9/29/2008

CBC: Sorry about Ms. Mallick

Pardon me while I laugh.
CBC apologizes for column maligning Sarah Palin
CBC News publisher: I agree with our ombudsman, we're really biased
We erred in our judgment (You think??)
What Vince Carlin, the CBC Ombudsman, said
What Ms. Mallick said (Looks like the "Mighty Wind" still blows...)
Michael Coren's commentary (Scared witless)

I read Mallick's piece when it wsa first posted on the CBC website.
It was terrible. Typical of what the CBC chooses to call "objective."
And I quote:
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 will be guys, obviously...No, she isn't even female really. She's a type...

This sort of sexist garbage has no business being written, much less published by the CBC. Sexual inadequates? Unfamiliarity with women's "true" natures? Secret meetings? How is this rational thought?
I am out of patience for the likes of Mallick.
Finally, someone has told the CBC to get their act together. After many years of blatant Liberal (small- and big-L) bias, perhaps now we will finally see some true, objective, balanced journalism.
I agree with what the Ombudsman said.
Liberty is not the same as license.
And this is clearly a piece of truly licentious writing.

12 comments:

East of Eden said...

It's just not sexist, it's downright vulgar.

Anonymous said...

CBC needs to turf an entire culture, adding a few voices to "diversify" will not make up for a generation of propaganda.

Anonymous said...

It's my experience, talking to lots of women over my life, that conservative men ARE sexually inadequate. They may be acceptable for other conservative women, but they, generally, can't hold a candle to REAL sexual fun and excitement.

Before we get into a big debate about this, it's already happened on Stephen Taylor's blog. Go there and read the comments, 'cause I'm not interested in reiterating here.

Ruth said...

Are you the same "anon" commenting on Taylor's blog who says "I'm a guy bonehead... I'm relaying information that I've gathered from women that are tired of dealing with boring sex partners. Typically they're loaded with money, but as boring as the bible when it comes to making things happen. I've heard the complaint time and time again, so I started an impromptu social study over the last 8 years."

And so on?

If so, then what can I say except that talking to your female friends does not constitute a "study."

Ruth said...

Sorry, anonymous atheist troll from Stephen Taylor's blog posting at 3:01 PM, but your responding post will not be printed.
If you want to make it a little more family friendly, by all means do so.
And if you really think surveys from NOW magazine constitute "research" then I am sorry, I just can't help you.

Anonymous said...

You can't even talk about sex, why do you think you would be exciting at it? Besides, isn't sex only for procreation? Isn't that why you don't think gay men have real sex?

You didn't answer my question: Is the ratio of (conservatives doing threesomes) to (liberals doing threesomes) less than, equal to, or greater than 1? What do you think it would be, if you had to guess?

Yeah, I thought so.

Ruth said...

Actually, I can discuss sex.
I simply prefer not to discuss it in a vulgar manner.
Liberals probably do engage in more threesomes than conservatives. But, so what? What makes you think a threesome is more fulfilling? You mistakenly believe that freedom is the ability to do whatever you want in any context. You think that freedom to fornicate or indulge in any manner of sexual depravity is freedom. It's not. True liberty is freedom from bondage, freedom from vice, appetite.

"God does not restrain us from true pleasure and satisfaction; He obliges us to do what that which will bring us to the highest pleasure and greatest delights. He doesn't restrain from pleasure in this world; indeed He restrains us from the beastly pleasure of drunkenness and of fornication: that is, God will not give men liberty to be beasts. But the noblest, the most excellent, the sweetest and most exalted pleasures, we may exercise ourselves in them as we please. We may recreate and delight ourselves in those sweet angelical pleasures without any restraint or prohibition. We may refresh ourselves with those delights and none will hinder us: our consciences will not restrain us; God will not hinder us; we may roll ourselves in this pleasure as much as we will."
Jonathan Edwards on Christian Liberty

Anonymous said...

Right. I said they were boring, as in 'not exciting', and you agree.

Thanks for the sanctimonious moralizing though, but I'll pass on the the guilt. I can't imagine how I could care less what you thought was depraved or not, and I tried, at least a little bit. You see, if it is not depraved debauchery, then it's probably not fun.

Despite what you may think, your stone-age death cult does not have a monopoly on morality.

Ruth said...

"if it is not depraved debauchery, then it's probably not fun."

Now if that isn't a limited definition of fun, I don't know what is.

Anonymous said...

Now if that isn't a limited definition of fun, I don't know what is.

Well, when it comes to sex, this is a pretty good rule to start with.

I call you boring; you call me a depraved moral deficient. I suppose we're even, right? I said that everyone has their tastes, while you claim absolute moral jurisdiction. That sure is a reasonable position you've staked out for yourself.

What a crock.

Ruth said...

GrantK1 posting at 4:38pm, as funny as your comment was, I can't post vulgar comments from one side if I am not going to do it for the opposition.

Anonymous said...

The opposing side in this argument seems to be taking the default position that their personal sexual taste defines 'sexual adequacy'. This is a ridiculous fallacy and it shouldn't be pandered to.

Listed on BlogsCanada Blogarama - The Blog Directory Powered by Blogger FeedBurner Blogging Tories
Southern Ontario Conservatives