None so blind...

Oh yes, Happy Holidays, Merry New Year, Yippie Yule and all that jazz. Now on with the show.

As with all things conservative, Andrew Schlafly - and by default, his right-wing hate-blog Conservapedia - doesn't just toe the party line, he adheres to it with an intensity that often borders on the insane. Actually, more often than not, he veers over the "insane" line, straight into "dangerous wingnut" territory. One such example - ignoring such things as the horror of the Bible replacing "with child" with "pregnant" and "pledged to" with "engaged to" - is the ongoing debate about global warming and climate change.

Firstly, the fact that it's become such a politicised debate is a crying shame and one for which I sincerely hope world leaders (and the morons cheering them on) will be held accountable one day. There's a very simple solution to all this: let's say you impose all the emission restrictions and global warming is false. You're still benefiting from having a cleaner environment.

Of course, Andy and his ilk believe that the Rapture is coming any day now, so they can rape and pillage all they like. After all, God set man to have dominion over everything, so it's theirs to fuck up as they see fit. Seems God forgot to mention "responsibility" when he set things up. Thus they will squeal like the rodents they are when it comes to the whole debate about climate change. In this regard, Schlafly is not alone in latching onto the phrase "Global warming" - indeed he clings on with a tenacity that would make a bull terrier blush - happily ignoring the more inclusive term "Climate change."

Of course, at the root of it is the simple fact that Schlafly - and by implication, his goons, who are to a man too craven to contradict him - doesn't understand the difference between "climate" and "weather." So as a public service, because I know Schlafly and his henchmen read this blog, here's a simple definition of the two. I'm sorry, it doesn't have pictures, so one of you will have to explain this to Ken Demyer please.

• Climate: The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region, as observed and measured over a number of years.


• Weather: What's happening outside your window at this moment in time.

Now, climate can affect weather, but weather cannot affect climate. And yes, colder weather can be as a result of warmer temperatures elsewhere. However, I don't expect your minuscule intellects to grasp that subtle point, so I'll carry on.

Here's a list of Schlafly (and his hand-picked thugs) mocking the apparent contradictions to global warming, whilst proudly displaying their monumental collective ignorance. Any rational human being, would read the news articles and start thinking "What's with all this strange weather?" but not Schlafly et al. Oh no, for them it's all a sign that global warming is just another liberal plot - you know, like healthcare, black holes, the Theory of Relativity and, of course, the Bible.

Warning: All weather-related news headlines are printed as is from CP's. I take no responsibility for any self inflicted injuries, due to an overload of stupidity.

• Blizzard hits New Jersey, and the acting Governor declares a state of emergency. Global warming???


• "Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina declared states of emergency" as a massive snowstorm sweeps across States that are normally warmer.


• "Bethlehem shines as Europe freezes."


• Atlanta will see its "first white Christmas since the Chester Arthur administration" in 1882. Global warming???


• Global warming? Many Europeans have been unable to get home for Christmas due to cold, severe weather. "Bitterly cold temperatures brought problems in Scandinavia" and "Britain's aviation regulator said it had written to several airlines about the 'unacceptable' failure to properly feed and accommodate stranded passengers."


• The lamestream media is not reporting the deadly cold temperatures in the United States, but the press in other nations is not so distorted: "Tuesday Was Coldest Day In Costa Rica In The Last 15 Years," and it is not even winter yet!


• A massive snowstorm causes the Minnesota Vikings' stadium dome to collapse.  The NFL was a big supporter of global warming losers in the midterm elections.


• "The first full week of December was the coldest on record for the period from Dec. 3 through Dec. 10" in North Carolina.  How much harm will be caused by liberals falsely pretending that there is global warming?


• The global warming scare was fun while it lasted, but the joke's over .... As western Europe shivers to a halt and our energy bills soar through the roof, the time has come when we should all start to get seriously angry with our politicians for being carried away by all this claptrap."


• The global warming hoax is deadly, misleading government into being unprepared for a devastating dumping of 32 inches of snow on Buffalo, stranding motorists in the cold for as long as 24 hours.


• As an unusually early snowfall covers Britain this weekend, new liberal claptrap emerges: pollution is slowing global warming! By the way, global temperatures are only a meagre 0.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.


• Global warming??? Nearly a foot of snow "causes 400 crashes in Minn; 2 die in Wis."


