#52994: — 12/08  at  05:17 PM

Brownlee: We have to set a standard that it’s not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America.

Quite a bold statement, coming from a senator in the home state of Fred "God hates fags/God hates America" Phelps.

For the sake of fairness, Mirecki would certainly seem due for severe verbal chastisement on the grounds that his statement about his planned course being "a nice slap in their big fat face" is blatantly wrong in terms of adjective-subject agreement: even in a red state, professors should be held to a higher standard of grammar.

#52996: John Wilkins — 12/08  at  05:31 PM
Ah, that will explain the massive spike in readership. Thanks, Paul.

I think we should have a day set aside each year to mock every religion and political ideology. On that day nobody would be allowed to make any public statement that didn't mock the target PoV. We could choose the high holidays of that religion as the MockIt Day.

After a while, we might start to take this less seriously...

#53001: Doc Rampage — 12/08  at  06:32 PM
Harry Eagar: I'd like to see the reference, but I'll warn you if it's just another argument over Defense of Internment, I've already seen a lot of them. I've been following these arguments because I owe her a book review. The fact that people disagree with Malkin doesn't mean that she's been proven wrong.

George Cauldron: I read the link you provided. I'd seen that post before and it didn't impress me. It takes a few lines in one memo and claims that this entirely settles a very long-running and complex dispute. It tries to add credibility to this odd position by mischaracterizing Malkin's argument. I'm afraid that this is not an example where Malkin has been proven wrong; it's just a small and inconclusive bit of evidence against her position.

George Caldon II: Yes, a post by Malkin did start that rumor about Kerry shooting himself, and yes the rumor is false. But Malkin claims that she was misunderstood, that she never claimed that Kerry shot himself, and she has specifically said that he did not shoot himself. Personally, I think she misunderstood a claim that Kerry's wounds were "self-inflicted" to mean "deliberately self-inflicted" and passed on that misundestanding to her readers. The actual claim is that Kerry's wounds were accidentally self-inflicted (This claim is pretty well-substantiated; it seems that Kerry accidentally fragged himself with a grenade, not once but twice). However, even if I'm right and Malkin was too proud to admit she made a mistake, then she still took pains to correct the record, and this still does not justify the claim that she habitually fails to correct mistakes.

Do you people ever have a political disagreement that doesn't boil down to some awful moral or intellectual failing of the person who disagrees with you?

#53003: — 12/08  at  06:44 PM

Do you people ever have a political disagreement that doesn't boil down to some awful moral or intellectual failing of the person who disagrees with you?

Can you say projection?

I thought you could.

Jesus, I recommend you find something better to do with your life than defending a vile truthless harpy like Michelle Malkin...

#53004: — 12/08  at  06:54 PM
From 'Hardball' with Chris Matthews, August 19, 2004:

BROWN:  [Kerry] volunteered twice.  He volunteered twice in Vietnam.  He literally got shot.  There‘s no question about any of those things.  So what else is there to discuss?  How much he got shot, how deep, how much shrapnel? 

MALKIN:  Well, yes.  Why don‘t people ask him more specific questions about the shrapnel in his leg.  They are legitimate questions about whether or not it was a self-inflicted wound. 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  What do you mean by self-inflicted?  Are you saying he shot himself on purpose?  Is that what you‘re saying? 

MALKIN:  Did you read the book...

MATTHEWS:  I‘m asking a simple question.  Are you saying that he shot himself on purpose.

MALKIN:  I‘m saying some of these soldiers... 

MATTHEWS:  And I‘m asking question. 

MALKIN:  And I‘m answering it. 

MATTHEWS:  Did he shoot himself on purpose.

MALKIN:  Some of the soldiers have made allegations that these were self-inflicted wounds. 

MATTHEWS:  No one has ever accused him of shooting himself on purpose. 

MALKIN:  That these were self-inflicted wounds. 

MATTHEWS:  Your saying there are—he shot himself on purpose, that‘s a criminal act? 

MALKIN:  I‘m saying that I‘ve read the book and some of the... 

(CROSSTALK)

MATTHEWS:  I want an answer yes or no, Michelle. 

MALKIN:  Some of the veterans say...

MATTHEWS:  No.  No one has every accused him of shooting himself on purpose.

MALKIN:  Yes.  Some of them say that. 

MATTHEWS:  Tell me where that... 

