Wednesday, June 07, 2006

Rachel Marsden tells it like it is (again)

Rachel Marden's latest column in the New York Post showcases her sardonic wit and stinging accuracy regarding Canada's complacent and politically correct attitude toward terrorist threats (or if you're a CBC employee, "alleged bomb threats from non racially-profiled suspects").

Some of my many favourite quotes:

So why, people here ask, would anyone want to do damage to Toronto? Maybe they don't. No one has been convicted of anything yet. Maybe the three tons of ammonium nitrate fertilizer that the suspects allegedly ordered were going to be used to grow a massive garden that would spell out "I Love Canada!" in tulips.
And that cell phone jimmied up to a circuit board, seized in the police raid? That doesn't have to be a detonator. Some kids put spoilers and shiny rims on their Honda Civics; maybe others just like to fiddle with their phones because Nokia can't keep up with the technological preferences of today's young Muslims.

Yes, I guess it's possible that various law-enforcement agencies that normally can't agree on what kind of pizza to order conspired against 17 innocent Muslims.
Oh, man! This is Rachel at her best. The National Post really blew it when they gave her the boot; er when they came to a mutual decision to end the relationship.

Enjoy!



* * * * * *

Update: Another fan of Rachel Marsen's column (and Christy Blatchford's, among others).

H/T to Nealenews.

40 comments:

PGP said...

Yes indeed Rachel has it right.
The pathologocal need for these fools like the staff and management at CBC and other Canadian organizations to maintain their childish sensitivity and desperate clinging to so called "political correctness" is nothing but a danger to us all.

These Libcomsimps and Dhimmi appologists unfortunately have the ability to influence the simple minded and of course this moronic striving for some imaginary egalitarian ideal is seen as weakness to be exploiteed by the scumbags like these tin-pot Islamofascists and other more dangerous elements.
LIke the the soft headed members of the NDP every last thing that comes out of their mouth is a criticism of our true values and a sop to the imagined righteousness of the Left.
These people are cowards and fools and need to be told so in the most public way.
Keep up the good work .....

OMMAG

PGP said...

BTW CBC is Only BBC Lite...
Check out USS Neverdock to see how outrageous their phobia( of honest reporting ) has become.

jdave34 said...

"Rachel Marsden is a political columnist and the Canadian correspondent for the O'Reilly Factor on Fox News Channel."

Well there's her bonafides.

Red Tory said...

Ooooo... The New York Post. What an esteemed publication. I hear it's the preferred choice of Fish & Chip shops everywhere!

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Editorial from today's Toronto Star (Perpetuating the Myth):

"Canada just cannot seem to shake a widely held myth in the United States that it is soft on terrorism and an open "gateway" to be exploited by potential attackers..."

"Myth"!!!

jdave34 said...

"Canada just cannot seem to shake a widely held myth in the United States that it is soft on terrorism and an open "gateway" to be exploited by potential attackers..."

Just for the record, we DID catch the terrorists before they struck right?

Blake said...

So, you're applauding Rachel's subeloquent rebuttal of "innocent until proven guilty"?

Pssssh, "subeqloquent". More like, "sub-Debris Trail".

Riley Hennessey said...

GREAT article.. hilarious. Everyone seems to be immediately coming to these terrorists rescue here.

When do the rights of the friggin ultra-minority trump the majority?

We're talking about not letting these people talk or pray with eachother and what a travesty that is? GIMME A BREAK! When you threaten to blow up our country's capital, you just about expended all the sympathy you're going to get from me.

Also, ok so maybe these people are innocent until proven guilty on the specific charges, but let's be serious for a moment. It's not like they were busy makin lollipops instead of detonators!

These are serious charges and should be treated as such. No more pampering these people with plattitudes.

And they want BAIL????

liberal supporter said...

Ann Coulter wannabe.

She's a stalker as well:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_Marsden

jdave34 said...

LS:

Why stop with the stalking? she's also falsely accuses people of sexual assault, lies on her CV, makes up events, and she used to work for Gurmant Grewal.

enough said...

Rachel Marsden has proved herself to be a despicable human being.

That she has reinvented herself as a conservative thinker hardly outweighs the damage she did by falsely accusing two people in separate incidents.

Being from BC we were subjected to the realities of rachel Marsden for many months regarding her false accusations. Everything she says or does is tainted with her deep character flaws.

x2para said...

does this mean that when left wing wingnuts (Svend comes to mind) say something that may be true we should just ignore them as well?

jdave34 said...

x2para: you mean people take Svend seriously?

liberal supporter said...

You know, I was going to send her an email once, in reaction to one of her columns. We see a bit of her kind of rabid partisanship here on Joanne's blog, but everyone here is actually reasonable when you get past the rhetoric. Even when we don't agree, we often narrow down the disagreements to specifics. It feels like we are getting someplace.

I chose not to email her then, I don't even remember what she was ranting about, because I googled her name, since I'd read a print column in the sun, and forgot her email address. That's when I discovered her "checkered" past. I don't need someone like that contacting me...

She comes very close this time, to using a very serious situation to again try to score cheap partisan points.

Assuming these guys are terrorists (which I do), I think the hearts and minds campaign (for others that might consider them heros) works better with the fact that yes, they still have the right to demand bail, and publicly question the conditions of their custody. They do get due process, something their version of utopia would not permit, and if this gives one person pause, then it helps.

At the same time, the nature of the charges involves a conspiracy with the 17 charged, as well as others not yet arrested. The investigators obviously want to prevent any more collusion than is already going on, so no communications, even with family. The lack of complete privacy with their lawyers is a technical violation of their rights to counsel, but acceptable for the time being given the ongoing investigation.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

"Poisoning the well is a logical fallacy where adverse information about someone is pre-emptively presented to an audience, with the intention of discrediting or ridiculing everything that person is about to say. Poisoning the well is a special case of argumentum ad hominem"

Source: Wikipedia

liberal supporter said...

I think the poisoning effect will not prevent the alleged terrorists from getting a fair trial. I presume there is a lot of hard evidence that will be revealed in due course.

Soccermom said...

Yeah, I kind of wince whenever I read a Rachel Marsden column, due to her somewhat checkered past. She's definitely not afraid to say what she thinks, though.

Re the alleged terrorists' plan to storm the CBC building. It's almost like they were planning a mini-coup (take MP's hostage, behead the PM, take over the media). Watch for many, many more arrests in the weeks to come. They must really have thought Canada was a soft-touch.

Layton has some 'splaining to do about those security certificates.

jdave34 said...

Joanne:

1) Congratulations on the proper use of 'argumentum ad hominem'. I call that progress! Any idea when you're going to thank Blake for teaching you how to use it correctly?

2)it may be a case of ad hominem attacks, but when the writer that you say has "stinging accuracy" has a history of

a) falsely accusing people of rape and profiting from it,

b)describing having a letter published in a newspaper as "having written for",

c)claims to have been Connie Chung's assistant, despite ABC having no record of Rachel ever being at ABC, not even as an intern

d)claims to have had high level meetings at the White House (that were never documented)

Is the problem ad hominem attacks, or is the problem that you hold certain writers up as shining lights of reason and intellect without researching whether or not these writers are the best choices.

Lord Omar said...

When do the rights of the friggin ultra-minority trump the majority?


"Democracy is not the law of the majority, but the protection of the minority". Albert Camus

Hel-lo, Jo-anne ;-)

Blake said...

jdave:

Good calls, all of them. I'd just prefer to let my faith stand in a criminal justice system where everybody - no matter what the rabble thinks of them - is entitled to due process in a court of law. They're entitled to the same bail, same right to counsel, same right to trial by jury or judge, and they all enter the courtroom innocent until proven guilty. Whether it's Rachel Marsden, or Walter Cronkite, or William F. Buckley saying it, that system is one not worth losing to the heat of politics.

It may seem reasonable to skip all that fair-trail/justice stuff when it's a bunch of terrorists on the hook, but it's awfully hard to keep the integrity of the system intact when it's you in court for an unjust speeding ticket if you're not willing to preserve it in other cases.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Hel-lo, Om-arrrrrrrrrrr.... ;>)

Actually, Omar, I'm sorry we had our little spat a while ago. You're not nearly as obnoxious as some others around here.

Will you forgive me for banning you?

Lord Omar said...

Will you forgive me for banning you?

It was done long ago.

Assalam Alaikum

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Thanks, Omar. That's very Christian of you (please don't take that as an insult; considering your belief system).

Herb said...

Good lord. If that's Rachel at her best, please spare us the jokes you consider lame.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Chacun à son goût.

liberal supporter said...

"So why, people here ask, would anyone want to do damage to Toronto? Maybe they don't. No one has been convicted of anything yet." - rachel

"Everyone seems to be immediately coming to these terrorists rescue here." - riley

Where are the news sources that reflect these views? Other than the lawyers for the accused (doing their jobs), I don't see anyone "coming to their rescue" or saying "maybe they're not planning terror acts".

I do see people trying to use this to gain support for their other political views, especially telling us how "soft" we are.

Red Tory said...

Joanne -- Regarding your update, there are times when reading an article when my brain just comes to a screeching halt in complete WTF astonishment at something the writer has expressed. Case in point with Jack Kelly when he writes at the outset of his piece: “Most liberals here and abroad think Islamic terrorists exist primarily to cause embarrassment to the Bush administration.” I’m sorry, but after a statement of such colossal idiocy, everything else that follows must be ridiculous nonsense. And yet… you appear to find this rubbish pleasing.

Havril said...

"No one has been convicted of anything yet"

Er, except Rachel. Criminal Harassment, as I recall. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Havril said...

Er, my sorta bad. Actually, strictly speaking, a conditional discharge, though it is a finding of guilt, isn't a "conviction" on your record. Or that's why my lawyer told me, anyway.

Blake said...

Joanne...tu viens de m'étonner. Je n'avais aucune idée que tu parles une autre langue.

liberal supporter said...

I did see something in Jack Kelly's article that I hadn't heard elsewhere. I did not know all the accused attended the same mosque. That is way more significant than "they're all muslims". It explains how the know each other and how they got involved in this. And it goes a long way to explain the isolation from family and private legal counsel.

There are probably more people from that mosque that are involved, or are sympathizers, or who simply know something. Keeping a lid on the suspects makes it more likely more information may come from others at the mosque, since the suspects cannot issue death threats to enforce silence.

Gerry said...

It's easy to look at this incident and applaud our law enforcement agencies, and hope it never happens again - but it will. It appears the root cause is based on hate?

These individuals prayed together often - what kind of a God were they praying to, and what result were they praying for? It must be a different God than the one I know.

These individuals deserve a fair trial. We need to continue to set an example of treating everyone with human dignity and respect, as difficult as this may be at times.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Blake - Seulement un peu. Et tu ausssi! Quelle surprise.

Tes mots sonts si joies en français.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

L.S. and Gerry - Yes, it seems that the ringleader infiltrated the mosque and had access to a lot of impressionable young people.

I think that the Muslim community needs to take a long hard look at their own institutions and be prepared to ferret out the lowlife amongst themselves.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Excusez-moi. Je veux dire "tes mots sont si jolis"; pas jolies. Mon orthographe en français est mauvaise.

Cochon sexiste anti-stupide said...

N'inquiète-toi pas, poulette. Tu communiques assez bien en français et nos attentes par rapport à toi et la petite stalker-nounoune Rachel Marsden ne sont pas énormes, de tout façon.

Joanne (True Blue) said...

Cochon, c'est vrai. Surtout nous aimons le Canada.

Mary said...

Jo
How interesting! You are sending everyone to their French-English dictionaries.

Blake said...

Cochon:

Ca fait bien longtemps que je ris comme ça si tôt au matin. Bravo!

Joanne:

Mon propre orthographie n'est pas meilleur que le tien.

Cochon etc. said...

Cochon, c'est vrai. Surtout nous aimons le Canada.

Absoluement. Nous aimons Le Canada. Vive le Québec et vive le Canada!