2006 Canadian Blog Awards « The High Places

Those Best Blog Awards are certainly useful for no other reason than it gets me off the usual haunts and onto blogs that may require a myriad of links to get to otherwise.

First thought though. The Best Blog Post list is really dominated by a lot of partisan liberal “Harper is evil and here’s why” posts. Admittedly this seems to be a random sampling and may not be representative, but I did read number of the top ones and I had to read pretty far down the list before I encountered a single one that wasn’t blatantly partisan. A case in point, #12 in the top blog posts was this rant. I excerpt the first 3 paragraphs and bleep out coarse languarge for those with sensitive eyes.

As much as I didn’t feel like revisiting this issue, there’s just a little too much to say to let it go by, so you’ll forgive me if I decide to rip Canadian BLEEP Steve Janke a new one for being the insufferable BLEEP that he is.

First (and I’ll try to keep this part brief since there’s so much more that needs to be said), it takes a special kind of right-wing BLEEPitude to be waxing apoplectic these days over the appalling and totally unacceptable sentiments of one Deb Frisch, who dumped a pile of disgusting comments in the comments section of one Jeff Goldstein. (You remember Jeff Goldstein, right? You better, otherwise you’re in for a serious BLEEPing. But I digress. Onward.)

It’s fairly amusing to see the entire citizenry of BLEEPville working themselves into a high dudgeon over the comments of one complete non-entity that most of us had never even heard of before. To read Steve’s BLEEP, you’d think he’d only just now ventured forth from his comfortable bubble to find that, heavens to Betsy, the blogosphere can be an unpleasant place! All that profanity and vulgarity! Why, it’s enough to purely give one a case of the vapours, isn’t it?

I find it particularly ironic, that last. What mystifies me though is this is considered by 48 voters (the 12th most who voted) to be the BEST blog post of the year! All I can say is if this is what those on the other side of the political fence consider high quality blog posting, I dont feel so guilty for not frequenting their blogrolls more often. In addition I am even more mystified as to why thinking people would consider this effort high quality, or even mediocre quality, or even worth ever reading again.

Some that I really liked though:

Big Blue Wave’s Unborn Children Post.

The Next Agenda’s Terry Fox.

The Next Reformation

And to wrap this up, a non-link. I just hurt my eyes on the number two humour blog and best blog/best personal blog from round 1. Firstly, I tried reading the posts, and despite her attractive photos which kick off most of her entries, it was just boring. It reminded me of listening to 13 year old girls at a slumber party – absolutely meaningless drivel that makes no sense to anyone but themselves. What stood out the most though was I saw a lot more mammaries unclothed on that site than I would ever want to see at a 13 year old’s slumber party.

I don’t know… if this is what stands up as the best blog in the end for 2006 Canadians, I think we have cause for worry about the future of Canada. Oh wait. Maybe I am just being alarmist and paranoid again.

UPDATE: Now as for a high quality personal blog, this girl has that one beat. Hands down. Entertaining, classy, and entertaining. Vote for her.

SUZANNE Says:

November 23, 2006 at 9:04 am

Thanks for your kind words about my blog post.

Shane Says:

November 23, 2006 at 9:10 am

Did I mention I thought it was inspired?

Meg Says:

November 23, 2006 at 9:57 am

You’re very sweet — and I admit I stick out like sore thumb against all my competition. My blog is just… uh… writing.

SUZANNE's aborted child Says:

November 23, 2006 at 10:50 am

Admittedly this seems to be a random sampling and may not be representative…

But that doesn’t stop you from speculating endlessly about what it all means, eh?

Look, religion isn’t an excuse to be stupid.

November 23, 2006 at 10:58 am

“Speculating endlessly” eh? As I re-read my post, I don’t see any speculation at all. I just point out what appears to be a trend based on a random sample. I could have drawn some conclusions, like the fact that the awards are hosted at myblahg, which is known for its leftist leanings on a consistent basis, and if most of the votes were cast by frequenters of that blog, then there could be some bias introduced.

But I didn’t.

On the other hand, you take the only thing you know about me and presume to judge me based upon it. Thanks for demonstrating who the ignorant bigot is here.

What are you afraid of by the way, hiding in anonymity? I don’t mind if you take a shot at me, but at least have the guts to say it to my face, as it were.

Kyle Lahnakoski Says:

November 23, 2006 at 11:39 am

I read CC for his excellent ability to deconstruct the right-wing talking points, and refute falsehoods propagated by them.

I consider the course language as only a medium upon which he writes his arguments. The course words are not part of his argument and only meant as a light sideshow.

For example, there is a difference between “you are a BLEEP” and “you are the mightiest of all BLEEPs, to which all other BLEEPs bow”. The former is curt, cruel and personal, the latter is embellished for humour. I argue that the time spent to write the latter gives some respect to the subject; lessening the value of “BLEEP” in the sentence. The latter sentence is better translated to “you are very sorely wrong”, albeit lacking humour.

November 23, 2006 at 11:48 am

I’ll buy that underneath all the expletives, he may have a point or two. However, I disagree with you that the use of such language constitutes any form of humour. All it really does is lower the level of political discourse. I have read a lot of funny blogs, and some of them even have politics I don’t agree with. However, I will stand up and say for me and for many, couching otherwise valid arguments in a bunch of swear words does not lend comic effect or emphasis. It merely lowers the credibility of the speaker in the eyes of his audience.

In this internet age, kids and teens are going online to research and gather information for school assignments. If they go looking for serious information on government and people’s views, and come across this… well, let’s just say that as a father, I surely wouldn’t want my kids doing their homework on that site. I teach them quite enough bad habits without them acquiring more from someone who thinks that kind of language gets his point across.

November 23, 2006 at 12:30 pm

It merely lowers the credibility of the speaker in the eyes of his audience.

Depends on the audience.

And I’ve never had an abortion. Whoever would stoop to impersonating an aborted child of mine has a sick mind.

ootpoot Says:

November 23, 2006 at 4:20 pm

I have been reading and commenting at Canadian Cynic for almost two years because I find his commentary insightful and (Sorry, you didn\’t think I\’d leave this alone did you? – Shane) funny.

On another topic, I believe that Suzanne might display a better sense of humour if she took the broom handle out of her (Don\’t think so either – Shane).
Additionally, I couldn\’t believe that you actually have a post that bleats \”What about the children!\” — What a hoot! You can\’t make up (Nope, not that one either. – Shane) like this!