Running Roughshod Over Leftist Issues

Blogging 68 Comments

Oddly enough, I first took that to be a compliment;

Two bloggers who need to be challenged, factually, consistently and relentlessly: Small Dead Animals and Angry in the Great White North. They’ve already gotten the attention of the mainstream media and they are doing real, material damage to public discourse when it comes to leftist issues.
If Babble can’t deal with these two turd-blogs, then Babble is of no use whatsoever.

To which I can only respond – what’s a “Babble”?

68 Replies to “Running Roughshod Over Leftist Issues”

  2. Kate: I could not, try as I might, give you a greater compliment than that given you by Rabble. When the cave dwellers admit, that the rightwing blogs are having an effect, you know they are nervous. And to single out you is compliment beyond belief. Congratulations!
    Thanks Kate for being one of those leading the charge. The New Media is beginning to grind away at the grip that the self-styled “progressives” have on Canadian society. Isn’t it wonderful to see “Sunshine in Canada.”

  3. Congrats Kate! You are famous. Like, ROYALTY famous.
    Now that the left doesn’t have Bush to pick on (due to our own governmental and electoral shift), they’ve chosen to pick on you.
    As far as babble, are they referring to that rabble babble forum? Or whatever it’s called. You know, the one that CBC said was the most fair, balanced and best representation of public opinion during the election?
    Another reason we have to get rid of CBC. They have no discernment.

  4. “Babble” is what happens when you ignore thousands of years of human history, gathered wisdom and knowledge. And no, I am not talking about the Inuit. I’m talking about the Hebrews, Greeks, Romans, Italians, Germans, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment.
    When you ignore all of the above for the sake of some new, out of the blue, Leftist idea of “multiculturalism” you simply repeat the story of the Old Testament. You get “Babble.”
    Leftists have absolutely no cue.
    I would suggest to them that they take their own advice and go kill themselves now.

  5. When a liberal says they want to “challenge the facts” what this means is that they want to make a “more liberal interpretation” of the truth or that they want to substitute fabricated liberal “facts” for reality.
    After spending a good deal of time in the trenches I can honestly state that I have never met a partisan Liberal ( or a liberal “activist”) who’s first instinct is to tell the truth.
    I see they have not learned their lessson and will continue to dig their own public credibility grave by becoming as caustically mendacious and shrill as the deposed fringe left in the US.

  6. Debris Trail:
    Cave dwellers, lmao.
    Makes one believe in evolution. Of course we have not all evolved at the same pace.

