Update II (10/1): Michelle explains why she responds to certain idiot-detractors. Writing publicly for the past four years, I have had to deal with similar trash on a smaller scale.
Update (9/29): Yeah, sue, sue! Also see Three Reasons Michelle Shouldn’t Sue.
—————————————————————–
In response to her recent column about indecent young women, liberal bloggers dug for “you’re a hypocrite!” dirt and thought they’d found some.
A long-time Michelle Malkin nemesis blogger named Eric L. Muller of Is That Legal? linked to and Wonkette published what they thought was a photo of Michelle posing in a bikini in 1992.
Someone posted photoshopped photos and faked captions in a Flickr gallery. Michelle is looking for the culprit and filing a complaint with Muller’s employer, the University of North Carolina School of Law. She writes:
The idiots are so blinded by hate they can’t see a two-bit Photoshop from some hater’s bogus Flickr site? And they couldn’t bother to ask me before attempting to embarrass me and calling me a slut?
Sounds like a good plan to me. I hope Muller loses his job.
(By the way, even if the photo were genuine, posing in a bikini is not the same thing as being a skank.)
An e-mailer writes: “I also noticed that the blond girl who allegedly posted these photos hasn’t aged between going to spring break in 1992 and hanging [a] Bush-Cheney poster in 2004.”
More from Allah, Captain Ed…
By the way, even if the photo were genuine, posing in a bikini is not the same thing as being a skank
Even before reading down to this line, I was thinking the same thing.
Comment by Shade — 09.29.06 @ 10:25 am
my sentiments exactly
Comment by edub — 09.29.06 @ 10:43 am
Moral relativists can not stand people of principle. They revel in smearing them with righteous indignation that stems from a weird authority of “right and wrong” which they manufacture out of the glow of their own aura. (Remember how they unleashed their flock of flying monkeys on Bill Bennett when they found that he enjoyed gambling at a high stakes level.)
Moral relativists can only attack and charge hypocrisy, since they have no firm code of their own.
Remarkably, they can defend and even excuse terrorists, perverts and serial law breakers, but if a person of faith and principle has ever sinned, there is rare forgiveness. That is part of their code of conduct that emanates from the penumbra of the aura of their self esteem.
Hopefully, Michelle will be able to drag this bozo from his pit of hate and let him answer for his actions in the bright light of a court room. Maybe his momma will be proud of him.
As to Michelle in a bikini: The moral relativists are like the Taliban in reverse. If you are not part of the “free-flow” movement of morality, then you must clothe yourself from nose to toe in proper Victorian fashion. (They do seem to lust for her, don’t they?)
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.29.06 @ 10:59 am
The technorati crowd prides itself on its ability to sense a hoax at thirty paces. How convenient that they chose to ignore the fact that Michelle’s head is freakishly small for her body frame.
Comment by Jared — 09.29.06 @ 11:03 am
I’ve noticed that M. Malkin has taken to republishing on her own site offensive material directed against her. I love it. Shows the sickos for what they are.
Comment by dianne — 09.29.06 @ 11:05 am
Malkin Derangement Syndrome
I have blogged before about the obsessed UNC professor Eric Muller. He and his friends at Wonkette have sunk to a new low (Guess insulting me with ping-pong ball jokes wasn’t enough). As a response to my column this week…
Trackback by Michelle Malkin — 09.29.06 @ 11:07 am
The porn publisher Al Goldstein used to put a photo of his enemy of the week in a toilet bowl; what else is new?
Comment by Tom Bosee — 09.29.06 @ 11:26 am
Defending Malkin
Well not really - she don’t need no defending from no one no how - but commenting on it.
Michelle Malkin’s latest column is about some british girl who used to sing nice church music but now lets it all hang out singing dire girly pop. Not terribl…
Trackback by L'Ombre de l'Olivier — 09.29.06 @ 11:29 am
Michelle Malkin (and LaShawn too) have more class in their little fingers than ALL the readers of Wonkette and Is That Legal? combined.
But exposing them as Michelle is doing is brilliant and very courageous of her. The level of hatred seems to emanate in waves of late and I, for one, am becoming quite frightened of the insanity coming from my fellow citizens who have lost all sense of proportion, fair play and decency.
Comment by Gayle Miller — 09.29.06 @ 11:33 am
By the way, even if the photo were genuine, posing in a bikini is not the same thing as being a skank
- I agree
Even though it’s not Michelle, the context of the picture does not yell skank. I have pictures of women in my family in bathing suits… as we head to the beach.
Comment by Gerald — 09.29.06 @ 11:34 am
Dudes (apologies LaShawn) that is so obviously not Malkin–unless she discovered the joys of speed after she got out of college and lost 30 pounds. It doesn’t take a genius to recognize that isn’t her–just a straight guy (the left, I hear, is in short supply of those these days…..)
Comment by TheManTheMyth — 09.29.06 @ 11:38 am
Oh my God! This miserable creep Eric Muller allegedly found a picture of a younger Michelle Malkin in a bathing suit! The horrors!
Could she have been — at a beachfront condo at the time? (Gasp)
Or — at a swimming pool party? (horrors!)
What a pathetic worm.
Comment by Nick Byram — 09.29.06 @ 11:42 am
Muller’s point (and it might benefit some of your commentators to follow links) was NOT “Oh, look at Michelle being a skank!”.
It was hypocrisy.
If Malkin is going to castigate young women for being less-than-prim-and-proper, she better think about her own youthful experiences.
In other words, “People who live in glass houses…”
(Of course, that is a separate issue from whether or not the photo is authentic or not. I guess the jury is still out on that one).
Whether or not that’s Michelle in the picture, it’s a matter of “doing what I say, not as I’ve done.” I used to be a drunk, and I’d dare anyone to claim I can’t preach against the destruction of alcohol abuse because I used to drink. Who would know more about being a drunk than a drunk? But if I were still a drunk AND preaching against drunking, THEN I’d be a hypocrite. Someone who’s been there, learned from the mistakes, and warn others against it is not a hypocrite. - Admin
Comment by Kman — 09.29.06 @ 11:47 am
I’m kinda surprised Wonkette stooped so low. I may not always agree with everything Michelle writes (and I don’t) but to deliberately step on somebody like this is totally wrong!
Comment by Dave Lucas — 09.29.06 @ 11:48 am
EXCLUSIVE: Malkin Exposed!!!
The Political Pit Bull has obtained the following photo from a tipster, which is obviously legit, showing a bikini-clad Malkin gracing the cover of “Girls Gone Wild Spring Break 2005: Anything Goes!” And much like other rock-solid evidence recently o…
Trackback by The Political Pit Bull — 09.29.06 @ 11:48 am
I’m definitely no fan of Malkin but seriously…is it really that serious that you need to be trying to expose folks, print their personal information on the web and all of that type of stuff. It’s the INTERNET, folks. It’s not real life.
I’m going to need folks to back away from the keyboard…SLOWLY.
Comment by Tiffany in Houston — 09.29.06 @ 12:03 pm
Michelle commented that she wished she looked that good in a bikini. I agree w/one of the comments (which she posted): She’s selling herself WAY too short!
Michelle is one of the most attractive pundits in the blogosphere AND television.
Comment by Hube — 09.29.06 @ 12:24 pm
Nick Byram (Post #12):
“Oh my God! This miserable creep Eric Muller allegedly found a picture of a younger Michelle Malkin in a bathing suit! The horrors!”
Does anyone else think that Muller spent a LOT of time searching for pictures of Malkin in a bikini? A LOT of time.
Is anyone else disturbed by that?
Comment by Steven L. — 09.29.06 @ 12:26 pm
Someone who’s been there, learned from the mistakes, and warn others against it is not a hypocrite.
I agree totally, as long as that person has been upfront about their past mistakes (as you clearly have). If this photo had been real, the problem would come if Michelle had expressed views that such behavior (taking a photograph in a string bikini) was poor and had never expressed having done so herself.
Comment by Shade — 09.29.06 @ 12:30 pm
There is no doubt in my mind that Michelle would look BETTER in a swimsuit than that photo of someone else!
But seriously, I read Michelle’s column in question and she was right on about the whole topic of girls gone slutty. When you stand up for something good, somebody will try and smear you. How sad for the young women of today.
Comment by Michele — 09.29.06 @ 12:30 pm
#13 Kman says: “If Malkin is going to castigate young women for being less-than-prim-and-proper, she better think about her own youthful experiences.”
Logic is a stern task master. You claim that “less-than-prim-and-proper” is the standard that Michelle Malkin used or uses.
OK. 1) What are the minimum standards of prim-and-proper? 2) Does one go straight to “slut” if one is not prim-and-proper? 3) Do I understand that only “sluts” wear bikinis. 4) Is a three year old in a two piece suit a “slut”? What if she leaves the top off?
But, as you well know “less-than-prim-and-proper” is the term you chose so you could skewer Michelle Malkin. That dog won’t hunt. “F” in semantic logic #101.
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.29.06 @ 12:32 pm
Kman said:
It was hypocrisy.
If Malkin is going to castigate young women for being less-than-prim-and-proper, she better think about her own youthful experiences.
A charge of hypocrisy requires a certain amount of real moral equivalency. An alcoholic condemning a pack-a-day smoker is a hypocrite.
On the other hand, it defies belief that any thinking person would actually consider a candid swimsuit photo to be the moral equivalent of cultivating a blasphemous, trash-talking public persona.
Comment by Scott McClare — 09.29.06 @ 12:37 pm
The liberals who drag this stuff up could make a case for hypocrisy.
Assuming the really dug up pictures of Michelle in a bikini.
Which they didn’t.
Saying they are still making a valid point is intellectual dishonety, not to mention morally bankrupt.
But even assuming it was a picture of Michelle in a bikini. Is that so shocking? No. A great many women (of all shapes and sizes) have had pictures taken of themselves in swimwear. Now if pubic hair or nipples are showing they may have a point.
However as the picture is a hoax… their argument falls like a house of cards.
Comment by GenFX — 09.29.06 @ 12:48 pm
Scott McClare and Heliotrope beat me to the punch, but let’s elaborate further. The claims of “hypocrisy” are bogus. Kman, you’re brighter than that. Don’t be a sniveling guttersnipe, and don’t read the blogs of same.
Private behavior (at a swimming pool party? a beach trip? can anyone tell?) is hardly the same as the public glorfication of a skanky lifestyle.
Moreover, exactly what did Michelle Malkin do if this photo is real? That miserable worm Eric Muller tries to imply that she was having orgies with the whole hotel (assuming this pic is at a hotel?), as opposed to merely having fun with her pals (at the beach? at the apartment pool complex?)
Really, Eric Muller is just a pathetic worm.
Comment by Nick Byram — 09.29.06 @ 12:57 pm
Apparently, you must don a burka to be considered morally upright by the Wonkette crowd. It is an obvious fake and even if it wasn’t, it hardly indicate skankiness.
Comment by tommy — 09.29.06 @ 1:00 pm
I’ll grant you — skankiness is in the eye of the beholder.
But Michelle lifting her shirt (a la “Girls Gone Wild”) to expose her bikini-clad breasts is — at least *arguably* — the type of behavior that she condemns in Charlotte Church.
Frankly, I don’t have a problem with either. I’m sure everyone here over a certain age can look back at their youth and point to some rambunctous behavior they engaged in. The point is that Michelle’s holier-than-thou attitude really is hypocritical and the photo demonstrates that.
Assuming it is real — a subject on which I simply have no opinion. But even if it’s not, is Michelle prepared to categorically state that, as a youth, she didn’t occasionally get “wild”?
Perhaps you didn’t read the whole post or follow the links to her site. THE PHOTO IS NOT REAL. Are you just trolling for readers? - Admin
Comment by Kman — 09.29.06 @ 1:37 pm
Perhaps you didn’t read the whole post or follow the links to her site. THE PHOTO IS NOT REAL. Are you just trolling for readers? - Admin
Yes, I realize she says it’s not real.
Comment by Kman — 09.29.06 @ 1:46 pm
“is Michelle prepared to categorically state that, as a youth, she didn’t occasionally get “wildâ€?”
Kman, you are still dodging it (okay, I’ll be charitable and state that you are just not getting it). Private behavior is NOT public behavior.
Comment by Nick Byram — 09.29.06 @ 1:46 pm
Kman, give it up. First of all, either accuse Michelle of lying about the fact that the photo is fake, or cut out this disingenuous “I have no opinion” BS. You have it here: she is saying it is fake. Do you, or do you not, take her at her word? Secondly, even if it had been real in the first place, the behavior she’s condemning in the case of Charlotte Church isn’t even remotely comparable, so the hypocrisy charge is bogus. Take your lumps and move on.
Comment by mcg — 09.29.06 @ 2:04 pm
Kman said:
But even if it’s not, is Michelle prepared to categorically state that, as a youth, she didn’t occasionally get “wild�
I guess now that the moonbats’ Plan A has failed (fakery), it’s time to resort to Plan B (demanding that Malkin cough up self-incriminating anecdotes).
Comment by Scott McClare — 09.29.06 @ 2:07 pm
I’m so outraged I can’t stop yawning. This shouldn’t come as no big surprise. This is what liberals do. When they can’t beat a conservative in the battle of facts and ideas, they resort to mocking and defaming people they can’t beat. Liberals can’t debate the likes of Ann Coulter, so they call her “man coulter”. They can’t compete against Rush Limbaugh, so they call him a
“drug addict” The real outrage should be that this loon bat is an actual professor.
Comment by Tyrone — 09.29.06 @ 2:12 pm
Private behavior is NOT public behavior.
Michelle is upset at a ROLE that Charlotte Church is playing on a TELEVISION show.
So it’s not Charlotte’s behavior either way.
Comment by Kman — 09.29.06 @ 2:13 pm
(By the way, even if the photo were genuine, posing in a bikini is not the same thing as being a skank.)
True, but neither is saying unflattering things about the Pope. It’s this kind of inconsistency and hyperbole that irritates people about Mrs. Malkin.
Comment by conservative guy — 09.29.06 @ 2:21 pm
You have it here: she is saying it is fake. Do you, or do you not, take her at her word?
I don’t automatically assume she is lying. I don’t automatically assume she is telling the truth either. Maybe she just doesn’t remember it being taken (it was 16 years ago).
I guess now that the moonbats’ Plan A has failed (fakery), it’s time to resort to Plan B (demanding that Malkin cough up self-incriminating anecdotes).
Yes. That was all part of our master plan. Bwwwaaaa-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! And she walked right into it. Ward Churchill brought up the idea at the last meeting, and it was seconded by Cindy Sheehan. Michael Moore did the actual photoshopping.
Comment by Kman — 09.29.06 @ 2:21 pm
Kman, have you actually seen Charlotte Church’s show? I have had the displeasure. It’s a chat show, not a sitcom or a drama or whatever. She is not playing a role at all, she’s just being herself. I actually have no problem with Charlotte Church - I don’t mind her at all and I certainly hear worse language every day of my life. Her TV show,however, is dreadful and I do think she’s making a fool of herself. But she is not playing a role.
Comment by Lizzie — 09.29.06 @ 2:24 pm
MALKIN FAKED, HATERS FOOLED
La Shawn Barber summarises the fauxtography scandal involving Michelle Malkin
Trackback by Tim Blair — 09.29.06 @ 2:25 pm
You are in a deep hole; please stop digging, Kman. From the article I read, Charlotte Church is not a character actor, she’s a talk show (variety show?) hostess.
If it were a sitcom where she plays a goofy talk show hostess character and is obviously supposed to be made fun of, you might have something (in that case I might attack the show writers for bad taste, but that’s a whole different story).
Comment by Nick Byram — 09.29.06 @ 2:32 pm
Kman,
Heres a thought. Lets publish pictures of you in a bikini on the Internet. I wonder how you would feel.
Comment by e_alex — 09.29.06 @ 2:40 pm
Any idiot can see that the head is way too small for the body. I guess that doesn’t say much for this Professor.
Comment by Belle — 09.29.06 @ 2:44 pm
Not to be too picky, but looking at the photo:
1. Did cameras print dates on negatives in 1992?
2. If they did, I do not think that the date on the photo would have been 03/27/1992, but rather 03/27/92.
All of my old photos have the date on the back of the print with a date similar to the 03/27/92 format. Any experts out there?
Wonkinigate?
Comment by RaLph — 09.29.06 @ 2:52 pm
I just went to Muller’s page and read what he wrote about the pic. He says he has a problem with hypocrisy. Apparently he doesn’t have a problem with stupidity.
Comment by Belle — 09.29.06 @ 2:52 pm
Kman, are you using the CBS defense? “The photos are fake, but accurate”? That sure worked well for Dan Rather, and it’ll work equally for you, I’m certain.
And the “hypocrisy” argument is weaker than Tom Daschle in an arm wrestling contest. There was an interview with a former “adult film” star (I forget where I saw the interview, but follow me here…if you can) who warned impressionable young women about the dangers of the “adult film” industry. By your logic (or pitiful attempt at it), the former star is not fit for making such a statement or warning to our daughters, since she had “done that” herself.
Come on, man, one would think that as prevalent as hypocrisy is on the left, you guys could recognize it a bit easier than this. I guess you lefties aren’t that smart after all.
Comment by Jonathan — 09.29.06 @ 3:01 pm
“Liberals can’t debate the likes of Ann Coulter, so they call her “man coulter—
That’s an awesome line!
I actually have seen many American Liberal blogs call her that. I agree it’s a low ‘tactic’ and inexcusably dumb. Unintentionally embarrassing for the dummies too, as Coulter’s among the most easily argued. I do admire that Coulter doesn’t call anyone to the left of her, erm, names.
I’m also glad that American Conservatives haven’t called Michael Moore ‘fat’, or Margaret Cho a ’slanty -eyed Ho’, or Cindy a ‘SheeMan’, or homosexuals ‘abominations.’
Here’s a great idea, why don’t Democrats and Republicans have a big competition to see who can most succesfully paint the entire opposition all of these simultaneously
1. Racist.
2. Gay/anti-gay
3. Hypocrites
4. Bigots
5. Ugly
6. Morally bankrupt
7. Godless
8. Terrorists enablers
9. Terrorist-funders
10. Terrorist lovers
11. Muslims
12. Liars
13. Murderers
14. Nazis
15. Brownshirts
16. The Klan
(Extra points for photoshopping and losing opposing bloggers their jobs)
I’ll begin a ’slander jar’ blog (like a swearing jar) and after 12 months passes I’ll give the money to a non-denominational, apolitical fund for homeless children.
The internet *could* be one tool with which to transcend the inhuman desire to cause pain or inflate ego.
Comment by JohnD — 09.29.06 @ 3:12 pm
Ken Layne says that found the pictures on Google because he “just wanted to see what she looked like”. I don’t mind saying that I’ve done the same (she’s an attractive young lady) and never saw those photos.
Comment by Big Mad Drongo — 09.29.06 @ 3:46 pm
The first thing I thought when I saw that was that type of bikini wasn’t in style in 1992. The bottoms didn’t go that low. Same with the fabric - those prints weren’t in style then.
and btw: I haven’t heard anyone say Margaret Cho was a ’slanty -eyed Ho’. I’ve only heard them say that she wasn’t funny.
Comment by BCMG — 09.29.06 @ 3:51 pm
HAH! The fact that anyone actually believes this is a real photo is INSANE.
Michelle Malkin is a 5′1 stick who likely doesn’t weigh 100 pounds soaking wet.
How can anyone believe this??
Comment by Ryno — 09.29.06 @ 3:56 pm
so the real question here is, are the left-wing swine who do stuff like this “more stupid than scummy”, or “more scummy than stupid”?
either way, their hypocrisy boggles the mind. the same folks who squeal “politics of hate!” whenever an uncomplimentary fact about a democrat is reported, go to a lot of trouble to whip up photoshopped lies about a (presumably) republican blogger. exactly as ironic as the moonbats who on the one hand intone that “gays and lesbians are just regular people too” and then, without batting an eyelash, sneeringly denigrate ann coulter as “mannish”.
the goal, interestingly enough, is precisely the same intent the islamofascists have: to shut the enemy up. no dissent allowed, ever. or else. does that make liberalism and islam the strangest of bedfellows? or is it just that all totalitarians use the same M.O.?
Comment by ed — 09.29.06 @ 4:21 pm
What is it with the lefties and fake photos?
I don’t think Michelle Malkin has ever gone wild. If you read her bio she’s been married all her life. Going wild for Michelle was working overtime at the newspaper.
And what’s with the Wahhabi wing of the Left who charge any girl who hopped into a bikini to be a blasphemer? Do you have to have your sense of humor surgically removed to be a lefty? Have you ever seen such a pathetic attempt to dig up dirt on somebody with a differing opinion? It is an embarassment to have enemies so inept that they can not do a proper smear job. It’s like being slandered by chimps.
Tantor
Comment by Tantor — 09.29.06 @ 4:28 pm
then too, for the pinhead who’s acting like he still believes it to be an authentic photo of malkin: the earlier poster who pointed out that that bikini wasn’t a 1992 style is quite correct. as an enthusiastic watcher of women’s swimwear - and a trained observer, to boot - i can tell you that the ‘lo-cut bottom’ in the pic was not only unfashionable in 1992, it wasn’t even made. until quite recently, the last time bikini bottoms were cut like that was the late 70’s/very early 80’s.
and, all politics aside, no woman anywhere is gonna wear a swimsuit that’s 15 years out of date.
Comment by ed — 09.29.06 @ 4:36 pm
Will the surfacing of this obviously fake photo by the moonbats require the production of “all Your Fakes Are Belong To Us, Part 2″? I hope so! Break out your Green Helmets, we are going for a Rocket Ride!!!!!!!!
Comment by Belle — 09.29.06 @ 5:07 pm
You’ve got it # 46. I don’t see how it would be possible for even the most stupid, hate-filled person to not immediately realize that the picture is fake. (1) head way to small for body; (2) body way to big to be Michelle. Come on–aren’t there any straight dudes on the left side??? This ain’t exactly rocket science…
Comment by TheManTheMyth — 09.29.06 @ 5:44 pm
This is a very slippery slope. If we can’t defame and humiliate the people that we disagree with, then we are forced to compete on nothing but the strength of our ideas.
As democrats we must never let that happen.
Comment by rsp — 09.29.06 @ 6:14 pm
#45 “and btw: I haven’t heard anyone say Margaret Cho was a ’slanty -eyed Ho’. I’ve only heard them say that she wasn’t funny.”
Sure?
http://margaretcho.com/attacks_from_the_right.htm
Comment by JohnD — 09.29.06 @ 6:14 pm
Paging Reuters! A new fauxtography star is out there somewhere.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi — 09.29.06 @ 6:18 pm
Hey John D–newsflash–Michael Moore IS FAT!!!! No photoshopping required. Do you understand now?
Comment by TheManTheMyth — 09.29.06 @ 6:23 pm
# 19 — if that photo had been real, the “real” problem would have been that she had the smallest head in human history and should have immediately headed for the first hospital for a transplant.
Comment by TheManTheMyth — 09.29.06 @ 6:45 pm
I have a question that is, perhaps, bigger than the Malkin tempest in a teapot. No, it isn’t “is there no level to which libs won’t stoop?” or “is there no end to their hypocrisy?” My question is simply this–are there any heterosexual males on the left side older than say 21? Seriously, are there any heterosexual left-wing males?
Comment by TheManTheMyth — 09.29.06 @ 7:01 pm
I don’t understand what muller’s employer has to do with this.
Comment by will — 09.29.06 @ 7:17 pm
What Muller’s employer has to do with it is the amount of time the dude spends stalking Malkin. It suggests that teaching law doesn’t require much time at UNC, or else he doesn’t give it his best. Either way it doesn’t reflect well on the university.
Good catch about the 1992 vs. 92 time stamp. Suggests the photoshopper wasn’t out of high school in 2000, or else hadn’t used computers for anything but gaming.
Comment by Christy — 09.29.06 @ 8:02 pm
#58 Will says: “I don’t understand what muller’s employer has to do with this.”
Muller is employed as a law professor in a prestigious university. His hobby just may be libel and slander against those with whom he has political disagreements.
Will, if your receptionist was passing out cards for the competition, prostitutes, porno web sites, etc. would you consider it bad for your enterprise?
Muller’s employers might take exception to his extra curricular activities on the basis that he is bad for their business reputation.
Hopefully, now you understand.
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.29.06 @ 8:04 pm
Unless her head is WAY too small for her body, I can’t believe anybody would fall for this.
Barnum was so right.
Comment by Mark La Roi — 09.29.06 @ 8:59 pm
If all else fails, the people who disseminated this (obviously phony) pic can claim that they knew all along it was a fake, and that they were merely JOKING.
Comment by MrBuddwing — 09.29.06 @ 11:12 pm
“Hey John D–newsflash–Michael Moore IS FAT!!!! No photoshopping required. Do you understand now?”
QED.
#47.
“Either way, their hypocrisy boggles the mind.”
That was kind of my point also. Except I do not use ‘they’ as an identifier for all Conservatives who have tried to ’shut up’ liberal luminaries with photoshopping, name-calling or slander. I firmly blame the individuals involved.
“The same folks who squeal “politics of hate!†whenever an uncomplimentary fact about a democrat is reported, go to a lot of trouble to whip up photoshopped lies about a (presumably) republican blogger.”
By the same people, I assume you mean liberals?
Or do you mean the same people who constantly call Michael Moore fat, Margaret Cho, a slanty-eyed man/ho/gook/etc and Cindy SheeMAN and then ’squeal’ “the slandering, hypocritical liberals!”
Could it be, you know, that these are the same type of people!!??
Could it be that the desire for propaganda, causing pain, spreading slander and poor attempts to inflate one’s own ego by denigrating someone else are all actually the *same* type of people no matter to where on the political spectrum they fall?
“exactly as ironic as the moonbats who on the one hand intone that “gays and lesbians are just regular people too†and then, without batting an eyelash, sneeringly denigrate ann coulter as “mannishâ€.”
Which in itself is as exactly as ironic as Ann Coulter stating in ‘Slander’ that only ‘liberals’ ‘denigrate women’?? So I guess her comments about Cindy Sheehan’s legs and calling Al Gore a ‘fag’ is equally ironic.
Does this really pass for ‘politics’ in America today? The school playground? “It was Them, it was Them!”
All the while it is quite obvious from the outside that the colour of the pundit/ propagandist/partisan looks the same pus-colour, no matter who morally superiro they claim ‘their’ compatriots to be from the ‘opposition’.
Doesn’t it make anyone sick to the stomach? Or is this reasonable behaviour for adults?
I cannot bear Moore or Coulter for exactly the same reasons. They peddle lies, fear and mine quotes and dissemble for what? For hard cash.
They are both millionares because 3000 people were murdered, and people are scared and angry.
Imagine if all that fear and anger could be processed into a personal bank account….just think how easy it would be to split America right down the middle…
Coulter. Moore. Your time has come.
Comment by JohnD — 09.30.06 @ 3:25 am
aaah, the deadly-serious old “coulter peddles lies” ululation. even though this is about how LW mind-numbed robots, exactly like thier islamofascist ideological cousins, tolerate no dissent and (make pathetic attempts) to destroy those who stray from the (party-approved) path, in re the ‘poorly-faked-malkin-bikini-photo’ affair, up jumps the old “coulter = princess of lies” whine.
amazingly enough, no specifics are given for this. (coulter’s opinion of cindy sheehan - clearly stated as her opinion - doesn’t count as a “lie”, even though some wish it would. sorry.)
let us hope that coulter’s time has come. her string of bestsellers would seem to indicate this might be so, anyway. her formula of factual statements and direct quotes, backed up by a bevy of sourced footnotes are a weapon that’s been shown to be unstoppable: witness the left’s stunningly hypocritical attacks on her “mannishness”, rather than take on that buzzsaw of undisputable fact. or, my special fave, silly words from their own sily mouths.
now let’s contrast malkin’s (and coulter’s) “quote the liberals in their own words and source those quotes” to scummy little faked polaroids. yeah, it’s obvious: malkin & coulter are the REAL baddies here. uh-huh.
Comment by ed — 09.30.06 @ 4:59 am
Ed,
“malkin & coulter are the REAL baddies here. uh-huh.”
No, I never said anyone was a ‘baddie’.
Nice try though.
I never even mentioned Malkin. I said Coulter uses the same tactics as Moore to get rich.
Dishonesty is dishonesty is dishonesty.
Most times a political pundit uses dishonesty (like lies, but sneakier), or quote-mining, or dissembling for their propaganda, they (and their fans) say “it was hyperbole” or “look at the money they make!!??”
Maybe one key difference between your thinking and mine is this:
A. I don’t use all the racist, mean, dishonest, sexist, insults directed a Margaret Cho as proof that Conservatives are evil/hypocritical/racist/sexist/dumb, or even proof that they are conservatives.
Whereas;
B. You use all the racist, mean, dishonest, sexist insults directed at Michelle Malkin as proof that liberals are evil/hypocritical/racist/sexist/dumb *and* proof that they are liberals.
Does it make any difference whether someone is hypocritical/dishonest/slanderous or not, if all people care about is what badge they are wearing, or whether or not they are making a living from it?
Regards,
John.
Comment by JohnD — 09.30.06 @ 7:22 am
Witness the right’s stunningly hypocritical attacks on Moore’s “fatnessâ€, rather than take on the lies?
And c. I mean, where is the argument?
Comment by JohnD — 09.30.06 @ 8:13 am
QED keeps turning up in comments in a breezy and misapplied way. Quod Erat Demonstrandum is usually reserved for mathematical proofs and means that there are no holes, missteps or escape. A fact has been established. The game of chess, an adventure in math, has the term “checkmate” as a substitute for QED.
To use the term in semantics is specious at best. Few word constructions can be proved outside of the realm of measurement. The rules of syllogism were established by the ancients to provide a way to “map” a formal argument and discover when it is valid. But valid is not the same as QED.
Validity is time and case sensitive. A few years ago, we lost a space shuttle. A valid statement one minute was that it was making a picture perfect approach to landing. One second later….
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.30.06 @ 9:27 am
My favorite Michelle picture will always be her wearing the “Nuke The Moon” t-shirt from IMHO.
Comment by Doug — 09.30.06 @ 10:27 am
Like I said over at barking-moonbat.com, Wonkette’s just begging to get sued for defamation.
Comment by Chris Oakley — 09.30.06 @ 11:10 am
#67
Thanks Heliotrope, for putting me straight on the correct usage of QED.
Comment by JohnD — 09.30.06 @ 1:40 pm
As a law professor at a university, his employer would be the first to figure out this is not defamatory. He’s obviously doing this on his free time. Why does that concern his employer? Do you think he’s not a good professor?
Comment by will — 09.30.06 @ 2:00 pm
This must have been a slow news week, except for pedophile IM’ing representatives, for people to be so unhinged about the Malkin photoshop.
First, please stop calling for a lawsuit, it only makes you sound ignorant and similar to those ambulance chasers that the Right is SUPPOSED to be against. Malkin has as much chance of winning that suit, as she does getting invited to a state dinner with Vincente Fox.
Second, she and her fans should relax with the whole Malkin as a martyr spiel. Everybody gets hate mail. Someone already mentioned all of the racist stuff that Margaret Cho gets from the right. The left does it and the right does it, and its wrong but nobody expends more energy showing what a poor whittle victim they are to the evil Leftists as Malkin. She should go to the beach, find a nice bikini and relax.
Comment by Derrick — 09.30.06 @ 3:00 pm
Wow! Some folks sure don’t mind seeing Michelle Malkin maligned. She must really thump their soft spots!
I am fascinated with the idea that it is fine for a law professor to adjourn to his lair and anonymously trash people he doesn’t like or agree with. But it is somehow unseemly to blow his cover.
Gosh, is there a chance that his employers might discover that he is a coward and a common guttersnipe. I seriously doubt that his efforts to trash Michelle will be added to his curriculum vitae or featured in any UNC publications.
But he does seem to have a rabid following on the net.
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.30.06 @ 6:20 pm
It’s official.
Liberal bloggers are touting the the authenticity of the “Malkin Gone Wild” Fauxto. Dan Rather himself was overhead stating that the photograph is “fake, but accurate.”
Comment by CyberCipher — 09.30.06 @ 6:34 pm
Helio:
Maybe I’m misunderstanding what you write, but Eric Muller doesn’t blog anonymously.
Comment by will — 09.30.06 @ 6:53 pm
Need more evidence?
Okay. 1) Disproportionate head-size and, 2) dates with bogus four digit years aside (already covered in other posts), consider this:
The woman in the photograph is AS TALL AS the refrigerator. Malkin is 5′1″. Michelle can BARELY see into the freezer compartment on her tiptoes.
J. Stalin created better fake photos in the 1930s.
Comment by CyberCipher — 09.30.06 @ 7:06 pm
Muller has a long running feud with Malkin. He recently chose to shoot the messenger over Malkin’s Charlotte Church comments. He used unnamed sources and later had to apologize to Malkin for his timidity.
His website is not anonymous. He hastily accepted doctored work and went ballistic in his language based on his desire for the photos to be true.
I stand corrected. He was not blogging anonymously. He was blogging without regard to the truth.
Comment by Heliotrope — 09.30.06 @ 8:10 pm
If he doesn’t have a regard for truth, why issue a correction?
Comment by will — 09.30.06 @ 8:53 pm
>> I don’t understand what muller’s employer has to do with this.
- Muller is a law professor
- His blog cites the school as his employer and position to bolster his credibility
- May have used/be using University property/ computers/ server space
- He is obligated to conduct himself ethically, to avoid bringing discredit upon the School
- He appears to have recklessly posted the photo as if it were Malkin’s
- He said it was of her
- Looks like he did so without making an effort to determine it was legitimate
- He may have done this to hurt her credibility, to inflict economic harm upon her
- He may have acted in concert with others
- As a lawyer, he should have known better
- Potentially: Fraud, conspiracy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with professional and employment relationships
- Enjoy.
Comment by maloney — 09.30.06 @ 11:34 pm
I have a problem with the Far Left Undergrounds open use of bigoted and racist language as “all part of the critical attack mechanisms that must be employed to speak truth”.
It isn’t just hypocrisy, it shows there own demands that others hew to PC code to avoid “hurting people” are not based in actual belief - but insincere to the core.
Others have noted the Far Left boards are saturated not just with honest, political criticism of Israel and Jews - but the vilest anti-Semitism this side of Cairo. And we have seen the Left attack Sullivan when he was on a conservative tear as a “bareback faggot”, Matt Drudge, a Jew and homosexual, as a conservative money-grubbing Bush sodomite..Steele gets oreos tossed at him by “down with racism!” leftists who fail to note the irony of whites, jews of privilege on the Left condemning a black guy for failing to “think as we order blacks to think.”
But Malkin seems to get it the worst. Calling her many variants of “Asian whore”. With the vilest dehumanizing language and images imaginable of this married housewife/journalist/author. An interesting thing happened at Berkeley as Asians arriving to protest a Malkin speaking engagement (mainly on her defense of Internment) - met the protestors of the Far Left carrying signs of “yellow slut” “Me sooo love ping-pong balls” and other dreck - and the Asians made no bones of their vehement disagreement with the Far Left’s racist, anti-woman slurs. It caused quite a follow-up controversy at Berkeley and a healthy debate if the “politics of confrontation and street protest theater” have gone full circle into becoming the very Brownshirts they supposedly abhor. Predictably, Berkeley said “Naaaaah!”, but I have no doubt you will see many future Asian conservatives date their conversion to the attacks on Malkin.
Comment by Chris Ford — 10.01.06 @ 1:15 am
Chris Ford,
I am cogent of degrees of racism within political forums, what interests me more, is how (if ever) it is different on the ‘left’, and different on the ‘right’.
I suggest we get serious about these generalizations, in the interest of constructive discussion and comparison:
To Chris Ford:
Do you think that the ‘left’s comments to Malkin are notably different than the ‘rights’ comments to Margaret Cho?
Is the ‘far-left’s’ ‘antisemitism’ notably different to the far-right’s anti-semitism?
Here are some examples of recent right-wing comments to an American of Asian descent:
http://margaretcho.com/attacks_from_the_right.htm
Here are some examples of recent far-right wing anti-semitism:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=328650&page=2
To compare, Chris, would you please read both of my links, and then post up the links to the forums and comments of both Michelle Malkin (where she gets it ‘the worst’) and the far-left boards responsible for the ‘worst ant-semitism’ this side of Cairo.
This wil enable and honest comparison. Then we could discuss any appreciable and specific differences without the need to generalize..
Thanks,
JohnD
Comment by JohnD — 10.01.06 @ 4:58 am
I don’t really care if Michelle Malkin was photographed in a bkini or not ! Much to do about nothing !
Comment by Paul — 10.01.06 @ 6:47 am
maloney:
reckless? I don’t think so. Fraud? I dont see that. Conspiracy? To what? tortious interference? With what? Intentional infliction. Do yo know what that requires?
Also, he dindn’t “post” the picture.
Comment by will — 10.01.06 @ 10:19 am
#83 will:
You have convinced me. Muller is the paragon of virtue and his fair and balanced site is the source for the fount of wisdom.
It is a shame that some gremlin led him to engage in promoting a photoshopped picture of Michelle Malkin, his long standing nemesis on the subject of FDR’s internment of the American Japanese citizens.
Do you suppose that Malkin might have tricked him into making this innocent mistake?
Comment by Heliotrope — 10.01.06 @ 11:16 am
To me there’s a gulf between recklessness and virtue. I don’t go for totalism.
I don’t think anyone tricked him. I think he made a mistake, corrected it, and has kept it up at the request of the subject of the mistake. How this is reckless or shows disregard, I don’t know. Its not like he’s posting personal contact information for people and those people are getting harassed.
Comment by will — 10.01.06 @ 12:49 pm
Lashawn,
You failed to mention that all of this started becuase Michelle smeared me in her column and I would sue, but being a public figure, I cannot.
Since when is it alright to smear me because I do not believe George Bush is doing his job? I pay taxes in both the UK and the US so I am entitled to my opinion on my show, by the way.
I would appreciate Michelle Malkin keeping the focus on other things besides me. I am not interested in playing her punching bag or being fodder for her penning.
Comment by Charlotte Chase — 10.01.06 @ 1:43 pm
i think the ‘malkin-phony-bikini’ affair is a useful tool when comparing/contrasting the 2 major political parties/philosophies.
which party doctors photos or fakes documents in order to silence/shame/intimidate critics? and in how many instances has this been done? well, let’s see: if memory serves, malkin’s fake-bikini shot makes 4 done by the dems-liberals-islamofacsists recently (the others being the ‘lieberman blackface’ shot; the ‘thick smoke over beirut’ shot; and the ‘fake-but-accurate’ nat’l guard docs that dan rather thought so much of). versus none by conservatives. gee, that’s odd: you’d think, all other things being equal, that nasty little tricks like this would be more or less equal too.
instances like this are out there - why not just add them up? numbers don’t lie, do they? how many fact-based liberal bloggers are there out there? compare that with the number of fact-based conservative bloggers. i’ll bet big bucks there’s a lot more of the latter than the former. why should that be? there must be a reason, no? now compare the number of hysterical, untalented liberal propagandists masquerading as entertainers (and here’s where the left’s beloved maggy cho finally gets her due). you know, the ones whose act consists largely of “they’re so stupid!” screeds. i can think of 4 or 5 of those (often grossly fat) bozos right off the top of my head…but no conservative ones.
things like that. the total lines of hysterically partisan hatred spewed by liberal bloggers/commenters versus the total lines of conservative hate. which parties’ congressmen resign when caught raiding the cookie/nookie jar compared to staying in office, clinging desperately to power. the number of times tolerant liberals have “jokingly” called for the death of the president, versus the number of times tolerant conservatives called for bubba’s death.
add ‘em up. in the end, real numbers (”accurate; non-falsified”) don’t lie. and in the end, it’s the totalitarian left and their islamofascist buddies who do the bulk of these contemptible little stunts. hmmm….might a lesson be learned from that?
Comment by ed — 10.01.06 @ 5:36 pm
#86
If you are going to pretend to be Charlotte Church, you might want to make sure you get the name right. It’s ‘Church’ not ‘Chase’.
Might be worth putting your brain into gear before you take your mouth on the road. But, credit due, you made me laugh.
Comment by Hemi — 10.01.06 @ 9:32 pm
“By the way, even if the photo were genuine, posing in a bikini is not the same thing as being a skank.”
BTW being a skank in a swimsuit isn’t the same thing as being a photoshopped pseudo skank in a swimsuit.
She’s probably attractive enough that someone went to the trouble to photoshop her pic. I’d take it as a compliment. I wouldn’t try to get the guy fired. His attempt to harm her backfired. I say move on.
Comment by Henry Gandolph — 10.02.06 @ 2:49 am
#87.
Ed’s point, (that Margaret Cho is grossly fat) is certainly a more intelligent and ‘Republican’ attack upon the opposition than those other stupid fat liberals who call Ann Coulter ‘anorexic’ or Rush Limbaugh ‘fat’.
In other news this week, Conservative bloggers didn’t mention how fat Ted Kennedy is at:
http://fatboy.cc/
Etc.
Comment by JohnD — 10.02.06 @ 6:37 am
Who cares? As a public figure she should expect as much. I could see if she were buck naked. The fact is the photo is quite flattering considering what I have seen during her appearances on Fox news.
Comment by B Gad — 10.02.06 @ 1:04 pm
will’s citing of the hoary “Malkin posted contact information of people who were then harassed” meme shows that he knows he has lost his argument on this subject. But the kiss up points can probably be redeemed for a free gift at the UNC campus store.
Comment by SmokeVanThorn — 10.04.06 @ 11:48 am