She had a new blog post up today. It is available on cbc.ca if you so desire, but like I said, your head might explode. She is again fixated on the prorogation story because she is attempting to shift public opinion away from "I don't give a shit". When she presented her thesis on prorogation polling, she mentioned that half of Canadians don't care, and of the other half, less than half approved. Never does she add up the two numbers to say 65% either support it or don't care, she tries to break off data into tiny subsets to prove individual talking points, regardless of the fact that error rates increase substantially when you are analyzing small sub sets.
In today's post she lists reasons for proroguing Parliament and lists three talking points. The last point was:
the Vancouver Olympics are of such overriding national importance that we can't risk having them overshadowed by antics on the Hill. .... oh, honestly, can we not heed the wisdom of Maeby Funke, and just sit quietly and consider how ridiculous that statement is?
So take the one statement that a large majority Canadians actually agree with, and dismiss it as completely ridiculous? That is hard hitting, professional journalism right there baby! I suppose it is permissible because she cited Arrested Development.
The idea that Question Period is embarrassing to Canadians, and that we don't want it on TV while we host the world, that's just ridiculous, so let's ignore it all together. What we need is to look solely at Kady's analysis of house legislation this past fall, where her blog then morphs into a game of Snakes and Ladders with selective partisan analysis. She breaks down 70 bills, of those half were passed, of those 16 went here, of those 6 did this, and of those 3 didn't do that, and the remaining 100% prove my point that the Conservatives are...oh read for yourself....
Given all that, it really is difficult to see how the prime minister can blame the opposition, or the Senate, for his government's failure to pass more than half of the legislation introduced in the last session. Not that it will likely stop him from trying, but still: sometimes, it's useful to actually check the record to see if a talking point corresponds with reality.Right, Kady O'Malley has a strong grasp of reality...though I have yet to see any evidence supporting that theory. The most agreeable statement is dismissed as ridiculous so that she can play Snakes and Ladders while feeding talking points to the Liblogs. Sure, she dismisses Conservative bloggers because she alleges that we get all our writing spoon fed to us by the PMO, but it is okay for her to spoon feed talking points to the Liblogs.
Thank you CBC.