MacKay calls Liberal's trip to Afghanistan a stunt
It is irresponsible for the Liberal defence critic [Denis Coderre] to travel to Afghanistan without the Conservative government's approval, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Friday...
"Mr. Coderre is engaged, in my view, in a dangerous and elaborate stunt, a publicity stunt on his part," MacKay said, arguing that troops in Afghanistan could be put in unnecessary danger if Coderre were kidnapped and they had to try to save him.
"It's irresponsible. It puts people at risk. It puts soldiers at risk."
Junior MacKay's sounding like he's in a bit of a pickle. We know his government wouldn't allow the Liberal Defence critic to visit the mission in Afghanistan, so Denis Coderre went himself. Now Junior's sounding like he's regretting the government's actions and is in full CYA mode ...
As I suggested last weekend, Junior and the boys better hope nothing happens to Coderre or they're up the creek...
No joke. One can only hope that MacKay realizes what kind of deep shit he's in if something happens to Coderre, who was forced to make his own unorthodox travel arrangements to get to Afghanistan while MacKay must have known all along about the upcoming Oda/Bernier junket, on which Coderre could have simply hitched a ride.
Oh, yes ... if something should befall Coderre, Peter MacKay's political career is so over.
Blogging Tory Paul MacPhail gets all soppy and misty-eyed over the latest gin-soaked, self-indulgent blithering from Christopher Hitchens. Whereupon Chet puts on his Vibram-soled, official issue Surete du Quebec work boots and administers to Hitchens the savage beating that he so thoroughly deserves.
Canada's progressive bloggers: When you want something deep and profound to think about. Canada's Blogging Tories: When you want something trite and vacuous to make fun of.
Shrieking, deranged Canadian Catholic Kathy Shaidle discovers (no doubt to her surprise) that even Kate's regular, drooling audience members have had enough of her.
SDA readers maxing out on hate? What is the blogosphere coming to?
In a delightful example of bureaucratic overkill, we have the following gem:
WASHINGTON - The State Department has issued new guidelines to rein in and monitor Blackwater USA, the private contractor that provides heavily armed security for U.S. diplomats serving in Baghdad.
Under orders issued by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, video cameras will be mounted in Blackwater vehicles and federal agents will ride with the security contractors who escort diplomatic convoys.
Yes, we now have federal agents watching the security contractors who guard the American members of Congress over there. When those federal agents are put under the jurisdiction of the State Department, who report to the President, who is officially subject to oversight from members of Congress, the circle of life will be complete. And you'll notice that you, the American citizen, are not involved.
So, another ideologically-slanted propaganda rag is going tits up because it just can't make a go of it financially and no one wants to read it? Well, that's what you call the conservative free market in action, isn't it? You publish worthless, biased crap, no one wants to buy it, it goes away, only the popular prosper, yes sir, capitalism at its finest and ... and ... ummm ... oh ... it was the right-wing Western Standard?
We now return you to your regular neo-con frothing about letting the unfettered market have its way and how only the strong survive. AFTERWHA ...? In the comments section there, Joan Tintor emerges briefly from the hermetically-sealed Blogging Tory bubble to play the "whiny diversity" card:
Sad news indeed. Can't wait to see what those who claim to defend diversity in media will say.
Posted by: Joan Tintor | 5-Oct-07 5:25:57 PM
Tintor then scurried back to the safety of the Blogging Tories, where the weekly BT shriekfest to defund the liberal, leftard, socialist CBC was already in full swing.
Larry Craig Denied Withdrawal By Stern, Unforgiving Judge Washington, Oct. 4
Turning a deaf ear to Craig’s pleas, the judge informed him that his initial plea to submit himself to the judge’s discretion was given “unambiguously and without coercion”. In light of this fact, the judge would not permit any withdrawal, and swore to see to it that Craig took the full punishment coming to him.
Craig was visibly shaken by the intensity of the judge’s position. “I’ve never been in this situation before in my life,” Senator Craig announced between what sounded like gasps of disbelief. “I cannot recall ever having been this far on the bottom before, and I don’t quite know what to do next”.
Questioned later outside the courtroom, Craig was still struggling to come to terms with this latest development:
"It's outrageous. The judge seemed to think that, just because I pleaded guilty that I meant it or something. And then he went on about this stuff called 'accountability' and 'personal responsibility'. What the fuck was that all about?"
