Case in point: a few days ago I got linked from SmallDeadAnimals and The Daily Cougar*. Hit count: SDA, +900; Zerb, 17.
The only people reading newspaper blogs are careerist kiss-asses who want to get noticed by the Big Time Writer. Little birds on the elephant’s back. Those blogs won’t last.
That bird is called a bee-eater. It eats the insects that swarm around the massive piles of horse sh*t that come out of the enormous, smelly a$$hole.
Is this Star writer for real? She gets PAID in real money??
Both the Zerb and Kate linked me back when I was updating AWM (had to mothball it for personal reasons). Kate’s link sent me over 6000 unique visitors over a one week period. The Zerb send me around 700 visitors over the same period.
Check please warrenkinsella – ha is fun just started!!!
There’s a problem with the link to Kate’s site. It’s actually here.
Hit count: SDA, +900; Zerb, 17.
Considering both Kate and Kathy are rightwingers it comes as no surprise that Kate would send more traffic to Kathy than Antonia would; especially when you also consider that most of Antonia’s readers know Shaidle isn’t worth reading.
Poor Robert. Sounds a bit angry, doesn’t he?
He’s just annoyed that when he recommends a site, the traffic drops 5-10%, and when he trashes a site, the traffic goes up 10-15%.
Check please warrenkinsella…
OK,
http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm
Captain Canada Fails Even After His Failure
* Even More Captain Canada Failure *
A blogging MSM journalist is nothing more than a pathetic redundancy.
From Warren Kinsella blog:
“January 31, 2006 – Forgive me for being blunt, but how in the name of Christ was the official spokesman for the Gomery Commission permitted to write a book about what was going on behind the scenes at the Gomery Commission?
This is the big surprise I had been planning for you – but La Presse beat me to it.
It’s about Francois Perrault, the Gomery Commission’s head flak, was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a year’s work – sole-sourced, too – by the tax payer. Some of the things Perrault said about Jean Chretien now actually form part of Chretien’s Federal Court case alleging bias.
Here’s the gist of the La Presse story, for those of you who cannot read French:
Perrault’s slender book is called ”Inside Gomery.’ It’s being published by Douglas and McIntyre.
The book will be released on February 21, at a party at the National Arts Centre.
Perrault himself admitted that the writing of such a book is analogous to “insider trading.”
Despite that, he started to write the book in October, when the first Gomery volume had yet to be released.
Gomery knew all about it. He even wrote the preface for the book.
If you don’t understand why this is an issue, you are either hopelessly partisan, or you think Gomery was right to “exonerate” Paul Martin.
This is, indeed, like “insider trading.” While this multi-million dollar commission was underway – a commission that would have a huge impact, as Gomery admitted many times, on the reputations and lives of many, many people – one of the most senior commission officials was secretly writing a book about it all, with the secret approval of the judge who presided over the commission. The same judge who repeatedly promised to observe “confidentiality” in his opening statement, and who even said this:
“In the course of the Inquiry’s hearing process, evidence may emerge in support of a factual finding which, broadly construed, might be perceived as adverse or unfavourable to the reputation of a person or organization. Given that possibility, it is of paramount importance that the Inquiry’s process be scrupulously fair.”
“Fair,” eh? Here’s my favourite, from Gomery’s own Rules of Procedure. It’s relevant to what I’m talking about here:
“48. No media scrums, interviews, or reporting will be allowed in the hearing rooms or within the distance of ten (10) meters from the hearing room entrances.”
Unless, of course, you’re Francois Perrault. In which case you can “report” from right inside the judge’s chambers, or any other place that real journalists were not permitted to go.
This is bloody outrageous, what has happened here. And it is wholly, completely reflective of why the Gomery Commission was wrongly conceived, poorly led, and badly received.
What a disgrace.”
Robert McClelland, who is to reasoned, intelligent, informed and civil discourse as a stool sample is to fine dining.
Hey Robert, is anyone going to pony up to the bar for the glory of leading the LPC? We’ve got a poll going at: http://plattytalk.blogspot.com for that very topic.
Give Robert a break, people. He’s trying not to choke on that beer while he eats his popcorn.
“…as a stool sample is to fine dining.”
That’s hardly fair to the stool sample. At least it has a purpose.
On reflection, you are correct. A stool sample has substance. Robert is more of a nether wind, drifting about the blogosphere leaving a trace of odour wherever he goes.
Again…
DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS!!!
You are stating that the Bush admin. never said IRaq was an imminent threat…well here you go!
“There’s no question that Iraq was a threat to the people of the United States.”
� White House spokeswoman Claire Buchan, 8/26/03
“We ended the threat from Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.”
� President Bush, 7/17/03
Iraq was “the most dangerous threat of our time.”
� White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 7/17/03
“Saddam Hussein is no longer a threat to the United States because we removed him, but he was a threat…He was a threat. He’s not a threat now.”
� President Bush, 7/2/03
“Absolutely.”
� White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
“We gave our word that the threat from Iraq would be ended.”
