Khurrum Awan is a serial liar
Posted by Ezra Levant on June 3, 2008 in Uncategorized | 77 Views | Leave a response

Julian Porter himself was at the meeting where Khurrum Awan and his junior Al Sharptons tried to shake down Ken Whyte and Maclean’s for cash and a cover story.

Porter asked Awan point blank if the CIC’s proposed “counter-article” was to be “mutually acceptable” to Whyte or of the CIC’s own choosing.

After obfuscating for a few rounds, Awan acknowledged that he never in fact offered a “mutually acceptable” article — that was simply an after-the-fact lie, a little bit of taqqiya that Awan et al. has told the press.

Awan admitted that he made no such offer of a mutually acceptable author. It was to be the CIC’s own choice.
More counterpoint:
Awan the liar, part 2
Posted by Ezra Levant on June 3, 2008 in Uncategorized | 79 Views | Leave a response

Now Porter is showing Awan various letters that Awan sent to Maclean’s. The fool was stupid enough to put his shakedown demands in writing.

And Porter is showing that Awan demanded that Maclean’s submit to the CIC’s choice. No “mutually acceptable” anything. That qualifier was added later by Awan the Liar, to appear more reasonable to the Gentile press.

It reminds me of Yasser Arafat, who would preach peace when speaking in English to Western journalists, and preach terrorism to his own constituency when speaking in Arabic.

That’s Awan: reasonable to the media; a junior Al Sharpton when dealing with Ken Whyte.

No wonder Awan had trouble finding employment following his clerkship.
Yet more counterpoint:
Awan the liar, part 7
Posted by Ezra Levant on June 3, 2008 in Uncategorized | 19 Views | Leave a response

Julian Porter is asking Awan if he remembers whether or not he demanded money from Maclean’s.

Porter is now reading out a written demand by the sock puppets for “substantial” monies.

Awan is denying the documentary record.

Awan says that $10,000 was the number they had in mind — though he acknowledges he hadn’t particularize that sum before.

Why stopping FFAs matter (and why the media and Wildrose should stop denying the winning argument)

The latest push to get officially endorsed Faggot-Familiar-Alliances forced upon schools in Alberta took yet another setback yesterday, as Premier Jim Dinning announced his government would unveil its own bill on the subject which killed Mrs. Ben Henderson's Bill 202, which was a reprisal of Kent Hehr's Motion 503 from earlier this year.

You remember Motion 503, right? If not, you should remember what I wrote at the time of its defeat:

Motion 503 was defeated this week, but there will be more to defeat next week, and the week after that, and the week after that, until sanity is restored and we no longer have to deal with mushy liberals like Kent Hehr and Brian Mason.
Well I was right: there was another one to defeat (Bill 202) and now an even more difficult challenge, a government sponsored bill yet to be tabled that promises to "balance" the rights of parents and students to speak out against sodomy and prevent schools from officially recognizing groups that are explicitly pro-poofter, and the right of proponents of a sick and disturbed lifestyle to promote their shameful deeds with full governmental authority and banning any countenance or discussion.

So that's coming. Joy.

Meanwhile, if there's anything you may have noticed if you've been keeping an eye on my Twitter feed the past few days, it's that these extremist liberals are either completely ignorant of or else willfully trying to ignore any ant-FFA arguments. You'd think at a certain point they'd acknowledge that they exist, but if you were listening to the politicians speaking about this to the media, or the media coverage itself, you'd have no idea there was any opposition to Faggot-Familiar-Alliances mandated in schools at all! Hell, don't take my word for it:
One notices that even supposedly "right-wing" columnists like Don Braid won't even actually do this. So what you have is an issue that keeps coming up (hey Alberta Liberal party! You lost. MoveOn.org!) and my side keeps winning yet the media and the online chattering classes don't even pay the winning argument the slightest lip service.

Which is why the Wildrose capitulation on this issue is so distressing. After a couple years of evidence that trying to out-liberal the other Alberta parties on social issues is a non-starter, is it too much to ask that the Wildrose party, its (remaining) MLAs, its leader, its devoted fanbase, and its media supporters clue into what the grassroots already knew and already made clear at the last AGM? Specifically, is it time to acknowledge that Wildrose should look at doing the right thing first and then trying to secure political power later? There are worse fates in this world than perpetually being the right-wing official opposition to a centre-right government. Prentice gets this for crying out loud: even without official political support for banning FFAs in Alberta classrooms, the movement (which the media is apparently unaware of) is strong enough to force Prentice to "balance" it out in legislation against the noisy pro-poofter crowd and their 3.5 political parties in support.

