home

Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy'

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Aug 07, 2005 at 11:03:00 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Having read quite a few criticisms and praiseful posts for Mithras' "Conservative Blogger Taxanomy," I'm ready to weigh in.

A few of Mithras' comments about right-wing bloggers are funny and dead-on. I disagree with his description of Instapundit, Glenn Reynolds. But it is his comments about Michelle Malkin that are particularly offensive, embarassing and inexcusable. Mithras writes:

Michelle Malkin: Far-right affirmative action hire who is so bigoted she'd arrest herself for trying to cross a border. Famously published a book praising internment of Japanese-Americans that was (a) incoherent and (b) probably not written by her. If she didn't have t*ts, she'd be stuck writing at Townhall.com.

I agree Michelle Malkin is bigoted and I think she does a great disservice to minorities. But she is talented, as a writer and a television personality, and I don't think she's an "affirmative action hire" by Fox News, for which she serves as a contributor. She has guest-hosted for Sean Hannity of Hannity and Colmes, and given that show's ratings, you can be sure they wouldn't trust the guest-host spot to someone who couldn't pull it off. I saw her one night subbing for him, and she did her job - she was Sean Hannity II. She has a good tv presence, as those things are measured. She's pleasant, she smiles, and she's articulate. Is she wrong on almost everything she says? In my opinion, yes. But, it appears she thinks for herself and a liberal, of all people, should be the first to note that the First Amendment mandates she be entitled to express herself.

The most inexusable part of Mithras' post is the part referring to her anatomy. Have we not progressed past such childish attacks? This is the type of comment I usually associate with those who are both ignorant and fanatical. I get e-mails filled with them all the time from tv viewers who diasagree with my views. Because they are unable to express themselves intelligently, they resort to obscenities, comments about my "ugly" looks or wish me evil. I won't bother to repeat the obscene and physical attacks, but examples of the last type include people who write they wished I was on a plane that went down on September 11 and one who wrote he hopes my child becomes blind.

Personal attacks of the kind Mithras made about Michelle Malkin show his innate prejudices, not her's. A true liberal supports affirmative action - why criticize her for it? A true liberal welcomes women who succeed in their profession. Why does he castigate her for it? Why is her sex even relevant to the discussion? It's one thing to disagree with her views, as I believe everyone should. It's another to attack her for her race or her gender. Mithras was out of line. He may get blog hits for his rant, but he won't get much respect.

Update: Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has a round-up of blogger reaction. Mithras posts an apology (not.)

[comments hijacked, some have been deleted, thread closed.]

< R.I.P. Peter Jennings | Legendary Defender Tony Serra Sentenced to 10 Months >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' | 40 comments (40 topical)
    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#1)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    well said, but. I've never seen Malkin on TV so can't speak to her talents. Nor have I read much of her work. Nonetheless, there is an answer to your question: "A true liberal supports affirmative action - why criticize her for it"? Because she herself does not support affirmative action and is therefore a hypocrite. Mithra's language is crude, but alluding to her hypocrisy isn't out of line.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Jeralyn, I come to you via a round-up of the left-wing blogs. I am a Conservative, and furthermore, especially registered here so that I may comment on the Malkin comments you highlighted in your post. I'm telling you these things so that you may understand a bit of my frustration regarding the comments on MM. I also think they struck enough of a chord with you, in possibly the same way they struck me (and not, say, Timmy's rebuttal above, which doesn't seem to "get it"). As a woman blogger, I am used to fielding a lot of unneeded, crude rubbish about my sex.What strikes me particularly, is that these puerile attacks come only from self-described progressive bloggers, angered by...my sex? No, my sex is just a way of attacking my beliefs. But you see, attacks in Blogosphere are par for the course, and yet, it's my adult understanding of life that people of the sinister aisle pride themselves on their particular sensitivity towards feminism, which holds as a basic tenet, the respect of women because they are human beings. Full stop. Thus when people who are left-wing make these crude, and may I say, in Michelle Malkin's case because she is half-Filipino, INCREDIBLY racist remarks, I am reminded yet again of the Ted Rall caricatures of Dr. Condoleeza Rice during her vetting process -- they were breathtaking in their allusions to her "monkeyness". I don't find that amusing.I find it despicable. [remainder deleted due to length]

