JESUS MAKES YOU DUMB: JEREMIAH WRIGHT, JOHN HAGEE & PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
For the last forty years presidential campaigns have essentially been little more than an episode of Seinfeld, fundamentally about nothing. The last campaign where serious issues were discussed in something approaching a seious manner was in 1964. Say what you will about the candidates, but the election itself was about the permanence of social security, the role of the federal government in guaranteeing the civil rights of the citizenry and the wisdom of sending an ICBM into the Kremlin men's room.
Since then, campaigns have been about generic "crime," the death penalty, the pledge of alliegence, gay marriage, and fucking flag pins. The one thing that all of these things have in common is that they have nothing at all to do with the executive office of the president. As a matter of fact, the pledge and flag pins have nothing to do with anything.
Voters - American ones in particular - don't like issues because they make your head hurt. It's much easier and much more fun to get angry about bullshit. It doesn't matter that the United States is $9 trillion dollars in debt and that its military and foreign policies are effectively crippled and everybody's losing their fucking houses, at least it doesn't matter as much as what Barack Obama's goddamned minister said.
We're now well into the sixth consecutive week of the most important debate in America: whether or not Jeremiah Wright is a nut. Judging by column inches in the newspapers of record, television time and space devoted by the biggest of the big dog blogs, you cannot come to any conclusion other than Wright is the most important man in the country. Thankfully, the United States isn't at war or anything.
To be fair, the preoccupation with goofy religious nonsense in this campaign didn't begin with Wright. Much was made about Mitt Romney's magic underpants during the Republican primaries. The fact that Romney is a Mormon seemingly mattered far more than did the fact that Romney is an asshole and a borderline idiot.
I'll admit a bias here. I think that Jeremiah Wright is endlessly entertaining. Do I think that he's a lunatic? Sure I do. But insane people are often fun to watch and I need something to occupy my time with between Charles Manson's parole hearings. I have discussed this with my future bride, and when the day comes that we get married, we want Reverend Wright to conduct the ceremony. This is because I'm the most romantic man ever.
Am I shocked that Wright believes that the US government created the HIV virus and is ultimately responsible for 9/11? Not really. Wright also believes that Jesus is, as Sarah Silverman put it, magic. Faith is predicated on believing implausible things with no logical foundation whatsoever.
I don't make any distinction between worshipping the Zombie Christ and thinking that Louis Farrakahn is a swell guy. Both are incredibly silly assertions. On the other hand, Farrakhan made a pretty cool calypso record and Jesus didn't, so Farrakhan wins! I know for a fact that calypso exists, which I can't say about ressurection.
You know why Jeremiah Wright has been on television so much? Because Jeremiah Wright is entertaining as hell. He yells. He dances. He imitates marching bands from Florida and Michigan. He says shit that convinces you that he's completely lost his mind. And of the four, George W. Bush has only been really good at the fourth.
Even though Obama is still the presumptive Democratic nominee, Wright has essentially destroyed his chances of winning a general election. Unless the senator actually shoots his former pastor in the kneecaps, his name will forever be tied to America's chickens coming home to roost.
And I think that's unfortunate for two reasons. First, there are several perfectly logical reasons to vote against Barack Obama if people would only take the time to pay attention. Second, what happens to America's chickens if they don't come home to roost? Will they roost in Scandanavia? Or will they roost with the terrorists? If the chickens roost with the terrorists, don't the terrorists win? I think about these things so you don't have to.
I know that there are any number of asshole Republicans who are exhibiting no small measure of glee over the media obsession with the Wright story. This is because Republicans can be stupidly short-sighted when they smell blood in the water.
Like most of you, I remember Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson getting together on September 13, 2001 - three days after the attacks of 9/11 and three days before Wright made his comments - and said the following;
''What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be minuscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve.''
Mr. Robertson responded, ''Jerry, that's my feeling. I think we've just seen the antechamber to terror. We haven't even begun to see what they can do to the major population.''
A few moments later Mr. Falwell said, ''The abortionists have got to bear some burden for this because God will not be mocked. And when we destroy 40 million little innocent babies, we make God mad. I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America, I point the finger in their face and say, 'You helped this happen.' ''
To which Mr. Robertson said, ''Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government.''
God allowed America's enemies to give them what the country probably deserved. Not radically different than what Wright said, is it? But everybody focused on the part about "the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the A.C.L.U., People for the American Way," as if Norman fucking Lear was the 20th highjacker, and they overlooked the first part. Liberals took Robertson and Falwell's comments as an attack on themselves because liberals are narcissitic shitheads. But they were an attack on America.
But President Bush never cut off either one of those ghouls and John McCain gave the commencement at Falwell's clown college just before Falwell had the good grace to finally fucking die. The GOP kept going to their poisoned wells long after they proved themselves to be every inch as treasonous as Jeremiah Wright. They campaigned on their dopey shows, received their emissaries at the White House and spoke at their hamburger universities.
If I know journalists as well as I think I do, they're using the Wright story to tee up a full-bore assault on evangelical retards in the name of being "fair and balanced." Journalists are godless heathens to be sure, but they happen to be particularly antagonistic toward conservative fairy tales.
All the way back in 1993, Bush remarked that "heaven is open only to those who accept Jesus Christ," which leaves Muslims and Jews in a rather precarious position. Fortunately for Bush, he was only running for governor then and the approximately 12 Jews and Muslims in the Lone Star State weren't going to vote Republican anyway. It was only in 1999, when he was preparing to run for president, that he sought absolution from Abe Foxman and the Anti-Defamation League.
Then there's John McCain's relationship with John Hagee. Reverend Hagee runs one of those Wall-Mart churches in Texas and believes some incomprehensibly dumb things.
And he's even got a minature whore for his "Whore Church" pointer. Awwww. John Hagee is fucking adorable!
Don't get me wrong, he's right about the "Whore Church" and Catholic anti-Semitism, but that's beside the point. There are 40 million Catholics in the United States and they constitute the single largest voting bloc there. Republicans would very much like to continue their recent trend of narrowly winning the Catholic vote. But the immigration debacle is going to crucify them with Hispanics and seeing John McCain holding hands with the likes of Hagee certainly isn't going to help with the rest of them.
Hagee also called Hurricane Katrina "the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans." because the city was planning a gay pride parade. Do serious people actually believe shit like that? I thought saying things like that got you in a straightjacket and not presidential politics.
When presented with Hagee's quotes, McCain distanced himself from them. However, just two weeks ago, McCain said to George Stephanopolous that he was "glad to have his endorsement." After the Obama / Wright conflageration, that isn't going to fly for very long. The press knows that and I think McCain does, too.
Look, I think John McCain is the first decent human being to run for president since Bob Dole 12 years ago and he doesn't want to attack Barack Obama's faith, particularly when the media and Hillary Clinton are doing it for him. I think, like the first President Bush, that he would like to avoid a presidential election becoming a stupid debate about an invisible man who lives in the sky.
Idiot bloggers are screaming for McCain's head because he won't jump on the Jeremiah Wright gravy train of glory. That's why I call them idiot bloggers. John McCain has been in politics for a very long time and is savvy enough to know that the second he attacks Wright, he opens himself up to questions about his relationship with Hagee and the ghost of Jerry Falwell returns to haunt him.
The stupid pricks in the GOP's evangelical base hate McCain and he isn't real fond of them either. But, while I disagree with his assessment, he feels he needs those jackals and doesn't need the hassle of throwing an evil crank like Hagee under the bus.
I'm not sure that's true. If any Republican can win without evangelicals, it's John McCain. Furthermore, it isn't like those assholes are going to vote for Obama. The worst thing that can happen is that they stay home. McCain is already on the record calling Falwell and Robertson "agents of intolerance" and Obama wrote a book about how wonderful Wright is. If it the argument stays at that level, McCain wins.
But McCain was almost killed by his little pantomine of kissing Falwell's ring at Liberty University last year and I'm not sure that the Lazarus act works twice. If Hagee becomes an issue - and the New York Timesstarted the ball rolling this morning - he can't do any less than Obama did in denouncing him personally without getting killed.
Let's quit pretending that Obama isn't already the nominee. At this point, Hillary Clinton is little more than a highly effective McCain surrogate. As time goes by, it is increasingly clear that McCain can beat Obama with independents and what I like to call "Ed Rendell Democrats" who cower in fear at the prospect of voting for a brown person.
But if this campaign becomes an inspid Ecclesiastical debate, all bets are off and you're likely looking at a President Obama. After all, religious psychopaths who publicly indentify with the Republicans outnumber those who identify with Democrats by about a hundred to one. The only thing saving McCain from answering questions about his strange relationships with lunatics is Howard Dean's insane "50 state strategy" that adorably assumes that the Democrats have a shot in the South. When the eventual nominee takes over the DNC, I assure you that this will change.
I know that this little missive is going to piss off any number of my readers, including several of my friends. But faith is a private thing and is best left that way. If you insist on making that faith a spectacle in your elections, I reserve the right to mock both it and you mercilessly.
I'm also not dumb enough to say in public that Jeremiah Wright is any better or any worse than John Hagee. Does anybody seriously believe that if Barack Obama becomes president that he'll establish a black republic, go on television and say that the United States deserved 9/11, or establish a federal Department of Chicken Roosting? Really? I certainly don't think that John McCain is going to go on a whore church tirade although it would be awfully funny if he did.
I love the United States and its people with all of my heart. I've spent the better part of my life studying the country and its politics. But Americans have this highly distrubing quirk that makes their elections about God even more than the fucking Iranians do. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad didn't get elected president because he was closer to Allah. He got elected because he promised to kill more Jews.
Maybe Obama's pastor hates America. His plumber might, too. So the fuck what? In the end, making your elections about your religion is like my making my blog about my cock. And I'd never do that. I'm far too classy.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day:GodBy: John Lennon From:Plastic Ono Band
Afghanistan suffers from all of the problems Iraq does, only more so. The same flawed, illogical and monsterously fucking stupid American policies that have turned Mesopotamia a waking nightmare were actually invented in Afghanistan.
Seven weeks after 9/11, the United States brought the fight back to al-Qaeda and their Taliban sponsors. And it was a striking success despite the notable lack of actual American forces in the field. It was a war fought almost entirely by proxy. It was directed by the CIA, but actually conducted by the Northern Alliance and rented local warlords.
After the fall of Kabul, a Loya jirga was convened and Ben Kingsley was named acting president. He was elected in his own right by the Afghan people in 2004. Kingsley had never run much of anything prior to his being named president, but he was exceptional in Gandhiand Sexy Beast, so he had the enthusiasic backing of President Bush, who is something of a film buff.
Then the United States went away. They said something about having something better to do. Or maybe it left a note. Who can remember?
Anyhow, Afghanistan was left with a government headed by an Academy Award winner, drug dealers, war criminals of varying dispicability and several thousand NATO troops. Oh, and all of the major figures in both the Taliban and al-Qaeda were still wandering about. But whar are you going to do? The Bush administration had other priorities several hundred miles to the southeast.
Amazingly, the Rumsfeld doctrine of underwhelming force turned out to be complete nonsense and things went badly rather quickly. It turns out that you can't build a government around opium traffickers and movie stars and expect things to go well.
The way I see things, NATO is militarily about where the Soviets were in Afghanistan circa 1985. We control the cities, but once you get out into the country, you start having problems. Other than Canada and the Dutch, most of the NATO force is too scared to even go where the insurgency is, which is a novel way of prosecuting an anti-insurgency campaign.
Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, has called on British and American troops to stop arresting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan, saying that their operations undermined his government's authority and were counter-productive.
(...)
Karzai is facing re-election next year and may be hoping to bolster flagging support with a populist stance. However, in recent months relations have deteriorated seriously, with Western officials openly doubting the ability of the Afghan president, who was heavily backed by the US and the UK in 2001 after the fall of the Taliban regime, to manage rampant corruption and combat drug trafficking in the war-wracked southwest Asian state.
I particularly love the part about combating drug trafficking. The United States sought the co-operation of local warlords who were known to be involved in the drug trade. Now the U.S wants Ben Kingsley to do something about it. I'm not sure how to break this to the American and British governments, but they have a monopoly on air power and can napalm the poppy fields anytime they choose. The president of Afghanistan, on the other hand, cannot leave the house with at least four assassination attempts occurring.
I'd love to be in one of those summits, where Bush leans over and says "Hey, those drug dealers that we paid off for three years, can you do something about them?"
Karzai said he wanted American forces to stop arresting suspected Taliban members and their supporters, saying that fear of arrest and their past mistreatment were discouraging them from coming forward to lay down their arms. 'It has to happen,' he said. 'We have to make sure that when a Talib comes to Afghanistan ... he is safe from arrest by the coalition.'
Efforts at winning over Taliban fighters or sympathisers are mired in confusion: Nato allies in Afghanistan are divided over the exact nature of the amnesty or 'reconciliation programme' for insurgents. British policy, despite official insistence that 'there are no negotiations with the Taliban', is to weaken the radical Islamic movement by splitting off foot soldiers tempted by money or misled by tribal chiefs, religious leaders and ideologues from a 'hardcore' of leaders.
It appears that Ben Kingsley's policy is in direct conflict with NATO's. And it would be, but for the fact that NATO doesn't appear to have a policy at all. Having one would be a good place to start. After all, we've been there for six and a half years.
Having said that, we're doing a good job of pretending that Afghanistan is a democracy. That being the case, we're sort of obligated to at least pretend to care what that country's elected president has to say, even though it is unmitigated nonsense. But nonsense or not, it is his country and he answers to the people, not NATO.
And that, teenagers, is where democracy and common sense conflict. It's also why I thought the Bush doctrine of spreading democracy is not just incredibly stupid, but dangerously counter to American long-term strategic interests.
Let's take France as just one example. As you know, France is a democracy, although it has taken them no few than five tries to get it right. France is also famously difficult in its relationships with practically everybody. This is because the more democratic a society is, the more nationalistic it tends to be.
There is no guarantee that a democratic Iraq won't eventually be as hostile to Israel as its Baathist predecessor was, and no one should assume that a democratic Afghanistan won't seek some accomodation with the Taliban.
And that's where democracy directly conflicts with American national security and that of its NATO allies. The Taliban and al-Qaeda declared war on the West on September 11, 2001. And recent Afghan history indicates that there cannot be co-existence with the Taliban. Eventually, they will return to power as they did in 1996. They will destroy those that would cooperate with them because their religious fervor demands no less.
Once that occurs, it presents a clear and present danger to the West. That is compounded by the return of civilian rule in Pakistan. With the fall of Pervez Musharraff in everything but name, there is no longer any realistic check on the military and, to a much more important degree, the Inter-Service Intelligence service. The ISI, more than anyone else, was instrumental in the creation and military training of the Taliban and assured their survival in power. And that occured under the civilian governments of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif.
Because Musharraf, like Zia al-Huq before him, had unquestioned control of the Pakistani military and the ISI, it was generally assumed that they worked under his exclusive direction. And Zia and Musharraf knew that their policies had to be tempered with their desire to maintain healthy relations with the United States.
But the military and ISI have never respected civilian rule and have acted on their own under civilian government. It is a matter of historical fact that the ISI was training fighters who would later constitute the Taliban and al-Qaeda to wage jihad in Indian controlled Kashmir. Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif knew about that training, but lacked the power to stop it. And it very nearly led to the world's first nuclear exchange.
The ISI hated Bhutto, barely tolerated Sharif, and has no use at all for Ben Kingsley. Gandhi, as it happens, wasn't that well received in Pakistan. If history is any guide, the army and ISI will resume ignoring the Pakistani civilian authorities and resume their relationship with the Taliban. If that happens, all bets are off.
The United States and NATO can't leave Afghanistan anytime if the forseeable future, lest the Taliban return to power. We also can't override President Ben Kingsley on his domestic political decisions, lest we undermine him with his constituents and demonstrate how ineffective he actually is. We also can't topple him for two reasons; first, we have nothing to replace him with. Second, making a big show of creating an Afghan democracy and toppling it less than a decade afterward would look sort of bad.
So what do we do? Do we give Kingsley the berth he needs to fulfil his constitutional duty, even if that imperils our own security? Or do we recognize Afghan democracy for it is, fraudulent, ineffective and ripe for exploitation by the more unsavory elements of the Pakistani national security establishment?
These are the questions that President George W. Bush and his failed and ridiculous "democracy agenda" leaves us with as he rides off into the sunset to establish some retarded democracy institute and "replenish the old coffers."
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner By: Warren Zevon From: Excitable Boy
I'm of the mind that if you run a large, complicated and almost entirely backward country, you should get all of the extracurricular pussy you can handle. But, as Bill Clinton found out, that causes endless amounts of bullshit, mostly from asshole Republicans and his busybody wife. And Clinton appears to have been exclusively a mouth man.
Russian president Vladimir Putin has been learning about how that works of late. However, Russians - their experience with communism notwithstanding - are far more practical than are Americans and they tend to applaud their leaders getting strange trim, if only because it keeps their minds off of sending the populace to gulags and whatnot.
For the last month or so, the Russian media has been agog with rumors that Putin has been fucking former olympic gymnast and current member of the Duma Alina Kabaeva. If the rumors are true, Putin is very smart.
A modern gentleman always strives to couple with women who can contort themselves in sexually productive ways and likes to get naked for the media. Women are attracted to power and men are attracted to women who can flip their crotches over their heads, thereby aligning all of their girly-holes perfectly. Not only is that the way things are, it's they way they ought to be. To get upset with this is to be upset with human biology, which is something of a Republican specialty.
When one finds himself a 55 year old man and has the opportunity to hammerfuck a 104 pound, 24 year old girl who can put herself in extraordinarily useful positions, one should always do so.
Of course, you could point out that President Putin is married, but that proves that you're an idiot. First wives never count, particularly when they are unable to flip their crotches over their heads. If you don't believe me, just ask Newt Gingrich. He'll learn you, but good.
Fucking a gymnast is something everybody should do at least once. And once you do, you'll find it difficult to avoid alerting the media. That's just the way it works.
However, journalists, as we all know, are swine and are incapable of leaving well enough alone. The journalistic class has taken something as pure and innocent as fucking a 24 year old, 104 pound gymnast into something tawdry, like marrying a 24 year old, 104 pound gymnast.
That's obviously going too far. Every gentleman knows that one never marries a girl who can flip her crotch over her head when you're already fucking her. And Vladimir Putin is more than just your typical gentleman, he's the president of a goddamned country. He can do all manner of cool things, like fire nuclear weapons at those who annoy him or poison them with plutonium. And you think your Trans Am is cool?
As president, Vladimir can also fuck with the vermin in the press corps in ways that must keep George W. Bush awake at night. It takes a special form of stupid that can only be found in journalism school to fuck with a guy who can poison you with plutonium.
Well, the president of the Russian Federation is about to teach them that Putin don't take no mess!
Russia's lower house of parliament voted Friday to widen the definition of slander and libel and give regulators the authority to shut down media outlets found guilty of publishing such material.
The legislation, passed by the State Duma 339-1, is the latest attempt by the government to squeeze the country's increasingly embattled news media.
How would you like to be the one member of the Duma who voted against the measure? Unless that member was Alina, it probably wasn't a very smart thing to do.
The bill allows authorities to suspend and close down media outlets for libel and slander -- punishment that is identical to that for news media found to be promoting terrorism, extremism and racial hatred.
It also expands the definition of slander and libel to "dissemination of deliberately false information damaging individual honor and dignity."
It turns out that Putin's pecs of steel and absolute power over the state can be intimidating, but mostly his absolute power over the state.
I'll bet those scumbag reporters are sorry now.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Papa Don't Take No Mess By: James Brown From: Star Time
ANOTHER DAY, ANOTHER FIGHT WITH DR. REVEREND THAT I'LL EVENTUALLY WIN
Last weekend, I told you all about my most recent interaction with my shirpa, Dr. Reverend. Most of our conversation was about, as most of them are, Hitler's birthday and the importance thereof. But however much we like to pretend otherwise, there's more to life than Hitler's Birthday (which, by the way, is tomorrow.) There's also Canada's perpetual state of election readiness that no one other myself, the good Doctor and a swarm of journalistic layabout vermin in Ottawa cares about. It is, however, an issue worthy of discussion.
Ever since his election as Liberal leader and single most useless person in Canada in December of 2006, Stephane Dion has been threatening to bring down the Conservative minority government. And just as consistently, whenever given the opportunity to do so, he has abstained on confidence votes.
On the other hand, he's been doing it for six months in a row now. If nothing else, you really have to admire the man's stamina. Not opposing things for that long when you're the leader of the opposition must wind a guy.
Well, Dion has decided that he's mad as hell and he isn't going to take it anymore! And he's been driven to distraction by an budget amendment relating that's so inconsequential that I'm not even going to discuss it here. And this time he isn't going to take it anymore!
The only problem is that Stephane Dion is no Howard Beale. This is a guy who not a year ago, was going to bring down the government over a nasty little war that Canada is engaged in in Afghanistan. Perhaps my American readers have heard of it.
In the end, Dion backed off of that threat just as he's backed off of every threat that he's ever made. He faces the smallest minority government in human history, but he just can't seem to work up the balls to defeat it.
Liberal bloggers are all aflutter thinking that this is the time for an election. Mostly because they think that this is a time where a born loser like like their leader can win. Mostly, this is bcause of this week's RCMP raid on the Conservative Party's headquarters.
