Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Weakness

I've always liked Kate McMillan. Which is a statement, sure to cast me as a bigot, racist or whatever attribution suits Kinsella or Murphy's fancy. Her blog is a mainstay, powerhouse of the Canadian blogosphere, a fact that clearly bestows much frustration upon the not-so-right-of-center bloggers out there.

The irony of Kate McMillan’s impregnable stature, and her detractor’s failure to disarm her with constant character assassination is that, like Jean Chretien, she amusingly fails to acknowledge the existence of her critics, except to toy with them. And like with Chretien, it drives her opponents batty. But the irony of course, is that her most vocal opponent is Chretienite, Warren Kinsella.

Warren has dedicated much of his blogging time to going after Kate, and others, like Jay Currie, whom he baselessly labels a bigot and has threatened to sue for calling him a “liar”. He’s threatened to sue me too, by the way.

It seems though that Warren’s pet project of falsely exposing bigots in our midst has only served to lower his stature even further.

Given that Warren seems reasonably intelligent, one is forced to question the character of such a man, who so liberally lifts quotes out of context to fit his premise that McMillan and Shaidle are racist bigots. And he just doesn’t take them out of context, he provides proof for his assertions in the form of unsourced sentence fragments. By unsourced I mean, he doesn’t bother providing links, so that his readers can judge for themselves, the nature in which certain phrases were used.

I have never seen Kate say anything to suggest that she is bigoted. Although I do admit she is crass, and her tongue-and-cheek ways of expressing herself are not for everyone. By the way, I’m not criticizing her; I’ve done worse.

Even when Warren was threatening to sue me for calling him a Nazi, he was certainly going out of his way to avoid the fact that the title of the post was Reductio ad Nazium, and that the post clearly expressed it’s satirical nature in no uncertain terms.

The tail never stops wagging the dog with Warren.

There are moments where Warren goes out of his spin-doctor mode and provides a cogent analysis, such as his panel appearances on Your Opinion Counts on CFRB 1010 AM in Toronto, or some of his earlier National Post columns. But for the most part, he’s still holding up that children’s stuffed animal, in every rhetorical sense.

The difference today, is nobody is buying it anymore. He’s firing blanks. Without a provincial election, and without the federal Liberal’s interested in him, his penchant for political maneuvering has been relegated to obsessing over Kathy Shaidle and Kate McMillan. I don’t know about you, but given the political history here, I’d say that’s a victory for the aforementioned.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Mike, I came across your site looking for commentary on the National Post's apology to Richard Warman. Your comments on Kinsella are what I found.

We have actually met before, at PC conventions, back when you were more active in the party.

Let's do the analysis on you and Warren:

Kinsella majority wins for federal Liberals: three. What have you won?

Kinsella majority wins for the provincial Liberals: two. You: nothing.

Kinsella books - more than half a dozen, by my count, some bestsellers. You: nothing.

Kinsella's blog is read because he is interesting and smart, and it is read by many prominent Conservatives, and we both know it. John Tory has said privately he would have won the 07 race if he'd Had Kinsella beside him again.

The federal Liberals, I understand, offered him the war room and he said no because the federal government is one of his clients (check the client list - its at his Daisy firm web site).

Mike, your analysis of Warren Kinsella reads like jealousy. That's all that it is.
I don't always agree with him, either. But he's a legend in Canadian politics; you aren't.

Anonymous said...

Mike, I came across your site looking for commentary on the National Post's apology to Richard Warman. Your comments on Kinsella are what I found.

We have actually met before, at PC conventions, back when you were more active in the party.

Let's do the analysis on you and Warren:

Kinsella majority wins for federal Liberals: three. What have you won?

Kinsella majority wins for the provincial Liberals: two. You: nothing.

Kinsella books - more than half a dozen, by my count, some bestsellers. You: nothing.

Kinsella's blog is read because he is interesting and smart, and it is read by many prominent Conservatives, and we both know it. John Tory has said privately he would have won the 07 race if he'd Had Kinsella beside him again.

The federal Liberals, I understand, offered him the war room and he said no because the federal government is one of his clients (check the client list - its at his Daisy firm web site).

Mike, your analysis of Warren Kinsella reads like jealousy. That's all that it is.
I don't always agree with him, either. But he's a legend in Canadian politics; you aren't.

Anonymous said...

Mike, I came across your site looking for commentary on the National Post's apology to Richard Warman. Your comments on Kinsella are what I found.

We have actually met before, at PC conventions, back when you were more active in the party.

Let's do the analysis on you and Warren:

Kinsella majority wins for federal Liberals: three. What have you won?

