I don’t usually do Small Dead Animals myself. I find the discussion a bit - well - stupid, I suppose. Too many of the residents seems to have studied at the LGF school of logic and dialectic. But I was tempted over when the usually interesting Occam posted a little nastiness about the new GG, which prompted a wave of Neanderthal (not to disparage Neanderthals) loathing for Madame Jean.
I suggested that had Harper been PM and had the wit to appoint her, they would be applauding his vision and his courage. To which one specimen posted the following charming and articulate rebuttal:
“If they had appointed a black woman, that choice would have treated exactly as Condoleeza Rice has been treated. And balbulican would be jumping up and down going “nigger, nigger, nigger” like some defective lawn sprinkler.”
This raises three questions.
a) What the fuck is THAT supposed to mean?
b) Has anyone out there ever heard a defective lawn sprinkler that jumps up and down going “nigger, nigger, nigger”?
c)Why is Occam slumming?
I was semi tempted to speculate about it having something to do with sda not catching a nomination in the 2004 CBA but Lily said that would be petty and I shouldn’t do it.
Heh. I can think of a few special categories I’d be glad to nominate SDA in.
heh … I think you got B-3′ed over there, it might have been a B-5 but it sure looked like a B-3
Nigger is not used unless you are with your own crew, and Balb, can claim that honor. A nigga is someone that represents and is not represented by color. So… I suppose this post can be taken as a compliment.
Someone needs to brush up on their street slang before proffing to the peeps.
I wonder what Di**wad is in conservative street slang?
Whoa, I am not around for a week or so and my friends SL and Balb are both reading Small Dead Animals now. WTF is the world coming to? And OC is posting over there now? I am gobsmacked! Might be time for me to put the gloves back on and get in the ring again (cue theme for Rocky)
But since they are on to doing their own blog awards over there I feel compelled to suggest some possible award categories:
1) Demagogue of the year
2) Best use of frothy spittle soaked invective in a blog post
3) Best use of historical revisionism to support right wing talking points
4) The best “that’s not torture” blog piece (aka new heights in moral relativism)
5) Most effective use of junk science to debunk global warming in a blog post, comment or discussion forum.
6)The “I a wanna be GWB” the “War President (TM)”(pardon me SL) award for the Canadian right wing blog that most skillfully propogated all of the revolving Bush justifications (excuses)….(cough) for war in Iraq.
7) The Paul Celluci award for the Blog that made the most suggestions that Canada should be more like the US
8) The King Ralph award for the right wing blogger who referred to Klein the most in the past year
9) Best use of homophobic terms in a blog comment
10) Best angry sweat soaked use of the “All Liberals are Crooks” meme in blog post
What do you think? Any of these have a chance to be included?
In my defense I initially wandered over to sda by following a link at Ianism to a particularly bizarre post of theirs, and, like the bad train wreck you know you shouldn’t gawk at I’ve been back a couple of times since to see what (Right)WingNuttery may be taking place.
Balbulican, I was wrong, on further reflection I note that it would be very difficult for one Canadian to B-3 another so it has to be a B-5.
Blahblican, I’m going to nominate StageLeftistPinkoMushbrains as the Best Moonbat Blog. I’m thinking it might be an award that you pinko “progressive” blogs might want to fight over.
Anyone else want to pile on for the voting? I notice that you’ll have some competition, because a fellow right-thinking commentator on Small Dead Lieberals nominated Calgary Grit. He’s quite the shrill moonbat, don’t cha know.
It looks like ya got a blog B
I nominate blahblican and his StageLeft blog as Most outrageous Canadian ‘Moonbat’ blog.
Credit where credit is do sir, it was a coup so well planned, timed, and executed that I had no idea it had even happened.
I can understand the uprising and the revolution, really, how could it otherwise be - they are after all in the finest traditions of our great work… that you would bring in a rabid (Right)WIngNut like Buzz was masterful, a great and devious strategy indeed sir, and you are to be applauded for it; it’s probably the only way the coup could have succeeded — I never would have considered the possibility….
The master keys to the bunker will be left in drop box #6, when next you enter the Hall of Heros I, and Lily, will be gone - do drink a toast to us and wish us well for old times sake, and do try to be kind to us when rewriting the bunker history.
Don’t worry about us, I’ve been scouting a nice little sidewalk silo to use as a secondary hideout, you would have heard about soon; in this at least the fates have been kind as its’ location remains known only to myself.
Come the Revolution B!!
