49

The Mallick Factor


 

In the summer of 2006 I was invited by Jim Pinkerton to sit in on a taping in New York of his show Fox News Watch. It was loadsafun, and afterward Jim gave me a tour of the Fox newsroom. We wandered by the desks where the producers of the O’Reilly Factor were working, and I was introduced to an amiable man in a pink golf shirt.

“Canadian, huh?” he said, giving me a stare. “Do you know Heather Mallick?”

I told him that I didn’t know her personally, but that I was familiar with her writing. He went on to describe Ms. Mallick in some extremely unflattering language. She had been down to do the show two years before, in May 2004, and the entire production crew still seethed at the mention of her name.

I tell this story for two reasons. First, to note that Ms. Mallick has a habit of getting under the skins of conservative Americans. Second, to point out that there is a relevant background to Fox’s current vendetta against her. They have a past, these two.

If you are looking for a good analysis of the nature and quality of her writing, Jon has it just about right.

But I won’t go as far as to call for her resignation or firing, not for this. Either you stand for free expression or you don’t, and the “taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund it” line is too cheap and easy. If the problem is with taxpayer-funded comment and analysis, fine — in which case the time to complain about Heather Mallick’s column was when she was hired, not when she says things you find offensive.

Besides, if you really want to get worked up about her writing, her catscratching of Palin is not a huge deal. Far more objectionable, as I’m concerned, is that she hasn’t a clue what the term “neo-con” means; and neither, apparently, does her editor.


 
Filed under:

The Mallick Factor

  1. Patience. When all the Chuckies can drag themselves away from bashing Kady and catherine for a few seconds, I’m sure they’ll be over to join in on the nonsense.
    Mallick is funny and good. Granted, she uses some hyperbole in the interest of humour at times. But given that Faux News probably thinks (I use the word loosely) hyperbole is kinda like NASCAR bowling, I wouldn’t expect them to enjoy it. And, if she irritates them (and you), more power to her.
    And, I do agree that neo-con is used and misused in many ways. I think we should just simplify it and make the term synonymous with 18th century politico/economic philosophy and leave it at that.

  2. As far as I can tell neo-con now means anyone the left doesn’t agree with. The left have special venom for neo-cons because they used to be of the left but saw sense and moved to the right.

    My problem with Mallick, and her employer, is that they are constantly pushing multi-culti, pc ideas down are throat. They are trying to impose their ideology on the rest of us.

    But when someone with ideas they don’t agree with starts to speak out, it is apparently ok to defenestrate them. Mallick compared Palin to a pornstar and we are to believe the author is ‘sophisticated’ who cares about humanity and has something to teach the rest of us.

    Victor Davis Hanson said it best:

    Palinize: to slander and caricature a working-class female public figure for the noble advancement of liberalism.

  3. CBC’ers were the first to argue that Ezra Levant’s cartoon reprint and Mark Steyn’s pieces were abhorent.

    They were all for rights commission intervention.

    CBC has been silent on the hoards of targets that the CHRC and various other HRC’s were targeting. Those targeted are the same that Mallick viciously attacks regularly.

    CBC can’t have it both ways. Either they support speech restrictions for both sides of the political spectrum and in doing so support efforts to silence on the left too, namely Mallick.

    Or CBC’ers hire an equivalently offensive crew of right leaning scribes to tear people like herself new excremental exits.

    For anyone at Macleans, after the Steyn episode, to be tipp toeing around the hypocrisy that is Mallick is farcical.

  4. Wow, someone at Fox News and National Post didn’t like Heather Malick huh? What a discovery.

    Next think you’ll tell me that Sean Hannity is unpopular at the New Yorker.

  5. Sadly, day by day, writ by writ, journalism is dying a slow mutating death. Just the facts? No more, we have answers without questions and viewpoints without calling or dignity. I like blogs and viewpoints by the way, even those that I question. I just want to find out the facts before I have someones commentary. RIP journalism my generation barely knew the meaning.

  6. What’s the commotion ? after all Mallick started the calling names game with some selected and “creative” derogatory words such as “WT” equivalent to the “N” word, calling Palin a porn star, is far of being an “exploit” in terms of humour since, as we all well know,Humour aimed at other individuals or groups may be harmful and not well received as it often is used to put down, insult, or degrade another.
    This was exactly the intention of Mallick to put down, insult and degrade Palin.

    We live in a time where the lack of “manners” is becoming a problem in our society (see latest W5 Show on CTV), the media should be part of the solution and not the problem.
    Mallick could’nt have been more vulgar and lower. She deserves the heat she is getting.
    Actually, by calling her a pig, Greta Van Susteren just leveled with Mallick.

    Political correctness has miserably failed as a substitute for Civility.

    Having said that, I wouldn’t vote for McCain
    or Obama. Both have their campaign financed by the very same people responsible for the worst economic meltdown of the north-american economy since 1929, and both don’t adress really the catastrophic state of the american health system.

    Hillary might have. . . but too many politicians, including Democrats were afraid Hillary, as prez, would have settled some old accounts. . . .

  7. The CBC can do what it likes — hire any left-wing columnist it likes, run any Castro hagiography it likes, slant any story it likes.

    I wouldn’t bother to write in about any of this.

    But if I were in charge of the government, I’d privatize the network ASAP.

  8. Andrew:

    The term “neo-con,” as I’m sure you know, is no longer used with any accuracy at all by pretty much anyone.  It’s now a Pavlovian “trigger-word,” designed to get people salivating in rage over nasty, heartless right-wingers.  Ditto with so many other words, formerly tags for definite political ideas and now just bell-ringers (“fascist” being my favourite, since it’s usually used as an epithet by central Canadian semi-funky corn-fed white boys and girls [or their wannabees] who’d last about five minutes under a real fascist state and would be able to criticize their political condition precisely once before some low-level functionary gave them a permanent nine millimetre headache).

    There’s no true right wing in Canada: we’ve got “centrist,” “left,” “really left,” “Holy Hannah that’s left,” and “I’d need the Hubble Telescope to see just how far left that is.”  Paul Martin made a big show of talking about how people needed to vote for the Liberals in the last election to keep the “neo-cons” at bay, but neglected to tell his audience that the neo-cons would first have to emigrate from the United States and become Canadian citizens before they’d be able to influence the outcome of the 2006 election.  Sadly for those neo-cons, too many Democrats from the States were already opining on the evils of the right wing in Canada, thereby crowding out the neo-cons from actually crossing the border (all those Dems to elbow out of the way).

    I find myself less and less engaged in this election — Pavlovian politics are just pissing me off too much.

  9. Goodness, Andrew. How do stand having all these intelligent friends? Must be demoralizing for you.

  10. It’s mostly your drive-bys that are demoralizing, Sis.  It must bore you terribly always being the smartest and most handsome boy at the party.

  11. typo alert:
    “I told him that I didn’t know him personally, but that I was familiar with her writing.”

    Fox News is tabloid journalism at its worst. When paid journalists want to write mean things about someone they should be required to talk to that person to try and get a comment. Otherwise they should admit they are just a simple blogger with a salary.

  12. Cheer up, Garth. As I’ve said elsewhere, My wife tells me that sarcasm is only one of the services I provide.

  13. I’m not sure if this appeared in the Citizen or if it was only on David Warren’s website. either way, I was wondering if you could provide your thoughts, Andrew?

    “I think Ms Mallick expresses openly what many, quite possibly most of her MSM colleagues are actually thinking, and in my experience, actually saying in social gatherings and while working away from the microphones — though seldom with such ebullience. Ms Mallick is rare in being so refreshingly candid, on the record.”

    http://www.davidwarrenonline.com/index.php?id=918

  14. Who’s “Jon” and why does he have “it just about right?” Save me the time of clicking on that link and telling me exactly why.

    I bought two copies of your book. You owe me.

    You’re glossing over major issues of journalistic malpractice here in a effort to do…well, what exactly?

  15. Sorry, that was rather impertinent of me. I should have realised that certain members of the clique (Jon, Andrew, Babs, Bitsy, the “loadsafun” gang at FoxNews) are sometimes really only talking to each other.

    Still, I’d like to know what some thinking people think “neoconservative” means. I’ve struggled with that myself, since neocons are quick to counter every assertion with “no, it’s not” but I’m pretty sure it has a lot do to with Irving Kristol’s assertion that there are “different truths” for different…classes?…species?…of people. I mean, he would know, right?

  16. http://samvak.tripod.com/narcissistlanguage.html

    Dr. Sam Vaknin in his article “The Weapon of Language” says it best:

    “A sharp tongue is the only edged tool that grows keener with constant use.”

    (Rip van Winkle by Washington Irving)

    In the narcissist’s surrealistic world, even language is pathologized. It mutates into a weapon of self-defence, a verbal
    fortification, a medium without a message, replacing words with duplicitous and ambiguous vocables.

    Narcissists (and, often, by contagion, their unfortunate victims) don’t talk, or communicate. They fend off. They hide and evade and avoid and disguise. In their planet of capricious and arbitrary unpredictability, of shifting semiotic and semantic dunes – they perfect the ability to say nothing in lengthy, Castro-like speeches.

    The ensuing convoluted sentences are arabesques of meaninglessness, acrobatics of evasion, lack of commitment elevated to an ideology. The narcissist prefers to wait and see what waiting brings. It is the postponement of the inevitable that leads to the inevitability of postponement as a strategy of survival.

    It is often impossible to really understand a narcissist. The evasive syntax fast deteriorates into ever more labyrinthine structures. The grammar tortured to produce the verbal Doppler shifts essential to disguise the source of the information, its distance from reality, the speed of its degeneration into rigid “official” versions.

    Buried under the lush flora and fauna of idioms without an end, the language erupts, like some exotic rash, an autoimmune reaction to its infection and contamination. Like vile weeds it spread throughout, strangling with absent minded persistence the ability to understand, to feel, to agree, to disagree and to debate, to present arguments, to compare notes, to learn and to teach.

    Narcissists, therefore, never talk to others – rather, they talk at others, or lecture them. They exchange subtexts, camouflage-wrapped by elaborate, florid, texts. They read between the lines, spawning a multitude of private languages, prejudices, superstitions, conspiracy theories, rumours, phobias and hysterias. Theirs is a solipsistic world – where communication is permitted only with oneself and the aim of language is to throw others off the scent or to obtain Narcissistic Supply.

    This has profound implications. Communication through unequivocal, unambiguous, information-rich symbol systems is such an integral and crucial part of our world – that its absence is not postulated even in the remotest galaxies which grace the skies of science fiction. In this sense, narcissists are nothing short of aliens. It is not that they employ a different language, a code to be deciphered by a new Freud. It is also not the outcome of upbringing or socio-cultural background.
    It is the fact that language is put by narcissists to a different use – not to communicate but to obscure, not to share but to abstain, not to learn but to defend and resist, not to teach but to preserve ever less tenable monopolies, to disagree without incurring wrath, to criticize without commitment, to agree without appearing to do so. Thus, an “agreement” with a narcissist is a vague expression of intent at a given moment – rather than the clear listing of long term, iron-cast and mutual commitments.

    The rules that govern the narcissist’s universe are loopholed incomprehensibles, open to an exegesis so wide and so self-contradictory that it renders them meaningless. The narcissist often hangs himself by his own verbose Gordic knots, having stumbled through a minefield of logical fallacies and endured self inflicted inconsistencies. Unfinished sentences hover in the air, like vapour above a semantic swamp.

    In the case of the inverted narcissist, who was suppressed and abused by overbearing caregivers, there is the strong urge not to offend. Intimacy and inter-dependence are great. Parental or peer pressures are irresistible and result in conformity and self-deprecation. Aggressive tendencies, strongly repressed in the social pressure cooker, teem under the veneer of forced civility and violent politeness. Constructive ambiguity, a non-committal “everyone is good and right”, an atavistic variant of moral relativism and tolerance bred of fear and of contempt – are all at the service of this eternal vigilance against aggressive drives, at the disposal of a never ending peacekeeping mission.

    With the classic narcissist, language is used cruelly and ruthlessly to ensnare one’s enemies, to saw confusion and panic, to move others to emulate the narcissist (“projective identification”), to leave the listeners in doubt, in hesitation, in paralysis, to gain control, or to punish. Language is enslaved and forced to lie. The language is appropriated and expropriated. It is considered to be a weapon, an asset, a piece of lethal property, a traitorous mistress to be gang raped into submission.

    With cerebral narcissists, language is a lover. The infatuation with its very sound leads to a pyrotechnic type of speech which sacrifices its meaning to its music. Its speakers pay more attention to the composition than to the content. They are swept by it, intoxicated by its perfection, inebriated by the spiralling complexity of its forms. Here, language is an inflammatory process. It attacks the very tissues of the narcissist’s relationships with artistic fierceness. It invades the healthy cells of reason and logic, of cool headed argumentation and level headed debate.

    Language is a leading indicator of the psychological and institutional health of social units, such as the family, or the workplace. Social capital can often be measured in cognitive (hence, verbal-lingual) terms. To monitor the level of comprehensibility and lucidity of texts is to study the degree of sanity of family members, co-workers, friends, spouses, mates, and colleagues. There can exist no hale society without unambiguous speech, without clear communications, without the traffic of idioms and content that is an inseparable part of every social contract. Our language determines how we perceive our world. It IS our mind and our consciousness. The narcissist, in this respect, is a great social menace.

  17. Gee. I wonder if Heather knows.

  18. Heather Mallick is right on with her assessment of the selection of Pallin as GOP V.P. nominee. Her item was at least as unbiased as the norm for Fox. When someone like Pallin bucks up to position of the most powerful political office in the world, it doesn’t hurt us to voice all of our concerns about her qualifications, and the motivations of GOP party machine.

  19. Geez, Heather Mallick is to the Canadian left what O’Reilly is to the American right; still around, but at what cost?

    Why does Mallick hate America? Is it because Canada was built as a result of American industrial development and its need for resources? Because the United States is generally religious? Because their people are entrepreneurial and have a ‘never-say-die’ attitude? Because the U.S. is the most charitable nation in the world, in both public and private funds? Because we share both social and economic ties with the United States that are deeper than our bonds with any other nation?

    Mallick should understand by now that without the United States, Canada would not be as advanced, as wealthy, and, without Gerald Ford (a Republican, no less), even a part of the G8. I wonder if she even knows about Bush’s aid contributions to Africa, and his bi-partisan approach to education reform, due to No Child Left Behind. Or how each year, the most charitable states in America are the most religious ones, like Utah.

    Mallick can keep spewing hate-filled from her comfy armchair. I just can’t believe Canadians have to pay for this state-funded propaganda. Don’t we all feel smug when we bite the hand that feeds us.

  20. Only the first and last sentences of some comments should be read:

    Heather Mallick is to the Canadian left what O’Reilly is to the American right…

    Mallick’s not on the public airwaves several hours a day. In fact, she’s not on the public airwaves at all.

    Don’t we all feel smug when we bite the hand that feeds us.

    What 5th column did you come out of? Talk about capitulation and serfdom.

    Canada isn’t a vassal state yet, much to your chagrin, I’m sure.

  21. It seems to be CBC is really debasing themselves by printing Mallick’s psychotic writing. They might as well hire a kindergartener to write about nuclear physics.

  22. Ah, yes. She hates our freedoms.

  23. @TOM

    “Heather Mallick is right on with her assessment of the selection of Pallin as GOP V.P. nominee.”

    Is Mallick’s assessment of Bristol Palin “right on” too? Just asking…

  24. It goes without saying that Mallick is a lowlife, worthy of scorn but certainly not sensorship.

    However, I’m curious how the pro-sensorship crowd squares their lefty credentials with their undying loyalty to the HRC’s mission statement to purge any and all material “likely to expose” folks to hatred.

    Ti-guy, my good man, could you explain how Steyn and Levant deserved to be dragged before the Thought Police while Ms. Malik’s rantings about “white trash” and “porn stars” disqualify her from such an honor?

  25. Mallik should be fired.
    The taxpayer funded CBC should be party neutral, but they are so obviously not. I have stopped watching or listening to them, especially during election time, as their left wing views are promoted so eagerly, which irritates me.
    I would much rather see my hard earned taxpaying dollars spent more wisely.
    Canada should stop funding the CBC.

  26. A journlaist said something nasty and unfair about a US politician? That wouldn’t ever happen on Fox News!

  27. Greta was wrong. Mallick is not a pig. She is an aging pig.

  28. “taxpayers shouldn’t have to fund it” line is too cheap and easy. If the problem is with taxpayer-funded comment and analysis, fine — in which case the time to complain about Heather Mallick’s column was when she was hired, not when she says things you find offensive.

    Au contraire Andrew, the fact that I bought and paid for Heather Mallick’s column gives me ample right to complain about Heather Mallick and her hate-filled column.

    If Heather Mallick doesn’t like that the people who pay her salary complain about the fact that they pay her salary then she is free to quit and join the private sector, where there is only a limited market for her hatred and lack of talent.

  29. lol, *you* pay her salary? jesus. i hate self-righteous conservative pricks

  30. vileda:

    That’s right. I pay her salary. It comes out of the billion dollars in tax revenue that goes to the CBC. So yes, a portion of the $25,000 I paid last year went to support Heather Mallick spew her left-wing moonbat nonesense.

    Go back to clever clever land — the bastion of liberal ideals where you won’t be happy until we have a whole new department / central agency of being canadian, with ministers for:

    – the department of native self government funded by people other than “self”

    – the department of wars don’t solve anything (with minor exceptions like human slavery and genocide)

    – the department of freeing tibet and other fancy causes (but opposes solutions that would actually free tibet)

    – the department of throwing rocks at cops for the love of trade barriers

    – the department for women’s rights in Afghanistan, unless those rights were obtained by US and Nato forces

    – the department of being anti-american and comparing harper to bush because we’re fresh out of new ideas

    – the department of paying China and Russia billions of dollars so David Suzuki can sleep at night

    – a minister responsible for protecting the CBC, whose job it is to justify how Hollywood cand produce 6 blockbuster movies every year with the same money we’re paying to get Don Newman, Keith Boag, Peter Mansbridge and YES – Heather Mallick.

  31. CBC has to go. The thought of me paying for the CBC makes me sick to my stomach.

    Heather Mallick is a pig and a swine and an embarassment to this country. She is an uneducated redneck and ugly as sin. Has anyone seen her in real life.

    Tune in to FOX news for the real stuff. A breath of fresh air.

  32. C’mon, Brian, by that logic I pay for your blood pressure medication, which must be a sizeable part of federal expenditure.

  33. i suggest then you make malick give back the nickel of her salary that came from your taxes and shut the hell up.

  34. vileda:

    When Heather gives me back the nickel, I’ll give to you as a downpayment on new tires for your house. fatty.

  35. You’re right, Brian, the grown-up reaction to every government program you don’t like is to treat it as personal theft.

    Lessee, I don’t like paying for the RCMP to protect your house, can I get back the cent that costs? Nothing against your neighbours, mind you, I just resent having to pay to protect you. Really, it infuriates me.

  36. Nice. Tres bon, eh? Fatty? Have you checked out the pork that speaks for Harper?

    Harper’s got his custom Spanx, but the rest of his ilk still hangs out over his belt.

  37. Jack:

    You’re missing the point entirely, which is not surprising given your remarkable lack of intellect. I don’t consider government programs that I find disagreeable to be personal theft.

    If you read my original post (before you graced us with your cleverness) you’ll notice that I don’t feel I’m owed anything but the right to criticize mallick’s work in particular because I had a hand in paying for it.

  38. Brian, what do you do about criticism that you haven’t had a hand in paying for?

    Just give it a by? Ignore it? Is it all about your money for you?

    Good thing I won’t have to hear any of your opinions on tithing, food banks, charity or secret Santa issues.

    It’s not your money so you have no say.

  39. Liz:

    If I was trying to make a gibberish sandwich, I would assemble two slices of bread, with your idiotic and absurd ramblings. I might add lettuce, but thats besides the point.

