Letters, I get letters. From like minded people who can't stand Christie Blatchford's writing. I'll certainly print any letters in support of Blatchford, but I can't seem to find any.

From: Dave
Subject: Christie Blatchford
Date: Sunday, November 15, 2010

I am not sure why you are so spiteful towards a journalist. Your response is- dare I say it- hateful. (I know that term has been hijacked by the Left to automatically discredit people and ideas you disagree with.) But it is hate, nonetheless.

You don't have to agree with her, but in a civilized society you must argue, debate and state your own views in a coherent manner. Shouting someone down because you don't like what they have to say is not debate. It is rather the embodiment of the same kind of totalitarian nonsense of which you are accusing Christie Blatchford (and others, no doubt).

I doubt you will publish this on your hatefest page but, if nothing else, keep this one point in mind: Your contention that "The world is a sad place: starvation, poverty, terrorism, disease, hopelessness . . . . and Christie Blatchford," clearly shows that you desperately need to get some perspective in life. I hope for your sake that Christie Blatchford will the worst, most revolting, disgusting, troubling and unfortunate thing that ever happens in your life. May it be so!

From: David Brooks

Dear Dave: Thank you very much for your note. I'll have a brief look at your various points.

I would argue that my response (meaning my webpage) on Christie Blatchford is not hateful at all. I do write in these pages that I don't hate her because I don't know her. I do hate her writing and find most of her opinions to be repellent. But hate? Meh.

You write "but in a civilized society you must argue, debate and state your own views in a coherent manner." I believe that my commentary in these pages is extremely coherent. You may find my opinions to be unfair and even "unhinged" (as Blatchford herself has called me in the past). But incoherent? I disagree. And I've included every pro-Blatchford letter I've ever received on this page. So it can't be said that I don't welcome arguments and debate (as you accuse me).

"Shouting someone down because you don't like what they have to say is not debate." Well, this is a webpage and not a live, online forum (like imdb.com or YouTube). If this were an online forum and I routinely deleted any pro-Blatchford comments, then your comment would be valid. Similarly, if I were to hack into the Globe's server and delete all of Blatchford's columns, then you could justly accuse me of "shouting someone down." As far as I know, nothing I've written has ever prevented Blatchford from writing a word.

And, more to the point, my Blatchford pages were never really meant to be about your opinion OR my opinion. But rather the mainstay of these pages remains the "Hall of Shame" in which I present dozens of examples of Blatchford's abysmal writing style. It's here that I let Blatchford's horrendous writing speak for itself.

"It is rather the embodiment of the same kind of totalitarian nonsense of which you are accusing Christie Blatchford (and others, no doubt)." I honestly think that you're taking my Blatchford pages far too seriously. I honestly do think that Christie Blatchford is a despicable human being. And I find her saccharine, cloying, blood-drenched writing style to be appalling. But I don't think that the word "totalitarian" really comes into play in terms of a dopey webpage written by some guy who dislikes a terrible writer.

"Your contention that 'The world is a sad place: starvation, poverty, terrorism, disease, hopelessness . . . . and Christie Blatchford,' clearly shows that you desperately need to get some perspective in life." Please, please. Again, you misinterpret. I'm not saying that Blatchford is on par with starvation, disease, etc. If I were given the magical choice between A) ending world starvation and B) fire Christie Blatchford, I would, of course, choose to end world starvation. Having said that I really do believe that the world would be a happier place (and the Globe would be a vastly superior newspaper) if Blatchford went to work writing about church socials in the Pennysaver.

"I doubt you will publish this on your hatefest page . . ."

Wrong again!

Kind regards,

David Brooks

From: Louise
Subject: Blatchford's face
Date: Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Can anyone tell me what happened to her face? I saw her for the first time today on TV, searched online and found your page. She is sadly deformed with a Simean face and kept feeling/wiping her cheeks which are sunken and hard.

From: Lynn C.
Subject: the blatch
Date: Monday, 9 March 2009

Hey David

Your web page is hilarious and the truth is that the Blatch and her columns are truly sad. You have certainly identified two of the worst Canadian columnists. The Blatch and Rosie used to be friends and then something happened and I believe their falling out was referenced in columns in a thinly veiled manner. Happily I can't remember the tawdry details. When I want to rinse the bad taste out of my mouth I too resort to reading the New York Times.

What really drives me crazy is the Blatch's constant sexualization and objectification of the innocent victims of her puerile mind. Young children are pudgy rosy full-lipped tender.....and all military men are young, almost prepubescent and they are all on the cusp of something that the Blatch is compelled to insert herself into---into their lives---her descriptions pass into some kind of voyeurism in my opinion (sickeningly, we see into her head too). We all feel the pain of lives lost, the Blatch does not have to descend into this maudlin mawkish mockery to help us feel. It is, in a sense, insulting to the reader that she tries to insert so much of herself--- a good columnist has a very light touch.

A psychologist would have a field day with her--trying to figure out what makes her tick--I think a time bomb. What really makes my skin crawl is the old Blatch writing in the Sun in the 80's about that boy she was living with and their relationship...if memory serves--he was younger by a few years and immature to boot. If I were I psychologist it would be easy to figure out what is repressed in her and how it comes out in her columns....

On a lighter note, her "Lauraleen" Harper columns really proved what an odd mix of right-wing sentimental and low-class yahoo the Blatch really is.

That's probably enough said.
Thanks for my turn.

From: David Brooks

Hello there: Thanks so much for your note! I had a good laugh reading your comments about our favourite newspaper columnist. You're 100% bang on in everything you had to say. Blatch really is a foul creature. One of these days I'll have to dig up the e-mail replies she would send to me. They're hilarious in that she really does perceive herself to be a brilliant journalist and the idea that her writing is terrible is completely incomprehensible to her. It's like if I told you that the sun was purple. You'd think I was crazy. And that's how Blatchy sees me. I have to admit that I did get some good laughs from her replies because she'd get herself all worked up into a lather.

Would you mind if I added your letter to my webpage and my Facebook group? Using only your first name, of course. Everyone who shares our opinion of Blatch would love to read it.

And I know everyone's all hyped up these days over Facebook, but maybe you'd consider joining my "Fire Christie Blatchford" group. Lots of hilarious comments from like-minded people. We'd love to have you!

Anyway, thanks again for writing!


From: Diane and Al
Subject: Blatch! (excuse me)
Date: Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Finally someone else who finds that woman's work repellent!

I don't know how old you are but if you're as aged as I am you surely must remember the trite, vacuous pap she used to expel in the Toronto Sun back in the early 80's. Loathsome, nattering tales of her life with "The Boy" and their dog. Yecch!

Her initial claim to fame was that she was the first woman "reporter" allowed into hockey players' change rooms so some bright light decided she should be an expert on police and/or military affairs.

She owes her success to the fact that she is utterly unthreatening to the establishment. Only fawning tributes to those in uniform (a fetish of hers apparently) but never any questions as to why their lives are being squandered.

Yesterday she assessed Wall St. by stating on CFRB that this market catastrophe is the result of "fear", not the greatest financial fraud in history.

That's why they love her.....they have nothing to fear from the perpetually weepy Ms. Blatchford.

From: David Brooks

Hello there, Al: Thank you so much for your note! It's always great to hear from someone who, like me, appreciates Blatchy's "talents."

In the early 80s I was just finishing high school in Michigan (I'm Canadian, but lived for five years in Michigan) and then went off to university in Ottawa. So I had the good fortune to entirely miss Blatchy from those days. I shudder at the thought that she's had that kind of enduring longevity. How can a competent editor not see her for the hack she is?

Yeah, the fawning over the troops is really sickening, isn't it? To make matters worse she just won the Governor General's award for her crappy book about the troops. HAS THE WHOLE WORLD GONE MAD!?!??!?!?!?

A woman from B.C. wrote me a couple of weeks ago about Blatchy and we've had a fun correspondence. She despises Blatchy just as much as I do. So you're not alone in the world. I used to even have some fun e-mail exchanges with La Blatch herself. God, I loved to needle her. One exchange that went something like:

My first e-mail: Why don't you take a nice, long vacation?
Blatchy's reply: I take my vacations in Kandahar, buddy. (she actually wrote that)
My reply: Wow. You're my hero. No, no. I mean a vacation in which you don't do any writing for the Globe. That would truly be a vacation for us all.
Her reply: Listen, Mr. Brooks, you don't have to read my columns! (etc.)

I could really get her riled up. Sadly, she eventually got fed up and stopped replying. I'm probably on some sort of block list. Ah, well.

So keep checking back on my Blatchy page. My B.C. friend gave me permission to put some of our e-mail exchanges online. They're pretty funny. And there will always be more drivel to add my my Blatchy Hall of Shame. Unfortunately.

Again, thanks so much for writing! David

Like I said, she's a perfect mouthpiece for the powers that be. She appeals to people's most prurient interests (is it just me, or are conservatives just a little too interested in sex crimes involving children?) and never addresses the real perpetrators of of the worst grief in this world.

I don't know if the Sun has archives from those days but if you can find them those columns are an excellent purgative.

As to world madness: I believe the correct answer is 'Yes'.

Incidentally, although no expert I am a huge fan of Van Gogh. I've seen an exhibition of his paintings and a print of "Field with Poppies" shines above my computer here.

nice talking to you -al

From: Kersten
Subject: On La Blatchy
Date: Sunday, October 19, 2008

Hello David Brooks,

I just discovered your page on Christie Blatchford. I am a geyser of invective after reading the atrocious drivel she writes.

Have you read the latest crap about Palin and Harper?

Please keep up the good work


From: David Brooks

Hi, Kersten: Thanks so much for your note! It's always a pleasure to hear from someone who appreciates Blatchy's "talents" as much as I do.

I haven't followed Palin or Harper much lately because I was on vacation in eastern Europe for the last three weeks. I just arrived home yesterday from Bulgaria. I decided not to follow any of the crap while I was away. I can't stand Harper and Palin makes my head explode.

After a three week vacation stop, the Globe arrived on the front porch this morning around 4 am. (I was up at 2 with jet lag). Which means I'll be back to reading Christie's horrendously terrible writing. It's amazing to me that some people actually think she's a good writer. Christie herself thinks she's a genius, of course.

I feel like going back on vacation . . . . . .

Take care. David

Hi David,

I have been railing against her for so long, it was such a catharsis to read you I loved the visual categories!) , the question remains, how does she get away with it?

2. why do we continue to torture oursevlves by reading her columns?

the face in the toilet was brave, laughed out loud. (gen x lexicon means little 'ole lady)

And what's with the Globe ad, "Don't miss Christie Blatchford tell it like it is", again, What the hell??!!! Now that's a real affront to the journalistic endeavour. Blatchy has no editor, internal or otherwise, she just spews self infatuated obsequious garbage barely grounded in research.

From: Andrew
Subject: Blatchford Strikes Again
Date: Monday, August 25, 2008

Hi there,

I'm a Grad student in Engineering, which probably makes me the polar opposite of a journalism critic, and I have always thought Christie Blatchford was (allow me to invoke her spirit) the embodiment of Satan. I was so glad I came across your page (I googled "i hate christie blatchford") because now I know I'm not alone. I'm not going to try to say why I hate her; your page does that well enough.

I am emailing you to bring to your attention this (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080824.wolympicsblatchford25/BNStory/beijing2008/home) article, summarizing Ms. Blatchford's thoughts on the 2008 Olympics. I find it hilarious and pathetic that she uses a small, unisex bathroom as a parallel for the world's most populated nation. For the rest of the article she struggles to follow through with her metaphor, jumping from the bathroom to a hotel lawn, a restaurant, before finally arriving back home in a dingy bar. She sums things up by stating that the reason she can't stand being in China is because it's bathrooms are kept too clean.

Here's a nice exerpt from the article:

"It is the world's most perfect small bathroom.

On one side are two stalls for women; on the other, two urinals and a stall for men. Between the two areas is a common washing-up area, with two sinks, a paper towel dispenser and a hand dryer.

This bathroom, maybe 25-by-15 feet, is my symbol of China.

It is a metaphor for why this country is great and why it is oppressive even when it doesn't mean to be, why no other nation on Earth is capable of competing with China, and not just at the Olympics, and why maybe some wouldn't want to do so."

I'm still not sure how her perfect bathroom symbolizes oppressiveness, and far less how it relates to China's dominance at "not just" the Olympics.

Anyways, cheers from London, Ontario.. keep maintaining this page as I'll definitely be checking more often.


From: David Brooks

Hello there, Andrew: Thanks so much for your note! I rarely get e-mail about my Blatchy page so it's gratifying to hear from someone who shares my opinions about La Blatchford. Honestly, it boggles the mind how horrendously terrible her writing is. And yet she's probably the Globe's most lauded writer. HOW IS THAT POSSIBLE?!?!?!?!?

Yes, I skimmed through that horrendous bathroom story. I quickly eyeball all of Blatchy's column's hoping to come up with a gem for my Hall of Shame section. God, it's painful sometimes to have to go over her drivel. You're absolutely right--that bathroom story was a doozy. Maybe it's appropriate that the first image on my page has her face in a toilet.

Just this morning I updated my Blatchford page. Check out the very bottom with a letter to the editor saying what a brilliant writer CB is and that every journalist in Canada should writer like her. The woman that wrote that letter needs to be institutionalized. Anyone who thinks that CB is a good writer is ready for a rubber room.

Anyway, yes please do check back and enjoy my Christie Blatchford page. As God as my witness I WILL live long enough to see her finally leave the Globe and Mail.

All the best,

David in Toronto

From: Kathryn
Subject: blatchford
Date: Thursday, June 5, 2008

Hi there, I came across your website while procrastinating (I'm a university student). I'm no writer, nor am I educated in literature, journalism, politics, or anything of the sort - but I have been an occasional reader of the Globe and Mail, and Christie Blatchford's columns have always left a bad taste in my mouth, so to speak. I thought it was interesting that you compare reading her articles to "staring into the sun". You probably know this already, but she was a writer for the Toronto Sun for nearly 20 years. I thought you might appreciate the humour in that.


From: David Brooks

Hi, Kat: Thanks so much for your note. I rarely get mail about my Blatchford page and when I do it's usually by people defending her. One woman wrote recently and suggested that I'm secretly in love with Christie Blatchford. Uh, no.

Yeah, her writing is just so awful and over the top. And she's on the front page YET AGAIN today.

Maybe that was a subliminal thing, my mentioning the sun. Dear God, I wish she'd go back to the Sun. The Globe is a very good paper, but why Blatchford? She's the worst writer on the planet.

Anyway, thanks again for your note!