Unemployment rises – by one

I wanted to post on this Michelle Malkin post about the Cindy Sheehan thing earlier, but I had to get back to work.

I wasn’t so much going to comment on the Sheehan thing, which I think is a whole lot of nothing, but instead point out some of the fan mail that Michelle Malkin received over it.

Choice stuff, that.

First off, I just plain don’t see why Mrs. Malkin is the subject of so much pure hatred. Other than the Big W himself, the only other person I see receive so much public scorn is Condeleeza Rice.

Anyway, the notes posted by Malkin were really disgusting. And she pointed out that one of them had been sent by some loser who used his work email account to mail from work. I was going to say something about the guy’s lack of wisdom, but it seems his superiors beat me to it.

He’s been fired.

Awww. That’s so sad. Here’s a hint: If you’re going to pull abominable, vile, hateful stuff like that, at least have the common sense to use a Yahoo! account or a fake name or hide under a white sheet or disguise your voice or something.

What a moron.

Comments

  1. Murdoc, It looks like you and most of the military bloggers have avoided this thing so far. Mrs. Sheehan seems to be losing sympathy fast due to her political views. Personally, I think she is exploiting the death of her son for a political cause. My guess, she never wanted her son to join the Marines and he never cared for her politics. I have told my wife, mother, and every other member of my family to never, ever pull this kind of stunt if I am killed in combat. I have promised to haunt them every day for the rest of their lives if they do. The willingness of the anti-war people to exploit this Marine’s death is just repulsive.

  2. I love how so many people (who seem to disagree with her views) seem to think they know what Sheehan’s son would think, including Malkin in an absurd interview with O’Reilly. Disagree with Sheehan, fine. But how is criticizing the people who are criticizing Malkin any different than criticizing Shhehan because she is criticising Bush? Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate behavior and absurd arguments are absurd arguments all around, folks. Is it a ‘Stunt’ to express your opinions? Isn’t that what bloggers and commenters do? Is it that she is so public about it? Don’t people who are pro-war have TV and radio shows? Perhaps her son would be pleased with her actions. Who knows? I’m guessing she knows betterthan almost everyone else who is offering an opinion on the matter. It can easily be said that the pro-war community’s willingness to ignore the deaths from the war is just repulsive, also. Different opinions.

  3. BH: Ah. Ann Coulter. Yeah, though I don’t really pay a lot of attention to her, I imagine it gets pretty rough. Quite a credit to the honorable opposition that they’re so civilized to the women in the Rightie ranks, I always think.

  4. Mystery Poster: >>’But how is criticizing the people who are criticizing Malkin any different than criticizing Shhehan because she is criticising Bush? Inappropriate behavior is inappropriate behavior and absurd arguments are absurd arguments all around, folks.’<< Are you seriously equating the 'criticism' of Sheehan with the 'criticism' of Malkin? Did you even read the 'criticism' she received? Give me a break. Different opinions, indeed. Explain how the 'criticism' of Malkin that I pointed out is a legitimate, valuable 'opinion' and how questioning that guy's 'opinion' is no different than questioning the 'opinions' of Mrs. Sheehan's critics.

  5. I just read Malkin’s post about Sheehan. As seems to be typical for her (from my limited experience), she relies on a dizzying display of guilt by association and ad hominem attack. The article linked to at ‘sane parson’ says this: ‘On the right we hone our arguments off the arguments of others. We obsessively correct each other and ourselves. We quickly point out the BS nature of anybody who would dare to Dowdify a statement like that, because it brings discredit on us all. And all the big leftie blogs are reporting this completely falsely.’ Perhaps someone on the right should point her to http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ so she can improve the logic of her arguments. And tell her to stop the BS about Sheehan’s story ‘changing’. She is reporting some of the facts ‘completely falsely’. She shouldn’t be abused by anyone – no one should – but she should be held to a reasonable journalistic standard for accurate quoting, shouldn’t she? Nobody here thinks there aren’t plenty of vile statements being made about Mrs. Sheehan, do they?