If Wildrose could force Prentice to do this on every single issue, they would be making our beloved Alberta a better place to live without ever once forming a cabinet themselves. It's not ideal, I grant you, but it's definitely better than this mythical future where voters look at a centre-right PC party and a less-centre-right Wildrose party and decide that the Wildrose folks are trustworthy enough (or Danielle Smith is pretty enough) to put in charge of the purse-strings...where grassroots Wildrose members are members of the governing party but apparently are unable to get the legislation they want enacted. Is it any surprise that rank-and-file members, Wildrose MLAs, and the general public aren't signing up for this exciting opportunity?

So be ready, Alberta parents. These "GSAs" are coming, and the sheep that are in favour of them can't even understand what they actually represent and what the actual analogy on their terms looks like. You've fought and defeated them once. You've fought and defeated them a second time. But the sodomite agenda being pushed on your kids is relentless. You'll need to stop it again, and this time you should aim to push back so hard that they never come back. Use every method at your disposal to stop this, and ensure these far-left losers like Blakeman and Hehr know to lick their wounds and never again return to this forum.

The future of the children of Alberta lies in the balance. Why do you think the other side is so viciously underhanded about it?

It goes without saying, of course, that this is pretty much exactly the circumstances presently occurring in Ottawa: there's a "Conservative" government in power, and they as a rule do slightly conservative things, but ultimately aren't much more conservative than a "Liberal" government was with a strong right-wing opposition keeping them in check. The loss of the Reform Party would be analogous to the loss of the Wildrose, and whether the loss comes from obscurity or merger is ultimately not as important as the loss itself.

Why the CFL shouldn't change their schedule

In Edmonton this morning we're just recovering from a blizzard that dumped about a foot of snow on the city. The 102nd Grey Cup will be in two days from Vancouver.

I say this because outgoing CFL Commissioner Mark Cohon said a couple weeks ago that the CFL should look into starting the season earlier. Events like the Eskimos/Roughriders game (that your humble correspondent attended) and cold temperatures two years ago in Calgary for the Western Final have put a damper on attendance: the game I went to had a measely 26,000 people there. For Saskatchewan in the playoffs (though they still ran out of alcohol!).

The thing is though, the 18 game CFL schedule ending in late November isn't new: the Grey Cup actually used to be played in December. Even in the pro era, the big game has been held at the end of November. It's routinely been around the -10 mark for the Grey Cup: the last time it was in Edmonton, it was -19. This Grey Cup, one may note, sold out in less than a week. (Again, your humble correspondent -- and the Prime Minister -- were in attendance).

So why, especially if this so-called global warming ever starts coming our way, are we talking about moving the CFL schedule around now? The answer is simple.

Canada is becoming a nation of pussies.

The pussification of society doesn't just mean trannies in women's prisons and radio star Jian Ghomeshi: it means that as a people we're so weak and pampered that we can't really spend any amount of time in physical discomfort. Sure sure, HDTVs are a factor (the debate amongst my circle of friends this week is whose TV we're going to watch the game on: the 70", the 65", the 55", the 47", or the 42"). It also doesn't help that the Evil Empire EskimosTM have been extremely lousy this past decade or so, leaving a "good" attendance at an Esks game in the 38,000 neighbourhood when the stadium seats 66,000. Still, the ultimate answer is that we're becoming a nation of pussies. Sure sure, Alberta is working to slow this trend as much as possible with real men like myself at the forefront, but it's a relentless process.

Every time the CFL scales back the role of female cheerleaders, or has some whiny Red Indians complaining about Edmonton's team name, or has players wear pink booties during games, or fines Maurice Price for speaking to conservative Christian values, it's another little hit to the manliness of the league, the manliness of sports, the manliness of sport. The CFL is slowly succumbing to forces that will ultimately destroy it.

So no, leave the schedule alone. Don't fine the Maurice Prices of the world for chastising human weakness: work harder to chastise it yourself. Invoke a little patriotism: Canadians like to pretend they're better than Americans, start showing them the attendance differences between cold weather CFL and NFL/NCAA games. There are dark forces at work that are trying to change society in a way that will harm your league. Even if you can't stop it, you have to try. And that means holding games in weather that guarantees no pussies in the crowd.

Rona doesn't sell Christmas lights

I looked and looked and looked...but all they sell are "holiday lights".

