Is That Legal?

That's the first time I've ever heard her [forced to] address the issue directly.

Yeah, Brad's got stones like that.

Malkin answers her critics here:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003955.htm

I haven't heard the show or read a transcript, but I have to agree with Malkin on this. Bringing up gossip about who "really" writes her columns is ad hominem.

I would argue that the use of the word "liberal" has become an ad hominem attack on anyone who is not a card-carrying (oops, another slur) conservative (whatever that means, these days). Sadly, Mrs. Malkin believes she has some sort of right to never be made the slightest bit uncomfortable when she goes on talkradio... that the hosts are there to lob softballs about the topic of her book and let her vent. If you heard the segment (I'll get it up on our website, fmtalk1011.com by tomorrow.... it was not 1/10th as confrontational or ugly as when a Hannity or O'Reilly badgers, berates, and interrupts a guest. It's just that the rules of engagement apparently are different with the central-casting conservatives who never are supposed to challenged on their central point that overshadows all others: Conservatives Good... Liberals Evil.

Malkin barely bristled when I politely asked her about the rumors floating around the net... I did not personally accuse her of not writing her own material. She handled it with class, I thought at the time. To then see her explode playing the victimhood card in print two days later is sad... especially when she's promoted her book by reading the vile, racist hatemail she's received over the years, gleefully using it to "prove" her point that nearly all liberals feel vicious, racial hate for her.

Anyone who's listened to our show knows we whack Dems as well as Repubs. Ask Mike Easley, Gov. of NC. Or John Edwards, who refuses to come on the show because he thinks I'm a flaming righty who'll sandbag him.

She concedes the point in her blog post:

Sure, Jesse and I collaborate on our writing... But do you have any IDEA HOW EVIL LIBERALS CAN BE?

Forgetting Malkin for the moment, I would argue that honest political discussion begins with accurate definitions.

If the term "liberal" has become an epithet, then that is because the majority of the American people reject its agenda of tax and spend and regulate.

What this country desperately needs is real political discourse by people who possess a political philosophy and are not afraid to be "labeled." Clearly, seat-of-the-pants pragmatism isn't working too well as a basis for policy.

I'll be looking forward to reading or hearing the exchange at the radio station's website.

For the record, I'm a (small l) libertarian or classical liberal.

Just listened to the audio clip, I agree that there is no "insult" there. Malkin should be smarter than to accuse the radio host of something so easily checked.

Dear Grant,

Have you ever had any training whatsoever in logic?

(this is a pointed question, and aggressive, it implies that you have NOT had training in logic, based on your attribution of ad hominem to the question to Malkin, it is not based on you as a person, but on your expertise, therefore asking the question is not an attack on you, but goes to your credibility. Asking Malkin a question about rumors concerning her writing, rumors that some provide evidence and speculation about is not an ad hominem attack, it is an aggressive question, and the rumors themselves may possibly be insulting, but it is not an attack on her. This coming from a woman who trafficked in speculation that John Kerry shot himself, my goodness, and I'm not saying two wrongs make a right I'm saying questions may be legit or illegit, but asking a known liar about possible lies is not an attack). I mean is asking a pedophile about possible pedophilia ad hominem?)

End parenthesis.

Dear Pinko,

Will you someday learn to read English? When you do try reading my comment made today at 1:36 PM.

End comments on this subject.

Grant,
It's not an ad hominem attack, unless you believe Malkin as she sets the terms (quite an adept move, by the way) in the way she wants them to be framed, not in the way they actually have been framed. (It is obviously true, though, that some people have resorted to name-calling in discussing the issue; that's not acceptable, clearly, but Malkin acts as if that's the only issue, and it's not.)

The problem is not that her husband is writing some of her posts; in the blogosphere, certainly, plenty of people write under assumed and often obviously false names.

The problem is the issue of misrepresentation. Malkin is, obviously, an Asian woman. Her husband is a white man. A racist, inaccurate screed hailing the internment of Asians during WWII is far more politically acceptable when written by an Asian woman than it would be if written by a white man. It's the same reason the anti-affirmative action forces use minorities as spokesmen, or, even better - it's like that Seinfeld episode where Seinfeld worries that his dentist is just Jewish for the anti-Semitic jokes that society deems acceptable only when told by Jews.

Brad is as honest as the day is long. In fact, he's the most honest person on radio today. I heard the interview and thought he did a fine job with Michelle Malkin (whom I have nothing against and occasionally agree with). I was completely unaware of the rumor/urban myth/whatever it is that her hubby writes her material (sort of like a latter day conservative Sir Francis Bacon or Rob Petrie). She did not sound ruffled in the least...maybe a tad annoyed but nothing more. Then, you read her screed on her weblog and you'd think Krantz accused her outright. I lost a good measure of respect for Ms. Malkin. She can dish it out but methinks the lady has a glass jaw.

