The Shotgun Blog
Monday, May 30, 2005
Globe hits a new low
The Globe and Mail has been on a tear against the Conservative Party for months (years?). And they've been on an anti-Christian jihad for much longer.
But on Friday their two campaigns for political hygiene intersected.
Posted by Ezra Levant on May 30, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Globe hits a new low:
"... you just helped promote him to some extent."
Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2005-05-30 4:31:01 PM
Fortunately, I wasn't in Canada in 1993, and wasn't faced with such a dismally dire "choice".
Thank you for reminding me how much better things are today than in '93, in spite of everything.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 4:31:29 PM
(Now you're forcing me to also indirectly promote Cock burn's ravings)
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 4:34:22 PM
"Fortunately, I wasn't in Canada in 1993, and wasn't faced with such a dismally dire 'choice'."
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
Still not sure how you think I'm "promoting" Cockburn "to some extent". By linking to a song that he's written which blames the IMF and the rich countries for global poverty, and then explicitly arguing _against_ that view?
Posted by: Russil Wvong | 2005-05-30 4:50:38 PM
Nothing wrong with my caps lock. I'm just so used to seeing the SLAM put back into iSLAM that I thought I'd emulate it.
Posted by: wharold | 2005-05-30 4:58:35 PM
What I proved, "A Hermit", was exactly the opposite that "A Hermit" could possibly understand about the world from being, "A Hermit".
If you don't understand the subject "A Hermit", I guess you're merely doing what Steve Martin offered in his comedy tune 25 years ago, "Criticize things you don't know about."
If you listened to former PLO terrrorist Walid Shoebat, you'd have a deeper clue about iSLAM than the boilerplate Negligence the Left Asleep sing with their, "La-la-la I can't hear you" song.
Posted by: wharold | 2005-05-30 5:05:24 PM
In reference to some of the comments above -
Politics is very much a game and as with most games rules and protocol are involved. However when these conditions have been set by the opponent, the game is then rigged. So my advocacy of cultural subversion on the right is a reponse to a rigged game.
Posted by: Aidan Maconaghie | 2005-05-30 5:31:09 PM
Aidan - about debating according to "their" rules:
My University newspaper (funded by confiscating $$$ from every student) printed an article arguing that every person who opposes gay "marriage" is automatically a Homophobe, and that all arguments presented against gay "marriage" are just a smokescreen for homophobia.
I sent a letter arguing against that position (back in the days when I still bothered debating talking with gliberals).
The edotor replied, "We cannot print your letter because it is our policy to never publish anything rascist, sexist, homophobic ... blah blah blah"
It's a mug's game.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 5:43:33 PM
I commend you for your excellent post Ezra. Since I saw PMPM flayling around with his arms churning like loose ends of bindertwine on a run-away, round bail of straw...I watch too many WWII documentaries...but the set-up of those flags in the Lib war room was EXACTLY the same...it looked the same.
Why would a journalist with any integrety write such a thing about people who , as Canadians, have the right to take a run at a posh, cushy job? Oh! Maybe the journalist was worried that some people might do something!! MSM does NOT want any changes - they want the NO NON LIBERAL allowed in MSM to be maintained because they could never compete against independant News channels. No competition, no threat to their sloppy, biased reporting. Too many bleeding heart Conservative governments have allowed the former Liberal bureaucrates to keep their jobs. Out they should go! They have back-stabbing down to an art - they don't have any intellegence though, as IrC and Brian O'Niel so clearly pointed out to A Hermit. the latter does not have even a basic understanding of the Word of God. Communism/Lib/NDP is a recipe for state economic slavery. A belief in God comes from the heart and soul, it has nothing to do with power over the pocket books of other people.
Posted by: Jema54 | 2005-05-30 5:44:26 PM
Brian - I ran into similar bs at U of T.
Attempting consensus with the politically hygenic and their neo-Marxist spin, only serves THEIR interests in the end. The gulf that now yawns even lacks a rickety footbridge and the only people who attempt to cross half way are the deeply divided.
It is a culture war and this is why the right needs to stop adapting itself to leftist language and protocol. It's tough though, because stepping outside their game means being nailed as something "incorrect". I think it's a price worth paying though, because the more people who "break free" via ideas, art, (politics?) ... the less stigma will be attached to standing to the right of the commune.
