Pharyngula

PZ Myers. 2005 Dec 08. More opinion on Mirecki. <http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/more_opinion_on_mirecki/>. Accessed 2008 Dec 04.

Posted on M00o93H7pQ09L8X1t49cHY01Z5j4TT91fGfr on Thursday, December 08, 2005

More opinion on Mirecki

It takes an Australian to be sufficiently distant to view the situation objectively: John Wilkins has an excellent assessment of the state of the Mirecki mess.

And of course, David Neiwert weighs in. He also zeroes in on what is really the most evil comment in this whole situation, the most un-American, un-patriotic, most indefensible and most offensive argument made by any participant in this whole charade…and it wasn't said by Mirecki. It was by Republican state Senator Karin Brownlee.

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

Everyone who was so upset at Mirecki's rhetorical comment that teaching ID as mythology would be a slap in the face to the fundies…how many of you have put half as much energy into damning the threat to free speech and the palpable theocratic oppressiveness of that particular statement, hmmm? Do you think we'll see Brownlee hounded by the public, harrassed and shamed, abandoned by her colleagues, and resigning from her position sometime in the near future?

I encourage everyone to mock Christianity freely. You can mock atheism, too, if you want. Just don't lose sight of the real problem here: it's not Mirecki, it's the self-satisfied, blinkered mob that worships their brand of ignorance as sacrosanct, and will defend it with public attacks and oppression.

Posted by PZ Myers on 12/08 at 08:29 AM
Godlessness • Politics • 0 Trackbacks • Other weblogs • Permalink

Well then I guess we're just going to have to be culturally unacceptable.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:41 AM
Mock atheists? Why, that's sacrisecular!
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:41 AM
Free speech has to do with legal acceptability, not cultural acceptability. It is, for example, legally acceptable to mock African-Americans but, thankfully, not culturally acceptable to do so. (Or am I just surrounded by a bubble of polite people in an otherwise mocking world?)
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:46 AM
Let's allow David Hume to lead off the mockery- nobody's ever done it better.

"Survey most nations and most ages. Examine the religious principles, which have, in fact, prevailed in the world. You will scarcely be persuaded, that they are any thing but sick men's dreams: Or perhaps will regard them more as the playsome whimsies of monkies in human shape, than the serious, positive, dogmatical asseverations of a being, who dignifies himself with the name of rational."
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:48 AM
Hell, we need to set a standard that makes it more okay to mock Christians. The whole religion makes no sense at all, and I really don't think we should stop being critical of ideas because people are really attached to them.

I really can't see the benefits in stopping critical thought.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 08:48 AM
Michelle Malkin (and other right-wingers) are now insinuating that this whole thing is a fake hate crime.
#: Posted by Orac on 12/08 at 09:27 AM
Where's the mocking? It's being way too generous to put ID on the same level as, say, the Tiamat myth. That, and Genesis, and similar myths are poetic expressions at the wonder of creation. They clearly merit study--or even reverence and awe at the human imagination extending back so many millennia.

ID, on the other hand is not an ancient myth but a modern fraud, and ought to be taught in the same class as Ponzi schemes and Nigerian email fraud.

Even that would not be mocking Christianity... well not as long as IDers insist that ID is not Christianity.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 09:29 AM
It figures that christians would have their version of the muslims' "Osama did a terrible thing, but..."
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 09:41 AM
PaulC, you said it well for me. Christianity is a wonderful and terrible expression of the attempts of large pockets of our species to figure out their universe pre-scientifically. Anthropologically, these religions are seen as markers of intellectual development.

ID attempts to throw our species' culture back many centuries to a time where "God did it... " made as much sense as anything else in explaining the Nature of our universe.

IDists are the current Apex of Reactionarism. They go waaayyy beyond Conservatism.
#: Posted by MBains on 12/08 at 09:43 AM
Michelle Malkin (and other right-wingers) are now insinuating that this whole thing is a fake hate crime.

That's Malkin's normal pattern, that's always worked for her: to take any news item that reflects poorly on wingnuts and to declare it's a fraud. And of course, when it's proven it's authentic, she never acknowledges this.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 09:52 AM
from Malkin's article:

...but given the prevalence of staged hate crimes since the Tawana Brawley hoax two decades ago

"it happened twenty years ago, and I can't think of any since then, but, hey, that proves it anyway." Oy vey.

by the way, Dembski is on the bandwagon too...
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:07 AM
The problem with ID is that god's just not that smart. Average at best.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:07 AM
I didn't notice such a broadminded tolerance when I mocked Islam here.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:08 AM
We have to set a standard that it’s not culturally acceptable to mock Christianity in America.