  7. It’s some kind of gutter website with a big forum infested with “the chattering classes”, the self-appointed “progressive intelligentsia”, censored and moderated to ensure all adhere to the “socialist” party line. A bigger collection of ignorant hate-mongers would be hard to find. A funny thing about it is the nutters posting in the forum are no worse than the articles on the main website. Last time I was there I tried to read some article where some hambonehead was promoting the idea of a national salary – something like: every citizen should receive from the government a fixed $25,000 a year! It’s a repugnant collection of lefty losers, worth a freakshow visit.
    Here’s the creep behind it all, note the communist credentials:
    Judy Rebick is a Canadian journalist and political activist. Although sometimes controversial, she is one of Canada’s most prominent and respected left wing media figures.
    Rebick was a Trotskyist activist in the 1970s, active with the Revolutionary Marxist Group and its successor the Revolutionary Workers League. She was editor of the RWL’s newspaper, Socialist Voice for several years.
    She quit the RWL and the Trotsyist movement in the early 1980s and refocused her efforts on the broader feminist movement. She was particularly active in the abortion rights issue, as a leader in the Ontario Coalition for Abortion Clinics and a supporter of Dr. Henry Morgentaler.
    She also became more active with the Ontario New Democratic Party in the mid-1980s, leading an internal group called the “Campaign for an Activist Party”. She headed the CAP’s slate for the party executive in 1986, on a platform of making the NDP more “movement-oriented” and involved in extra-parliamentary politics. The CAP also opposed the concessions which the NDP had made the previous year, in providing support for the Ontario’s Liberal minority government. Though the CAP generated a significant degree of grassroots support, it was opposed by the party establishment (including party leader Bob Rae) and failed. Rebick lost her bid to become party president, losing to Gillian Sanderman by a margin of 818 votes to 361.
    She ran as the NDP candidate in the suburban Toronto riding of Oriole in the 1987 provincial election, but finishing third, well behind Liberal Elinor Caplan.
    Rebick first gained national prominence as president of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women from 1990 to 1993. She subsequently joined CBC Newsworld as cohost with Claire Hoy of the political debate series Face Off. When that show ended to make way for counterSpin in 1998, Rebick continued as a freelance journalist for a variety of media outlets, and launched rabble.ca, a web magazine and discussion forum.
    With Svend Robinson and Libby Davies, she helped lead the New Politics Initiative, a movement within the New Democratic Party to refocus it as an activist left-wing party. The NPI’s platform was rejected at the 2001 NDP convention in Winnipeg, but it captured the imagination of some New Democrats and suggested a way to return to its left-wing roots, away from a perceived movement towards third way centrism. She helped to wind down the NPI in 2003, claiming that many of its ideals had been embraced by new party leader Jack Layton (whom Rebick had voted for in the 2003 NDP leadership contest.)
    Rebick is currently the Canadian Auto Workers Sam Gindin Chair in Social Justice and Democracy at Ryerson University in Toronto. She is the volunteer publisher of rabble.ca, and she continues to write for and collaborate with that publication’s editorial board and writes the auntie.com advice column on the website.

  8. Babble is a verb that means to express post-modernist/socialist/moral relativist beliefs, while demonstrating hostility towards reason, history or opposing views.
    Babble also means ranting about innaccurate facts, without meantioning any actual facts.
    For a humourous and factual look at CBC’s view of babble go to http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/resources/audiovideo/ and click on video number 22.
    CBC called this far-left wing discussion forum a “blog” that captures the pulse of the nation!

  9. Babble… isn’t that the bridge where the trolls live?
    Kate, you have all the right enemies. ~:D

  10. Rabble/Babble looks to be the Canadian equivalent of Democratic Underground, the fever swamp forum of the far left and Moon-bat Central for left conspiracies.
    Given the Left’s tendency to look for outside evil influence, it’s inherent inability to engage in reflection and the appeal of advanced victim-ology; we can expect a couple of things to happen vis a vis SDA and AIGWN.
    Your left is convinced, I think, that none of this rise of the conservative/libertarian new media is a genuine response. In their view it must have been bought and paid for because “rational” people wouldn’t really think this way without the evil incentive of money.
    This means that they will engage in a campaign of “following the money” even when it is not there. Expect more accusations of tax fraud and vast hidden accounts.
    In a more practical venue; given the recent hue and cry about blogs without comments; we can expect that those blogs identified as the “enemy” will see a sharp rise in trolls and disruption of exisiting comments. There will also be a rise in appeals to agencies to “shut down the hate speech” and attempts to legislate blogs out of existence with over regulation.
    I’m sure that other readers of SDA can project where this is going as well or better than I can. The rise of talk radio is and the failure of the left to gain market share is their touch stone and the idea of the honest competition of ideas in the marketplace is the last thing they want.

  12. To which I can only respond – what’s a “Babble”?
    You’ve heard of the tower of babel? Also Babylon?
    It, literally, means confusion.
    Leftists, like stopped clocks, are right sometimes.

  13. Babble: To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds; Inarticulate or meaningless talk or sounds
    Perfect fit.

  14. Watch your back and your site security Kate. Some screw-heads tried to take down Free Dominion after Babble larvea took an interest in “exposing it as the fascist right wing forum it is”.
    Conservative net forums that seem to “concern” babblers often have hacking problems later.

