Asshat of the Day - June 26th, 2009

Samson Effect here. Been a while, hasn't it? Humblest apologies.

Today's AotD post comes by way of the Blogging Tories (when was the last time they won an Assie? I think it's been a while. But I digress.) and she of the fetus-centric all-caps, SUZANNE, over at Big Blue Wave.

Why? This is why.

WARNING: EXTREMELY GRAPHIC PHOTO CONTAINED THEREIN. View at your own risk. Don't say I didn't warn you.

I'm actually somewhat surprised Nudger, the captain of this good ship, didn't take this one since he directed me to it, but he was hounding me for dereliction of duty and I suppose he was leaving it for me. So, what's wrong with this post, horrendous gore aside? Well, for one, she gets the story wrong; the photo was from the war in Iraq, not from Iran, nor did the Iranian government have anything to do with it. However, she has acknowledged that, mitigating my ire on that front.

Second, as you well know, SUZANNE is a pro-life catholic. This is not worthy of an AotD post per se, however, it is the underlying reason. The entirety of the post, the mother of the fetus was mentioned only once, as being the one who was shot. That's all the poor woman got in this article. No photo, or even mention of her condition at all, just a horribly grisly photo of the fetus. (Apparently no photo of the woman was available; this does not excuse the almost total absence of sympathy for said woman.)

Nudger himself got into the fray in the comments section of the article here, and said it likely better than I could have, but never underestimate the apparent stone-deafness of these folk, as evidenced by All-caps' meagre rebuttal:

Artful

I don't have the picture of the mother.

Is that a reason not to discuss the baby who was shot in the womb?

Why must the absence of the mother preclude discussing the baby?

Quite simply, it doesn't. You'd be hard-pressed to find a person, no matter what wing of the political ship they're on, who doesn't think that these are tragic circumstances. My question, however, is this: Why must the presence of the fetus preclude discussing the mother-to-be? And now the other shoe comes down, courtesy of JJ:

Artful - According to the story, which has since been pulled, the mother was killed.

But so what? She wasn't a fetus.

So here's the key point. Allcaps is getting all misty-eyed because a fetus ended up taking a bullet. Tragic turn of events, don't misunderstand. Here's what really gets my goat: Not a single breath spared for the dead mother. Didn't even bother looking into the mother's condition, I imagine, which in my mind is a woeful lack of due diligence, not to mention a Herculean slap in the face to anyone with a sense of decency. Suzanne's words in this post and the comments demonstrate quite clearly that she was being exactly what everyone has accused her of on a regular basis previously: A stark-raving fetus-centric lunatic.

May the dead rest peacefully; they didn't deserve this fate.

An Outing in the Country

So, there's been quite the to-do amongst the various Blogging Tories - even Suzanne took some time off from spouting Christian double-talk and defending the rights of zygotes to chortle in triumph. Mind you, it wasn't her opinion that finally made the penny drop that it might be worth making a post about here. Oh no. That came from a much higher power.

So, we now know that Canadian Cynic is, in fact, Rob Day. He's friends with (or, at least, had his picture taken with) P.Z. Myers. He's a techie, and runs a Linux course site. If anything, the outing has made him cooler.

Now, I've never really agreed with CC's use of language; while shouting obscenities can be a useful tactic, I find it numbs one's opponent to their sting. Best to save them for when they're really needed. With that being said, I've never disagreed with his choice of targets. Vitriol notwithstanding, one could almost condemn him for hitting targets that were too soft - targets that virtually mocked themselves. (But then I would be forced to acknowledge the colour of the pot, and where's the fun in that?)

But with people lying about what precisely he said in an effort to vilify him, banning him from their sites so he can't attempt a reasoned rebuttal - one finds it hard to see how your tactics could possibly be worse. Oh dear. He called you names. Well, you'll just have to lie about him so he seems worse, and prevent him from trying to set the record straight. That'll show him!

More to the point, I'm not certain what this was meant to accomplish. As was pointed out very accurately by a Conservative party blogger:

…and now that it’s been shown to have been a positive thing to “out” Canadian Cynic, as it’s not only increased his traffic but has shown the whole world that the “outers” are pathetic, petty and childish…

Absolutely right. Also, do you honestly think he's going to stop mocking the deservedly mocked? What was the worst thing you could threaten him with? Exposure. That's been done. He's still here.

