Michelle Malkin's "Climate Of Hate"

Mahablog links to Michelle Malkin whining about "criminalizing conservatism." I'm not sure what Malkin is talking about, but if I were a conservative, I would not want Malkin leading the charge on this issue. Here's one reason why:

Right now, [Michelle Malkin] is happily wrapped in one of her typical controversies: a crew of students at UC Santa Cruz, my alma mater, protested some military recruiters, and Malkin got hold of a press release with their personal contact information -- a poorly conceived inclusion on the students' part, but then, these are undergraduates, not trained media flacks. Rather than calling and speaking to them herself, which is what members of the press are supposed to use such releases for, Malkin published their personal information on her website, prompting her hordes of orcish mouth-breathers to brandish their pitchforks and inundate the unsuspecting students with death threats [. . .] When the students frantically called on Malkin to remove their numbers, she posted their contact information again.

(Emphasis supplied.) If I was a conservative, I would not be choosing Malkin as my lead advocate on this issue right now.

Speaking for me only

< Rhetoric Does Not Kill People, But Guns Do | Tom DeLay Sentenced to Three Years in Prison >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I miss real Conservatives (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:30:25 PM EST
    I used to be able to talk to them, we found areas of agreement and even admitted to each other that "our ideas" were not always the solution needed for every situation.  Michelle Malkin is no Conservative....not in my book....she only wishes she were one or understood in the real world that must function what one really is. She is only part of a new insane crowd who stole the Conservative label and sells its followers to the highest corporate bidder.  And they all sort of remind me of how off the reservation the New Democrats are, those guys aren't Democrats either in any traditional functional debate sense of the word.  There are no SERIOUS hearts bleeding these days on any issue unless they have been physically wounded.

    Yeah, but ... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 04:34:43 AM EST
    Where are the GOP moderates?

    I believe that breed is extinct or nearly extinct and a number are now Democrats ... New Democrats.


    It appears that the only breed (none / 0) (#74)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:28:08 AM EST
    that is increasing in numbers is Independents.

    Given the state of both parties that is not a surprise.


    The data says otherwise (none / 0) (#76)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 11:10:35 AM EST
    and what starts out as a blip may become a trend:

    Also in December, the number calling themselves Democrats fell by a point to 33.7%.

    Those figures reflect the largest number of Republicans in the nation since December 2004 and the lowest number of Democrats ever recorded in tracking since November 2002.

    It's the second straight month that Rasmussen Reports polling has found more people identifying as Republicans than Democrats. Prior to November, that had never happened before. See the History of Party Trends from January 2004 to the present.

    This is from Rammussen, btw, and may be biased, but it doesn't support your hypothesis.

    Click or ignore Me


    would you please quit stalking me?? (none / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:29:31 PM EST
    If you are not the Dark Avenger I would be very surprised.

    If you were ever to include (none / 0) (#84)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 09:06:12 PM EST
    documented facts in your posts on this website, I would be amazed.

    I was referring specifically (none / 0) (#85)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 13, 2011 at 04:57:02 PM EST
    to people who run for public office.

    Since the Republican Party has degenerated into depravity those more respectable, moderate types who, a few decades ago, would have run as Republicans now run as Democrats.


    A good point (2.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 07:57:46 PM EST
    but you take it a bit too far.

    Yes McCarthy's tactics were deplorable, but there were Communists in the government and there were spies. So his charges were largely true.

    That point eventually worked its way through all the claims and counter claims and helped establish the Neocons and the modern Repubs.

    It was rather like a man netting fish rather than catching them on hook and line.

    To those hungry the issue is whether or not there are fish.


    I did not defend McCarthy (none / 0) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:13:29 PM EST
    In fact, I said his actions were deplorable.

    So why you think I want to discuss him I do not know.


    I'd be willing to donate 100$ (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 09:43:37 PM EST
    to a veterans charity if PPJ could document one Communist agent who was working in the Federal Government and was unearthed by the activities of Sen Joseph McCarthy.

    And if I had a way to prove that you had (2.00 / 1) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 11:24:34 PM EST
    I would.

