|
|
|
« Why I Am Not a Republican (part four): my unsuccessful quest to become politically mainstream |
Main
| Caught in a Fashion Faux-Pas: The Modified Mullet »
September 24, 2004Michelle Malkin and The Unappreciated Need of the Unappreciated Types
Since the book's release, the liberal forces have sought Malkin's demise and have done so in all manner of uncouth and un-hometrained behavior. From attacking her looks, to calling her out of her name, the swastika signs, and various disrespectful demonstrations of displeasure don't bode well with me, regardless of how I may feel about the book. There is something bigger here. This type of outrage is Doctors and scientists have released studies that confirm that the part of the brain that must react to any type of change is the one of the most resistant. Be it quitting a bad habit, or changing the way you think about yourself, studies have shown that human nature is not as open to change as we might think. Getting back to my initial comments about Malkin, I have come to realize that she fills an important role in our society and that is to challenge the status quo. In America, we train people in such a way that discourages them from challenging certain topics. The concept is similar to what I discussed in the "Untouchables". There are certain realms of questionability that remain off limits if you wish to be liked by the masses. Next to slavery and the Holocaust, Malkin couldn't have picked a hotter topic. Regardless of my stance, I appreciate anyone who is willing to do this with tact. There is validity in jumping to an extreme to prove a point if it shifts a few dusty tectonic plates. Even someone like Al Sharpton, (I am cringing at the fact that I'm bringing myself to say this), serves a purpose in the development of right-wing policy. Sharpton is a thorn in the side of many a Republican. He is illogical, irreverent, and he probably wears a weave. Nevertheless, I would be remiss if I didn't concede that he has made some very valid points "the right" has yet to address. Once in an interview with Jerry Falwell, Sharpton asked a pointed question, "But Jerry, what are you all doing to take care of the widow and the orphan?" Falwell had nothing to say. Those are the times you just turn off the television. To be clear, by no means do I compare Michelle Malkin to Al Sharpton as I don't believe anyone deserves that type of degradation. What I do believe is that the presence of a voice willing to say seemingly irrational things (or in Sharpton's case, lies) in spite of what others may think is valuable to this country's growth>. Even if they are proven wrong, it strengthens the apologetic front necessary for every philosophy, ideology, and movement. Thomas Sowell said it best in his review of Malkin's book, "Agree or disagree with her book, it makes us think -- and political correctness is no substitute for thought." Comments Posted by: Ambra Nykol at September 28, 2004 1:49 AM Sharpton ain't stupid. Every peron on "the Right" who assumes this and then goes against him, get's their head handed back to him. A few years ago, I heard him DESTROY Ollie North on North's own radio program. Tony Snow smiled and chuckled as he gave hard questions to Sharpton. Sharpton held his ground and make good points and counter questions that Snow ducked. Although Sharpton's primary run didn't go as he planned, he showed he had the DNC scared. Posted by: Darkstar at September 28, 2004 2:28 PM I can say with 100% confidence that I believe it is NEVER a good idea to open up the following conversation "Is racism good/justified?" For some people, this is precisely what Michelle did. There are some (but not many) conversations that don't need to be had again and again, and are in and of themselves destructive. We can say, categorically that racism always nets a bad outcome, or we can just say it's up for discussion and hash it out generation after generation and come to the same darn conclusion. The scary thing is that it may come down to people coming to the conclusion that racism isn't so bad and violate people, then have correct our mistakes again and again. Posted by: Chrissy at September 28, 2004 2:29 PM 1. Rev. Al's been strangely quiet since the Democratic convention. Burnt out? Couldn't get the matching campaign money he wanted? Happy with the title of 'Former Presidential Candidate' he can take to cable chat shows? No one wants to listen to him? 2. Michelle Malkin: Doing What The Mainstream Media Used to Do. Don't forget how Chris Matthews laid her out on Hardball this summer. Oh, that's right- if a woman of color is politically incorrect, she's an easy target. 