If only she were saying that we Christians have to set for ourselves, and live up to, a standard that would make it culturally unacceptable to mock our beliefs (that is, doing so would only expose the mockers to justified ridicule). Unfortunately we do not live up to such standards and, in any event, I have no doubt at all that what Ms Brownlee means is that mocking Christians should be 'culturally unacceptable' in the same was as it used to be for black people to get 'uppity' and enforced in the same manner.

non-Christians would chide those who did mock Christians
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:09 AM
This whole thing has really bothered me from the outset. After all, Mirecki's comments were made to a listserv. As far as I'm concerned, that's like being in a private conversation with like-minded friends, and it should have no bearing on one's job.

I say we collectively mock Karin Brownlee. I think I would find the exercise entertaining.
#: Posted by Rebecca on 12/08 at 10:12 AM
I didn't notice such a broadminded tolerance when I mocked Islam here.

Mock Islam all you want.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:12 AM
But no mocking of squid, OK?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:21 AM
Actually I'm not surprised by that PC comment. COnsider this one, made by Myers on panda's thumb:

<blockquote>
I'm sure we all agree that whoever perpetrated this crime needs to be brought to justice and handled by the rule of law, and that physical violence against either side of the evolution-creation debate must be discouraged.
<\blockquote>

Are there any instances where a pro-evolution activist has lifted a hand against any religious people?

There is a tendency to try to balance which was ground in during the 90's. We see it all the time in Israel, when right wingers assault left wingers. The press and gov't then admonish both sides, for some reason.

I think that we should openly denounce violence from the fundamentalist side, since this is what's going on, and when and if one of us attacks a fundamentalist violently, then we'll denounce him too. Such PC comments only reinforce the violent side into even more self-righteous statements like the one above.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:32 AM
Been here, done that, CBBB. Discovered that, around here, some pigs is more equal than other pigs.

Krill: Dunn, Lapchick.

Lapchick, who carved the letters NIGER on his chest and blamed rednecks, is still treated as a respectable authority on his specialty, which is racism in sports.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:34 AM
More right-wingers trying to insinuate that Mirecki is pulling a fast one:

Mirecki Resigns
Get a Picture
Malkin admits it "may seem mean-spirited" that she calls into question "hate crime"
Kansas bigot invents crazy attack story
#: Posted by Orac on 12/08 at 10:35 AM
Bored Huge Krill writes: "'it happened twenty years ago, and I can't think of any since then, but, hey, that proves it anyway.' Oy vey."

Granted that Malkin's reference to "prevalence" of staged hate crimes is not quite right, neither is your reference to not being able to think of "any" since then. I mean, the two sentences from Malkin immediately following the one you quote cite specific examples occurring within the last year.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:37 AM
Been here, done that, CBBB. Discovered that, around here, some pigs is more equal than other pigs.

Well personally I would disagree with people who bash one religion but let another slide. But Christian bashing is the sport of choice around here because most people around here are from the US, UK, or Canada and they deal with Christians are a far more regular basis than people of other religions.
Plus it counter-balances a mass media which tends to let lunatics like Pat Robertson slide.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:44 AM
Harry,
Got any links about Lapchick and his masochistic obsession with a certain African nation?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 11:06 AM
In the light of Brownlee's quote, I will remind that Mirecki's e-mail mocked "Fundies", not Christians in general.

As with the whole "religion vs. science" alleged battle, the Fundies wish to portray themselves as representing the entirety of Christianity.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 11:08 AM
I for one find it outrageous that fundamentalists seem to think that morality only applies when it is convenient.
Anyone ever notice how the crazy militia people tend to be fundamentalist Christians?

This kind of attack is why I have never put the Darwin Fish on my car. It's actually dangerous for people to be evolutionists. That's the bottom line.
#: Posted by Loris on 12/08 at 12:14 PM
Nat,
granted that there are the two examples of staged "hate" crimes that she references, and I take your point - but neither of these involves self-harm. Both involve vandalism.

It's quite a stretch to consider either of those supports a thesis of "prevalence" of people hospitalizing themselves.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 12:15 PM
the Fundies wish to portray themselves as representing the entirety of Christianity.

Well now, that's an interesting point. The fundies don't even acknowedge other, more moderate Christians as truly Christian. Then when anyone illuminates the excesses of fundamentalists, they say; "You're generalizing the actions of a few to all Christians!"

So which is it? Can't have it both ways. If you want to claim to be the "only true Christians" you can't complain when people generalize your acts to Christianity.
#: Posted by decrepitoldfool on 12/08 at 12:16 PM
" You will scarcely be persuaded, that [religious principles] are any thing but sick men's dreams: Or perhaps will regard them more as the playsome whimsies of monkies in human shape ..."

