@ronnmail - When since July 2020 did people closely connected to top government officials get privacy rights exactly?

I'm not saying that Ron figured out how wrong his idiotic comment was, but I've been reliably told he did some soul searching, not to mention searching of a more pedantic type...


@Capnclitytickle - No American cops have ever killed a black human

Since blacks aren't really human, killing them isn't murder and every American police officer who's ever caused a negro death should be automatically acquitted.

After all, your evidence for denying a baby's humanity is just as strong.


@RebelHeart529 - Oh please, she probably doesn't even own a baseball bat

Nothing against anti-woke Ontario teacher Chanel Pfahl by any means, but there are only two proper ways to "work with" sodomite families and I'm fairly sure she's too anodyne to engage in either of them:

  1. Continue to tell them every second of every day that their evil lifestyle choice represents a personal failing that will always leave them as inferior until the day that conversion therapy cures them
  2. Beat the living shit out of them for their crimes against humanity
Having done both, I'm pretty sure that simply having a "more inclusive version of inclusion" doesn't fall under either. Again I have nothing against Pfahl, but she's not willing to do whatever it takes to defeat these people. It's up to the rest of us to pick up the slack.


@sweaterhag - Maybe we should get public sector unions to pay us back then?

Laurie isn't very bright: she actually thinks that the Green Party has anything of value to state about the economics of oilfield production. On top of that, she has no idea how governments screw things up.

How else do explain her apparent believe that "poverty" can be cured by oil royalties paid by the government?

The exchange is interesting, of course, in that when Wilkie claims that "corporate profits" were bad (presuming complaining that the royalties paid weren't higher) Laurie seemed to argue that the oil companies had to spend way too much money to the government who then somehow failed to achieve the goals she unilaterally set of it. Let's go through them one-by-one:

How would oil royalties solve poverty? One of the best ways to help alleviate poverty is by having a wide range of jobs available, from the most worthless mentally retarded piece of shit on the planet (since Wilkie keeps getting rejected by voters, he obviously needs a fallback position). This was, of course, being provided a couple decades back when oil was booming: 18 year olds got 6-figure salaries without any skills or training, and there was cash being thrown at everybody seemingly without trepidation. If you wanted to be a roofer, the world was your oyster (whether or not you actually had the slightest skill in roofing). On top of that was the spinoff salaries: I was 90% sure I'd blogged about this before, but one of the economic eye openers for a lot of people when the oil prices collapsed was how their industry depended on the oil money. The NDP-lover with the yoga studio didn't think that she had anything to do with oil and those rig piggers could all vanish tomorrow without any impact on her life...until all the girls in her yoga class stopped attending when their oilfield husbands got laid off. The black gold made poverty almost unheard of: when you did see a homeless bum you knew full well how hard he had to try to remain unemployed.

Roads are a little harder to wrap the ol' noggin around. After all, royalties are one of the ways that governments rape the productive driving class generate revenue that pays for roads: but then again, the increased traffic puts wear and tear on those same roads. Not to mention that Alberta weather is pretty hard on roads to begin with. On the flip side, who had a problem with roads? Anybody who drove in Saskatchewan knows full well that the "flat prairie" myth doesn't apply to their blacktop which in some places have peaks and valleys which rival the Andes. BC roads are roughly equivalent to Alberta roads and they have a pittance of them in comparison (and a much more skewed population breakdown between the Lower Mainland and everywhere else). In fact, I seem to recall better infrastructure being one of the things Peace Region BCers use as an argument to join Alberta!

Her next batch of wish lists are things that the government has absolutely no business operating anyways! It doesn't matter how much money the government has: it could have trillions of dollars that fell out of the sky, it doesn't justify forcing me to use their hospital. There's a fundamental moral problem with these aspects of modern government. Beyond that, there's a good reason that they are somehow always failing: because as a practical matter governments can never get them working properly no matter how much money is being spent. Public healthcare will always be in crisis, public education will always be a cesspool.

Finally, she complains about housing (specifically in contrast to poverty) which also is neither a practical nor a moral function of government. Subsidized housing to solve "homelessness" is one of the reasons we have a tent city and violent addicts problem in our city. What we "have to show" for the extra expense turns out to be worse than if we had nothing at all.

Yes, yes, in response to the screaming Martok is currently doing roads don't have to be government built and operated either.

Which brings us to the "nothing to show for it" nonsense. The Alberta Government was in a better financial position because of royalties than before them: indeed, it was under pressure from the clueless Lauries of this world that we started trying to take more royalties under a false guise of "fairness".