    But the point was, as I noted, it was the claims and counter claims that drove the various investigations and eventually created the Neocons and the modern Repub party.

    But if you want to do some interesting reading there are several books, but Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America is the best. It proves that there were Soviet spies in America.


    I'll send the receipt to Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:09:32 AM EST
    if you can come up with one name.

    But the point was, as I noted, it was the claims and counter claims that drove the various investigations and eventually created the Neocons and the modern Repub party.

    Yes, and I note that you cite not one historical source to back up your point.

    But if you want to do some interesting reading there are several books, but Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America is the best. It proves that there were Soviet spies in America.

    Let's look at what he did, not your version of reality, from the Wiki, not for academic research, small children, or the faint-hearted:

    This subcommittee would be the scene of some of McCarthy's most publicized exploits. When the records of the closed executive sessions of the subcommittee under McCarthy's chairmanship were made public in 2003-4,[61] Senators Susan Collins and Carl Levin wrote the following in their preface to the documents:

        Senator McCarthy's zeal to uncover subversion and espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics destroyed careers of people who were not involved in the infiltration of our government. His freewheeling style caused both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at Congressional hearings... These hearings are a part of our national past that we can neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur.[62]

    The subcommittee first investigated allegations of Communist influence in the Voice of America (VOA), at that time administered by the State Department's United States Information Agency. Many VOA personnel were questioned in front of television cameras and a packed press gallery, with McCarthy lacing his questions with hostile innuendo and false accusations.[63] A few VOA employees alleged Communist influence on the content of broadcasts, but none of the charges were substantiated. Morale at VOA was badly damaged, and one of its engineers committed suicide during McCarthy's investigation. Ed Kretzman, a policy advisor for the service, would later comment that it was VOA's "darkest hour when Senator McCarthy and his chief hatchet man, Roy Cohn, almost succeeded in muffling it."[63]

    The subcommittee then turned to the overseas library program of the International Information Agency. Cohn toured Europe examining the card catalogs of the State Department libraries looking for works by authors he deemed inappropriate. McCarthy then recited the list of supposedly pro-communist authors before his subcommittee and the press. The State Department bowed to McCarthy and ordered its overseas librarians to remove from their shelves "material by any controversial persons, Communists, fellow travelers, etc." Some libraries actually burned the newly forbidden books.[64] Shortly after this, in one of his carefully oblique public criticisms of McCarthy, President Eisenhower urged Americans: "Don't join the book burners. [...] Don't be afraid to go in your library and read every book."[

    Click Me


    Actually I try to ignore you (none / 0) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 10:26:23 AM EST
    I'm terribly, terribly (none / 0) (#75)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 11:02:10 AM EST

    "Do not try. Do!"

    From a social conservative:

    William Bennett, former Reagan Administration Secretary of Education, opined in his 2007 book America: The Last Best Hope:

        The cause of anti-communism, which united millions of Americans and which gained the support of Democrats, Republicans and independents, was undermined by Sen. Joe McCarthy

     ... McCarthy addressed a real problem: disloyal elements within the U.S. government. But his approach to this real problem was to cause untold grief to the country he claimed to love ... Worst of all, McCarthy besmirched the honorable cause of anti-communism. He discredited legitimate efforts to counter Soviet subversion of American institutions.[116]

    I'm sure it's easy to find other quotes from others who aren't far leftists, lefties, "extreme(the only kind, according to you) Democrats", Commies, etc., who share similar sentiments to Dr. Bennetts sentiments.

    But I digress.

    ignore you

    I recommend some mindfulness practice as I linked to and about in an earlier thread if you find my comments here are harshing your Zen.

    IMHO, it does more than malt and Milton can to justify Gods' ways to man.


    Would you please quit stalking me?? (none / 0) (#81)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:31:10 PM EST
    If you are not Dark Avenger I would be surprised.

    No you wouldn't (none / 0) (#77)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 12:23:49 PM EST
    And if I had a way to prove that you had (sent bet to vets organization) I would (document one Communist agent who was working in the Federal Government and was unearthed by the activities of Sen Joseph McCarthy).

    ... cause you can't.