  16. They were just trying to be clever…’Babble’…’Google’…’Babble’…’Google’…
    D

  17. Hungry Valley – “Your left is convinced, I think, that none of this rise of the conservative/libertarian new media is a genuine response. In their view it must have been bought and paid for because “rational” people wouldn’t really think this way without the evil incentive of money.”
    There are probably some people on the left who feel that way. Most of us don’t however. The grassroots left is complacent and divided compared to their counterparts on the right. There are some lefties that want to see the same kind of unity and vociferousness on our side.
    That’s never going to happen, the left has always been more factionalized that the right. And after 12 years in power most Liberal supporters have become pretty complacent. You get hungrier politicaly when the guys you’re rooting for are polishing the opposition benches with the butts for over a decade.

  18. Kate – It is the fear of the MSM (and the Liberal party) that their “Spin” will be exposed through blogs like your’s and Angry’s – which, of course, it has been.
    If anyone has time to catch Question Period this morning – there is some great “Spin” on there both by Jane and Craig and of course all the Liberals they had on there!!!!

  19. Debris Trail—I like your reference to the cave it brings to mind Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. The extreme left find themselves hunkered down around the fire catching glimpses of the shadows they cast and conclude the distorted images of their cloistered existance are the truth. They must be, look how large and imposing they appear.
    When the one attempts to roll away the rock that seals them in their cozy cave of ignorance they flail away and lash out at the blinding light of reality. It totally exposes their victim by choice garrison mentality. The sunshine of truth is indeed rising on the Canadian political and social landscape. OMG personal responsibility, what a cruel concept.
    Calgarian—Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t Judy Rebick pushed overboard from NACSoW because her views were too radical for even this lefty propoganda organ?
    HV—Good points. The left fail to understand market forces as they deem them to be inherently evil. The rise of right of center talk radio and the influence of the right in the blogosphere are a natural expression of supply and demand. The blogosphere has given the silent majority a voice on the public stage that until now had been the domain of the special interest left and the sympathetic MSM that amplified their cause.
    Kate— I’ll try not to feed the trolls. I sometimes like to use over the top humor/stupidity to point out the absurdity of certian realities. In the last thread I used that mean little moonbats own words to poke a little fun at him. He has no sense of humor I guess. I guess he’s been sitting to close to the fire. As HV noted we were enjoying a little quality entertainment at a reasonable price. Anyways, I’ll try and stay out of the moonbats cave.
    Syncro

  20. My heartiest congratulations Kate, to you and Angry.
    It is interesting to note that the reaction to losing the debate is to control and stifle; sentiments worthy of the Bolsheviks. This happens to any ideology based on rubbish.

  21. Trudeau was kicked out of the CCF for being too radically Communist. So what happened? The Liberals picked him up , dusted him off and elected him leader of their ‘party’. A misguided perception of many people in Canada is that the Liberanos and the Dippers are separate outfits. The left leaning have one overwhelming passion – to root out and distroy sucessful individuals. The mind- set of people like this often escapes the supporters of the left – some of left wing supporters believe that Dippers and Liberanos are cheering for the poor and the middle class – they don’t realize that the poor and the working class are the first to loose when the government controllers take over. You, Kate, and Angry and the Western Standard steadfastly expose the agenda of control and the free citizens of Canada are waking up. How disturbing to discouver that it is not the PEOPLE of the East or the PEOPLE of the west who are responsible for the stinking mess of corruption but the multi million dollar Dippers and Liberanos who put themselves and CONTROL of the people FIRST. They have been undermining the morals and decency of the Canadian people for years and tried to make us hate ourselves. Websites like sda and angry in the GWN and Shotgun have exposed the MSM for the political strumpets they are, Canadian people who are sick of feeling ‘dirty’ are seeing a light in the cave. The MSM know that their undisputed power over the people is over – they dont like it. As Lenard Cohn says in his song “Closing Time” – “the Lord dosen’t like those dizzy hights, it’s closing time”. Cohn, like Shotgun, Angry and sda is a Renaisance Man/Woman. Like the 15th Century ‘keepers of the Dark Ages’ the left are finished – people want to LIVE, not just exist.

  22. I don’t know what’s funnier… the shamless self-adulation (though Warren Kinsella absolutely takes the cake) or the breathless approval of the bootlicks.

