How Dare They Insult (insert name here)!
You have to love any ombudsman's review that includes this:
"For instance, there is no factual basis for a broad scale conclusion about the sexual adequacy of Republican men."
No, really. And those great, big guns don't mean anything.
For the original article, you'll have to find it elsewhere: CBC has pulled Heather Malick's September 5th column from the website. Not that it's tough to find, of course. There has been a wee bit of a kerfuffle over it on both sides of the border, despite the fact that it's a trivial opinion piece.
***Update: here's the column in question. Enjoy!***
The most amusing (and oft-repeated) critique is that she's on a station funded by taxpayers, so she should never say anything political.
Simply put, that is seven kinds of shit blended without a straw. That she went through with personal attacks against specific individuals ("[...]Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade’s woman[...]") was over the line that I would draw in such a forum, sure; but that's tempered by the fact that she, along with the Republican Party Machine, placed them front and centre in public view.
They are public figures, and as such are going to be exposed to public attacks. It's really that simple.
By comparison, despite the best efforts of Plastic Man to make his wife's appearances political events, the only party leader's spouse that's getting exposure is the '80s Porn Star's wife, A.K.A. The Member of Parliament for Trinity-Spadina. Why she'd be in the news during an election should be obvious to most folks who can still remember how to breathe. Otherwise, no one really cares who you're married to.
Unless, of course, you're a long-time social conservative hard liner who has a history of supporting abtinence-only sex "education" programs and stricter limitations on women's reproductive rights with an unmarried and pregnant teenage daughter.
Then it is, in hunter's parlance, Open Season.
"For instance, there is no factual basis for a broad scale conclusion about the sexual adequacy of Republican men."
No, really. And those great, big guns don't mean anything.
For the original article, you'll have to find it elsewhere: CBC has pulled Heather Malick's September 5th column from the website. Not that it's tough to find, of course. There has been a wee bit of a kerfuffle over it on both sides of the border, despite the fact that it's a trivial opinion piece.
***Update: here's the column in question. Enjoy!***
The most amusing (and oft-repeated) critique is that she's on a station funded by taxpayers, so she should never say anything political.
Simply put, that is seven kinds of shit blended without a straw. That she went through with personal attacks against specific individuals ("[...]Palin has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favoured by this decade’s woman[...]") was over the line that I would draw in such a forum, sure; but that's tempered by the fact that she, along with the Republican Party Machine, placed them front and centre in public view.
They are public figures, and as such are going to be exposed to public attacks. It's really that simple.
By comparison, despite the best efforts of Plastic Man to make his wife's appearances political events, the only party leader's spouse that's getting exposure is the '80s Porn Star's wife, A.K.A. The Member of Parliament for Trinity-Spadina. Why she'd be in the news during an election should be obvious to most folks who can still remember how to breathe. Otherwise, no one really cares who you're married to.
Unless, of course, you're a long-time social conservative hard liner who has a history of supporting abtinence-only sex "education" programs and stricter limitations on women's reproductive rights with an unmarried and pregnant teenage daughter.
Then it is, in hunter's parlance, Open Season.
Labels: Politics
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home