If you're looking for Christmas lights to hang up for Christmas this year, I guess you'll have to go to another store.


It's the End of the World as We Know It

Just by reading this you can destroy the world (or at the very least be enslaved by a supercomputer).

(no wonder the technocratti class is all about quashing freedom of speech)

Two stories about privacy

Story one

Story two


It's about the future, Madam Chancellor

Steve Tilley looks very very superficially about 2015 according to Back to the Future, Part II. He's covering Mr. Fusion, Jaws sequels, and hoverboards. Business Insider covered this a few years back, and ultimately a Miami baseball team and 3D sequels are the best that 1987 Hollywood could tell us about this mysterious time.

And Queen Diana was in that movie, remember. Whoops. Not only is Di deader than the Dodo, but both Prince Charles and Queen Elizabeth are highly likely to start 2015 (and, almost as likely, end 2015) still alive. Hell, you can't discount the Queen out for 2020 at this point.


Mental note to self: Whyte

Once we get a nice cold Whyte Ave day, show Scott McKeen some photos of the vibrant street scene.


Lose All Honour for Conner

(Almost!) everything you need to know about last night's 4-3 overtime loss:


Why isn't DND doing what the Slutwalkers do?

In the wake of the Quebec run-down of two CFB soldiers, and the Ottawa attack that left one dead, DND made an immediate decision to order soldiers not on active duty not to wear their uniform in public. Other than a admonishment on Twitter by John Williamson there hasn't been much controversy about it.

Contrast that with the infamous Slutwalk, with hundreds of loose (or hypocritical) women marching in the streets, upset that police officers pointed out that women who dress in revealing outfits (which are not, so far as we're aware, the military uniform of the nation) probably shouldn't be surprised when they get raped. Now when a group of mostly men [with the rest probably dykes. -ed] are the target of attacks, these same women are silent when the solution is "well, don't go out in public in your uniform".

Besides the obvious difference against the sluts that I note above, the other one is of course that soldiers are supposed to be protecting us. Unlike the United States, Canada's pledge of allegience doesn't vow to fight enemies foreign or domestic, though its certainly not entirely unreasonable to assume that the Canadian Military's mandate doesn't preclude using military force to combat attacks on Canadian soil perpetrated by foreign organizations -- even if they use Canadian citizens as happened in Ottawa and Quebec.

In his article on the subject, Rex Murphy provides a soldier's justification for the order:

I think I’m free to cite one very telling observation from a person who has served long in the military — and backs the order not to wear uniforms in public. In an email, he wrote "When [the] enemy is unknown, prudence dictates no uniform, especially so when enemy is mentally challenged, as is common these days. In these cases people in uniform become targets for individuals acting out from impulses of deranged minds."
While I'm sure the soldier is meaning well, he's almost certainly in the minority. Soldiers are mostly willing to be out in public in their uniforms, perhaps slightly aware that the risk of being killed while wearing that uniform (no matter which country your feet are planted on at the time) was a risk they signed on for from the get-go. It wasn't intended to be "unless the risk started to become too great", or even "only if there isn't a tiny risk that civilians will be in the cross-fire". Pace M in the movie GoldenEye, the military shouldn't have any compunction about sending soldiers to their death, so long as they aren't doing it trivially or without due cause.

Aren't soldiers standing defiant and implicitly or explicitly telling terrorists "come and get me, you pussies" one of those things that are "worth it"? Instead of telling soldiers to hide, the Canadian Forces should be asking more of them to be seen in uniform off-base: a reminder to both the general public and the violent Muslims that there are a lot of them, and it's not going to be possible to pick them all off.

That is, of course, except that it really is.

One of the things that John Williamson suggested for the Honour Guard at the National War Memorial was that the ceremonial guards be armed -- that is to say, be actual guards. It's not all that far-fetched, you know: the ceremonial Sergeant-at-Arms in Parliament was the one who used his non-ceremonial handgun to shoot Michael Joseph Hall. Yet the ceremonial guard is presently unarmed. Putting them back into that post without weapons is almost making it possible to pick them off: though its not necessarily evident how arming them could work in their current "stand still like they are at Buckingham Palace and pose for tourists" role. Perhaps they'd have to be supplemented with actual guards? They wouldn't necessarily have to be that intrusive: I haven't been to Parliament Hill in years, but presumably there are actual armed guards that walk the premises. Then again, regular police officers seem to be able to both pack heat and pose with the citizenry, often the drunk scantily clad kind that think the "slutwalk" is how the sashay between Billiards Club and Hudsons.