You're screwed.

This Felt So Good...

...it really should be fattening.

Asshat of the Day - February 20th, 2009

Today's Asshat of the Day is an individual who I suspect didn't get a Valentine this year, and whom - at the risk of an ad hominem attack - I sincerely hope never reproduces. Not that I'm so sure his genes are that bad - I'm sure any children of his could grow up to be decent human beings if removed from his influence - but rather that I'd prefer it if he never got to have sex. Or experience much by way of pleasure. Ever.

Strong, you say? You be the judge. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you, live, from the Blogging Tories Forum, Mr. Rusty Bedsprings!

Now, I grant you, usually making fun of the Blogging Tories is someone else's schtick, but Rusty here is so... deserving a target that we're going to spend an AotD post, just dissecting what's wrong with him. (And this is just his public life. I've no doubt there are many, many more things wrong with his private life.)

First, a brief list of topics that Rusty himself has started:

Pro life supporters are anti-women	Poorly titled thread - Rusty is actually whining about the U of C shutting down an offensive anti-abortion demonstration. And even that's a smokescreen - he's not complaining about fettered rights to free speech - he's simply purely anti-abortion, because the second post (also his) complains about Obama returning funding to NGOs that sponsor abortions - though US funds cannot be earmarked for that particular operation.
anti missle[sic] shield? who needs it, not me i'm invincible	Demonstrating an ability to state a definitive opinion despite having read no more than a sentence from an article somewhere as "research", Rusty attempts to assert, in the face of opposing evidence, that anyone who doesn't want to build an anti-ballistic missile system is a moron, and damn the expense! This one's a good read - even confronted with the ineffective nature of the system, Rusty sticks to his guns.
Your[sic] patriotic? whats[sic] up with you...	Basically, again, with no research, Rusty wades into a case of "kids these days aren't patriotic enough". This, in typical BT Forum manner, transforms into a case of "I wish we were more like the US."
Can their[sic] be too many?	Intended in reference to the case of Nadya Suleman, the young woman who had octuplets as a result of the implantation of multiple frozen embryos. Here, we see Rusty and the rest of the BT crowd trying to reconcile three long-standing right-wing philosophies - less legislation, control over reproduction, and "babies are good!" - with a traditional left-wing tautology that was, at the time of the posting, becoming painfully obvious in the Suleman case: Some people can't be trusted to do what's good for them, society, or their children. Regular poster and general village idiot ezbeatz weighed in with his statement (short form: "Bureaucrats and regulations are evil!") and got modded up by our boy Rusty.
Good	Short form: "Blargh, blargh, blargh! Guy makes mistake, punish him forever!" I'm the first to agree that Erik Millet made the wrong decision here - Political Correctness and acceptance are all very well, but it's O Canada. The kids don't have to sing it if they don't want to. However, saying "Good" to the fact that the poor, beleaguered man has received death threats and may lose his job is quite another thing.
is it wrong to be philisophical(sic)?	This post was so incoherent that the BTs themselves criticized it.

In a way, this post is directed less at Rusty himself and more at the kind of people he represents - those who are uneducated, unintelligent, opinionated, and proud of all three without realizing that value attributed to the last is proportional to the first two. Those who read what they want from a document, and ignore other points. These are the people who have earned the title of Asshat of the Day, and representing them is a card-carrying member: Rusty Bedsprings.

P.S.: My own subversive handle on the BT forums is darkstorme - I encourage anyone who wants a bit of a laugh to join me in posting rational arguments to the various self-congratulatory discussions that take place.

Well, Seems Like Someone Wasn't Paying Attention in School...

Justin Hoffer, from Raging Tory makes a rather unusual assertion:

Freedom continues to suffer as separatist revisionists destroy our history.

[...]

As political correctness continues to destroy our freedoms, it begins to rewrite our history. Here's something they don't teach you in school. Canada went through two rebellions before we were released from British rule. No one I know was ever taught this in school. Not even my parents.