I infer that Hume didn't buy common descent or he wouldn't have distinguished believers from non-believers in this way. (and yes, I know the relevant chronology - it's intended to be a joke!)
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 12:18 PM
Any idea is fair game for mockery. I see mockery as a form of challenge to the idea: It's just a challenge that's intended to provoke laughter as well as thought.

Of course, most attempts at mocking atheism and evolution fall flat on their faces, thanks to faulty premises.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 12:31 PM
Yes, CBBB, this is a Christian-bashing site. Nothing wrong with that. Amusing and important work and how many of us get to say both about our avocations?

But it is one thing to prefer to bash Christians, another to claim to be even-handed when, events demonstrate, you are not.

yorktank, Lapchick's foray into redneck-bashing happened before there was an Internet, so, no links. If you really need to know, I can put you in contact with the reporter who broke the story.

Malkin is a mean-spirited fabulist. So far as I've heard, Marecki's story has not been falsified, even though it smells like yesterday's mackerel.

I don't do much police reporting any more, but I still do some, and right now I'm in the middle of a complicated series of reports about an attack that was so unprovoked and so out of the usual that I would have said it smelled like old mackerel, too, but there's a videotape to show that it really did happen.

The idea that leftists routinely fake incidents to embarrass rightists is absurd; on the other hand, it isn't unknown either.

I suppose the current 'War on Christmas' hype from the right is a cognate phenomenon, but so far that's just a war of words. No animals were harmed in the making of that brouhaha.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 12:32 PM
Wow.

Loris, can you name any crazy militia person who is a fundamentalist Christian? I doubt it. And one attack on one person (assuming it wasn't fabricated) over the last century in a country in the hundreds of millions of people makes it too dangerous to put a Darwin fish on your car? I find your assessment of risks to be a bit inaccurate.

PZ, would it be evil, un-American, unpatriotic, and indefensible for me to suggest that it should be culturally unacceptible to mock Jews, blacks, or gays in this country? I'm not saying, "should we mock them", I'm saying, "would you be outraged if someone suggested that we should not mock them?" If so then I can find thousands of leftist/progressives for you to be outraged at.

Cauldron, if Malkin's "normal pattern" is to claim that something is a fraud and then never acknowledge when it is proven otherwise, you should be able to find an example. The only time I can think of when she _suspected_ something was a fraud and it turned out not to be one (the letter in the Senate about Terri Schiavo), she prominently said so on her blog, both in a new post and in an update to the original post.

You guys really should read some conservative blogs. You just keep spreading stories among yourselves and never enage in any activity that might possibly falsify them, leaving a lot of false stories running around.
#: Posted by Doc Rampage on 12/08 at 01:18 PM
Harry,
I tried to e-mail, but it got returned. I would appreciate it if you could point me toward the facts of the Lapchick case. The only accounts I've ever heard about it were from you and a racist on a sports MB who spouted off a complete different set of facts (i.e. Lapchick had been stabbed, 'KKK' had been carved into his stomach, and the doctor who examined him thought the wounds were self-inflicted...the poster also referenced unnamed experts who agreed with the doctor in question).
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 01:23 PM
#52928: BronzeDog — 12/08 at 12:31 PM
Any idea is fair game for mockery.

I think we should mock the idea that any idea is fair game for mockery. After all, it wouldn't be fair to mock squid.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 01:25 PM
When a so-called Christian sends young men and women from the United States off to kill in a foreign country, a country that did not attack the States, that qualifies as mocking Christianity.

When a religious leader pounds the pulpit and disparages gays or secularists or what-have-you-willy-nilly, depicting our neighbors and fellow-taxpayers as living in sin or as being hell-bound, that is mocking their titular leader's directive to forget about the mote in the other's eye and to pluck the beam from one's own.

What we do to the least of humanity we do to all: isn't the very existence of GWB as President a mockery of all the healing, loving and forgiving teachings of their god?

Christians are the ones mocking Christianity, by acts of commission and omission. They are the ones who kill their religion. Jesus wept and then went to lunch.

Happy Holidays!

+++
#: Posted by MJS on 12/08 at 01:26 PM
I'm with Nat--generalizations suck...except that one.

How many of you who have this generalized vitriol against fundamentalist Christians have known and cared for some of them? My two college roommates, two of my best friends, were "fundies", as were their whole families. Really good people. Took this atheist materialist into their homes, broke bread and turkey with him. I can't say they're all thugs or come close to that sentiment.

