Monday, August 08, 2005


Me, me, me

Far-right affirmative action hire who is so bigoted she'd arrest herself for trying to cross a border. Famously published a book praising internment of Japanese-Americans that was (a) incoherent and (b) probably not written by her. If she didn't have tits, she'd be stuck writing at
Hoo-doggie. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Mithras didn't quite expect the backlash he got from this post (not to say he's upset by it.) Interestingly, it wasn't until just this minute that I even realized that his original post was from a week ago today. Funny how, in a supposedly instantaneous medium such as the Internet, things can take as long as they sometimes do to get rolling.

Case in point: The Liberal Avenger and I wrote our little "ghost blogging" series just over four months ago, and, as an indirect result of Mithras' "probably not written by her", it's just now starting to get the notice of indignant righties. Like some others, I'm not altogether happy with some of his verbiage. Regular readers (thanks guys!) know that I have gone on record as being against the all-too-common ad hominem attacks, not just because they're wrong but because they give the righties permission to be outraged rather than to respond. (I even got in trouble with Atriots/Eschatonians over it, which nobody enjoys.)

"Ghost Blogging" was not an ad hominem attack. It was a confidentially sourced series written by nonjournalists (me, and the Liberal Avenger) reporting facts. It was not embarked upon because she is a woman, or a minority, or a minority woman, as some commenters at Volokh, Alas, a Blog, and probably others, would have it. It is true that I remarked upon the ramifications of a minority woman serving as at least a partial front for xenophobic opinions held by her white husband. But I also said "Don't misunderstand; Michelle is clearly very capable - she wouldn't be able to handle the media as well as she does if she weren't - and certainly is responsible for much of what is written in her name."

Here's a reprint of a comment I wrote defending myself at Volokh:
Well, I didn't come here to get into a rehash of a 4-month-old short post series, but perhaps I misspoke if I led you to believe I was talking about 'secret information.' What I really meant was sources who prefer not to be identified who informed me about, for example, her post of Sept. 8th which was posted while she was on a plane to Berkeley for a speech; pointed out that she posted within minutes of another talk; that "Michelle's" most in-depth posts are often about health care, Jesse's particular area of professional experience; that Jesse has at least once defended something "Michelle" wrote by writing a defensive e-mail to a critic - without her knowledge; that, yes, the royal we has been problematic; that her output is amazing for someone who has repeatedly claimed that she has no help whatsoever; what the topic of her next book would be four months before it was announced; that "Jesse Malkin is the driving force behind Michelle. He is a control freak. Michelle is no innocent victim either. She chose to be with the guy, and apparently they have been successful as this wingnut juggernaut. She needs him as much as he needs her"...all of which were mentioned in my posts - and the Liberal Avenger's - of the time.

This surely sounds defensive, and it probably is. But whatever. Unlike (the) Malkin(s), I don't generally consider myself part of some "new media." I also am not trained, nor do I plan to be, in the proper crediting and/or protocol regarding confidential sources.

That's okay, though, because I'm pretty sure I could open my entire e-mail account for examination and it still wouldn't end this discussion. Hope you all come and visit my blog again.

Update: Apparently my comments on Volokh (except for one which is completely nonsensical outside of context) qualified as "rants, invective, [or] substantial and repeated exaggeration." At least I assume that's why they've all been deleted.