MALKIN:  Self-inflicted wounds—in February, 1969. 

MATTHEWS:  This is not a show for this kind of talk.  Are you accusing him of shooting himself on purpose to avoid combat or to get credit?

MALKIN:  I‘m saying that‘s what some of these...

MATTHEWS:  Give me a name. 

MALKIN:  Patrick Runyan (ph) and William Zeldonaz (ph). 

MATTHEWS:  They said—Patrick Runyan...

MALKIN:  These people have...

MATTHEWS:  And they said he shot himself on purpose to avoid combat or take credit for a wound? 

MALKIN:  These people have cast a lot of doubt on whether or not...

MATTHEWS:  That‘s cast a lot of doubt.  That‘s complete nonsense. 

MALKIN:  Did you read the section in the book...

MATTHEWS:  I want a statement from you on this program, say to me right, that you believe he shot himself to get credit for a purpose of heart. 

MALKIN:  I‘m not sure.  I‘m saying...

MATTHEWS:  Why did you say? 

MALKIN:  I‘m talking about what‘s in the book. 

MATTHEWS:  What is in the book.  Is there—is there a direct accusation in any book you‘ve ever read in your life that says John Kerry ever shot himself on purpose to get credit for a purple heart?   On purpose?

MALKIN:  On. 

MATTHEWS:  On purpose?  Yes or no, Michelle. 

MALKIN:  In the February 1969 -- in the February 1969 event. 

MATTHEWS:  Did he say on it purpose. 

MALKIN:  There are doubts about whether or not it was intense rifle fire or not.  And I wish you would ask these questions of John Kerry instead of me. 

MATTHEWS:  I have never heard anyone say he shot himself on purpose. 

I haven‘t heard you say it.

MALKIN:  Have you tried to ask—have you tried ask John Kerry these questions? 

MATTHEWS:  If he shot himself on purpose.  No.  I have not asked him that. 

MALKIN:  Don‘t you wonder? 

MATTHEWS:  No, I don‘t.  It‘s never occurred to me. 

Oh, yes, poor Michelle Malkin. Those liberals are so mean to her. She never tried to claim Kerry shot himself!

#53006: — 12/08  at  07:06 PM
Yes, I'm so glad someone brought up the Hardball incident, I was about to go looking for that on Media Matters. I'm sorry Doc but Malkin was VERY VERY instrumental in spreading the Kerry rumor. She knew what she was doing.

#53010: Doc Rampage — 12/08  at  07:39 PM
OK, I forgot that the incident was on Hardball and thought I remembered it from her blog. It doesn't effect my point. I didn't claim that Malkin has never made a mistake. Nor did I claim that she has never let pride get in the way of honesty. What I denied is that she habitually lies or makes mistakes and then refuses to admit it.

She did correct this mistake (and it was a mistake, the claim that "she knew what she was doing" is ridiculous) in the sense that she later admitted that no one had claimed that Kerry's wounds were not self-inflicted. She didn't admit that she had made a mistake, but she did correct the record on Kerry. Thanks to Malkin's quick correction, this was a short-lived rumor. Within a week everyone who had heard the rumor had heard that it was not true.

Once again, you guys have not provided a single incident where Malking lied or made a mistake and then refused to correct it (that second part is important because no one denies that she occasionally makes mistakes, it is her response when she does so that is at issue). And it would take a lot more than one example to prove that she does this habitually.

#53018: The Commissar — 12/08  at  08:47 PM
Orac,

I read Malkin's post. It struck me as skpetical, but fair enough, and fact-based.

#53019: — 12/08  at  08:55 PM
Thanks to Malkin's quick correction, this was a short-lived rumor. Within a week everyone who had heard the rumor had heard that it was not true.

Actually the Swift Boaters effect on the campaign was not short-lived. Malkine helped to add to the mythos.

#53029: — 12/08  at  10:11 PM

Thanks to Malkin's quick correction, this was a short-lived rumor. Within a week everyone who had heard the rumor had heard that it was not true.

"Thanks to Malkin's quick correction"? The same person who first broadcast this rumor on TV is supposed to be thanked for her wisdom in 'quickly correcting' it?

#53030: — 12/08  at  10:18 PM
CBBB:
Acutally one of my favorite rants is how similar the Fundies are to Moslem extremists. They both advocate violence, intolerance, and state run religions. If it weren't for the clothing, you could not tell them apart.