Unfortunately, this is just further proof that Liberal bloggers and their leader are abject fucking idiots. Regardless of how bad the so-called "In and Out" scandal really is, it's about campaign finance, and that's way too inside baseball for your average voter. That's doubly true when the economy is going in the toliet. If I were a Conservative strategist, I'd be begging for the Liberals to force an election over an immigration amendment that no one has ever heard of and and a campaign finance scandal no one cares about.
I'm hoping that Dion continues to be a coward. Not because I like either the Conservatives or the Liberals. I'm just So. Tired. Of. Voting. It seems to be all that I do anymore. And it turns out that democracy makes me sleepy. The time I'm spending in voting booths is time that I could be spending sexually abusing myself.
But when I was talking to my best friend without tits, the RCMP raid hadn't yet occured. Not that I think the raid will make any difference either way. Nobody gave a shit about Bill Clinton's campaign finance follies and doubt that they'll much care about Stephen Harper's.
My spiritual guide has been convinced from almost the first day of the Harper minority government that he was perfectly poised to lose the next election in a big way.
And I'm not altogether sure that he wouldn't have been wrong a year ago. Had Dion forced an election over leaving Khandahar in 2009, the Liberals may very well have won a minority on the issue. Canadians are not a militiristic people, and resent the fact that Afghanistan has essentially become a war between the Taliban and Canada, England and the Dutch. And I'm remain unconvinced that we're not exactly where the Soviet Union was in 1985.
Despite constant infighting and a complete lack of strategic infighting in the Liberal Party, it is entirely possible that Dion could have beaten Harper on Afghanistan. And he pissed the opportunity away.
Ever since then, Dion has threatened to defeat the government in the Commons approximately twice a month, only to retreat and ultimately abstain from any and all Confidence votes that would force an election. Not only has Stephane Dion lost all credibility, the NDP has been, for all intents and purposes, the official opposition for the last six months.
One thing that I keep reminding the good Doctor of is that Harper to lose, there has to actually be someone to beat him. Like him or not (and I'm not sure that he isn't actually some kind of a fucking cyborg), but Stephen Harper is an exceptionally disciplined and resourceful politician. Stephane Dion, on the other hand, is singularly incapable of getting out of bed in the morning without embarrassing himself. While Harper is completely lacking in things like charisma and human emotion, Dion is the single most unnatural politician in human history. The guy makes John Kerry look like FDR.
I thought that Dr. Reverend and I had come to some agreement that Dion is actually Canada's biggest loser and that there's more of a statistical likelihood that I'll be the prime minister of Canada before he is. There's certainly a better chance that I'll be Liberal leader in 12 months.
Apparently, I was wrong.
On Tuesday the good Doctor e-mailed me this poll, which is unique in its silliness.
The federal Tories have ended their flirtation with majority government territory, according to a new poll that puts them back to the same support levels that gave them their current minority.
The poll shows that, while the Tories appear to be improving their standing with Quebec voters, they have lost support in Ontario since Finance Minister Jim Flaherty launched attacks on the province's Liberal government.
The Strategic Counsel survey, conducted April 10-13, found that 36 per cent of voters would support the Tories if an election were held today, compared with 30 per cent who would back the Liberals.
The results for the two parties match the 2006 vote.
There's one problem with national polls in Canada: they're completely meaningless. Pollsters treat a voter in Saskatchewan as being equal to a voter in Ontario and they aren't. Canadian elections are decided in Ontario, Quebec and - to a much lesser extent - British Columbia. Since over half of Parliament's seats are in Ontario and Quebec, the rest of the country may as well not exist. The Democrats routinely win New York and California, but they don't win the presidency that often. It is mathematically impossible to win a majority government without winning either Ontario or Quebec in a significant way.
What this poll ignores is the fact that the Liberals are in a state of complete collapse in Quebec and Dion is about as popular in his home province as your average child rapist.
All of the polling in the 2006 election pointed to the Tories winning two or three seats in Quebec. They ended up with ten. This is because Quebec Liberals were so disheartened over the beating the took over the Sponsorship scandal and the ongoing Chretien-Martin civil war, that they organized for Harper as a federalist alternative to the seperatist Bloc Quebecois. There's no indication that that's changed, and the Strategic Council poll has the Conservatives leading in Quebec now, while they were running a distant third in 2006.
Then there's the polls findings regarding Ontario. Because of the population concentration, the poll probably relies heavily on the Toronto "416" ridings and the "905" ones that surround them. What the poll doesn't point out is that Harper doesn't have any seats in 416. For that reason, his approval rating can fall to zero and it will make no difference on the electoral map.
Once you get out of the Greater Toronto Area, which is the combination of the 416 and 905 ridings, voters tend to vote on either cultural issues or economic populism. And those are safe Tory issues and always have been.
What the poll doesn't address is where Harper loses seats and where Dion can pick them up. Yes, the Liberals are polling very well in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, but they already hold all of those seats. Liberal support in those cities can be fucking unanimous and it would make no practical difference. Furthermore, the Conservatives seem to be doing well where they already have seats.
That means the next election is going to be fought entirely in the non-English regions of Quebec. And the trends there favor Harper far more than they do Dion.
The Conservatives need 18 seats to win a majority and the Liberals need nearly 30 to win a bare minority. The problem for Dion is that Liberal support is strong where they already have seats, but is collapsing where they don't. Harper, on the other hand is holding on to his seats but has enormous growth potential in Quebec, where he doesn't.
Outside of Montreal, where the Liberals lost a seat that they've held since the Depression to the NDP, Quebec is going to be a battle between the Tories and the Bloc. And the Bloc is pretty much at their natural basement of support. The Baby Jesus could rise from the fucking dead and tell Quebeckers to reject independence and about 1 in 4 of them would either ignore him or crucify him again. The Conservatives aren't going to win committed Bloc voters, but they could win soft sovereigntists and sweep the Liberals in their non-Montreal ridings. And that alone is good for at least 20 seats.
The Liberals, as last months by-elections proved, aren't doing so shit-hot in B.C either. The Liberals have held Vancouver-Quandra for 20 years, and came within 150 votes of losing it outright to the Tories. And the Conservatives won a northern Saskatchewan riding that they had no business even being competetive in. People like Jason Cherniak and Warren Kinsella are still throwing flowers at Bob Rae and Martha Hall Findlay for winning over 60% of the vote, but they don't point out that Rae and Findlay are national figures who were running in two of the safest Liberal ridings in the goddamn country.
What both the poll and my friend are ignoring is that Harper has proven himself to be a smart, disciplined politician who has fought two leadership campaigns and two general elections in five years and won three of the four. Conversely, Stephane Dion hasn't proven himself to be capable of much of anything at all. The only reason that he became Liberal leader is because Michael Ignatieff is a complete dickhead and Bob Rae had only been a Liberal for about 10 minutes when he ran for the praty's leadership.
In the only thing that even resembles a national election, Dion only won by accident. And since he's become leader, he's retreated repeatedly on what should be matters of bedrock principle. His reversals as leader of the opposition have badly hurt his credibility and that makes selling himself as a potential prime minister almost impossible. Add to that the fact that he'll be facing off against a guy who has run more campaigns in five years than anyone else in Canadian history, and you can almost smell the apocalypse coming.
So my question to Dr. Reverend, Canada's pollsters and the entire Liberal blogosphere stands. If Harper's going to lose the next election, just how do you suppose that'll happen? And how much money would you be willing to bet on your convictions.
I'm only good at two things in life - eating pussy and calling elections - but I'm fucking outstanding at both. Read through my archives and count how many political campaigns I've been ultimately wrong about if you want to question that assertion. And the good Doctor knows about my political prowess firsthand. He's been watching me do this four times longer than the rest of you have. I don't know why he insists on continuing to question my judgement on this like this.
I can only guess that he's overly excitable because Hitler's birthday is tomorrow.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Little Hitler By: Nick Lowe From: Jesus of Cool
From time to time you'll hear some fuckhead tell you that a given president was, is, or would be "great for the economy." As soon as you hear that, you should immediately recognize that you're speaking to either an unreconstructed liberal or some asshole Republican, but you most assuredly aren't talking to a conservative.
Conservatives generally believe that politicians and government are fantastic at destroying a perfectly good economy, but terrible and producing anything positive about it. This is because elective politics is little more than a popularity contest and economics is about ruthless self-interest. The economy couldn't be less bothered if you like it or not, but the livelihood of any politician depends on it.
Every twenty years or so, the American people get really drunk and elect some asshole Republican motherfucker like Ronald Reagan or George W. Bush president. These presidents universially build crareers on the ideas of a free market and small government, but as soon as they achieve something that even resembles power, the create a truly monsterous government. In the process of doing so, they do something so incredibly dumb that even liberals wouldn't consider it: they give away all of the money.
Massive tax cuts and increasing non-defense discretionary spending is a great way to make friends, and it might even be good for the economy in the short-term. This is because people like free money and as a general rule, will spend it just as quickly as they possibly can when the economy is already in good shape. When the economy is in the shitter, as it is now, people will either save that money or use it to pay off debt. That does absolutely nothing for the economy. In fact, paying off personal debt might be bad for the economy in that it denies the lender interest that could be used to loan to other schmucks with big dreams and bad math.
Big, giant tax cuts also display a profound ignorance of how capitalism works. Taxes are, as anyone who has taken a civics class knows, the price of government. Whenever you cut the price of something, people tend to consume more of it. That's basic marketing. Therefore, whenever you cut taxes, the demand for government tends to go up and the size of the government increases. That's not just a guess, either. The American government has grown each and every time taxes have been substantially cut. Look at the size of government after 1962, 1982 or 2002 if you doubt me.
Republicans tend to go even further and cut taxes below what the government actually needs to function. The government still gets the money it needs, don't you worry. That's because they borrow it. If President Bush operated a private business the way that he has been operating the United States, that business would be bankrupted. Actually, Bush knows this because he bankrupted everything that he's ever touched. The only successful business venture that America's first MBA president didn't completely destroy was the Texas Rangers - a protected monopoly.
The only thing that presidents like Reagan and Bush were able to create has been moutains of debt and big government. That was fine for them, because Reagan wasn't in office when the bills came due and neither will Bush. As a consequence, the United States government is bloated and fucking broke. That might be good for democracy, because it makes the government exactly like the people it represents. But it's very hard to remain a superpower that way. Christ, even the Soviet Union displayed a greater sense of fiscal discipline that does the GOP. If nothing else, communism also had the good grace to disappear, which no one expects the Republican Party to do anytime soon.
Republicans also believe that the government shouldn't be trusted to do much of anything efficiently, but it does insist that it set a "moral example." That is why President Clinton was impeached and any number of Republican congressmen said so at the time. And you all saw just how seriously the GOP took the crime of perjury when President Bush commuted Scooter Libby's sentence. I challenge you to present a better case for the ability of the government to set a "moral example" that that.
The "moral example of government" seems patently fucking silly in ways that only Pat Robertson (who also takes people's money without producing anything for them) can support. But when you consider economic history, it does seem to carry some weight.
