Christian Conservative Christian "Independent"

I'm an evangelical Christian, member of the CPC, but presently & unjustly exiled to wander the political wilderness.
All opinions expressed here are solely my own.

Wednesday, December 02, 2009

Charles Adler fires back at CBC's Heather Mallick

OUCH... a stinging rebuke from Charles Adler to CBC's Heather "I'm Embarrassed to be a Canadian" Mallick... and a rightly deserved one.
My letter to Heather Mallick
Dear Heather,

I don't know of anyone who is forcing you to remain in Canada. If you are truly embarrassed to be Canadian, you can always stop having a Canadian website, the CBC can stop posting your blogs and stop paying you with Canadian tax dollars. You can always burn your OHIP card so that you no longer have your health care subsidized by Canadian tax dollars. Heather, you need to know that these dollars that you have been paid, the lifestyle which you have become accustomed to has been subsidized by what you and your blogger friend in Britain call Dirty Oil. While you may be free to say that in Quebec, the Queen of cool on Kyoto and every other cause you have hopped on, Quebec is a Have Not province. For decades it has been propped up by Have provinces. The province that has coughed up a much greater share per capita of money for the Have Not than any other province is Alberta. If we called this a contest, it's not even close.

Now since this dirty business of Oil sands oil is being sent around to Have Not provinces like Quebec and creating so much revenue for Canadian social programs, including equalization, would you as someone who supports these programs, would you like to call people in provinces like Quebec and the Maritimes and Manitoba and as of now because of Liberal mismanagement, you can add Ontario to the list as well…Heather, would you like to call all recipients of Alberta Oil Sands wealth dirty? Heather, if you have been living off the proceeds of dirt, does that make you a dirty little…and now I am slipping and sliding into something that has been texted by Tiger Woods.

So at this point I will stop asking questions, Heather. Some day I may write a more thoughtful response to your confession that you are embarrassed to be a Canadian. In the meantime, I will be delighted to throw in 133 dollars for your application for immigration to any country that is willing to have you. If I were you Heather, I would start with Cuba and North Korea and work your way down from there. But I will be happy to throw in 133 dollars, one loony for every Canadian who has fallen in Afghanistan since our mission began there nearly eight years ago. Every one of those Canadians was proud of this country. All of them and all who came before them, fought for your right to say what you please. In honour of them, I would propose to our government that we launch a Heather Mallick in which Canadians coast to coast to coast contribute money to those Canadians too embarrassed to be called Canadian. Getting them out of the country would be the greatest social program in the history of Confederation. This chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Heather, as of today, you are the quintessential definition of weak. One very weak Canadian.

Posted at 04:05 PM

Labels:

9 Comments:

  • At Wed. Dec. 02, 11:14:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous rightful said…

    as I have said for years - de-fund the CBC and let this nonsense come to an end

     
  • At Wed. Dec. 02, 11:51:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Heather if you are embarrassed by being Canadian become a citizen of another country.
    We promise to let you go and we will never admit that you are a Canadian. Save us the embarrassment of having to claim you as one of our own.
    So leave and don't let the door hit you on the way out.

     
  • At Thu. Dec. 03, 12:18:00 a.m. EST, Blogger wilson said…

    Is it my imagination, or have the attacks on Canada, by so called Canadians,
    gotten worse since Iffy took over wearing the Liberal crown?

     
  • At Thu. Dec. 03, 02:41:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Gerry said…

    I'm in, where do I send my $133 to get rid of her? But she does have to leave and NEVER come back or publish on CBC or get another dime of our tax dollars directly or indirectly.

     
  • At Thu. Dec. 03, 03:13:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Marx-A-Million said…

    Heather Mallick is a hero! She is as beautiful and smart as Nancy Pelosi!

    progressivemarxist.blogspot.com/2009/12/heather-mallick-is-my-hero.html

     
  • At Thu. Dec. 03, 10:21:00 a.m. EST, Blogger Calgary Junkie said…

    Too bad we don't have Ralph Klein around. In his early days as Alberta Premier, he proposed giving a free one-way bus ticket to any whining welfare recipient so that they could go to "the nearest NDP province of their choice". (BC and Sask both had NDP govt's at the time.)

    So a similar gesture from, say Jason Kenny, to Heather Mallick (a one way plane ticket to the nearest socialist country of her choice) would play well on the right. And set the left's collective hair on fire.

     
  • At Thu. Dec. 03, 10:40:00 a.m. EST, Blogger The Christian Heretic said…

    Seriously, some people are taking this way too personally.

     
  • At Thu. Dec. 03, 05:22:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    To use a country Adler suggests Mallick belongs in, I disagree strongly with the policies of the government of North Korea. I feel no shame or embarrassment, however: evidence that I belong here, not there, if I disagree with him.

    Adler's response [shared by many here] relies on a ridiculously dichotomous view of the world that is better suited to the plot line of a comic book than to the world of politics today: With us or against us. Black or white. Right or wrong. If you don't agree with the government's policy on climate change you might as well give up everything, including all of your rights and identity as a Canadian citizen.

    This sort of response reveals pettiness; an unwillingness to engage with the ideas, opinions and preferences of other Canadians; a refusal to acknowledge more than half of all Canadians as Canadians; and it invites or explicitly calls for their expulsion from the body politic (as enemies, as "dirty" human beings--look at the language Adler uses).

    At least twice over the last few months, I have asked other commenters--commenters I otherwise agree with--to refrain from using the term "fascist." Given the historical and ideological meaning of the term, I am less inclined to do so with regards to Adler's post and the similar opinions expressed here.

    I smell danger. And fear.

    Given that I've spent the last few hours alone in a locked study carrel, the fear-smell must be my own. I'm going to go home and have a shower now.

    -Anon1152

     
  • At Thu. Dec. 03, 05:22:00 p.m. EST, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    CC: Thank you for your comment in the previous blog post's comment section about not "stoop[ing] to their hate spewing level". But to be honest, I've seen a lot of what I would call "hate spewing" here which "they" have not been responsible for. Perhaps we should get clear on our definition of hate. Or spewing.

    *

    This is ridiculous.

    Did Adler (or anyone) read (or care) about anything other than the title of Mallick's column Embarrassment tends to be specific. One is embarrassed in a certain sense, in a certain way at a certain time. Mallick was clear about this. She is embarrassed by a certain set of government policies, particularly climate change policies.

    Her criticism is mainly of the Harper government, in large part because it is not representative of the Canadian electorate. I see no way this can be denied if one looks at public opinion data and the popular vote of recent elections. The fact that over 60% of Canadians voted for parties other than the Conservatives is evidence of this.

    CC, you have acknowledged that the Harper government does not represent the majority opinion of Canadians. If I may quote you:

    "But here's a principle that a lot of Conservatives tend to forget... people will NOT be lead where they don't want to go.

    "What do I mean by that? It's quite simple, really... Canadians want a centrist, middle of the road approach to government. After so many years of Liberal rule, they're simply not ready for what we know as real conservatism."

    This is debatable. But what you say immediately afterwards is the right way to respond to the fact that the Harper government's policies do not represent the "will" (or at least general ideological orientation) of "the people":

    "But in order for Canadians to give us their full confidence and trust, we need to show them that Conservatism is the best political philosophy out there."

    This is the best response because it relies on REASONS and because IT ADDRESSES CANADIANS WHO YOU DISAGREE WITH AS CANADIANS.

    Here and now, those who disagree with "your" position are being defined--immediately, a priori--as noncanadian, uncanadian, anticanadian.

    This is a dishonest response insofar as Mallick's "embarrassment" is a testament to her commitment or attachment to Canada. That the Canadian government at home and on the world state is acting in ways she believes to be wrong, and in ways that many (perhaps most) Canadians believe to be wrong, is only a source of embarrassment or shame insofar as she is committed to Canada, and her identity as Canadian.

    *continued*

     

Post a Comment

<< Home