I have no words

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

I really should have saved some for this. 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.

When the person who made her career defending widespread internment of a race of people - and advocating the same for another - invokes Pastor Niemoller about an overreaction to some blasphemous cartoons, well...

...I'm already numb.

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.

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 plays the victim card...well.

"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."

We're not? Read this. Then read LGF. Then find me a qualitative difference.

"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."

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.

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 video! evidence!

She's not horrified, she's salivating.

Friday Poetry Blogging - Take a lesson from Bignose edition

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

The first 'great literature' I read - or, to be precise, devoured, since I'm sure I was forced to sit through something 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.

I always loved this speech, and I read it again just last night. It seems to carry new weight every time I read it.

From Cyrano de Bergerac - Rostand, transl. Hooker

I carry my adornments on my soul,
I do not dress up like a popinjay;
But inwardly, I keep my daintiness.
I do not bear with me, by any chance,
An insult not yet washed away -- a conscience
Yellow with unpurged bile -- an honor frayed
To rags, a set of scruples badly worn.
I go caparisoned in gems unseen,
Trailing white plumes of freedom, garlanded
With my good name -- no figure of a man,
But a soul clothed in shining armor, hung
With deeds for decorations, twirling -- thus --
A bristling wit, and swinging at my side
Courage, and on the stones of this old town
Making the sharp truth ring, like golden spurs!

Ooooh, Malkin's gonna be maaaad

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

Reuters:

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...

"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."

Update: Yep.

By the way, am I hallucinating, or did this post, 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.

Am I crazy, or did others notice this too?

I'll say it, if no one else will

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

The 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.

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.

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.

That said, if the LA Times does decide to print them, more power to them. Speech is protected, even if it sucks. As skippy says in earlier comments,

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.

That liberal media

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

Malkin:

Meantime, pre-speech buzz is focusing on Hugo Chavez's big squeeze, Cindy Sheehan, who has a gallery pass to watch the speech live.

Wonder if she will be wearing pink lingerie?

Update, 900pm eastern: CNN is reporting that Capitol Police arrested Sheehan after she unfurled an anti-war banner inside the House chamber.

I heard - from NPR - that she brought a banner inside the chamber, but got arrested before the speech...a banner does seem a little over the top, actually.

Then again, I wonder what really happened?

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush's State of the Union address.

Wow. A t-shirt. Enemy of the people.

Update: According to MSNBC (via a Kos diarist), the t-shirt said "2,245 dead - how many more?"

Malkin: Yay for socialists!

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 encouraging everyone to buy danish, which is too bad, because I prefer fritters.

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 say something bad about muslims.

And tell us, Malkin, who should we support?

The Danish Food shop
Danish Deli Food
LEGO
Gevalia coffee

Ah yes, the length and breadth of Danish industry.

The scientific method is for suckers

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

Malkin:

[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"...

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...

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?

I wonder if what Malkin left out of the blog post would be illuminating in any way.

From the WaPo article:

[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.

"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."

Malkin? Ignoring research? Pshaw.

I'm back, baby

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

With my Thinkpad T30 newly be-powered, Auguste is back in business. (Thanks to LA and Ryan for kicking in while I was gone.)

(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.)

It wasn't easy, sitting by and watching Malkin's anti-Google hilarity. Vendor from Street Meat has an interesting point.

I wonder if she supports WalMart (who also does a lot of business in China)?

She certainly does. And does. And does. She doesn't like Wal-Mart's history of hiring illegal immigrants, but that probably goes without saying.

Wal-Mart doesn't just do business in China. They bowed to government pressure 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 crazy.

As troubling as Google's China concessions are (and Justin Raimondo makes a decent case that they aren't very troubling at all), Malkin's pile-on is not about China as much as this. And this. And this.

And, quite possibly and prophetically, this.

Gawker Pokes Fun

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

Submitted without coment.

[via Jill]