Posted by: Aidan Maconaghie | 2005-05-30 6:03:37 PM
People: There is no cure for the gleeful triumphalism that passes for liberal discourse so treat the malady as you would other incurable nuisances.
Posted by: Barry Stagg | 2005-05-30 6:10:30 PM
Brian, for the record referring to your 2:45 pm rant today it was you who changed the subject back to gay marriage.
You really have a problem.
Wharold, I think you need to meet a Muslim and say that to there face. It is immaturity such as that which is breeding terrorists.
Note to forum, you ideas on gay marriage and religion mixed with politics is placing the CPC from ever holding power in this country.
Posted by: Gamblog | 2005-05-30 8:28:06 PM
Too bad I never ran into you before I left ahead of the socialist hordes took over the MB legislature back in 99. Growing up in Winnipeg I had a lot of indoctrination to overcome.
It would have been a blast to have a beer with a kindred spirit.
you go righteous dude!!
Posted by: Quidnunc Savant | 2005-05-30 9:53:59 PM
So where did you escape to?
There was a Conservative Party "Youth Wing" at the U of M. I was going to go to a social they organized, until I read the small print on the flyer:
"Procedes from social will go towards Belinda Stronach's leadership campaign."
Riiiiiggggghht, that's where I want my drinking money to go -- straight into a pink Tory billionaire's crocodile-skin handbag.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 10:21:55 PM
Gamblog, I *have* said this to many Muslims face to face, with confidence. So, are you saying when the times comes you will not stand up and be counted?
"Immaturity" does not breed terrorists. Ideology does. The Negligentsia deny all reality. Please *don't* believe me. Go to shoebat.com and listen to the testimony of a former PLO terrorist. Mr. Shoebat was in town to speak, brought in by standwithisrael.ca, among others. I get the strong sense that you don't have a clue what iSLAM is other than what you have been fed by iSLAMic apologists; those who can only speak in hypothetics that iSLAM=peace for there is no reality to that effect.
What I have to say is watered down from what Mr. Shoebat recounts of his upbringing in iSLAM. Also, I have read extensively on the subject, the Koran and the hadiths. iSLAM is the same 7th century mindset, today.
Are *you* ready for honor killings in "Canada" for the sake of Trudeaupian multiculturalism?
Posted by: wharold | 2005-05-30 10:26:55 PM
To Wisconsin and damn happy about it to!!
Posted by: Quidnunc Savant | 2005-05-30 10:34:17 PM
Wharold: maybe just a little bit of recognition that not all Muslims ascribe to the terrorist calling is in order. Not all Christians are the Christians of the KKK, White Knights or, from earlier times, the Inquisition or witch-burning Puritans, all of whom claim to be purists but are extremists and terrorists.
To label a whole group, many many of whom are actively working against the fundamentalist extremists within their midst, is a little saying a few extremist Christians represent all of Christianity in all of its colours and varieties.
Seems to me that that is part of what Ezra's column was about. Interesting how his message got subverted by his own devotees.
Posted by: TB | 2005-05-30 10:44:58 PM
Gamblog: "Wharold, I think you need to meet a Muslim and say that to their face."
Typical of a gliberal to assume that someone who disagrees with them has never met a Muslim (i.e. "If they disagree with me, it must be because they are ignorant."), IS not a Muslim, and has never expressed any opinion TO a Muslim.
Also, is "Gamblog" suggesting that there might be something DANGEROUS in expressing one's opinion to a Muslim? Is he suggesting that all Muslims are unstable and violent whackjobs?
I find Gamblog's comments on Islam, and his contemptuous and codescending attitude toward those who lean towards Mecca, to be extremely intolerant and offensive.
I believe he owes our Mohammedan compatriots an apology.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 10:45:14 PM
TB: "Not all Muslims ascribe to the terrorist calling is in order. Not all Christians are the Christians of the KKK, White Knights or the Inquisition or witch-burning Puritans...."
1) A Muslim who accepts that Jews and Christians are equal to Muslims, should be free to proselytize, and should be free to practice their religion without paying the Jiazzah (non-Muslim tax), and who accepts that pagans and idolotors should be respected and allowed to live in peace, is clearly in violation of the tenets of Islam.
2) A Christian who goes around killing in the name of the Lord has obviously not apprehended the teachings of our Lord and God.