When free-spending Republican dickheads run the government, finacial institutions tend to start doing some crazy shit. The single greatest accomplishment of the Reagan administration was allowing the savings and loan crisis to rape the American taxpayer to the tune of eleventy-zillion dollars. Every indication is that the current subprime lending crisis will dwarf that, both in economic cost and in the reputation of Americans as being an even halfway smart people.
Both the savings and loan and subprime lending scandals were a direct consequence of the Republican penchant for deregulation. Deregulation is, in and of itself, a fine thing. However, deregulating industries whose assests are insured by the federal government is perhaps not so wise.
Americans are childish enough to believe in a quaint notion of an American Dream and Republicans are cynical enough to exploit that faith. Somewhere along the line people decided that every American should own a house, regardless of their ability to actually do something crazy like actually pay for one. But your responsible financial institutions, combined with the breathtaking incompetence of the Bush administration, has made it possible for your fucking paperboy to buy a McMansion.
The image of a 12 year old boy in Toledo owning the palace at Versailles might seem a touch ridiculous, but that's essentially what has happened. And that's a natural consequence of deregulation. When you allow people to do whatever they want, they tend to do incredibly silly shit with shocking frequency. It's a fascinating phenomenon and one that necessitated the existence of government in the first fucking place.
American financial deregulation is, however, complcated by two things: federal deposit insurence and globalization. Because most bank deposits are insured the US government, the American taxpayer ultimately will get to pay for the paper boy's grand estate in the suburbs. And because globalization has allowed foreign financial institutions play a much greater part in the United States than they ever have, I get to pay for it, too. Go me!
The American subprime crisis is so bad that it has already decimated a village in Norway. And because of American irresponsibility, I can't get a friggin' break on my monthly credit card interest payments. You see, Canadian banks are pretty heavy hitters in the American financial markets. The "TD" that Sam Waterston shills for in those TD Ameritrade commercials actually stands for Toronto Dominion, one of Canada's five largest banks. And even though the Bank of Canada (our version of the Federal Reserve) has been cutting interest rates pretty regularly, I'm not seeing the benefit of it because the banks are carrying the losses they took in the US housing market on the backs of Canadian borrowers.
And I'm more than a little pissed off about that.
I love the American people and have spent decades and tens of thousands of dollars studying their country and history. I honestly believe that it is fundamentally the last best hope of man on earth. But it seems that they have forgotten the value of a dollar somewhere along the way. And their penchant for electing idiot presidents, which used to be just annoying, is now costing me money.
I don't get a vote in your country and I shouldn't have to pay your bills. You can elect as many morons as you want, but you really shouldn't expect the rest of the world to subsidize your own irresponsibility. Believing that every day actually can be Christmas might be an adorable quality, but I'd rather not find the presents under the tree itemized on my credit card statement at the end of January.
Over the last twenty years the American economy has become what American conservatives used to mock South America for when South America was a basket case and American conservatives were still actually conservative. But Florida's inability to vote properly notwithstanding, the United States is still a democracy and can vote to destroy themselves however they see fit.
I just don't want to subsidize it anymore, particularly when two of your three presidential candidates are threatening to fuck me on NAFTA more than the current president already has. In fact, I sort of hope that a Democratic administration withdraws from NAFTA in the near future. The United States has been singularly incapable of living up to its word to anyone who isn't an incomptent Iraqi politician and I see little reason to believe that Canada should continue to be tied to a sinking ship. Any other country in the world should feel free to negotiate free trade agreements with the United States, but if they don't want to learn any lessons from the Canadian experience, there's nothing I can do for them.
Besides, American jobs - particularly in the automotive industry - will continue to come to Canada with or without NAFTA. This is because we have single-payer health care, and that relieves a company of the need to negotiate those benefits into their collective agreements. As a matter of fact, the constant influx of American jobs would not only overcome any tarriffs the United States imposes, it might actually keep our Maoist system afloat. That, combined with the price of oil, might make Canada better off without NAFTA. When oil hits $150 a barrel this summer, Canada will be able to buy Florida and give it to Cuba, thus relieving the United States of its insane Cuba policy.
That's why I'm beginning to support forcing Canadian banks to pull out of the American economy. I'm done subsidizing bad decisions and make believe economics that the American people seem to have no interest in changing in the near future. I don't get a vote in America's bad decisions, but I and pretty much everybody on earth can vote with our wallets.
I believe that Parliament should force Canada's big five banks to pass along the Bank of Canada's interest rate cuts to their customers. Should those banks refuse, they should lose either their charters or their federal deposit insurance. The market will pretty much take care of the rest because no sane person will deposit their saving in an uninsured bank. As I remeber it, I didn't encourage my prick bankers to invest in ventures that were giving houses to folks with no money. Why in the fuck am I paying for it?
Those cocksuckers were screwing their customers when they were doing well with American financial idiocy and they're screwing us even worse now that the Great Day of Reckoning is coming near. But I'll be goddamned if I continue covering their losses on things that they knew to be absolute fucking nonsense up front.
I was raised by bankers and I know that the banks are pretty sure that giving money to people without credit or collateral generally doesn't work out that well. The fact that they'd never get away with those lending practices at home makes my footing the bill for their foreign adventures even more infuriating. I don't remember those cunts lining up to underwrite my Acapulco spring break party in 1989, so fuck them.
The Bush administration really has no choice but to do what they're going to announce on Monday, which is essentially the biggest expansion of the federal government into the financial services market since Franklin Roosevelt was president. If they don't, there's the very real possibility of a 1929-style Wall Street collapse. The result of thirty years of irresponsible deregulation of publicly insured industries has inevitably led to even greater regulation and an expansion of the federal government.
Because presidents like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush insisted on playing make believe with federally insured industries, each and every one of America's 300 million citizens are now investment bankers. They're floating Bear Sterns and I'm guessing that this is only the tip of the iceburg. If the American taxpayer doesn't like constantly bailing out the airlines, just wait and see how much you love subsidizing shitheads in $300 suspenders and velvet underpants.
We're now on the brink of a brand new world. Before Monday, the bad decisions of the paperboy in Toledo financed Gordon Gekko's vacations on the French Riveria. Now the American taxpayer gets to. But make no mistake, Gordon's still getting a tan and a blowjob from a girl with an odd accent. After all, he has a contract guaranteeing his salary and he doesn't much give a shit who pays it.
As for your dividends, forget about it. Those are going to be going to China for the next little while. Clinton merely rented the Lincoln Bedroom from the Stalinist Chinese. By the time Bush is done, the American people will be renting it from them. On the other hand, I hear that Beijing is a rather reasonable landlord .... if you're not Tibetan.
One way or another, President Bush and his demented supporters were going to put their socialist grip around the throat of Wall Street. They tried to do it with their nonsensical, communist plan to "reform" Social Security and failed. Now they'll get that control through the unintended consequenes of their own horribly stupid decisions.
Once upon a time, the idea that individiuals and businesses should bear the consequences of their own actions and that government cannot mind its own business were foundational beliefs of conservatism. That changed when idots like Reagan and Bush encouraged private business to do whatever they wanted with publicly insured money. Capitalism is founded on the principle of risk. But when the government guarantees your assests, there really is no risk involved in capitalism. And at that point capitalism ceases to be very capitalistic.
Republican douchebags like Bush and Mitch McConnell have gotten a great deal of mileage out of bashing the courts, which are unelected and accountable only to the rule of law and the Consitution of the United States. Well, on Monday those same assholes are going to essentially hand over the American economy to the Federal Reserve, which is unelected and accountable to no one.
I seriously doubt that most American conservatives will remember this when November comes because most American conservatives haven't proven themselves to be particularly honest or particularly conservative. They use government to create a problem, expand government to solve it, and then have the unmitigated fucking balls to say that "government isn't the solution, government is the problem."
Horseshit. The GOP and their cocksucker minons in the blogosphere aren't conservatives and they haven't been for years. As a matter of fact, those dumb bastards have managed to pull off the most magical of tricks, expanding government as they bankrupt it. they've created a government big enough to essentially take over the stock market, but small enough to fit in your average uterus or Terri Schiavo's skull.
If American voters want to make themselves a third world country, fine. That's their right. But foreign nationals shouldn't be expected to subsidize the America decent into financial anarchy. if Canadian banks want to get stupid, they shouldn't do so with my fucking money, nor should they do it with Canadian government deposit insurance. Nor should any government encourage business expansion into the United States until the United States decides to grow the fuck up. If foreign businesses decide to ignore their own governments, they should be made to sink or swim with the American version of psychopathic economics.
Because that's what capitalism is supposed to be about. It isn't supposed to be about foreigners paying off your bad debts with their interest payments because some unemployed steelworker in Ohio voted himself into bankruptcy because he didn't like gay marriage and, ironically, foreigners.
But as I write this, the American economy is little more than a Christmas card from a hooker in Minneapolis - full of promises that it'll do the right thing, but empty of any expectation that it actually will.
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Christmas Card From a Hooker in Minneapolis By: Tom Waits From: Blue Valentines
TOBACCO, RACISM & HOOKERS: THE HYPOCRISY OF WARREN KINSELLA
I try to avoid calling Warren Kinsella a fascist, because I think that he actually does believe in freedom. Unfortunately, he believes in freedom in its most childish incarnation; the right to say "fuck" in punk rock songs and vote for the Liberal Party of Canada. That is to say that Mr. Kinsella believes that you have the god-given right to do anything that he approves of.
It is on matters that Warren finds distasteful that we run into problems. For the last several months, Kinsella and most of the Canadian blogosphere have engaged in an often hilarious debate of almost staggering stupidity over hate speech and human rights commissions. Sadly, a number of American blogs have weighed in and contributed little other than demonstrating yet again their shocking ignorance of anything that occurs outside of the lower forty-eight.
Dalton McGuinty's BFF seems to be of the belief that if someone draws a swastika on a hockey rink boy's room, we are in imminent danger of witnessing another Holocaust against the Jewish people. I happen to believe that such a stance is an insult to the intelligence of the living and a mockery of the dead. It displays not only an ignorance of history, but a deeply profound one.
Firstly, I'm pretty sure that anti-Semetism pre-dates the invention of hockey.
Secondly, anti-Semitism is a natural extension of Christian, and particularly Catholic, theology. Without the prevelence of that theology in Europe, the Holocaust would have been unthinkable. You cannot have a church that spends 2,000 years preaching that the Jews killed the Son of Man without the expectation that someone somewhere will act on it.
It naturally follows that if you can blame the Jews for the crucifixion, you can blame them for other things as well. As we have seen, these things can include the treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression. European Jewery didn't become an international boogeyman over the course of a Berlin weekend back in 1933, it actually took centuries of work. European anti-Semetism predates Adolf Hitler, but it does not pre-date the Catholic Church.
