Modern Conservative reading and research

In which Conservative higher education blatherer Naomi Schaefer Riley entitles a post:

The Most Persuasive Case for Eliminating Black Studies? Just Read the Dissertations. 

Gets fired for it. 

Then appears in the Wall Street Journal whining that she was being held to far too high a standard in being expected to do herself that which she ordered us to do in the title of her offending post. (Emphasis mine).

Scores of critics on the site complained that I had not read the dissertations in full before daring to write about them—an absurd standard for a 500-word blog post.

Cough.

TBogg evisceration follows. 

Stephen Woodworth provides the best case for abortion - ever!

Himself!

This is what happens when an election gets stolen by a bunch of superstitious authoritarian pukes.

H/T Dented Blue Mercedes

Waiting for the snowball fight in hell

I agree with Cathie.

I am done with giving the Harper Cons the benefit of the doubt. I'll believe they'll actually amend the residency requirements law only when I see them bring it to the Commons and whip their caucus to support it.

We've had the Flop

Now the Turn.

Next ... the River.

And at the Showdown, MacKay buggers off from the table as fast as his burning knickers will allow.

A sudden change of plans that will see Defence Minister Peter MacKay representing Canada at a NATO foreign ministers' meeting in Brussels this week instead of Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird has left opposition parties crying foul.

Baird's attendance at the high-level conference had been confirmed late last week, and the foreign affairs minister has been touring Europe since Monday. He was to attend the NATO meeting on Thursday, then travel to The Hague on Friday for a conference on Internet freedom, before returning home.

But the government announced Wednesday morning that MacKay, who has been under fire for his use of a military helicopter last year, would be going to Brussels instead while Canadian Ambassador to the Netherlands James Lambert will attend the Internet meeting.

Only a cheater runs that fast.
--------------

For those unfamiliar with the terms above, go here.

--------------
Kenny Rogers has some advice for you MacKay. So far you've proven you're really, really bad at this game.

Why is Harper afraid of a parliamentary debate on Afghanistan?

Because there's obviously something he's not telling you and a debate would require someone to answer some very embarrassing questions.

If Harper is so confident that he has the Liberals on side, he should have nothing to worry about. Right?

Maybe not.

A debate would shed some light on the fact that Elmer MacKay's little boy, Pete, the adrift (recently) Minister of National Defence, seems to be playing catch up on the file that should be papering his desk. MacKay seems to know nothing until that detestable little slime-ball from the PMO, Dimitri Soudas, speaks.

It would certainly appear that defence policy is coming from some desk in the Prime Minister's office - not from 101 Colonel By Drive.

There has to be more, however, because Harper's insistence that he doesn't need the approval of Parliament is not only contemptuous but obviously so. While Harper is running a wildly incompetent government this plan for a new mission in Afghanistan looks like it's been on the stovetop for a while. And that is what Harper doesn't want to have to answer.

While you misled Canadians, how long have you had this plan in place? (I'm saying last April, and I have a very good reason for that.)

Then there is the concept of "classroom" instructors being the advertised form of mission. So far, anyone I've spoken to has burst out in laughter at the idea. For one thing, the troops we send don't actually do the instruction. They monitor the Afghan instructors. (Unless we've suddenly developed a huge number of Pashtu and Dari speakers). Those who do actually lead instructional sessions are doing so through interpreters.  Ever done that? It's very difficult, even with enthusiastic, well-educated students.That means we have to send instructors and instructor supervisors who are adept and extremely well organized. What's the impact on Canadian Forces schools and the specialist training in the Canadian Forces?

Here's an obvious question that just doesn't seem to get asked: If we're going to deploy a pure training element to Afghanistan to assist in the advanced training of specialists and leaders, why don't we just bring them to Canada and train them here at our own bases, develop their instructor cadre in complete safety and save billions of dollars not having to support Canadian troops at distant overseas posts?

Ask that question in a parliamentary debate and Harper or one of his hillbilly crowd will have to explain why they don't see that as a good idea... and I can tell you it would not make them look pretty.

Why doesn't Harper want the support of parliament via debate? Because at the very least his misleading of the Canadian public will be an open sore which will get a lot of attention.

Coward.