Kinsella majority wins for the provincial Liberals: two. You: nothing.

Kinsella books - more than half a dozen, by my count, some bestsellers. You: nothing.

Kinsella's blog is read because he is interesting and smart, and it is read by many prominent Conservatives, and we both know it. John Tory has said privately he would have won the 07 race if he'd Had Kinsella beside him again.

The federal Liberals, I understand, offered him the war room and he said no because the federal government is one of his clients (check the client list - its at his Daisy firm web site).

Mike, your analysis of Warren Kinsella reads like jealousy. That's all that it is.
I don't always agree with him, either. But he's a legend in Canadian politics; you aren't.

Robert McClelland said...

Her blog is a mainstay, powerhouse of the Canadian blogosphere, a fact that clearly bestows much frustration upon the not-so-right-of-center bloggers out there.

Actually there are quite a few of us who think Kate is the perfect face of conservatism in the blogosphere and wish more popularity upon her.

Security said...

Anonymous, get a grip. Anonymous, get a grip. Anonymous, get a grip.

Hit "post" once only. Hit "post" once only . Hit "post" once only.

Key phrase from bullshit in triplicate:

"But he's a legend in Canadian politics; you aren't."

Hmmmm......that you Kinsella?

Anonymous said...

For a self-described political powerhouse like Kinsella to have been denied mention in Chretien's memoirs must have stung like a paper cut, yes?

Joan Tintor said...

The comment that Anonymous attributes to John Tory -- that he would have won last year had he had Kinsella at his side "again" -- doesn't wash.

The only time Kinsella worked with Tory was on Tory's 2003 mayoral campaign. Which Tory lost.

Lifelong Liberal Now An Apostate said...

Anonymous.. you prize victory over everything.

The end justifies the means, right?

That's why Canadians are fed up with the LIEBerals. Hypocritical, power-hungry, unethical socialist "brown envelope" types.

Buy our votes with our own money. Disgusting vermin.

The end does not justify the means. Your argument merely highlights the moral bankruptcy of the LIEBeral brand.

Richard said...

Anon;

Lying about accomplishments... Wasn't that chapter 4 in Warren's "licking a$$" book?

earl iron said...

I used to consider kinsella some kind of powerhouse in liberal politics, largely because i'm not immune to his admirers in the media constantly telling me that. But it's crap. Most of his work was during a time of the divided conservative movement. And defeating john tory wasn't too hard. He pretty much did it himself.
As for best sellers in Canada, do you have any idea what sort of numbers that takes? It ain't much.
Lastly, anybody that can get batted around like a cat toy as easily as kinsella just isn't that sharp. Machiavellian? Try Mickeyavellian.
As for comparing his work to Mike Brock, well, what's your point?
Do you feel we shouldn't be criticizing our "betters?". Stephen Harper is PM; do you plan on achieving this any time soon? If not, I expect an attitude of respect.

Anonymous said...

Warren Kinsella is the world's biggest twit.

Anonymous said...

So what are the odds the first commenter is actually Kensilla?

Personally, I'd say between 85%-95%.

Dr. Johnson said...

I've thought the very same things. I read Kate very often and have never read anything I could consider racist.

I think the problem is, to many on the left, "racist" is implied by virtue of not being "progressive". In their binary world there are only those two possibilities.

And as is all too common on the left, once they form a belief, actual facts/reality doesn't really stand in their way of that belief.

Thus, their starting point is that Kate (as a non progressive) is a racist, and all "facts" however benign or irrationally connected to real racism, inevitably lead to that predetermined conclusion.

bill said...

Read Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Facism".

It's all in there.

Kinsella and his ilk use the most vile forms of smearing for a single purpose:

Silencing those with opposing viewpoints.

'She's "kkkate", after all and you don't want to be associated with a group that summarily hung people based on the colour of their skin do you? Of course not, stay away from her or you'll be branded as someone who advocates the summary murder of people based on skin colour.'

That's today's "tolerant progressive left": agree with me or I'll say you advocate racist based genocide!

For greater context peruse Big City Lib, and you see the phrase 'kkkate' used incessantly.

Louise said...

I think the kkk, racist, Nazi game is up. When harsh, stinging words are used so loosely and overly frequently they lose their sting. They are rendered meaningless, which is extremely unfortunate, as the things they are meant to describe are truly reprehensible and need a powerful descriptor to identify their nature. The real victims of hate are all the more vulnerable for it.

larry13767 said...

Hey Anonymous, that was hilarious.

That was exactly the semantics of Glen Greenwald's sock puppet silliness.

So this must be Kinsella doing something extremely repetitive and unoriginal.

Dante said...

I really enjoy Kates Blog. Even her detractors can't stop reading it. I also find WK entertaining at times. He has however taken this attack too far.

Slinging mud in this fashion can be turned around very quickly. For example, if I were to say something like:
------------------------
"I think it is telling that his focus is on two women bloggers. It wouldn't be the first time that he should misogynistic tendencies...

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20070724/kinsella_cartoon_070724/20070724?hub=TorontoHome

Looks like he hates women. His red neck tendencies (he is from Alberta after all...nudge nudge wink wink) were in full display when he showed his disdain for Newfoundlanders as well... http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080119-182942)

Clearly racist if you ask me. His love for punk also says it all...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_punk"

-------------------------
I wouldn't presume to give advice to anyone who is not willing to receive it. I will however state that I will shed no tears for someone who gets attacked this way if they are contributors to filthy smears of this nature.

OMMAG said...

Kinsella has dug himself into a hole and has repeatedly shown the world that he considers it the HIGH ground.

HIS one and only justification for this seems to be that HE thinks TWO WOMEN Blog authors are Racist and Hateful.

With public scrutiny of his behaviour increasing he seems to feel that digging deeper is his best defense...

I consider this to be the sure sign of a stupid person.

Remember the old adage about Fooling Some of the people some of the time....

James Goneaux said...

Kinsella is the kind of guy who scores 10 goals in a road hockey game and thinks he belongs in the Hockey Hall of Fame.

Fact is, most of his "wins" were against a divided right-wing. Noticed he faded from the scene fairly quickly when faced with only one party on the right. He seems to be hiding in the weeds now, certainly not putting his neck on the line until a sure bet comes in. Some integrity, that.

Basically, because Dion is such a disaster, Liberals have to do everything they can to take the spotlight away from him. The more Dion speaks, the more ratfuckers like WK will turn up the "all conservatives are racists, etc" rhetoric. Even if it means finding one comment of thousands on some obscure blog they can tie, however vicariously, to the Tories.

Just a warning, though: that goes both ways...

And giving Kinsella total credit for the win is beyond egotistical. I think the % chance that this was posted by WK himself is above 98 now. I mean, the fact that it was triplicated does reflect the utter internet newbness of WK.

BTW, ever here of Ken McMay? He's been fighting nazis online for over 15 years, an eternity on the internet. He has done more to document the logic vacuum that is Holocaust denial than Kinsella has. All without pay. Makes WK's contribution a bit self-serving, no?

BTW, what does McKay think of censorship?

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/german/der-spiegel-online/interview-961018.html

Do you share the willingness to grant freedom of speech even to the enemies of freedom?

McVay: Yes, I do. What possible good comes, for instance, from forcing these Nazis underground? Will that make them stop hating? Has it ever stopped the hate? As a people, we must start taking responsibility for our behavior, and for our problems, rather than expecting "government" to do it for us. In short, we need to learn to carry our own baggage, and to face our social problems squarely.

Danté said...

Well put, Mike.

(By the way, the Dante above is not the same as myself - I'm the one who runs "Uncommon Truths")

Wonder Woman said...

"Kinsella books - more than half a dozen, by my count, some bestsellers. You: nothing. "

-- Hitler wrote a book, too. So did L. Ron Hubbard. Several, in fact.

I guess I just missed the point.

Anonymous said...

I think it all boils down to the simple fact that people now realize that the emperor has no clothes.

He's nothing but a loud mouth with little by way of actual substance.

Minicapt said...

Yes but he still have Barney in his corner; ... he still has Barney on his side, doesn't he?

Cheers
JMH

Dr.Dawg said...

All this to denounce character assassination! I've wandered into a veritable convention of the irony-challenged, it seems.

Kate's oft-quoted remarks about bringing back Indian residential schools and jailing Native activists, not to mention her inflammatory comments last summer about lining up Indian protesters in the cross-hairs, and her more recent defence of European neo-Nazis like Filip deWinter, are enough to attract the "racist" description, in my book.

As for Shaidle, there's her continual running commentary about Blacks and intelligence (with numerous citations of the racialist Steve Sailer to back her up), her infamous "Arabs are violent retards" comment, and some equally vile comments about Native people.

It's all on the public record. Watching you trip all over yourselves trying to explain this away should be entertaining--for a short period.

What I don't really understand, though, is why racists try so hard to escape the "racist" label. It's trying to have it both ways. I have far more respect for people who stand up for what they believe in, however repellent, than for those who express beliefs and deny they have them in the same breath.