As Craig was led away by his lawyer, he was heard to exclaim, "Sentencing? Sentencing? What the hell!? How can I be guilty? I'm a Republican, for God's sake!!"
It was Aldous Thomax Huxley who, when once asked why he didn't continue to defend biological evolution against a particularly badly-educated and oft-refuted opponent, responded, "Life is too short to occupy oneself with the slaying of the slain more than once." Nonetheless, I apparently have to dig up the festering corpse of Richard Evans one more time, just to give it a few final whacks before burying it once again for good.
All of this would be in response to this piece in today's Calgary Sun for which I was interviewed by one Shawn Logan -- an interview, I would like to point out, I did not initiate and which I wasn't really enthusiastic about granting until I learned that Richard had already had his say, which forced my hand since I wanted to make sure that anything that was published wasn't simply Richard's one-sided, dishonest rantings. As it turns out, that was a wise move on my part. And now, to business:
An aldermanic candidate in the Oct. 15 municipal election has escalated a blogging duel by offering a $500 reward for his nemesis' identity on his website.
Ooooooh ... I am officially a "nemesis". Is there a prize for that? Is there a club t-shirt? In any case ... onward:
Richard Evans, who is running in Ward 4, said an anonymous blogger has been defaming him on his website and posting his address, phone number and the names of his wife and two children.
That would be Richard's address and phone number that is publicly available by querying any of his registered domain names, and his personal family information that he's posted for the world to read here. Sadly, there goes my reputation for being James Bond. But here's where it gets good:
Evans, who has been operating his Let Freedom Reign blog for years, said he posted the bounty because he wants to sue the Waterloo, Ont.-based blogger and he's worried the online battle may hurt his election hopes.
Good thinking, Richard, because nothing says "downplay the controversy" like escalating a public blog war involving accusations of white supremacist thinking and pedophilia. Clever plan, Richard ... how did that work out, by the way? Oh ... not so well, I see. Pity. But let's talk about that whole "lawsuit" thing for just a minute, shall we? Because it was less than a week ago when I wrote this:
Gosh, just look at the calendar ... only a couple more weeks until the Calgary municipal election, where all the evidence suggests that white supremacist and NAMBLA advocate Richard Evans is going to get flattened like a toad under a steamroller.
At which point Richard got himself a little woody over the fact that I had accused him of being a white supremacist and, man alive, he was so going to sue my ass from here to Sunday. Except for one small, ugly detail -- this:
Isn't that interesting?
Somenamedia.com is a domain that is owned by Richard Evans of Calgary Alberta, and for which he has total control.
Now, being somebody who understands the concept of property rights, I don't hold with this idea of "cybersquatting". Richard owns the domain. He paid for it. It's his. He can do anything he wants with it.
The fact that he himself has nothing to do with Somena, or the Somena people is irrelevant. The domain belongs to him.
The question now is.. why would he point it to Stormfront? That's an interesting choice non? This is a website inhabited by white supremacists neo-kkk types and people who generally wouldn't ever invite me and my non-white children and family over for a BBQ or whatnot.
I can only conclude, that Richard Evans is a supporter of, promoter of Stormfront, since he is ultimately directing people who would have come to my website, (but for a typo) over to Klan central.
Proof that Richard Evans, of Calgary Alberta is indeed an openly racist bigot.
That's right -- that's Somenamedia's Meaghan Williams openly suggesting that Richard is a white supremacist, to which Richard, curiously, responds not with outrage and threats of lawsuit, but with ... well, let's let Richard's words speak for themselves in the comments section there:
Richard said...
Yeah, about that... I've decided to keep somenamedia pointed to it's current destination for the next little while... Watching you stew in your own hatred is amusing...
Why, that doesn't look like outrage at all. In fact, it looks like someone being absolutely gleeful about what he's done, and is just plain revelling in the accusations of being a racist and a bigot. Which kind of undercuts Richard's alleged lawsuit against me, doesn't it? If it didn't bother him then, well, he's going to find it hard to convince a judge that he has any right to be upset about it now, don't you think? Man, I'm betting Richard is wishing he could have a do-over on that comment.
