Longer Michelle Malkin

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

I kinda liked Scarlett Johanssen, until I read that she slightly misunderstood some facts in expressing concern for victims of polio, the crippling effects of which might be reversed with stem cell research. Of course, the fact that the blogger I linked to made a seemingly equivalent mistake by stating that polio had been "cured" doesn't bother me in the least.

And don't get me started on the Alzheimer's thing.

The Song of the Pacifist

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

by Robert W. Service:

What do they matter, our headlong hates, when we take the toll of our Dead?
Think ye our glory and gain will pay for the torrent of blood we have shed?
By the cheers of our Victory will the heart of the mother be comforted?

If by the Victory all we mean is a broken and brooding foe;
Is the pomp and power of a glitt'ring hour, and a truce for an age or so:
By the clay-cold hand on the broken blade we have smitten a bootless blow!

If by the Triumph we only prove that the sword we sheathe is bright;
That justice and truth and love endure; that freedom's throned on the height;
That the feebler folks shall be unafraid; that Might shall never be Right;

If this be all: by the blood-drenched plains, by the havoc of fire and fear,
By the rending roar of the War of Wars, by the Dead so doubly dear...
Then our Victory is a vast defeat, and it mocks us as we cheer.

Victory! there can be but one, hallowed in every land:
When by the graves of our common dead we who were foemen stand;
And in the hush of our common grief hand is tendered to hand.

Triumph! Yes, when out of the dust in the splendour of their release
The spirits of those who fell go forth and they hallow our hearts to peace,
And, brothers in pain, with world-wide voice, we clamour that War shall cease.

Glory! Ay, when from blackest loss shall be born most radiant gain;
When over the gory fields shall rise a star that never shall wane:
Then, and then only, our Dead shall know that they have not fall'n in vain.

When our children's children shall talk of War as a madness that may not be;
When we thank our God for our grief to-day, and blazon from sea to sea
In the name of the Dead the banner of Peace...that will be Victory.

Look up "Hoax" in the dictionary - I do not think it means what you think it means

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Malkin once again goes after the Stassen op-ed, calling it a "hoax" and saying that Stassen has now "retracted his original conclusion that abortion increased in 2 of the 16 states he examined (South Dakota and Wisconsin)."

The real story is that Stassen looked at a new study, more rigorously conducted than his original op-ed, and said:

The data show that the dramatic decline in number of abortions of 90's to 300,000 fewer per year has now stalled almost to a stop. My initial study thought it had actually reversed. We will watch to see what happens in the next few years.

Where Stassen was incorrect appears to be based on incomplete numbers, a fact he admitted from the beginning. So what are we to say about the difference between a decline of 300,000 a year per year, and a decline of 10,000 a year per year? Malkin's post chooses to bash Hillary and Howard. Stassen's memo chooses a different route:

We already know that abortion rates in Belgium and Holland, which have a strong social safety net, are around 6 per 1,000 women of child-bearing age, while the rates in the United States are around 23 or 24. I contend that we have something to learn from Belgium and Holland's more just support for mothers and babies, and their healthcare insurance for all citizens.

Off-topic? No

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

One Hundred Names you Won't Hear This Memorial Day

Reprinted without permission

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

I've only read a chapter or so of Strawberry Days, but it's great. My favorite part, though, so far is in the index. It's totally logical, yet hilarious at the same time.

Internment camps
    and Revisionist History, 246,247
         see also Michelle Malkin

Enjoy it while it lasts

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Time for my bi-monthly "I (at least tentatively) agree with Malkin" post. Gulp.

1) Inasmuch as I understand the case, it's a very good thing that Lt. Pantano was acquitted.
2) On the other hand, inasmuch as I understand the case, Jesse Jackson did a very bad thing. That said, I'm not impressed with the race-baiting comments made on her link, but you can't have everything, eh?

Anti-military media bias

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

From a commenter at Pharyngula, I stumble across this book review from 2004.

His face is deeply lined, like an old man's, but his wispy moustache reveals that he is probably 17... there's an open wound on one of his skinny arms and above it someone has written a number with a black marker pen. He might have done terrible things. I know nothing about him other than these seven fragments of his life. But I can say this. In the last photograph, he is screaming so hard it looks as if he is laughing.

A social security plan that might actually work?

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Malkin's against it. Surprise.

