Mr. K. Writes a Letter
Okay, okay. I'll publish your letter to the editor, Mr. Kinsella, even if Macleans doesn't. And believe me, I have a bigger readership than it does, anyway. That's because I have a world famous webmaster, Ou81aswell - whereas Macleans is stuck with Ken Whyte. And we all know what happens under the management of Ken Whyte (Gawd - even his snob cred is pretty "Fresh Prince of Bel Air" these days, if you know what I mean):
MarkSteynBlowsChinks,Er,IMean,Chunks
So yeah. I know I shouldn't get involved in any of this because it's like going outside in your underwear and poking a rabid skunk with a stick, but I can't help myself on account of I'm an irksome git, and besides, how often do I get to agree with Mark Steyn about anything? Right? I mean, c'mon. The guy believes white western women (hey, www!) should be strapped to gurneys and forced into mandatory childbirth as regulated by the nanny state in order to up the white race demographic and take on the Islamic Menace that is threatening to take away our freedoms.
Or so he says. I think he might just not like white western women very much.
And the Islamic Menace sucks at taking away our freedoms, anyway, if you ask me, but there you go - not asking. I mean, the U.S. seems pretty much the same as ever, bombs away while the economy tanks, but it'll be a while before Iraq can put in its bid for the Olympics, if you know what I mean - and you probably don't because you're not paying close enough attention:
Besides, let's face it, our freedoms have been more taken away by George W. Bush and Stephen Harper than, well, I don't know the names of any current Islamic Menace leaders. And, is it me? Or do those guys all look alike? I dunno. It must be the beards and the scowling expressions.
Of course, maybe you don't care too much for white western women, either. I dunno. You're really big on all this protection against hate speech, none of which includes women, who are consistently the most oppressed people in the world and who are supposedly now the reason why we've gone to War in Afghanistan.
Gee, blame women much Canadian Army?
Also, well, even in context you strike me as wildly sexist - wildly sexist - nevermind just listing words you've used to describe women: Hag, Harridan, Cow, Skank, Bitch. Cunt? Have you used cunt, yet?
But yeah. I gotta go with Steyn on this one. And so would the rest of the Internet except that lots of people are so afraid of you going after them and destroying their reputations that they pretend they aren't laughing when really, all they've done is the cyber equivalent of squeezing their lips tight so it's not like, "Hahahahahahaha!", all over their blogs.
Some would say they're being hypocrites. I'd say they're being TitFuckMeJesusers.
I mean, c'mon. You picture a grown man, well known for the obsessive relentless character assassination of others for things they have posted on the Internet, down at knee-high to a grasshopper level, taking photographs in a boys washroom at a hockey rink - posting in righteous indignation about spotting a swastika on a wall. (And, you know, I hate to tell you this, but kids practice drawing stuff like that - the Y region on a woman, stars with five points, writing "boy" and bringing the stem of the y all the way around to make a man's face, breasts, hatchets sticking out of leaking brains, turd piles, the list of offensive drawings goes on and on.)
I mean, blog entries like that were the reason eye-rolling emoticons were invented, ferchrissakes. Of course it's going to cause titters on the Internet. Who do you think your audience is? Ladies Who Lunch? The Fucking Queen? John Ralston Saul?
But context is everything, isn't it. Context. Context is the thing. Context, context, context. You just can't have enough context.
Anyway, here's hopin' Macleans publishes your letter. It's great stuff, if you ask me. But, you know, Ken Whyte is no Sooey, so he might not recognize gold when he sees it.
Oh - just for fun:
