The SCARy Conservatives

bloodyminded · May 9, 2011

More disgusting is a matter of opinion.

Obviously. That she was an elitist douchebag of monumental proportions is my opinion, shared by many, and not shared by many.

Not really no.

She was, she claims, somewhat inspired by an infamous child murderer named William Edward Hickman.

No, she didn't condone the actual child killing--but not many do, so it's not exactly a great benefit to her character. But she was, apparently, planning to model a future novel's character after Hickman, a character who

"is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." (Journals, pp. 27, 21-22; emphasis hers.)

It's understandable that she should be "inspired" by such a man...since her character outline here sounds like the very definition of a sociopath.

Edited May 9, 2011 by bloodyminded

KeyStone · May 10, 2011

Here is an article written by Heather Mallick. How can this woman be taken seriously? The sad thing is she is a hero to many on the left.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/03/canada-stephen-harper-american-politics?CMP=twt_gu

Really, other than the abortion part, it seems accurate. She doesn't actually say abortion is under threat, but she does intimate it to some degree.

I think it's possible that we might see an attempt to end partial birth abortions and third trimester abortions.

MiddleClassCentrist · May 10, 2011

All of it eh?

So even the part where is says Harper won a majority on the 2nd of May?

Typical Conservative, crying about bias without and evidence of bias.

Haven't you heard? THe majority of editorials favour Harper.

IT IS TIME FOR THE CENTRISTS AND LEFT TO UNITE AND CRY ABOUT THE "CONSERVATIVE MEDIA".

Moonlight Graham · May 10, 2011

A flawed article, for sure. Read it before.

a Canadian version of George W Bush, minus the warmth and intellect, is now prime minister.

Warmth? ya sure. Harper has a far greater intellect than Bush, without question.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

kimmy · May 10, 2011

Really, other than the abortion part, it seems accurate. She doesn't actually say abortion is under threat, but she does intimate it to some degree.

I think it's possible that we might see an attempt to end partial birth abortions and third trimester abortions.

If she'd kept her column to fact-based discussion of Conservative policy, it would have been about 2 paragraphs at most. Of course. if she'd kept her column to fact-based discussion of Conservative policy, we wouldn't be discussing it at all.

The only reason we are discussing it, of course, is that it wasn't really an effort to discuss policy at all, it was an effort to mock and ridicule the Prime Minister in a foreign publication. Which is a common theme with Mallick's work: it's never noteworthy on its own merits; it only attracts attention when it aims to offend. Whether this piece, or the slam piece on the Palin family, or the one where she portrays John McCain as a violent rage-filled hate-filled man, the one where she suggests that Cindy McCain's drug-addiction was a result of spousal battery, the one where she speculates on the sexual inadequacy of Republican men (I assume that was speculation and not first-hand knowledge) or the column about Russell Williams that turned into a hateful rant directed at men as a group. If we're talking about Heather Mallick, it's because she's gone off on a vitriolic tangent, not because she had an idea worth discussing.

-k

MiddleClassCentrist · May 10, 2011

If she'd kept her column to fact-based discussion of Conservative policy, it would have been about 2 paragraphs at most. Of course. if she'd kept her column to fact-based discussion of Conservative policy, we wouldn't be discussing it at all.

The only reason we are discussing it, of course, is that it wasn't really an effort to discuss policy at all, it was an effort to mock and ridicule the Prime Minister in a foreign publication. Which is a common theme with Mallick's work: it's never noteworthy on its own merits;

I just enjoy hearing people cry afoul about a left leaning opinion article when it is clear that the majority of such articles lean conservative now. At least as reported by G&M (Globe and Mail)

TimG · May 10, 2011

it is clear that the majority of such articles lean conservative now. At least as reported by G&M (Globe and Mail)

ROTFL. Th G&M is definately pro-liberal. Rex Murphy got demoted because he was too far right. He is at the National Post.

jbg · May 10, 2011

Here is an article written by Heather Mallick. How can this woman be taken seriously? The sad thing is she is a hero to many on the left.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/03/canada-stephen-harper-american-politics?CMP=twt_gu

I read that and a few other of her recent works of art. Suffice to say they are full of scurrilous, malicious bile.

Evening Star · May 10, 2011

Th G&M is definately pro-liberal.

