Michael Coren is probably the worst columnist in this city.
That's not a comment on his views (I don't agree with him, but there are plenty of columnists I disagree with) but on the juvenile drivel that finds its way into too many of his columns.
Today's is a classic: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/04/12742056-qmi.html. Once again, he praises people who agree with him for being so bright and well-rounded as individuals, while people who disagree with him are angry, ill-informed and stupid.
In this case, he's talking about anti-abortion protesters. He's also said similar things about atheists and others who disagree with him.
Here's just one of Mr. Coren's insights: "What was most apparent, however, was the contrast between the pro-life and the pro-abortion students. The former were attractive, bright-eyed, compassionate. The latter dull, angry, so lacking in humanity and, it has to be said, intelligence."
Seriously, is this guy unable to see that his assessment of the students may be tainted somewhat by his own biases?
Here's another gem: "At the end of the lecture, two young women came to speak to me. They were not rude, but one of them, a plain and plump girl, seemed so unhappy and so intent on not smiling. It was as if she thought that a smug contempt for all disagreement was somehow sophisticated or mature. I pitied her."
Where do I start? For one thing, what does the fact that one of the young women was "plain and plump" have to do with anything? (Does Coren own a mirror?)
And how does he know the woman is unhappy? Oh, of course. She's not a member of the Roman Catholic faith.
I guess there's an audience for this stuff. But I can't help but suspect Coren's flock is made up of people who are dull, angry and, it has to be said, lacking in intelligence.
That's not a comment on his views (I don't agree with him, but there are plenty of columnists I disagree with) but on the juvenile drivel that finds its way into too many of his columns.
Today's is a classic: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/michael_coren/2010/02/04/12742056-qmi.html. Once again, he praises people who agree with him for being so bright and well-rounded as individuals, while people who disagree with him are angry, ill-informed and stupid.
In this case, he's talking about anti-abortion protesters. He's also said similar things about atheists and others who disagree with him.
Here's just one of Mr. Coren's insights: "What was most apparent, however, was the contrast between the pro-life and the pro-abortion students. The former were attractive, bright-eyed, compassionate. The latter dull, angry, so lacking in humanity and, it has to be said, intelligence."
Seriously, is this guy unable to see that his assessment of the students may be tainted somewhat by his own biases?
Here's another gem: "At the end of the lecture, two young women came to speak to me. They were not rude, but one of them, a plain and plump girl, seemed so unhappy and so intent on not smiling. It was as if she thought that a smug contempt for all disagreement was somehow sophisticated or mature. I pitied her."
Where do I start? For one thing, what does the fact that one of the young women was "plain and plump" have to do with anything? (Does Coren own a mirror?)
And how does he know the woman is unhappy? Oh, of course. She's not a member of the Roman Catholic faith.
I guess there's an audience for this stuff. But I can't help but suspect Coren's flock is made up of people who are dull, angry and, it has to be said, lacking in intelligence.