� President Bush 4/24/03
“The threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction will be removed.”
� Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 3/25/03
“It is only a matter of time before the Iraqi regime is destroyed and its threat to the region and the world is ended.”
� Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke, 3/22/03
“The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder.”
� President Bush, 3/19/03
“The dictator of Iraq and his weapons of mass destruction are a threat to the security of free nations.”
� President Bush, 3/16/03
“This is about imminent threat.”
� White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
Iraq is “a serious threat to our country, to our friends and to our allies.”
� Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/31/03
Iraq poses “terrible threats to the civilized world.”
� Vice President Dick Cheney, 1/30/03
Iraq “threatens the United States of America.”
� Vice President Cheney, 1/30/03
“Iraq poses a serious and mounting threat to our country. His regime has the design for a nuclear weapon, was working on several different methods of enriching uranium, and recently was discovered seeking significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
� Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/29/03
“Well, of course he is.�
� White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question �is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?�, 1/26/03
“Saddam Hussein possesses chemical and biological weapons. Iraq poses a threat to the security of our people and to the stability of the world that is distinct from any other. It’s a danger to its neighbors, to the United States, to the Middle East and to the international peace and stability. It’s a danger we cannot ignore. Iraq and North Korea are both repressive dictatorships to be sure and both pose threats. But Iraq is unique. In both word and deed, Iraq has demonstrated that it is seeking the means to strike the United States and our friends and allies with weapons of mass destruction.”
� Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 1/20/03
“The Iraqi regime is a threat to any American. … Iraq is a threat, a real threat.”
� President Bush, 1/3/03
“The world is also uniting to answer the unique and urgent threat posed by Iraq whose dictator has already used weapons of mass destruction to kill thousands.”
� President Bush, 11/23/02
“I would look you in the eye and I would say, go back before September 11 and ask yourself this question: Was the attack that took place on September 11 an imminent threat the month before or two months before or three months before or six months before? When did the attack on September 11 become an imminent threat? Now, transport yourself forward a year, two years or a week or a month…So the question is, when is it such an immediate threat that you must do something?”
� Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 11/14/02
“Saddam Hussein is a threat to America.”
� President Bush, 11/3/02
“I see a significant threat to the security of the United States in Iraq.”
� President Bush, 11/1/02
“There is real threat, in my judgment, a real and dangerous threat to American in Iraq in the form of Saddam Hussein.”
� President Bush, 10/28/02
“The Iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace.”
� President Bush, 10/16/02
“There are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists.”
� President Bush, 10/7/02
“The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.”
� President Bush, 10/2/02
“There’s a grave threat in Iraq. There just is.”
� President Bush, 10/2/02
“This man poses a much graver threat than anybody could have possibly imagined.”
� President Bush, 9/26/02
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world than the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
� Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent – that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.”
� Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/18/02
“Iraq is busy enhancing its capabilities in the field of chemical and biological agents, and they continue to pursue an aggressive nuclear weapons program. These are offensive weapons for the purpose of inflicting death on a massive scale, developed so that Saddam Hussein can hold the threat over the head of any one he chooses. What we must not do in the face of this mortal threat is to give in to wishful thinking or to willful blindness.”
� Vice President Dick Cheney, 8/29/02
The fact Zeb gets traffic at all indicates that your 1964 Mom’s “beetle cake” still attracts little kids who desparately want to revel in 60s pop culture.
Zerb has never left the heady days of Truedeaupia….when the Canadian ship of state left the dock and set a course for debt control and modern globaism, Zerb was still on the dock with Bobby Gimby and the Canada kids singing the centennial song. I haven’t seen a spark of reality in the woman’s nattering since. Her cult following are just as irrational.
I once e-mailed Zerb to protest some of the lies in one of her columns…and she responed with a personal attack. An intellectual lightweight to be sure.
The funny thing is – I had never heard of her until I got onto the blogoshere.
Why would you have heard about her? Her column, for as long as I can remember, was a weekly TV primer in “Starweek”, the Toronto Star’s TV guide. Then, somehow she moved to the actual entertainment section, where she began to mix vapid leftist conventional-wisdom cliches into her vapid leftist conventional-wisdom analysis of television programming. She also started popping up as a panelist on TVOntario and perhaps elsewhere, which I guess made her feel important.
Canadian Sentinel, I have to disagree with you. There are a couple Canadian journalists who have figured out blogging. Ezra Levant and Andrew Coyne, for example.
Kathy and Kate have more ba**s and integrity than 90% of the XYs I know. Keep it up…fellas 😉
The *really* funny thing is . . . I had never heard of Zerb (to notice her, anyway) until I moved to Canada and started *really* reading Canadian blogs and heard once in a while about this lefty chick with the “zed” last name. But I had been reading Kathy Shaidle — both of us being Catholic — for maybe a year or so before I even met my now-husband (the reason I’m now in Canada) and Canada was the furthest thing from my Dallas, Tex.-centered brain. And found SDA through her. Dunno that that proves anything, I’m just saying.