• Remember all that talk from liberals about how the Earth is experiencing a rapid warming? The last twelve-months have been the coldest temperatures recorded over the past 12-years.


• Get this from the liberal Science News: "Global Warming Could Cool Down Northern Temperatures in Winter."  Translation: it's getting cooler, so claim that is due to global warming too!

Actually I'll end off on that last one, because nothing illustrates more clearly what an imbecile this Harvard and Princeton educated engineer and lawyer is. This prize moron will still be bleating "La-la-la I can't hear you! There's no global warming!" as the glaciers are coming through his front door.

When is Parody not Parody?

The easy answer is "When it carries Andrew Schlafly's stamp of approval." Or any of the Fab Five (or is it Super Six) administrators of the encyclopaedia right-wing hate-blog that is Conservapedia. The most infamous example of this was the so-called "hit list" - a list of U.S. States with Democratic Senators, but Republican Governors. The implication appeared to be that should these Senators meet with an *ahem* untimely end, the Republican Governors would appoint Republican Senators.

Now this page remained on Conservapedia for some time and even achieved credibility by being edited by TWO Conservapedia administrators. It was only after Wonkette highlighted this page and the resulting internet shit-storm that broke out, that the article was deleted for containing "Inappropriate content." The irony is that the administrator who deleted the article, DeanS, was also one of those who edited - and thus validated - this "inappropriate content."

Of course, the more you read Conservapedia, the harder it becomes to distinguish parody from facts. I mean, once you've been past Andy's (and his minions') "Relativity is a liberal plot," "Obama's birth name is Barry Soetoro," "Atheists don't win the World Cup and don't build hospitals," "Belief in black holes could stop people reading the Bible," "The Bible is too liberal, let me make my own;" you're basically ready to accept the Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus as the real deal.

So, it's really not hard to create parody on Conservapedia. The sign of a true master, however, is having your parody endorsed by Andrew Schlafly. Second place would be having one of the other sysops approve it. This excludes Terry Koeckritz, however, as allowing parody to stand is all part of his nefarious plot to undermine CP from within.

There're a couple more examples I'd like to highlight.

The first is Conservapedia's article on "Liberal obsession." This cleverly worded article not only played on Andy's trend of creating "Liberal {insert noun} " articles, but also managed to highlight many of the absurd Conservapedia stances, by pretending to list them as items liberals obsess about. Examples include:

• Obsession over celebrities or Hollywood (as evidenced by Andy's fixation with "Hollywood values" and young starlets' breast cancer woes)


• Obsession on censorship of school prayer (this is Andy's standard fall back line when losing an argument)


• Obsessing over Global Warming


• Obsession over the homosexual agenda

And so the list goes. I guess the logic here is that if it looks like Andy and sounds as crazy as Andy, it must be Andy.

Which brings me neatly to my second point. Now, as with most things, Andy has next to no knowledge of football (For the benefit of the uncivilised, I'm talking soccer) At some point during the year, Andy became dimly aware that something called the World Cup was taking place. Once he'd made sure he wasn't getting confused with the World Series, he went on to pontificate that atheistic England could only draw with the USA, because God was on their side. Then he went on to say that Ghana beat the USA, thanks to the power of prayer. So it seems God changed sides - fickle bloke, this God fella. Needless to say, Andy's World Cup commentary - as with most things Andy - went downhill from there.

Now I told you that story, to tell you this one. CP does have a "Soccer" article. There's a few things you need to note about this. Firstly, courtesy of über-troll, Terry Koeckritz, is that soccer is a"'socialist" sport. Thereafter, a user by the name of Danq added an entire section entitled "Soccer and socialism" in July 2010. It's interesting to note that as of 17 December 2010, Danq hasn't been blocked and may even be a sock of Terry Koeckritz (just sayin'!). Now I'm deliberately leaving the text until last, so you can see just what Andrew Schlafly has put his seal of approval on.

On the 16th December, somebody removed Danq's content from the soccer article. Not long after, Schalfly reverted that user, with no comment in the edit summary. Shortly after that, Terry Kockritz blocked the editor for "Removal of valid content." However, that action can be ignored, coming from the biggest troll on Conservapedia.

So, you might be asking yourself, by now, just what has Andrew Schlafly pout his seal of approval on this time? Well, here it is and hopefully you'll realise after reading that as long as people like Schlafly are on CP, you don't need parodists.