  24. It’s important when in debate, to occasionally agree with one’s opponent.
    Babble? They certainly do.
    Joodee Joodee Joodee
    I don’t miss you but I do miss the sight of you wearing your stupendous earrings.

  26. Bernie?


    Kate, Must we now address you as Your Evilness ?

    That’s a good start, but it needs a little embellishment…

    Your Inexorable Evilness?

    Your Exalted Vileness?

    Your Nefariousness?

    On a related note, the Babblers have started surfacing at Angry’s site, and true to form, have only denegreation and insults to offer.

  27. Translation: “Oh noes! They’ve totally pointed out the flaws in our ideology, and rather than attempt to defend our ideology with sound argument we must do all we can to smear and complain that they are squelching our freedom of speech! Its not fair that someone has beliefs that differ from ours let alone they are so easily able to dismantle ours with their sound judgement and calm demeanor!”
    Prognosis: Expect an influx of trolls on here, and possible network attacks on your site in the next few days to weeks.

  28. For years every time Judy was on TV I immediately called to complain. I was always asking, with all the money you are making, could you please spend some and get your hair done. Where was she during this last campaign, never heard of her. Didn’t miss her, just want to know has she had a decent hair styling.

  30. When I worked at the CEEB in 92-94 I was routinely shocked at the site of HMS Judy Rebick hoving into sight as those 130 lb. a piece saddlebags struggled against physics and decency to moderate their inherent tendency to fly apart. Fortunately nobody was ever seriously harmed that I know of.
    Worse than the epic hip gunwhales was a face that could peel paint. This was one UGLY woman. Judging by photos of numerous moonbat marches this seems to be the norm. Which explains a lot. Er, probably.

  35. I always find it interesting that whenever any of these leftist types (i.e. the LLL) attack various well known conservative blogs, there is never anything of substance. By that I mean factual errors, distorting of news, quoting out of context. You know, the type of activity that goes on everyday in the MSM.

  37. You’re right, Shane. Those two raving degenerates have been packing fudge so long that the shit has backed up into their brains.

  38. Well, I would not be too concerned about it. I did not see their site anywhere mentioned on the BBC webpage during the election. Neither have they received any awards in 2004 and 2005.

  39. Posted by John B at January 29, 2006 06:47 PM
    I always find it interesting that whenever any of these leftist types (i.e. the LLL) attack various well known conservative blogs, there is never anything of substance. By that I mean factual errors, distorting of news, quoting out of context. You know, the type of activity that goes on everyday in the MSM.
    John, you are very correct. If you follow the link to the actual Babble thread in question, you’ll see there is quite a dismissal of both Kate and Angry over the “laundry list” layout of the blogs, particularly Kate’s.
    And apparently… that’s it. No mention whatsoever of what the laundry list actually contains, just an offhand dismissal based on style. Babble is favored because it is far prettier, or something.
    When style meets substance, style seemingly wins out with the left. That is, in reality, about as deep as their arguements are able to go.

  40. I used to go stir the mob up at Babble but it was too easy. You quickly come to realize most of the posters there either:
    a) have no real job;
    b) have a government job, see a) above;
    c) are students complaining about actually having to pay good money (mostly yours) for their Fine Arts degree;
    d) are union twits complaining that someone is actually trying to make them work for a living. (See a) and b) above);
    e) never quite got to where they thought they would in life so are trying to take it out on those not so inclined to hand them the free ride that Canada has become.

  41. The Rabble Babble crowd have to attack because they are unable to argue logically. I moderate the political discussion area of a Corvette enthusiast forum. It’s almost painful to watch the emotional ramblings of the liberals being dissected by the conservatives.