  40. Ah, but, Brian, you have the right to criticise Mallick’s work anyway. There is no need to cry like a baby with a broken toy.

  41. The CBC Kommissars and the Mallicks want your cake and theirs too ! They are all for ‘freedom of expression’ so long as we all speak and think exactly as they do otherwise they have ways to shut people up via their quangos a.k.a. ‘human rights commissions’ all run exclusively for the benefit of themselves and having the force of a quasi-judicial hearing they literally force dissenters to conform to their views. The CBC is the bane of every decent hard-working taxpaying citizen in Canada. They are quite literally corrupt to the core.

  42. Oh … almost forgot …and so are their idiotic supporters. Now if there are any objections I have to lecture some more children.

  43. I’ve seen Mallick in person and she is … rather different. Canada should pass a law requiring all ugly intellectually challenged ‘persons’ to leave our country forthwith. Oops who’s going to Man the CBC ? or the plethora of other misandry appendages of the communist kleptocracy ? Don’t forget …Vote Man !

  44. Last time a government employee stated much less, their bags were waiting at the door. Who is the Minister in charge??

  45. Privatization of the CBC would certainly solve my problem. Mallick is just one of many CBC cranks who use my money to spew mindless hatred. Let them find advertisers willing to support this type of journalism. If Mother Corp has such a large and loyal following there ought to be many advertisers willing to use the network to pitch their product. If they can’t make a go of it in the real world, why are taxpayers expected to keep it afloat?

    Note to Saskboy @ 2:29 PM.

    “When paid journalists want to write mean things about someone they should be required to talk to that person to try and get a comment.” So Mallick talked to Palin, did she?

    You should sharpen your debating skills a bit there, my darlin’. And while you’re at it be prepared to explain why Mallick refused to come on to Van Susteran’s program to defend her position.

  46. Louise: You think she’d get booted if the CBC got privatized? Ha!

    She drives outraged people to their site. Outraged people who cause page views, which therefore would allow them to charge higher ad rates.

    Remember: this is the Internet, where it seems to be required to read columns that you know will outrage you (because the author has done so before) and then promptly post comments about how outraged you are (yet again).

  47. I am really amazed at all the people criticizing heather mallick. You are all complete hypocrites.
    She is not allowed to insult someone, but you are allowed to insult her. I am happy the CBC is not being cowardly and are backing her. What the hell ever happened to freedom of speech?
    If you have a right to express your opinion of her, she has a right to express her opinions
    American conservatives (the neo-cons) have systematically been removing all rights of the people. and the fox media are complete and total lackeys to subvert and brainwash the masses that have a low IQ and can’t think anymore. It’s disgusting that people forget that everyone has the same rights and the same freedom to express themselves. if you take hers away, you take yours away as wel. Wake up

  48. comment by dumbfounded on Wednesday, September 24, 2008 at 8:38 pm:

    “I am really amazed at all the people criticizing heather mallick. You are all complete hypocrites.
    She is not allowed to insult someone, but you are allowed to insult her. I am happy the CBC is” …is that a crude attempt or are you actually clueless as to the current state of affairs in Canada. Mallicks can spew hateful offensive rants until their heart’s content ! But if anyone has a different point of view; well they will be attacked by the human ‘right’s commissions: the ‘Just-Us’ ultra militant left quangos – incessantly for verbalizing a mildly different view from the kooky left wing media types …like Mallick. It can only be done anonymously because of the stacked deck via hrc’s against honest decent educated ethical people.

  49. An open letter to Hubert T. Lacroix
    President of the Canadian Braodcasting Corporation

    Dear Sir;
    As a long time and sometimes vocal supporter of the CBC in its past problems with the CRTC, ( http://www.crtc.gc.ca/Eng/transcripts/1999/tb0316a.htm ) and a Canadian living in the USA; I find Heather Mallick’s rant “Mighty wind blows through Republican Convention” (attached below) offensive and worse that tabloid gibberish. I find it inconceivable that the editorial standards of the once proud Canadian Broadcasting Corporation declined below that of the National Inquirer. In fact I would challenge you to read any Inquirer story in contradistinction to Ms Mallick’s sub-tabloid journalistic style; The Inquirer story would quote sources of information, use correct English and never stoop to profane language or the F___ word. Mallick only quotes two sources of minor relevance and begins her rant with the greatest journalistic faux pas “I assume”.

