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.

By the way, philisopically, you cannot even KNOW that I am 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…

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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”.

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.

Good luck in your quest to find something you are good at.

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.