Posted on 08/09/2005 11:37:12 AM PDT by RinAZ2005
From the Comments by David Schraub Cross-posted to The Debate Link.
Though I'm not Kos, I thought it would be fun to play him for a post. So as they say over there: Elevated from the comments of this post by David (yeah, yeah, I know. They elevate "diaries." Sue me).
I just did an informal survey, among some friends of mine (all attorneys ranging from moderate progressive to slightly conservative to libertarian/objectivist). All work here in Colorado, drink beers with me occasionally.
I asked each (separately): "Say, do you know and/or like Michelle Malkin?"
Most didn't know her. 9 out of 16 to be exact, had no clue. More liberals knew her than conservatives/libertarians.
Those that did either were vehemently opposed ("she's a racist"), or pretty impress ("good writer").
Then I asked: "What do you know about Michelle Malkin?"
This is where it got uncomfortable, at least for me as a liberal.
The progressive friends, immediately went into "uncle tom" and, I guess, race conscious "ungrateful," stuff with lots of labeling along the "hypocrisy" view. These folks had heard of her from liberal blogs, and there was more than one derogatory comment about her either based on her sex or on her ethnicity. I was actually shocked and surprised at the "friend" (I’m reevaluating this relationship) who called her the "neocon's pocket gook whore." This is a gay man, and given the crap that the GLBT community has to deal with in terms of prejudice, I was literally sitting there with my jaw on my lap. He saw my surprise and said something to the effect of: Listen, she's so 'bad' that nothing is off limits with her.
That offended me and, as I see it on display EVERWHERE in the blogosphere right now, it still offends me as a liberal.
It offends me a lot.
Interestingly, when I asked the more libertarian/conservative guys and gal who knew of Malkin what they knew about her or how they heard of her, all three said they had been forwarded something or read a link sometime back in 2002 or 2003. I asked if they knew she was Filipino, and two of the three said "Malkin?" They didn't know. I should add that none of my friends are as "net" focused for news and commentary as I am, but it did surprise me that two of the "fans" had no idea about that. The other one (the woman) said "yeah, I guess I heard that..."
SO I asked her: "Do you think her writing is really that good, or does she get 'traction' out of being able to say things with a moral authority arising out of her sex and race that other conservatives can't." She said she didn't think so, because she knew for sure that she liked Malkin and her writing BEFORE she knew her ancestry. "She writes well," was my friend's overall summary.
Suffice it to say that I'm upset by the results of my little informal poll over the last couple days. To be sure, the plural of "anecdote" is NOT evidence, but my informal inquiries have revealed that only the progressives seem to be viewing everything Malkin does through the lens of her sex and ancestry. The conservatives who even knew who she was liked her writing.
And I do think I know these folks well enough that my take on their comments is accurate (they weren't playing dumb, so to speak).
That the two progressives, including one man I would have expected better from given the bigotry he has HIMSELF had to deal with, somehow found so much loathing for Malkin that even "off limits" issues weren't off limits in terms of her.
And we as progressives need to fix that. We need to fix it really bad, because we don't "own" women or minorities, and if we keep treating them as de facto proxies who will be disowned and denigrated for straying from the "hive mind," we will surely alienate our chances of ever hoping to retain their participation in the progressive sphere.
Spot on.
UPDATE: The author adds more (and I fixed the grammar):
Well, actually, the one guy who even ventured a guess (and he's more of an Ayn Rand guy -- i.e., deluded by the "me, me, me" views of objectivism, said thought she was Jewish based on her surname.
-Anonymous.
Post script: BTW, sorry for the scattered nature of that comment, and the errors. I really was typing it in haste, and I hit post instead of preview.
My second to the last paragraph should have had an additional clause to the effect that the progressives, both those I knew, and those in the blogosphere, who were willing to "go there" in terms of using caustic slurs against someone who they viewed as "really bad," gave me some pause about how we view the world as progressives.
Speaking as a lawyer, for example, I find Clarence Thomas's legal writings (well, to be honest: the collaborative product of he and his law clerks) to be pretty much on par with what the other SCOTUS justices are putting out. That I disagree so vehemently with his legal conclusions does not -- and it should not -- cause me, as it does many progressives, to tread into the waters of: Well, here's this affirmative action beneficiary stabbing us in the back.
I clerked for a state supreme court justice with a minority background, and a surname to match. He has been championed by the progressives, except as to a couple of dissents where he made perfectly defensible legal points that weren't quite on all fours with our liberal orthodoxy and which, while far from "conservative" resulted in nasty letters to his chambers from people calling him a sell out to his race.
I support affirmative action because, as a progressive, I think the lingering effects of racism in this country undermine the notions of "equal opportunity" upon which our nation was built. There is an ongoing and lingering wrong, and it is our duty to see to it that something is done about it.
However, I do not support affirmative action as some means to make sure minority persons stay in the liberal/progressive camp. My support is not limited to minorities who promise to take the "equalizing" effects of A.A. programs and use them and any success they obtain only to such ends that we, as the liberal intelligentsia, support.
But far too many of the prominent writers and thinkers in our political sphere behave EXACTLY as if that is what they expect.
And its not right.
Typical. The left connot abide free speech.
You know, I don't know why I sometimes click onto these posts that include the writings of raving lunatics. I have no time for their silliness.
Sometimes I think this stuff is posted so FReepers and others waste their time worrying and talking about it. I got about 3 sentences in and quit reading.
This rant isn't directed at you RinAAZ2005.
"I have a sexist view of Michelle Malkin"
I know you are being tongue in cheek but I think Miss Malkin PLAYS to the "sexy Asian"stereotype way too much.To me she is a Filipina Ann Coulter,a woman with a lot of valid things to say but discredits herself by playing the sex kitten role to reel in conservative men and undecideds.
Reminds me a little of what Richard Wright wrote about how the Communist Party would lure in black males to the Party by throwing seductive white females in their face.
My point is that if your politics are credible you don't need that "use sex to make a sale"philosophy to bring in adherents to the cause.
You must live in my head! ;-)
I saw her one weekend on one of those local DC TV talk shows where they have a bunch of pundits talking about newsworthy topics. The leftists on the show were clearly afraid of confronting Michelle after one of them tried to counter her and got his @$$ handed to him for his efforts.
You are sooo wrong.
Evidence of playing to the stereotype you describe please.
BTW, I'm of Filipino ascent.......
And you thought the Titanic ran into an iceberg?.........HT was getting a moontan..............
No problem. I wouldn't have posted it except that the author seemed to be experiencing a bit of a revelation about his fellow losers, er...um... "Progressives."
A while back, Michelle actually printed a small sampling of the hate mail that she receives from the "tolerant" left, and I can honestly say it was some of the most vile, shocking racist stuff I'd seen in some time. I think it's the main reason why she doesn't allow users to post to her site.
It's always good for a laugh when I hear libs go on about "nasty, racist, conservative Republicans", when I personally know many Dems and libs who are extreme racists. Obviously both parties have their share of bigots. But when they booted out Buchanan and made other would-be bigots understand that racism would not be tolerated, the Republicans made giant strides. The same cannot be said for the Dems who had an arch-racist (Sharpton) as a presidential candidate. And gave him the respect of a decent candidate. The Dems better clean their own house before labeling others as racists.
There should be a rule: NO pictures of Helen Thomas to be posted with a BARF alert.
You forgot self-absorbed, power-hungry, & brain-dead. Shame on you.
Well, they would probably retort that East Asians don't qualify as "people of color", since too darn many of them vote GOP (and too darn many of them believe in succeeding on their own merits). "People of color" is a political designation, not a racial/ethnic one.
Bwaaaa--ha-ha-ha!!! {^) Thanks for the good laugh!
Evidence of playing to the stereotype?
The low cut tops,the come hither smile,the whole demeanor of her appearence with screams,"I'm hot"
Not that I think she ISN'T hot,OK?I just think often physical appearance can obscure a serious political message.
Far out example-I saw Bernardine Dohrn speak in 1969.She was also"hot"in a yellow see through top and mini-skirt.Its safe to say that most men there weren't obsessed with her politics!
Which might have been a GOOD thing in THAT case!
Love her as I do, why should Michelle be immune?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.