And that, Tuberculosis, is what it's all about.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-30 10:54:05 PM
Wow, you miss a lot when you get away from the Shotgun a few days.
Brian, as much as I am in agreement with your sentiments, your continuous rants against the likes of A Hermit and Russil Wvong do not inspire respect for your case. Say what you need to say with a cool head.
On second thought maybe I'm being a typical passivist, "whiner against emotionalism" Canadian. Keep it up.
Long before the holocaust "began" in 1938, it became acceptable to berate Jews and judge them unfit for sympathy. That is the stage evangelical Christians are at in Canada right now.
Posted by: jack | 2005-05-30 11:49:00 PM
Yes, I suppose you're right. Well, that's one side of the argument. On the other hand... That is to say...
Well, who really knows, anyway?
We're all right in our own way.
Well, I mean if that's ... uuhhh .. hmmm.
I AM CANADIAN!
Posted by: Paul Martin | 2005-05-30 11:54:45 PM
I am an evangelical. I believe that homosexuals are treated with contempt and abuse in many segments of our society and it is not right. They deserve respect as fellow human beings. Yet, we are on a collision course. There are those who will not be happy until what I believe about homosexuality is criminalized. And what is that? Simply, that sexual orientation is not genetic. It has more to do with nurture than nature. This kind of discussion is simply ruled intolerable and taboo.
Show me the studies! Where's the proof? Sexual orientation is about sexual preference. Someone please tell me why it is okay to question and analyze how someone develops pedophilia and yet we cannot discuss or question same-sex attraction.
Posted by: jack | 2005-05-31 12:10:39 AM
Jack - I think your second response to Brian's "rants" is the preferred one.
Brian comes up with pure gems - one of my recent favorites being ...
"Riiiiiggggghht, that's where I want my drinking money to go -- straight into a pink Tory billionaire's crocodile-skin handbag."
It's not often that a keen sense of the satirical is wed to a rapier wit - and Brian is certianly a candidate for that particular prize!
Posted by: Aidan Maconaghie | 2005-05-31 12:24:59 AM
I mostly agree with you.
I agree that no-one really knows where homosexuality "comes from" (cause, reason...), and I agree that even to attempt a rational discussion is taboo for the MSM's trendy camp followers.
It seems to me that most people are born with an innate atrraction to the opposite sex, some to the same sex, some to both, and some to have no libido whatsoever. Even there there may be environmental factors (i.e. a recent study in the UK concluded that excessive use of birth control pills can cause male children to be born with very small penises and balls (wow...bummer!)). Or it may just be genetic, or some kind of fluke. Who knows.
Then there's the question of behaviour: effeminate men and butch women or tomboys, and all those shades in between. Is that biology? Genetics? SOme sort of mixup or mutation? Again, noone really knows.
And then some people don't behave like most of their sex, but have no attraction to the opposite sex. And some people are in every way typical of their sex except their sexual attraction to others of the same sex.
And then others claim to have "Chosen" to be gay, or lesbian (that's actually common for lesbians. I've had a number of lesbians tell me that they chose to be lesbians because they refuse to "sleep with the enemy."
Even there, there has to be at least some sort of erotic attraction, or they'd just be assexual.
And then there's the overlapping of sex and romance. Some gay men I've met told me they really hate sex, but they've only ever been in love with other men.
And obviously if an 18-year old guy goes into jail for 20 years and is pimped out for cigarettes by "Bubba in Cellblock 3" and then comes out of jail and only has sex with guys, is someone really going to try and argue with a straight face that "he was just born that way"?
I personally think that many men and women "drift" into homosexuality because they just can't get sex with the opposite sex.
You can see this from the many older ugly "gay" men who end up hanging around parks and public toilets desparate for a quickie in the bushes. They get together just cause they can't get a woman and they're desparate for sex.
And lots of women seem to all of a sudden "decide" that they are lesbish in there 40's -- I think often because they have horrible personalities and/or an axe to grind about men, and they are incapible of forming healthy relationships with men, and they don't want to be alone.
But for our overly queer-sensitive cultural elites, all of this kind of speculation and discussion is virtually VERBOTEN. We're supposed to just ignore the evidence of our senses, and parrot, "Gays are born that way!."
