I stumbled across this site in my surfings lately, authored by the mysterious and wickedly satirical Edward T. Bear, who mercilessly skewers the left’s obsessive-compulsive search for RACISTS! under every rock. In a series of posts that are as delightful in their clumsiness as they are challenged in their literacy, he manages an unusual coup de gras – to convince bona fide “moonbat lefties” that he’s “the real thing”.
His latest target plays along with the act, looking deep into his own soul over in finding humour in a sushi restaurant’s joke about “hi-balls”. The commentors take up the challenge, and a “flame war” ensues….
And how can you judge how a giraffe feels? Have you walked a mile in the shoes of a giraffe? Do you personally know any giraffes?
True to the carefully crafted persona as “self-righteous hypocrite expressing his freedom of speech”, Edward T. Bear shelters his identity. And as he doesnt allow comments, I’ll have to be satisfied with registering my applause at his (or her) comedic talents here.
It just isn’t right that such subtle genius remains hidden to all but a dozen readers a day.
He / she / it is quite an actor no? I’ll have to admitt that T-bear even had me buy’n into it. Thanks Kate for pointing out that it’s just an act. I guess I can cancel the “Kerry/Edwards” bumper stickers that I sent over to ’em…
I’d have thought that in a posting about other people being “challenged in their literacy” one would not spell “coup de grace” “coup de gras.”
I can be subtle, too.
Well, how about “coup de graisse” then? That’s sort of like gettting hit by a handful of Crisco in a lard fight…
“cooper des grissle”?
One would wonder if the copywrite holders of AA Milne would like the address of the blog? I traced through it and he has a real hate on for you Kate. Of course anyone can take bits and pieces and make a case that could not stand up in court, but that is the blogsphere!
BTW he rips the your treatment of the CBC article, I must confess that I read the title, clicked into the link to read the CBC story. If he wants to attack anyone on the story it should be the CBC for its lousy coverage of a story and not someone who brings it forward. Of course, he believes that you, and by extenstion anyone who reads you, are raving racists, right wing trogs!
Cool!!!
More names to add to my list. Now I’m a Redneck, Knuckledragging Westerner, Raving Racists, Right Wing Trog!
Can we make that any longer?
The dude’s hilarious. No question.
p.s: don’t piss him off. He looks harmless, but he could leave many in “stiches”, insulting you if he so decides… 🙂
OT:
Hillarious – my kid just phoned me from the Champ car race in Edm., and screeching Annie was called out to hand out the trophy at the end. She was booooodd by about the 50,000 people that were remaining, and was scared to come out the second time.
Me: did they do the same thing on the second round
Him: no
Me: when I see you I’m gonna kick your ass for not doing or starting it the second time..
If He/She is an act, how do you know this and why not reveal their identity?
As for this Edward T. Bear mercilessly skewering the left’s obsessive-compulsive search for racists under every rock….Sorry don’t see it. Also didn’t see how he attempted to convince the “moonbat lefties” that he is the “real thing”.
Why not enlighten us with your insider info!
rob
Get the tape. Get the tape. Get the tape.
lol. lol. lol.
Knight of Good Mr. Iron Man
ha!… you think MSM is gonna air it? … actually, you just reminded me that he has video on his cell phone, so if he didn’t get it, he’s gonna get 2 ass kickings.
Earlier today I wanted to comment on the Rabble.ca site, but to do so they seemed to want more personal info than the CCRA. Stalinists? Though their personal views seem even more Maoist/Pol Potist.
Mark
Ottawa
Back to Pooh Corner, Kate, I’m not seeing the “satire” part, it seems pretty real and directed right at you.
I’m with Old Mother, if you have inside info, give.
As for booing the Screecher? BRILLIANT!!! That would have been worth the price of admission right there!
On the subject of racism. This word has been tossed around so much in recent years that I am not what it means anymore.
I will assume that it means either slandering or poking fun at an identifiable group.
Slandering:
1. I contually hear and read horrible things about the USA. Much bile and vehemence. Calling them Nazis and Imperialists etc. Are they not an identifiable group? Or do you have to been brown to qualify. I am confused, because there are a lot of brown and even black Americans. Gee!
2. I am brown, I am Greek. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts. How do they separate the men from the boys in Greece? With a crow bar. hmmmmm Should I sue?
Nah, I can take it. I have pride and know that there is no sound the human mouth can make that can actually hurt me. Unless those sounds instruct someone to do me bodily harm.
I can take some ethnic humour. I have genuine self-esteem. Not the kind the unionized teachers try to lay on our kids these days. The kind that I earned by being a big guy and taking responsibility for myself. By achieving some in my life. By not whining and blaming others for any bad shit in my life.
This political correctness crap is fodder for real, hot war, eventually. I say stop it right now!
The piece on the Indians at the mall did have a note of humour attached to … Kate pointed to it and I chuckled just like people chucke at Greek jokes.
Kate is much larger than her critics. You waste your time and show your smallness.
John,
You say the piece on the Indians at the mall did have a note of humour attached to it and Kate pointed to it…..humour me, and please point to where the humour is. Hate to miss the laugh!
Thanks
The sorry legacy of the treatment of aboriginals, historically, is not in any way humorous. But when politically-correct reporters stick their heads so far up their ass that they end up with two sets of teeth pronouncing different ideas at the same time, it can merit a chuckle or two, without being equated to cultural genocide.
For all the ranting and raving about Kate’s pivotal role in the historic mis-treatment of aboriginals in North America, all she did in the post in question was point out a ludicrously incongruous, unintendedly slandering quote from a CBC story.
“It was mall policy to deny access to people who had dirty cothing, open sores and wounds, red eyes, and who were acting intoxicated. Lyster ruled the policy created practices that had an unfair and discriminatory effect on aboriginal people.”
Those were not Kate’s words.
Okay? NOW, let the humour begin. You see, the quote in question does not express the intent, and does not use the words of Human Rights Tribunal member Lindsay Lyster, who was merely referred to in the sentence in question. And the words most assuredly do not express the intent of the person who wrote them, either. Which is…I don’t know, maybe it’s not funny. But they were written, nonetheless. For CBC.
You can’t convince someone that something is funny by virtue of being badly written. In fact, you can’t convince people that ANYTHING is funny, if they don’t think so. A person can always convince himself that he is profoundly insulted, on behalf of others, though. Makes him feel big.
Thanks for filling me in EBD. You are right…the CBC could have chosen more appropriate wording…but in the end …still not funny!
Making fun of that sentence has done nothing but detract from the heart of the story;
that being an elderly, arthritic, wheelchair-bound aboriginal amputee, who was going with a friend to Starbuck’s for coffee, and ejected from the mall on the basis of the very statement Kate and posters here are laughing about! What if that were you!!!!!
I am very right wing in all my views. This post, Kate’s original post on this matter and comments here, are unnecessarily derogatory, inflmmatory and feeds the notion that all right-wing people are racists and bigots. I for one, choose not to be like this.
Good moonbat fodder, though!
Oh, stop it.
You betray your political beliefs when you suggest that the views and speech of individuals should be curbed in favour of a state of harmonious agreement and inoffensive concensus in “the group”.
If you believe you’re a conservative, you’re deluding yourself. True conservatives believe before all in liberty, the sanctity of the individual and their property, and reject out of hand that those core principles are subject to majority vote.
Finally, the notion that political correctness trumpts the free inquiry of what is true and what is false, is not the least of your undoings.
If seeing humour in different things is intolerable to you, and leads you to fear for the “right”, then may I direct you to the cartoons of “House Nigga” Ted Rall.
We need – all of us, regardless of political stripe, to be less concerned about faux outrage and more concerned with fact finding and problem solving. Problems are not solved by declaring some topics out of bounds.
EBD,
Thanks for the cover. I doubt I could have said it better.
Re the people who had been ejected from this mall for than once. Consider that the woman in question apparently have been ejected previously and her friends. Did they always come to the mall in so called proper order for a Latte or were they ejected previously for actual good reason. Thus when they return in perhaps in more coherent (if that applies) state they were assumed to be objectionable people. This may have been a simple error and why did this women wait for several offences to her person to actually take action… We may never know the “rest of the story”. The point is that I for one, found it humourous the the judge appeared to have agreed the Indians generally are more likely to fit the description that other groups. It’s dark, but I see it as humour.
Slapstick, we all find humourous to this day, but it’s usually predicated on someone coming to inadvertent harm in a peculiar way. Should we laught or not. Who are the laugh police anyway?
Lastly, I have been refused entry to restaurants and nightclubs simply because I was wearing jeans.
Grow up now children, discrimination is human nature. There are religions I could name that are based on the denial of human nature. That resulted in liberalism gone nuts.
Forgive my typos, I am excited and a tad pissed off.
If you scroll down to the original post quoting the CBC, and click on the update link, you’ll discover that the picture being painted of a submissive, little old amputee is a little…. abstract.
Kate,
How do you know I am conservative? Check the definition of a conservative versus a libertarian. And, where in the world does my “fearing for the right” enter this discussion?
Quit hiding behind cliches such as “political correctness”, “faux outrage”, and “intolerance to humor”. These are nothing but empty epithets used to cloud a very simple issue.
You are doing nothing but attempting to rationalize and justify your posts and these comments. Sorry, but, it is not working.
You make the case that the mall had no right to eject someone who “hollered”, in her own words, and who caused a disturbance, and who according to the investigations “appeared to be the aggressor”, who attempted to pass by the guard after being asked to leave. Common sense would indicate that the mall had a right to eject her, despite your unrelenting almost condescending (to aboriginals) plea for pathos.
I’m slowly coming to understand that there sure ain’t much that’s funny these days, but it’s pretty funny that you accuse Kate of hiding behind cliches, when you yourself drag out old hoary platitudes like “this poor, arthritic, female, wheelchair-bound, aboriginal amputee”. Your violin music is not an argument for anything; why do you assume it is? It’s called argumentatum ad misericordium, and your use of it in this case seems to me to be entirely condescending to aboriginals and the handicapped, despite your proclamations that you are a champion of the downtrodden.
Say, that reminds me. There’s one thing that has always bothered me, Old Mother. You’ve posted attacks on Kate here, and at the Shotgun, under the guise of a disinterested critic dropping in for a comment. But you are actually at least a nominal aquaintance of Meaghan Walker Williams, are you not? Perhaps you are not, and I am just getting that sense. But if you are, don’t you find it a bit dishonest to not allow others to decide for themselves the motivation behind your attacks? You sound like an angry and bitter woman who is accusing someone who is making a real mark on the world, of being merely angry. Well, TS, as they say.
As eloquent as EBD’s last post is and I mean no disrespect to you EBD, but this series of of comments is starting to decend into an R-2! R-Not! sequence used repeatedly by Pee Wee herman before his career tubed after being caught materbating in a theatre while watching a porn flick.
So, if we simply masterbating to an R-2 R-not exchange, I suggest we all move on to more interesting matters.
Tbe Indians have at least 8 billion of our tax dollars anually and a stable of willing lawyers … they can take care of themselves.
Old (maybe or maybe not conservative) Mother is nothing more than a festering zit on the landscape of real debate and real ideas. We should not grace her with our repies. There is nothing to defend. Nothing bad has happened. Just another PoliCor witch hunt as I see it.
And for your information, I have heard some very funny Indian jokes from Indians! Not all of them are liberal wimps. In fact, if it weren’t for the victimization of this idiotic nanny state they would be far better off. The dole is a destroyer of spirit as any thinking person will tell you.
What’s up next Kate?
Sleep, probably.
Edward T. Bear’s identity is not much of a secret; he was a regular for years at the old Frank magazine forum. He has a very bad reputation, by the way, for which I cannot vouch; all I know is that the several people I know who have met him personally fall over themselves to describe as “scary”, “creepy”, etc. Not someone I’d kiss up to. And he’s a fairly serious leftwing moonbat, supports Saddam Hussein and all.
Ok. Back from work I am.
I see Old Mother Hubbard says:
“Quit hiding behind cliches such as “political correctness”, “faux outrage”, and “intolerance to humor”. These are nothing but empty epithets used to cloud a very simple issue.”
“Empty epithets”? Surely you’re just trying to be ironic?
Old, you see, Kate uses these terms because they are properly descriptive of the real world of ultra-leftist moonbattery. I disagree, respectfully, with the contention that Kate is hiding behind cliches.
We true conservatives have earned the right to use these descriptive terms wrt the extremism of the left in terms of the issue of race/ethnicity. You see, the left doesn’t understand what it talks about here. The empty-headed moonies use cliches forced upon them as mandatory for use all the time. Such is the manipulative power of the Liberal state. Blank-slate individuals without experience thinking for themselves are programmed to spew forth words like “racist” and “sexist” and “anti-gay” anytime they see a prominent conservative personality or hear anyone say anything conservative. They understand not what they’re saying.
Hence the need for terms like “political correctness” and “faux outrage”. If we were to launch into a long, intellectual explanation of the insanity of moonie people, the point would always be lost as moonies have no attention span (trust me; I know this all too well) and even if they listen, they never understand the explanation.
So can you now see that these terms are not merely flippant cliches, but rather words of brevity designed to efficiently get the point across to people? Trust me; most lefties always demand that I say everything in three words or less! Ok, an exaggeration, but you get the idea.
Gee, I hope I made at least some sense! Not sure… so to guarantee some comprehension, I’ll say the following:
Madam, there’s no hiding behind anything by Kate. She’s doing ok.
Something tells me Kate’s post is sarcastic and meant to mock Mr. Bear. 🙂
I can’t quite put my finger on it. 🙂
Kate, EBD, Stephen, Duke:
The issue at hand is the degrading posts of Kate’s and some of the commentary here in regards to the discrimination of aboriginal people. I do not know MWW or whomever is the mysterious Edward T. Bear. But, I do know the difference between right and wrong!
It is not about the Vancouver Human Rights Tribunal decision or general societal issues. I am strictly referring to the way this issue has sometimes been presented and commented upon on SDA.
Thus far, Kate and commenters, have not addressed my criticism. Name calling, changing the topic, and expanding the issue to include peripheral concepts are as I stated above… empty justifications. These are typical tatics used when one has lost the logical argument.
It is quite presumptuous of Kate to label me as non-conservative. She does not know who I am. Maybe Kate should dust off that crystal ball of hers and look again.
If you look up and to your left, you’ll discover an image of a dead gopher.
It’s a clue.
Everyone who visits this site does so voluntarily. I am not responsible for the minority of readers who have reading comprehension issues, or who are bound and determined to manufacture contraversy where it does not exist.
If you do not like the commentary of your fellow readers, then debate it on its merits, agree to disagree or change the channel.
I agree with Kate. You are free to disagree in this site.
As for disagreeing within the MSM, I have observed that people do so at the risk of being arbitrarily silenced by leftist censors. Kate gives you all a chance to explain why you differ.
As a commentor, I do not want to silence anyone, I just want to challenge a challenger once in a while. I try to be reasonable and logical. Unfortunately, not everyone has developed their grey matter to a degree that’d allow them to understand complicated logical explanations.
I thought I had made a pretty darn good account for my part. Alas, I’m a misunderstood guy a lot of the time…
Stephen,
I am not averse to vigorous debate. I would like to refer you back to my statement:
“It is not about the Vancouver Human Rights Tribunal decision or general societal issues. I am strictly referring to the way this issue has sometimes been presented and commented upon on SDA.”
The tone of the posts and comments are inflammatory and feed the notion that right wing supporters are racist and bigots. Highlighting a couple of sentences from the CBC article, and making off-color humour about them, not only detracts from the decision but minimizes the mall’s discrimination against aboriginal people. In my humble opinion, that was the story, not two badly written sentences and not Kate’s “quippy” headline. I have yet to see any comments addressing this.
In closing, I have a Bachelor of Commerce Degree, a Bachelor of Science in Nursing Degree, an R.N. designation, numerous continuing education courses plus many years experience within the medical and business fields.
Surely you are not referring to me as one of those unfortunate humans whose grey matter is not as developed as yours!
I’m going to walk you through this.
The humour was at the expense of two Temples Of Political Correctness – – the Human Rights Commission and the CBC.
That these left-wing institutions conspired to produce the epitome of a racially charged slur against a racial minority, in the reporting of a case in which others were found guilty of perpetrating an offense against a member of that same minority, is where the humour lies.
Laughing at them is not the equivalent of stating the statement was accurate.
Do you understand?
Laughing at the idiotic PC left over their bungling of a story on a First Nations person is not the same as laughing at First Nations.
Do you understand?
That, in fact was pointed out very early by others in the ensuing comments, but as you are bound and determined to have your way, then by all means, continue in your efforts to turn a sows ear into a right wing slur.
But this is the only time I’m doing this for free. If I have to explain again, you’re paying for my time.
Ah, now I think I understand what Kate meant, originally!
Hey, I have a business degree myself, with honors, and an info tech diploma with a 93% average. But still I struggled to realize how the two PC fascist institutions in question slurred the ethnic group in question. Looks like a fancy piece of paper with a gold seal on it doesn’t necessarily guarantee comprehension of everything all the time, doesn’t it?
My understanding is that the Commission and CBC stereotyped all Aboriginals as having the characteristics alleged to have been the prompting for the expulsion of the individual from, what was it, Starbucks?
Perhaps the story should have been about how the Commission mistakenly assumed it was about ethnicity rather than seeing it as an isolated case of one individual, regardless of ethnicity or whatever? Guess the VLWC is programmed to automatically extrapolate from the one to the whole, damn the obvious, objective facts.
Am I too far off, Kate?
What say you, Old Mama Hubba? Oh, I see you’re getting your old doggy a bone from the cupboard. I’ll wait till ya find one. Oh! Poor ole doggy! The cupboard’s bare! Boohoo!
🙂
Wow guys, I am really impressed with these “flame wars”, especially at Rendel’s, but must admit to being rather buffaloed (no, I have never walked a mile in the hooves of tatanka) by some of the posts. I having some difficulty telling the ernest from the ersatz. One moment I’m laughing my head off. The next I think, “What?” Is this a Villager Thing? Maybe I’m just a dumbcluck from Caleefornia, but Ian Scott and Old Mother cannot be serious, can they?
Stephen:
“What say you, Old Mama Hubba? Oh, I see you’re getting your old doggy a bone from the cupboard. I’ll wait till ya find one. Oh! Poor ole doggy! The cupboard’s bare! Boohoo!”
WOW!!! I am truly humbled by your superior intelligence!
Heh, heh, Mother H., I was just being funny!
I really don’t think my intelligence is necessarily any greater than yours. This is only one issue, so one really can’t make such a judgement, can one?
I agree with you Stephen. So, on this one lets agree to disagree, or call it a draw.
P.S. My cupboard is not quite empty…have 3 bones for my three dogs!
Cheers!