Damn! I missed yet another bunker memo. This one, referencing a coup d’etat no less. At least it was bloodless SL, I mean you can still type so Balb couldn’t have conducted any “Real Torture (TM)”
You “reality-based community” people crack me up! Of course ReBalblican runs this place, StageLeft is just his sockpuppet!
Anyway, please come check out my own competeing Award.
Stageleft, I’m sorry it had to end this way. But by now you will have quaffed the pint of honey mead Lily handed you as you both left the bunker. Don’t worry, the effects are purely transitory. In the meantime I am going ahead with the new wallpaper. I’m sorry, but extreme measures were required: it’s been four years now, and that “Leon Trotsky on Black Velvet” motif was driving me NUTS!
I know you’ll learn to like the new decor, and I will return the blog and bunker to you as soon as the wallpaper is dry and it’s too late for you to tear it down.
Tree, your categories are brilliant. I think it would be worth firing up Heart Of The Matter one more time, just to have the privilege to vote your awards.
I don’t know why sda doesn’t have a “Blog Most like one Ann Coulter or Michelle Malkin would Write, only Without the Laffs” category. I donned by level-5 bio-hazard suit and went over there and suggested something along those lines, but I suspect it will be ignored.
“And OC is posting over there now?”
Sure surprised me. Even though I think the term “Neo-libertarian” is mostly useless, never thought SDA would have someone that used that term to describe himself as a contributor.
It is a good point Ian.
When I had my blog, I had a policy that I would not link to, read or even reference SDA. I have some very strong Libertarian leanings that are perhaps getting stronger lately. (I blame you entirely for this btw :) ) But I am neither a “Neo-Libertarian” nor a libertarian with your fervour. SDA is a place of extreme social conservatism that conflicts with my current left libertarian sensibilities and past centre-left leanings on every plain. I can now tolerate Kate in small doses and sometimes she makes some points that make me think. As you know I like that. OC was one of my favourite bloggers bar none for the very reason that he challenged my existing notions with his Sahara Dessert dry humour, wit and to-the-point succinct sensibility. My problem with SDA is the mob who comment there. The only site that is worse for bottom feeding discourse is the Shotgun. OC is not in good company there. Mind you, I have read some of his comments at Andrew’s today and he seems to have taken a more edgy (read nasty) streak to some of his discussions. I quit having my own blog for many reasons, disappointment in the medium foremost among them, but seeing him posting on a site dominated by the nastiest sludge pumping element of social conservatives literally drove a stake through my blog heart. It makes no sense to me at all.
I posted a welcome back to him this afternoon on SDA and it was sincere. I really respect his thoughts on the world; what can I say? But Christ, why SDA?
Ummm….DAMN! That should be Desert not Dessert. Anyway, back to my freshly baked apple crumble that has nothing to do with my previous comment and tastes much better than dry sand….sigh.
“I can now tolerate Kate in small doses and sometimes she makes some points that make me think.”
Sure, just as there are some outright communists that make some points that make me think as well :)
When SDA was young, I enjoyed a lot of Kate’s posts. Hell, I even agreed with a lot of them.
I started to sit up and question her premises though, when she commented that she supported conscription and even thought her reasons for supporting this were “logical.”
I even had some private emails with her about this.. which ended up in silly land - but I thought it was just an anomoly.
Then when I read some of her comments about a person that many don’t like, I saw she was getting away with making comments simply because, it seemed to me, that others didn’t “like” a certain commentor. That disturbed me - allegations of child abuse - without any evidence whatsoever.
I realized that Kate has this way with her followers to plant little seeds in their minds. She enjoys that, it would seem.
She has also bitched about things that she herself has done or said when others write about her the same way - only, when she writes it, it’s a “joke” or something.
Then, when she posted as “fact” that native gangs were doing activities during a festival in Saskatoon, and then when challenged on this, she admitted her source was talk radio.. and then she also went on to support residential schools again.. then denied she ever brought up race..
That was it for me. She knows the “smear” tactics very well.
I have seen little from her that is based on any solid premise or any conclusion based on any logical thinking.
Sure, she motivates me to think… so do my readings on Marx and Hitler and Churchill and Thomas Payne, and St. Paul.