The final nail in the coffin is of course that far-left public sector unions had no problem abandoning Keynesian economics during the boom (they switched back during the bust of course) and insisting that they, too, get their "fair share". One of the reasons we don't have the best schools and hospitals is that these greedy workers demanded too much money. Indeed, if you oppose "for-profit" healthcare shouldn't nurses all be working for free?

Instead these selfish public sector workers mass rioted in the streets to steal the royalty money that didn't belong to them and keep it for themselves.

So, as the post title notes, shouldn't we demand that the public sector unions pay us back the money?

Unrelated: turns out it's hard to get public servants to pay money back even when everybody agrees they don't deserve it.

@nilbog3000 - Now do niggers

Chris' advice to women about managing the risks caused by men (inspired by a video posted by TikToker "genkimura" no longer available online) basically says "even if most of them aren't bad, enough of them are that assuming badness is a great self defense mechanism".

It would be wonderful if shop keepers who watch carefully the niggers who are as often as not trying to rob them were given the same courtesy.


Your guide to posts that you can no longer read

Blogger has inexplicably been going on a rampage requiring extra verification to review posts which feature even the most passing mention of po---er, pictures and videos which contain naked women.

So if you're looking for these posts, you can't view them anymore: Google wants you to verify you're okay looking at dirty-ish pictures and then when you say okay sure then it breaks anyways.

So courtesy of archive.org, here's:

As an aside, the second post about a Saskatchewan teacher literally just had a picture of her in a spaghetti top. Warren Kinsella definitely doesn't appear naked in the picture about him, and Sunday Smorg is a wrapup of everything from antisemitism in the United Church to the death of the guy who played the one armed man from The Fugitive. Yes there are nude girls visible if you squint in the McDavid post, and the comment spam post includes nude links (because I literally copy-pasted comment spam), but this is ridiculous.


A "conservative" government expands restrictions on Albertans' freedoms (for no good reason)

Editor's Note: this blogpost got caught up in draft status and never got published. Now, two years later, we can see how if you want the truth about COVID-19 or anything, you can't turn to CBC/CTV/Global or pseudo-conservative politicians but this blog hasn't made a single WuFlu misstep in over three years now.

Remember back in February when Alberta extended the mandatory quarantine for people with Wuhan Flu variants to 24 days. Why? Well, because these new variants are far more deadly and dangerous and contagious and...wait, aren't those the SARS-like factors that weren't present in the first round of the China Virus that was the motivation for all these lockdowns and travel bans in the first case?

The elephant in the room, which the lying presstitutes at CBC/CTV/Global won't bother asking, is "is the incubation period longer for these new strains"? The answer, according to the people we get told to listen to when we "follow the science", is no. (emphasis mine)
And doctors in Canada are seeing first-hand how quickly some of the variants of the novel coronavirus can spread, even among people who were following public health precautions. In Ontario, York region has been tracking the B.1.1.7 variant, and according to Dr. Karim Kurji, medical officer of health for the region, the variant might take much less time to infect people than the original strain before it.

“When we interviewed the cases, we discovered that some of them have actually not spent more than a minute, or two minutes, doing some essential shopping in places,” Kurji told CTV News.

“It gives us the impression that this [is] being transmitted very fast indeed.”

The region only had 15 variant cases last week. Now, they have 39 cases. In some situations, Kurji said, the incubation period of the virus is very short as well.

“In one case, it was only 18 hours to two days, so that indicates that [the variant] is very transmissible,” he said.
So on one hand you're telling us that the incubation period is short, which makes sense if it transmits so much faster: after all if we're dealing with a 24-day incubation period it would take an interminably long period of time for the virus to be spreading: they can't simultaneously tell us it's a super-fast spreader that's much more deadly and transmittable and powerful and also claim that we can be infected for over three weeks and never notice.

Yet here they are doing this exact thing: it's unclear at this point if Hinshaw is retarded and doesn't understand the implication, or is simply evil and deliberately lying. (Data point: she doubled down on her deliberate falsehoods a day later).

Both Hinshaw and Kenney are refusing to address the bigger question though: how they think it's "making us safer" to cruelly punish people who aren't playing along. After all, Kenney falsely claims that the most recent lockdowns enacted last Friday are required because of low compliance rates...but they don't give us any information about Alberta compliance rates, how Alberta compliance rates might vary by region, or how Alberta's overall compliance ranks within Canada or other jurisdictions around the world. And of course, as noted on Saturday, the claim that "troublemakers" not complying with the restrictions are the cause of cases is never proven.  Over in Ontario Doug Ford imposed a strict "stay at home order" less than a week after his previous new lockdown rules took effect (which puts to death this lie that we need to wait 2-3 weeks after every measure to gauge its effectiveness).


If you think that's bad....

Geesh, if being a nigger is this exhausting how much stress must be involved in having to be their parole officer?


Христос воскресе

Happy Easter, or as the Halton District School Board calls it: Sunday.


Arthur out

Memo to the Alberta Independence Party: yes, you were probably wrong to put Pastor Art in charge, but what did you think was going to happen?

Pawlowski was elected to head up the fledgling party in September, but lasted just seven months before the party board voted to remove him earlier this week. Party President Dan Duggan said the party knew Pawlowski was controversial, but gave the infamous freedom fighter a chance. Within months, he said Pawlowski’s tone turned negative, “divisive,” and “condescending.”
Nobody in the world is more divisive than Shiny Pony and Rachel Arab, yet you don't see their parties turning on them like this.

The original crowdfunding

No, I don't want to buy anything off your baby registry.


Only a 99.9% ally

‘Young Turks’ host asks never to be referred to as a ‘person who menstruates’:

Sure enough, liberals in her replies are saying “no one actually uses those terms” (yes, they do) and why should she be bothered if it doesn’t affect her personally?
As always, the "it doesn't affect you" crowd never likes you turning it around on them.


To be a leftist is to be hateful and irrational

Greg Hood at AmRen runs us through some examples:

For women reading this, maybe you should just stick to watching videos about innocent things, such as cooking for your family. Wait, that’s white nationalist too.
🚨NEW VIDEO🚨 I went down the Tradwife rabbit-hole, and found out how these lifestyle influencers use videos about baking and cleaning as a vehicle for fundamentalist Christianity and white nationalism.https://t.co/jfOjhnqbSy — Ash Sarkar (@AyoCaesar) March 15, 2023
In the first case, a white man who drunkenly did something destructive fit the villain archetype our society is trained to see. The second is an act of wanton cruelty that our entire society ignores. There won’t be movies about random, stupid black criminals attacking people for no reason. Such cases are common and depressing, but not interesting. Life is not a Hollywood movie.


Happy April Fools! A feminist internet would explode after only 28 days.

It's the first of April, the day where fake news is even more fake than usual, and everybody wants to get in on the joke, from corporations like Starbucks and WestJet, to academic journals like this hilarious scribe from a couple years ago in the M.I.T. Technology Review:

A feminist internet would be better for everyone

It’s April 13, 2025. Like most 17-year-olds, Maisie grabs her phone as soon as she wakes up. She checks her apps in the same order every morning: Herd, Signal, TikTok.

Herd started out as a niche social network aimed at girls, but everyone’s on it these days, even the boys. Maisie goes to her personal page and looks at what she’s pinned there: photos of her dog, her family, her school science project. It’s like a digital scrapbook of all the things she loves, all in one place. She reads comments from her friends and looks at what they’ve added to their own pages. She doesn’t really go on Facebook—only grandparents are still using that—or Twitter. Herd is just … nicer. No like counts. No follower metrics. No shouty strangers.

She checks Signal. Signal’s been popular since the Great WhatsApp Exodus of 2023, when WhatsApp announced it would share yet more data with Facebook, and users fled to more secure, encrypted alternatives.

Next, TikTok. She watches a video of some girls dancing, swipes up, sees a cat jumping through a hoop, swipes up, reads an explainer on volcanoes. TikTok doesn’t collect so much data these days—nothing on her location or her keystrokes. Much of that sort of data collection is illegal now, thanks to the Data Protection Act pushed through by lawmakers in the US three years ago over Big Tech’s lobbying.

It's not really "ha ha" funny so much as it's kind of cute. TikTok not collecting userdata after it follows the marching orders of a government? Ha!
Death threats and online abuse aren’t the only online issues that disproportionately affect women, though. There are also less tangible harms, like algorithmic discrimination. For example, try Googling the terms “school boy” and “school girl.” The image results for boys are mostly innocuous, whereas the results for girls are dominated by sexualized imagery. Google ranks these results on the basis of factors such as what web page an image appears on, its alt text or caption, and what it contains, according to image recognition algorithms. Bias creeps in via two routes: the image recognition algorithms themselves are trained on sexist images and captions from the internet, and web pages and captions talking about women are skewed by the pervasive sexism that’s built up over decades online.
That falls more into "hilariously clueless" than anything. The reason "school boy" gives different results than "school girl" is that other than George Takei and Randy Boissonnault nobody wants to have sex with anybody who resembles a schoolboy. The idea that this is somehow merely how "the internet" works is laughable. It's not rip roaring funny like that April Fools gag where the girl sent vag-pics on dating sites, but it's pretty good (and unlike that other one that got caught up in the draft status that occasionally plagues this blog, this one at least was posted on April 1st.
So what would a “feminist internet” look like?

