tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-97341372024-03-07T09:54:42.901-08:00This is the old Malkin(s)WatchHERE IS THE NEW <a href="http://malkinwatch.blogsome.com">Malkin(s)watch</a>. GO THERE NOW.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger535125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1139083065843911562006-02-04T11:11:00.000-08:002006-02-04T11:57:46.053-08:00I have no wordsI really should have saved some for <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004456.htm">this</a>. I mean, in the past I've escalated my snark and my flabbergasted outrage when I thought it was necessary, but it turns out that I wasted it all on trifles. <br /><br />When the person who made her career defending widespread internment of a race of people - and advocating the same for another - invokes <em>Pastor Niemoller</em> about an overreaction to some blasphemous cartoons, well...<br /><br />...I'm already numb.<br /><br />There is no doubt that there has been violence committed on "behalf" of "Islam." There is no doubt that the current round of threatened reprisals is, as I said, an overreaction and unacceptable. Violence is always unacceptable. <br /><br />But when a person in Maryland, a citizen of the most powerful nation in the world, looks at street riots thousands of miles away, riots perpetrated by people who have spent most of the last thousand years feeling - quite often correctly - oppressed by the West, a West who in the past four years has killed thousands of Middle Easterners in retaliation for something which the majority of them didn't even approve of at the time, let alone have a hand in, and that person in Maryland <em>plays the victim card</em>...well. <br /><br />"Look how violent those people are," this clip is saying. "They shoot guns and they burn flags and they kill people. They are not like us. We don't shoot guns - in the street, anyway - and we don't burn flags and we don't kill people. We are not like them."<br /><br />We're not? Read <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004444.htm">this</a>. Then read LGF. Then find me a qualitative difference. <br /><br />"But Auguste," you say. "LGF is just rhetoric, ugly but just rhetoric nonetheless. There's power behind the Muslims' words. No LGFer ever killed someone like Theo Van Gogh. No LGFer ever flew a plane into a building."<br /><br />That's true. But just because we convinced our government to do our righteous angry killing for us doesn't mean it's any less linked to the rhetoric.<br /><br />Call this "moral equivalence" if you want, I don't care. Call this "excusing terrorism" if you want, but you're wrong. Violence begets violence begets violence. Don't be fooled into thinking that the new Leni Riefenstahl over there is really horrified by the Muslim world's made-for-TV reaction, which allows her to peddle this "Arabs are savages" line with <strong>video! evidence!</strong><br /><br />She's not horrified, she's salivating.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1139010421130860102006-02-03T15:42:00.000-08:002006-02-03T15:54:00.866-08:00Friday Poetry Blogging - Take a lesson from Bignose editionThe first 'great literature' I read - or, to be precise, devoured, since I'm sure I was forced to sit through <em>something</em> in Junior High - was an old volume of Cyrano de Bergerac I bought at Powell's Books for $3.50, back when you could still find a below-market bargain at Powell's. Stupid internet, stupid bookfinder.com.<br /><br />I always loved this speech, and I read it again just last night. It seems to carry new weight every time I read it.<blockquote>From <strong>Cyrano de Bergerac</strong> - Rostand, transl. Hooker<br /><br />I carry my adornments on my soul,<br />I do not dress up like a popinjay;<br />But inwardly, I keep my daintiness.<br />I do not bear with me, by any chance,<br />An insult not yet washed away -- a conscience<br />Yellow with unpurged bile -- an honor frayed<br />To rags, a set of scruples badly worn.<br />I go caparisoned in gems unseen,<br />Trailing white plumes of freedom, garlanded<br />With my good name -- no figure of a man,<br />But a soul clothed in shining armor, hung<br />With deeds for decorations, twirling -- thus --<br />A bristling wit, and swinging at my side<br />Courage, and on the stones of this old town<br />Making the sharp truth ring, like golden spurs!</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1138991647461386762006-02-03T10:31:00.000-08:002006-02-03T10:45:06.680-08:00Ooooh, Malkin's gonna be maaaad<a href="http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-02-03T171307Z_01_N03197247_RTRUKOC_0_US-RELIGION-CARTOONS-USA.xml">Reuters</a>:<blockquote>Washington on Friday condemned caricatures in European newspapers of the Prophet Mohammad, siding with Muslims who are outraged that the publications put press freedom over respect for religion...<br /><br />"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."</blockquote><strong>Update</strong>: <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004447.htm">Yep</a>.<br /><br />By the way, am I hallucinating, or did <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004444.htm">this post</a>, now titled "FOLLOWERS OF THE RELIGION OF PEACE", used to be simply titled "RELIGION OF PEACE"? I was struck by the original title, but I didn't think to get a screenshot, since this is from someone who previously titled a post "RELIGION OF THROAT-SLITTING"; I didn't think Malkin shied away from connections to LGF.<br /><br />Am I crazy, or did others notice this too?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1138902869563244532006-02-02T09:48:00.000-08:002006-02-02T09:55:35.333-08:00I'll say it, if no one else willThe majority of the "Muhammed cartoons" are some of the worst, small-college-or-even-high-school, poorly drawn, idiotic, unfunny and unpoignant political cartoons ever produced.<br /><br />This should not be construed to mean that I approve of the ridiculous overreaction and despicable death threats; it's just to point out that Chris Muir obviously isn't the only sign that the righties love them some second-rate cartooning.<br /><br />If I were American newspapers, I'd refuse to print them not because of the risk of fatwas but because of their ridiculously low production values.<br /><br />That said, if the <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004435.htm">LA Times</a> does decide to print them, more power to them. Speech is protected, even if it sucks. As <a href="http://haloscan.com/comments/malkinwatch/113873336008097975/#108989">skippy</a> says in earlier comments,<blockquote>One wonders how the ever-opportunistic Malkin(s) responded to "Piss Christ" (you know the crucifix in a bottle of urine) or Sinead O'Connor's tearing up a photograph of the Pope.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1138768195316442812006-01-31T20:24:00.000-08:002006-01-31T20:36:10.446-08:00That liberal mediaMalkin:<blockquote>Meantime, pre-speech buzz is focusing on Hugo Chavez's big squeeze, Cindy Sheehan, who has a gallery pass to watch the speech live.<br /><br />Wonder if she will be wearing pink lingerie?<br /><br /><strong>Update, 900pm eastern: CNN is reporting that Capitol Police arrested Sheehan after she unfurled an anti-war banner inside the House chamber.</strong></blockquote><em>I</em> heard - from <strong>NPR</strong> - that she brought a banner inside the chamber, but got arrested before the speech...a banner does seem a little over the top, actually. <br /><br />Then again, I wonder what <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/31/sheehan.arrest/index.html">really happened</a>?<blockquote>Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after <strong>refusing to cover up a T-shirt</strong> bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.</blockquote>Wow. A t-shirt. Enemy of the people. <br /><br /><strong>Update</strong>: According to MSNBC (via a <a href="http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/31/225719/087">Kos diarist</a>), the t-shirt said "2,245 dead - how many more?"Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1138733360080979752006-01-31T10:37:00.000-08:002006-01-31T10:49:20.106-08:00Malkin: Yay for socialists!Malkin is encouraging everyone to <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004420.htm">buy danish</a>, which is too bad, because I prefer fritters.<br /><br />Was that joke worthy of this blog? Probably not. But it's hard to ignore the irony of a right-led campaign to support a country with 75% union membership, universal health care, and approximately 250,000 left-of-center political parties. Apparently all it takes to win the approval of Malkin and friends is to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Drawings">say something bad about muslims</a>.<br /><br />And tell us, Malkin, who should we support?<blockquote>The Danish Food shop<br />Danish Deli Food<br />LEGO<br />Gevalia coffee</blockquote>Ah yes, the length and breadth of Danish industry.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1138654895153037382006-01-30T12:56:00.000-08:002006-01-30T13:01:35.190-08:00The scientific method is for suckers<a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004410.htm">Malkin</a>:<blockquote>[A] study, which was presented at a conference held by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal or anywhere else for that matter. But that didn't stop the Post from trumpeting: "Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases"...<blockquote>Brian Jones, a spokesman for the Republican National Committee, said he disagreed with the study's conclusions but that it was difficult to offer a detailed critique, as the research had not yet been published and he could not review the methodology. He also questioned whether the researchers themselves had implicit biases -- against Republicans -- noting that Nosek and Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji had given campaign contributions to Democrats...</blockquote>This information should be included in any MSM article about the study. Why didn't the Washington Post report the details of the scientists' political contributions? Biases, anyone?</blockquote>I wonder if what Malkin left out of the blog post would be illuminating in any way.<br /><br />From the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642.html">WaPo article</a>:<blockquote>[T]he study could not tell whether racial bias was a better predictor of voting preference than, say, policy preferences on gun control or abortion. But while those issues would be addressed in subsequent studies -- [independent reviewer Jon] Krosnick plans to get random groups of future voters to take the psychological tests and discuss their policy preferences -- he said the basic correlation was not in doubt.<br /><br />"If anyone in Washington is skeptical about these findings, they are in denial," he said. "We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."</blockquote>Malkin? Ignoring research? Pshaw.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1138603572830536122006-01-29T22:34:00.000-08:002006-01-29T23:07:22.333-08:00I'm back, babyWith my Thinkpad T30 newly be-powered, Auguste is back in business. (Thanks to LA and Ryan for kicking in while I was gone.) <br /><br />(N.B.: There's a lot more links than usual to Malkin's site in this particular post. I hate to drive any more traffic than need be, but they're illustrative links. Still, if you don't particularly want to read her, make sure you preview the links before clicking.)<br /><br />It wasn't easy, sitting by and watching Malkin's <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004394.htm">anti-Google hilarity</a>. Vendor from Street Meat has an <a href="http://street-meat.blogspot.com/2006/01/what-about-walmart-michelle.html">interesting point</a>.<blockquote>I wonder if she supports WalMart (who also does a lot of business in China)?</blockquote>She certainly <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004277.htm">does</a>. And <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/002636.htm">does</a>. And <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/000343.htm">does</a>. She doesn't like Wal-Mart's history of hiring <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/immigration/2005/03/28/06:24.am">illegal immigrants</a>, but that probably goes without saying.<br /><br />Wal-Mart doesn't just do business in China. They <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4037423.stm">bowed to government pressure</a> and reversed a companywide policy, Google's big sin. Not only that, but that reversal resulted in unionization (as twisted as that definition is in China), which should be driving Malkin <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003798.htm">crazy</a>.<br /><br />As troubling as Google's China concessions are (and <a href="http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8467">Justin Raimondo</a> makes a decent case that they aren't very troubling at all), Malkin's pile-on is not about China as much as <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001431.htm">this</a>. And <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001512.htm">this</a>. And <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/001993.htm">this</a>. <br /><br />And, quite possibly and prophetically, <a href="http://malkin-watch.blogspot.com/2006/01/gawker-pokes-fun.html">this</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1138415688220278292006-01-27T18:33:00.000-08:002006-01-27T18:34:48.263-08:00Gawker Pokes Fun<a href="http://www.gawker.com/news/michelle-malkin/our-prayers-have-been-answered-151132.php">Submitted</a> without coment.<br /><br />[via <a href="http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2006/01/27/my-prayers-have-been-answered/">Jill</a>]Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1138249252283571932006-01-25T20:18:00.000-08:002006-01-25T20:24:39.093-08:00Michelle Doesn't Know What Words MeanFrom this bit of <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004350.htm">schadenfreude</a>: "Code Pink, the radical <b>anti-war guerilla</b> group...."<br /><br />From the Merriam-Webster Def<sup><u>n</u></sup> of <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/guerrilla">guerilla</a>: "a person who <b>engages in irregular warfare</b> especially as a member of an independent unit carrying out harassment and sabotage".<br /><br />In Malkin's world, you can call any partisan a "liberal conservative" and be right every time!<br /><br />Learn more about <font color="#ff0099">CODE<strong>PINK</strong></font> at <a href="http://www.codepink4peace.org/">their web site</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1138213394564508762006-01-25T10:21:00.000-08:002006-01-25T10:23:14.596-08:00Posting will be sparse......to non-existent, as my laptop has a frayed power cord. Am scouring eBay as we speak.<br /><br />I will check in as often as possible.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137985521656450552006-01-22T18:59:00.000-08:002006-01-22T19:05:21.706-08:00Possibly the least self-aware thing I've ever read, and I read Malkin!From Malkin's link regarding the "<a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004343.htm">Milwaukee 5</a>":<blockquote>This is a clear message to any Democrat whose good conscience might prompt him to blow the whistle on fellow Democrats involved in felonious attempts to influence the outcome of an election: <strong>Democrats will destroy your reputation and smear you as a liar if you dare to tell the truth.</strong></blockquote>Hmm.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137962576616880692006-01-22T12:33:00.000-08:002006-01-22T12:42:56.650-08:00There's a lesson hereIf reports are true, it appears that Haleigh Poutre is, in fact, improving. Note here the difference between this case and the Terri Schiavo case: Diagnosis from the Senate Floor aside, Schiavo <em>wasn't</em>.<br /><br />Which is why the irony here for the right-wing is so compelling. <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004337.htm">Malkin</a>:<blockquote>Michael e-mailed me that many talk show hosts don't want to discuss the story:<blockquote>I fear it's the post-Schiavo syndrome.</blockquote>I think Michael is right, and that the post-Schiavo syndrome is affecting more than just talk radio. Few on either the left or right--in politics, in the blogosphere, in the MSM punditocracy--want to grapple with the moral, legal, and medical implications of this wrenching case. And as I noted before, the bleeding hearts in Hollywood--so quick to leap to the defense of every last Death Row convict--are AWOL. There's already a jaded and shockingly callous exasperation about Haleigh's case epitomized by the title and comments at John Cole's blog: "Dear God, not again."</blockquote>After which Malkin goes on to offer a sincere mea culpa for being such an integral part of the Schiavo media circus - nay, frenzy - which, she (or he) acknowledges, was so overwhelming that it would be impossible to blame the American public if they aren't interested in reliving it.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Just kidding.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137858456527655582006-01-21T07:37:00.000-08:002006-01-21T07:47:37.383-08:00"Blount"?This is just a silly error, just as simply fixable as the one Auguste pointed out <a href="http://malkin-watch.blogspot.com/2006/01/stretching-limits-of-hypocrisy.html">concerning the stretched Ted K. pic</a>, but this one's actually funny:<blockquote><a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004317.htm">THE GOP LEADERSHIP RACE</a><br /><br />I'll be listening in on a blogger conference call with Rep. John Shadegg in just a minute. There are two more calls scheduled later today with Rep. John Boehner and Rep. <b>Blount</b>.</blockquote>Of course, Michelle means "Rep. Blunt". It makes me wonder, though, if she thinks of Winton Blount every time she sees Roy Blunt's name in print.<br /><br />You'll recall that our current President worked on Blount's failed Senate campaign [after allegedly getting off the hook for cocaine possession in Houston], when he failed to show up for a flight physical [also allegedly related to cocaine use]. It's still an open question as to whether or not Bush "fulfilled [his] obligations" to the TANG. A question I'm sure neither of the Malkins wants coming up yet again.<br /><br />Just sayin'...Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137795686630592952006-01-20T14:19:00.000-08:002006-01-20T15:06:47.333-08:00America's greatest weaknessApparently, it's <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004331.htm">listening to The People</a>.<br /><br />To wit:<blockquote>John Noonan at The Officer's Club reflects on the 25th anniversary of the end of the Iran Hostage crisis:<blockquote>...upsetting the American public is our Achilles heel.</blockquote></blockquote>I've always said that the Founding Fathers made a huge mistake not hiring a really good copyeditor. That Rousseauian social contract stuff just slipped right by them, didn't it?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137795503087780152006-01-20T14:16:00.000-08:002006-01-20T14:18:46.566-08:00Hey, whaddya knowMalkin <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004330.htm">is complaining</a> about image manipulation again.<br /><br />In related news, Teddy Kennedy's still <a href="http://malkin-watch.blogspot.com/2006/01/stretching-limits-of-hypocrisy.html">250x200</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137774480482022742006-01-20T08:26:00.000-08:002006-01-20T08:28:00.506-08:00You know what I just realized?In <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004279.htm">this post</a>, Michelle essentially calls herself a "center-right blogger."<br /><br />I just thought I'd point that out.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137742185509433762006-01-20T00:04:00.000-08:002006-01-20T08:33:38.190-08:00Friday Poetry Blogging: Heavy-handed allegory edition<blockquote><strong>Ozymandias of Egypt</strong> - Shelley<br /><br /> I met a traveller from an antique land<br /> Who said:—Two vast and trunkless legs of stone<br /> Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,<br /> Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown<br /> And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command<br /> Tell that its sculptor well those passions read<br /> Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,<br /> The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.<br /> And on the pedestal these words appear:<br /> "My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:<br /> Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"<br /> Nothing beside remains: round the decay<br /> Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,<br /> The lone and level sands stretch far away.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137647622802915862006-01-18T20:23:00.000-08:002006-01-18T21:26:15.453-08:00And, finally, it comes down to thisMalkin finally comes out and says it.<blockquote>TAKE A STAND AGAINST THE ACLU</blockquote>Okay, let's take a stand. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur59.htm">Against</a>:<br />* The right to due process<br />* The right to a jury of one's peers<br />* The right to assemble peacefully<br />* The right to distribute religious literature<br />* The right to hold union meetings<br />* The right to travel freely between states<br />* The right of minorities to vote in primary elections<br />* The right to the Jeffersonian seperation of church and state<br />* The right of minorities to live where they like<br />* The right to artistic freedom<br />* <strong>Brown vs. the Board of Freaking Education</strong><br />* The right of veterans not to sign a loyalty oath<br />* The right to privacy<br />* The right to nondemoninational prayer<br />* The right to a state-appointed lawyer<br />* The right to a lawyer during police interrogation<br />* One person, one vote<br />* The right to privacy in political mailings<br />* The right to contraception<br />* The right of the accused to understand their rights<br />* The right to criticize US foreign policy<br />* The right of juveniles to due process<br />* The right to marry interracially<br />* The right of illegitimate children to inherit<br />* The right of the poor to choose their domestic living arrangements<br />* The right of students to self-express<br />* The right to procedural due process<br />* The right to offensive speech<br />* The right to publish whistle-blowing material<br />* The right of women to administer estates<br />* The right to choose<br />* The right of a woman to have dependents<br />* The right of The People to hold their president accountable<br />* The right of the mentally ill to live outside of confinment when appropriate<br />* The right of, yes, even Nazis to Constitutionally protected freedom of speech<br />* The right to distribute poltical pamphlets<br />* The right to unpopular political speech<br />* The right of prisoners not to be beaten<br />* The right of women to serve on juries<br />* The right to practice one's chosen religion<br />* The right to display political signs<br /><br />So. This is what Malkin would take a stand against.<br /><br />What, then, are we to stand <strong>for?</strong>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137553808637688212006-01-17T19:06:00.000-08:002006-01-17T19:14:05.306-08:00Gainin' on ya!I'm not altogether sure about the right's <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004300.htm">fascination</a> with the Nagin's "chocolate city" remark. <br /><br />Can it be as simple as never having heard of Parliament? Are they disturbed by the idea of a black majority? Are they afraid of race mixing?<br /><br />What the hell is the problem?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137551876405464712006-01-17T18:32:00.000-08:002006-01-18T00:01:57.540-08:00Champagne at the Malkins' tonight!Via twig, a commenter at <a href="http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/002262.html">Sadly, No!</a>, comes <a href="http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4514">this joyous news</a>:<blockquote>...soldiers, who are currently staging for combat operations from a secret location, reported that their commander told them if they were wearing Pinnacle Dragon Skin and were killed their beneficiaries might not receive the death benefits from their $400,000 SGLI life insurance policies. The soldiers were ordered to leave their privately purchased body armor at home or face the possibility of both losing their life insurance benefit and facing disciplinary action.</blockquote>Thank God we've saved those soldiers from Hillary's dastardly plan to make them wear body armor they don't want, that will cut down on their mobility.<blockquote> "We have to be able to move. It (Dragon Skin) is heavy, but it is made so we have mobility and the best ballistic protection out there. This is crazy. And they are threatening us with our benefits if we don't comply." he said.</blockquote>Oh. Well, what do soldiers know, anyway?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.sftt.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=cmpDefense&htmlCategoryID=30&htmlId=4514">Definitely read the whole thing</a>.<br /><br /><strong>Update</strong>: Via a <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/17/234331/190">Kos diary</a>, the <a href="http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/01/16/opinion/chatfield/11506191333.txt">NC Times</a> expands on the insult to the risk of injury:<blockquote>Dragon Skin is worn by the Secret Service Presidential Protection detail, CIA, NSA, DoE, journalists and contractors in Iraq, U.S. Air Force, Special Ops forces, and several generals in the field.</blockquote>Nothing but the best for our troops, eh, Malkin(s)?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137537673161012412006-01-17T14:27:00.000-08:002006-01-17T14:41:13.240-08:00Stretching the limits of hypocrisyHere's a picture of Ted Kennedy as it appears in <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004296.htm">this blog post</a>:<img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5341/93/320/TeddytheK2.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="250" height="200"/><br /><br />And as it <em>should</em> appear:<br /><img src="http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/5341/93/320/TeddytheK2.jpg" border="0" alt="" width="152" height="200" /><br /><br />Here's what the Malkins have had to say about things like this in the past:<blockquote>"DEMONIZING CONDI"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"Unfortunately, filtering prominent conservatives through a distorted lens seems to be a bad habit at Time magazine..."</blockquote>Usually the Malkins' filtering of prominent Democrats through a distorted lens is figurative.<br /><br />Not today.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137468465173352752006-01-16T19:23:00.000-08:002006-01-17T14:02:09.903-08:00Actually, no it definitely isn't<blockquote>WHEN IS IT OK TO TALK ABOUT DIVINE RETRIBUTION?<br /><br />When you're the Democrat mayor of New Orleans.</blockquote>My first thought upon hearing <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004293.htm">this</a> was "Oh, that is <em>so</em> not okay." I was really hoping to beat Malkin to it, though, so that she would be glaringly wrong in suggesting that the left was ready to just let it drop.<br /><br />Make no mistake, though, outrage isn't the main reason Malkin wants to focus on Nagin's claims. <a href="http://pandagon.net/2006/01/16/al-gore-rips-bush-in-speech-no-one-covers-it/">This is</a>.<br /><br /><strong>Update</strong>: I didn't make it clear that I'm referring here to Nagin's invocation of "God's role" in the hurricanes. Anyone offended by Nagin's "chocolate city" remark, as the Malkins <a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004299.htm">claim to be</a>, is clearly <a href="http://www.duke.edu/~tmc/motherpage/lyrics_parliament/lyr-cc.html#lyr-s-cc">untouched by the funk</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137436520342528592006-01-16T10:34:00.000-08:002006-01-16T12:10:57.523-08:00Okay, I've gotta give it to Malkin......<a href="http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004292.htm">this</a> is <em>really</em> dumb.<br /><br />I'm no munitions expert, but that certainly doesn't <em>appear</em> to be a missile of any kind.<br /><br /><strong>Update</strong>: Via Chad in comments, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/16/14223/5947">Maha</a>, a diarist at Kos:<blockquote>But the good news here is that because (I trust) there is one fake staged photo, the entire news story about 18 innocent people being killed has been cancelled. The villagers were faking the story; they were probably lying about not hosting al Qaeda also. We can now dismiss the whole episode as so much spin, as if it never happened. I know you are relieved.</blockquote>Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9734137.post-1137387930244786552006-01-15T21:04:00.000-08:002006-01-15T21:05:30.266-08:00You know it, baby<center><table border="1" width="450"><td align="center"><font size="+3">Cult Icon Hasselhoff</font><br /><br /><br /><img src="http://www.quizgalaxy.com/result_images/hoff-cult.jpg"><br /><br /><br />You are Hasselhoff, the Cult Icon. You revel in your enigmatic and confusing popularity – moreso in the positive aspects of it than the confusing or unclear parts. You are the shining star of the world: more specifically, of Germany. Someday, you will be featured in a ticker-tape parade. Someday!<br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.quizgalaxy.com/quiz.php?id=73">Take this quiz</a> at <a href="http://www.quizgalaxy.com">QuizGalaxy.com</a></td></table></center>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com