Appropos of nothing...
Let's say you're sitting at a bar called, oh... Labatt House. Having a few drinks with good friends, and one of them leans forward, looks you in the eye and asks, "So, I have to ask you about Joe Blow*. How come you find him so contemptible?"
Joe Blow isn't a big part of your life. In fact, Joe Blow is no part of your life at all. But you're a little warmed over by the drinks and you love to gossip.
What do you do?
I know what I do - I share the story, and the evening continues. And then I forget about it.
A few days later, an email arrives from somebody and after beating around the bush a little. "BTW - how come you find Joe Blow so contemptible?"
What do you do?
I know what I do. If I believe the writer deserves an answer, I reply and explain why I detest the twerp. But I think it odd to be asked twice about a guy I've seldom mentioned,
(Bear with me. This is going somewhere.)
Then - and this is going to sound very strange, all coincidency - you sit down in the salon chair for your weekly pedicure, and lo and behold - beside you is an old business associate. Small talk ensues and he leans over to whisper, "I know this is none of my business, but I just have to know - how come you think this Blow fellow is so contemptible?"
This is weird. Despite having at most, a peripheral association with Joe, there are three people so consumed with your non-relationship that they go out of their way to ask about it.
What do you do?
It's none of his business, but we're in an intimate setting. What the hell? It's not like I have to face Joe over the dinner table. So, toes wiggling in Palmolive, I spill the juicy details.
That's what I'd do.
That's how gossip works, isn't it? That's the way normal people talk to other normal people in private. Questions are asked. Answers are given.
There's no time delay rule.
But for some people, it seems that's not how it works at all. Some people save their answers up to be unveiled at a later time and place! As if you like, but you'll just have to wait.
Until the special day arrives for the answer to be unveiled in a blog post - a digital opening night of sorts for the "Long Awaited Contemptible Joe Answer"!
And, because they've presumably been waiting patiently at their computer screens for just this moment, the post is thoughtfully addressed to "the three people who have asked".
It must be so exciting for them - like saving up all your gossip for Christmas morning.
So, what do you think of that?
I know what I think of that.
*sigh*
I don't think there were three people at all.
I think they were three voices.
You seem to have gone out of your way to avoid mentioning who you were referring to... but having read this blog enough I was able to figure it out.
Spilling the beans during a pedicure -- that's how gossipy rumors get a toe-hold in the first place.
I've been reading this blog forever and I cant figure this one out. It must be late...
Refresh. I found a spare asterisk.
He is sooooo bitter. Because he is loosing the battle. In so many ways. Straws, grasp grasp.
And, on top of it all, Dion is in last place for PM in his home province.
And the realization that sda has the creme de la creme of Canadian occupations. Political party pundants/advisers need not apply.
Even his favorite 'major media commentator' has not updated his blog in days -- let alone many times a day.
And of course, there is always that nagging, daily reminder that PMJC signed on to a fraud, -- while being advised, of course.
It is enough to make a person hear phantom voices :(
To those twenty or thirty people who have asked: "Why does a certain partisan-hack/pundit act like a sociopathic twelve year old girl?" I just want to say that, in each case I really honestly did want to get in on your conversations, but since I didn't know any of you, and had never met you, and was in fact merely evesdropping on your conversations.
I felt it would have been inappropriate to just barge into a conversation like that, but I really appreciate that none of you felt any need whatsoever to save up that question in order to provide for a more magnanimous release of the answer in a public forum at some later date.
Some questions have the answers built-in already, anyway. Here are a few examples:
Why would would a prominent Canadian so publicly deliver floral-scented gift-basket sacrifices to his personal non-existent high-priest-enforcer of gossip-rule?
Wouldn't that be transparent, and pathetic, and arcing towards the tragic?
What kind of newspaper would hire him?
People are asking, that's all.
Warren Kinsella is the Tanya Harding of Canadian politics.
Kate, we need to create a new blogging term for Mr. Narcissus Wannabe. "Troll" refers to someone who visits other sites and throws around gratuitus insults and smears just to get attention...THIS attention-whore "stays at home" and does the same thing.
He's pathetic.
Kinsella makes Zerbs look almost intelligent.
What kind of prime minister would hire such a weasel? And consider him part of the family? Libranos, indeed.
Wonder what his 'gang' nickname was in the PMO.
Why are all my orifices burning?
I must admit I know little about Kinsella. Guess I had better go visit and see what he is all about.
"Spilling the beans during a pedicure -- that's how gossipy rumors get a toe-hold in the first place.
Posted by: Richard Ball at June 5, 2007 2:11 AM "
ROFLMA...good one.
If you visit his site at all, you would know who Kate was referring to by the first line of this post alone, "Appropos of nothing...".
This statement is Warren's favorite when he is about to tell us dear readers about something he wants us to worship him for such as an upcoming interview with some washed up punk god or some unheard of up and coming musician. He uses it to tease about some great inside knowledge that he has of something that most people probably don't care about. He uses it when he is about to tell about his latest run in and how he has fooled himself into thinking he has the upper hand.
Admittedly, I read him too much. Occasionally, he has a great post and it is that that keeps me going back and contributing to his hit count. Sorry Kate.
Warn-out Kinsella is easily explained - he was hired by and still loves Jean Cretin, the worst prime minister (ok, so maybe Trudeau sucked worse) this country ever had.