#53033: — 12/08  at  10:50 PM
Doc:
She got caught. Had she not been so persistently confronted, it is unlikely she would have recanted.
You can SAY I'm all wrong, but I saw the show. She did a spanish hat dance.

#53039: Doc Rampage — 12/09  at  02:56 AM
Well, MpM, I didn't see the show and I don't have mind-reading abilities anyway, so I'll have to bow to your superior telepathic senses and work with the assumption that she wouldn't have recanted. It still doesn't prove the point that I've been arguing against.

And, CBBB, I didn't say that the Swiftboat Vets weren't important to the campaign, only that the false rumor that Malkin started wasn't important to the campaign. The Swiftboaters may actually be the factor that saved Bush's inept campaign from defeat.

Oh, and MpM, yeah, I know what you mean about Fundies and Muslim extremists. I mean, Fundies are in favor of capital punishment for exceptionally heinous murders, and Islamists are in favor of capital punishment for insulting Mohamed. Fundies think that homosexuals should practice the same kind of abstinence that they advocate for their own children and anyone else who isn't in a traditional marriage and Islamists think homosexuals should be burned alive. Fundies think that the state should not be taking sides in an argument over fundamental beliefs and Islamists think that people should be forced to bow down and pray toward Mecha five times per day on pain of beheading.

Hardly any difference at all.

#53057: — 12/09  at  08:28 AM
And, CBBB, I didn't say that the Swiftboat Vets weren't important to the campaign, only that the false rumor that Malkin started wasn't important to the campaign. The Swiftboaters may actually be the factor that saved Bush's inept campaign from defeat.

Yes, and Malkin added to their lies by starting the rumour about Kerry having self inflicted his wounds. She needs to check her sources before making outrageous claims like that, the incident on Hardball was no minor mistake.

Fundies think that homosexuals should practice the same kind of abstinence that they advocate for their own children and anyone else who isn't in a traditional marriage and Islamists think homosexuals should be burned alive.

No, no, no. You're being dishonest. Fundies want homosexuals GONE, REMOVED, EXTINCT. Why don't you pay more attention to the eliminationist rhetoric of James Dobson, Falwell, etc.
Much of your post was dishonest and does not at all reflect the inflamatory rhetoric expoused by major fundementalist leaders. The only thing holding back the Fundies from the level of lunacy of the Islamic extremists is that they live in a wealthy nation and are not as "desperate" and the long tradtion of secularism in the US.

#53160: — 12/09  at  01:17 PM
OK, Doc, here's the review. All fact-based objections. Although, after George's takedown, this might be considered overkill. (Sorry, cannot just do a link; this was never published online, just on paper.)
+++

IN DEFENSE OF INTERNMENT: The Case for Racial Profiling in World War II and the War on Terror, by Michelle Malkin. 376 pages. Regnery, $27.95.

