Saturday, July 09, 2005

Return for Regrooving... next chapter

Another week, another edition of Return for Regrooving.
This week's subjects:
Charlie Angus and Joe Comartin. These Canadian Liberal MPs are in some trouble with the Catholic Church (to which both belong) for their votes in favor of same-sex marriage. Angus' priest won't give him Communion; Comartin's bishop banned him from teaching any marriage courses, which he had done for some time, although that bishop stopped short of denying Comartin the Eucharist. Angry's wonderful post on the consequences of one's actions says it all far better than I. Gentlemen, start your regrooving.
Ramsey Clark. The looney former U.S. Attorney General, one of the "greatest" moonbats of all time, is defending Saddam Insane. Say no more. Regroove immediately.
George Galloway. The Oil-For-Food MP for Osama Looney bin Laden and Saddam Insane blames Tony Blair for the terrorist attack in London. This may take a long time, but regroove this guy now.
Howard Moscoe. This is the Toronto city councillor (did I spell that right?) in charge of that city's public transit system who didn't sound too worried about a terror attack in the wake of Thursday's blasts in London. "I would wonder if the terrorists first would have to find where Toronto is before they attacked it," Mr. Moscoe was quoted as saying in the Toronto Free Press. First off, Mr Moscoe, the terrorists don't need a map. Remember the Khadr family? And, even though you apologized to Girl on the Right, you're still way off. Return this joker for regrooving. Now.
New York Times editors. The good Captain enlightens us on this correction from the Gray Left Lady: The Op-Ed page in some copies yesterday carried an incorrect version of an article about military recruitment. The writer, an Army reserve officer, did not say, "Imagine my surprise the other day when I received orders to report to Fort Campbell, Ky., next Sunday," nor did he characterize his recent call-up to active duty as the precursor to a "surprise tour of Iraq." That language was added by an editor and was to have been removed before the article was published. Because of a production error, it was not. The Times regrets the error. Though I fear it's too late, take 'em all and regroove 'em.
Till next time, pax.