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#3)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    "In defense of Internment" is the title of her book justifying the internment of Japanese Americans during WW II. No comment can truly show what an ugly human she is. TL ugly? Have they ever seen you? Maybe we could chip in and buy them glasses.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#4)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    I can't fault someone for speaking the truth about an incredibly bigoted woman who willfully distorts facts to advance her racist agenda. It's one thing to have opinions, but it's another entirely to actively lie, obfuscate and mislead on behalf of a partisan agenda. Malkin is more of a reporter than most of the rightwing frauds, but that doesn't make her any less a liar.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#5)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    granted, his wording might have been a tad more civil, but his critique is dead on. michelle malkin and ann coulter are sisters under the skin. the only reason they exist is so the rabid right-wing can claim they don't discriminate: "look at us, we have females and minorities carrying our spears!" were it not for the emergence of rush-like rant media, neither of these ladies would be employable in the field.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    A true liberal supports affirmative action - why criticize her for it? Because it isn't actually affirmative action, but a particularly perverse form of tokenism. The reason the right-wing noise machine promotes minorities is not the redress of past discrimination--far from it, as they consider such compensatory discrimination wrong--but to create the false impression that lots of people of color hold conservative views.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#7)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    his comments about Michelle Malkin that are particularly offensive, embarassing and inexcusable.
    There are all of those things. They also happen to be quite correct, IMO.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#8)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    As usual, TL has far more class than her followers. Do any of you see the obvious racism and sexism in claiming that the only way Malkin could have reached her level of success is through affirmitive action or tokenism? I haven't seen her on TV, but I follow her blog. People read her work because they like reading her work. She's one of the few who does real investigation. She tends to jump on new topics before they catch on and get big.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#9)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Roy, Are you responding to comments that havent been written? Nobody has suggested that affirm action was the only way for her to get ahead. It has been suggested that she engages in race baiting, and that her status as a minority has value to the right wing.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#10)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Roger, Your comment above is the only one that critically addresses Malkin's views without harping on her race. I was responding to other comments like these:
    Because she herself does not support affirmative action and is therefore a hypocrite [suggesting she benefits from AA].
    ...the only reason they exist is so the rabid right-wing can claim they don't discriminate
    The reason the right-wing noise machine promotes minorities is ... to create the false impression that lots of people of color hold conservative views.
    They [Mithra's comments, including "If she didn't have t*ts"] also happen to be quite correct, IMO.
    There is a not-at-all-subtle distinction between suggesting that conservatives benefit from Malkin's minority status -- which I think is true -- and suggesting that she's succeded only because of that minority status -- which is racist, sexist, and apparently the point of the comments I quoted.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#11)
    by roger on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Roy, Due to your well constructed argument, I will concede the point, reluctantly.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#12)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Perhaps it was crudely worded, but I understand the point. The right has a strategy of using members of a group (women, minorities, etc.) to put out front as the most vocal critics/hate-mongers of said group. It is a lame defense so that they can say "we're not sexist/racist, because a woman/minority is saying it, so it must be true!". In this sense, Malkin has benefited from a very perverse affirmative action, which even as a liberal who supports real affirmative action, I am happy to criticize. As to references to her body, yes, stupid. But I have suspected that another of the right wing's strategy is to have their most vitriolic beliefs come out of the mouth of a beautiful woman, again to sort of sweeten the pill. Our society wants to look at beautiful women, so even people who are disgusted by Ms. Malkin's views are predisposed to watch her and hear her out. Do you think it is coincidence that the most prominent far-right spokeswomen are attractive (though I really can't see it, though it could be that I am just so repulsed by their views)? So yes, being an attractive woman has no doubt helped her career (though this is true for most women in entertainment industry). I have never seen her on t.v., only read some of her views. From what I have read, she sounds completely scary nuts (pro-internment? come on!) and you have to wonder why she has been given a platform to speak on these shows.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    Malkin is certifiably nuts. She has the tell tale sign of a rabid republican, the crazy eyes. Beware of those with the crazy eyes, it's a tell tale sign of insanity.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#14)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    roy, i note that you haven't actually disproved the assertions made regarding ms. malkin's race being a critical factor in her "success" as a right-wing enchantress, merely tut-tutted at those of us so base as to actually point out an annoying truth. how could we! that, of course, is a job normally reserved for such as yourself. this, i believe, is known as dissembling, an activity those of your ilk have raised to the level of an art form. be that as it may, i stand by my original statement. as far as her "investigative" skills are concerned, her work speaks for itself: shallow, and predicated on false premises. it is, for the most part, rancid swiss cheese. were there no rabid, right-wing, smear media, ms. malkin & coulter would be employed doing that which they are most capable: being greeters at wal-mart. i don't, however, blame either for taking advantage of the market. they know exactly what they're doing, and making a tidy buck off of it. you can almost hear them saying "hey rubes!"