Ian,
Hey, I didn’t say that Kate was logical nor my destination for thought every day. I was being subtle in suggesting that she is not as bad as I had made her out to be originally, and maybe my total ban on her was not logical by virtue of my own blindspots. If you re-read what I wrote above I hope that you will see that, while I gave her a little bit of credit for her posts I still think that her site is garbage by virtue of the sorts she attracts in the comments. I am quite certain that she will care little of my criticism. As it should be. Who the hell am I really, in blog terms she is one of the largest and I quit mine which was prosperous but never on her scale. My point, in a roundabout way, was that I don’t understand how OC can feel at home there in any way, shape or form. I admit that sometimes Kate makes me think but it is no comparison to how you have singled handedly fucked with my head on this Libertarian stuff you merciless sadistic bastard. :)
“…. but it is no comparison to how you have singled handedly fucked with my head on this Libertarian stuff you merciless sadistic bastard. :) ”
I don’t know what to type.. I’m laughing to hard :)
*breathe.. smile.. breathe.. *
Ok..
Oops.. more chuckles… “breathe more..”
I knew what you meant, I think, TH re Kate. I was just pointing out my own thoughts on the whole thing. And how it came to be that I removed her from my blogroll, and my evolution of deciding that Kate might be a good fuck - and who knows if that is true.. but as someone who has something significant to offer, I’d stay 2 1/2 poles away.
And who are you .. or me.. to argue with her? Well.. for me personally, it’s when the spirit moves me. And I know logically, I’d defeat her every time. She’s just got nice legs, and not much else going for her really. Oh yeah.. that popularity thing as well. Amazing huh? Want to stand in line at the next election talking to folks like that before you are forced to vote? heh.. I have way more better things to do with my time.
Anyhow.. night night time for me.. after punching down the cap on my red wine must here.
Gotta send OC some of my wine, and then ask him what he’s been thinking about lately.
I blame Andrew for my latest round of visits to SDA. That goddamned CanConv makes it altogether too easy to get drawn to particularly intriguing headlines on other sites.
I find some of Kate’s original posts raise interesting points. But like a talk radio host, she is manipulative in her framing of an issue, and appears to take more pleasure in inflaming argument than in discussion.
(Note to Readers: triumphantly pointing out instances wherein you feel SL or I have done what you feel is the equivalent is NOT a defense. That’s called a countercharge. And yes, Occ…I DO, in fact, think the level of discussion here, and at Andrew’s, is several notches higher that at SDA.)
Kate, however, is vastly superior in her writing to the quality of respondent she appears to attract. I guess there are folks who enjoy wallowing in the slobbering, adolescent, insult-driven, raging hysteria that seems to be the norm. I don’t. I can get drawn into a bout of fencing - I’m a weak man. But when it turns out my opponent is either insane, or too stupid to be interesting (and I’ve had both experiences this week)…I cease and withdraw. Life’s too short.
I’m not sure what makes this place, and Andrew’s, and Tim’s Borealblog, different. I’m just very grateful that they are.
Kate, however, is vastly superior in her writing to the quality of respondent she appears to attract.
Big fish, small pond. I completely understand the impulse…I can be guilty of it myself, but I don’t think it’s a particularly noble quality. And if I had my own blog (which I don’t and probably never will, because I’m having serious doubts regarding blogdom’s value to public discourse), if I started attracting minions and ditto-heads more than anthing else, I’d probably cut the comments altogether.
“I’m having serious doubts regarding blogdom’s value to public discourse.”
Well, you and I are both good case studies, my man. Let’s dispense with both pride and false modesty for a moment, and look at the way we both act.
When we get into a discussion with people we disagree with here, or (usually) at Andrew’s, there’s an interesting exchange of ideas. Several of our right wing friends, in the appropriate setting, can be interesting, thoughtful, and intelligently provocative. Vegas Mike, Andrew, Occ, Ian, Vinny and others have changed the way I think about some issues, and I dare say you’ve had the same experience.
But look at the quality of discussion you and I both allow ourselves to indulge in at Robert’s or at SDA. What gets into us? It’s not funny, there’s no substance, it’s like a bad argument before last call at the Legion. You leave the discussion wanting to take a shower…and the worst of it is, we both know better. Weird.
It’s not funny, there’s no substance, it’s like a bad argument before last call at the Legion. You leave the discussion wanting to take a shower…and the worst of it is, we both know better. Weird.
Oh, I don’t know any better, or if I do, it doesn’t bother me all that much. People usually get from me the response they seem to be inviting. Sure, it’s not particularly informative, but it’s just part of my nature to bait bullies and passive-aggressives, and these are just online discussions, after all. I get serious and focussed when I’m called on to actually make decisions and act (in real life), not when I’m just talking.