    Does this mean that Ms Mallick made an assumption on Senator McCain’s reasons for choosing Governor Palin and that the rest of the information was gathered personally using the time tested journalistic creed of who what where when and why?

    Ms Mallick seems quite well versed in the sexual inadequacies of Republican men; has she been, unbeknownst to the Canadian public, a latter day Mata Hari in the employ of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) bedding republican men for pillow talk secrets? Does this also mean that Ms Mallick has spied on the alleged secret meetings and had extensive hands on experience regarding their irresponsibility with semen while postponing household repairs?

    Ms Mallick’s admitted feminist stance has to leave one wondering where she and alleged other women receive their so called resentment training for nursing terrible hatred towards each other? From the amount of testosterone (even promoting firearm violence towards Levi Johnson) flowing through her vitriolic attack on governor Palin, saying she really isn’t female, can the question be asked; Does Ms Mallick have a severe case of Vagina envy?

    Ms Mallick must surely be a legend in her own mind to believe that these alleged other women can suppress the learned same sex hatred through self flagellation and reading her trashy column.

    Ms Mallick allows that “(john) Doyle’s job includes watching a lot of reality television”. Does this mean her statement “(governor) Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favored by this decade’s woman” comes from extensive first hand experience of watching films of that genre?

    From attacks on Governor Palin’s personal appearance and of her family, not once has Ms Mallick discussed the genuine pros or cons of the Republican Vice-presidential nominee vs. the Democratic nominee. Nor has she done any journalistic exposé regarding George Soros’ financial manipulation of the Democratic nomination process that stole the nomination from Hillary Clinton.

    Boiled down to its essence Ms Mallick’s column is pure and simple hatred; hate mongering towards the Palin family, hatred for people she identifies as white trash, who she and Thomas Frank allow “vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence.” It is elitist and condescending like a later day Marie Antoinette with Cake or Death; devoid of factual journalism.

    Considering Canada has well honed anti Hate statutes, why has Ms Mallick not been summarily guillotined from her Canadian Taxpayer subsidized position with the CBC? Perhaps there is tacit agreement within the Marxist feminist hierarchy to which she reports as to her journalistic bent. Where is Mammy Yokum “good is better than evil because it’s nicer” when you need her to wash Ms Mallick’s mouth out with homemade lye soap or deliver a “Goodnight Irene Punch” to restore decency and integrity to the CBC, as you are not holding Ms Mallick to the same litmus test that you publicize for outside contributors. Listed Below

    Desmond McGrath
    A Newfoundland Patriot living in socioeconomic exile amongst the wonderful Cajuns of the southern USA.

    Guidelines for Submissions to CBCNews.ca
    Tell us your story, be a part of the news team. CBC.ca wants you to participate in online comments, video uploads and photo submissions.
    COMMENTS
    What kind of comments are suitable for CBC.ca?
    We want your perspective. Probe, analyze, inform. Challenge, advocate, debate. Inspire, entertain, enjoy. Your contributions make our online publishing and on-air programming richer, the conversations more lively and diverse.

    What is and isn’t acceptable?
    Please keep your submissions relevant to the topic.
    Be civil.
    We want to hear your own opinion. Please don’t include lengthy excerpts from other posts.
    When you are writing about legal issues, remember that people are innocent until proven guilty (that may mean using words such as “allegedly”).
    Please do not post press releases, commercial promotions or external web addresses.
    Always avoid:
    Racist, sexist and offensive language.
    Personal attacks and defamatory statements.
    Breaking copyright rules (that includes copying and pasting excepts from other sites without attribution)
    Violating someone’s privacy
    Threats or suggesting committing a criminal act.
    Insensitive comments regarding the death or injury of private individuals, especially children
    Important note: If you violate any of these rules, then your comment will not be posted and your account may be suspended.

Sign in to comment.