"They're all going to laugh at you!" Toronto's loony left goes full-on Carrie's mom

Five Feet of Fury's Kathy Shaidle has been saying for weeks now that the pathetic, insecure loony left in Toronto has been acting like Carrie's Mom. These of course are people who are pathologically obsessed with how other people think about them, and they believe their worst fear, that they are being laughed at, has come true.

The belief that Rob Ford's troubles reflect directly on them is something that would only go on within diseased minds.

Yesterday, at a sparsely attended anti-Ford rally at Toronto's City Hall, in which the media almost outnumbered the protesters, Kathy's Carrie's Mom comment was fully realized.

A protester named Linda Keigher furiously, bitterly seethed into a bullhorn in front of the two and a half dozen or so assembled malcontents that:

"The world is talking about us, they're laughing at us, and they're finding it to be very funny!"

Oh, the horror!

Actually, I'm finding it pretty funny too. It's something I can share a laugh about with friends who aren't from Toronto. When they ask, "so why is his popularity going up?" it's an easy answer. "Because of the other morons we'd have to choose from if we get rid of Ford."

A couple of weeks before things blew up with the latest Ford brouhaha, the Mayor went on an excursion to Austin, Texas to find ways of emulating their success as a live-music hub. Ford has accomplished something better now, making Toronto a global center of live comedy, and all his stupid opponents do is gripe!

Take a look at the idiotic, petulant, juvenile behavior of the rest of his Toronto City Council opponents when Ford spoke a couple of days ago. Like spoiled 8 year-olds, as a group, they decided to turn their back on him.

This is more disgraceful than any behavior I've seen from Ford in his role as a public official and it's completely typical of the half-wits we have sitting as Ward representatives in Toronto. Why would no other media show this picture that reveals the real face of Toronto's hateful, insecure, self-obsessed, would-be ruling class? Because if they did, they know they'd be laughed at even more.

For them, nothing could be worse than that.

This may seem rather mean spirited...

There's a story here..  Blazing Cat Fur has more

Let the puns begin! Bacon-flavored condoms are now available!

This should make some people squeal with delight..

All the better to pork you with, my dear..

Only in America!   

For more wacky J&D's bacon-related products, check out their page.

Islam Vs Free Speech

Valentine's Day is a hate crime

A clever marketing ploy that commenced in the late 18th and early 19th Centuries has evolved into the most exploitative, oppressive day in the Christian calendar.

Crass consumerism isn't something that usually bothers me much. Sure, there is the soulless materialism that goes along with it, but on the other hand, sometimes you can get really neat, unusual, seasonally-themed stuff at good prices. But Valentine's Day stands alone in its uniquely contrived and subtle malevolence.

Apparently it's Geoffrey Chaucer, the famous English poet whose indecipherable works no one's actually read in the last two generations, who is responsible for associating the previously perfectly pleasant and innocuous day of February 14th with the pressures of romantic love. But it was never considered all that big a deal. Not, at least, until improvements to the printing press and cheap postal rates in the late 1700's inspired some fiendish English capitalists with the devilishly clever idea of profiting from people's insecurity by making them think that unless they received a card that day, they were unloved.

Since then, just about every cynical commercial enterprise has gotten in on the act. Florists, chocolatiers, hoteliers, clothing designers, candy-makers, jewelers, perfumers; restaurateurs, you name it.  Now everybody with a cash register is trying to convince you that unless you patronize them on the Ides of February, you are some sort of inferior creature.

Commercialism aside, there are far more insidious aspects to this most iniquitous day.  There is a condescending, exclusionary component to its message. Some of the best and finest people on earth are single. Yet the message of Valentine's Day is that if you're one of those people, this day isn't for you. Worse still, the shameful implication of this sinister, unofficial "holiday" is that if you aren't part of a couple, something is wrong with you.

The poison of Valentine's Day begins in childhood, when pre-pubescent children are conditioned to associate self-worth with the number of Valentine's Day cards received. Or at least that's the case in places that don't compel children to give every single one of their classmates a card, taking all meaning out of the gesture. And who benefits from that? You got it- the greeting card manufacturers whose dastardly plan this all started out with!

There's also the abhorrently sexist nature of Valentine's Day. There's enormous pressure on men to make some grand romantic gesture and anxiously wait to have it evaluated, like an unfortunate soul standing before Minos, Rhadamanthys and Aeacus in the Underworld, by a woman they have to sufficiently impress. And furthermore, when was the last time a woman on a date had to pick up a tab on February 14!?!

St Valentine being martyred

As far as I'm concerned, he had it coming

But possibly the worst crimes emanating from this idiotic, saccharine occasion are the insufferably tedious chick flicks that hapless men are compelled to endure to appease their female overlords. Under normal circumstances, no self-respecting male in his right mind would be caught dead in the theater watching a complete piece of crap like the current Valentine's cinematic offering, Safe Haven. But on this deplorable day, while wishing we could be placed in a medically-induced coma for the two hours of its duration, we have to pretend we don't hate having to sit through something that would make a root canal seem like a welcome relief.