  6. Mystery Poster: So does that mean ‘No, an email to Malkin simply calling her a c*** isn’t a legitimate opinion and adds nothing to the discussion of the Sheehan story.’ and ‘No, I cannot explain how those emails to Malkin are the same as criticism of Sheehan and her political position.’? This is a post about the email and the stupidity of the moron who sent it. If you take reader comments into account and act as if they’re part of the bigger discussion, then it is also about the fact that a serviceman has told his family not to pull this sort of ‘stunt’ and has a guess about the feelings of Sheehan’s son, who was obviously also a serviceman, based on his own feelings. Since what she’s doing is a ‘stunt’, and blogging is a ‘stunt’, therefore what I’m doing and what she’s doing are the same? Are you really serious? Malkin writes politically-charged columns because, well, she’s a political opinion writer. That’s what she does. She’s done it for a long time. Seems to me that the Lefties may have a opinion writer or two kicking around, as well. Mrs. Sheehan is camped outside Bush’s ranch calling him a murderer, blaming him personally for her son’s death. Is Mrs. Sheehan’s attitude toward the situation and the way she’s handling herself with the media the same as today’s Krugman column (excuse me, today’s Krugman ‘stunt’) in the NYT? No difference at all?

  7. Re: ‘Are you seriously equating the ‘criticism’ of Sheehan with the ‘criticism’ of Malkin? Did you even read the ‘criticism’ she received? Give me a break.’ and ‘Different opinions, indeed. Explain how the ‘criticism’ of Malkin that I pointed out is a legitimate, valuable ‘opinion’ and how questioning that guy’s ‘opinion’ is no different than questioning the ‘opinions’ of Mrs. Sheehan’s critics.’ I did not equate them and I will not. I read them. Indeed, I said ‘She shouldn’t be abused by anyone – no one should …’ Obviously the name calling is offensive. I presume I don’t need to actually find examples of similar things being said about Sheehan for you to believe that it is happening. It appears to be how some people deal with disagreement these days. Surely it is not ‘criticism’ or ‘debate’ or anything of the like. Malkin uses those emails (which certainly could be fabricated, though I’m not suggesting they are) to lump everyone who disagrees with her and call them names. Note the distinct difference between her approach and that of 2Slick. Re: Bram saying ‘…never, ever pull this kind of stunt if I am killed in combat.’ Bram used the word stunt. He is calling what Mrs. Sheehan is doing a stunt. She, and probably many others, do not consider it a stunt. What is it that makes what she is doing a stunt? Note that I asked a number of questions rather than presuming anything about what Bram intended. I don’t presume any particular malice on his part towards Mrs Sheehan. Re: ‘Since what she’s doing is a ‘stunt’, and blogging is a ‘stunt’, therefore what I’m doing and what she’s doing are the same? Are you really serious?’ I didn’t actually say that, but I think an argument can be made for it. Hell, I think every press conference could be considered a stunt. Remember the Schiavo case? Plenty of stunts there, I’d say. It all depends on what is meant by a stunt. That is why I was wondering what Bram meant by his use of the word. It was really meant to promote discussion, not to present a complete and defended opinion piece. Re: ‘Mrs. Sheehan is camped outside Bush’s ranch calling him a murderer, blaming him personally for her son’s death.’ Technically Bush has the ultimate responsibility for sending him to iraq. He died there. Murderer is a bit of hyperbole to my mind, but Bush ought to be able to take responsibility for the ideas that he sent him there and he was killed. The great leaders could handle that reality. I presume everyone knows what really happens in a war. Mrs. Sheehan has more personal experience with that reality than I or many others do. I’ve not read the Krugman piece, so I can’t comment. But I bet he gets some pretty interesting email. Mrs Sheehan is entitled to her opinion and to her choice of how to present it. I appreciate her point but things have gotten beyond that now. I don’t think the excess publicity serves her well, personally. I don’t know how much of it is her doing, how much of it is the doing of people who are hopping on board the publicity train that has been created and how much of it is the feeding frenzy that is ‘news’ coverage.

  8. What a mess.. Well I don’t know much about the US military, but if this guy felt so strongly that what he was being asked to do was wrong, could he have quit the army or asked to be reassigned elsewhere? Just wondering….