Monday, February 11, 2008

So That's Why They Sent Paul Wells To France

"One shouldn't put too much stock in online comment boards (says the guy who's never had one) but reading the comments accompanying this posting on the smart, leftish (but not monolithically leftist) news site rue89 is like sticking your arm into a coffee grinder. Readers are not pleased about the prospect of French soldiers joining Canadians in Kandahar."

Mind you he could have done the same thing from home, and he wouldn't be the answer to a trivia question: who used to be the best political writer in Canada?

21 comments:

Anonymous said...

Paul Wells is like the NYT's Maureen Dowd, all style no substance. If you want clever, read Paul. If you want substantive political analysis, look elsewhere.

Ti-Guy said...

I noted a few accusations of "terrorist coddling" and "fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here...in Paris and Lyon." Plus ça change...

I'm pretty sure good political writing is impossible today...that is, if you're not an expert in abnormal psychology. Even if Paul Wells were still in Canada, I can't imagine what he'd be able to do with the current crop of psychos and mediocrities now in power.

...as Andrew reminds me, look what political writing has done to Maureen Dowd?

If you want substantive political analysis, look elsewhere.

And where would that be, Andrew?

Anonymous said...

The Star's Chantal Hébert. Her column of today being a case in point.

bigcitylib said...

Way down low in Chantel's column today is a hint that Dion's image is improving in Quebec.

Anonymous said...

The only analyst in Canada worthy of the name is Tom Flanagan.

The man literally wrote the book on game theory and Canadian politics, but more importantly, his copy isn't so obviously compromised by the threat of witholding sex by an NDP girlfriend, as is the case of *some* France-based scribes.

Ti-Guy said...

The Star's Chantal Hébert.

She has more hits than misses. Review her record...in hindsight, she's good at being serious about her analysis, but her conclusions quite often require a leap of faith.

...And she really hates Dion (for reasons I've never quite understood...Clarity Act bitterness isn't something you'd expect from a Franco-Ontarian).

The only analyst in Canada worthy of the name is Tom Flanagan.

Solipsistic faux-Canadian rightwing chauvinistic moron...suffers from precocious old-fartism. Bush-fellating neo-cunt. That he didn't predict the Bush administration disaster is a testament to his dishonesty or his abysmal credulity.

The man literally wrote the book on game theory and Canadian politics,

*snort*...Game Theory. You guys just love teh sciency-sounding stuff, don't you?

Anyway, my thesis is that no one can write sensibly or intelligently about politics because the subject matter doesn't offer anything to write intelligently about. Most of us can understand the policy issues around subject matter researched and analysed by credible experts, but when it gets up to the politicians, especially politically conservative ones (who are all largely, morons), there's just no there there.

Ti-Guy said...

Sorry...that should have been "more misses than hits" in that last comment.

Anonymous said...

Flanagan the fraudulent historian. I'd like to know how much money he's made testifying for the Crown as an expert witness on Indian and Metis land claims, when he does not know what the fuck he is talking about. He used some of the research done by an expert witness on the other side for his racist dishonest book about First Nations, because he is too fucking ignorant and lazy to figure out how to do the most basic research for himself.

Anonymous said...

"Flanagan the fraudulent historian."

He's a political scientist, you idiot.

"his racist dishonest book about First Nations"

The first person to call the other person a racist automatically loses the argument. Sorry, loser, but those are the new rules under the Harper regime.

A racist is a conservative who is DOMINATING a socialist with his DOMINANT..errr...dominance.

Ti-Guy said...

The first person to call the other person a racist automatically loses the argument. Sorry, loser

Really? What law established that? What logical fallacy is manifested here?

A racist is a conservative who is DOMINATING a socialist with his DOMINANT..errr...dominance.

This is true. Reflect on that, for a bit, Einstein.

Tom Flanagan represents a new breed of racist (actually a re-surgence of the classic racist)...one who wants the other to become like him because he believes it's for the other's own good. His attitude is assimilationist, not eliminationist, although there's morally not a lot of difference between the two.

Anonymous said...

"What logical fallacy is manifested here?"

Is Ti-Guy Mike Brock? Heh, next you'll be accusing me of making an "ad hominem" argument.

Ti-Guy said...

Is Ti-Guy Mike Brock? Heh, next you'll be accusing me of making an "ad hominem" argument.

So, you are also "Not Biff."

Good to know...

SOCK-PUPPET!!!...he cries out, mouth open, like in "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

Busted.

Anonymous said...

For months you go on a jag calling every stranger who shows up at this blog Biff, now you're convinced we're all *not* Biff? Please explain.












OK, you got me. My name is Eitan.

Ti-Guy said...

You're not Eitan (ie, Richard Evans). Evans can't string two clauses together coherently and his spelling is atrocious.

I have no idea who you are persistently but in this thread, you sock-puppeted.

Fraud.

Anonymous said...

"Evans can't string two clauses together coherently and his spelling is atrocious."

Which would preclude the possibility that he is Eitan in the first place.

Richard claims he just provided the domain and (this is speculation) maybe set up the email account for a third conspirator yet to be named (my guess is Ezra) who wrote the emails and maybe planned the whole sting, save for the last email.

In Richard's own words he was merely a "conduit". Kate appears to have nothing to do with it other than being in on the sting.

Ti-Guy said...

Which would preclude the possibility that he is Eitan in the first place.

Richard claims he just provided the domain...blah blah blah...


Yeah, fascinating.

bigcitylib said...

William,

You talking about the Kinsella thing? That was a bit low, even though he is a pompous ass sometimes (although I think right on the Section 13 thing). Sure would be funny if Ezra was the third man, as he has kind of distanced himself from the result.

Anonymous said...

"That was a bit low"

So was Tie Domi's suckerpunch knockout of Ulf Samuelsson not long ago, but there was hardly a tear shed for Ulfie, on account of years of dirty hockey on his part. When Warren's head stops spinning he'll have a good laugh and it'll all be good.

I'm just guessing about Ezra, btw, but I don't see Kate and Dick acting with this level of chutzpah unless they are backed by two things which Ezra conveniently provides: legal muscle, and the ability to neutralize the antisemite card.

Using the "Kelly Criteria" (you can learn about this game theory concept in Dr. Flanagan's book) I'd wager 12-15% of my bankroll that Ezra was in on it from the beginning.

bigcitylib said...

I'm afraid this one may spin out of control on Ezra. His ability to function as a convention Jew may be more limited than people think.

Ti-Guy said...

Using the "Kelly Criteria" (you can learn about this game theory concept in Dr. Flanagan's book) I'd wager 12-15% of my bankroll that Ezra was in on it from the beginning.

Why do I get the feeling, so often from these types, that I'm in darkened alleyway, dealing with Fat Tony, while the crack dealers and hookers lurk in the background?

...Who the fuck refers to their money as "bankrolls?"

Sock-puppet: You can also learn about Game Theory by reading the work of one its principle elaborators, John Nash, who's since admitted he was probably irrational when he supported it so enthusiastically.

Anonymous said...

"Flanagan the fraudulent historian."

He's a political scientist, you idiot.


Well d'uh, Not Biff. So why would he be expected to testify as an expert historian? Why would he not have the honesty to say he could not do it? Because he thinks that reading a couple of history books makes him an expert. Trust me, he's no expert.

This kind of ignorance that doesn't realise how ignorant it is also shows up in AGW denialists who read a few articles by Ball and Harris and assume they are now smarter than all the scientists. I dunno if it's a strictly rightwing affliction, but it is certainly an epidemic among them.