Have you voted for your favorite blogs today? Vote once every 24 hours from now until December 12.
——————————————————
Ignorance
Do you want to know how mind-numbingly ignorant and lazy people can be? In what was supposed to be a “Gotcha!” moment, a few bloggers breathlessly announced that Michelle Malkin, whose maiden name is Maglalang, was “whitewashing” her ethnicity and Filipino heritage by anglicizing her name. For reasons that are no doubt irrational and juvenile, the intellectual giants failed to consider that Michelle is married and Malkin is her husband’s name.
Her book, Invasion, is copyrighted under Maglalang. This is what they base their assertions on. I came to the correct conclusion when I saw it in my copy: She chose not to go to the trouble of changing the copyright. It took me 2 seconds to figure it out, tops. If she was trying to hide her name, why include it in the book?
A few liberal bloggers created whole posts out of this. As I read some of them (I was lured by a link to my blog), I was shaking my head at the sad state of partisan idiocy floating around the blogosphere.
Anyone who regularly reads Michelle’s columns and blog or even glances at them every once in awhile knows she’s married with two kids. But according to her liberal detractors, a woman who frequently writes with pride about her Filipino heritage is somehow ashamed of her last name. Ironically, some of the same critics accuse her of playing up her heritage! Michelle’s response is pure gold. (Also see David Limbaugh and Outside the Beltway.)
This is one of the reasons I’m not into bashing other bloggers. I don’t read liberals blogs often enough, and with other interesting things going on in the world, I don’t have time to educate myself on who they are and what they do. But some bloggers live to trash others. They seem to love me. The good thing about being bashed by liberals is that they’re 1) reading my blog; 2) bringing other people to it; and 3) helping me rise in the ecosystem.
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Someone in the comment section asked what I thought of historically black colleges and universities (HBCU), assuming that I didn’t attend one and was against them. If anyone’s read the About page, they’d see that I graduated from South Carolina State University, which is an HBCU.
HBCUs were created because black students were once kept out of white schools by law. Rather than closing down after desegregation, they remained open and continued their mission. While these schools are predominately black, they’re not exclusively for blacks. That would be against the law. As long as historically black colleges don’t discriminate to keep other races out, I have no problem with them.
Related sources: Washington Post: Enrollment Is Shifting At Black Universities,
Washington Times: Diversity looks different in historically black colleges.
Etc.
Lots of good stuff in the Autumn 2004 City Journal
Unrelated Update: Armstrong Williams says outgoing NAACP president Kweisi Mfume was kicked out.
Update II: Read Michelle’s defense of her book, various reviews and op-eds.
Update III: “Final Ohio Vote Tally Shows Smaller Margin for Bush” (source)
Well, if that makes them feel better…
Well, you work with what you have. People attacking Malkin will not be able to point out her using foul language or saying something stupid. Her maiden name might just be all that’s left.
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 12.06.04 @ 10:04 am
Wow…I’ve only been reading her column for 2 or 3 months and I knew that she’s married w/ kids. Someone needs to do their homework (any homework)… Talk about going out looking to pick a fight…
Comment by Thunder Runner — 12.06.04 @ 10:08 am
I’m a liberal and I knew she was married. However, I did read the “mini-bio” from her first book, Invasion, and it seemed like she was trying really hard to separate herself from her heritage. In the bio, she goes out of her way to say that she is a “second-generation Filipino,” as if she knows that many of the racist conservatives out there may not accept her if they knew she came here fresh off the boat or something.
I was reading the “pro-enforcement” post by La Shawn and I completely agree. However, I do believe the undercurrent in the conservative community is one of “anti-immigrant.” Liberals are definitely more open to immigrants than conservatives. This is clear. The whole conservative movement over the last four years has been one of extreme isolationism. Isolate the rest of the world and do whatever the heck we want to.
I’m not being all-inclusive here. Of course there are some conservatives who may disagree.
But the liberals attacking Malkin’s maiden-name are a joke.
Comment by Mike M. — 12.06.04 @ 10:21 am
See what I mean? Mike, the woman is simply stating a fact. She is a second generation American. Please don’t read your assumptions into this.
By the way, her parents immigrated to the U.S. legally, too.
Comment by LB — 12.06.04 @ 10:27 am
Conservative Pro-imigrant: H1B visas, and people meeting the standards to come in and stay in.
Liberal Pro-imigrant: so long as they are off the books, working as field hands or nannys. And can pat them on the head at the end of the day and get a warm fuzzy.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 11:12 am
Michelle is too funny. Some people get on the internet and manners fly right out the window, so much so that they revert to the 3rd grade insults. lol Kudos to her for the way she handled it.
As for the papers dropping her columns, I don’t buy the paper anyway. I find the internet more relevant than newspapers.
As for conservatives supposedly being “anti-immigrant”, that’s bologne. The liberals shoved the same kind of propaganda down the throats of the citizens of France, telling that being against open borders was racist. Look what they’ve got now. A serious problem!!!
I’m not anti-immigrant. I’m pro-legal-immigrant.
Comment by RepJ — 12.06.04 @ 11:20 am
Thank God there are no liberals in my household!
My family would be dealing with a major crisis here. My wife is an elected official who took my name when we married more than two decades ago.
She is an immigrant. Her maiden name was a Central European one with a lot of vowels. Mine on the other hand, by family lore, is an Americanized form of a name from the area that traded back and forth between France and Germany over the last couple of hundred years.
If my wife was a liberal, she would probably need a mental health professional to help decide what name she should use.
Comment by Allan Yackey — 12.06.04 @ 11:34 am
Wuzzy,
Good point, but I disagree with your saying liberals only want the immigrants “off the books.” If anything, liberals want all immigrants to be here legally and be able to have the courtesy of ALL workers’ rights afforded American citizens. If memory serves me right, weren’t several of Bush’s first-term cabinet nominees housing illegal immigrants???
By and by, I feel immigrants work harder than most Americans. Because they have an incentive to be here. Lord knows I certainly don’t want to have to pick my produce. I just think the conservatives complaining about immigrants need to recognize how much work they really do in our society. They must be protected, not threatened with deportation.
Wuzzy…you say conservatives want “people who meet standards to come in and stay in.” Unfortunately, I feel the definition of “standards” is too broad.
LB,
I know her parents immigrated legally, but the fact that “second-generation” seemed out of place in the bio is what I was inferring. As if she had to let her conservative base know that she is indeed here legally because they may question her because of her decidedly Asian appearance. All I’m saying is that I feel conservatives are quicker to judge than liberals. This has been my experience, what with my fully conservative family. The things I’ve heard from them in the past few weeks in reference to Jews, Blacks, Asians and Latinos have made my jaw drop. And every one of them voted for Bush.
I certainly don’t mean my experience to be inclusive of all conservatives, but this is certainly how I base my opinion.
I’m rambling here, so I’ll drop it.
Comment by Mike M. — 12.06.04 @ 11:40 am
Well I guess you haven’t overheard liberals talking lately.
As for Michelle’s background, I think it’s very important for a pro-enforcement writer with immigrant parents to point out that they became citizens within the bounds of the law. She wants to emphasize that her parents went through the proper channels, refuting any claims that she’s a hypocrite.
And you better believe people judge. That’s what humans do. I wish I could say I didn’t benefit from skin color preferences but I can’t! In retrospect, I should have checked “Other” or written in “American” on all those applications so I could be at least 80 percent sure I was judged on merit and not my race.
Comment by LB — 12.06.04 @ 11:48 am
The liberal-left nitwits, assailing Michelle Malkin for allegedly “hiding” her maiden name when “Malkin”, is merely her married name as per the practice of a woman taking on her husbands name before hyphenation became popular. It is the identical liberal-left twits who naively believe and proclaim that the first amendment declares “church and state separation” when it merely states that government shall not establish a form of “state” religion (as occurred in England from which the pilgrims fled to establish the original 13 colonies) and niether shal it prohibit free exercise individual religious beliefs!
Fleeing England was for freedom “of” religion rather than freedom “from” religion as many naively assume.
Comment by RHB — 12.06.04 @ 11:53 am
Of course liberals are pro-illegal immigration, where would they get they nanny’s and housekeepers?
Comment by Steven J. Kelso Sr. — 12.06.04 @ 12:19 pm
Lashawn, we share something. I am a Coppin State (under) Grad!
You go girl!
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.06.04 @ 12:42 pm
With all due respect, anyone complaining that “second-generation filipino” isn’t an important qualifier has never lived or worked around an immigrant population. There is a big difference between the first-generation immigrants and their kids. The first generation immigrants look at the US from the perspective of their birth country. The second look at their parents home country from the perspective of the US.
Anyone who grew up in that sort of setting (like Ms. Malkin) would want to make that qualifier because it tells a lot about their personal outlook.
Comment by Jeff the Baptist — 12.06.04 @ 12:59 pm
Mike - No amount of explaining is going to convince you that conservatives are not a block of voters who unanimously hate immigrants and minorities. It’s interesting that you can catagorize a group of people who share the same views and assume they all look alike. How does that make you more open minded than a person who assumes all people that look alike think alike? What makes conservativism a race instead of an ideology? I thought liberals were more enlightened.
In case it matters, I’m pro immigration - legal immigration. That’s how my ancestors got here.
Also for the record - I read Michelle Malkin’s essays and columns because she’s a damn good journalist and an interesting author. The fact that she’s a minority holding conservative views is interesting to me because it requires courage on her part - because liberals label her someone that has betrayed their expectations of how a minority should think. America is a better place with her, regardless of when she got here.
Comment by southpaw — 12.06.04 @ 2:03 pm
Yeah I caught this on OW’s site. The analysis is just trifling. And you’ll notice that he doesn’t come back to correct his assertion. He just leaves it up there like he’s uncovered some great discovery.
Comment by Ambra — 12.06.04 @ 2:59 pm
Can you post links to the bloggers who were making posts about this?
Comment by lohan — 12.06.04 @ 3:25 pm
“I know her parents immigrated legally, but the fact that ’second-generation’ seemed out of place in the bio is what I was inferring. As if she had to let her conservative base know that she is indeed here legally because they may question her because of her decidedly Asian appearance. ”
Mike M., you are reading waaaaay too much into that one. Anyone whose read any book where the author discusses his or her heritage would see the same references to second or third generation in relation to establishing how long their particular familial ties have been in this country, black white, Irish or other. It is down right silly to assume that one is merely trying to distance themselves from their heritage by pointing out what generaton they belong to, if that were the case then why mention it at all? If anything, by mentioning her generational status she is doing just the opposite.
Why would Mrs. Malkin even be addressing the subject of immigration if she were ashamed of her heritage, knowing that there would be such a backlash?
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 12.06.04 @ 3:27 pm
lohan - Outside the Beltway links to two: http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/8333
Jerry - That’s what I was trying to say, but the way you express it is much clearer. Thanks.
Comment by LB — 12.06.04 @ 3:39 pm
Trifling from OW? You don’t say! Like kryptonite to stupid… yep. A mythical supbstance from far off outer space, sounds about right.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 3:46 pm
Jerry,
When I write my first book, I’ll be sure to exclaim that I’m a combo of “third generation Italian and fourth generation Irish ancestry.”
OK, excuse my facetiousness.
Comment by Mike M. — 12.06.04 @ 3:46 pm
Wuzzy and Ambra,
I read OW’s blog and I must say I’m not pleased that he hasn’t printed a retraction of some sort. How anyone could NOT know Malkin is married is crazy. If you read her blog on a regular basis, she often mentions her daughter and husband.
Comment by Mike M. — 12.06.04 @ 3:48 pm
I was reading the “pro-enforcement” post by La Shawn and I completely agree. However, I do believe the undercurrent in the conservative community is one of “anti-immigrant.”
That would certainly explain why Bush nominated immigrant Carlos M. Gutierrez for Secretary of Commerce!
Comment by rob — 12.06.04 @ 3:57 pm
Her name is about the most trivial issue I have with Malkin. The acceptance by the right of her academically indefensible “internment was a good thing” is the real problem with her, among other ethical lapses.
Comment by Oliver — 12.06.04 @ 4:01 pm
The left continues to be plagued by the lethal combination of ingorance and arrogance. I just assume keep it that way while we march values and common sense forward.
Comment by Dan Cummings — 12.06.04 @ 4:15 pm
Oliver, disagreeing with her on the basis of historical and factual information is fair but to simply “jump her bones” because she mentions what generation of American she is is being down right silly. As I mentioned in my own blog today, why not critique or even attack her stance based on real, tangible, factual info rather than her supposed intentions?
Her name shouldn’t be at issue at all.
“Jerry,
When I write my first book, I’ll be sure to exclaim that I’m a combo of ‘third generation Italian and fourth generation Irish ancestry.’
OK, excuse my facetiousness. ”
Mike, in doing so would you be expressing pride or shame for your ancestry?
Comment by Jerry McClellan — 12.06.04 @ 4:20 pm
A woman of Japanese ancestry who lived in my building gave me the presentation she used when asked to speak on her heritage. Her grandmother had been interred during WWII. One point that she made is that there were characteristics of each generation [immigrants, their children and grandchildren] that were quite unique. I no longer remember the talk. How Malkin describes herself doesn’t seem much different from Iacocca telling how his parents arrived at Ellis Island–unless you’re assuming that all Asian immigrants are somehow “different.”
Comment by Evon Bachaus — 12.06.04 @ 4:25 pm
Jerry,
Neither pride nor shame. I’m certainly not shameful of my ancestry, but I suppose I don’t really care enough about it to be filled with such a “sin” as pride. I know my history and lineage, but I don’t feel it’s a qualifying factor in how I function day to day.
Well, I’m off to make dinner. I’ll be sure to set a place for you guys, my conservative buddies! And, especially for you, La Shawn!!!
How does garlic shrimp, horseradish-encrusted steak, roasted vegetables and lemon orzo sound to everyone???
Enjoy your evenings.
Comment by Mike M. — 12.06.04 @ 4:36 pm
I agree with Oliver. She is not one I respect terribly because I think she has used her ethnicity to gain publicity, a la the black woman who headed David Duke’s NAAWP a while back. Seems disengenuous to me. I do not know the woman, but there seems to be other issues or WAYS to approach this issue that don’t smack of pandering the way this (her internment book) does.
Lashawn, I know you are a fan, but on this one we just disagree.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.06.04 @ 5:16 pm
See, I always read Malkin’s point to be that internment was the same thing as what happened in Europe, and was far from limitted to Japanese. I was in college before I learned that Germans and Italians were also interred. We spent something like 2 weeks on the Japanese American’s trials in Highschool history…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 5:18 pm
What a bunch of short-term memory hypocrites on this board, the whole lot of you! What do black liberals have to offer but their black skin and white guilt? Attack Michelle Malkin personally, if you like, but I’ve yet to hear one factual argument pointing out any errors or inaccuracies in her book, just one ad hominem stacked on top of another. She has explained over and over ad nauseum her purpose in writing that book.
And ethical laspes? Which ethical lapses, for crying out loud? Examples? Making statements like that is too easy, too simple and too juvenile. Never defending a position, just throwing out a couple of buzz words to stir things up.
And any liberal reading and commenting on this blog ought to be ashamed for accusing Michelle of “using” her ethnicity to get ahead when black liberals LIVE by it. Why do you think dusty operations like the NAACP exist? And skin color quotas and entitlements? And this obsession with race “diversity,” for crying out loud?
Lazy thinkers, lazy writers. It makes me sick. I’m not letting any of you liberals back on this board until you follow the link I’m posting in Update II. Don’t even try to comment until you read Michelle’s defense of her book. Then come back and make an argument!
Comment by La Shawn — 12.06.04 @ 5:26 pm
Anyone else hear a bullwhip cracking?
Remind me not to tick LB off (anymore than usual)
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 5:34 pm
I just love the Monday morning quarterbacking, especially when taken all out of context.
In the 40s, we didn’t have news at the speed of light, if anything it took 2 - 3 days at best for any footage to be broadcast. Instant replay? Forget it!! By the time one knew anything, it was ancient. Yet, given the wonders of satelite broadcasting, we’re second-guessing actions live on screen.
Give me a break, just because one sees it, don’t mean they know it all, for every angle, there’s another angle that could change the whole equation, if one were to see it.
The same with the whole internment business.
We simply didn’t know then what we know now. Lest anyone forget, there most definitely were Japanese, Italian & German spies.
Was it tragic that some were interned? Yes.
Was it tragic that some fought & died? Yes.
Was it tragic that civilains were bombed? Yes.
Was it tragic that others had to go on rations? Yes.
And the point is? War is hell, not just on the soldiers, also for the civilians caught in the warzone, as well as the civilians back home safe and sound. Everyone pays a price, fairly or not, that’s just the way it was.
We have it easy this time around, instant news, no overt rationing, no draft, yet moonbats persist in griping about how green the grass is in utopia. Please.
FDR reviewed and approved various rationals for internment, from protection from vigilantes to containment/imprisonment of suspected spies and a few executions. Was racism and or profiling a factor? Of course, for the simple reason that many Asians were inscruteable to the average white or black American. To question one’s loyalty was a valid proposition.
Funny about the selective memory, FDR is a hero to the libs, yet they forget he was also the one responsible for the internments. It’s almost as if they believe that anything bad that happend under his watch really didn’t come from him, rather there was this VRWC shadow government what dunit. T’was these bogeymen that did all that was eviiiiil, FDR had nuthin to do with it, or was powerless to stop it.
If anything, credit should be given to us that we allowed some to go free (particularly 2nd generation or more) to go and fight for us. As it turned out Americans of Japanese, AND African, extraction proved their valor at a higher rate than the average GI. Imagine the Germans, the Russians or the Japanese letting the aliens amongst them hold a gun and fight for them. Hold a shovel and dig or slave labor? Sure. Fight for the adopted homeland? Fuggidaboudit.
Unfortunately for the Americans of Arab extraction, they are now under close scrutiny for the simple reason that our War on Terror is not against terroists (ETA, IRA, et al) in general, rather it is against Islamofascist. It only makes sense to detain those that fit a jihadi profile and if vetted, let em go.
That’s life and wishing it weren’t so, doesn’t make it any easier. What would make it easier is if and when more of them stand out and denounce it loud and clear that they categorically reject islamofascism, dhimmi & jihad. Lying or distorting the meaning won’t help since we’re on to the gig.
Comment by Andy — 12.06.04 @ 7:34 pm
La Shawn,
Did you pledge while at SC State?
Comment by Jase Alston — 12.06.04 @ 7:44 pm
Yep. I pledged AKA.
Comment by La Shawn — 12.06.04 @ 7:50 pm
Once again, Andy, you’ve hit the nail on the head.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.06.04 @ 8:14 pm
I first became aware of Michelle Malkin a few years ago through, of course, FOX tv news channel where she was a frequent talking head guest. Like La Shawn, her analysis is always interesting, intelligent, incisive and generally spot on.
I spotted the copyright name as well and although figured it out faster than me I doubt it took me over a second more.
But that is the mindset of many (most?) on the left…don’t like the message, attack the messenger. Of course, fixing elections (Weblog Awards by DailyKos) while preaching while claiming to have the inside track to the truth, that’s ok.
Thank God for people like Malkin & Barber.
Comment by Allan — 12.06.04 @ 8:33 pm
That’s a nice thing to say, Allan. I’m sure Michelle would appreciate it, too.
Comment by La Shawn — 12.06.04 @ 9:01 pm
Thanks SCSI, it was a little scary, cause I wrote it from my flaky memory of what I learned — little bit here and a little bit there over the years of reading war histories and novels. As well as catch can from the History channel whenever I’m on the road in various hotels — no cable at home ;).
After I wrote the above, only then did I go over and read Michelle’s rebuttal to Eric. To my relief, at least I won’t get flamed by her nor embarassed here. Whew!!!
I just don’t get it. There’s plenty of info from disparate sources that just a cursory reading would be enough for anyone to figure out the big picture. Oh wait, that’s right, critical thinking is discouraged by the edumacation elites
Comment by Andy — 12.06.04 @ 9:03 pm
“Finally, to the person who wrote: “Maglalangadingdong.” Do I know you? Because I think my brother beat you up in third grade when you used the same dumb taunt.”
That closing line of Michelle’s is a classic! It seems from your latest “smackdown” on ad hominum attacks in this comment section, La Shawn, that you’re of the same mind about the “third graders” and their insults. Good for you.
Comment by Kevin — 12.06.04 @ 10:00 pm
Just wanted to comment on Armstrong’s article about Mfume being run out. This is interesting. It’s always been obvious that Bond was out on the fringe. By the same token, I didn’t cut Mfume any slack — guilty by association.
La Shawn, you once blogged, back around when Coz was making waves:Kweisi has an outdated and ignorant perception of black conservatives. He should tear himself away from his limousine and NAACP parties long enough to find out why we believe what we believe. Kweisi and his sour grapes reinforce my view that he and his cronies are not insulted but frustrated by President Bush’s rebuff. The great savior Slick Willie is off selling his hand weights and making money. They’ll have to come up with a new strategy on their own.
To which opined that ‘Poor Queasy PeeWee must be getting lonely up in that Ebony Tower’. I then offered my best Weird Al Yankovich ripoff:
They assembled in 09,
answered “The Call” and everyone smiled,
there weren’t but few faces in the line,
gathered for the photograph,
all agreed with hand on heart,
to advance the Colored People’s lives,
but now,
Queasy stands upon Baltimore dock,
with his elitist chiefs,
and his entourage clings,
to anti-white dreams of political gain,
in quiet desperation knuckles,
tight upon the slippery reins,
he vainly calls Dubya back again,
and still Independent Blacks deign,
evermore depart in spades,
a blunt rejection of victimology and James Bird’s grave,
and when the fight was over,
NAACP spent what they had made,
but in the bottom of their hearts,
they’d felt the final cut.
Looks like he didn’t have to tear himself away, it was torn away from him by a doddering old bitter man.
Ironic!!! Wonder if it’s too much for us to hope that he done seen the light and will start living up to his adopted Twi name by hooking up with the conservative brotherhood? That would certainly drive a stake in Bond’s heart. Bwahahaha
Comment by Andy — 12.06.04 @ 11:05 pm
Andy, Despite Kweisi Mfume’s past sins, he has lost his job because he was trying to make positive each changes at the NAACP, from the way I read Armstrong’s article.
People change over time due to growing-up, experience at what works, self-interest, what-ever. If those changes are in the ‘right’ direction, shouldn’t we encourage and forgive them of past sins(with verification of course), instead of reminding them?
Doesn’t he have the potential of becoming an ally if we say nice things about the ‘right’ things he is doing?
Comment by Jim R — 12.07.04 @ 2:13 pm
Mike M. likes to misinterpret what we say, spin it, change it to what he thinks we mean and then BASH it.
Don’t quit your day job Mike.
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 2:17 pm
Jeff the Baptist
Having married a second generation filipino, I could tell you that I don’t agree with your conclusion.
I think Michelle wrote it in her bio because she gets asked alot “when did you come to America?” or “where you born here?”. Trust me Jeff, that was the motivation - to answer the question that people ask.
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 2:20 pm
Mike M.
My last message applies to you to because you haven’t walked a mile in someone elses shoes and you are judging pretty radically someone else.
NOBODY ASKS YOU “when did you move here” or “were you born here”.
But if you want to mention that you are x-generation Italian American, please do. We’ll just watch and make our own conclusions about you.
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 2:26 pm
Oliver,
It sounds like you disagree with Malkin’s conclusion. Are you saying you are smarter and/or went through all the material she went through and/or was alive in that era. Does she not have the right to have the opinion?
Did you read the point after point about the fact that internment was applied to Germans as well as the Japanese and that in a time of war safety and security was FDR’s concern and it was deemed necessary to win WWII.
Nobody is saying that they LOVED to intern people.
Nobody is saying that that is what they wish to do today.
Nobody is saying that it wasn’t a hard decision that had ramifications
…. Including Michelle.
Please feel free to have your own conclusion. But Michelle is not an ethically lapsing individual as you like to judge and her work was not academically indefensible.
Why not state your own opinion without resorting to demonizing others.
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 2:32 pm
Stephen Johnson,
This is what happens again and again. Stephen you began and ended just fine. You stated that agree with Oliver and disagree with La Shawn.
But in the middle of your post you resort to the typical thing that does not further the debate. You resorted to what a lot of people do and that is to act like you KNOW something that you can’t possibly know.
You state, “because I think she has used her ethnicity to gain publicity”
Oh really. How do you know what is in Michelle’s mind Stephen? Can’t she have some valid opinions and substance and state them? Try reading her book. Get it from a friend if you don’t want to pay her money. THEN, we’ll all be here waiting for you to tell us what substance was factually incorrect. What opinion of hers merits disagreement?
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 2:38 pm
Thank You La Shawn,
Too many blogs the posters are aloud to get away with:
1) reading the minds of conservatives
2) knowing that they are really trying to do such and such evil and conniving thing
I would like the people like Mike M., Oliver, and Stephen Johnson actually to state something of substance with facts and truth behind it. If we wanted to read what they had to say we could go to any number of hate spewing anti-fact sites.
Which by the way, I do way too often. I pride myself in knowing both sides of the story to be a better debater.
But for once I like to read stuff without seeing the garbage.
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 2:43 pm
I don’t quite get the ethnicity as publicity logic. If anything, being fillipino, it shouldn’t be a shock that she might see the internment of the Japanese as a defense worthy policy. It’s not like Japan treated the Phillipines very well in the war…
I used to date a pinay, and while her father was not all that happy that she was going out with me, but he often said “At least he’s Catholic. And not Japanese like the last one.”
Or is it just the usual shock that a person from a minority group can have and express such heretical thoughts…
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 12.07.04 @ 2:52 pm
Baklava,
You totally have misinterpreted what I’ve said. I’m spinning nothing. I was simply stating my opinion, which I will not repeat again.
And, for the record, I have no day job. I recently left an insurance company after six years of hard work. Corporate America is not for me. 80% of the companies out there are scum.
I think I’ve been pretty fair on this blog. Just because I said one thing you disagreed with, I don’t think it’s totally fair for you to say I spin and change everything you say.
Comment by Mike M. — 12.07.04 @ 3:43 pm
Mike M. - Your first post:
You state, “it seemed like she was trying really hard to separate herself from her heritage.”
Mike M. judges that she is trying really hard to separate herself from her heritage. I think that this is Mike’s way of saying that he knows what she is up to which could only be opinion and spin. I state my own opinion which seems much more logical (based on my time with a filipino woman).
You state, “she knows that many of the racist conservatives out there may not accept her if they knew she came here fresh off the boat or something.”
Mike M. That is quite the statement with radical judgments (spin). I am a conservative Mike. Guess what. You are WRONG. I am not racist. And I would’ve accepted Michelle if she came here legally as first generation as I’ve accepted others and have the track record of doing so. Seems your judgmental opinon (spin) is off the mark and you think you know what we are about but you actually don’t.
You state, “However, I do believe the undercurrent in the conservative community is one of “anti-immigrant.”
INCORRECT again Mike. There is a large segment of us who are “pro immigration law enforcement” which means to others that we are not in favor of immigrant breaking the laws (coming here illegally). Why Mike must this country allow illegal immigration when we allow more LEGAL immigrants than ALL OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES COMBINED? We are in favor of immigrants going through the PROCESS
You state, “Isolate the rest of the world and do whatever the heck we want to.”
You spin again. Bush tried to involve everyone. Clinton did not in the Bosnian war. Bush tried to convince others to join us and made the case for 18 long (rush to war) months. In the end, those who were profiting off us the status quo with Saddam and the oil-for-food/weapons program did not want to enforce their previous UN Resolution.
I think I’ve pretty well closed that case.
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 4:03 pm
Mike M.
Good luck in your quest to find something you are good at.
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 4:12 pm
Baklava,
Was that a backhanded compliment or what? Find something I’m good at? Who said I wasn’t good at what I did?
Ok…so you got me on some stuff. If I went through everything you’ve said on this board, I’m sure I could find some “spin” you’re guilty of.
All I said is that I feel I’ve been a bit fairer than some of the other blind-eyed liberals who have stopped by here.
Comment by Mike M. — 12.07.04 @ 5:10 pm
Mike.
It wasn’t right of me to say Don’t quit your day job. I’m sorry.
Thank you for the gracious admittance that “I got you on some stuff”.
Comment by Baklava — 12.07.04 @ 5:55 pm
Baklava;
Wow. I didn’t see this one coming, but if dance we must…
You stated:”You resorted to what a lot of people do and that is to act like you KNOW something that you can’t possibly know.”
But ‘B’ I did nothing of the sort, because my statement is as you take the time to point out “because I think…” F.Y.I.-that means the author is speaking opinion, NOT fact or personal knowldge. “I THINK” is synonomous with “IMHO”…The listener is not getting fact.
Substantivly (I thought it odd for you to accuse my posts of lacking substanitive argument generally, and disingenuous for you to take a short couple of sentences and lambast me for having no depth,) I do not know, nor claim to know her motivations. Never claimed to.
However her thesis is clear, as clear as it was when I read her defense, (thanks LB) and that is that in war, some sacrifices of what we hold dear are needed for the benifit of the common good.
To overlook the fact that she choose, as an Asian American, to illustrate her point by looking at (and to some degree defending) the case made for internment on the grounds of national security is silly. You can’t tell me, and it would be intellectually dishonest (there’s that phrase again, do you see a pattern?) to assert that she gave no thought to the questions that would be asked (and were/are either rightly or wrongly asked) about her feelings as an Asian immirgrant on the topic, someone mentioned it to her. In My Opinion, she could have explored her thesis in a more productive way (I have said this before).
But the reason that I don’t agree with her (or you,) on this issue is that I do not think that suspending the constitution and habeous corpus selectivly is constitutional, and I would not be willing to subject the American people to the level of suspended as applied to limited ‘groups’ of people.
As Ms. Malkin states “As I make plainly and thoroughly clear in both the lengthy introduction and conclusion, I am advocating narrowly-tailored and eminently reasonable profiling measures such as…Airport and travel screening measures that subject individuals of certain nationalities to heightened scrutiny…[and]Heightened scrutiny of Muslim chaplains and soldiers serving in the military and in prisons.” as well as ““structural reforms that allow our country to better meet the potential threat posed by future Kenji Itos…”
Further, Ms. Malkin tells us her audience is “every citizen who wishes to engage in a meaningful discussion of the civil liberties/national security debate…”
Well, first I do not agree with the such curtailment of our Constitutional Rights to be safe and free from the power of the government. While this is slightly tounge-in-cheek, any one of us could be Jose Padilla tomorrow. That is NOT what the founing fathers invisioned.
But aside from all that, she stated that she wrote the book as a discourse on the “civil liberties/national security debate…” and my words that sparked such ire, Baklava, were (and I am paraphrasing now) I.THINK.SHE.COULD.HAVE.FOUND.A.BETTER.WAY.TO.DO.IT.
I do. She has legitimate concerns regarding our National Security. So do I. She did not write that book, alone. No she wrote one that she KNEW would get people talking about the author. She wrote controversial findings and OPINIONS that supported her less controversal thesis. And that means there was a profit motive involved. I grow wary of those (as I am sure you do as well) who use their RACE to financially profit, and thus…I don’t trust her.
By the way, that is only my humble opinion.
Thank you Lashawn. I feel better now.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.07.04 @ 6:29 pm
Stephen
You stated an opinion basically asserting that you knew her intentions. A lot of people do this. People think that they can assert that they know what someone is thinking.
I.THINK.YOU.COULD.FIND.A.BETTER.WAY.TO.CRITIQUE (IN YOUR FIRST POST). You wanted to assert that you knew her intentions and you really don’t know them do you.
In your last post you did it again. I like a lot of that last post (even though I disagree with your conclusions)
You think that you know that she’s in it for the money. Again you make that mistake of asserting that you know what she’s thinking.
Comment by Balkava — 12.07.04 @ 11:47 pm
Jim R, sorry if my thot didn’t come thru clearly. I sincerely hope that Mfume has seen the light.
The great thing about America is that what you did doesn’t matter so much as what you are doing now. We are not bound by degrees and pedigrees. We are what we make of ourselves.
That’s why I said what I said. I was commenting on the irony that the NAACP was torn away from him even as more moderate - conservative blacks were tearing themselves away from the NAACP.
And wouldn’t it be just desserts on Uncle Bond and his liberal racist crowd if Mfume became a relevant & passionate opponent of that ole dinosaur?
Comment by Andy — 12.07.04 @ 11:49 pm
Stephen, and I suppose that better way to do it was by flat out rejecting the notion that sometimes internment is a necessary evil? In other words, sprout in lockstep with other liberal historians that internment was nothing less than pure eviiiil racism rearing its ugly head.
Martial law and internment has always been an option available to our govt and there is nothing unconstitutional about it in principle. What the founding fathers didn’t want was it to be treated as a normal fact of life, like the British. This is a tool that we can use only in the most dire of situations because we realize that if not throughly considered could lead to unintentional consequences.
Treason has always been punishable by execution. That we didn’t engage in wholesale executions speaks to our noble and constitutional restraints.
To me it doesn’t matter if MM was a Filipino or not. Her work stands on its own merits. Nevertheless, her serious scholarship became an issue only because some can’t see past her skin and automatically assume she’s an Aunt Jemima. Minority=Oppressed=Anti-Americanist.
For many liberals; If an immigrant, well then she can’t know what it’s like and is sucking up to the power.
Speculation alert:
However being a 2nd generation American, that means she is probably more American than Filipino, as it were. And the likelihood that her family has been affected to some degree by FDR’s policies, hence her personal interest in the subject. Knowing what she knows from her family’s perspective, she probably got irritated by those attempting to rewrite history in a racist light and wanted to set the record straight for her daughter and grandkids.
There is a difference between us and the rest of the ENTIRE world.
Repeat after me: “ONLY in America, do we govern under the concept of a covenant. All others govern under a contract or tyranny”.
By covenant, the government operates at the leisure of we-the-people. We tell the government what we will or will not permit/tolerate. Granted that is the big picture and the finer details have been eroded by constant scratching and scheming by the elites to shift the power to themselves. When we feel that certain of our representatives are failing, we may protest and complain. We may even bombard them with calls, letters and emails expressing our discontent. Come election day, we’ll decline to reward them with another term. And life goes on.
In the extreme, we’ll even organize a recall to eject/impeach someone who’s abused our covenant (think Davis/Slick/Nixon). Contrast that with Euro-polis and the rioting and wanton destruction when they have upset the people. Once in a while we may riot, but that is the exception, rather than the rule.
By contract, the government treats its subjects as just that, subjects to be herded, punished or promoted at the whim of the powers that be. The people accept a contract that in exchange for their serf-like obedience, the government will do X, Y and sometimes Z. When the government fails to carry thru, then the people take to the streets in massive riots etc.
Can you imagine you even imagine us having a MayDay? One day of the year, where people can rampage and vent their spleen for no particular reason than to just do it? Yeah, yeah, the moonbats are so enamored of this concept that they’re trying to import this ‘noble’ tradition into their bastions like SF, Seattle or Berkley. Yet they can’t even get the vote out. Yawn. I hear Washington State is fixing to get a Rep Governor. Yep, the grunge crowd have really swarmed and assumed control of that Blue State.
Comment by Andy — 12.08.04 @ 12:39 am
Balkava- My belief in her motives are are buttressed by the circumstances surrounding the facts. I have no confession, no ’smoking gun,’ yet I am sure of them. The market dictates in this situation. That you disagree is obvious (although I appreciate and respect that you do so), however you are looking for a ‘reasonable doubt’ standard from me, when all I need is a ‘preponderance of the evidence.’
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.08.04 @ 10:33 am
“Stephen, and I suppose that better way to do it was by flat out rejecting the notion that sometimes internment is a necessary evil? In other words, sprout in lockstep with other liberal historians that internment was nothing less than pure eviiiil racism rearing its ugly head.”
Whoa partner, you made quite a leap there didn’t you. Look, history has judged internment unfarvorably. The need for internment is the question, and since they were interned we will never know whether or not it was necessary, because we don’t know what the other outcome would have been.
But, since you asked…As a minority, I get a little antsy whenever somebody else says, ‘lets do something different to (insert minority group here), to prevent (insert evil here).’
Call it a fear of slopes (slippery one’s), or a nod to the “I let them come for’blank’ and did not say a word, and when they came for me, nobody was there to speak for me” lesson.
In God I trust. In man, not so sure.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.08.04 @ 11:01 am
While Andy and I disagree with you concerning the constitutionality in a time of war (How do you protect a nation and keep it SURVIVING?), what we are saying is that it would be wiser to argue on the merits of the arguments.
When you start speculating (asserting that you know someone’s intentions or thoughts) you OPEN yourself up to criticism and then you want to have some long response justifying your right to state an opinion.
Well… I have a right to state my opinion that your assertion is just as speculative and faulty in my opinion. You opine on something you can’t possibly know. I criticize.
Comment by Baklava — 12.08.04 @ 12:48 pm
Yet Baklava, even you cannot KNOW that my opinion is wrong.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.08.04 @ 1:42 pm
Yep. But I can know that you pretty much speculating…
And doing harm to someone while doing it. Is that fair?
Why not just argue on the substance?
When you do what you did you leave yourself OPEN to the criticism. And that is what you seem not to get. You started the whole thread and wonder why I respond. If you don’t wish to be criticized for the speculation (something you can’t possibly know) then don’t do it.
I admit I can’t know.
Do you finally?
Then don’t start…
Comment by Baklava — 12.08.04 @ 6:33 pm
Harm? I have done her no harm. She knew the reaction she would get, personally, writing this book. Knew it. That I react in a way that she knew was going to occur is thus harmless, because it was anticipated AND accepted. YOU read her book, and I would be surprised if she does not refer to just this thought in the book at some point.
By the way, philisopically, you cannot even KNOW that I am speculating.
Comment by stephen johnson — 12.09.04 @ 10:55 am
Yep. And the guy who threw the soda at the NBA game knew there would be a response. He knew it. Therefore he didn’t cause any harm.
Little advice.
2 wrongs don’t make a right.
However, I don’t even consider that her book is a wrong so your wrong is BOTH of the wrongs.
Try arguing on the substance next time.
Thanks.
Comment by Baklava — 12.09.04 @ 1:35 pm