  42. I am reminded by something that Jacques Barzun in “Dawn to Decadance” observed, to paraphrase:
    A philosopher is interested in encompassing and embracing truth and where it may lead with as much rigor and self honesty as he can muster and knows that the task can never be fully complete; an intellectual au contrair has already apprenhended as much of truth as he cares to and is now instead motivated by an agenda whose aim is to persuade others to his view, find further supporting ( or a worst neutral) evidence to validate his stance and to ignore or fend off, block, castigate and ofttimes demonize contrary conclusions/interpretations/”schools”/data.
    Myself, I fluxuate between these two approximations (sometimes several times a day) but,when not being lazy or cowardly, do try my best to cleave to philosophy and where the broadest gatherings of fact, reading, impressions, memory (fickle though it be)and questions may lead me before I try to judge the current merits of a political position. I suspect that many people do the same and that both the “right and left” (???) have some share of “philosophers”(good) as well as “intellectuals”(boo hiss). It is just that in our current culture the preponderance of philosophers are on the right and intellectuals are on the left. The reason may be that our educational systems’ preferred memes are all on the left and that it takes a certain maverick personality as well as concerted effort and much exploration outside of conventional wisdom to even begin to ask questions and that once those questions are asked and explored, that that individual can never go back to being your typically complacent, cantful, smug, sanctimonious, self-righteous, mentally indolent, somnolent fact searching, morally supine, collectivist group think empty vessel that you often see mobilized as spokesmen or rank and file for the left. I suppose that an individual can start to ask questions, think for themselves, break away from the herd and still come to believe that broadly the left is synonymous with ” good” , I just dont see how anyone would want to find a path that leads from the sweeping vistas, broad open reaches and that scratch for curiosity that an questing spirit can offer to go back to the narrow confines and cramped reactions that the fetid mire and swamp of the left exemplifies.
    Many subjects are open for debate on the right and many lines of evidence can be persued with none being verboten. As example many on the right oppose gay marriage, some do not. I oppose it myself, but, not for religious reasons. I am opposed unless and until I can be persuaded that it will not destroy or dilute our system of survivors benefits and pensions. I am NOT talking about who leaves what and to whom in a will, that is entirely different. My mother, for example, spent years rearing four children and by doing so lost about fifteen years of employment salary and opportunity, she could never catch up financially with her constantly employed peers. So, come retirement she shares pension and health benefits with my father and, should he predecease, will continue to have those recompenses. The pension/benefit provider in this case is General Motors. GM’s cost per vehicle to cover its liabilities is more than the cost of its steel for that same vehicle ( in excess $1500US/vehicle) and partly because of this its whole pension/benefit edifice and the company itself is wobbling. Part of the cost of anything that you purchase that was made in the first world goes to pensions and benefits, part of this goes in turn to survivors. Many of these survivors are elderly widows/housewives/mothers, in other words people who sacrificed their own economic advantage to raise the next generation and by so doing directly benefited society (and hence myself), why should I sanction someone diluting and putting more at risk these compensations? Especially couples whose union can never result in one of the partners staying at home for fifteen/twenty years to raise the next generation and thereby justifing not only my willingly paying more for current goods and services to help compensate those whose decision to forego or compromise an economic career I recognize and honour; but, that it was the fact of that sacrifice/risk in the first place that gave rise to the whole concept of survivor (or even marriage) benefits. Why should I be paying extra to benefit someone who never did anything (even at third hand or even potentially) for me?
    And yes I know that some hetro marriages do not or cannot produce children, but so what? Effiency in process is often in tension with effectiveness of outcome and I believe that broad rules are more apt to reach a desired end than too fine an obsession with micro-management or agonizing the intricacies of a “perfect theoretical result”.
    ( As a pure aside ( and with a nod to Robert Heinlein’s Lazarus Long)); consider that we now have gay marriage, consider that polygamy or polyandry is on the horizon. Put them together and you have large economic multi-generational powerhouses. Consider a polygamous gay marriage, we’ll keep the numbers small, 4-5 fully legitimate co-equal partners/spouses ( although why this numbers should be small is unknown, could not all gays in Canada marry each other concurrently? In North America? The West? The World? Be legal spouses one to each and every other? ( a situation that folks in a hetro marriage would not even contemplate, give or take a bit of mate swapping) Who could arbitrarely set an upper limit on number that could not be challenged?) Through time the older members die off and younger marriage partners are recruited into the marriage; from the beginning full shareholders in the accrued benefits of the family, pensions, family assets, estate tax deferals etc… If this happens for 4-5 generations can it be still considered that self same original marriage and family as when it was first constructed? Are the members of that “marriage” in that “family” legally married to each other not only in space but across time? Does a partner in that marriage 150 years from now have a claim to the extension of survivors benefits or estate of a founding partner in that same marriage first sanctioned 15 years hence ( in other words 2021 when polygamy becomes legal under a NDP government)? Sure one partner of the marriage may be dead, but that is what survivor benefits are for. Does it matter if the two never met ( not unlike the days of sail during the time of arranged dynastic marriage cf. The Maid of Norway) but, could never meet? It is after all the same legally founded marriage and that marriage can never be disolved in the same sense that when a marriage is limited to two people and one dies then that marriage is defunct as the survivor over time remarries or dies. Or if the marriage is of the Mormon/Muslim type encompassing both male and female and the single member of the minority sex dies. In terms of becoming uniquely economic powerhouses a marriage that can leave assets across generations without worrying about death duties and wills ( after all todays spouses have unique rights and protections under the law in terms of inheirtance and exercise of control over any estate) would have an advantage over one where occasionally assets are passed to offspring, with the consequent dilutions or confiscations that government now imposes thru estate taxes and death dues when these assets change generations .
    (And consider adoption rights, cloning, the X-factor added to the mix… (shades of David Brin)).
    I think that some of the strongest conservative traits that I have are along the lines of “if it aint broke dont fix it”, “leave well enough alone”, “beware the law of unintended consequences”, “only God can truly see around corners”, “observation trumps theory” etc. I truly dont care what people get up to; I am unmarried and with no prospects of same, childless and hence no stake in the future, improverished so with no economic axe to grind, middle aged and male so a natural target of spite, limited in sense of humour and rather literally minded so not a boon to companionship, I also smell of shit. I simply dont want to be disadvantaged.
    But then, I’m no expert.
    Sincerely,
    Robert Albin
    Calgary