But what about the regular soldiers out and about in public? Do we need to give them bodyguards as well? No, of course not...because as the entire planet seems to have forgotten, soldiers already are bodyguards. They are literally bodies who guard. Williamson's idea of arming the ceremonial guards was a good first idea. Here's the logical second idea: permit soliders who wear their uniform in public to carry their sidearm with them. This could even be modified to requiring soldiers who wish to wear their uniforms in public to carry a sidearm. If they want to de-uniform they certainly can (and have been able to do forever), and it can be a condition of leaving the base in the colours that the Browning be alongside for the ride. This would certainly solve the concerns about the soldier's safety, though the "soldiers in our cities with guns" crowd may get their feathers ruffled a bit. Of course, anybody who wants to claim that arming soldiers in public is a threat to public safety would have to answer the question the 2006 Liberal Party couldn't: then why are we arming them and training them to use tanks and machine guns and jet airplanes with missiles on them?

Allowing soldiers to carry their guns just makes sense: it's literally force projection. The anonymous solider in Rex Murphy's article gets his wish through the backdoor too, since now soldiers on the streets aren't targets anymore, and whether or not the enemy is easily identifiable or not, he's now the target, not the solider.

But what about the sluts walking around, targetted based on their fashion choices? Well, the same solution works for them (and for me, and for you): let us carry our goddamned guns out on the streets. The objections dissolve pretty much as fast as they do for the soldiers: if you can't trust us to have guns why trust us with anything at all? (Memo to Lefists: this is not a challenge)

Canadian soldiers and Dana Loesch are both yeomans of freedom. Both should be packing heat in public. That way, when they (or us!) are targetted by the next Michael Joseph Hall, they can be the next Kevin Vickers, and not the next Nathan Cirillo.


You can't rape your wife (or batter your BDSM partner)

Further to yesterday's post about beleagured CBC host Jian Ghomeshi, a semi-serious thought of course comes to mind.

As you may recall, Ghomeshi is a self-proclaimed BDSM enthusiast (though he may just enjoy beating up chicks). One of the tenants of the BDSM lifestlye is that the abuse can take place as much as the two mutually agree to. As always with women, their consent is about as fluid as a bucket of water on a rollercoaster: the same girl who's okay with you slapping her ass in the mall then next day doesn't want you rubbing her thigh in her own kitchen. The day after that, she's letting you finger her on the dance floor at Blues on Whyte...while you're fingering her sister with the other hand. For the BDSM crowd, I'm sure the same rules apply: one day he wants to to step on his balls with high heels on, the next day he just wants to be cuddled. The day after that he's cutting your tit open with a box cutter. However you do it.

The point is, BDSM women can change consent on a whim the same as the rest of the crazy bitches do. As I noted about Ghomeshi, when they claim afterwards that they were totally against the sex and/or choking, they get cool physical evidence to show the cops and the rest of the female population doesn't.

So every time you see a woman who is in a BDSM relationship who has been roughed up a little bit but happily with her man, even if she was furious at him and broke up with him yesterday, it's all okay, it's all cool.

So...uh...how is that practically any different than the classic battered housewife?

Is it? From the external observer view, can we really tell the difference? They got into a fight, he hit her, they broke up, now they're back together. Is that really that much different than he hit her, they got into a fight, they broke up, now they're back together? The first one is Rhianna, the second one is lunaKM.

The battered housewife is always assumed to be the victim because she's assaulted. Who would want to be assaulted, goes the logic. In the twenty-first century, that's not a particlarly compelling argument.



Halloween 2014


What Excel can teach us about Jian Ghomeshi and his accusers

By now, even starving children in Cambodia have heard some of the sordid details about CBC Radio's Jian Ghomeshi's sex life. But for those needing a quick primer: Ottawa's version of "Bad Date Carla" published a tale of woe about a bad date with a guy who in retrospect could only be Ghomeshi, back in June 2013. About the same time, Ezra Levant and SUN media were hearing about sexual harassment issues at MotherCorp which earned them a (undeserved, it now seems) rebuke by CBC head Hubert Lacroix. Fast forward to this month: Jian Ghomeshi's father dies, and soon after the host (understandably) is given some personal time. Two days later, CBC surprisingly released Ghomeshi in an extremely odd (even at the time) press release. Later that day, Ghomeshi posted an extraordinary Facebook post putting forth his reason for the termination of their contract. He also hired a public relations firm and announced he was suing the Canadian taxpayer for $50M. The next morning, pointing out that the cat was now out of the bag, the Toronto Star started publishing allegations from reports they'd been collecting over several months from women claiming Ghomeshi sexually and physically assaulted them. Since then, a virtual tsunami of accounts have started coming forward, from CBC staffers he wants to "hate-fuck" to a non-anonymous account from Lucy from Trailer Park Boys. There are now 8 published accounts of 'inappropriate' behaviour floating around the news-world.