Column day

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

I am a parent. I know this revelation will come as a surprise to Tim Wildmon, but there it is.

As a parent, I find Malkin's see-no-evil hear-no-evil sanctimony tiresome. Nowhere is it more on display than in this column.

Here's a rich irony: I'm writing today about a new children's book, but I can't describe the plot in a family newspaper without warning you first that it is entirely inappropriate for children.

The good news is, it's not a children's book. That is to say, not in the way that word evokes: It's a book aimed mainly at high schoolers. Technically children, I suppose, but not exactly the world of Goodnight Moon. (Or The Pet Goat.)

So what's the story that's "entirely inappropriate for children"? Well, it's a book about a "rainbow party." And what's a rainbow party?

A "rainbow party," you see, is a gathering of boys and girls for the purpose of engaging in group oral sex. Each girl wears a different colored lipstick and leaves a mark on each boy. At night's end, the boys proudly sport their own cosmetically-sealed rainbow you-know-where bringing a whole new meaning to the concept of "party favors."

Of course, despite Malkin's distaste for this book, it doesn't, in fact, devolve into kiddie porn (thank God) but rather a cautionary tale. Like all good "children's books."

In the end, the kids in the book abandon plans for the event and news of an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases rocks their school...

So what's Malkin upset about? Well, she seems to think that the author and publisher are too approving of their subject.

"Part of me doesn't understand why people don't want to talk about [oral sex]," [the author, Paul Ruditis] said. "Kids are having sex and they are actively engaged in oral sex and think it's not really sex. I raised questions in my book and I hope that parents and children or teachers and students can open a topic of conversation through it. Rainbow parties are such an interesting topic. It's such a childlike way to look at such an adult subject with rainbow colors."

Teenage group orgies are "an interesting topic?" Is Ruditis out of his mind? We can only pray Simon & Schuster keeps him away from the preschool "Rubbadubbers" books.

What is wrong with her? Does she think if we just ignore the reality of "rainbow parties" - and, more specifically, the risky and potentially self-destructive behavior teenagers are engaging in - they'll just go away? Would it be better for parents to have never heard of "rainbow parties"? Would it be better for teens to never read about STD outbreaks until one happens in their school?

If talking about sex is outlawed, only outlaws will talk about sex. The rest of them will just learn from experience.

New frontiers of hackery

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

This post.

1. Take valid point made by MSM - in this case, a political cartoonist.
2. Call it bias without responding to its thesis.
3. Respond with complete nonsequiter.
4. Profit!

Update: That is the second time I've misspelled non sequitur. I once got second place in a citywide spelling bee, you know.

Shorter Michelle Malkin

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

If we just kicked out all the illegal aliens, nothing bad would ever happen.

Waaaaah! They stole our tyranny of the majority! Waaaah!

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Malkin's reaction to today's yesterday's 'filibuster compromise' would be entertaining if it weren't so utterly predictable.

Well, it's entertaining, too. (The) Malkin(s) and their usual gang of fellow travellers are acting like the Democrats - and the sane Republicans - took their plutocracy ball and went home with it.

The GOP parade of pusillanimity marches on. With this pathetic cave-in, the Republicans have sealed their fate as a Majority in Name Only.

Mainly, though, Malkin settles for quoting as many petulant right-wingers as possible. (No links - you can read Malkin if you need to see them in their natural habitat.)

Dipshrocket:

What a hideous deal! The Democrats have agreed to cloture on only three nominees, and they have made no commitment not to filibuster in the future, if there are "extraordinary circumstances." Of course, the Dems think any nominee who is a Republican is "extraordinary." The Dems have just wriggled off the hook on some of the nominees that, politically, some of them did not want to be seen voting against.

Does Hindquarters ever get anything right? Or to put it another way, has he ever seen a lie he wouldn't tell?

Polipundit:

How on earth do those who define Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown as “extreme” even begin to define “extraordinary"?

Exactly. After you've been called a (right-wing) judicial activist by none other than Alberto Gonzalez, or argued that precedent should be overturned based on your own personal opinions, I'm not sure you can get any farther out.

Molten Thought:

So essentially these fools folded on a winning hand and preserved for Senate Democrats a power which has never been exercised before---the routine filibustering of judicial appointees. (Abe Fortas was filibustered to prevent the man the embarassment of being voted down for his ethical lapses).