How is that definite?? Since WW2, they've endorsed the Liberals in six elections (three of those for the very neoliberal Chretien/Martin Liberals) and the PCs or CPC in 21.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/globe-endorsements-through-history/article1963598/

Edited May 10, 2011 by Evening Star

jbg · May 10, 2011

Also from the "Mallick Press" (link)

September 25, 2008

Review of complaints about Heather Mallick’s column of September 5, 2008

This office received about three hundred complaints concerning a column by Heather Mallick entitled “A Mighty Wind Blows Through the Republican Convention” (CBCNews.ca, September 5, 2008). The column concerned the nomination of Governor Sarah Palin as Vice-Presidential candidate of the Republican Party. Ms. Mallick wondered why Ms. Palin was selected. She wrote:

“It’s possible that Republican men, sexual inadequates that they are, really believe that women will vote for a woman just because she’s a woman. They’re unfamiliar with our true natures. Do they think vaginas call out to each other in the jungle night? I mean, I know men have their secret meetings at which they pledge to do manly things, like being irresponsible with their semen and postponing household repairs with glue and used matches. Guys

cybercoma · May 10, 2011

It's a terrible article. Nothing put a hate-piece hoping to appeal to the lowest common denominator (you).

Only a few posts in and all you've sad, repeatedly is that the article is terrible. So am I to assume that what you're saying here is "hey everybody! come read this article that sucks!"?

I guess what I want to know is if you actually have something you want to discuss here or if you just made this thread to attack people, namely the author and Battletoads.

jbg · May 10, 2011

More Mallick bile (link):

What if the Harper Government were to win a majority?

I won't lie to you, my job would become easier by yards, it being possible that Stephen Harper would ditch the metric system to please the Americans. (Although I was born at just the wrong time and still measure everything in ounces centigrade.)

**************

A Harper majority government would be dishonest. That's an easy one, they're Dodgy Inc. now, with their in-and-out campaign financing, lying to Parliament, allegations of illegally blocking freedom of information, killing the long-form census to cater to invented online outrage, wildly underestimating the cost of those Lockheed Martin jets, padding the Senate they previously vowed to reform, accepting fat MP pensions they once decried . . . I could go on but lack the space and sometimes the will to live, frankly.

A recent poll shows that Canadians know the Harper government tells whoppers. For the Harper regime, lying is a core value, to the point where there's a bouncy aggressive incredulity when they're questioned about it in the House of Commons. They regard opposition MPs as dogs lunging at a G20 wire fence when they've already been trained with electroshocks to never do that again.

Old-tyme religion will reign, and our spiritual leader will be Harper's favourite evangelical, Charles McVety. I've met him. He's like Mike Huckabee without the affable (and convenient) stupidity. There's a canniness to McVety that worries me, because I've seen his followers and they are not canny. They are obedient though.

**********************

cybercoma · May 10, 2011

Waiting on proof... Not more diversions.

Can't say I'm expecting much.

Unless you’re deficient in cognitive capacity I would think it should be easy to point out a biased section. Since the entire article is biased you could post any part of it, right?

It's kind of tough to prove someone's opinion to be wrong. It is after all that person's opinion and not actually a fact.

cybercoma · May 10, 2011

So have we adequately determined that Mallick is the left-wing equivalent to Ezra Levant?

kimmy · May 10, 2011

I just enjoy hearing people cry afoul about a left leaning opinion article when it is clear that the majority of such articles lean conservative now. At least as reported by G&M (Globe and Mail)

I'm skeptical of that claim, Harper endorsements notwithstanding. Regardless, the issue I take with her is not that she's left-leaning, but the tone in which she does business. She's not attempting to discuss policies here, she's attempting to ridicule him, and people who voted for him, and does so in inflammatory and personal terms.

She is a Canadian version of Ann Coulter, minus the warmth and intellect.

And I find it amusing to see the lefties, who hold Ann Coulter to be the embodiment of media-run-amok, of style over substance, the embodiment of pure evil, (and, of course, a propoenent of HATE SPEEEEEECH) to venture forth to defend Ann Coulter Lite.

So have we adequately determined that Mallick is the left-wing equivalent to Ezra Levant?