Of course, one of the key questions is what is inappropriate. As per Ghomeshi's Facebook post, he's into the famed "BDSM" lifestyle. [the author of this blogpost, for the record, is not. -ed] This means that the sort of things that people in normal relationships would consider abnormal and inappropraite behaviour is in this context entirely normal. Hair pulling, face slaps, puncturing skin, even emotional attacks such as demeaning names, phrases, and commands are perfectly cool and normal for people engaging in BDSM. For other people, not so much. Also key is whether or not the girls were as into the BDSM scene as Ghomeshi was: and whether they were cool with the actions they are accusing him of before or while they were happening.

Ultimately l'affaire Moxy Fruvous is a potential rabbit hole full of pitfalls and considerations and conditional clauses. Which brings us to Microsoft Excel.

If you've spent any time with Excel using it for more than just a giant two-dimensional poster board to change the colours of (don't ask), you're aware of nested IF statements.

The IF() function in Excel allows you to evaluate a situation which has two possible outcomes (e.g. sales are greater than $1000) and calculate a different value for each outcome. However, sometimes you need to work with situations where there are more than two possible outcomes. That's where multiple, or nested, IF functions come in handy.
Nested IF statements are ultimately what we need to evaluate if we're going to make any sort of sense of this entire affair.

IF Ghomeshi is telling the truth about the girl from his Facebook post just trying to smear him, she's a bitch.

IF Carla Ciccone is telling the truth about Ghomeshi, he's a creepy non-faggy asshole. But then again, she did let him basically fondle the hell out of her.

IF the CBC employee who Ghomeshi fondled at work is lying, she's the only female CBC employee ever that most of the country doesn't want to hate-fuck.

IF Ghomeshi did the things the three five seven eight some number larger than 7 women talked about to the Toronto Star, he's a serial abuser.

IF Ghomeshi did the things that these women claim but they consented to it at the time (either implied or explicit), then they are a bunch of lying bitches.

IF Ghomeshi did to Lucy from Trailer Park Boys what Lucy from Trailer Park Boys said, he's guilty of violently roughing her up

IF Ghomeshi did that, but then she still went on dates with him afterwards, she has nobody to blame but herself.

IF more women come forward with their stories, we'll have what Ghomeshi promised in his Facebook post we would see: a pattern of behaviour.

IF the women exhibit their own "pattern of behaviour" of having no problem Ghomeshi's slaps and gropes at the time, but then change their mind after the fact, the bitches should rot to death in a jail cell.

Let's all remember the key bit of persepctive here: I didn't like Jian Ghomeshi three weeks ago. He's the classic pretentious far-left radio host. He has that holier-than-though sneer in his voice that pretty much defines what NPR hosts are supposed to sound like (and, not surprisingly, Q is circulated on NPR). He's totally cool with Omar Khadr, Neil Young, and Ellen Page. He's less cool on Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Ted Byfield, or Ezra Levant. His politics are disgusting, his sexuality is disgusting, we've known for ages he's an ugly figure in the Canadian media landscape. Unlike his longtime defenders now turning on him, I never was his defender. If this leaves another progressive like him off the airwaves, so much the better.

But before we chastize him for his 'crimes' against these women, let's remember the nested IF statements: the danger of the BDSM lifestyle is that if a woman decides after-the-fact that she wants to withdraw consent, the physical bruises and other pieces of evidence are still there. Women pull this sort of shit all the time: they're devious critters that absolutely are capable of stooping so low as to want to humiliate an ex: possibly even one who behaved badly during parts of their relationship. These women are totally capable of making up, fabricating, or falsely remembering things that happened between them and Ghomeshi. Ghomeshi is too, of course, and the mathematics start going against him as the number of accusers adds up. He's on his way to becoming Canada's Chris Brown, and he's being vilified by many as his own friends succumb to the "never trust a man" feminist nonsense. There's a reason "bros before hos" took off as a saying.

Of course, sometimes there really is a badly behaving bro.

Why Doesn't the Death Star Blow Up Planet Yavin?