And for those who will jump up and say, "Oh, but they all abet thuggery by their tacit approval or inaction," tell me what you do to stop the wrongs we see around us every day. Have you bought clothes lately? Did you see where it was manufactured, and by whose hands? We all fail ourselves, we all look the other way. We should strive to do better, but don't be so sure of your moral superiority while you're at it.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 01:44 PM
Since I've been called out as a "right winger" by Orac, I guess I can comment.

If you read my initial post on the Mirecki attack, I was pretty angry about it. Angry that anyone would be stupid enough to do something like this. I said I was all for these people getting the maximum the law allowed and that if they were Christians their pastor should accept responsibilty for failing to get across to these two morons that this is unacceptable.

Since then the story has gotten a little fuzzy. I honestly can't understand how the Professor could forget where the attack occured just minutes afterwards. I don't understand why he waited 20 minutes to call the police. I don't understand why he refuses to talk to the AP about the incident. I don't understand why he got out of his truck at 6:20AM when the sun didn't rise until after 7AM. Prof. Mirecki is clearly a bright man. This does not seem like something a bright man does.

Bottom line, if he's telling the truth then the two individuals will probably be caught and we'll see who they are and what they were about. If so, I'll be sure to correct the record and let the chips fall where they may. Until then, the whole thing is just too weird and too convenient to be taken at face value.
#: Posted by Foyle on 12/08 at 01:57 PM
OK, yorktank, I've sent you an email directing you to the guy who broke the story. I know what I'm talking about; we sat at adjacent desks when he broke it. He was a friend of Lapchick's and it was painful for him to do it. We talked about it a lot.

Doc, I know an instance when Malkin wrote crap and refused to acknowledge the correction.

The corrections are in my review of her 'In Defense of Internment,' and I can send you a copy if you want.

She said she'd post it on her site. Then she saw it. Silence since then.

To be perfectly fair, an antiMalkin site said it would post it, too, and then backed down. I had something in it unpleasant for all political persuasions.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 01:58 PM
Cauldron, if Malkin's "normal pattern" is to claim that something is a fraud and then never acknowledge when it is proven otherwise, you should be able to find an example. The only time I can think of when she _suspected_ something was a fraud and it turned out not to be one (the letter in the Senate about Terri Schiavo), she prominently said so on her blog, both in a new post and in an update to the original post.

Here's a start:

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2005/09/michelle_malkin.html
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:11 PM
As long as we're engaging in wild theories about faking health problems, does anyone else find it odd that two of the most key players in "intelligent design" are conveniently unavailable to discuss the garbage which they spawn and/or promote???

I'm talking about ultramillionaire, anti-science anti-gay bigot Howie Ahmansen, who allegedly "suffers" from Tourette's syndrome and doesn't give interviews.

And Phil Johnson, the AIDs-denying who allegedly has had a couple strokes.

But I haven't seen the hospital records.

We need to consider whether these leaders are kept from entering the fray by their disciples out of fear that their stupidity and corrupt motivations will be revealed for all to see.

I'll bet that Howie Ahmansen doesn't have Tourettes. My guess is that he just can't talk about anything for more than five minutes without going off on how he wants to amend the Constitution so it defers to the Bible in all matters.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:11 PM
"Cauldron, if Malkin's "normal pattern" is to claim that something is a fraud and then never acknowledge when it is proven otherwise, you should be able to find an example. The only time I can think of when she _suspected_ something was a fraud and it turned out not to be one"

Malkin is a parasite on society and a prime example of the sort of human scum that is responsible for the absurdly low levels at which we public discourse is conducted in this country. She's just another plastic figure cut from the same shitstained Port-a-Potty that brought us Bill O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh.

Why would anyone spend two seconds defending Malkin from any charge made against her? She's a worthless human being.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:18 PM
Cauldron, if Malkin's "normal pattern" is to claim that something is a fraud and then never acknowledge when it is proven otherwise, you should be able to find an example. The only time I can think of when she _suspected_ something was a fraud and it turned out not to be one (the letter in the Senate about Terri Schiavo), she prominently said so on her blog, both in a new post and in an update to the original post.

I almost forgot, loveable old Michelle is the same person who started the 'rumor' that John Kerry's wounds in Vietnam were self-inflicted, that he shot himself just to get his Purple Heart.

This seems fall safely into the Malkinesque pattern of 'make shit up for political advantage'. Tho I suppose you might counter that it was 'never disproven'.

I'm supposed to spend MORE time on websites that propagate shit like this? Good lord, why should I punish myself like that?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:19 PM
John Altevogt is hardly an example of civilized discourse:

From the March 30, 2005 Lawrence Journal World:

'John Altevogt, a conservative GOP activist from Wyandotte County, also welcomed Coulter.

