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.

“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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

“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…

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

“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

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.

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.

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.

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. . . .