Surely the time has come for this oppression to end! Starting next year, I propose that every sensible person boycott this exploitative, capitalist manipulation of the insecurities of innocent people! As of 2014, as far as I'm concerned, Valentine's Day no longer exists!

I'd say the boycott should start today, but right now, I'm in a relationship and if there were any hint I would actually follow through this year,  I'd be vivisected alive.

Groan.

Three reasons why Canada's radical leftists are so humourless

Those of us familiar with the radical left know they do some things very well, like sanctimony, hypocrisy, and emotional hysteria, but something they haven't mastered is having a sense of humour.

It's not that they aren't funny. They are frequently hilarious, such as instances when an obese leftist claimed that by being ignored in a hardware store, she was a victim of sexual oppression, or proto-activist Judy Rebick's insane claim that Prime Minister Stephen Harper's criticism of NDP House leader Libby Davies, when she effectively denied Israel's legitimacy, stemmed from his being a sexist.  But the problem is that when they say these comically outlandish things, they aren't trying to be funny; they mean them.

So in order to understand this strange phenomenon, this (pseudo) scientific analysis will examine the three main reasons why the Canadian far left is so pathologically incapable of having a sense of humour.


1.  They're afraid of offending anyone (and conversely, are offended by everything)

Of course by anyone, we aren't including Christians and white conservatives. They go to great effort to offend those groups. And they now have expanded to trying to offend Jews (which isn't that hard in some cases), whom they dislike, but being sensitive to charges of anti-Semitism, try to use the code word Zionist for Jew, although sometimes the veil does slip.

But getting back to their fear of offending, let's take this for example:

Q: Why did the Gay chicken cross the basketball court?

A: He heard the ref was blowing fowls on the other side.

The willingness to offend is central to humour, and really nothing should be off limits. Most leftists would be appalled at that joke. That joke isn't anti-Gay, it's pro-blow job. The reason the chicken has to be Gay in it is because all pro basketball referees are male. And the joke is a word play joke based on a homonym. OK,  I've made it totally unfunny by explaining and analyzing the joke, but you get the point. If you're anxious to find offense in everything and at the same time overly sensitive to the potential hurt feelings of everyone, you're lame.



2. They are mainly motivated by jealousy

Contemporary Canadians live in a time and place where we are better off then just about anyone else, anywhere, ever. Sure, there`s always room for more improvement, but we live in times where the average lower middle class person has more luxuries and privileges than an 18th Century European nobleman. We have free education, free health care, home computers and on-demand music and videos, and mobile personal communication devices with instant, global reach..

We live in a society where one of the cause celebres is childhood obesity.

That`s right, we live in a time and place where a lot of people are complaining because they eat too much! If  the average person three hundred years ago were to learn that overeating would be a major complaint in the future, they would think their descendants insane. And perhaps they would be right.

It's hard to be funny, avaricious and and bitter at the same time and jealousy is what is really the motivation behind Canada's radical leftists.They would never admit jealousy is what drives them. In fact, they probably don't even recognize that trait in themselves. 

But the way the radical left looks at things is not what they have, but what others have. They obsess that if someone else has something, then they too should be entitled to it. It doesn`t matter if people better off than them worked harder, are smarter, took risks to achieve their advantages, or just made better decisions. That`s not important. What`s important is that someone else has something that they want. And because they recognize that their own limited talents and the potential of their Equity Studies degrees limits them to a life not much better than the one they have now, rather then trying to improve their lives, they want to tear down the achievements of people more successful than they.

That type of bitterness just isn`t funny.


3. They're stupid

A sense of humour is a sign of intelligence and the radical left is not comprised of particularly intelligent people. If there was ever any question about their utter intellectual incompetence, the Occupy Movement put a stake through the heart of any remaining doubt.. These are people who hate the government and saw the solution to their problems being a bigger government with expanded powers. The imbeciles thought that squatting in public parks was a profound way of addressing income inequity. Their notion of economics consisted of imagery of the tuxedoed Monopoly man or Scrooge McDuck sitting atop a pyramid of gold coins. The money that they are complaining about is for the most part used to create new jobs, finance ventures which improve society, and serve as security for funding that is used to build new businesses. That's aside from the fact that the top 1% of income earners they sought to vilify contribute over 30% of tax revenue. And that figure doesn't include the billions for targetted philanthropic efforts, such as Bill Gates' campaign to eradicate Malaria.

Gates' effort has led to thousands of saved lives, whereas the entire Occupy Movement combined has saved zero lives but is responsible for at least 3 deaths, a dozen rapes and countless physical assaults. Say what you will about the Tea Party, they tend not to rape and murder each other at their demonstrations.

All the Occupy Movement managed to conclusively accomplish is to prove that the radical left is made up of idiots. They have enablers, like Michael Moore, Keith Olbermann, Naomi Klein and others who tried to project their own issues into Occupy Whatever, but the movement was too disorganized to come up with any coherent message despite the prodding.