"Ann Coulter is logical, rational and an independent thinker," he said. "In essence, everything the left hates in their womenfolk."

"I've come to find I like liberals a lot more," Coulter said early in her speech. "They're kind of cute when they're cold, shivering and afraid."'

Presumably, his intemperate comments will now be thoroughly disavowed by the Kansas legislators, right?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:21 PM
I've always sort of thought of Ann Coulter as Julius Streicher reincarnated as a blond American bulimic.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:28 PM
The only time I can think of when she _suspected_ something was a fraud and it turned out not to be one (the letter in the Senate about Terri Schiavo), she prominently said so on her blog, both in a new post and in an update to the original post.

I think another great example of her claiming something is a fraud is the whole John Kerry Swiftboat thing.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:35 PM
And for those who will jump up and say, "Oh, but they all abet thuggery by their tacit approval or inaction," tell me what you do to stop the wrongs we see around us every day. Have you bought clothes lately? Did you see where it was manufactured, and by whose hands? We all fail ourselves, we all look the other way. We should strive to do better, but don't be so sure of your moral superiority while you're at it.

No one is demanding that the Fundies be perfect human beings but time and time again people like Robertson and Dobson make inflammatory remarks and are rarely if ever called out for them by the fundie community.

And in my opinion, one of the strongest evidences that the Fundie community is populated by whacko thugs is the runnaway success of the "Left Behind" series - books that are filled with racial, religious hatred and violent imagery. So it's not that the fundies aren't speaking out against people like Robertson and LaHaye but they are lapping up the radical messages that these people expouse.
Yes there are certainly some good Fundies but a very large chunk of them are loony radicals.

Another big about Malikan; I've seen here a few times of O'Reily's show and remember he stating that Cindy Sheehan's son would be disgraced by his mother. She's not accusing people of fraud but she is implying that she knew Cindy's son better than his own mother did. Malikan is a scumbag like Coulter. The two of them just blow hot air and inflamatory remarks which are based on precious little hard evidence or statistics.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 02:45 PM
Bayesian,

Would it be okay to mock turtle soup for dinner?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 03:18 PM
Well, I'd like to save 'thug' for people, who, you know, attack strangers by the side of the road.

If we start calling people who say unpleasant things thugs, then I will be called a thug. I could stand it, but I worry about Ward Churchill's tender ego if this standard should actually be established at pharyngula.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 03:55 PM
I'm not a Republican, I'm not a conservative, I'm not a Christian, I definitely don't think much of Malkin or the guy who does her writing, but I have to admit when I heard about Mirecki getting beaten up I had a gut feeling that it might be kinda sketchy.

I guess I'll have to hope he did get beaten up (and that the perps are caught), because if he faked it he won't have done any favors for the teaching of science.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 04:11 PM
guess I'll have to hope he did get beaten up (and that the perps are caught), because if he faked it he won't have done any favors for the teaching of science.

'Twould deserve the usual brand of mockery and derision, no doubt.

But I still find it interesting that most wingnuts think it's a hoax. Hm. Which side was caught making bald-faced lies in court?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 04:19 PM
If the attack turns out to be a hoax, I suggest we give Mirecki a tongue-lashing worse than those we give Creationists.

If it's real, we proceed as usual.

Back on the topic of mockery: Sometimes the best thing for shooting down silly ideas is a deep belly laugh. I'm not about to take that item out of my arsenal. (I should take it out and use it more often.)
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 04:48 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.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 05:17 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...
#: Posted by John Wilkins on 12/08 at 05:31 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?
#: Posted by Doc Rampage on 12/08 at 06:32 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...
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 06:44 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!
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 06:54 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.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 07:06 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.
#: Posted by Doc Rampage on 12/08 at 07:39 PM
Orac,

I read Malkin's post. It struck me as skpetical, but fair enough, and fact-based.
#: Posted by The Commissar on 12/08 at 08:47 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.
#: Posted by on 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.

"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?
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:11 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.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:18 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.
#: Posted by on 12/08 at 10:50 PM
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.
#: Posted by Doc Rampage on 12/09 at 02:56 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.
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 08:28 AM
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.
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 01:17 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.
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 01:46 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.
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 01:49 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...)
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 01:55 PM
I wrote that for The Maui News, George
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 02:41 PM
Hey Harry,
Just wanted to let you know that Bill Burke says hello.
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 04:02 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.
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 05:41 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.
#: Posted by on 12/09 at 09:43 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.
#: Posted by Doc Rampage on 12/10 at 01:34 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.
#: Posted by Doc Rampage on 12/10 at 02:20 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.
#: Posted by on 12/18 at 11:06 PM