I think Ann Coulter is the more comparable writer. Reading over this column (or her slam pieces on the Palins or the McCains) the parallels are obvious. A minimum of substance, relying on vitriol to engage the reader. Dismissing people who vote for the other guys with vicious, broad-brush contempt (Mallick's "hillbillies" and "rednecks" and people who are in bed by 6:30, vs Coulter's "cowards who hate America" and similar abuse.) Compare Mallick's description of Republican men as "sexual inadequates" and Coulter's portrayal of Democrat men as limp-wristed wimps. Attributing wild and scary motives to the other guys (Mallick's crazy Christian extremists; Coulter's socialists.) Unflinching willingness to go into the realm of extreme bad taste (Mallick attributing Cindy McCain's drug addiction to McCain's supposed violent temper, the attacks on Sarah Palin's husband and daughter, Coulter talking about John Edwards having an affair while his wife was in bed dying from cancer, talking about the 9/11 widows enjoying the celebrity their husbands' deaths brought them, etc. When you look at the handful of columns Mallick has written that have gathered attention, they come off as a left-wing Canadian attempt to emulate Ann Coulter.

-k

Edited May 10, 2011 by kimmy

Moonlight Graham · May 10, 2011

So have we adequately determined that Mallick is the left-wing equivalent to Ezra Levant?

:lol:

Agreed. Partisan intellectual lightweights they both are.

bush_cheney2004 · May 10, 2011

Agreed. Partisan intellectual lightweights they both are.

One is much lighter than the other. Mallick won't be making any speaking gigs in the US anytime soon.

bloodyminded · May 10, 2011

I think Kimmy's Coulter comparison is better than the Levant one, actually. I think Mark Steyn fits the bill as well, though his writing style tends slightly to more sophistication then do these two ladies.

cybercoma · May 10, 2011

Coulter is a better comparison. :lol:

Ezra Levant was just the first person that came to mind because the one time I flipped on Sun TV he was talking. After a few short minutes, that was enough to turn me off of Sun TV for the rest of my life.

jbg · May 11, 2011

One is much lighter than the other. Mallick won't be making any speaking gigs in the US anytime soon.

If you believe her the U.S. is a den of evil and iniquity.

bush_cheney2004 · May 11, 2011

If you believe her the U.S. is a den of evil and iniquity.

Mallick's antics are used to amplify her own disdain for Canadian policies in consort with the US/UK, particularly under PM Harper. Mallick needs to screech her anti-American sentiments to garner attention from like minded Canadians.

.....To make it worse, Mallick parrots some sweeping claims with absolutely nothing to back it up, much less concrete examples. Instead, the op-ed seems to play upon emotional appeals. Americans and Canadians, under Harper, don’t care about Darfur, because they’re black, and are more than happy to war against Muslims. Our British and American brethren are nothing to be admired, but rather only Continental Europe is. Canadian diplomacy vis-à-vis the US amounts, at best, to cowering in the face of American might, or at worst, to bootlicking.

http://colbyfile.blogspot.com/2007/05/mallick-defends-mcquaig.html

bloodyminded · May 11, 2011

She loses me at "Republican men are sexual inadequates," or whatever her little Coulterism was (that is just so stupid! ); or when Harper's "gait" becomes evidence of perfidy.

Hell, I'm not a Harper fan myself. But when hatred gets overwhelming, a person becomes desperate in his or her criticisms; so that even the most irrelevant, trivial, or even benign qualities become perceived as ugly.

bush_cheney2004 · May 11, 2011

...Hell, I'm not a Harper fan myself. But when hatred gets overwhelming, a person becomes desperate in his or her criticisms; so that even the most irrelevant, trivial, or even benign qualities become perceived as ugly.

Does this mean no more effete pantywaist quips from you?

bloodyminded · May 11, 2011

Does this mean no more effete pantywaist quips from you?

Of course, m' man! I dropped such things, quite consciously, some time ago.

I expect to waste my own time now and then with a meaningless and stupid insult or two...but I'll consider it a slip in reason, not something to embrace.

Pliny · May 11, 2011

How is that definite?? Since WW2, they've endorsed the Liberals in six elections (three of those for the very neoliberal Chretien/Martin Liberals) and the PCs or CPC in 21.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/globe-endorsements-through-history/article1963598/

I don't know of late if it is so much an endorsement of the conservative party but rather a condemnation of the liberal choice of leadership. Can you imagine if Dion had been elected Prime Minister? I don't think they would have wanted to be on the bow of that boat.

The Globe and Mail does not inspire me. Does it inspire Liberals?