You just knew somebody would find a way to blame it on George W. Bush (pbuh)


Lochlin Cross's comments about Wildrose prove the need for a leadership review

With yesterday's Progressive Conservative sweep of all four byelections, news comes today that Wildrose leader Danielle Smith has requested a leadership review after numerous people online (and a couple at my work) expressed concern that the failure to win one of the seats was her fault.

In a way, it is. While it's probably a silly idea at this point to replace Danielle with another leader (especially with no heir apparent waiting in the wings, and the high-profile outsider being the guy who won his byelection), the results are a pretty strong indicator that the "mildrose" shift that Danielle pushed for so hard almost exactly one year ago was an abject failure. For more on that, Leigh Patrick Sullivan covered it today (and, also, predicted this result months back.

But for my money, ignorant off-the-cuff comments today by Lochlin Cross on 100.3 The Bear is a better indication of why the Danielle Smith method is a failure.

Around 5:30 during one of those segments where a local TV news anchor goes on the radio station owned by his media conglomerate to discuss the news of the day came on. The Danielle Smith leadership review was one of the topics they promised to cover. When the segment was over, Cross declared "God help us if the Wildrose ever get in". The problem with the default cultural positions feeble minded DJs adopt (far-left extremism is 'normal', slightly right-of-centre conservatism is 'extremist') is that they are the lazy stereotypes that I warned you about during the Fringe Festival. People like that are going to keep using their soapbox to spew such nonsense. You can't escape it by trying to change into what you think they like. Wildrose already did that, Cross ran his mouth anyways.

Instead, the only possible option is to stick to your principles. Don't cavort with the faggots: fight them. Don't implicitly provide the notion that your ideas are wrong any traction. They aren't, that's the facts that are on your side when you're a principled ideological conservative. Far-left extremist liberals like Lochlin Cross are the problem: don't cozy up to them, attack them back. You can't do that when you're "tweaking" policies and "pruning" parts of your policy which do the right thing, just because the people whose entire lives are made up of doing the wrong thing disagree. Mark Steyn has been talking about "moving the centre" this past week, Danielle Smith and the Wildrose party need to listen to him.

As Leigh put it, when the choice is between PC and PC-lite, what's the point of the choice? The Wildrose Party hasn't been in government, Prentice has. Given the choice, why not stick to the people with experience doing the job. Yes yes, Wildrose asked to "send the PCs a message" (which I disagreed with from the get-go), but the person people wanted to send a message to already got it: Red Redford resigned (twice) in disgrace. Prentice hit a reset switch upon his election so fast Hilary Clinton blushed, and like it or not it worked. Slogans only work if people are in the mindset behind it. During the Redford era they might have "sent a message". Now they're stuck with two parties who are basically identical, no message to send, so they decide to throw their support behind people who (and this cannot be said enough) didn't even attend candidates forums. Rob Ford attended candidates forums, for crying out loud.

PC-lite don't grab voters attentions, they just attract lazy stupid comments from the likes of Lochlin Cross. If he and his ilk are going to trash the party no matter what they do, maybe they can try going back to doing the right thing, and standing up for the right people? For that kind of a course correction, the grassroots need to make their voices heard, and communicate how Wildrose's failures to stick to their guns means you'll be casting a very jaundiced vote at that leadership review


Did Naomi Klein sock puppet her own editorial literary defense?

There's a minor theory tonight that this bizarre "editor's" rant is actually Naomi Klein herself.

Now we're in no condition to actually say for sure: one of the best ways, getting a forensic linguist (yes, those exist) to compare the writing to Klein's own, is possible, but that means having to look at a second piece of her drivel, and frankly one potential piece is enough.

Instead, let's run it through the famed Gender Guesser and see what we can find.

For informal writing, the text comes out 62.47% male. For formal writing, the text comes out 50% even-steven, with the note that "Weak emphasis could indicate European." [that's very meta... -ed].

Let's compare with an excerpt from Shock Doctrine. You can read it yourself in the link if you want to. It's not recommended.

With this clip, informal writing analysis puts the text at 79.1% male. On the formal writing side, the analysis again says weak emphasis could indicate European, and slaps a 59.9% "male" label on it. It's worth noting of course that the other Klein excerpt is longer. Of course, it's less accurate, unless Noami Klein needs a more competent male ghostwriter to spew out her works.

On a balance of probabilities, it could go either way it seems. Regardless, it does appear from the least rigorous of analyses that Noami Klein did write her "editor's" note.

Now who would do something like that? [wait, what? -ed]