In the last while, I’ve been mostly concerned about moderates (of any political stripe) in Canada wimping out the way they have in the US (where moderate seems to mean weak) and letting the Right dominate public discourse. So, more often than not, I’m just in battle-mode: to show that I’m not going to accept dishonesty, uncivility, sophistry and really ugly things like racism and propaganda (subtle or not) with politeness, nor am I going to ignore them, nor am I going to be suckered into doing a lot of work to point out disingenuousness or demystify intentional obfuscation (which is what the Right quite often does to distract us and wear us out, we in ‘reality-based world’).
And sorry, but it’s quite often funny, or at least I’m having fun, particularly when we understand that humour (real humour, not the Ann Coulter-style ‘humour’) is anathema to the Right.
You’re right, it is funny a lot of the time. I think I burned out for a short stretch on folks whose idea of cutting edge political commentary and razor sharp satire is to call me “ballbustingcan”, or something. I had a wonderful time with Anonalogue last week, and observed you doing the same. All my basest impulses were surging to the fore, it was marvellously cathartic. I’m sure there are anti-vivisection laws against that kind of thing.
Ah, well. What I need to remember is that this is a diet of my own choosing. Stageleft, Bound by Gravity, Voices and the like represent meat and potatoes. But the occasional Big Mac over at SGA does no harm, I guess. But…ARE YOU LISTENING, OCCAM?…a regular diet there could kill.
I think I burned out for a short stretch on folks whose idea of cutting edge political commentary and razor sharp satire is to call me “ballbustingcanâ€
For every one calling you “balbustingcan” (and pardon me for laughing so hard that I’ve now herniated and will have to go to emergency soon), there’s someone who’ll tenderly call you “blahblican.” I’m jealous. All I ever get is Try-Guy, Nice Try-Guy, Tie-Dye, Bi-Queer, Bi-Gay, Ti-Queer, Queer Queer and more Queer…and Mai-tai (ok, that one I made up myself, but if anyone wants to inihilate me with that cruel, cruel nickname…I begging you…please don’t)
And…shh…don’t mention you know who. Say his name 3 times and he appears behind you if you’re looking into a mirror.
I blame Andrew for my latest round of visits to SDA. That goddamned CanConv makes it altogether too easy to get drawn to particularly intriguing headlines on other sites.
Muhahaha! My evil plan has come to fruition!
I end up at all sorts of blogs I would never visit because of CanConv’s RSS feed…. it’s almost impossible to know where I’m going until I’m already there.
Canconv has indeed opened many dark doorways, and it ltook me to the SDA award spost last week. It is tempting to wade into it like Balb did, but look what it brings as a response.
There’s an enjoyable level of discourse that takes place on certain blogs on the right and left, and then there is the slavering sort which is simply not worth soiling yourself with (hello, SDA, Shotgun, Canuckistan, Monarchist, London Fog, etc.).
Mark at Section 15 takes a lot of time to fence with Jeff with “Mr. Knight”, but what is the purpose of it all? these guys are mouth breathers content to spout talking points, stereotypes and hackneyed conventional wisdom.
(Having said all that, I also find myself drawn into rebutting their ravings. Some of their stuff is simply to awful to let hang in the air like unclaimed fart.)
The SDA award thing is a pathetic right wing circle jerk. It will interesting to see if any mainstream right-of-centre blogs participate or distance themselves from it.
Well, I see from the traffic uptick that SDA2.0 had been nominated by Kate’s Winged Monkeys… I strongly urge all reading to rent the Christopher Guest Mockumentary “Best in Show”…
Pay special attention to the Catalogue Lady, screeching in howling rage about the busy-bee stuffed toy going missing.
Do I need to connect the dots here?
1 year ago: 05/17/2007
2 years ago: 05/17/2006
There are 7 visitors currently online.
The OpenPolitics libel case goes to trial October, 2008. Please support the defendants in this important lawsuit which threatens to make authors and publishers responsible for collaborative content and the political comments of others. You can read about it over at OpenPolitics.ca. Yes, it is one of the Crookes cases.
Cambridge Green Party Association
104 Adam St.
Cambridge ON N3C 2K6
Make the Cheque out to the association, but mark the cheque as being for the Legal Defence Fund as related to the Crookes vs Holloway et al. case, this is the case Mark is in. Money sent here will get you a tax receipt but does not indicate support of the party or its' platform, or help fund the OpenPolitics case.
Powered by FireStats
When reading here you reminded of the words of Buddha: Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true.
The Forte theme by Moses Francis
Valid XHTML and Valid CSS
Well, it sure does confirm that our friends in right wing blogdom are every bit as original and creative as their political masters, doesn’t it?