    BTW - Re:  "Verona...", let's see what noted historian, author and expert on the subject Walter Schneir had to say in his review of the book:

    Cold War McCarthyism fed on names; its inquisitors were census-takers of subversion. In place of the presumption of innocence, its legal principles were guilt by association and group culpability. Its public discourse was coarsened by the blurring of subtle differences. Its explanations for vast and complex events were naive, fantastic and unsubstantiated. Haynes and Klehr would seem to be among those scholars who The New York Times said "would like to rewrite the historical verdict on...McCarthyism." In their book they aver, without spelling out what they mean, that our understanding of McCarthyism has been "seriously distorted" because we did not know about the Venona messages. Certainly the Venona archive does provide a narrow window for studying the activities of those American communists who worked for Soviet intelligence. But it is ironic and unseemly that "Venona," a book that purports to cast new light on McCarthyism, should itself partake of some of the worst characteristics of that sorry period.

    Yeah ... it's "the best".


    Actually the book (none / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:33:33 PM EST
    which you have not read....

    Is about how we broke the Soviet's diplomatic code and what we learned from that information. McCarthy plays a very, very. very minor part.


    I know what it's about, ... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Yman on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:14:17 PM EST
    ... Jimmy.  I also know that it's a favorite among the wingers, who selectively cite and creatively interpret/distort those records to try to revise history.  I also know that historians and experts such as Mr. Schneir, Victor Navasky, Ellen Shrecker and others have been very critical of this book based on the authors' numerous selective omissions of facts, faulty logic, sloppy interpretations and outright falsehoods.

    BTW - Still can't provide documentation of even a single Soviet spy in the US government unearthed by McCarthy, huh?  Even when it would result in a $100 to your favorite veteran's organization?


    Guess the reason is obvious.


    First of all, why should the Repubs (2.00 / 1) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 11:06:50 PM EST
    care what a Demo wants them to do?

    Your point was noted. Mine was that, in the long run, the facts came out and the modern Repub party was born. I was just advancing the point that you had made.

    I had no idea you would get upset over that simple comment.


    the modern Repub party was born.. (none / 0) (#78)
    by jondee on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 02:58:04 PM EST
    or sprang up; out of a humus of red baiting, paranoia, fundamentalism and every-man-for-himself libertarianism. Proof that while time marches on, evolution dosn't always move forward.  

    Odd how Conservatives ... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Robot Porter on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:47:03 PM EST
    are always whining about everyone else playing the victim card, but they're amongst the first to do it given half a chance.

    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:59:27 PM EST
    I always hit them with the conservative victim syndrome and they have no answer. They are perpetually attacked etc. in their own minds.

    Conservatives are making themselves the victims (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:54:26 PM EST
    once more.   Glenn Beck says Sarah Palin is the target of assassination efforts (yeah, I know, there is nothing to support this, either); and Sarah Palin's followers are making her a martyr again....

    Truly bizarre.  They make themsleves into imaginary victims....when the real victims are in Tucson.....

    Just like too many claims of reverse racism.    

    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:55:35 PM EST
    Probably they'll all buy some more guns and muse about Second Amendment remedies.

    While claiming they are stocking up (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by ruffian on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:59:29 PM EST
    because Obama is going to stop them from being sold. More victimization.

    I do think this finishes Palin politically (none / 0) (#29)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:12:43 PM EST
    Even assuming the shooter never heard of Palin, her comments were just plain reckless....not those of a leader but a bombthrower.....

    And, her Alaska reality t.v. show was cancelled.

    She will turn attention away from being cancelled and exposed as phony knowing nothing about hunting by playing the victim card.  She will say that she was hounded out of the Presidential race by the left and others who now threaten her life.  For the sake of her own personal safety and that of her family, she must regretfully refuse to run....

    Too bad too.  She would really make a hash of the Republican Primary.  

    This means Huckabee has a good and better chance at getting the nomination.....


    I will never forget that they (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:22:14 PM EST
    tried to play victim in the aftermath of Katrina as we were watching images of dead bodies floating through the streets of New Orleans.  This really is "nothing" in the grand scheme of things in terms of their victimhood strategy. It is certainly standard operating procedure:  Caught in the act?  Play the victim!  That's their mantra these days.

