So Peter MacKay's paused his droopy-dog-photo-op shtick long enough to accuse Iggy of undermining morale by asking questions about the F-35 boondoggle. (God, I hate that word, but in this case ... )
But seriously, though ... several bloggers have joined in the karmic pile-on already, so I'll forbear for now. But I can't help noting how consistently some of the biggest names at Sun Media have been stepping in pile after pile of their own shit recently.
There's Kory and his Snuffelupagus-impersonating "source." And there's David Akin and his spotty grasp of history. In fairness, David deserves credit for having owned up and fixed his "embarrassing mistake," but it does say something about Sun Media that it stayed online for a week without anyone else noticing or doing anything about it. Even with some mean-spirited bastard pointing it out repeatedly. (Really, David? "Twit?" That hurts.)
However, David's mea culpa slags BigCityLib, who flagged the error before I did, for indulging in a "cheap gotcha." Dear me, I'm clutching my pearls and looking around for the fainting couch. Heaven forfend that Sun Media would ever stoop to "cheap gotchas."
Yes, that's another cheap shot, but if Sun Media's going to cut across the blue line with its head down, it's going to have to expect to get lined up.
But while we're on the subject of Sun Media, let's revisit the Ian Davey controversy for a minute. We've all read about it, so no need to rehash, but as Dr. Dawg has argued, Davey really wasn't so far off the mark if he was suggesting that Sun Media puts out papers for morons. As the good Doctor writes:
The Sun specializes in vulgar, uninformed comment intended to inflame prejudice and damp down reflection. And there's a constituency for that. Davey didn't express himself well, but that's precisely what he was getting at, and--let me go out on a limb here--it's what a lot of us believe, even if we sometimes forbear to say it out loud.
Dawg's already made the argument better than I can, and I'd urge you to go read it in full, but it ties into what I've been saying about the deliberate cultivation of ignorance and stupidity. And I guess the deeper I get into this argument, the harder I'm finding it to disagree with thwap about the utility of calling people on their stupidity.
Citizenship and civic engagement go hand in hand. You're not fulfilling your obligations as a citizen if you can't be bothered to think critically. That means looking at things through something more thoughtful and challenging than a smudgy lens of right-wing clichés (h/t Dawg again). And if you're too lazy and / or stupid to try, well, you might get some momentary satisfaction out of being pandered to by the Suns and Rob Fords of the world. But you've forfeited any right to be taken seriously or treated with respect.
Honestly, he's starting to smell. Dear Lord, who told this little pisher that kacking into cyberspace is the same thing as a contribution to intellectual discourse? ("Hey, look at me, I'm a Stockaholic! Look at me! Look at me!")
Another smear job, another steaming pile of crap, lies and hysterical accusations. And for kicks, he ties Margaret Atwood to Al-Jazeera with a lurid story about some dirty Muslim terrorist who smashed a 4-year-old kid's head with a rock. Just in case it isn't clear that this is a Clash of CivilizationsTM, and the brown folks with the funny names are eeeeeevul.
But that's just setting the table. The main point, it seems, is to carry on with the lies, the anguished posturing as aggrieved victim, and whine about censorship and suppression. Margaret Atwood is demanding that Sun TV be banned, he says.
Of course, there's no evidence for that, and of course, that's not what she said. And again, he's displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of both freedom of expression and censorship. But then that's par for the course, isn't it. The rest of the piece is just more of the same: left-wing mainstream media consensus, the only opinions allowed on TV are anti-American, anti-Christian big-government mush, yargle bargle blegh, drool.
Yawn.
He's like a kid who never mastered toilet training, craps his pants regularly and then demands that someone change him. I suppose we can't hold him responsible for someone else's bad parenting, but he can't have it both ways by demanding to be treated like an adult either.
Screen cap from Saturday September 11, 5:16 p.m. ET.
Well, now.
That would be at least four days that no one's bothered to correct David Akin's paragraph confusing Joe Clark with Robert Stanfield. As even a cursory internet search reveals, it was Mr. Stanfield whose Progressive Conservatives lost the 1974 federal election to Pierre Trudeau's Liberals. Joe Clark's first federal campaign as Tory Leader was in 1979.
Yes, that would be the National Bureau Chief for Sun Media. The point man, one would think, in ensuring the credibility of Fox Noise North's political coverage.
Yeah, well. Who cares about facts, accuracy and history anyway?
Don't know if the URL will stay linked to Lacy's letter, so I'm including a screen cap.
Once again, asshole cops pushing people around, brutally abusing them and stealing their personal property, and not even a hint of accountability. When normal people do this, it's called assault, robbery or stealing. When cops do it, well, the rules are different. Anyone still hoping for a meaningful institutional response?
Can someone please explain the difference between these sadistic pigs and the average gang of schoolyard bullies shaking down smaller kids for their lunch money or valuables? Because I really want to know.
Not much point in looking for anything from any particular level of government, but there is video of Lacy's arrest, and it should be possible to identify the lying, sadistic scumbags who grabbed her. Either way, how about a lawsuit in small claims court, identifying the police services board, the Toronto police, and perhaps the Integrated Security Unit, just for laughs?
Update: a video from Lacy identifying the cowardly, sadistic, tiny-dick piece of shit* hiding behind a badge. You have to love these guys. Can't keep a few dickheads from breaking windows, but they're pretty good at beating the shit out of slightly built women.
Update 2: When the facts come out, *this label's gonna stick. (H/t pogge.)
Again with the cultivated ignorance from the flying monkeys of the Right. One of the things you constantly hear them whining about, when they're complaining about the leftwing socialist libtard media, is about how the liberal media suppress freedom of speech because they won't publish "politically incorrect" viewpoints.
Should I make the type larger here? Would that be the written equivalent of speaking slowly and using short words?
How often do we have to go back to first principles with this crowd? I'll go through it once more:
Freedom of speech means you get to say whatever you want, no matter how repulsive. Nothing complicated about that.
It does not mean anyone else has a duty to listen to you.
It does not impose a corresponding obligation on anyone else to provide you with an audience.
It does not mean anyone else has to provide you with a forum.
It does not mean that you have the right to be taken seriously.
It does not mean that, having spoken your piece, you are somehow immune from criticism.
It means that you can say whatever you want, but if you:
