Birds of a Feather Hate Together

My, how shocking...

Of all the people to defend Heather Mallick, it's certainly unsurprising that Canadian Cynic's partner in hatecrime, Lindsay Stewart, one be among them.

Mallick's seething epithets are nothing more than fact, Stewart insists, and suggests that Carlin would have realized this had he simply practiced "due diligence".

As evidence of this, Stewart offers up alleged "close ties" between Sarah Palin and Thomas Muthee.

And yet, as one closely examines the coverage of the so-called "Mutheegate" controversy, one uncovers the sheer triviality of Palin's so-called "association" with Muthee.

She was blassed once by Muthee, on a single occasion.

Wow. Clearly Palin and Murthee are bestest buds.

Apparently, meeting someone once is sufficient to have a "very close relationship", as Scott Swenson describes them.

And while Palin could -- and perhaps even should have, hindsight being 20/20 and all -- have stopped Muthee in his tracks the minute he started wailing about "witchcraft", she would have had to interrupt his blessing in order to do so. Which would have certainly been impolite. But what's impolite when dealing with an individual who incited his largely-uneducated followers to mass murder?

Certainly, Palin could -- and perhaps even should -- have refused to meet Muthee at all.

Then there's the reason why hindsight is 20/20 -- because it's often so clear due to knowing that one didn't know at the time. And there is no indication that Palin had ever met Muthee before he delivered a guest sermon at a church she formally left in 2002, nor has she met him since.

There is no indication that Palin knew about Muthee's horiffic activities before meeting him, and no indication that she knew about these things until the news of them broke.

But then again, what's the truth when one is trying to run up political points by distorting reality?

Keep in mind that this is follows Stewart trying to prove "factually" that Republican men are "sexually inadequate" by citing a long list of sex scandals, including some featuring prostitutes underage children.

Interestingly, Stewart declines to mention numerous Democrat sex scandals, some of which also include prostitutes and underage children.

Curious, that.

In the end, much of Stewart's thesis lies on the revelation that there are, indeed, wingnuts amongst Palin's supporters.

Yet Lindsay Stewart takes the wingnutty comments of these wingnuttish characters, and declares that they represent all of Palin's supporters. A few of Palin's supporters could be described as "white trash" if one attaches a contemptuous value statement to their comments. A few of Palin's supporters could be described as "white trash". Ergo, all of Palin's supporters are white trash.

Stewart unsurprisingly tries to turn Palin's son Trig -- whom CBC reporter Neil MacDonald suggested may actually be Bristol Palin's child -- against her, echoing the full range of political snakes and vultures who are so eager to pick apart Palin's personal life.

Stewart also shamefully tries to envoke the Bristol Palin issue again, trying to stick his nose into a very private matter and exploit it for partisan gain. (Which is quite ironic, considering the things that could be said about one of his blogmates -- but won't be. Someone, after all, has to choose to be bigger than Lindsay Stewart and his pack of online hatemongers.)

The distinct pro-abortion anti-feminism inherent in the exploitation of this issue has already been addressed elsewhere.

Comically (and with dishonesty typical of himself), Stewart insists that "the Palin/McCain campaign are the ones responsible for making a spectacle out of the girl."

Apparently, Stewart himself never wrote anything like this.

Who's making the spectacle, indeed? Let's not forget that "journalists" like Neil MacDonald were out to drag Bristol Palin into some kind of controversy similar to this before the pregnancy story even broke. But, nope, it isn't the various left-wing activists out to destroy Sarah Palin who are making the spectacle, apparently it's Palin herself.

What a joke.

Which, in the end, is precisely what Stewart insists the Mallick article was:

"Oh how silly of me, you do think we're stupid. Reading Mallick's piece we are obviously not bright enough to recognize satire without a flashing light reminding us that this is not a dissertation, litany or insurance manual."

It wouldn't be hard to mistake Lindsay Stewart for stupid -- just like his blogmate mistakes Canadians for stupid. After all, apparently, Stewart doesn't know what satire really is.

Satire, first off, is best done when its humourous, but it's generally meant to make a hyperbolic parody of something. So what, precisely, does Stewart suggest Mallick is making a parody of here? Herself? Are we really supposed to believe that what Mallick wrote doesn't dislike Sarah Palin? The same Heather Mallick who has been relentless in her criticism of Palin?

Not that there's anything wrong with criticizing Sarah Palin. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to be made -- starting with, but not limited to, her advocacy of abstinence-only sex education.

But describing her as a porn actress isn't one of them. Nor is using her down syndrome-stricken child to question her political judgement.

It doesn't take a rocket science to recognize Mallick's column as precisely what it factually was. Not satire, as Stewart insists it was, but invective as John Cruickshank recognized it.

But even the obvious simplicity of the issue doesn't abate Stewart's outrage:

"You Mr Carlin and your complicit and cowardly superiors have buckled to pressure from a handful of pearl clutching ninnies and let us not forget what put the real fear in your quisling heart. You betrayed one of your own freelancers because you were scared of the noisy reaction. You have become enemies of freedom and liberty, engaging in censorship at the behest of the liars who pretend to support freedom of speech."

Vince Carlin: enemy of freedom and liberty?

Apparently, "freedom" and "liberty" depend upon the CBC to allow Heather Mallick to publish whatever hateful diatribe she wishes on their website.

And, apparently, CBC executives should not have freedom of expression enough to decide that they don't want to be involved in the publishing of garbage like Mallick's column. Apparently, anyone writing for the CBC should consider their "freedom of expression" more important than the protection of the institution's reputation.

What an absolute joke.

"CBC is being run by cowards, it seems. Change your britches little man, the scary people will go away now that you've bent a knee and given in to their ignorant demands."

But at the end of the day, people with a moral compass far more effective and resolute than Lindsay Stewart's will decide whether or not Carlin and Cruickshank's course of action is the wise one to take.

At the end of the day, however, the question is thus: who is the bigger man? The man who decides that allowing a freelance journalist to use the CBC as a soapbox to attack a politician through their family is a mistake, or the one who denounces him for it?

At the end of the day, who is the coward? The individual who recognizes that attacking a politician through their family is wrong, or the invididual who indulges himself in doing so while accusing the politician themselves of making the spectacle?

Of course, this is all par for the course from Lindsay Stewart. What else does one really expect from an individual who insisted that a 69-year-old man pushed off the roof of a car simply slipped and "sucked pavement"?

The answer: you don't expect much. Which is precisely what Stewart delivered today.

What a joke.