    It's amazing that (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by cal1942 on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 04:53:18 AM EST
    such manly men are helpless victims.

    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:10:21 PM EST
    Here is a quasi leading voice of the republican party re-posting addresses of people who received death threats because of her rhetoric.

    Jesus, and yet conservatives act as if they hold no responsibility when one goes ballistic and actually carries out one of the numerous death threats made.

    Why post the addresses ?  Because there is the hope that the threat of violence by her minions will change their positions, aka intimidation.

    But as Mr Ohio would argue, it's pure coincidence and they can't be held responsible for whipping up the frenzy of near brain dead idiots, no matter she is arming them with addresses.

    The thing with (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by SOS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 06:03:57 PM EST
    conservatives is, and my father in law was a staunch flag waving conservative is no matter how much wrong they do they will NEVER admit they are or were wrong.

    It's just not going to happen.

    Oh Please (2.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:02:46 PM EST
    The demonstrators did their trick and now those who oppose them are doing their trick.

    I would happily disagree with what both did, but the facts are that both have the right to do what they did.

    If you don't wanna play, don't get in the public arena.

    Here's your sign.... (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:31:01 PM EST
    Again, you refuse to separate public from private actors.  You are posting on a 'public' blog yet no one should post your 'private' data.

    If you are truly incapable of differentiating and believe an entry into the public sphere eliminates the right to private personhood, post your name, address and phone number.


    That gets right to the heart of the matter (5.00 / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:37:07 PM EST
    Heh ... don't hold ... (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:04:27 PM EST
    ... your breath.

    Actually TalkLeft is a (none / 0) (#42)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:20:38 PM EST
    private enterprise in which one must join and in which the owner can toss you out at anytime. So you have an expectation of privacy.

    Demonstrating in public doesn't have that expectation.

    Now, as I noted, I think both sides are wrong here. And if Malkin violated the law in how she obtained the information and if she is responsible for any threats then charges can be filed.


    Opinion not fact (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:44:16 PM EST
    None of that holds up in reality.

    Anyone can read and join if they choose, so that leaves 'private enterprise' and 'getting kicked off' a site as a 'logical' basis for not disclosing personal data?   Neither of those hold up.  There are a few sites, private enterprises, that require actual names.  You can get kicked off those too.  You have an expectation of privacy here because you are posting at a site that values personal privacy.  

    So you are back to public behavior.   This site is readable by everyone and open to comment by anyone that follows rules less restrictive than those required in public.   Individuals must follow rules at public meetings or risk being thrown out.  Individuals must follow a few basic laws in public or be asked to leave the area.


    And don't forget (2.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 07:49:45 PM EST
    all newspaper forums/comments that I am aware of require you to sign up and will ban any commentator who posts personal information about another as part of their Terms of Service.

    And people demonstrating, which the people in question were doing, must also follow rules and, being in a public place, have zero expectation of privacy.

    And yes, anyone can join TalkLeft. But the owner can toss them out. That is very much private enterprise.


    'That you are aware of' (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by waldenpond on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:20:46 PM EST
    Banning is a trivial consequence.  Reality?  People are outed all the time.  It's a consequence of participating in public forums.

    You merely trust TL.  If you posted on other sites, they could out you if they wanted.  It would be the consequence of posting on a (gasp) public forum (even one that takes place within a private enterprise.)

    You demand manners on the internet because that's your venue.


    unless (none / 0) (#58)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:49:11 PM EST
    your an executive in which case the SEIU will do it for you?

    don't usually quote myself, but (none / 0) (#2)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:30:37 PM EST
    perhaps this bears repeating (from a thread earlier today):

    she is so full of spitting rage that she even outspat Tweety on his own shown & he called her out for her rageaholic stupidity on the air

    even the righties had to concede that MM was not ready for prime time

    Providing a link to her site is not promoting her (none / 0) (#4)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:40:53 PM EST
    to any level of official spokes person.  She is a blogger like thousands of others, no more, no less.  

    The purpose in the other thread was solely for the array of content illustrating level hate actions from the left towards GWB and others.  

    right (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by The Addams Family on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:51:24 PM EST
    She is a blogger like thousands of others, no more, no less.

    thousands of bloggers have been funded by the Competitive Enterprise Institute

    thousands of bloggers have gigs on FOX "news"



    No idea what you are talking about (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:43:25 PM EST
    In another thread I posted (1.00 / 0) (#11)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:49:04 PM EST
    a link to Malkin's blog that had a very long array of imagery relating to violence/hate towards GWB, etal.  The discussion was initiated by Buckeye regarding how this unfortunate event is being politicized on the left as being directly caused by rhetoric on the Right.  My point (stated several times) is that this rhetoric is wrong on both sides and bad for the country.

    No inference was intended as to the purpose of this thread.


    Sorry (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:53:05 PM EST
    Never saw it.

     Believe it or not, I was aware of Michelle Malkin before today.


    Your point is to obfuscate ... (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Yman on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:02:14 PM EST
    ... through false equivocation.  

    Those (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:00:16 PM EST
    links were a joke.

    Don't know about the links (2.00 / 1) (#32)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:15:14 PM EST
    just look at the images.  That was the point and we both know it.

    I did look at the images (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:35:30 PM EST
    The only name of the alleged offenders I recognized was Sarah Bernhard--a celebrity.  All the rest were just unknown people.

    Compare that to Republican elected officials.  You lie! Joe Wilson.  Tom Tancredo slapping a cut-out of Nancy Pelosi during the health care debate.  And the bullseyes of the person that Republicans wanted to be Vice President...The campaign manager of Alan West saying that if they could not win via ballots then bullets was the way to go--an incident that Wasserman Shultz recounted on MTP yesterday.

    Sharon Angle, the person you supported for the Senate, and to whom millions of dollars of campaign contributions flowed, talking of Second Amendment remedies...."Man up, Harry Reid."

    The Republicans supported these people, gave them money....

    It is your leaders, BTAL, that stoked this fire.

    Boehner egging on shouting disruption of Townhalls last year, and the Republican party issuing a  memo directing people to stand up and shout before a Representative could get his or her bearings.....Pretty sick in retrospect.....


    While (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 07:27:37 PM EST
    your are making some points the cut out of Pelosi really can't hold water. Obama's speech writer had a picture of himself fondling a cut out of Hillary and he suffered no consequences for it. So please while Tancredo was wrong Obama's speech writer was doing the same thing which is just as wrong.

    Hmmm, the very first is the getty image (none / 0) (#39)
    by BTAL on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:58:59 PM EST
    with the hunting rifle pointed at Palin and her daughter backdrop.  Link

    Also, how can the left claim that media types like Limbaugh, Beck etc. have such influence but chose to ignore liberal media types that "entertain" with calls of gang rape and worse?

    As for Joe Wilson, "you lie" is promoting violence?  Will the next claim be a SCOTUS justice mouthing something a threat to the President?  

    If that is the case, I guess Obama's gun to a knife fight and a couple other quotes can be taken just as "seriously".  In fact, POTUS trumps all other "leaders".

    Boehner is on the record during the HCR calling for reduced rhetoric.  

    There is no high ground for either side.


    The interesting thing (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 05:29:18 PM EST
    about your comment about the Getty--conservatives know so much more than me about liberals....Half the stuff they drudge up, I never heard of...yet they trumpet it as some great example of what we liberals want or believe....

    I never heard of Saul Alinsky

    I love the Getty.  I could live at the Getty Villa....Wonderful exhibit of ancient Greek and Roman art, sculpture and artifacts....The main Getty up on the Hill, nice, but not quite the same...

    I never heard of this photo at the Getty....In any event, it was not a statement by an elected leader--probably someone no one ever heard of thought it would be funny--and it was apparently taken down quite quickly...

    I know that conservatives have lost the argument when they start asserting their false equivalency meme....First heard it about Nixon--everyone does it, Tricky Dick just got caught.  And it has been hideously used about Guatemala--both sides were commiting atrocities, when according to the Catholic Church and the U.N., 90% and 93%, respectively, of the atrocities were committed by the U.S.-backed Guatemalan military....

    No, both sides don't engage it it....

    And, of course, you know the fallacy here (even if your assumptions were factually correct, and they are not)--two wrongs don't make a right.


    You have to be kidding (5.00 / 3) (#49)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 07:30:49 PM EST
    about Obama's talk about bringing a gun to a knife fight. It's laughable. The guy who the GOP threatened with taking hostages and he handed over all the money? LOL.

    Well, what Obama (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by brodie on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 07:43:17 PM EST
    really meant was he'd bring a gun to a knife fight to offer the other side as an opening goodwill gesture and to show them he was now completely unarmed.

    But as for delivering that line, yeah, he probably should have let the expert film tough guys like Sean Connery or Clint Eastwood handle stuff like that.  Coming from Mr Soft Touch himself, it does sound laughable.


    In regards to public "leaders" (none / 0) (#79)
    by BTAL on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 05:28:12 PM EST
    This is just as despicable as anything that could/did happen to a cardboard cut out.

    "That Scott down there that's running for governor of Florida," Mr. Kanjorski said. "Instead of running for governor of Florida, they ought to have him and shoot him. Put him against the wall and shoot him. He stole billions of dollars from the United States government and he's running for governor of Florida. He's a millionaire and a billionaire. He's no hero. He's a damn crook. It's just we don't prosecute big crooks."

    U.S. Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski (D-PA)
    Speaking to the Scranton The Times-Tribune editorial board
    October 23rd, 2010


    I did (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 07:25:02 PM EST
    look at the images and it looked like Malkin googled for photos and put them up on her site. It's a joke because NONE of these were put out by a major political player. They are the equivalent of the pictures that the birthers put on the web of Obama.

    The leaders on the Right (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:14:40 PM EST
    condone and stoke it....

    On the left not so much if at all.....


    In the age of wikileaks (none / 0) (#5)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:43:15 PM EST
    I have no problem with this. You have protesters doing their constitutional thing, on a public campus no less being subsidized by government (taxpayers), and a person taking public information and passing it along. The students will probably learn more from this than most lessons in their 4 or 5 years on campus.

    So trying to bring about (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:51:10 PM EST
    government transparency, and listing the addresses of private citizens in order to silence and intimidate them is the same thing to you? What a piece of work you are.

    uh, (none / 0) (#56)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:46:00 PM EST
    the kids (adults really) put their addresses out.

    They (none / 0) (#65)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 11:31:57 PM EST
    didn't put them on Malkin's website. What's wrong with you?

    warren, stop the insults (none / 0) (#66)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 11:35:24 PM EST
    Disagree with a comment, but don't insult the writer.

    His comments (none / 0) (#67)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 11:41:33 PM EST
    are deeply offensive and insulting to the intelligence of all thinking persons. He's advocating a form of intimidation through the threat of violence. But whatever, wouldn't want to insult him.

    Should it be criminalized? (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:57:50 PM EST
    Hell no.

    Should posting other people's personal info on the web against their will be frowned upon?  Hell yes.  That's just not cool.  The Wikileaks analogy is pretty weak boca, imo.


    my point (none / 0) (#57)
    by bocajeff on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 08:47:31 PM EST
    is that the students put their info out there. Do facebook searches, myspace searches, it's really quite easy to find this stuff out. sometimes we like it, sometimes we don't. no more, no less.

    Fair enough... (none / 0) (#71)
    by kdog on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 07:53:23 AM EST
    it is all out there if one wants to find out...doesn't make it right for Malkin to post it. Though that should be no crime, just frowned upon by people with some class and decency.

    Malkin is a hypocrite (none / 0) (#72)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue Jan 11, 2011 at 08:17:14 AM EST
    From TPMcafe:

    So I'm cruising the Right-wing nutbag sites, and I come across good 'ol dependable Michelle Malkin.

    Who can forget goofy Michelle and that insipid YouTube video she did, dressed up in her cheerleader outfit. I'm sure that was a bonanza for pedophiles.

    But I digress.

    Malkin's got all kinds of freedom of speech violation crap on her site, even something defending Michael Savage in his quest to have his name removed from Great Britain's banned list.