No, no, no. Republicans attempted to filibuster three of Clinton's judicial appointees, and denied up-or-down votes to sixty more. The right-wing party-line-spouters (too many hyphens?) are trying to create a fantasy world in which the only honorable filibuster is a failed filibuster, and in which the vocal minority - for whom the filibuster was created - is punished for successfully sticking together.

But for pure offensive, grasping-at-straws, shark-jumping drivel you have to hand it to Slublog, who compares Bill Frist to Neville Chamberlain (via dadahead as well as Malkin). I doubt I have to explain why that's possibly the worst metaphor ever.

Like Christmas in May

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Don't you love it when you forget you ordered something, only to be reminded when it's (almost) upon you?

Greetings from Amazon.com.

We thought you'd like to know that we shipped your items today, and that this completes your order.

The following items were included in this shipment:

1 Strawberry Days : How Internme...

I'm very excited.

Round and Round

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Michelle "Indians Suck" Malkin calls Robert Byrd "Sheets" again.

Liberal Avenger could have saved her some embarrassment.

"Akin to Dutch 'fokken' - to breed (cattle)"

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Why does the "f-word" have such power over us?

The always intellectually incurious Malkin doesn't give a flying fokka*.

*(Swedish for "to copulate")

Advanced Malkin Studies

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

A thought to ponder as you head into the weekend (I'll be gone tomorrow for most of the day.):

Which one made the mistake?

And which one has finally decided to correct it?

Or maybe I just don't get it

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Malkin apparently thinks that this is funny. I think that for someone who (rightly) complains of racist attacks against her, she's 'surprisingly' tolerant of similar attacks on Native Americans.

Whether Churchill is Native American or not (and, despite what Malkin would have you believe, that's still up for debate) there's a lot better ways to discredit him (but why bother?) than with comments like

...I have come up with additional evidence [that I am a Native American].

1. My hair is black.

2. I like popcorn.

3. I am a mean drunk.

4. I am high on peyote.

For extra racist goodness, read the comments on the linked-to site.

Tortured catchphrase alert

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Michelle Malkin takes the brave and unprecedented step of...attacking Hollywood.

Of course, "Hollywood" in this case means "a British guy who lives in Britain, but is married to an American actress, who also lives in Britain." Therefore...

Gotta love Hollyweird.

Ooh. Cutting-edge commentary. What's Malkin's beef with Chris Martin? Well, this:

"I don't really care about EMI. I'm not really concerned about that. I think shareholders are the great evil of this modern world."

...Martin told reporters at Manhattan's Beacon Theatre that the band was uncomfortable that they sell so many albums they can affect a major corporation's stock price.

"It's very strange for us that we spent 18 months in the studio just trying to make songs that make us feel a certain way and then suddenly become part of this corporate machine," Martin said backstage.

He criticised what he called "the slavery that we are all under to shareholders."

So. An artist obsesses about his artistic integrity. Not exactly breaking new ground.

Neiwert never ceases to amaze

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

I linked to this below, but David Neiwert's latest Malkin post deserves a place of its own. Go read the whole thing.

Malkin, apparently, not only deigns it unnecessary to double-check her sources before publishing a smear. She doesn't even feel it's necessary to read the stories she links to.

For other examples of this, see here. And here.

I guess we're supposed to excuse this because Malkin is only a "pundit" (as though this were a realm free of the obligations of factuality). But just how seriously are we supposed to take a finger-pointing "pundit" like this (see especially her current jihad against Newsweek) when it comes to media "credibility"?

Never forget

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

The column:

Too often since the "War on Terror" was declared, eager Bush-bashing journalists have forgotten that the troops are real people who face real threats and real bloodshed as a consequence of loose lips and keyboards.

Wait. The media has forgotten?

The media?

The media?

Actually, maybe she has a point - let's look at the end of that quote.

...face real threats and real bloodshed as a consequence of loose lips and keyboards.

No, they face real threats and real bloodshed as a consequence of a pack of lies. They face real threats and real bloodshed as a result of failed, immoral policies. They face real threats and real bloodshed as a consequence of...okay, loose lips and loose keyboards.

Hell's just getting colder & colder

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Eric Muller has it.

Update:Also this. As a wise man once said, accountability only goes so far. And, as Mykeru wonders, where's her retraction and apology to James Yee?

No issue that can't be made just a little more controversial

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Ryan Fenno calls my attention to this post.

The Chicago Tribune discovers a line of man-hating clothing for children of lesbian parents born by artificial insemination.

Ryan:

Why do they have to be lesbians? Answer: they don't.

In fact, the Tribune editorial points that out:

Why was I shocked and angry? Not because the parents are lesbians. Not because they are raising children. Both realities are here to stay and they are fine with me.

What troubles me is that children today are being raised in an era of increasingly flexible definitions of parenthood, definitions that often serve the interests of adults without regard for children.

When they stop to consider the child's point of view, advocates for new technologies used by homosexual and heterosexual parents alike typically insist that children growing up in alternative family arrangements are just fine. End of story.

But it's not the end of the story. Those cute 3- and 4-year-olds grow up. They look in the mirror and see features and expressions they don't share with the parents who are raising them. They see other little friends who have a mom and a dad. They start asking questions.

If their parents are wise, they will tell the child about his or her origins, as most therapists now urge parents to do.

Sound advice. Leave it to Malkin to make this about those dykes and their man-hating ways.

This accountability stuff only goes so far

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Malkin is in the midst of a "Newsweek riots" feeding frenzy. It's quite something to behold, really. But when it comes to the main "perpetrator" of this supposed journalistic evil, does she call for his head as well? No, she does not.

What should Isikoff do? I don't think he should resign. I think he and his editors should just bite the bullet, tell us who the faulty source is, and give a more forthcoming explanation as to how this debacle came about.

Wow. She sure wanted Rather gone; why is she being so evenhanded now?

Oh, that's right.

Tragedy in Islamabad

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Let me just steal say this about that.

From Bob Felton's story:

Lawrence Dirita dismissed Newsweek's explanation thusly: "People are dead because of what this son-of-a-bitch said. How could he be credible now?"

Listen, Dirita. We liberals have been barking up that tree for three years now. But, for whatever reason, people still seem to be listening to George W. Bush.

Oh, wait, he was talking about the confidential source. Malkin:

Newsweek has blood on its hands. Blood on its desks. Isikoff should cough up his source.

Yeah, this is the worst confidential source since Curveball.

E-mail me if you need lottery numbers

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Auguste, April 1, 2005 (Paraphrased): Malkin's next book will be all about those hateful, hateful liberals.

Amazon.com, as pointed out by LBC, May 15, 2005.

Of course, there's no other details left, so there's every possibility this is a hoax. I mean, she wouldn't really call her book Unhinged, would she? Would she?

Oh, I think she would.

Update: Still a good possibility this is a hoax. I don't know what the procedure for submitting book titles to Amazon is, but I'm not sure it involves misspelling "tolernace." I still think the book's going to be along these lines, but this may not be the actual announcement.

I think I saw this in Revelations somewhere

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Malkins admit Muller was right.

"Unhinged" watch

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

I promise to stop playing "Spot the irony" soon, but Malkin leaves me no choice.

Yes, boys and girls, time for the irregular round-up of whining references to the Malkins' favorite non-Republicans: "unhinged" Democrats.

Blah:

UNHINGED LIBERAL PRODUCTS FOR SALE

Blah:

These unhinged moonbats have more thoroughly exposed the great myth of liberal tolerance than any conservative critic could. For that, I suppose we should be grateful.

It is time, however, for the Left to get a grip. Get back on your meds. In the end, you are only harming yourselves.

Okay, that's enough. This whole bit is recycled in more way than one, anyway.

But I wonder if Malkin knows about the dictionary definitions of "Maverick"?

n.2.One that refuses to abide by the dictates of or resists adherence to a group; a dissenter.

adj.Being independent in thought and action or exhibiting such independence.

In Malkin's world, being independent in thought and action is called "squishiness." Nothing like taking pride in groupthink.

Did I put the links in the right places?

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

TBogg on Malkin on Milbank.

Thought police

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

For the right, it's not enough to vote the way they want you to. They want you to lie back and enjoy it. Sorry for the analogy, but Voinovich voted for Bolton, and Malkin is still leading the call-in brigade.

It's kind of frightening.

Update: Speaking of frightening, and speaking of thought police, here's Neiwert and here's Mykeru. As for the latter, I don't necessarily agree with Jim Lampley's conclusions, but it's a thought-provoking argument.