The nature and rules of soccer very much resemble socialism in many ways:

• The "no hands" rule can be compared to socialist tax policies.


• The "off-sides" rule prohibits using certain aggressive ("unfair") tactics in the game.


• The game forbids frequent stops, which can be compared to "carbon footprint" efforts to fight supposed global warming.


• Soccer is very bureaucratic, and teams are very much tied to their countries.


• The US is often treated unfairly by other nations in the game, one reason being soccer's lack of popularity in the US - socialism always claimed to favor the absolute will of the majority rather than personal and economic freedom of the individual.


• The World Cup trophy resembles socialist Hollywood's Emmy Award.


• In youth leagues, everyone gets a trophy for their efforts regardless of achievement, and there is no scoring in the game.


• Even the World Cup encourages "achievement" by holding a third-place game for the two losers in the semifinals.


• Union strikes, even during the playing season, are a major issue with soccer.


• Riots caused by "hooligans" - fans of a team which lost a game - often include violent crimes, such as infringement on private property rights.

 

 

A Tale of Two Faces

We all know that Conservapedia in general, and Andrew Schlafly in particular, foams at the mouth at the mere mention of the word "Obama" and will go to any lengths to run him down. These guys don't just stop at the "allegedly born in Hawaii" crap; for some time they also reported that Obama's birth name was Barry Soetoro. At least now it's been "upgraded" to "aka Barry Soetoro."

Likewise, no source is too bad, when it comes to digging the dirt on the guy who used to boss Andy around at the Harvard Law Review - something which clearly riled Andy's Aryan sensibilities. World Nut Daily, 2-bit blogs,  and even Pravda (yes, THAT Pravda!) have been roped in to assist with the ongoing smear campaign.

The tribe has spoken...

So, without further ado, I present the alleged "Hot or Not" user-profile of a somebody who may, or may not, be a current Conservapedia administrator. Of course, just like with every other bit of evidence that has come to the fore - such as his 1990 Yahoo profile - it could all be an elaborate scam, set up to discredit him years before he became a Conservapedia administrator.

Then again, that could be possible. Looking at the 1984 injunction taken out against him, it would appear as if this individual has always been a thouroughly abrasive arsehole, even when he didn't have the internet as a source for his entertainment.

To Wikileaks... or not to WikiLeaks

In the spirit of the whole WikiLeaks thing, WCMTU has a copy of somebody's "Hot or Not" profile in their grubby little paws. Now it would be a bit of a dick move to publish it generally, but at least it will clear up, for once and for all, any lingering doubts that some people might still harbour.

But I think this is a special case. We're talking about a senior member of a right-wing hate blog, renowned for it's vicious anti-gay hate speech.  In the spirit of decency, such hypocrisy - hiding your true self behind a fake mask of piousness - should not go unpunished.

So, to publish, or to not publish? That is the question. Answers below please.

To Wikileaks... or not to WikiLeaks

In the spirit of the whole WikiLeaks thing, WCMTU has a copy of somebody's "Hot or Not" profile in their grubby little paws. Now it would be a bit of a dick move to publish it generally, but at least it will clear up, for once and for all, any lingering doubts that some people might still harbour.

But I think this is a special case. We're talking about a senior member of a right-wing hate blog, renowned for it's vicious anti-gay hate speech.  In the spirit of decency, such hypocrisy - hiding your true self behind a fake mask of piousness - should not go unpunished.

So, to publish, or to not publish? That is the question. Answers below please.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

As reported on RationalWiki:

"Impotent Rage Department: With no proles left to abuse on CP, TK stokes an old grudge against the only sysop in recent history to stand up to his cretinism and bullying by replacing his signature for hers on the "welcome" message she left for some random user more than 21 months ago."

I've documented more than enough evidence of just what a woman-hater Terry Koeckritz is, especially when having to deal with them on Conservapedia. Of course, it's also fairly common knowledge that Terry's aversion goes beyond the usual misogyny as displayed by Andrew Schalfly and Ed Poor, but this is not the place to talk about his little peccadilloes.

No, it's safe to say that given Terry's interactions with former sysop Jallen and long-time editor HSMom, it's clear that he's incapable of keeping a civil tongue about him, nor can he swallow his contempt for these breeders. However, there was one fair maiden for whom Terry reserved his most precious bile - JessicaT.