However, pointing that out might make Christians and Catholics feel bad. Accordingly, it might constitute hate speech. And that's the danger of hate speech laws: the stifling of debate it naturally creates.
I have a natural and intense hatred of bigots and idiots. When the Great Day of Reckoning comes, I would very much like to feed them into a wood chipper. That will require two things, a really big wood chipper and the ability to easily find these people. Canadian law, as currently written, makes it very difficult to find these people because they're more afraid of going to jail for what they think than they are of the wood chipper.
Advocacy of hate speech laws also naturally presumes the existence of an efficient government, which democracy doesn't tend to promote. As the great P.J O'Rourke once pointed out, the government has a difficult time delivering the mail, which has your address on it and everything. Christ, the government of Canada couldn't even make sure that the Quebec advertising agencies that received zillions of dollars in federal contracts produced any actual work. To be fair, it make damn sure that the appropriate kick-backs went to the Liberal Party.
I want to make one thing clear, I don't doubt Mr. Kinsella's integrity and motives. I honestly believe that he's as close as what passes for a good man in the Liberal Party. I'm just questioning his intelligence.
Sadly, Warren has tired of the existential threat to Jews and Muslims everywhere. I suppose you can only take so many pictures in hockey rink boy's rooms before folks start asking questions. Instead, he has declared a jihad against being an adult. The target of that jihad is the Toronto Star Corporation.
As some of you might know, my father died of smoking-related illness as well. And he did so in a particularly gruesome way. I don't want to compare and contrast Daddy-death, but Warren got to say goodbye to his father in a hospital room. I was a little preoccupied giving CPR to mine on the fucking kitchen floor.
Having said that, my father knew precisely what smoking was doing to him and he continued to do so anyway. As a matter of fact, I know that smoking will also kill me someday.
Other than loathing non-smokers with a high degree of emotional intensity and wanting to hit them all on the head with an anvil, I don't find anything intellectually objectionable to being anti-tobacco so long as you're honest about it. Unfortunately, most anti-smoking activists are incredibly dishonest.
I live in a country with a single-payer heath care system. Smokers contribute billions of dollars more every year to that system than do non-smokers. Or at least we would be if tax dollars were dedicated to health care as opposed to going into general revenue, which supports useless things like Saskatchewan. Furthermore, we don't consume the benefits of the system that non-smokers do.
Here's an intersting fact. The most expensive way to die is being really old. Approximately 90% of the health care you receive will be in the last 18 months of your life. Old people are treated for things like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases and slow-acting cancers. As a general rule, smokers die young, and they die fast. While I'm sure that someone out there will show me a 122-year old guy who smokes three packs of Luckys a day, they should know that they're presenting the exception rather than the rule.
If everyone quit smoking tomorrow, you would quickly come to the realization that a health care system already doomed by millions of boomer assholes who are determined to live forever would be deprived of billions of dollars immediately. While I do respect the fact that you don't smoke, I resent being shit upon as I'm subsidizing your goddamn MRI and autistic kids through the 400% tax I'm paying on a legal product while being called an asshole for the privilge. I'm not browbeating you for volunteering to have retarded kids. All I ask in return is to be left alone.
If you're a sick Canadian who doesn't smoke, you should say an extra prayer to whatever god you worship that I don't quit myself. If every smoker in Canada dropped the habit tomorrow, everybody's taxes would go up to recover the billions in lost revenue. Worse still, you non-smoking assholes wouldn't get to feel all self-righteous anymore.
Then there's the small issue of the tabacco farmers in eastern Ontario and Quebec that I'm keeping in silken underpants. If you think that I'm just keeping the executive class of Imperial Tobacco off of the unemployment line, you're sadly mistaken. But maybe I'm wrong and the Canadian taxpayer wants to subsidize even more farmers for underperforming than they already are. Somehow I doubt that I'm wrong.
But let's get back to Warren, shall we?
This morning, CBC Radio reported that Torstar has broken with a decade-long ban, and accepted three full-page cigarette ads in Eye Weekly. Its principal competitor, Now, has refused the same ads, to its great credit.
Firstly, I should note to my international readers that Eye is a free newpaper that is distributed mostly in subway stations. Advertisrers will always do business with free publications because of what is known as "pass along" readership. What that means is that if someone leaves their copy of Eye on the subway, three other people will pick it up and read it. There's no other reason for anyone to place an ad in a free paper than that. Advertisers will sooner drop their business from a paid circulation publication than a free one. The reach of a free circular is generally greater than a paid one and the rates are generally lower.
That being the case, getting pissed off about cigarette ads displays a profound and disturbing ignorance of how advertising industry actually works.
Let's assume for a second that the NFL took millions of dollars of ads from a group wanting to turn Super Bowl Sunday into "National Beat Your Wife Day." Unless you already beat your wife, the ads aren't going to make a difference. If you already beat your wife, the ads might influence which of your beloved's eyes you blacken on Super Sunday, but that's about it
As much as I love Bob Dylan, he can't convince me to buy an Escalade, because I don't drive. Advertising will never convince you to engage in a behavior that you otherwise wouldn't. What it does do is influence brand selection. If you don't hit your wife, the NFL can't convince you to punch her in the right eye as opposed to the left. If you don't drive, it doesn't matter if Bob Dylan tells you to drive an Escalade. And if you don't smoke, the best fucking advertising in the world won't compel you to start.
Perhaps Mr. Kinsella is worried that a talking camel will convince his children to smoke. If that's the case, perhaps he isn't doing his job as a parent, in which case the government should take said children away from him. After all, he's the one who thinks that government knows best, not me.
I can forgive Warren's incredible ignorance of how advertising works because he has made his living in political advertising. Political ads rely almost exclusively on half-truths and outright lying in way that would bankrupt any commercial venture. If I were to run an ad saying that cigarettes will make you taller, I'd properly be destroyed finacially. But Kinsella worked on a campaign that said that it would never, ever raise taxes no matter what. And as soon as they entered office, that campaign instituted a spectaculary high "health tax."
What Warren Kinsella wants to punish is the adverising of a legal product that he doesn't like, but allow himself and his clients to lie relentlesly in furtherence of an empty suit's political ambitions. You're an idiot if you say "no new taxes", if you actually believe it. If you don't, you're something infinately worse. It should be noted that Kinsella's company is called Daisy, which refers to the most dishonest and effective ad in political history.
That leads to another interesting question. Warren keeps throwing out the name of the Toronto Star, which owns Eye Weekly. One can safely assume that Eye wouldn't be accepting tobacco advertising without the expressed permission of their masters at the Star.
But the Star is editorally friendly to the Liberal parties of Canada and Ontario. Mr. Kinsella isn't going to go after the benefactors of his patrons, is he? If Warren is demanding that the government of of Ontario, Toronto and Canada stop advertising in Eye because of the tobacco advertising, why isn't he also demanding that the ultimate profiteers of those ads, the Star, be refused their patronage? Will Daisy refuse to place ads on behalf of it's clients with Torstar? Will Daisy encourage its clients to not grant interviews with Torstar properties? I think fucking not.
Mr. Kinsella isn't going to do anything that costs himself or his clients anything personally. What Warren is doing is engaging in an exercise in self-edification that really doesn't cost him anything. If his principles are so strong against big tobacco, he should lead by example and refuse to do business with anyone who does business with them.
If it turns out that Dalton McGuinty's Ontario continues to subsidize tobacco farmers, will you or Daisy continue to accept contracts from Dalton McGuinty's Ontario, Warren? If you're going on moral stands, full disclosure is sort of important.
What has me most upset is the imputation that tobacco consumers are tools of advertisers any more than they are of any other legal product. Mr. Kinsella is free to imply that his own father was a mindless tool of Big Tobacco, but I refuse to say that about mine. Perhaps his father was an idiot. Mine wasn't. My father was a highly intelligent person who chose to use a legal product with full knowlege of the risks it carried.
Mr. Kinsella can paint his father as hick simpleton all he wants. That was his father and that's his right. I wouldn't say that my father was a blind consumer of things that were bad for him just because people like Warren said that they were full of vitamin C and stuff, but I don't know the Kinsella family.
But you should also remember that this is a guy who refuses to link the legal prostitution ads he protests as he links white power websites that he contends should be illegal. I refuse to send racist websites traffic both as a matter of principle and because I'm pretty sure that most people are already aware of racism.
More Canadians have likely been exposed to more hate from warrenkinsella.com than from any other source. On those grounds alone, you tell me who has created greater access to racist literature. Kinsella is sending traffic to the very people he wants prosecuted. As a matter fact, he's made money highlighting these people through his book, Web of Hate (which I won't link because it exposes people to hate literature.) Warren might not know this, but there are any number of anti-racisim groups that don't personally profit from racism.
And he's a guy who's calling for a boycott of a paper that makes money from legal product that the government he supports and does business with makes far more money than the paper could ever hope to. Kinsella also used to write for Eye, whose prostitution revenue he decries, but in part once paid his salary. Just because Huggy Bear talked to Starsky and Hutch didn't make him any less of a pimp, Warren. But there were no calls for a governmental boycott when Eye was merely promoting what he describes as kidfucking, were there?
Far be it from me to pass judgement, but the big orange fuzzy hat of a pimp speaks far louder your protestations of sex slavery. As you yourself admit, you didn't leave Eye voluntarily, you were fired because of political differences. You seemed to be fine living off of the proceeds of prostitution under your definition. It's tragic that Paul Martin ruined it like he ruined so many other things.
Mr. Kinsella, if you're going to wig out on Eye Weekly now, please explain how you weren't living off of the proceeds of prostitution when you were their dilligent employee. I know for a fact that I would have quit under those circumstances.
The government of Ontario raises millions of dollars from tobacco. The Liberal Party of Ontario is subsidized by those taxes. Warren Kinsella endorses the Liberal Party and makes a healthy living from those proceeds. Furthermore, you were okay with government advertising in a paper you accused of promoting child-fucking, but smoking is over the line? Where in the fuck are your priorities?
If Warren is going to be so moral, he should disclose his and Daisy's client lists and their connections to Big Tobacco. If he isn't willing to do so, you'll know everything you need to to about his morality. If Warren Kinsella was half a man, he'd respond to this post publicly (because I know as a fact that'll he'll read it before sundown), but I know that he won't.
When faced with the facts, it's easier to draw attention to people like Kate McMillian, Ezra Levant and the bathroom wall at some hockey rink. Update: If anyone can photoshop a picture of Warren wearing a giant pimp hat and/or carrying a big wad of tobacco money, I'd appreciate it. Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Cigarettes and Coffee By: Otis Redding From:Otis! The Definitive Otis Redding
THE USA PATRIOT ACT & THE DECLINE AND FALL OF CLIENT NINE
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
-The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution
Did you know that Eliot Spitzer's cock is a national security threat? According to the federal government, it may very well be a weapon of mass destruction, and I couldn't be more thrilled that the United States could find at least one. Maybe I was wrong about everything I've said about President Bush and the invasion of Iraq and the year-long search for WMD was nothing more than a test run for a truly important mission: fishing around in the pants of the governor of New York.