And, finally, let's skip over the mundane details of that Sun article to get to the last line, where we read:
Evans said he used the redirecting ploy, but it was only a response to what he said were continued attacks from the blogger.
Um ... say what? As I demonstrated above, it was less than a week ago that Richard claims he finally has the smoking gun evidence for a defamation lawsuit against me, but the existence of his look-alike, NAMBLA-redirected domain canadiancynic.net goes all the way back to July 2 of this year. Whoopsie. That's just a bit inconvenient, don't you think?
And in conclusion, how best to summarize all this? Oh, right ... Richard is totally fucked. And having given him one last good boot to the head, I'm going to leave him to fester in his own racist juices, and I'm going to move on. As Huxley suggested, life is too short for some crap, and Richard Evans is precisely that kind of crap. Onward and upward. Time to rinse all this muck off of me and get back to real blogging.
Curiously, the air smells fresher already. Funny how that works, isn't it?
P.S. Amusingly, Mr. Logan brought up the name "Werner Patels" sometime during the interview. If I recall correctly, my response to that involved the phrases "schizophrenic" and "multiple personality disorder," at which point Mr. Logan wisely decided to move on. Good thinking. TOTALLY AMUSING OBSERVATION: Yeah, I'm guessing this isn't the effect Richard was going for.
So, let me get this straight; if I make the argument that a religion or creed is fundamentally flawed ... I'm a bigot ... right?
Of course not, Cjunk ... unless you happen to be an atheist, at which point any thoughtful and well-researched criticism of someone's religious position only proves how leftards are a bunch of howling, deranged, intolerant, God-hating, communist, baby-killing dingbats.
Self-proclaimed political intellectual Gerry Nicholls goes a wee bit over the top in drawing a historical analogy:
My son is graduating from high school on Friday.
And in order graduate, he not only had to pass his academic courses, he also had to complete a minimum of "40 hours of mandatory Community Involvement."
This is supposed to develop "a sense of civic responsibility and strong community values."
So civic responsibility, in other words, means forcing kids to work for no pay.
To me that sounds like slavery.
Later, responding to polite suggestions that it was perhaps inappropriate to compare his son's community service with the forced resettlement, indentured servitude and centuries of brutal treatment of countless Africans, Nicholls replied, "Geez, you make a simple comparison around here and you get absolutely lynched. What? Why are you looking at me like that?"
Over at The Wingnuterer, Zorpheous has that brief moment of clarity I should have, and hangs it up. So, in Zorph's honour and recognizing his background in all things high-tech:
I'm still trying to figure out which end of the line Zorph would be on. It's a puzzler.
When the grassroots organization MoveOn went after Gen. David Petraeus' credibility with a full-page New York Times ad, the reaction from the Wingnut-o-sphere was swift and brutal:
House overwhelmingly condemns MoveOn ad
The House on Wednesday passed by a wide margin a resolution that condemns an ad from liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org that referred to Gen. David Petraeus as “General Betray Us.”
Republican leaders had been calling for congressional action since the ad first ran in The New York Times ahead of Petraeus’s testimony on the situation in Iraq. The requests for action in the House grew louder after the Senate approved a similar measure with broad bipartisan consensus.
House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) hailed the outcome of the 341-79 vote and praised GOP lawmakers for taking the lead on the issue.
And when right-wing radio show host Rush Limbaugh similarly disparaged U.S. service members who support a withdrawal from Iraq as "phony soldiers," the backlash was once again ... uh ... once again ... ummmm ...
Today, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) gave a speech on the Senate floor condemning Rush Limbaugh for calling troops who support American withdrawal from Iraq “phony soldiers.” He urged his colleagues — both Democratic and Republican — to sign a letter of disapproval to the CEO of Clear Channel.
Instead, Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) — who voted to criticize MoveOn.org — has decided to commend Limbaugh. Today at 3:16 PM, Kingston introduced a resolution “[c]ommending Rush Hudson Limbaugh III for his ongoing public support of American troops serving both here and abroad.”
OK, that can't be right. Someone's just funnin' with me, that has to be it.
