Thursday, August 10, 2006

Whatta Day

I've got a conference call with work in an hour and I'm signed up to put in at least an hour's overtime, though I intend to do more than that, and I haven't showered yet and I slept too late and I wanted to get in some time with the weights in the workout room today but that's looking most unlikely, and my dear boyfriend is doing his part to pick up the slack by hitting the bank and the grocery store and offering to grill us some steaks tonight--thank goodness I didn't auction him off after all!--but still, did it have to be today? Did it have to be today that Michelle Malkin went after one of my bestest internet friends? Over (naturally) something I'm not sure she even read?

Thank goodness Helen is pseudonymous, because she's already received her first death threat from a Malkinite. This is getting to be kind of a THING with Malkin, isn't it? If any of my readers ever threatened to whack somebody I would hide my head in shame and write no more forever. Luckily for me, my readers are smarter, better-looking, and vastly more civilized than Malkin's.

Anyway I intend to have more about this later, time permitting (which so far, it isn't). I'll just throw this out there as a sorta-bleg to any of the right-leaning readers, all 3 of you whom I haven't quite driven off yet (nor do I want to! That was a joke!):

You remember about 2001-2002, maybe 2003 even, there was an argument made by bloggers and some members of the right punditocracy that went something like this:

"The peace protestors and those who want to try Osama bin Laden in the International Criminal Court have got the wrong strategy; we need to take the war to Al Qaeda in order to preserve our freedoms at home. A purely defensive/criminal approach would require us to surrender more of our domestic and civil liberties than we as Americans would be comfortable with."

I know some of the lefties are going "Get the fuck out! They said that? Really? Oh, the irony," and hey, I agree--but no, really, that was one of the arguments. I swear! Take the war over THERE; prevent total lockdown HERE. Anyway, if someone could find me a post saying as much, I would be neverendingly grateful.

Incidentally, a big "Thanks a lot, pal," to Andrew Sullivan, for making it so you can't read his archives 'cept by the Google cache if they're before January 2006. Wasn't I just complaining about this sort of thing?

UPDATE: Longtime readers will recall that I am never in favor of wingnuts going after Helen. Quite apart from my being very fond of her personally, here's why: I respect the difference between personal and political blogs, especially when a blog's leaning one way or the other is as clearly demarcated as this:

The way I figure it is-I know my view on modern events and media, culture, religion and politics. I am happy to talk about them, but I don't see why debating it on my blog will change anything. Now, get us a bottle of single malt whiskey and a Friday evening chat, and I'm in.

Helen writes about Helen. That's what her readers appreciate, that's what her readers go to read; not moonbattery, wingnuttia, or any other stupid reductionist nonsense about which side Hates Our Freedoms more. Helen's blog is a refuge from all that noise, and like any other sanctuary, virtual or physical, I favor protecting it as such.

I am not surprised Michelle Malkin is too wrapped up in her with-us-or-against-us babbling to note the difference between a personal blog and a political one; only disgusted.

UPDATE II: Ryan worries how the Heathrow bomb plot might affect his flight to Baltimore Sunday. To Ryan I ask, in true patriot Malkin fashion, only this: Why do you hate America? (P.S. Quit whining, moonbat!)

UPDATE III: Hear-freakin'-HEAR:

I too am appalled by the idea that I would have to trust my cellphone, ipod, and laptop to the honesty of baggage handlers; that my nieces and nephew wouldn't be allowed crayons or snacks on a long, boring flight; that I can have my contact lenses, but not the solution I need to put them in my eyeballs; that racial profiling is a cheap shortcut in the battle against terror.

That Malkin calls such honest sadness "whining" and "moonbattery" is beyond me.

Ah, but subtlety has long been lost on the hacks of this world. Brava, Caltechgirl!

UPDATE IV: More, from Beth Donovan, aka She Who Must Be Obeyed:

Now, I may not agree with everything that Helen says(mostly her feelings about Lebanon and Blair), but I do agree with her so far as her sadness that travel has become so difficult because of evil. As a frequent traveler, I am not thrilled that the next time I go to the UK, I can't carry on my laptop, my books, my water or my mp3 player. Like Helen, I am concerned about my belongings making it to the other end without being stolen.

But Helen has every damn right to write what she feels. And she is reasonable and sane in her post.

Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, is very unreasonable these days. She has jumped the shark, as far as I am concerned.

Which is weird, because you'd think, after seeing what happened to Coulter, she might learn a thing or two about inflammatory rhetoric and mistakes not worth repeating. Then again, maybe not.

And from Cassandra at Villainous Company:

I, too, have to roll my eyes a bit at the sudden hypervigilance that I know all too well won't last. And as little as I like it, I have to admit that Helen asks some very good questions. Questions that we might not like the answers to.

What I always thought was worth saving about America is that it was a place where questions were accepted, even welcomed. But maybe that makes me a moonbat too.

That's it--today, we are all moonbats. And if "moonbat" is now synonymous with "having opinions contra Madame Malkin's," I've been a moonbat for far longer than even I realized.

UPDATE V: Food of the moonbats.


Caltechgirl said...

Grrrrr. This just pissed me off. As you are by now pretty aware....