Warren Kinsella & Cretin, two peas in a pod.
Moldy pod
Bad Peas
Liberal hacks
It's obvious the 3 formless voices asking him to post his gossip were the evil spirits from his later post. ;-)
Is this a demonic possession or just a super frail ego at work running a witch hunt as cover?
The more this guy writes the more I see a frail insecure child-like ego with all the despicable foibles of a spoiled child's personality...tattletale, vindictiveness, cravenness, nasty mouth...making faces at the elders, tantrum taking, name calling, attention hogging, self centered and envious, narcissistic....its all down there in print like a psychotic confession.
Spoiled brat journaism/blogging...we have a master right here on the center of the known universe.
I for one resent Kinsella for tricking me into visiting James Bow's blog, which should be required by law to carry a DO NOT OPERATE HEAVY MACHINERY warning. Stuff is digital Nyquil...
Didn’t know about this Chris Seely before, but I visited his site and it has some quality content. Good enough for me to link to, and good enough for me to see why Macleans hired him.
WKs site in recent years has declined to the point where it is now entirely skippable. Dude has gone a little off his rocker. But to be fair, when I'm his age I'll likely be pretty cranky too.
Also, it kind of makes you wonder who beat out Warren for the job at Macleans?
The most pathetic thing about Kinsella (I know, a long list) is that he went as far with his hero worship of Chretien to do what "da Boss" did, and adopted a vizmin. Hope that little experiment in social engineering works out better for him than it did the Chretiens...
Look who Kinsella worships: Chretien and McGuinty.
That tells you something.
Stopped reading him long ago. He was a good read during Martin's brief reign, but his endless Chretien and McGuinty worshipping makes me feel ill.
He also epitomizes the sleazy side of politics and it is no wonder why many good people never run for office. If having someone like Kinsella on your side is what is required to win an election, then I for one would rather be doing something else with my life.
Finally he is a Liberal and a hypocrite, two words which fit together so well that one defines the other.
Warren Kinsella is the Tanya Harding of Canadian politics.
I always thought of him as more of a gay Lee Atwater sort...
One need look no further than at this fool's avocation. The mere fact that Kinsella still proudly plays that horrid punk rock noise is evidence of his life long commitment to adolescence.
Punk Rock in music, is what finger painting is in the world of art. That pretty much sums up where WK is at.
...not to say that WK is light in his loafers, but that if you combined Atwater with a gay activist type (in terms of behaviour, biases, etc), you'd end up with someone like Kinsella.
He was a nobody in the Chretien government. After Chretien won in 1993, Warnout wasn't invited into the PMO and was sent out to work for Dingwall. And didn't they do a swell job?
A newly re-minted Liberal MP from Halton and the Appropos of nothing represent the New Orlean's Jeffersonian version of politics.
Words without thought and action without care.
Neither would make much of a carpenter -- they cut first and then reach for the measuring tape.
For me, I would rather see more pictures of those cute puppies.
Gus
And the realization that sda has the creme de la creme of Canadian occupations.
i was eating soup when i read that. it's all over my monitor. too funny.
I can't believe nobody else sees it. Kinsella is Cherniak in 30 years time. Sycophants reproduce too. Probably asexually in Cherniak's case.
kate, you'll be hearing from my attorneys. i've instructed my children to give you the 'paul martin treatment' as well. it goes without saying that dalton mcguinty deserves to be reelected and that john tory is the devil, as your site clearly demonstrates. off to produce the type of relevant punk music that only a man in his late 40s can.
Is this the same Chris Selley that WK hates so much ?? Because he links to sda, Canada's #1 blog.
sda Archives: Dangerous Political Idiots July 2005.
"Look, it's a ridiculous policy that's out of step even with the anti-American rabble. It's a perfectly good reason to get annoyed at the CBC. But as far as the war on terror goes it's meaningless, and I think far too much ink has been spilled on the topic. Everyone knows the London bombers were terrorists. I'm pretty sure the terrorists knew they were terrorists. So who cares if Peter Mansbridge won't call them terrorists?"
Posted by: Chris Selley at July 21, 2005 10:42 AM"
Ya, what the hay. It didn't matter either that TASS and Pravda slanted the news for decades :(
Kate was correct then and is correct today.
WK, wrong then and now.
CS, wrong then. Have not been following him. Dunno about now, but if he POed WK, cannot be all wrong :)
Have wondered whether "apropos of nothing" WK, had any connection with author W. P. Kinsella. A quick Wikipedia search confirmed what I suspected....no connection. Besides, W. P. Kinsella knows how to write.
"Warren Kinsella is the Tanya Harding of Canadian politics."
He's a teletubby sans tub.
Geez, six months ago a Kinsella post would have got three times as many comments.
Looks like no one cares about him anymore.
That's good news, Eddie. Next we will find a cure for the common cold.
It says a lot about this site that someone can criticize Kinsella for adopting a child who isn't white and no one breathes a word about it. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
What's to be ashamed about, Peter? Kinsella's hero-worship knows no bounds, that is the shame. I can't wait until he buys a hotel and post-dates the sale with a receipt written on a napkin, or chokes a protester.
He can adopt anyone he wants, that's his business. When he then parades the child on his blog for the world to see, its our business.
His problem is that if he were one-tenth as savvy as he thinks he is, he wouldn't appear to be as much as a twerp as he does.