The dust jacket of Michelle Malkin’s frankly, even offensively provocative "In Defense of Internment" matches photos of two men, Richard Kotoshirodo and Mohammed Atta.
So what did Richard Kotoshirodo, a Nisei chauffeur at the Japanese consulate in Honolulu in 1941, do to be equated to the most notorious mass murderer of the 21st century? Well, nothing.
He drove a Japanese naval officer who was undercover at the consulate as a spy around places like Pearl City, where they counted battleships in Pearl Harbor. From this, and interrogations made by the Internee Hearing Board in 1942, Malkin presents Kotoshirodo as an example of a dangerous, disloyal Japanese-American, thus justifying the
imprisonment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans on military security grounds.
Malkin quotes Kotoshirodo as being asked whether he was "100% American" or "100% Japanese." And he replied, "As I recall, I was 100% Japanese."
Malkin conveniently reproduces a photocopy of the original transcript, which shows that Kotoshirodo meant that during the war between Japan and China, he was for Japan.
It’s true enough, as Malkin claims, that many, maybe even most Japanese-Americans had divided loyalties in 1941. It is little to their credit, but they backed Japan's war on China.
However, when the choice came to be between Japan and America, the Japanese-Americans in 1941 were overwhelmingly loyal to America.
It should have been no surprise in 1941 -– and it is a scandal in 2004 not to know it -- that Japanese-Americans felt this way. As early as 1912, in the first issue of the Hawaii Hochi newspaper, publisher Kinzaburo Makino gave this as his goal: "<\q>.<\q>.<\q.> to acquaint (the Nisei) with <\q>.<\q>.<\q.> American government and social systems, not only to enable them to fully utilize their rights and privileges as citizens, but to further develop them into patriotic American citizens <\q>.<\q>.<\q.>
"We shall be fair, but we shall protect the interests of the Japanese."
By the early 1920s, according to the sociologist Harry Kitano, almost every Japantown in the western states had its Loyalty (to the United States) League.
In order to reinforce a point about present-day politics, Malkin, a widely circulated opinion columnist, needs to prove that American authorities in 1942 had a well-founded concern about the likelihood of a Japanese invasion of the western states, or of sabotage by Japanese-Americans living there.
The invasion fear can be easily disposed of. As early as 1934, the leading naval theorist of the time, Adm. Sir Herbert Richmond, had quoted an American assistant secretary of the Navy in 1919 who "had dismissed the possibility (of a naval landing) even if there were no (U.S.) navy."
That was Franklin Roosevelt, the man who signed Executive Order 9066 that drove Japanese-Americans citizens out of their homes in 1942.
But about a third of the Japanese-Americans sent to concentration camps were not citizens, and Malkin makes much of the fact that enemy aliens could, according to ancient law, be interned, arrested or imprisoned in time of war.
That’s true, but Malkin, who freely accuses her critics of intellectual dishonesty, dishonestly ignores the fact that Issei (immigrants from Japan) were forbidden to become naturalized citizens. Malkin mentions this, just barely, but never bothers to analyze what it means. It is enough for her purposes to label them, accurately, as enemy aliens and let it go at that.
No doubt many would have become American citizens if they had been allowed to, if only to get around the racist California laws that prevented them from owning real estate.
The sabotage scare can be as completely dismissed, since the roundup did not get well under way until the war was six months old; and by that time there still had not been any sabotage reported.
Malkin pins her greatest faith on intercepted Japanese coded cables ("MAGIC"), many of which she also conveniently reproduces, to prove the existence of active Japanese spies in America. So there were, many of them serving officers in the Imperial Navy, but the decrypts do not, as she pretends, prove that there were many –- or any -- Issei or Nisei spies helping them.
Malkin has made a prosecutor’s case, a weak one further weakened by misrepresentation, misinterpretation and omissions. A historian would have used more evidence and reached a different verdict.
It’s unfortunate that Malkin chose such an approach, because her main point is worth discussing: whether Islamic terrorism should be combated as a matter for the police or as all-out war.
Malkin favors war, as opposed to "civil liberties purists" who contend that, "Not only must suspected terrorists be charged with a crime, <\q>.<\q>.<\q.> but the crime they are charged with must be related to terrorism."
Hers is a sensible position, and her pro-police antagonists are on shaky ground when they equate Guantanamo Bay cells for fighters with barbed-wire villages for farmers in the California desert. The correct response from Malkin should have been to ridicule their confusion, not to pervert history.
Would profiling be helpful in a war against Islam?
The religion claims to be a universalizing one, but it is a fact that it is largely local, restricted for the most part to citizens of 49 nations, who share a few languages, and many customs such as dress, food and rituals, which are almost completely absent among their target, the infidels.
The Islamists have no problem profiling their enemies.

#53169: — 12/09  at  01:46 PM
There's a big difference between mocking a person's beliefs and mocking a person's race. The main thing is that there's nothing wrong with being a member of any race. You would have to be deranged to disagree. Having a certain skin color, or kind of hair, or facial features, or whatever--what could be wrong with any of that? It's like mocking someone's eye color. It makes no sense.

In contrast, some beliefs are absolutely absurd and point to a warped intellect. Flat-earth-ism, for instance. Or Scientology. I expect you all to agree that there's something terribly wrong with these beliefs. Hence it makes sense to mock them. (Maybe in some situations it's not advisable, but it makes sense)

Suppose someone endorsed the view that it's never OK to mock any beliefs--not even the tenets of Scientology. My first thought would be that this person is insane and doesn't know the difference between what's worth believing and what's worth denying. But then my second thought would be more chairtable: this person doesn't actually believe what he's saying, he just trying to strike a very tolerant pose, and so he ends up insincerely endorsing insane views.

#53170: — 12/09  at  01:49 PM
And I'll go ahead and mock Islam. The Qur'an talks about genies--invisible spirits made of smokeless fire all around us. That is ridiculous, and if you believe it, you should be ashamed of yourself.

#53172: — 12/09  at  01:55 PM
Even tho this thread is pretty much dead by now...

Harry: thanks! Who did that review?

I know numerous Japanese-Americans, all of whom had parents or grandparents in the camps. Many of these people are still alive now, as kindly little churchgoing 85-year-old ladies with grandchildren and lively senses of humor. I can't imagine telling them "Now, you do realize that we had no choice but to imprison you for 4 years with no criminal charges and thus wiping you out financially, since you were probably going to start committing terrorist acts, right?"

(I also wonder if a historical Filipino hatred of the Japanese just MIGHT be behind some of Malkin's attitude here...)

#53184: — 12/09  at  02:41 PM
I wrote that for The Maui News, George

#53211: — 12/09  at  04:02 PM
Hey Harry,
Just wanted to let you know that Bill Burke says hello.

#53231: — 12/09  at  05:41 PM
You are serious about understanding this self-mutilation to poke the other side in the eye business, aren't you?

When you've got it sussed, send an e-mail with your conclusions. It's too weird for me to begin to understand.

#53250: — 12/09  at  09:43 PM
Doc:
Come out of the cave:

The termites are in charge now, and that is not the way it ought to be, and the time has arrived for a godly fumigation."--Pat Robertson, New York Magazine, August 18, 1986

"I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good...Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism."--Randall Terry, The News-Sentinel 8-16-93

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition CNN Aug. 24, 2005

When I, or people like me, are running the country, you'd better flee, because we will find you, we will try you, and we'll execute you. I mean every word of it. I will make it part of my mission to see to it that they are tried and executed Randall Terry

It gets worse... a lot worse. The ones who activly support violence, (like bombing abortion clinics, shooting doctors and beating "fags"), are extremists. Just like Muslims, you have mainstream Fundamentalists, and then the violent murdering, bombthrowing extremists.

#53328: Doc Rampage — 12/10  at  01:34 PM
OK, who is being dishonest now? Quoting Randall Terry as an example of fundamentalist is as reasonable as me quoting Kamau Kambon as an example of a leftist:

... they have what they call racial profiling, DNA banks, and they're monitoring our people to try to prevent the one person from coming up with the one idea. And the one idea is, how we are going to exterminate white people, because that in my estimation is the only conclusion I have come to. We have to exterminate white people off the face of the planet to solve this problem.

Is that fair? The very fact that Terry says "hate is good" proves that he is not a genuine fundamentalist. That statement is directy contrary to fundamentalist doctrine.

As to the Pat Robertson quotes: first, Robertson is not all that influential either, and second, I don't see the big deal about either quote. One is a metaphor and the other is a foreign policy suggestion.

It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Chavez is going to become a brutal murderous thug like Castro and like most other communists who have come to power. If you were convinced that by killing one dictator-in-the-making, we could saves tens of thousands of lives, wouldn't you be in favor of it? If so, then your disagreement with Robertson on this statement isn't an ethical one, it's a factual one and you are just moral grandstanding.

#53334: Doc Rampage — 12/10  at  02:20 PM
Harry Eager: Thanks for posting that reply to Malkin. I thought that we had hijacked this thread enough so I posted my response on my own blog.

#54116: — 12/18  at  11:06 PM
I have a taken a course from Mireckie. He claimed that he was not biased in any way in regards to religion. Yet, he forced us to write papers with thesis statements that he created. How's that for freedom of speech? Besides, he has now made statements that have certainly seemed to offend some people. If he was beaten, he didn't deserve it. No one deserves to be beaten over harsh words. However, he should have never said those harsh words. College professors sign a contract with the school they teach for. In this contract they agree to "represent the school". Schools do not like to be in the middle of contraversies, to be blamed for supporting someone who has problems with a certain race, religion, or any belief. The key to Mireckie's statements being a problem instead of an opinion is because it is the Religius Department that he heads, not the English Department or Music Department. You have all made Mireckie out to be an anti-religous hero. Making his story bigger than it really is. Beatings occur. Hoaxes occur. Neither should be permissable. In his statements Mirekie has shown himself to be unprofessional and it is likely that many, most of whom have no opinions about whether the beatings occured or not, will rather look at what is known about the situation and form a personal opinion about Mirekie. I don't think I will be able to take him seriously as a professor again. I have no respect for him.