Over at "Celestial Junk," Blogging Tory "Paul" takes exception to the depressing, intellectual stagnation that is Islam:
While the Rest of Us Moved On
Can Islam walk lockstep with civilization and contribute positively to the world? Or, is it forever stuck in a 1400 year old mode that, unless completely revamped, will forever put Islam at odds with civil human interaction and modern modes of life:
Coincidentally, many of the GOP's most prominent members share Paul's concern:
Whoops, wrong video ... how did that get in there?
As droningly monotonous as this has become, I believe we can finally put this issue to rest and get back to the important job of whapping around those of Canada's conservatives who are not constantly driving traffic to web sites that promote pedophilia.
No matter how you try to spin it, CC seems quite happy with the idea that a 45 year old man can have sex with a 14 year old boy.
CC said no such thing, anywhere. Hence, you have defamed him under the law. Keep digging.
we can finally see that Dick has nothing, as this is the best he can do:
If CC hadn’t been sanitizing his comments sections, you’d see otherwise:
My comments section? Dick's accusation is based on something from my comments section!?!? And one that he simultaneously admits has been "sanitized," which suggests that he's got absolutely nothing!!! God Almighty, but is it even physically possible to be stupider than that?
But wait ... let's give Richard the benefit of the doubt and see what he's yammering on about, as we follow his link to the comments section in question here, where we find ... squat. And in terms of "sanitizing" comments to perhaps remove the incriminating evidence, we can see that there are exactly two comments that have been deleted: the first by its own author (whoever that might have been), and the second by me because it was from Richard himself, which is painfully obvious as you can read from the comment that immediately follows, in which I tell him to please just fuck off.
So that's the foundation of your smear campaign against me, is it, Dick? A comments section that doesn't even remotely suggest what you've been claiming all this time?
Oh, man, that's delightful. In short, you got nuthin'. Your bluff has been called, and you're now standing out there all alone, with your nutsack swaying in the breeze. Suddenly, that whole idea of legal action is looking more and more appealing by the minute.
I don't know what I'm going to do with this, but I'm going to give it some thought. And while I'm doing that, Dick, you might want to sit down with the wife and kids and ask them how keen they are on getting dragged through whatever I can dream up if you keep pissing me off. And trust me, Dick, if you keep pissing me off, I will dream something up.
Have a nice day, Dick.
AND THE INDESCRIBABLE DOUCHEBAGGERY CONTINUES: Apparently, one of Richard's adoring fans has shown up over in Richard's comments section, and insists on, well, making shit up:
And now Candian Cynic has a threat up about Richards wife and children.
don’t know what I’m going to do with this, but I’m going to give it some thought. And while I’m doing that, Dick, you might want to sit down with the wife and kids and ask them how keen they are on getting dragged through whatever I can dream up if you keep pissing me off. And trust me, Dick, if you keep pissing me off, I will dream something up.
What a class act you guys all support. It must feel just fantastic to be on his ‘team’. I mean, honestly you are defending this guy against a lawsuit while he threatens people’s families.
Frankly, that is exactly what I find about the ‘left’ totally disgusting. The end always justifies the means, right?
Duh.
Since I admittedly chose my words badly, let me clarify this. I have nothing against Richard's family. Nothing whatsoever. In fact, I feel intensely sorry for them at this point, and I'm almost tempted to find out how to get ahold of his wife so I can recommend a good womens' shelter. But that's not the point here.
I wasn't suggesting that I was going to drag them through anything. I was suggesting that, if Richard was determined to escalate this, then things were going to get ugly and they were going to get dragged through whatever happened, just based on being there, nothing more. Unfortunate but related bystanders, as it were.
Are we good now? Do we understand one another? And can I expect a retraction from Richard's boneheaded commenter?
No, no, I was just joking with that last part. After all, being a conservative means never having to say you're sorry. Or sentient.
AND THEY'RE OFF ... AND RUNNING. Well, you knew thatwas coming:
... when that mouthy little turd starts to threaten a persons family he must be identified for obvious safety reasons.
Yes, we now have our new, unstoppable, right-wing talking point. Despite the fact that I have now clarified what I meant, the claim that I threatened Richard's family has now taken on a life of its own and cannot possibly be contained, and it will, of course, be used as a whole new justification for why I must be exposed to the world. After all, since the original rationale has now crashed and burned, a new one must be constructed to take its place as quickly as possible.
Apparently, these people can fabricate myths just as fast as one can debunk them. You can't possibly be surprised anymore.
