here. He's suggesting that the terrorists have kept a low profile to lull American voters into a false sense of security, a sense of security that would allow them to drift slowly over to voting for the (gasp! horrors!) Democrats because, as we all know, the terrorists want the Democrats to win. So ... the absence of murderous domestic terrorism lately is because ... the terrorists are playing politics -- this is little Markie's view on things.

Hang on, though. Wasn't it the GOP who ran on a platform of how effective they had been in protecting America, with the Dickster going so far as to claim credit for the fact that there had been no attacks on the U.S. since 9/11?

So, according to Cheney, it's due to Republican cleverness and perseverance that the American people have been safe the last several years. No, wait, says Steyn -- it's only because the terrorists have been cleverly playing politics because they want the Democrats to win the election that there haven't been any attacks.

Personally, I think the last several years of American domestic safety is because aliens from the planet Weembo are broadcasting anti-terrorist mind-control rays. Sure, I have no evidence to back that up, but that just means I'm no worse off than Steyn and his vacuous pontificating.

And to think people actually take this dingbat seriously.

P.S. Not surprisingly, Blogging Tory and Deranged Catholic Kathy Shaidle thinks Steyn is a freakin' genius. And you know what? Comparatively speaking, I think she might be right.

History repeating itself.

I have a nagging feeling I've read something like this before:

George W Bush has just bought 150 square miles of land in Paraguay. 98,842 acres.

Daddy has already bought 173,000 acres.

And in the same town of Chaco Paraguay, family friend Rev. Moon has bought 1,482,600 acres.

U.S. troops now granted immunity from war crimes prosecutions have arrived for military exercises and there are rumors of a future superbase and airfield near by.

We have a very Bush friendly president in Paraguay. There's an extradition law with the U.S. but recently, Paraguay has exempted political crimes and offences from their laws.

The perfect retirement get away for war criminals on the run?

Hmmmmmm ... war criminals fleeing to Paraguay ... damn, that rings a bell ... oh, right.

Pay no attention to that spot of unpleasantness last Tuesday.

Shorter Spanky: "I just know there's a pony under here somewhere."

BONUS TRACK: And over at "True North," Jason also continues to whistle "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" even as he's being nailed to a large piece of wood.

UM ... JASON? Commenting on his own article, Jason makes a mountain out of a molehill:

I'm just pointing out a subtle bias. They got lazy (or started partying) and didn't check their facts.

You know, Jason, there's "wrong" and then there's just freaking wrong:

Can you appreciate the subtle difference?

The civility of discourse, GOP-style.

Just for the record, Elizabeth Dole has always been a repulsive, screeching control freak. Why Timmeh didn't just lean over and slap her senseless is beyond me, since it's no less than what she deserved at that point.

The new (skeptical) kid on the block.

Personal acquaintance (although I'm guessing he'll deny it even under threat of waterboarding) Larry Moran has a new blog. Here, we have avowed atheist Richard Dawkins sharing the same space-time continuum with meth-head, man meat Ted Haggard.

Why the universe didn't just fold in on itself at that point is a mystery.

But THIS time, I really, really, really mean it.

One more Friedman. Really. I promise.

Low-hanging fruit: Steve Janke Sunday morning edition.

I'm guessing Steve might want a do-over on this old headline:

John Roberts is confirmed, and the left chokes on sour grapes

How are those grapes tasting these days, Steve?

Speaking to Americans. Slowly.

Via Alison, we have Chris Hedges' "Letter from Canada." So all you adoring, wistful, progressive Yanks can stop gazing so longingly in our direction for just a bit -- we've got our own whackjobs to deal with for the time being.

We'll let you know when it's all straightened out.