Even though most of us have spent the week thinking that Spitzer was little more than the Felix to Jim McGreevy's Oscar in a remake of the Odd Couple, he's something more. Governor Spitzer is the most prominent victim of the USA Patriot Act.
The Patriot Act gave the FBI new powers to snoop on suspected terrorists. In the fine print were provisions that gave the Treasury Department authority to demand more information from banks about their customers' financial transactions. Congress wanted to help the Feds identify terrorist money launderers. But Treasury went further. It issued stringent new regulations that required banks themselves to look for unusual transactions (such as odd patterns of cash withdrawals or wire transfers) and submit SARs—Suspicious Activity Reports—to the government. Facing potentially stiff penalties if they didn't comply, banks and other financial institutions installed sophisticated software to detect anomalies among millions of daily transactions. They began ranking the risk levels of their customers—on a scale of zero to 100—based on complex formulas that included the credit rating, assets and profession of the account holder.
Another element of the formulas: whether an account holder was a "politically exposed person." At first focused on potentially crooked foreign officials, the PEP lists expanded to include many U.S. politicians and public officials who were conceivably vulnerable to corruption.
The new scrutiny resulted in an explosion of SARs, from 204,915 in 2001 to 1.23 million last year. The data, stored in an IRS computer in Detroit, are accessible by law-enforcement agencies nationwide. "Terrorism has virtually nothing to do with it," says Peter Djinis, a former top Treasury lawyer. "The vast majority of SARs filed today involve garden-variety forms of white-collar crime." Federal prosecutors around the country routinely scour the SARs for potential leads.
Long story short, that's how we all came to know and love Client Nine.
You'll notice that crazy shit like warrants aren't mentioned in those paragraphs. You'll also notice that the povisions that brought down Spitzer weren't even voted on by Congress. They are all administrative measure implimented by the Treasury Department and the banking industry. The government has now been relieved of its duty to investigate crime and has outsourced it to the banks. And now the Fourth Amendment is essentially meaningless.
I've always been suspicious of the Patriot Act and so has every other conservative who hasn't been pussy-whipped by George W. Bush. No serious conservative would ever suggest that it should be easy for the government to relieve the citizenery of their property and liberty outside of the very stringent requirements of the Constitution. You would be a fine authoritarian for believing the contrary, but that is not a conservative principle. Conservatives are philosophically suspicious of unlimited government power. Or at least they used to be.
There have been very few terrorism prosecutions under the Patriot Act. But as the years pass, the scope of the law has grown like a cancer. It has been used in tax evasion cases against strip club owners and now has taken the place of the state government in dictating where and how you can buy Sudafed. There are very few rational people who will tell you that strip clubs and antihistimines are existential threats to the United States.
As a matter of fact, terrorism itself isn't an existential threat to the United States and never was. To say that al-Qaeda is going to overthrow the government, establish a caliphate and behead Britney Spears is adorable rhetoric, but it ignores the facts and diminishes America both as a world power and as an idea.
Osama bin Laden is a mass murderer and human garbage. He destroyed three thousand people who did nothing worse than go to work on a Tuesday morning. But he is not the threat that the Soviet Union was. The USSR could have killed three million people with less effort in the same period of time whenever they chose to do so. Pretending otherwise is the height of intellectual dishonesty.
But even at the height of the Cold War, the Congress insisted on the rule of law. The government couldn't wiretap at will and they couldn't coerce private entities such as banks to do their dirty work for them. Even when faced with a potential nuclear apocalypse and the endless, drunken harranging of Joseph McCarthy, the Fourth Amendment and the concept of probable cause were seen as sacred.
Until very recently, the preservation of the Constitution was seen as being at least of equal importance as the preservation of the country. Without the Constitution, the United States is little more than a large parcel of real estate with unpredictable weather and populated by heavily armed, rude people with a fetish for electing idiots.
Because the Patriot Act is a criminal statute, we should be able to see concrete results from it by now through criminal prosecutions. And those results just aren't there, at least in regard to the War on Terror. There have been few if any successful terrorism prosecutions as a result of the Patriot Act. To suggest that the lack of prosecutions indicates success is a fallacy. A suspension of habeus corpus would have accomplished that, too.
However, the law has - like most laws do - metastasized and appeared in areas beyond its originial stated purpose and scope. The Treasury Department included public officials in the financial implimentation in the hope that it would catch foreign politicians laundering money for terrorists. That has yet to happen, but it did catch Eliot Spitzer's penis in a meat grinder.
I'm not losing any sleep over what has happened to the soon-to-be former governor. The man is a vindictive prick and a prosecutorial monster who built an entire craeer out of professional misconduct. This is a man who used his office to leak his suspicion that Richard Grasso was fucking his secretary simply because he didn't like Grasso's contractual retirement package. Spitzer's most dangerous perversions involved his use of the law, not what he did with whores on his own time.
His abuse of power was of a sort that would have left Richard Nixon breathless. If nothing else, Nixon waited until he had ultimate power to misuse it. Spitzer abused the power he already had as a means of gaining more. That a scumbag like him was brought low by out of control law enforcement and the blunt instrument of a police state like the Patriot Act is an irony of the most delicious sort and I glory in his downfall.
But that doesn't change the fact that it shouldn't have happened. Bin Laden wasn't running the Emperors Club. I doubt that al-Qaeda is building methamphetimine labs in Alabama or running strip clubs in Atlanta. And even if they were, the pre-existing federal laws or, more ideally, laws at the state level would be equal to the task of dealing with it.
During what passed for a debate back in the fall of 2001, Americans were promised that the Patriot Act was a national security measure and its extraordinary power would not be brought to bear against pre-existing crimes. As the record now clearly demonstrates, that has not been the case. It has been used almost exclusively to prosecute non-national security transgressions.
Ironically, the Patriot Act has allowed the entire American government to become what Eliot Spitzer was, a vindictive tyrant who perverts the law beyond its original intent to their own ends. Just as ironically, the expansion of police powers and the establishment of a national security government might accomplish what the terrorists never could, the contraction of the rights of the people as enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The Act allowed for the politically-motivated firings of US Attorneys that Alberto Gonzales had so much trouble remembering even happened and Karl Rove won't testify about. It has been used to local governments to deal with the homeless in ways that are patently unconstitutional. It has allowed for ex post facto investigations in drug cases in violation of Article One of the Constitution. And if you've travelled to Las Vegas in the last six years, chances are that the United States government has peeked at your "credit records, employment records, and in some cases, health records." And guess what? Those records stay on FBI computers and the Patriot Act explicitly states that they may be "'shared with third-parties where appropriate' yet no where in the legislation does it define who these third parties are or what conditions would be deemed appropriate for the sharing of such records."
Even though the Justice Department admits that the Patriot Act has been "misused" 1,000 times, no one at the FBI has yet been prosecuted for abuse of process. Feel safe yet?
Of course, modern conservatives haven't been all that concerned about that. They're still screaming about Kelo v. City of New London, which most of the state legislatures have rectified by themselves. The odds are that you'll never have to surrender your home to make way for a mall, regardless of what John Paul Stevens thinks. But the Patriot Act has touched the lives of every American who gets a cold. Thanks to President Bush and the Republican Congress, you have to essentially register with your local pharmacy to buy the smallest amount of antihistimine.
Whether you agree or not, you can at least make a constitutional argument about the relevence of Kelo to the Fifth Amendments takings clause. However, you would be hard pressed to square the investigative power of the government to pry into your private dealings without a warrant with the Fourth Amendment.
There will probably never be a caliphate in, say, southern New Jersey, but given the measures taken to prevent one, there might as well be. When your pharmacies, local libraries and banks become government stooges, can you really consider yourselves free?
