Wednesday, October 08, 2008

This time, Heather Mallick insults herself

New York Times (HT: Walker):
“My problem is that I have to write with a certain kind of reader in mind, and that person is always going to be my vision of an intelligent Canadian,” Ms. Mallick said. “I don’t write for Fox viewers.”


Dag said...

Isn't there some kind of medical treatment for Mallickism? Isn't there any hope at all for this person? I almost feel sorry for her if there's no hope for her relief.

Walker Morrow said...

I've found myself actually growing increasingly angry with Mallick.

Not necessarily because of her rampant elitism or antiamericanism or racism.

Mainly because she seems to have become an issue of contension for some when it comes to freedom of speech.

The day that she becomes a symbol of free speech is the day that free speech loses all legitimacy, and all hope, as any support for her will only be because of a faux understanding of what freedom truly means.

I feel sorry for Ezra Levant, to have his case illegitimasized even just a little because of those calling for her horrid article not to be stricked from the CBC's record.

Walker Morrow said...

Thanks for the link, by the way ;)

truepeers said...

You are welcome, walker,

the thing about Mallick's anti-American views is that they are a dime a dozen million in Canada. Whether or not they appear on the CBC website really has no bearing on the freedom to speak such things. It's merely a question of whether taxpayers should be insulted by having Mallick on the payroll. Real freedom, and what is in need of protection, is something that comes with a sense of responsibility and grows out of someone's grasp of emerging necessity, in need of a new kind of representation that many others won't want to hear because they don't want to admit the same necessity or responsibility. But for those who do see the necessity, this voice's freedom will appear in need of affirmation. Whether you like Mallick or not, I don't think any of these questions of responsibility or necessity or affirmation come into play: it's just about some peoples' sick sense of entertainment, not freedom.

Dag said...

I've just heard of a local radio station, CFUN, with a commentator named Nikki Renshaw who, with her male co-host, is a ranting anti-American. I can't lay claim to the truth of that, never having heard of the station. Fair enough. People listen to what they care for. If Renshaw cares to rant about "bible-belt people" and right-wing religious bigots, (to which group I have been assigned, somehow), then I have no problem with it. If Canadians wish to subscribe to the radio station, then advertisers will flock to its success. The matter s of us fighting back to win an audience of our own in competition against them. CFUN radio isn't taking my money against my will. They get nothing from me. I'm satisfied.

Charles Henry said...

“I don’t write for Fox viewers.”

It seems that she presumes no one who shares her views would inform themselves of what the "other side" thinks, and why they think it. Would there really be no "intelligent" readers who follow what weaknesses their ideological opposites are finding with their arguments? That way they can work to shore up those weaknesses and further strenghen, even validate, their ideas.

It may not make for "fun" use of one's time, but it's imperative to listen to what the other side of an argument is. How else to defeat it? An opponent usually hands you the weapon you need to defeat him, it's mostly a matter of developing the perception to recognize it.

This is more evidence of what happens when someone makes no differentiation between politics, and religion. To discuss a different political point-of-view turns into a perceived attempt at religious conversion. The only one-sided, one-side-is-always-right-the-other-side-is-wrong Covenant should be with God, not with Man.

The heather mallicks of the world would place themselves in the position of Gods on earth. Yet even God listens to the other side.