There’s no single vision or approved definition. The closest thing the movement has to a set of commandments are 17 principles published in 2016 by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC), a sort of United Nations for online activist groups.

The "17 principles" are themselves pretty hilarious, with such notions as "interrogating the capitalist logic that drives technology" (I sure hope you didn't want your computer to get better over time). It's also, as everything with women should properly be if you're crafting your joke correctly, be completely scatterbrained without any logic or internal consistency. That's how the principles can both say how they "defend the right to sexual expression as a freedom of expression issue of no less importance than political or religious expression" and then immediately attack political or religious expression that goes against them by also saying how they "call on all internet stakeholders, including internet users, policy makers and the private sector, to address the issue of online harassment" which of course explicitly includes things like "misogynist speech" which we know women will never define improperly because again chicks never ever do that.

To live up to these principles, companies would have to give more control and decision-making power to users. This would mean not only that individuals would be able to adjust things like our security and privacy settings (with the strongest privacy as the default), but that we could act collectively—by proposing and voting on new features, for example.
Haha, could you imagine this? People (rightly) criticize Elon Musk for his "4 hour online poll" method of corporate governance, but imagine if you created a killer feature that at the push of a button would let you do something awesome with your internet connection like order a pizza or arrange to have a flood destroy Ellen Degeneres' house, but then it couldn't ever be implemented...ever...because some busybody voted against it?
Take Tracy Chou.
Take my Tracy Chou. Please! (sometimes you just can't mess with the classics)
But Chou isn’t most people. She used her engineering skills to build a tool called Block Party, which aims to make Twitter more bearable by helping people filter out abuse. All the replies and mentions you don’t want to see are put in a “lockout folder” you or an appointed friend can check at a time of your own choosing (or not at all). Its early users have predominantly been women who face rampant online abuse, Chou says: reporters, activists, and scientists working on covid-19. But mostly, she made it for herself: “I’m doing this because I have to deal with online harassment and I don’t like it. It’s solving my own problem.” Since Chou started building Block Party, at the end of 2018, Twitter has adopted one or two of its features. For example, it now lets people limit who can reply to their tweets.
Now that is funny: a person actually wants to take credit for the increasing need to insulurly project bad (leftist) social media takes from honest criticism by superior people who call it out. Hey you know that thing where as soon as too many comments on a news article point out that the entire article is bullshit they instantly lock it down? I really want to write a wonderful account about the useless tit who came up with it!

They aren't done with the hilarious bullshit, of course.

A 2019 United Nations report concluded that smart speakers reinforce harmful gender stereotypes. It called for companies to stop making digital assistants female by default and explore ways to make them sound “genderless.”
There are only two sexes, so the voice is going to sound either male or female. "Genderless" voices is just a fancy term for "faggy". Also, what's harmful about the idea that both men and women are more comfortable interacting with a female computer voice? Majel Barret got paycheques for that over four different decades!
Ultimately, women have the right to be online without fear of harassment. Think of all the women who have not set up online retailers, or started blogging, or run for office, or created a YouTube channel, because they worry they will be harassed or even physically harmed. When women are chased off platforms, it becomes a civil rights issue.
One is both reminded of Kate McMillan's reminder that every single person "harassed online" consented, and the question to wonder what to make of social conservatives like yours truely being "chased off platforms" and whether that is also a civil rights issue.

Anyways we're getting way into the weeds with this. We would like to thank author Charlotte Jee for...oh wow, the dude who wrote this really went whole hog in this April Fools skit by even coming up with a chick's name for the byline.

Oh hey look at that, he really committed to this, like that time that RedLetterMedia actually created a chicken restaurant webpage: he actually created a social media presence for "Charlotte Jee" and is still populating it and everything and...






...oh my Lord it's real.

I'm so terribly sorry.

This is already the worst April ever. Here, let me make it up to you by showing you that her (female) coworker is kinda hot.