What a shallow mindset gliberals have, and what a narrow perspective on the complexities of human nature!
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-31 12:50:08 AM
Re "It's not often that a keen sense of the satirical is wed to a rapier wit"
Thank you Sirrah for all yer koind words.
Now dat brings t'mind a tale Oi hoard from a man who nivver told a loi, and if he did, shore there was no-one to tell otherwoise, for y'know he had a waaay with words, an' he could spin dem out one after anudder, like a spoider after a point of poitin [http://www.irishflutes.net/mef/poitin.htm].
And dis here fellah, well shore he says to me...
Listen here now. The thing is this now, see? Oi'm a bit short of the ol' spladooniks. We were on the pig's back, y'know, but den she's come up on the aul' GG. So loik, Oi'm skint, ja get me now?
So. loik, Oi'll just t'row it out here and see where it takes me" Oi will insult anyone you like -- whomsoivver any poltroon, layabout or rapscallion that you moight be feuding wit'. And Oi'll do it for a foive pound note.
Shore y'll nivver get a more fair offer dan dat!
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-31 1:20:40 AM
Hilarious! "O'Neill" is a fine Ulster surname by the way - a former PM of N Ireland was a certain Terence O'Neil.
Posted by: Aidan Maconaghie | 2005-05-31 1:31:13 AM
"If you listened to former PLO terrrorist Walid Shoebat, you'd have a deeper clue about iSLAM..." Warhold
Why would you take the worst extremist to be representative of all those who call themselves Muslims? Should we judge all Christians by what the KKK say and do?I would never apply that sort of standard to a faith followed by more than a billion people worldwide.
Posted by: A Hermit | 2005-05-31 9:07:51 AM
Let's see if I got this straight (no pun intended), O'Neill: women become lesbians because they can't get a man, have an axe to grind with men, or don't want to be alone; men become gay because they are desparate and men are easier, they are old and ugly, or they get raped in jail; but it is liberals who have a "narrow perspective on the complexities of human nature." Just checking.
Posted by: TB | 2005-05-31 9:21:22 AM
TB, try reading.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-31 9:40:42 AM
Would it help to summarize, since you appear to be functioanlly illiterate (though I suspect your just feigning ignorance in order to twist the truth.
What I said was:
"...most people are born with an innate atrraction to the opposite sex, some to the same sex, some to both, and some have no libido ... may be environmental factors ... may be genetic ... some kind of fluke ... Who knows? effeminate men and butch women or tomboys, and all those shades in between .... Genetics? ... some people don't behave like most of their sex, but have no attraction to the opposite sex. ... some people are in every way typical of their sex except their sexual attraction to others of the same sex ... I've had a number of lesbians tell me that they chose to be lesbians ... Even there, there has to be at least some sort of erotic attraction, or they'd just be assexual. ... overlapping of sex and romance. Some gay men I've met told me they really hate sex, but they've only ever been in love with other men. ... obviously if an 18-year old guy goes into jail for 20 years and...then only has sex with guys [can you really say] "he was just born that way"? ... I think that many men and women "drift" into homosexuality because they just can't get sex with the opposite sex. ... many older ugly "gay" men...end up hanging around parks and public toilets desparate for a quickie in the bushes. ... they can't get a woman and they're desparate for sex. ... lots of women seem to all of a sudden "decide" that they are lesbish in there 40's -- I THINK OFTEN because they...are incapable of forming healthy relationships with men, and they don't want to be alone. ... for our overly queer-sensitive cultural elites, all of this kind of speculation and discussion is virtually VERBOTEN. We're supposed to just ignore the evidence of our senses ... what a shallow mindset gliberals have, and what a narrow perspective on the complexities of human nature!"
So no, TB, you didn't get it straight, your reading skills are as bent as your logic.
And you're response just proves what I said about gliberals having a shallow mindset and being rarely able to appreciate complexity.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-31 9:51:31 AM
A Hermit: "Given the pre-eminence of Christianity in North America it seems rather silly to hear how some Christians try to claim victim status."
Right on sister!
I know you feel the same about all those yappy women who never stop complaining about their "victim" status even though they are the majorititty!
I look forward to you putting all those women in their place the way you do with all those annoying Christphiles.
Posted by: Brian O'Neill | 2005-05-31 10:01:16 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.