Since when are only people who agree with La Malkin allowed to live?

ilyka said...

Mark S., your comment has been shitcanned. If you ever use language of that sort again to describe ANY woman on my blog, EVER, you're going back on the auction block.

ilyka said...

Since when are only people who agree with La Malkin allowed to live?

Remember when she delinked Michele Catalano for disagreeing with her about teenagers & cutting? Oh, good times, good times.

Caltechgirl said...

ah yes. Those were the good old days. Not. I had forgotten about that.

ilyka said...

In a way, they WERE the good old days. She just delinked her instead of calling her "sad" and a "moonbat."

Susan B. said...

Wow...Malkin's take on Helen's post is downright bizarre. I didn't see anything "moonbatty" in the post. I'm sorry that Helen had to deal with a bunch of crazies bothering her.

I've been thinking for a while that Malkin is getting a little big for her britches. I've found that I just don't read her that much anymore. I just did a little pruning on my blogroll to drop a few blogs that are either defunct of that I just don't read anymore. Malkin's blog was the only "big" blog I linked. I just delinked it because, as someone said, she's jumped the shark.

BTW, I must have missed the dustup between her and Michele Catalano.

Chris Clarke said...

It's strange. I'm as much a moonbat as they come, and I am the furthest thing from a pseudonymous blogger: a dead, brainless sloth wouldn't take more than five minutes to locate me in the real world, and I'm snarky and rude and unnecessarily incendiary.

But I've gotten not one death threat, other than a stupid one in comments mentioning my dog. Not one harassment email or... well, anything.

I think there's something about trying to frighten women or expose the pseudonymous that just trips some peoples' triggers. And a pseudonymous woman offers the best of both worlds.

ilyka said...

BTW, I must have missed the dustup between her and Michele Catalano.

A Small Victory's archives are also no more, but I wrote about it somewhere, I think. Wait! Here.

Huh, I just re-read it, and you know something? She was hacky and make-everything-fit-the-formula back THEN.

How things change! Except when they don't.

ilyka said...

I think there's something about trying to frighten women or expose the pseudonymous that just trips some peoples' triggers. And a pseudonymous woman offers the best of both worlds.

The irony is that the women I know who are pseudonymous mostly choose that route to avoid retribution from the very same people who have those triggers.

And that's what pissing the trigger-happy off, really: That they can't "do something" to exact offline retribution. I just don't understand why someone would want to. Is it that important?

Some days I want to put up Post-Its all over the internet: "YOUR MACHINE HAS AN OFF SWITCH, ASSHOLE. USE IT WELL."

Malibu Stacy said...

I quit reading Malkin when I started hearing the voice of Margaret Hamilton in the back of my head screeching, "Fly, my pretties! Fly!"

Man, those monkeys still creep me out.

Beth Donovan said...

I have to agree with Malibu Stacy - Michelle Malkin's skin is turning green, unfortunately.

I really do want her to apologize to Helen for what she did.

Susan B. said...


Now I remember all that. I didn't know Malkin delinked A Small Victory over that. So she has to totally agree with every word someone writes to link them? If that were the case, I'd have to delink everybody.

Susan B. said...

One more thing, just for the record...

I went over to Helen's site and read her latest post. Apparently it was someone named "Susan" who ratted her out to Malkin. Just so you know, it was not me. I've never emailed Malkin about anything and I have nothing against Helen. I know we had a little argument in your comments a while back, but that was a pretty minor thing and it's water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned.

ilyka said...

Oh, Susan, I didn't really think you were THAT Susan. I kind of suspect THAT Susan spells his name using a different set of 5 letters altogether.

Pixy Misa said...

Aargh, what a mess. I don't think Michelle bothered to read Helen's post at all, and if you're going to snark at someone, reading what you're snarking about is pretty basic courtesy.

Thanks Ilyka and everyone for kicking this one back over the fence.

Oh, and if you ever want to come back munu-way, you're always welcome. I've got some new servers and new blogging goodies coming along. As for the munu vibe, well, I didn't set out to build a conservative enclave over there. But as long as you're blogging and happy, it's all good. :)

Craig R. said...

Malkin is still on my blog roll, for the same reazon that I recommend everybody who wants to figure out what the crazies are up-and-about with to read Mein Kampf, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, The Turner Diaries and the text of The Contract with America.

One should know their adversaries, either through their own words or filtered through what your adversaries try to claim are your own words -- either actual or made up from whole cloth (as in the Protocols)

As for the present manic scurrying about gels/liquids -- someone noticed that at one largish airport, someone from airport services was being "helpful" and set up trash bins into which one could empty their liquids -- to mix with all the other liquids that had been emptied.

This was because of the fear that someone would be taking two materials that could be mixed and cause a "boom" noise in the airplane...

As for duration -- I think the ban on hand luggage the brits have imposed will last only long enough for Somebody Who Knows Somebody In The Government has their laptop stolen or trashed in checked baggage.

But then, I'm a Cynical Liberal

belledame222 said...

>Some days I want to put up Post-Its all over the internet: "YOUR MACHINE HAS AN OFF SWITCH, ASSHOLE. USE IT WELL."

Right on.