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#15)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    cpinva,
    roy, i note that you haven't actually disproved the assertions made regarding ms. malkin's race being a critical factor in her "success" as a right-wing enchantress
    My argument was that people like her blog because they like what she says on it. Re-reading my own post, I see that it reads as an aside rather than an attempt to disprove anything. I'd also like to point out Little Green Footballs, which shows that minority status is not necessary in order to succeed as a venomous conservative blogger. I didn't argue against race being "a critical factor", I argued against it being "the only reason" which is what you said initially. That's a significant change. Did you mis-state your argument earlier, or am I misreading something?

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#16)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    LOVE being instructed in political correctness by the Malkin-loving crowd. It's a moment to savor. But I don't think attacking this enemy of affirmative action as an affirmative action hire is a statement about her competency at lying for FOX. It's a snark based on her own hatred of AA. As for breasts being the only way she can get a job, Santorum thinks she ought to stay home breastfeeding Baby Jesus. Doesn't she know she's hurting our culture because of her greed for an income? She's an ACCOMPLICE. As somebody who calls internment 'evacuation,' she deserves a few rude comments at the least. What a tool.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#17)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    J, Forget about "tits", who cares? The truth is, it's only "offensive" because hardly anyone says, about a man, "if he didn't have a cock and balls" he'd be a catatonic waiter at a greasy spoon in El Cajon. My apologies to the few genuine liberals in east county San Diego.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#18)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:03 PM EST
    roy is right: Michelle Malkin is no less "qualified" than Michael Savage, to whom she is identical apart from her own gender and ethnicity. No one questions that Malkin is well-qualified as a hate-monger, and Mithras would, I'm sure, readily allow as much if asked to clarify. But it's simply not possible to deny that the right-wing noise machine disproportionately promotes conservatives of color: and not at all to give historically disadvantaged groups a "leg up" in the world of right-wing punditry, but simply in a ridiculous and unsubtle attempt to inoculate the right against charges of racsim.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    It should come as no surprise that all people can and do act badly. It should also some as no surprise that actors on TV are designed to sell soap and are fair game. The way they look is rarley inconsequential. Not to make a habit of quoting Rove, but it does seems like "she is fair game." Yes, critics sometimes do inadvertantly reveal more about themselves then about their targets, due to their frothing at the mouth. Taking offence, and categorizing it with offending remarks recieved, also reveals more about the offendee, which I guess is the point.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#20)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    If the commenters from the right insist on dragging race into this, perhaps they can explain to us why it is not racist for the Filipino Malkin to write a biased book slamming the Nisei? Malkin's race is not an issue for me, neither is her gender. It's her constant lying and distortion of facts that drives me up a wall. And if anyone disagrees with me, that just proves they hate fat white men!

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#22)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    With this:
    If the commenters from the right insist on dragging race into this...
    I'm retiring. I like Malkin's blog, but not enough to spend all afternoon defending her. David Bernstein complains more effectively than I could anway.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#23)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    I agree with Jeralyn. (You know, I've been reading this blog for over a year, but I never knew the host's name.) It reminds me of the homophobic remarks about Andrew Sullivan that were made by a number of liberals (a blogger and his commenters) who should know better.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#24)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    If the commenters from the right insist on dragging race into this, perhaps they can explain to us why it is not racist for the Filipino Malkin to write a biased book slamming the Nisei?
    Yes, that's right. The commenters on the right are the ones who are "dragging race into this" -- not the tripe from Mithras that, y'know, dragged race into this. Malkin is American, incidentally. And she wrote a book-length study on Japanese internment based on her reading of war time concerns, etc. You can disagree with the argument -- you can even question some of the scholarship -- but to jump from that to "Malkin is a racist" is absurd, and yet another example of those on the left who use such ad hominems to chill debate. Whether or not the Japanese internment (and my wife's family was among those in camps) was proper or not under a specific set of historical circumstances is simply NOT a question we're forbidden to investigate.
    Malkin's race is not an issue for me, neither is her gender.
    Well, with all due respect,who cares? Evidently it was an issue to Mithras, and the multitude of leftwing bloggers who linked approvingly to the post and who themselves countenance vile racialist attacks on Malkin on their sites.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#25)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    Jeff G: "to jump from that to "Malkin is a racist" is absurd, and yet another example of those on the left who use such ad hominems to chill debate." Oh, SURE. Calling Daschle a traitor on the floor of the Senate didn't chill debate one bit. And there are no other examples of debate-chilling over the last five years to turn to. Malkin is a racist, who promotes racist ideals, who demonizes by race, who attacks immigrants by race, who wrote a famous but preposterous Ann Coulter-like tract on FDR's biggest mistake, and who would defend the shooting of MLK Jr. if it made Scaife or Murdock smile. Anyone who furthered the genocide on Iraq is a racist. That's the title you get for killing 130,000 civilians from a disarmed country in order to make money.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    Jeff G- It the big deal here that the left bloggers, who routinely fight for civil rights scream racism at the drop of a hat are actually racists themselves? How can anyone truly escape in a racist society? The right wingnuts rarely apologize for being racist so it is no big deal for them, possibly a point of pride, superiority...natural selection. It seems like this is a big 'gotcha' and a somewhat disingenuous cry of foul.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:04 PM EST
    Anyone who furthered the genocide on Iraq is a racist. That's the title you get for killing 130,000 civilians [...]
    Genocide? 130,000 civilians? Do they really allow you to get away with that kind of talk here? Cuckoo. No chatting with you.
    It the big deal here that the left bloggers, who routinely fight for civil rights scream racism at the drop of a hat are actually racists themselves? How can anyone truly escape in a racist society?
    Fighting for "civil rights" is an empty generalization. How do you fight for civil rights, and what, specifically, are you fighting for? In my post, I outline my arguments -- and no one who knows me would question my commitment to individual rights. And no, I don't think most leftists are intentionally racist -- but they do support programs that in my opinion promote a racialist culture. You ask, how can we escape a racist society? The answer, as far as I'm concerned, is to demystify race, to show that the social constructionists who continue to promote it are appealing to essentialist theories of race (even though they pretend to be doing otherwise). By advocating for a true diversity that doesn't rely on cosmetic fixes, we can begin to combat the political benefits of appealing to race as a priviliged component of identity.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    Jeff G-Agreed, but no one can escape it's grip entirely, especially those who are incapable of self reflection. Angela Carter made a good point on a panel discussion which applies to your link. CoCo Fusco, Hommi Baba, et.al., were arguing about sexism, racism, and anti-semitism and which of these issues was most important to focus on in the context of ending opression. Angela Carter eventually cut in and said that you all can save your selves a lot of time here if you simplify your arguments to discussions of Power, who has it and how do they use it, case by case. Race is a fiction used as a tool in power relations, amongst other things like wealth, strength, blackmail etc.. And my point about civil rights was not an empty generalization, it is why the right seems so gleeful (shadenfreude) with the apparent contradiction between theory and practice, in this episode. No one said that you think all leftists are intentionally racist. And yes, we can argue ad infinitum on whether the left is protecting civil rights or not , that is an entirely different question.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#29)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    Malkin is whacked out. Just another clown to keep us entertained (and distracted). For anyone to defend internment is to be out of touch with reality.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#30)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    et al - Watching the Left trashing the Right, and vice versa, is as appealing as watching World Federation Wrestling's more rabid fans, but with less class demonstrated. As we comment, perhaps we should remember this.
    Online, people are using the language of confrontation without having to take responsibility for the consequences such rhetoric normally carries with it -- and not just with regard to physical violence. The emotional consequences of unpleasant communication -- tears, anger, verbal retaliation -- are also conveniently left by the wayside. When one does not have to face the repercussions of personal behavior there is little incentive to improve it.
    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#31)
    by Randinho on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    TL, I have to respectfully disagree with you about Instapundit. I find his commenting to be slick and insubstantial and when he's taken to task for something's he's written that is either in poor taste (making fun of the elderly French dying in the heat two summers ago or snarky comments about the bombing that killed Sérgio Vieira de Mello, accusing French UN peacekeepers in the DRC of cowardice from the comfort of his deck) or just ad hominem (accusing those who opposed the war of being "objectively pro-Saddam", accusing the left of making the "preservation of Saddam Hussein its top priority") he merely digs in his heels.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#32)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    Posted by Jeff G: "Genocide? 130,000 civilians? Do they really allow you to get away with that kind of talk here?" That kind of 'talk' naturally follows those kinds of ACTS. • The 130,000 is from a reputable survey of family members killed since the illegal invasion. • Destruction of civilian life and cultural material in order to dismantle a country is genocide. It's illegal as well as immoral. • The burning down of the Koran-Torah repository in Bagdad, the burning down of the national library, the pre-arranged looting (by Chalabi's gang) of the national museum, the shelling of mosques and pogroms against Fallujah and Al-Qa'im (and elsewhere) -- all of these are racist, genocidal acts that DIRECTLY involved forces aligned to the USPNAC conspirators. If you don't like the talk, then go somewhere else. Like Mars, go to Mars. You lot have pissed away whatever credibility you ever had, and now its just a question of WHEN we can get justice for the crimes the people you support have commited. The Savage Family Tree of Republicans evolves like a virus-- becoming smarter, but no less virulent, destructive, and perverted. You people stink.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#33)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    It's protein but it's not wisdom. Same old distractions by a shill for My Pet Chimp.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#34)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    Jim, quoting an instruction to the Chickenhawks: "When one does not have to face the repercussions of personal behavior there is little incentive to improve it." The same is true of starting wars they refuse to serve in. No incentive to observe the effects of undermanning the troops, like this Marine unit that was SAVAGED by hostiles that Bush-Rumsfeld's failure to plan, armed. They reportedly had asked for ONE THOUSAND reinforcements. Tough luck, soldiers. RIP. Bush couldn't hear them over the sound of laughter around his swimming pool.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#35)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    perhaps i wasn't clear enough, i will now repeat this for those of you on illegal oxycontin: the only reason malkin, and her evil twin sister, coulter, enjoy the support of the rabid right-wing, is due to gender, and in malkin's case, race. as someone noted elsewhere, it purportedly innoculates them against legitimate charges of bigotry and discrimination. it certainly isn't because of the sterling quality of their writing, roughly on par with a lazy high school senior. were i to have handed in a paper with the pathetic "research" done by both malkin & coulter, i would have been soundly castigated, and rightly so. something that does confuse me about both: their most outrageous lies are easily refuted, with a bit of quick research on the net. why set yourself up to be outed as a liar, unless you have some deeply disturbed pathology going on? had i known then what i know now, i would merely have gone to work for someone who isn't concerned with facts, and made a fortune by spinning right-wing fairy tales, much as the lady in question does. foolishly, i went into auditing instead (NOT for arthur anderson!), where those relying on my work actually expect me to support my conclusions with confirmable fact. silly me!

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#36)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    Che writes:
    It's protein but it's not wisdom. Same old distractions by a shill for My Pet Chimp.
    I rest my case.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#37)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    malkin isn't a blogger, she's a columnist carried around the country (Ohhh yeah, that lib MSM again;-) who also has a blog. Her racist screed endorsing WW2 japanese internment is inexcusable. Even Reagan apologised for it. As IRT the 'titz' comment that offended TL; I'm of 2 minds. 20 years ago I stopped using the beyoch word and the c word to identify people in favor of A$$hole, because everyone has one of those. But in MM's case, I can't think of any reason her diatribes would be inflicted on a mass audience, (by syndication in nat'l newspapers), except the rw wanted a token carrying water for them. So if she wasn't brown and curvey, I don't think she would have a column. This isn't affirmative action, this is just finding one of the few people willing to betray their sex and their race for a meal ticket. IF malkin belives what she says, it just makes it eeven sadder.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#38)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    PPJ, don't act so self-righteous! I have witnessed NUMEROUS occasions where you have been as snarky and without class as those, including myself, that have been attacking you for being, obviously, the hypocrite you are. The audacity of your previous comments know no bounds. Jeralyn, I am torn but I come down squarley on the side of not caring if a bigot is lambasted by someone. I just can't care less. Roy, if what Malkin does constitutes good writing to you then my friend's four year old son has some scribblings that rank right up there with the majority of her screeds. Bukowski was right when he said that all the best writers have never written.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:06 PM EST
    Malkin loves tyranny. She is unamerican. This is evident by reading any one of her op-eds. Case closed.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#41)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:07 PM EST
    Btw, a little late, but 'Taxanomy' is spelled taxonomy. A 'taxon' is one of the items in a taxonomy, if that helps.

    Re: Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' (none / 0) (#42)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:02:08 PM EST
    The thread is about a post about malkin on another site.
    Based on the response, I'd say I hit a collective nerve.
    no, all you did was succeed in hijacking another post. I get suckered in too, but please everyone (and this definitely includes me) let's try to stay on topic and ignore trolls and hijackers.

    Weighing in on 'Conservative Blogger Taxanomy' | 40 comments (40 topical)