Everyone around here knows how I feel about Michelle Malkin, right? Just before she started blogging, she e-mailed me and said she was a fan. I was beyond excited and I told everybody. Read the post. I emulated her writing style in my early days until I developed my own.
She’s multi-talented. She just finished a speaking engagement and impromptu debate at Emory University in Atlanta, where I’m sure she skewered her opponent. I have a news flash for you. What we do in the blogosphere is not called debating. Real debates have structure, time limits and rules. For example, when rebutting an opponent’s argument, you must stick to what they presented. You can’t set up a straw man or introduce entirely new points.
How tall is Michelle? Five feet and a few inches? Can you imagine what she looks like standing next to a man over six feet, debating and defending her controversial book, In Defense of Internment: The Case for ‘Racial Profiling’ in World War II and the War on Terror? Check out the reviews and critiques.
While at Emory, Michelle learned that liberal students had invited someone to “debunk” her book after her speech was over. She wasn’t invited. If this doesn’t sound strange to you, it should. Not only are liberals big opponents of protecting free speech, they also want to protect filth. Whatever debauched act or offensive language you can think of, liberals want to protect it. The exception is speech they consider “racist” or “homophobic.”
In my opinion, vocal support for lowered standards for blacks, also known as skin color preferences (affirmative action to you PC types), is “offensive” or racist speech. Liberals laugh when I say that, but as a black person who has a sense of dignity (and perhaps too much pride) and wants to earn her own way or fail, I don’t want special treatment from patronizing white liberals, and I’m offended by the suggestion that I need special treatment. The slave/master relationship is over. The Emancipation Proclamation took care of that.
I’m digressing. The point I’m making is that liberals are free speech hypocrites, and this fact was on display at Emory. Michelle must have shamed them into allowing her to defend her book because they asked her to stay. This is why I like Michelle and why she’s so cool:
The event was sparsely attended. Excluding the large group of College Republicans who came to listen and some off-campus Japanese American visitors, there were probably no more than 15 in the audience. Fortunately, both my event and the impromptu debate with Robinson were taped and the CRs plan to put both videos on their site .[Greg] Robinson repeated a plethora of errors he made in our initial debate and had the nerve to suggest (as his tag-team partner Eric Muller had earlier suggested) that it was beyond the realm of possibility for a pregnant woman with a day job to take a year to research and write a book challenging the conventional wisdom about WWII history — and more importantly, to apply the analysis to the current War on Terror (original analysis on which Robinson was largely silent).
Such intellectual snobbery is par for the course among my critics. Even as he accused me of “lifting” arguments from the late national security expert David Lowman about the so-called MAGIC cables (a baseless charge he had earlier back away from), Robinson himself regurgitated the well-worn criticism of MAGIC made by internment scholar Peter Irons, activist Jack Herzig, and lawyer Angus MacBeth. Nor was Robinson forthcoming about his own book’s failure to address MAGIC–he devoted a scant two pages to their existence and completely ignored the vast number of other intelligence memos from the FBI, Army Military Intelligence Division, and Office of Naval Intelligence supporting the military necessity rationale for FDR’s homeland security.
And the best part is the debate will be available for public viewing. We get to see her in action.
I want to do what she does, and I want to accomplish two things at once: Earning a living (traveling, writing and speaking) and dismantling all racist perceptions white liberals have about blacks. We’re not all line-walking, always-complaining, entitlement-mentality Democrats speaking from the same script. Some of us are gutsy risk-takers and myth-debunkers. Some of us don’t need or want white-liberal-guilt-relieving racial discrimination that favors us. Some of us actually believe that America is a great place to live and filled to the brim with opportunity for the motivated. Some of us believe we should either succeed or fail on our own merits, and don’t need or desire the government’s scraps.
I look forward to defending controversial ideas in front of large, even hostile, audiences, especially the idea that God condescended to become a man to save men from themselves. Truth has a way of “winning” the argument when the rules allow for disciplined, well-reasoned, intellectually honest and consistent exchange.
James White is a Christian apologist in the Reformed tradition who does this so well. In my opinion, he’s the best there is. White has been nominated for several Evangelical blog awards, and in a future post, I’ll tell you why you should vote for him. He’s up for Best Overall Evangelical Blog. For some strange reason, I’m in the same category.
Honestly, what I do on this blog doesn’t even come close to competing with James White’s skill and breadth of knowledge. It’s a good thing, too. I learn from him just as I learn from Michelle.
Update (2/4): So that’s where you liberals are coming from. No wonder you’re so rude; you read the blog of a vulgarian. Real classy. Take my advice: read the better blogs. Your brain cells will thank you. As long as you remember your manners while you’re in my “house,” we’ll have no problems. If you have no manners, go back where you came from.