Easy Listening Recommendation of the Day: Shapes of Things By: Jimmy Page and the Black Crowes From: Live at the Greek
State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration by James Risen Finished, Thursday 19 January 2006
A Simple Twist of Fate: Bob Dylan and the Making of Blood on the Tracks by Andy Gill and Kevin Odegard Finished, 23 January 2006
Grits: An Intimate Portrait of the Liberal Party By Christina McCall-Newman Finished, 17 March 2006
Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architechts of American Power by David Rothkopf Finished, 6 April 2006
Strategery: How George W. Bush is Defeating Terrorists, Outwitting Democrats and Confounding the Mainstream Media By Bill Sammon Finished, May 10, 2006
George Wallace: American Populist By Stephan Lesher Finished, June 15, 2006
Secrets of the Kingdom: The Inside Story of the Saudi - U.S Connection By Gerald Posner Finished, June 20, 2006
Soldiers of God: With Islamic Warriors in Afghanistan and Pakistan By Robert D. Kaplan Finished, June 27, 2006
Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus By Rick Perlstien Finished, July 4, 2006
Flawed Giant: Lyndon Johnson And His Times 1961-1973 By Robert Dallek Finished, August 10, 2006
Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential By James Moore and Wayne Slater Finished, October 7, 2006
The Fall Of Baghdad By Jon Lee Anderson Finished, October 31, 2006
The Way It Works: Inside Ottawa By Eddie Goldenberg Finished, November 12, 2006
Child Of God By Cormac McCarthy Finished, November 18, 2006
Right Side Up: The Fall Of Paul Martin And The Rise Of Stephen Harper's New Conservatism By Paul Wells Finished, December 8, 2006
The Private Life Of Chairman Mao By Dr. Li Zhisui, Translation By Tai Hung Chao Finished, December 14, 2006
Exile On Main Street: A Season In Hell With The Rolling Stones By: Robert Greenfeild Finished, February 21, 2007
"Work Hard, Study ... And Keep Out Of Politics!" Adventures And Lessons From An Unexpected Public Life By: James A. Baker, III with Steve Fiffer Finished, March 7, 2007
Supreme Conflict: The Inside Story Of The Struggle For Control Of The United States Supreme Court By Jan Crawford Greenburg Finished, March 14, 2007
Imperial Life In The Emerald City: Life Inside Iraq's Green Zone By: Rajiv Chandransekaran Finished March 18, 2007
Memories Of My Melancholy Whores By: Gabriel Garcia Marquez Finished, March 21, 2007
Guests Of The Ayatollah: The First Battle In America's War With Militant Islam By: Mark Bowden Finished, April 4, 2007
Screwjack By: Hunter S. Thompson Finished, April 19, 2007
State Of Denial: Bush At War, Part III By: Bob Woodward Finished, April 22, 2007
31 Days: Gerald Ford, The Nixon Pardon, And A Government In Crisis By: Barry Werth Finished, May 6, 2007
At The Center Of The Storm: My Years At The CIA By: George Tenent with Bill Harlow Finished, May 28, 2007
No Excuses: Concessions of a Serial Campaigner By: Robert Shrum Finished: July 1, 2007
Chief of Staff: Lyndon Johnson and His Presidency By: W. Marvin Watson with Sherwin Markmarn Finished: July 12, 2007
Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power By: Robert Dalleck Finished: July 17, 2007
1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft & Debs - The Election That Changed The Country By: James Chace Finished: August 5, 2007
Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun's Supreme Court Journey By: Linda Greenhouse Finished: August 20, 2007
President Reagan: The Triumph of Imagination By: Richard Reeves Finished: September 20, 2007
Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush By: Robert Draper Finished: October 1, 2007
Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power By: Tom Flanagan Finished: October 9, 2007
Full Circle: Death and Resurrection in Canadian Conservative Politics By: Bob Plamondon Finished: October 17, 2007
My Years As Prime Minister By: Jean Chretien Finished: October 23, 2007
The Thumpin': How Rahm Emanuel and the Democrats Learned to Be Ruthless and Ended the Republican Revolution By: Naftali Bendavid Finished: October 25, 2007
Not A Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency By: Richard A. Posner Finished, October 29, 2007
Slash By: Slash and Anthony Bozza Finished: November 1, 2007
The Heroin Diaries: A Year in the Life of a Shattered Rock Star By: Nikki Sixx and Ian Gittin Finished: November 2, 2007
Clapton: The Autobiography By: Eric Clapton Finished: November 5, 2007
Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush's War Cabinet By: James Mann Finished: November 13, 2007
Miami and the Siege of Chicago: An Informal History of the American Political Conventions of 1968 By: Norman Mailer Finished: November 15, 2007
Memoirs: 1939-1993 By: Brian Mulroney Finished: December 3,2007
Peace Kills: America's Fun New Imperalism By: P.J O'Rourke Finished: December 4, 2007
The Looming Tower: Al-Qaeda and the Road to 9/11 By: Lawrence Wright Finished: December 11, 2007
The One Percent Doctrine: Deep Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 By: Ron Suskind Finished: December 19, 2007
Cheney: The Untold Story of America's Most Powerful and Controversial Vice President By: Stephen F. Hayes Finished: December 25, 2007
When Trumpets Call: Theodore Roosevelt After the White House By: Patricia O'Toole Finished: January 1, 2008
America's First Dynasty: The Adamses, 1735-1918 By: Richard Brookhiser Finished:January 7, 2008
The Road By: Cormac McCarthy Finished: January 9, 2008
The Conviction of Richard Nixon: The Untold Story of the Frost/Nixon Interviews By: James Reston, Jr. Finished" January 11, 2008
Write It When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conversations with Gerald R. Ford By: Thomas M. DeFrank Finished: January 15, 2008
The Bush Tragedy By: Jacob Weisberg Finished: January 18, 2008
When All You Have Is Hope By: Frank O'Dea with John Lawrence Reynolds Finished: January 21, 2008
Confessions of a Political Hitman: My Secret Life of Scandal, Corruption, Hypocrisy and Dirty Tricks That Decide Who Gets Elected (and Who Doesn't) By: Stephen Marks Finished: February 8, 2008
The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court By: Jeffery Toobin Finished, February 18, 2008
The Architect: Karl Rove and the Dream of Absolute Power By: James Moore and Wayne Slater Finished, February 21, 2008
Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln By: Doris Kerns Goodwin Finished, February 26, 2008
Post Office By: Charles Bukowski Finished: March 6, 2008
Factotum By: Charles Bukowski Finished: March 7, 2008
Women By: Charles Bukowski Finished: March 10, 2008
Queer By: William S. Burroughs Finished: March 12, 2008
To Live's To Fly: The Ballad of the Late, Great Townes Van Zant By: John Kruth Finished: March 17, 2008
Twenty Thousand Roads: The Ballad of Gram Parsons and His Cosmic American Music By: David N. Meyer Finished: March 24, 2008
W.A.R: The Unauthorized Biography of William Axl Rose By: Mick Wall Finished: April 4, 2008
Deception: Pakistan, the United States, and the Secret Trade in Nuclear Weapons By: Adrian Levy & Catherine Scott-Clark Finished: April 21, 2008
The Assassins' Gate: America in Iraq By: George Packer Finished: May 5, 2008
Worse than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush By: John W. Dean Finished: May 7, 2008
Clinton in Exile: A President Out of the White House By: Carol Felenthal Finished: May 12, 2008
Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America By: Rick Perlstein Finished: June 2, 2008
Infidel By: Ayaan Hirsi Ali Finished: June 11, 2008
The People's Machine: Arnold Schwarzenegger and the Rise of Blockbuster Democracy By: Joe Mathews Finished: June 20, 2008
The Strong Man: John Mitchell and the Secrets of Watergate By: James Rosen Finished: June 30, 2008
American Spy: My Secret History in the CIA, Watergate & Beyond By: E. Howard Hunt w/ Greg Aunuapu Finished: July 4, 2008
Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA By: Tim Weiner Finished: July 16, 2008
The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder By: Vincent Bugliosi Finished: July 21, 2008
War by Other Means: An Insider's Account of the War on Terror By: John Yoo Finished: July 25, 2008
Your Government Failed You: Breaking the Cycle of National Security Disasters By: Richard A. Clarke Finished: July 31, 2008
The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America By: Kenneth M. Pollack Finished: August 13, 2008
The Human Factor: Inside the CIA's Dysfunctional Intelligence Culture By: Ishmael Jones Finished: August 19, 2008
Havana Nocturne: How the Mob Owned Cuba ... And Then Lost It to the Revolution By: T.J Enjlish Finished: August 25, 2008
Descent into Chaos: The United States and the Failure of Nation Building in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia By: Ahmed Rashid Finished: Sepember 9, 2008
The Case Against the General: Manuel Noriega and the Politics of American Justice By: Steve Albert Finished: September 25, 2008
Condolezza Rice: An American Life By: Elisabeth Bumiller Finished: October 10, 2008
Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America, 1789-1989 Michael Beschloss Finished: October 13, 2008
What People Are Saying About skippy
"hands down, Canada's most underrated blog" Damian Penny, The Undisputed Dean of Canadian Political Bloggers. Posted at Daimnation , Saturday October 21, 2006
"You can count on “Skippy” to make you think in different ways about familiar issues. You can also depend on him to be rude, offensive, and outrageous – if you're offended by completely uninhibited sexual imagery (and imagination!), don't read Skippy – but your prudery will keep you from an often interesting perspective." Posted On: Jamulblog, July 12, 2007
"Your Maximum Leader is beginning to think that the less he posts, the better Skippy’s political posts are. Indeed, your Maximum Leader even thought (just a few short moments ago) that if your Maximum Leader just stopped blogging all together would Skippy just keep on writing enough good material for two blogs? (Admittedly one of those blogs would be an X-rated social commentary/diary site and the second a remarkably well-informed and insightful political commentary site…)" Posted On: Naked Villainy, September 18, 2007
"I love your writing. few could pull off sarcastic humor and self-loathing like you do. You've turned self-disgust
into an art form." Posted By:Ophelia July 19, 2003
"hahaha um, not funny" Posted By: Ophelia July 17, 2003
"This is not fucking funny." Posted By: Bee August 21, 2003
"I join Bee in saying that this isn''t funny AT ALL. jesus christ, Skippy." Posted By: Ophelia August 23,
2003
"You are obiviously being kept down by the Mud People." Posted By: DrReverend August 21, 2003
"I''ll give you $50.00 if you kill yourself." Posted By: DrReverend August 19, 2003
"Last time I read this blog." Posted By: Dave, October 24, 2003
"I think you should stop talking about killing yourself and ACTUALLY kill yourself. For fuck's sake, everybody is
tired of hearing about how you might, just do it or face the fact that you are too pathetic to even kill yourself."
Posted By: A Caring Guy, October 25, 2003
"If Joey Ramone were alive today he'd probably shit in your mouth." Posted By: DrReverend November 11,
"When you're good, you're good. When you're bad, you're even better. See you in hell." Posted By: Anna
November 11, 2003
"Skippy, if you can prove to me that giving head and swallowing will without a doubt keep lung cancer and heart
disease at bay, you've earned yourself a BJ." Posted By: Mary Magdalicious, December 5, 2003
"Wow...you know nothing about politics." Posted Dr. Reverend, December 26, 2003
"You are a dick and should think seriously about killing your stupid blog - go get a job, you big fag"Posted
By: Princess Paragonian, December 29, 2003
"You have a, how shall i say.... appealing 'tough', yet gently gay look." (Univited PM) Posted
by:Jus20012002, January 2, 2004 .
"I hope jesus doesn't kick you in the nuts."Posted By: Mary Magdalicious February 2, 2004
"Stumbled on to your blog by accident and i must say alot of the stuff had me in stitches. Love it" Posted
By:Jeremy February 4, 2004
" .....sick."Posted By: Bee February 7, 2004
"Hey Skippy, you ever consider running for public office in the states? I know some people in the West Virginia state
government and our Senator can't live forever.Hell, even Strom, Thomas-Jefferson-Fan, Thurmond died
eventually.Posted By: Ford W. Mavrick, February 9, 2004
Wow, for someone who is so opinionated, you really don't know shit about American or Canadian culture. You appear to
know even less about history." Posted By: Dr. Reverend February 13, 2004
"Your blog's the best I have come across in a long time. I may not agree with all you say but the verve with which
you say it and the humour and irreverance is terrific. These days when the media just reproduces the handout from central
control, blogs like yours do a great deal to form informed opinion in a democratic society. Thanks. Keep it up."
Posted By:Anandan February 13, 2004
"SKIPPY pities ME? Where's my noose?" Posted By: Kilgore Trout March 22, 2004
"Jesus Skippy. Now Allah is going to kick you in the nuts" Posted By: Mary Magdalicious March 22, 2004
"I could make one that says "Skippy has a small penis" although his cock is superb. Posted By: Bestest Pussy March 23,2004
"Cunt sucking is for bitches.You're considered one of the girls because you dress like one. Posted By: Dr. Reverend March 24, 2004
"John Malkovich is one sexy bastard. I have such a thing for him. And I never realized til now, Skippy, how much you resemble John Malkovich...this, by default, makes you also one sexy bastard. See how that works?" Posted By: Zombie March, 26, 2004
"Too bad you live up north. It could have been beautiful.
Ever since I started coming here and saw your pic I wondered why you weren't getting more action. You are not a bad looking guy at all.
Maybe the girls are just...well, that's enough kindness for one day." Posted By: Serenity March 26, 2004
"Hell, if they make gay marriage legal, I'll marry you..." Posted By: Outpatient March 26, 2004
"You look creepier than the REM faggot. But he looks much more like a homersexual." Posted By: Dr. Reverend March 27, 2004
"Skippy, your hits will go up again if you post pictures of your man nipples. Lots of man nips." Posted By: Mary Magdalicious April 15, 2004
"What the fuck? You turning faggot? Posted By: Dr. Reverend April 16, 2004
"Sometimes it gets to be just a little too much. Sharing, that is." Posted By: Bee May 23, 2004
"I'll give you $5.00 if you make the fucking font you use on your blog bigger.
