The Two Malkins Strike Back
Good grief. Ms. Malkin, to her eternal shame, couldn’t do a post about the cross-destroying dickhead on her side without turning it into an attack on the left :
Nice to see the far Left finally outraged about the desecration of crosses.Don’t seem to recall their outrage about this or this or this, though. Or, of course, this.
I’ll spare you the hyperlinks, but suffice to say, they’re as contradictory as the rest of her oeuvre. The first three links are to news stories of desecrations of pro-life protests that used white crosses and the fourth is, hilariously, a link to the infamous art piece “Piss Christ”. Perhaps Michelle and Michelle will need to have a second debate on whether or not they support the first amendment’s freedom of expression?
And since we’re playing the childish “you didn’t denounce it on your site, therefore you support it” game, I don’t seem to remember Michelle making an effort to denounce the cross burnings in North Carolina, not that I’d expect any less from the writer of a racist book. (via Atrios)
That book, of course, was In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in World War II and the War on Terror. Think about the title alone for a minute or two. Turn it over in your mind. Then focus on this: what Malkin defended for the length of an entire book was internment based on one characteristic alone: a person’s ancestry. This is the most blatant and repellent form of racism. Due to Malkin’s efforts, the “acceptability” and “defensibility” of racism achieved great prominence in our society. It was, and still is, a “respectable” topic of conversation. Racism as the basis of government policy was an “acceptable” subject on which to offer an opinion—and a range of opinions was encouraged. Perhaps it was bad policy, perhaps it wasn’t. Who can know for sure? The historical record is complex. Certainty on this question is impossible of achievement.Add these further facts to your consideration of this matter. As Eric Muller and Greg Robinson examined and proved in great detail, Malkin plays fast and loose with the actual historical record. Her research methods were contemptibly shoddy. The arguments she offers cannot withstand even casual scrutiny. Her book and her subsequent arguments defending it are filled with dishonesties. In short: there are no facts or arguments to sustain Malkin’s position. The policy of internment was irrational at its foundation, and it destroyed many lives. It stigmatized a large group of people for no legitimate reason, and changed many lives forever. For nothing.
Malkin’s failures were both predictable and unavoidable. An irrational policy cannot be defended with rational arguments. Facts cannot be marshalled to support delusions. And note one additionally ugly aspect of the history of internment in World War II, pointed out in the Muller-Robinson discussion: nothing similar happened to those of German or Italian ancestry, although those countries were also our enemies. It was only those slant-eyed yellow people—those people who are not “really like us”—who were singled out. This is the lowest, most primitive, and subhuman version of racism. Racism in any form is immoral, irrational and always to be condemned. In that sense, degrees of immorality do not apply. But in another sense, this may be the worst kind of racism of all.
By the way, does anyone know how internment camps and an APB on any “swarthy” looking Arab men would have helped aid in the capture of Richard Reid , Jose Padilla, or John Walker Lindh? It seems to me that the (suspected) terrorists have already found a loophole in the “arrest any brown people with funny names” plan.
There’s an additional, and somewhat amusing, disagreement between the two Michelles over the term “grief pimps” :
The Los Angeles Times graciously admits it was wrong when it said I disdainfully called activists supporting Cindy Sheehan “grief pimps”. . .The Times has appended the correction to its original article. I’ll be looking for corrections from all the other papers that repeated the Times’ false allegation.
Where could the Times have gotten the bizarre idea that Michelle Malkin thinks the activists supporting Cindy Sheehan are “grief pimps”? Could it be the letter she reprinted without comment a letter from a reader that expounds on the term “grief pimps” or the fact that the post in question is actually called “grief pimps”? Perhaps the title of the post was referring to something else entirely? Since she didn’t technically use the term “grief pimps” on her own to explicitly reference the supporters of Cindy Sheehan, I guess she’s right in saying that the Times use of the words “disdainfully called” represents a “false allegation”. Perhaps they should have said “callously suggested” instead. There was a time when this sort of hyper-parsing was called “Clintonian”, but these days I prefer the term “Malkinized”.
35 comments
Copy link for RSS feed for comments on this post
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It’s safe to say that all KKK members vote republican.
Comment by dan — August 16, 2005 @ 6:21 pm
I took a look at some of the groups she calls anti-american, anti-military, terrorist loving etc., at tinfish alley
Comment by rkrider — August 16, 2005 @ 6:27 pm
Malkanized it is. I kinda like it, if it sounds like burnt rubber, and smells like burnt rubber, it’s Malkanized.
Comment by EZSmirkzz — August 16, 2005 @ 6:30 pm
It’s safe to say that all KKK members vote republican.
Senator Robert Byrd was unavailable for comment…
Comment by Schwa? — August 16, 2005 @ 6:37 pm
Yes, Senator Byrd was unavailable, having rejected the KKK countless times over the years, having apologized (the sign of a liberal, by the way) for a youthful indiscretion, and having been elected to the senate as a democrat a few times. So, he was unavailable for comment because he is, of course, irrelevant to this discussion, which is about KKK members being republicans, not democrats. Man, some people are really thick. (They’re also republicans, by definition.) Remember, folks, only republicans want to elect leaders as stupid as they are, so they can “have a beer” with them.
Comment by ronjazz — August 16, 2005 @ 6:47 pm
I’m sure this has been pointed out before, but if we profile Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 40, we’d definitely pick up Jesus. Who knows what he’s carrying under those robes.
Comment by nittacci — August 16, 2005 @ 7:11 pm
I’m kinda torn on this one, frankly I think looking closer at middle Eastern men than at my grandma might be a better use of limited resources. Not all middle Eastern men are terrorists but so far most of the terrorists have been middle Eastern men. Don’t focus entirely on them at the expense of other legitimate suspects (whatever that may mean, I’ll leave it up to people smarter than me to decide) but if little green men were attacking us, I’d say lets concentrate on scoping out little green men and ignore babies with similar sounding names (and for crying out loud, LOOK AT THEM CLOSELY!) I’m as far to the Left as you can get but I’m also pragmatic, not to mention sick and tired of being attacked. And I would like them to be stopped so I support doing SOMETHING. Being “fair” is one thing, being smart is another.
With apologies to middle Eastern- and little green- men everywhere. These are strange days, if someone who looks like they might fit the bill sneaks past simply because they were the fourth person in line and we’re only checking every fifth person (my granny, lets say), we’d be letting ourselves down. I for one would not feel good knowing we let someone intent on doing us harm pass simply because we don’t want to be accused of “profiling”. Screw ‘em, I would hope all middle Eastern men (or little green men) would understand. “Don’t take it personally but your brethren brought this upon us all.”
I imagine I’m gonna get ridiculed for this. So be it.
Comment by drp — August 16, 2005 @ 7:46 pm
Didn’t bother to check on Malkin’s links (hey, I’m on a budget and can’t afford to smash my computer in frustration)–but if one refers to an incident here in Baton Rouge, the relevant organizations like Planned Parenthood made it clear that they disagreed STRONGLY with knocking over crosses (as did my low-readership blog…but it’s a low readership blog). Local news reports were also QUITE sympathetic to the anti-choice students who set up the display.
For the record, the org. setting up the crosses is extremely religious, and the crosses were on public property (the Parade Grounds, or commons, at LSU). No mention was made of that fact. The crosses weren’t run over, but were pushed over by a few kids–if I remember right, it was more an act of vandalism than anything else.
But wingnuts like Malkin never gather all the facts…
Comment by Michael — August 16, 2005 @ 7:49 pm
Her real name: Michelle Maglalang
I present – MichelleMaglalang.com
She’s a fucking whore.
Actually, that’s an insult to whores.
Sorry
Comment by Wayne — August 16, 2005 @ 7:54 pm
Only a fair percentage of Klansmen vote Republican. But a lot back the Constitution Party, and those guys are petrifying
Comment by JR — August 16, 2005 @ 7:55 pm
“all KKK members vote republican”
– - – - – - – - – -
“Why Cindy Sheehan is Right!
By David Duke
http://www.davidduke.com/index.php?p=350
Cindy Sheehan, a mother who lost a son in the Iraq War, is determined to prevent other mothers and fathers from experiencing the same loss.
Courageously she has gone to Texas near the ranch of President Bush and braved the elements and a hostile Jewish supremacist media to demand a meeting with him”
(Thank goodness the Cindy has brought KKKers and liberals together to expose the Jewish Cabal!)
Comment by AntiSemites4Cindy — August 16, 2005 @ 8:21 pm
P.S. Thanks for exposing the Filipinos, such an inferior race: they’re almost as bad as the coloreds!
Comment by AntiSemite4Cindy — August 16, 2005 @ 8:35 pm
from alterman’s site:
Comment by yawn — August 16, 2005 @ 8:36 pm
i may be remembering incorrectly from high school history class, but weren’t some italian-americans interned as well? i’m almost positive that they were, but it was much less publicized, and on a smaller scale. to be honest, though, i can’t say for sure, and i’m too lazy to google it as i’m worn out from working two of my three jobs today. (how uniquely american!)
Comment by mil0 — August 16, 2005 @ 8:48 pm
Ah’m jes glad y’all kin hate them Filipinos & Jews as much as ah dew – means all mah years as yuh Senatuh, best buddy of Dave Duke and mah recruiting as yuh High Dragon Muckitymuck has done paid off! In deferans to mah fellow Democrat & racist, Howard Dean, I jes’ got ta let out a rebel yell mahself! “Yeeeee-haaaaH!”.
Comment by B. Byrd — August 16, 2005 @ 8:50 pm
Why is it that idiots on the right would rather sign under another person’s name than their own? If you’re so proud of your opinions, why try to pin them on people you obviously despise? I don’t get it. If that’s the way you feel, shout it loud and proud and let us all see who you are, what are you hiding from?
“I read it on the internet so it has to be true.” Wingnuts seem to believe that.
Comment by drp — August 16, 2005 @ 8:58 pm
Not all middle Eastern men are terrorists but so far most of the terrorists have been middle Eastern men.
How can people keep saying this stuff? First off, what they mean is that most Muslim terrorists have been middle eastern. And while that’s far from clear, it’s also irrelevant as all they need to do is convert a small handful of non-Arabs to do their work. Like a John Walker Lindh, a product of San Fran, I believe.
But beyond that, we have had our homegrown terrorists, like the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, and Eric Rudolph. I’m not sure why people don’t think of them when we discuss terrorists, but you’ll have to pardon me when the word “racist” comes to mind.
Some terrorists are middle-eastern. And some are non-middle-eastern Muslims. And some are Christian white guys with gunracks. And hell, if we wanted to include Columbine, we could say that some are stupid teenagers with too much time on their hands and not enough brains. But the point is that we have no idea who might be the next terrorist, and it’s not impossible to recruit little old grandmas.
Comment by Doctor Biobrain — August 16, 2005 @ 11:11 pm
the time has come to rescue the republican party…if enough of
us were to register as republicans we could dilute the influence of the mindless dittoheads etc…the individual voters on the right are just folks…most of them may respond to the chance to vote
for their real human feelings and forego the blind following of
the corporate-war profiteering cheney types…remember the start of the republicans was with Abe Lincoln and he was no fool
nor did he turn away from others becuse of politics and he died for his efforts…reclaim Lincoln’s legacy and register republican…
Comment by romanwalls — August 16, 2005 @ 11:59 pm
>It’s safe to say that all KKK members vote republican
David Duke ran for a LA Senate seat as a Democrat. then he tried for President as a Democrat, then as a Polpulist; then he tried for LA governor as a Republican.
Comment by cleek — August 17, 2005 @ 4:09 am
Good to see Sen Byrd’s KKK record is remembered. OK so he’s “apologised” – but couldn’t the Democrats find anyone in WV capable of being a senator who’d never done anything so vile? It’s as tho, say, the Roman Catholic Church couldn’t find a single papabile cardinal who hadn’t been a Nazi. Or JFK couldn’t find an Attorney General who’d never worked for Macarthy. Yeah, well… But how does Sen B feel able to argue with people who’ve never been in the KKK? I would have thought the “liberal thing to do” was not join the KKK, not join it then apologize. Altho that’s what some people would call liberal, meaning wet.
If all KKK members now vote Republican, it means the Repuplican and Democrat exchange of places is now complete. I can remeber when the were all Democrats, along with Strom Thurmond and Jesse Holms and Orval Faubus and wassname Wallace. Actually Byrd’s position has something in common with Fulbright’s who was an anti-Vietnam war goody but with an appalling voting record wrt Civil Rights.
Re internment, I once saw a TV program with some Italian-Americans whining about their fathers being interned in WWII, but it was so sloppy it didn’t say if they were US or Italian citizens at the time. But how come you Americans never interned the German-American Bund? In the UK we took a more robust attitude, interning not only all Germans (inc Austrians) and Italians, but also the British members of the British Union of Fascists. You may have heard of Sir Oswald Mosley and his lovely wife Diana. There was no public opposition to locking them up, but there was to letting them out afterwards. And we’d have hanged Ezra Pound if he’d been British (or ever used a British passport).
John of London
Comment by John of London — August 17, 2005 @ 4:34 am
“Since she didn’t technically use the term “grief pimps” on her own to explicitly reference the supporters of Cindy Sheehan, I guess she’s right in saying that the Times use of the words “disdainfully called” represents a “false allegation”.”
If she writes her own headline, then she did “explicitly reference the supporters of Cindy Sheehan.” That’s what the post is about, and unless the headline refers to an article on Boing Boing about Japanese octopus porn then the LA Times should not have retracted their statement.
Comment by Nathan Rudy — August 17, 2005 @ 5:16 am
“Grief Pimps?” Surely the diving Ms M was the victim of bad editing or typing or something. I’m sure she meant “grief pimples.”
Now please excuse me while I box up a Clearasil Care Package for her.
.
Comment by dancinfool — August 17, 2005 @ 5:22 am
My mother had a schoolmate of German descent interred for the duration. But that was because during the summer holidays before the war he had attended Hitler Youth camps in Germany.
My Father’s first and second generation German relatives were never interred. It was never considered.
Imagine Eisenhower behind a fence just because of his name.
Comment by Weakly World News — August 17, 2005 @ 6:09 am
Every time I hear or read Malangalang’s real name, I’m reminded of
this uber-strange video from M.I.A. – especially the chorus.
Purple haze, indeed.
Comment by BartCopFan — August 17, 2005 @ 6:49 am
I’m kinda torn on this one, frankly I think looking closer at middle Eastern men than at my grandma might be a better use of limited resources.
You’re wrong. Google “Carnival booth algorithm”.
Comment by Hamilton Lovecraft — August 17, 2005 @ 8:12 am
Hey, wait a second… Doesn’t this mean, therefore, that the Pentagon are all “grief pimps” for promoting their 9/11 Freedom Walk? Jus’ wonderin…
Comment by Question — August 17, 2005 @ 8:34 am
“It’s as tho, say, the Roman Catholic Church couldn’t find a single papabile cardinal who hadn’t been a Nazi.”
Well maybe not a Nazi, but it seems the Church couldn’t come up with a pope who wasn’t implicated in the pedophilia scandal.
Comment by mrgumby2u — August 17, 2005 @ 8:36 am
Disgusting
While growing increasingly more nauseated by the minute looking at the comments to this post, I noticed one of the commenters pointing out a link to this domain: http://www.michellemaglalang.com The domain redirects to a Google search for “Michelle Maglalang”…
Trackback by Cadillac Tight — August 17, 2005 @ 8:38 am
Was Terry McVeigh swarthy?
Comment by Shahzaman — August 17, 2005 @ 9:47 am
Re: David Duke and his performing party affiliation: he may have run for president as a Democrat; I don’t remember. But I do clearly remember that the Massachusetts Republican primary ballot in 1992 featured three and only three names: George H. W. Bush, Patrick Buchanan, and David Duke.
Comment by illegitimi — August 17, 2005 @ 11:22 am
I once got a letter which read, “BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD STAND CHARGES IN THE HAGUE.”
Let me make this perfectly clear. This is not my opinion. I never said such a thing. I’m just repeating what my correspondents wrote and should not be held responsible for what others write to me. Any attempt to link me with the notion that BUSH IS A WAR CRIMINAL WHO SHOULD STAND CHARGES IN THE HAGUE is a malicious lie.
Comment by tristero — August 17, 2005 @ 11:33 am
“…I’m kinda torn on this one, frankly I think looking closer at middle Eastern men than at my grandma might be a better use of limited resources…”
If limited resources is one of the problems, then not looking closer at my grandma would satisfy the limited resources equation, without taking up the former proposition. Menezes in London received seven slugs in the melon because the London police were looking closer at Middle Eastern men. He was, of course, Brazilian.
Comment by Tom H. — August 17, 2005 @ 12:53 pm
if we profile Middle-Eastern men between 18 and 40, we’d definitely pick up Jesus.
And with good cause! Afer all, wasn’t he aiding those Jewish Freedom Fighters resisting Roman Occupation, um, I mean, TERRORIST, DEAD ENDER, Insurgents, by feeding them leaves and fishes and otherwise giving them aid and comfort? Good thing me made quick work of him!
Comment by Marcus — August 17, 2005 @ 1:43 pm
This is snarky snarky snarky. It’s so very snarky. If I had to use just one word to describe this (or anything else) I guess that word would have to be “snarky”.
Comment by maryscott o'connor — August 18, 2005 @ 4:17 am
Just reviewing my last comment and realizing it’s fairly incoherent. That’s of course suppose to be loafs and fishes, referring to the various miracles where Jesus feeds large numbers of people. One interpretation is that these are people hiding from the Romans, resisting the Romans, etc. Also the last sentence is suppose to say, we made quick work, not me made quick work.
Comment by Marcus — August 18, 2005 @ 6:47 am