Aside from their lack of comprehension of basic economics, they are too stupid to recognize their own hypocrisy and racism. These are people who will rush to condemn the slightest perceived insult or offense to the feelings of one of their myriad categories of oppressed peoples, but at the same time will excuse the most depraved barbarity from radical Muslims or if it is perpetrated by a what they call racialized minorities. Why? Becuase the radical left who purport to be anti-racists are really racists of the worst kind. They clearly view their so-called oppressed brothers and sisters as barbarians too primitive to be held up to the standards of the Great White West.

The Can Rad Left's stupidity,sanctimony and hypocrisy requires them to view the world in a bigoted way suggesting such a lack of personal insight as to disqualify the possibility of any sense of humour in them.



Still, the left's absence of humour doesn't mean they aren't good for laughs; but as the old saying goes, it's laughing at and not with them.

Medieval peasants protest against modernity in Toronto

Ryerson Journalism student Samuel Greenfield's shocking expose of Occupy Toronto:



h/t Ye Olde Blazing Cat Fur

Stephen Fry gets in trouble for telling the truth about women's attitude towards sex and relationships

English writer, actor, director, thinker Renaissance Man, Stephen Fry is in hot water with English women and the Looney Left these days for saying that women use sex in order to get relationships.

Duh.

As far as I'm concerned, that's about the equivalent of getting in trouble with Jack Daniels for saying drinking a bottle of their whiskey makes you drunk.

Fry, who is Gay, was being a bit tongue-in-cheek in his interview with Attitude magazine when he suggested he felt sorry for straight men because women only want sex in order to have a relationship.

He said: “I think most straight men feel they disgust women. They find it difficult to believe that women are as interested in sex as they are. For good reason. If women liked sex as much as men there would be straight cruising areas in the way there are gay cruising areas. 

“I feel sorry for straight men. The only reason women will have sex with them is that sex is the price they are willing to pay for a relationship with a man, which is what they want. They want a boyfriend and then they want commitment.

“Of course a lot of women will deny this and say, ‘Oh, no, but I love sex, I love it!’ But do they go around having it the way that gay men do?

Now for anyone who's dated more than three women, you'd figure most of what he's saying is somewhat obvious, but even so, it's riled up the leftist British sisterhood.

The Guardian has published a flurry of letters from women who have chosen to ignore both the humor of his comments or their context or the substance of womens' preference for relationships over meaningless sex, and fixate on the "cruising" aspect such as:

"Can you honestly say that it is frigidity rather than the very real threat of violence, coercion and assault that prevents women from stalking parks looking for a sexual liaison? I find the idea of walking across a park after dark extremely risky (not risqué), let alone trusting that I could engage in a sexual encounter there that I knew would be pleasurable rather than abusive.

Surely the idea of sex without consequences is contingent upon the likelihood of not actually having to face any consequences. There are very few women who have grown up without experiencing some form of verbal assault, unwanted sexual attention, or much worse, that has sharpened their awareness of the need to acknowledge their own vulnerability.

These experiences mean that there is a difficult line to walk between consensual sex and coercion which makes it difficult to relate to Fry's glib comments"

It also inspired a Guardian column from someone named Hephzibah Anderson. She is the author of  something called, "Chastened: My Modern Adventure in Old-Fashioned Romance."  In her outrage, Ms Anderson graces us with the information that  "A while ago, I did actually elect to go a year without sex. It wasn't easy, Mr Fry, but it was rewarding."  She also provides:

"There have always been women who've used sex to barter with (and that doesn't mean they didn't also enjoy it), but if it's mistakenly used today to secure emotional engagement, that's because it's become downright eccentric to insist on commitment before hopping into bed with someone. Men have long sought to control female sexuality and, despite endless talk of G-spots and foreplay, the sex that surrounds us today is of a decidedly masculine sensibility. According to Fry, a woman may only prove that she's not a frigid man-hater – that she's enlightened enough to be fully in touch with her female sexuality – by catering to male peccadilloes. Gay male peccadilloes at that."

The Telegraph described this tempest in a teapot as "Stephen Fry angers feminists by claiming women do not enjoy sex" and characterized his humorous comments as a "bizarre outburst in which he claimed that women are incapable of enjoying sex."

What I find bizarre is the twisting of his words and the overblown reaction to all of this.

The Telegraph reported,  "Fry’s remarks have been branded “rubbish” and "madness" by feminists who have questioned his qualifications for making pronouncements on female sexuality."

Fry has close to 2 million twitter followers and on the subject he tweeted: "So some f------- paper misquotes a humorous interview I gave, which itself misquoted me and now I'm the Antichrist. I give up."

Don't give up, Stephen. If you do, the bad people win.

You can use this link to read what Fry has to say, in his own words, about the silly "controversy" and the distortions that have claimed that he said women don't enjoy sex.