  43. Sorry about the lenght of that but let me clarify, I do not oppose homosexuals getting state or private pensions or anything else any individual is entitled to. Merely being eligble for “survivor” ( widow/widower) benefits.
    Robert Albin

  44. Kate,
    Great stuff. Enemies and everything!!
    I saw some of your photo’s. Very right wing. In fact I would say they remind me of the far right wing. They might even have some tinge of American far right wing in there. Clearly, although taken in Saskatchewan, they don’t represent Canada, really, at least not the pictures Canadian’s value.
    Now your starting to scare me. I think I’m going to go home and pledge some money to the Liberal’s.
    cheers!

  45. “The Rabble Babble crowd have to attack because they are unable to argue logically. I moderate the political discussion area of a Corvette enthusiast forum. It’s almost painful to watch the emotional ramblings of the liberals being dissected by the conservatives.”
    What self-respecting liberal owns a Corvette? 🙂

  46. Ah rabble.ca, the most hilarious Canadian site on the Web today – though that’s not their intent of course!
    Where else could tedious, turgid, old Rick Salutin find a home?
    Or that raving and senescent fool, Murray Dobbin?
    The less said about the likes of weedy Linda McQuaig, the preposterous Jerry West and the ever sententious Thomas Walkom – the better!

  47. Ah. Another typical conservative “refutation” of progressive arguments. Ad hominem is about the only arrow in your quiver, isn’t it?

  48. Dr. D – define “progressive”
    I have come to believe that progressive to a leftie means – “ideas that are expressed better agree with the left wing position”
    Just sayin

  49. I laugh when the left calls themselves progressive. Pretty darned arrogant but that’s what I expect out of them, the world revolves around them. It is to laugh.

  50. How is it always the right’s fault when the left disagrees? We are always the ones labled as ‘damaging the public discourse’ when fact is, the left are some of the most intolerant people I have ever met. You are labled a nazi or ‘public menace’ just because you have the gall to disagree with them.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation