Scott Allan’s World

16 Comments so far (Add 1 more)

1. Way to go Michelle. This world needs brave and intelligent people.

   http://www.danishgoods.blogspot.com

   1. on April 21st, 2006 at 1:48 am

2. Regarding how this all started, Michelle Malkin went to a cached page, took a screenshot, and posted the image on her site because didn’t like the politics of the people. It’s not her place to justify the disclosing of this information because she deemed that they were terrorizing people. That’s an issue for the Santa Cruz police department to deal with, not her own brand of vigilante justice.
   As for her own personal details - Malkin included that on her own e-mail list and that’s how it went public.
   She launched her personal information about herself BY herself.
   And the anti-racist One People’s Project website promptly released her new details.
   Someone took it a step further and used live.windows.com and yahoo maps to do a Graphic.
   Payback’s a bitch eh’ Malkin?
   Her refusal to remove these kids contact information was not from conviction, but from revenue. Every journalist in the world knows that contact information on a press release is for journalists to call for more information or interviews, not to be published (or even pointed out) in the publication itself. If she were any kind of ethical person she would have pulled the information when asked.

   If she were something resembling a human being with “feelings”, she would not have republished the information once the students themselves removed it. Michelle is a vicious, vindictive, venomous egoist with no discernible ethics nor even a shred of human decency. If she wants to be The Minority Woman Who Believes Minorities and Women Suck, that’s her right. But she should at least have the integrity to acknowledge that she has done wrong and to stop compounding the wrong. And she should not give us that disingenuous crap about how she doesn’t condone death threats and nobody should misuse her posting and reposting of personal information.

   2. on April 21st, 2006 at 1:26 pm

3. When I read your post, anonymous, I knew I had read it somewhere before.

   Ace of Spades HQ and Those Bastards

   Don’t you have an original thought in your head or can you simply cut and paste liberal propaganda after drinking the kool-aid? And I am impressed by your anonymous posting. Glad you have enough conviction in what you say to hide your identity.

   3. on April 21st, 2006 at 8:28 pm

4. scott: try to rebut the substance, not the style. kthx

   4. on April 21st, 2006 at 8:37 pm

5. Fulsome,

   Point taken, but I prefer if people or going to comment on my post that they actually read it first and discuss what I said. Making the same generic post to everybody is not really a dialogue.

   BTW, I love freedom of speech. This is what it’s all about. I’ll leave up all opposing views as long as they are thoughtful and are not tasteless nor filled with profanity. Thanks for visiting.

   5. on April 21st, 2006 at 10:19 pm

6. Well, I think she’s making lemonade out of basically one person’s lemon. Dozens of bloggos trackback to anything she writes, most of them echoing her posts. Thus literally thousands of people were exposed to those kids contact info, and in an approving manner. I think you’ll find that basically one person was going around the whole interwebs posting Michelle’s info. That person is a munchwad. Michelle, Jeff Goldstein and others have used this of course to make their usual hay, always claiming to be the victim, always claiming to be the udnerdog. There is no equivalency here. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and there is a case than Malkin’s wrong was much bigger. Thanks for having an open comment policy and for being a reasonable guy.

   6. on April 22nd, 2006 at 6:28 am

7. You’re welcome and I hope you come back. Thanks for the comment.

   7. on April 22nd, 2006 at 1:22 pm

8. OK, here are some facts: Michelle Malkin writes a book that can be seen as eminently racist, and it is shoddy to boot (”In Defense of Internment”). She knows this will cause people to be angry. Some people get so angry they say horrible racist things. Some of these people are actually minorities saying racist things, and others are hard core right-wingers who agree with her ideas just not her ehtnicity. Finally there are people that think she is so repulsive, they resort to racist speech to be as hurtful as possible to her. Thus she gets abuse. She then uses this abuse to avoid addressing any and many substantive criticisms of her shoddy scholarship and generally abusive tone (”UNHINGED”, Moonbats!, The Left!!). Of course she claims she is only reacting to others, so her abusiveness, which is sometimes coded and less overt, is never an issue, yet it is her bread and butter, preaching to the choir, 50 trsckbacks per post. There is nothing brave about her. Intelligent, yes, she always gets attention and she engineers situations where it is east for her to claim outrage.

   It is just sad, really. Now part of having a mature blog is trying to have dialog, but the problem is many of us adults already have our opinions fully formed, so we need to ask ourselves “is there any chance of being swayed by evidence? Even if my side ends up being wrong?” For me I think this is the case, because, ont he Left hand side we tend not to have wishfully thinking neo=COnservatives that base their view of warfare on bad readings of Thucydides, young earth creationists that deny Physics and Biology, and anti-envirnmental hacks whose work is funded by oil companies so that global wamring may be denied. And these are all the same people that cynically denied evidence of smoking’s harm so they could continue to sell cigarettes.

   This has been a horrible comment because I strung lots of things together, but you should see who you are in bed with.

   8. on April 23rd, 2006 at 10:46 pm

9. Pinko Punko,

   If it makes you feel better, I’ll give a horrible response and string things together also.

   Not every Conservative has their beliefs dictated by religion. I feel you can arrive at the same values through logic and common sense. You could refer to my prior pro-evolution posts as evidence.

   Conservatives believe in the use of force for idealistic and practical purposes. We don’t like to look the other way when horrible dictators oppress and slaughter innocent people. I am not one of those people who feels Saddam needed to possess WMD’s to be labeled a bad guy who needed to be removed. Terrorists in Iraq ARE a threat to our own security and retreat is not an option. A democracy and ally in the Middle East is a powerful symbol to other repressive states.

   I also don’t believe Conservatives are anti-environment. We feel there has to be a reasonable balance between progress and conservation. We feel many evironmentalists use scare tactics to further other anti-business agendas. Keeping the economy strong is a high priority to retain our leadership position in the world.

   The evidence about smoking being dangerous has been out for a long, long time. I don’t hear anyone arguing against it. In my opinion, you have to be a complete moron to smoke. However, conservatives also tend to have a libertarian streak and feel that if you want to do something dumb to ruin your own life, that’s really your own decision, not that of the government. Now if you want to argue that smoking infringes on the rights and health of others, then there may be some merit, but there better be overwhelming evidence to overturn the right to be a complete moron in this country.

   Conservatives do have a large tent because we only need a few common values to unite us: Free speech, limited government, free markets, strong military, personal responsibility, and the same rights and opportunity should apply to EVERYBODY equally, not just favored minority groups.

   Arnold Schwarzenegger’s speech at the Republican convention summarizes our shared values quite well. I don’t agree with every thing Michelle Malkin says, lately I’ve disagreed with her positions on immigration, but I believe she fights for our common values which is why she garners our support. And…nobody’s perfect.

   9. on April 23rd, 2006 at 11:52 pm

10. You say: “I am not one of those people who feels Saddam needed to possess WMD’s to be labeled a bad guy who needed to be removed. Terrorists in Iraq ARE a threat to our own security and retreat is not an option. A democracy and ally in the Middle East is a powerful symbol to other repressive states.”

    Saddam Hussein and the Taliban (just as examples) were backed and armed by the US. The US engineered the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Chile (in 1972) and allowed a takeover by a dictator. There are many other examples. The fact is that the power structure of the US will back any regime that will support its interests. Instead of removing “bad guys,” wouldn’t it be simpler not to put them in power in the first place?
    Joe LaCour
    Mobile

    10. on April 24th, 2006 at 9:11 am

11. I agree that was not a good move. The enemy of my enemy is my friend doesn’t usually work out well. At the time Saddam’s party came to power, Saddam was not the leader of the movement but he was considered an ally against communism and the Soviet Union. At that time, the Soviets were a great threat to our interests around the world and their expansion had to be contained. History shows isolationsim is not a great solution either. Every person in the world deserves freedom, not just the lucky ones born here. Diplomacy never seems to work against tyrannical governments. They just thumb their noses at us. There are also other foreign governments in bed with them which makes the U.N. completely ineffective. Without diplomacy and sanction options, what can we do?