I'll give you $50.00 if you stop fucking writing about American politics.
I'll give you $500.00 if you fucking kill youself." Posted By: Dr. Reverend May 26, 2004
"Of course women like jerks.
Why the fuck do you think they like me?
I guess you've learned nothing from me over all these years." Posted By: Dr. Reverend May 29, 2004
"Sometimes a bitch just has to die." Posted By: Ford W. Maverick May 29, 2004
"It looks like we have more in common than the swastikas carved in our foreheads."Posted By: Dr. Reverend May 29, 2004
"This might be a shallow and 'Waiting-for-Godot-like' comment but...you seem to have not only brains but also beauty." Posted By: Nietzscheswife June 7, 2004
"Skippy, you are such a twisted bastard. Seriously. Why haven't we had sex yet?"Posted By: 0phelia June 25, 2004
"Just found your site. I find some of the things you say quite disgusting. And really quite enjoyable,so keep up the good work."Posted By: Big Al June 28, 2004
"I've read most of your blog. I'd say that so far it's the best I've come across, and believe me, I've seen a few. It's funny, well written (except for the spelling...) and interesting. There will always be those few idiots who just don't get it. It's useless to get worked up about it." Posted By: Johnny June 30, 2004
"Skippy... Go for the facial tattoo. I dig em', and fuck what those other bitches think. You can always bite their tits off if they back talk you." Posted By: Mary Magdalicious July 1, 2004
"Go fuck yourself up your butt." Posted By: Reek Stankleberry July 6, 2004
"Well if ass-fucking won't keep Satan away, I just don't know what will." Posted By: Dr. Reverend July 7, 2004
"dude, you're killing me. keep it up." Posted By: Son of Nixon July 22, 2004
"Are you always either naked or in a suit?" Posted By: Rehella July 22, 2004
"That person should speak for himself or herself. 'Cause you really are that much of a cunt, skippy." Posted By: Kilgore Trout August 4, 2004
"I've read you for a long time but have never commented before. That isn't a slight to your great writing ability, it's mainly because I don't want to be seen here!" Posted By: Paul August 4, 2004
" Dead on. Bulls-eye. I take back what I said about you being a cunt. For now." Posted By: Kilgore Trout August 4, 2004
"Know what, Skippy? You're alright." Posted By: Anna August 18, 2004
"Excellent work. Damn you for being so dead on." Posted By: The Maximum Leader August 24, 2004
"Skippy, fuck the puppy idea. Try getting a monkey that smokes. That will get you laid." Posted By: Mary Magdalicious August 27, 2004
"As to the beard - I like the clean shaven better - and what's wrong with a bald head? Bald heads are hot on some guys - unfortunately most can't pull it off * sigh * You look like you can pull it off though and that's a good thing - not a bad.
BTW, love your blog. I saw it in my referrers and thought it was just a random hit. Then I started reading and found you to be hilarious - it was only after about 10 posts that I noticed you linked me. I was more than flattered - linked by someone I was about to link anyway - awesome. Thanks" Posted By: Kinky August 27, 2004
"Fuckin' Goy bastard." Posted By: Dr Reverend December 19,2004
"Who does a guy have to sleep with to get one of his Skippy quotes pasted to the sidebar?
Great googly-moogly." Posted By: Smallholder December 20, 2004
"Are you a child molester or what's the story?" Posted By: Fukinator, December 28, 2004
"Sick dude." Posted By: DCayer December 29, 2004
"You officially suck." Posted By: Sorry, January 22, 2005
"I heart you, Skippy" Posted By: Karinsky, January 25, 2005
"As I've stated before, you were quite skilled in bed and I had no need to fake any of my multiple orgasms." Posted By: 0phelia, June 30, 2005
"I love Skippy. I swear I do. The only blogger more twisted than me." Posted on: Velociworld, July 26, 2005
" You are so fucking ignorant about America. And while the American people ARE stupid, so are you." Posted By: Bill Lassiter, August 2, 2005
"How can you not love a man who hates himself so viciously?" Posted on: It's All About De , August 31, 2005
"If I wasn't positive that all Canadian men had tiny penises, I'd be all over that Skippy." Posted On: It's All About De
"I've seen pictures of you and I'd say you're fuckable." Posted By: Joan, September 29, 2005
" I love your posts on Canadian politics even more than I love your posts on porn.
And I love your porn posts.
Why the hell do you waste all this talent on the internet? Write a book or something, goddammit! Posted By: Cliff S., November 17, 2005
"Let it never be said that underneath your self-cavilling, bitter (yet strangely egomaniacal) surface that you never take the time to give the people what they want. Even if it's just one people. Gawd bless you, Skippy! Posted By: Locke, November 18, 2005
"Wow! I don't know that I've ever been flattered and yet somewhat revolted at the same time... It's an interesting sensation." Posted By: Dewey in Toronto, December 1, 2005
"Very often, debating you is like playing whack a mole: You pop up some premised assertion moles, I pull out my mallet and start whacking, then you pop up more premised assertion moles - which are mostly or completely unrelated to the original moles I was whacking at. Your stock of moles seemingly stretches into infinity. And yet, an endless supply of moles does not equate to cogent argument.
Very often, debating you is like speaking to a salesman who will not answer a particular direct question, and instead flies off on the flight of rhetorical splendor known as "baffling them with bullshit." I'm impressed with your rhetorical skills, and your IQ, and your accumulation of knowledge. I'm impressed that I'm the American citizen, yet you might have a more thorough knowledge of the American Constitution than I. And yet, these impressive things are not substitutes for cogent argument."Posted By; gcotharn, December 21, 2005
"Besides, you seem to think you're the least respectable person I know. While you're often right, you're wrong on that count. Careful, I might out YOU as a nice guy. Or something." Posted By: Dewey In Toronto, December 27, 2005
"I've been to Toronto. The most dangerous thing I saw there was an 11 foot tall red head with shaved balls."Posted By: Judy, December 31, 2005
"There was this "Caught on Tape!" video I watched back in my highschool days where one of the scenes shows two people starting to cross the railroad tracks. One looks up at the last minute and sees the train, the other does not. In the commercial, it cuts away just before the train does its thing, but the video...
Your blog is like a twisted version of the video. We know the train is going liquify you in shocking gory fashion, but that's why we keep coming back. It's so much more fun that we both know the train is coming and you still gleefully walk into its path...and we love you all the more for it." Posted By:Locke, January 13, 2006
"Fuck. I'm hooked." Posted By: DeAnna, January 14, 2006
"Your Maximum Leader has found Skippy's commentary more insightful and interesting than anyone elses. So now he supposes that Skippy will go back to writing about porn and strippers he meets in the subway." Posted By: The Maximum Leader on Naked Villainy January 24, 2006
"Slightly crazed is fine, but with the beard you look like a total nutjob. If you ever hope to get laid again, for fuck's sake, Skippy, NEVER, EVER grow a saddam beard. You're welcome."Posted By: The Lady O, 28 January, 2006
"Maybe we should get married. My readers could support us by purchasing my worn panties and you could be the panty pimp." Posted By; Joan 28 January 2006
" I know it must be hard for you...being objectified by women all the time. But come on, how can they really help themselves? Have you seen yourself lately? Your pheramones preceed you into a room (as does your crotch). Don't blame it all on them...you did choose to leave your house. :D" Posted By: Joan, 3 February, 2006
"Skippy, you sarcastic twerp." Posted By: Arwen, 8 February 2006
"Just so you know.. if I had to choose between Moussaoui or Skippy.. You'd win. Even if I know what an asshole you are. Posted By; Judy, 13 February 2006
"I'd be willing to sign a legal document stating that is IS ok, in fact, to masturbate whilst thinking of me." Posted By: DeAnna (Who seems unaware of my reputation as an outlaw) February 24, 2006
"Feel free to masturbate while thinking of me...actually, do you need some of my panties to help you with that?" Posted By: Joan, February 24, 2006
"I blame myself for this. I have been too lenient with you. Your Godless behaviour must come to an end. You will receive a severe beating this weekend and I am contemplating removing your testicles." Posted By: Dr. Reverend, February 24, 2006
"Just remember skippy, the US never threw a fit when you smuggled your own personal WMD over the border twice a year. After all, it wasn't like you were hiding in your pants or anything.
All's fair in love and war, so to speak." Posted By: Judy, April 4, 2006
"Wow...nothing hotter than a man willing to issue fatwas for pussy." Posted By: Joan, April 16, 2006
"You sir, are a brilliant writer." Posted By: Judy, May 4, 2006
"I think I'm falling in love." Posted By: DeAnna, May 11, 2006
"THIS IS THE MOST DIABOLICAL FALSITY YOU HAVE EVER ENGAGED IN!!!!
I was intending to kick you in the face upon our next meeting, but now it's obvious that I must douse your scrotum in kerosene and set your testicles aflame. Alas, it is the only way you will learn." Posted By: Dr. Reverend, May 12, 2006
"And i would like to commend you on some excellent blogging. This particular story would normally warrant a few cryptically humorous lines and a link. To an ordinary blogger. But you managed to wring an essay of New Yorker-esque proportions out of it. That takes talent. Your beautiful young friend is right. I see big things for you in the future." Posted By: Annika, June 4, 2006
" I like a man who will unabashedly tell someone his penis size because hes unashamed. Thats hot.
*raises hand* I'll take that 6.5, thank ya" Posted By: Kinky, June 6, 2006
"Elvis, like skippy, is the very definition of rock and roll. Posted By: Rube, June 10, 2006
" I'm beginning to think you're the only good man left in the world, skippy. WTF?" Posted By: By: DeAnns, June 11, 2006
"Just so everyone knows.
Skippy does indeed, taste like bacon.
And, any guy who doesn't know cum tastes good to real women, is clueless." Posted By: Judy, July 2, 2006
"There was a British columnist whose work was described as 'a suicide note in weekly installments.'
This blog is sort of like that." Posted By: Gadfly, July 6, 2006
"Jeez, Skippy. Sometimes I really hate coming here." Posted By: Cynlee, July 18, 2006
"Someone needs to throttle you with a riding crop...truly!" Posted By: Joan, July 18, 2006
"Holy mother of god. I just had an orgasm. It's official: I'm devoting the rest of my life to you, skippy." Posted By: DeAnna, July 19, 2006
"Skippy, sometimes I'm not quite sure of your sanity, but you are without a doubt the baddest morning news reading, quiz show hosting, talent introducing PIMP in the motherfuckin' blogosphere." Posted By: Shank, July 19, 2006