Spot the irony, chapter 2

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Malkin accuses the MSM of being

predisposed to harp on law enforcement as an inherently racist and reckless institution, [and] hyp[ing] the hellions at the expense of the heroes...

As Jan Golab writes in a cover story for The American Enterprise magazine this month on how political correctness undermines policing: "Today, cops all across the United States battle a foe as destructive as crime itself: the presumption of common prejudice. This view has been fanned by a media elite which has made 'diversity' its virtual religion." The anti-cop bias, Golab notes, comes through the national MSM's "sins of omission— the stories never told. Propaganda, as Orwell said, is in what gets left out."

So. The MSM handpicks a few stories in order to paint a scary, biased portrait of the typical police officer as dangerous and a detriment to society.

This one's a little harder, but I have faith in you!

(Un?)intended consequences

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

I haven't spent much time on Malkin's general support for the so-called REAL ID act. I'm not going to spend much time on it now.

I'll just link to this.

Pop quiz

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Spot the irony.

But, of course, I am thankful no one was hurt

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

It has happened. Again.

That's right, Michelle Malkin has made a mountain. Out of a molehill. Again.

Just to clarify, I don't know or claim to know if it was al Qaeda or a nut or an al Qaeda nut. Whoever it was, though, clearly meant to terrorize or worse. And we can't ignore the very real possibility that it was a dry run.

Speaking, of course, about the (certainly disconcerting and somewhat dangerous) exploding toy grenades at the British consulate in New York this morning, at about the time the polls opened in the UK. As for the "very real" possibility that it was a dry run, I'm thinking that it should go without saying that a real dry run would probably not make headlines. Pretty much defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

But for the most breathtaking overreaction (and textbook Malkinism) on display, we go to this post, headlined "U.N. EMPLOYEE QUESTIONED IN NYC BLAST:

The detainee works at the world body's weapons inspection agency as an analyst, the official said. Another U.N. source said the man is a satellite imagery analyst.

The FBI is not calling the man a suspect, said spokesman Jim Margolin.

...Will be interesting to see how that U.N. employee fits into all of this.

By "interesting", of course, Malkin means "Ha! See, I told you that everyone involved in the United Nations is a child molestor and terrorist!" Unfortunately, she is later forced to update:

"The New York police and the FBI said the man was not a suspect. Police said he was detained only because he was asked not to cross a police tape and did so anyway. A police official said the man may have been drinking."

At 3:30 in the morning - on hump day - a man on the street in New York City has been drinking. What a degenerate.

Question of the day

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

How can a photo be "anti-American"?

(Not to take anything away from the moving photo Malkin does post, which I've also seen on many left-wing blogs.)

Seems clear to me

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Need a reminder of just how skewed Malkin's worldview is?

I'm not just being contrary, but Michelle names this the Weirdest Column of the Day. I find it weird that she thinks it's weird. Of course, maybe to Malkin it's unimpeachable to throw a wedding that costs "more than five years' salary of a single Missouri mother of two who's just had her state health insurance yanked."

Shorter new column

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

It's better to say wildly offensive things using G-rated speech than profound things using X-rated speech.

You see you wouldn't ask why the rose that grew from the
concrete had damaged petals
On the contrary
We would all celebrate its tenacity
We would all love its will to reach the sun

(If you're confused about the Tupac nonsequiter, start here.)

Dang: Non sequitur! I meant non sequitur.

Kidding on the square

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

Malkin thinks that this is funny. I think it is, too, mostly because

wanton use of the "Ethereal Latino" ploy

pretty much describes the Malkins' entire modus operandi.

Neither side claims him

YOU ARE VISITING THE OLD MALKIN(S)WATCH. THAT'S FANTASTIC. PLEASE VISIT THE NEW MALKIN(S)WATCH WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE.

In the tone she usually reserves for nasty, nasty liberals, Malkin expresses anguish that Don Imus was neither "fired nor sanctioned for...over-the-line remarks about a colleague."

Maybe she thinks Imus is a liberal, like the freepers do. (No link, you can find it if you really want to) If so, she's as crazy as they are - or John Stossel is.

Imus is a hack (no pun intended). But from a woman who defends Ann Coulter and commenters at LGF, it's another IOKIYAAR moment.

Thanks to the Liberal Avenger for filling in - on short notice - and who, by the way, wrote some great posts.