3. Average age of the viewer who saw the report that triggered the firestorm against CBS News three weeks ago: 60. Average age for Fox News watcher- 36. Michelle's still under 30. More time to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable than those on the aging angry isolated Left. Posted by: Gerard E. at September 28, 2004 2:29 PM Although I haven't read the book, I did hear Malkin interviewed about it. The issue here IMO isn't that a FEW Japanese were interned. It's that almost ALL the Japanese were interned. That set a bad precedent for the future. Yes, some Germans were interned but not ALL people of German descent. That is the rub. This sets the really bad precedent for someday doing this same thing with other groups. All the government has to do is say, "Well, Hey FDR did it." Remember what Martin Niemoller said. He was one of the leaders of the minority evangelical Church Confessing Movement in Hitler's Germany. "First they came for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Catholic. . And then they came for me and by that time there was nobody left to speak up for me.." Posted by: Diane R. at September 28, 2004 2:30 PM I haven't read her book but I did view her presentation at Berkley(Bizzerkley). I don't think she is saying definitively that the internment was a bad thing or a good thing. She is saying that it was a matter of risk. Dropping the A_Bomb on 300,000 Japanese wasn't a good thing either. It too was a matter of risk. What Michelle is saying is that the entire episode is being rainbow washed in Racism when the decision was based on protecting the American people and way of life. It's impossible to say if it was necessary. It happened, so we don't know what would have happened if we had not done it. There may have been some attacks on our war production which would have cost American lives in the Pacific. The main reason I think she has brought this up is because she believes we are running the risk on going to far the other way today in the war against Islamo facists. In a world of WMD, we will have to make some mistakes, we will have to excercise some over kill. If we don't, tens if not hundreds of thousands of Americans are going to die in future attacks. There can be no doubt about that. Michelle is posing a question. Are we missing an opportunity to be safe under the ruse of Political Correctness? That said I think we have to resist going overboard on homeland defense. The histeria surronding inspection of shipping containers for example, is just plain dumb and stupid. We are only inspecting 2% of containers in the U.S. and Democrats want to spend billions on equipment and union jobs to inspect all containers for nuclear material/weapons upon entering U.S. ports. Folks, if Al Qaeda ships a nuclear bomb to the Port of Los Angeles you won't need an inspection to find it. BOOOOM! We are checking these shipments at the point of origin, NOT when they arrive here. that would TOO LATE. Once a vessel departs for the United states we still have several days to scrutinise the maifest and shippers for problems. Even after a vessel departs, we can still turn it around. But onvce a vessel enters a U.S. Port, it is too late. Bin Laden was said to be planning a dirty bomb at a U.S. Port. In other words explode a vessel at a U.S. Port. Inspections are useless at U.S. Ports. Ther are millions of containers entering the country each day. BOOOOM AGAIN... Posted by: Vanyogan at September 28, 2004 2:30 PM The best argument for the Milkin thesis may be the shrillness of the arguments against. Debate on the topic has been shouted down since it became chic to trash the WWII leaders. Kinda like making Caesar Chavez a saint when his primary accomplishment was to sell farmworkers into peonage to his union. Posted by: Walter E. Wallis at September 28, 2004 2:31 PM Not to be too persnickety (ha!), but I take issue with your statement "I think I get it, Americans don't like to be challenged to change their thinking." That's not an American thing. That's a human thing. We all equally suck. Posted by: Jim at September 28, 2004 2:31 PM |
 "...playful philosophizing" Dan Leroy, National Review Online
|
|||
 |
|
|
|
From the time I was first exposed to the feather-ruffler that is 
Malkin clearly has her pet issues, as do all pundits, thinkers, and commentators. Some of her thoughts on education, immigrants, and racial profiling perturb me to no end, but then again, so does my mother, and I am still thankful to have her in my life. My initial response upon hearing that Malkin had written up some 400+ pages defending an event most people had generally decided was a very bad thing, was probably the same as many, "What in tarnation is she thinking?" Exactly. She's thinking. I will never be intelligent enough (or interested enough) to delve into the deep history and specifics of the events surrounding Japanese internment, or excuse me "relocation". But I'm going to go out on a limb and say, the bad probably outweighed the good. While I can personally see no justified reason why anyone would focus that much energy on defending such a matter of treachery, I respect her right to do so and appreciate the challenge she brings.
|
|
testing 1, 2, 3