    11. on April 24th, 2006 at 5:31 pm

12. Well, one thing we sure can’t do is unilaterally invade any country where there is a tyrannical government. That will lead to overextension, like the Roman Empire, unless you can win the hearts and minds of the nations you are invading and occupying. And you can’t win the hearts and minds of people whose country you’re invading unless you have an ideology that can win those hearts and minds - a life-affirming ideology that can rise above sectarianism and cultural differences. The ideology the US is offering the world is hollow, and at its heart the world can see nothing but empty consumerism and a lack of caring for the environment - and yes, a lack of caring for human life, just as all that was behind the Roman empire, ultimately, was greed and the will to power.
    You and I know that’s not what Americans really stand for. But how can you blame people? How can you blame them for hating you? Then you turn around and call them evil and say they’re threatening your security to justify more warfare and more extension.
    But sooner or later real Americans will realize they’ve been sold a bill of goods. They’ll wake up and realize that the price of gas is never coming down and the death of innocent people is the price we’re paying for it.
    Joe from Mobile

    12. on April 25th, 2006 at 6:44 pm

13. Hi Joe,

    Thanks for your comments.

    I seriously doubt we can win the hearts and minds of Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists unless we adopt the Koran as our Constitution and wipe Israel off the planet. I’m not talking about the everyday people just trying to live their life peacefully in the Middle East. I’m fairly sure they are enjoying their new freedom in Iraq and do not wish to return to the old regime which is trying to intimidate and kill them. I’m talking about the oppressive radical leadership of countries, religious groups, and terrorist organizations. These people are not reasonable and are not tolerant of “infidels”. Look at how Afhganistan was going to execute someone for converting to Christianity. I don’t really know how you can expect these people to be more enlightened than Westerners. What exactly is your plan to win the hearts and minds? I hope you agree that Iraq cannot become a terrorist state and that Iran should not obtain a nuclear bomb. I would like to hear specifically what your plan is to change their perception and behavior. I’m not sure what a “life-affirming ideology that can rise above sectarianism and cultural differences” is.

    13. on April 25th, 2006 at 8:28 pm

14. >I’m not talking about the everyday people just trying to live their life peacefully in the Middle East.<
    
    That’s who I was talking about. You have to see that their perception of us, as filtered and shaped by the people in power over them, is that we are no less unreasonable and inhuman as the “Radical Islamic Fundamentalist Terrorists” you describe. Given opportunities to vote in “free” elections, they are likely to elect governements that will be able to convince them that they must go to war (in the form of terrorism) against dangerous imperialist nations who are a threat to their security and their way of life, using arguments that will be every bit as believable as those used by the present administration to justify invading Afghanistan and Iraq. And where does that leave us? With the innocent peoples on both sides being led into a global conflagration, as happened twice in the century in which you and I were born - except that this time it’s unclear what and who will survive.

    Joe

    14. on April 26th, 2006 at 2:41 pm

15. I’d still like to hear your specific solution about how to win their hearts and minds. Criticism is easy. At least this administration is doing something they feel is right. If you disagree, make it constructive. What would you do differently? And don’t speak in euphemisms. “Pie-in-the-sky” rhetoric can’t be acted upon.

    15. on April 26th, 2006 at 4:23 pm

16. >I’m not sure what a “life->affirming ideology that can rise >above sectarianism and cultural >differences” is.

    Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, to the extent that they coincide, and they do, in their belief in the sanctity and dignity of human life and the importance of the family.

    >At least this administration is >doing something they feel is >right. If you disagree, make it >constructive. What would you do >differently? And don’t speak in >euphemisms. “Pie-in-the-sky” >rhetoric can’t be acted upon.

    This administration may be doing something they feel is right, but the problem is that large numbers of people around the world, including in the US, feel that it is wrong. They can see that the US is acting in its economic interests, and that those interests don’t coincide with theirs. Come to think of it, they don’t coincide with the interests of a lot of people in America, either.
    What would I do differently? Stop telling the world that we’re the protectors of democracy or that we’re protecting our own people against terrorism. Admit that the reason we’re in the Middle East is because of oil, because oil is central to our economy. Period.
    Then do something about the situation: Offer the world a future other than dependence on oil until there is no more oil. The technology for achieving energy independence in the US exists. Use it. Stop selfishly despoiling the planet. Use our smarts and our money to see that the rest of the world can have access to some of the comforts we enjoy at their expense, even if it means making a few sacrifices. Use our power to see to it that the world’s limited resources are shared equally. That people have access to clean water, to medical car, to learning, to food, to decent housing.
    Pie in the sky? No it’s not. It’s the only real way to keep the powers on the other side from using the destructive forces we have developed and now want, in vain, to keep contained against us, threatening the planet with annihilation.

    16. on September 22nd, 2006 at 1:14 pm