Now, you see, I find this claim a bit odd, since I distinctly recall being taught about the rebellions in Upper and Lower Canada in Grade 8. I recall writing an essay on the topic. Emphasis was placed more on Upper Canada than Lower Canada, but given that my Grade 8 education was in Ontario, that's to be expected - we could have field trips to emphasize the Upper Canada Rebellion. The Lower Canada Rebellion would've been a bit of a hike.

A cursory search turns up this curriculum document. Page 57:

Students examine the causes of the rebellions of 1837–38 in Upper and Lower Canada and describe the roles various men and women played in the conflict. Students use inquiry/research and communication skills to identify social, economic, political, and legal changes in the colonies between 1837 and 1850 and to analyse their importance. Students consider ideas about conflict and change, methods of creating change, and methods of conflict resolution in both historical and contemporary contexts.

So, more accurately, Justin should have said "Here's something that they teach you in elementary school."

There's also a certain delicious irony that he's touting the Rebellions of 1837 as a demonstration that the sword is mightier than the pen, and a shining example of Canada's rebellious spirit, when the Lower Canada Rebellion is held up by the same separatists he condemns in the beginning of the post as a cause célèbre.

Update: A Lame Defense Avails Him Naught

Quoth Justin:

Must be just my NDP government here in Manitoba that blocks it out, then. My older brother wasn't taught about it, and my younger sister, who is still in school, hasn't been taught, either.

Hm. Well, then, there must be something wrong with this Grade 5 Social Studies Curriculum Document I procured from the government of Manitoba's education website. Because, you know, it says (on page 183, introducing Cluster 4):

Students examine life and citizenship in British North America. This study includes a focus on the United Empire Loyalists, War of 1812, Selkirk Settlement, 1837 to 1838 Rebellions, and the people, issues, and events surrounding the origins of Canadian Confederation.

And I suppose the activities on pages 199:

Students read or listen to excerpts from Lord Durham’s report on problems in Canada following the Rebellions of 1837-1838. Students discuss Durham’s main points and make predictions about the solutions he will propose. Students share their predictions with each other and discuss what they think life may have been like in Upper Canada and Lower Canada at this time, making connections to some of the ongoing historical issues faced by Canada as a nation.

204:

Using print and electronic resources, students research people or groups involved in the Rebellions of 1837 to 1838, as well as the aftermath of the Rebellions. Students record the position and actions of the individual during and after the rebellions.

205:

Students listen to the lyrics of the traditional French folk song, Un Canadien Errant/ AWandering Canadian, about an exiled Patriote following the Rebellion in Lower Canada. Students discuss the feelings expressed in the song, and other observations (e.g., their impressions of the consequences of the rebellions, whether they think the punishment of the rebels was fair, did the reformers make the right choice in resorting to violence, and were their actions effective in changing government?).

and 206:

Students assume the role of an individual involved in the 1837 and 1838 Rebellions (e.g., the radicals Louis-Joseph Papineau in Lower Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie in Upper Canada), or the moderates (e.g., Louis-Hippolyte Lafontaine in Lower Canada and Robert Baldwin in Upper Canada), and prepare and present a persuasive speech expressing their position.
TIP: Refer to the Acquiring Strategy earlier in this Learning Experience that refers to roles in the Rebellions (BLM 5.4.3o—Role Cards: Rebellions of 1837 and 1838). As a part of their presentation, the students representing the reformer groups may collaborate to develop action plans to counteract the Family Compact in Upper Canada and the Château Clique in Lower Canada.

...were missed by the NDP's revisionist leftist censors, eh? Or maybe poor Justin was tired and fell asleep in class a lot, because the persecution complex that he was developing, even then, was keeping him up at night.

The Progress of a Right Winger (Conclusion):

Step 1: Lefties are destroying history! (Also, they are somehow responsible for the threatened violence related to a reenactment of the Plains of Abraham!)

Step 2: Well, maybe not ALL lefties, but the lefties where I live are!

Step 3: Well, maybe not the lefties in my area, but the ones who taught me were!

Step 4: *sulks*