Wednesday, August 25, 2004

How do I say this without looking sexist?

Babble on.

Anytime a group of women get together, it's impossible for a man to criticize them without some of them branding him chauvinist pig. So be it.

But before the hail of nastygrams begins, let me point out that I don't disparage the Liberal Women's Caucus because they're women, I disparage them because they're idiots. Male idiots or female idiots, I'm an equal opportunity disparager.

Actually, I've got a better idea: rather than bore you with paragraph after paragraph of long-winded Babbling, I'll link you to Colby Cosh, who thoughtfully provides a concise summary of what I would have written had I any writing talent whatsoever:

Alexander Panetta's CP story on the unanimous stance of the Liberal women's caucus against Canadian participation in continental missile defence provides a ringing answer to all those questions about why Paul Martin didn't elevate more females to cabinet: he got stuck with a bad batch.

Panetta could locate no Liberal women MPs who support cosmetic political cooperation with a military plan that we don't have to pay for or devote resources to, that is purely defensive, that has a bipartisan consensus behind it in the U.S., and that could enrich potential Canadian military and engineering contractors.

Yeah. What he said.

I'm curious to see if Kate or Shannon will pick up on this and offer a uniquely conservative-female 'don't pretend to speak for me' smackdown. Ok, I'm more than curious. I'm asking them to take Carolyn Parrish, Colleen Beaumier, and the rest of these XX-chromosome Liberal twits out back and BTVS their sorry asses around the blogosphere.

Babble off.

3 Comments:

At 5:58 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's wrong with being sexy?

- Nigel Tufnel

 
At 8:18 PM, Blogger Greg said...

Panetta could locate no Liberal women MPs who support cosmetic political cooperation with a military plan that we don't have to pay for or devote resources to, that is purely defensive, that has a bipartisan consensus behind it in the U.S., and that could enrich potential Canadian military and engineering contractors.

Where do I begin B.? 1. A military plan we don't have to pay for. Have you ever heard of a military plan that didn't have to be paid for, one way or another? Someday some Senator is going to get up on his hind legs and demand that Canada has to bear its share of the cost of this shield. What then?
2. Purely defensive. Tell that to the North Koreans who think that as soon as the "defensive shield" is in place, they become glowing piles of radioactive dust. Yes, they are that paranoid. They also have the bomb and might move to plan B, which is entitled: "Calling Mr. Bin Laden", as an unintended result.
3. A bipartisan consensus in the U.S. That may be so (I have doubts), but so what?
4. Could enrich our engineering contractors. See point one.

Well B. as you can see, mark me down as an idiot too. What else is new eh? ;)

 
At 7:06 PM, Blogger Shannon said...

O.k., Damian, I've posted my two cents worth on this. The short version is: the Liberal Women's Caucus doesn't speak for me, dammit -- Colby Cosh does!

Also, if you use variations of the word "weaponize" over and over again in the same paragraph (especially if you type it out in MS Word, where nonexistent words get underlined in red) it looks really funny!

And don't worry about sounding sexist. Only left-wing nutbars would think you do.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home