    So anyway, I was going to post a comment on her site, when I see that all commenters have to abide by her terms of service. What could these be, I ask as I click the link.

    Well, get a load of this, from the Queen of Free Speech:

        I may allow as much or as little opportunity for registration as I choose, in my absolute discretion, and I may close particular comment threads or discontinue my general policy of allowing comments at any time. By registering to post comments, you warrant that you are at least 18 years old and that you are solely responsible for your account's activity.

        I reserve the right to delete your comments or revoke your registration for any reason whatsoever. Rarely will I do so simply because I disagree with you. I will, however, usually do so if you post something that is, in my opinion, (a) off-topic; (b) libelous, defamatory, abusive, harassing, threatening, profane, pornographic, offensive, false, misleading, or which otherwise violates or encourages others to violate these terms of use or any law, including intellectual property laws; or (c) "spam," i.e., an attempt to advertise, solicit, or otherwise promote goods and services. I may exercise these rights myself and I may delegate them to employees and/or contractors.

        ... In short, you're my guest here. I welcome your participation, but if you abuse my hospitality, don't be surprised if you are shown the door.

    That's what I love about these Right-wing free speech champions. They want everyone else to allow unbridled comment, but they don't do it themselves. For example, you'll hear Savage whining on and on on his radio program about how Britain has denied him his free speech rights (which is ridiculous because now he's heard in the UK. when he wasn't before he was banned. So they've actually increased his freedom of speech) but he'll cut off a caller he doesn't like.

    Hypocrites, all of them.
    Keep the faith.

    This is Michelle in action:

    In April 2006, Students Against War (SAW), a campus group at University of California, Santa Cruz, staged a protest against the presence of military recruiters on campus, and sent out a press release containing contact details (names, phone numbers and e-mail addresses) of three student leaders for use by reporters. Malkin included these contact details in a blog column entitled "Seditious Santa Cruz vs. America".[47] Malkin claimed the contact information was originally taken from SAW's own website, but that later SAW had removed it and had "wiped" the "cached version."[48] The students asked Malkin to remove the contact details from her blog, but Malkin reposted them several times [49] writing in her blog: "I am leaving it up. If you are contacting them, I do not condone death threats or foul language. As for SAW, my message is this: You are responsible for your individual actions. Other individuals are responsible for theirs. Grow up and take responsibility."[47]

    SAW remarked: "Due to the continued irresponsible actions of some bloggers, members of the group have received numerous death threats and anti-Semitic comments through phone calls and emails." [50] A blog war ensued. Malkin claimed that she received hostile e-mails[51] then her private home address, phone number, photos of her neighborhood and maps to her house were published on several websites. The Santa Cruz Sentinel reported receiving an email from Malkin saying that this forced her to remove one of her children from school and move her family.[52]

    Hoist on her own petard.

    From the Wiki, not for academic research, small children, or the terminally timid.

    Click Me


    Were the wikileaks disclosures (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:18:56 PM EST
    accompanied by explicit instructions to their readers encouraging vengeful and violent responses to the persons involved in the reported activities?

    Did the New York Times suggest that armed attacks on the government or public servants would be appropriate in light of the information that they covered from the wikileaks postings?

    In case you don't know the answer to these questions, the answer is "No" to both.


    The lesson being? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:43:50 PM EST
    The lesson is (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Warren Terrer on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:45:39 PM EST
    never defy the right wing because they will happily stir the crazies against you if you do.

    Learn what? (none / 0) (#9)
    by lilburro on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:46:15 PM EST
    Not to protest?  

    The supporters of Prop 8 in California (none / 0) (#12)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:50:29 PM EST
    tried to keep their public donations to the anti-gay group secret.  Went to court to do that.  Didn't work as I recall....

    To Clarence Thomas's great annoyance (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:52:29 PM EST
    Do tell (none / 0) (#18)
    by MKS on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:55:22 PM EST
    Did Thomas contribute to Prop 8?  His wife?

    Nope (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:56:36 PM EST
    but take a look at his dissent in Doe v. Reed.

    In hear (none / 0) (#30)
    by chrisvee on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 04:14:34 PM EST
    Ann Coulter will take a lead role as well.