Dear Grant,

Why did you need to hear the clip to determine whether it was ad hominem or not? Reagardless of how the question was posed (the tone, etc.) it's whether the content of the question could be considered an attack, and frankly your initial dismissal using the phrase was galling. Your subsequent reversal suggests you weren't quite sure of what you meant by ad hominem, as the clip and the description of the clip do not seem that different. I'm going to have to agree with myself, and thus disagree with you, and as I have refuted your assertion of my lack of English reading comprehension...I'll leave the rest of my thoughts unsaid.

Has anyone ever asked her if she'd ever heard of the "Oriental Exclusion Act of 1907"?

We shouldn't be too hard on Malkin. It could have been her husband who wrote the blog.

Can anyone explain why someone who makes "The Case for Internment" should be taken seriously?

Grant,
Don't forget your headgear when they strap you into your seat on the short yellow bus tomorrow.
You freaking moron.

She is a lady who truely embodies IOKIYAR.

Ad hominem? Do you know what it means? Bringing up something about her sexual preferences, bringing up something about a fight she had with her husband, bringing up something about her relationship with her family--those are ad hominem. The woman is a writer--that's her profession, that's what she's on the show to promote. Bringing up a question about who writes her blog is in no way ad hominem. Get a dictionary.

"We shouldn't be too hard on Malkin. It could have been her husband who wrote the blog."

Pwned!

Is Michelle Malkin just a convenient vehicle (Asian) for the hard-right pro-Israeli Likudnik and/or Zionist movement? Curiously the name Malkin, if spelled correctly as 'Malchin', is a Jewish name....and Michelle to this name from her husband Jesse. If Jesse turns out to be a ghost writer on Michelles blog, I'd like to know what is Jesse Malchin (or Malkin?) religious and political background? Because it seems that everything that has come out of Mrs. Malkin's blog or mouth leans towards a stance that is rabbidly pro-Israeli and pro-Zionism. All Arabs are evil...internment camps for all 'Arab terrorists'....if you're against the Iraqi war you're liberal...if you're a liberal you're a terrorist....etc. This all seems to fit the radical Zionists position. It would sure be interesting learn more about Jesse Malchin. Is Michelle just Jesse's useful idiot?

I'd like to know!

This guy sounds like someone who should be syndicated. I wouldn't mind having some talk radio here (Philadelphia) that isn't Limbaugh or Hannity.

Malkin on her blog, at least in the posts linked here, does not even come close to saying "that her husband is writing some of her posts" or that she and her husband "collaborate on our writing", as two of your comments have it. If the lamebrains who thought that was a fair paraphrase of what she said stand by their canards, let them cite to something that vaguely supports the assertions.

Learn to read, creeps, before insulting your betters.

Having lived in GBO for a number of years and suffered through Brad on the local radio I cewrtainly would not classify him as liberal. I don't think he's conservative either. He is always trying to be provacative (or just plain rude) - but that's what the f#ck he's paid to do! That's pretty much what annoys me about talk-radio in general though....

Having just listened to the clip it seems that Michele was very clever in the way that she used the question to go into a sales pitch for her book.

She didn't answer the question, which was fairly asked, and just cruised right into her talking points that sickos call her a gook and thus all liberals are racist, disgusting etc etc.

I don't really believe that Michele or her husband believe half of what they write (any more than I believe that Bill O'Reilly or Ann Coulter believe their own rhetoric). All of them are court jesters, raking in the bucks by appealing to the lowest cultural common denominator.

So Malkin was "glad" the question was asked, yet wrote "During one of countless book-related radio interviews this week, a liberal radio host insultingly asked me whether I write my own column"?

Perfectly understandable. Clearly the quoted comment was written by Michelle's husband. :)

She ended with:

"If you have a problem with my work and what I stand for, go ahead and take me on. Keep calling me whatever four-letter-word makes you feel better when you can't win your arguments."

It would be nice if she allowed comments.

Just glancing through her response, (I don't want to waste more than 30 seconds on that race traitor*) but it sounds like a non-denial denial. Does he write your frickin' blog or not lady?

And I don't know if the white folks know it or not, but you can't simply clump all Asians into the same damned food basket. Chinese are different than Japanese, etc. When you say an "Asian woman writing how great the internment of Asians" were, it's really not the same as "a Filipino writing how great the internment of Japanese Americans was."

After WWII, many Chinese, Filipinos and others subjected to the imperialism of the Japanese empire hated the Japanese and in an utterly racist transference, Japanese Americans too. That a Filipina would write a racist screed that not only imprisoned 110,000 Americans of Japanese Americans AND TOOK THEIR LAND AND POSSESIONS is nothing more than racism.

So, Malkin is nothing more than someone who wrote a racist book because she is a racist. That she is yellow and Filipina doesn't matter. Get it?

*I can say that because I'm colored

Oh shit, that happened in greensboro? I would have stood in front of the building just to egg her or something as she came out!