Why the hell would The New Yorker want to write a profile of Michelle Malkin?

(Updated below)

Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin is pretty much the slime of the blogosphere, right up there with Perez Hilton. And I’m not just saying this just because of her political views, which are often nasty. Some of her blog posts, especially the ones that have lots of updates, are almost completely unreadable. She doesn’t comprehend that to understand the update we have to know what the post is about — she throws them in haphazardly and then sprinkles the post with links without giving indication of where they’re leading. I am utterly perplexed as to how she has become a popular blogger and can only conclude that she benefits from her frequent appearances in mainstream media outlets like Fox and the echo-chamber quality of the conservative blogosphere.

Given this, I’m seriously confused as to why possibly the best magazine publishing today, The New Yorker, wanted to write a profile on her. Granted, I don’t doubt for a second that the magazine would have taken plenty of swipes at her — possibly even shredding her to bits — but why even give her the satisfaction of devoting 10,000 words about her so that she can go run to her fellow bloggers and whine about her unfair treatment. Here’s an email exchange between her and staff writer Rebecca Mead:

Dear Michelle Malkin,

I’m a staff writer at the New Yorker, and I’m eager to write a profile of you for the magazine. I’ve been reading and watching with interest your commentary on the election, and — particularly with McCain rising — I think this could be a great time to look at your work and career and influence. I’d hope to come and spend some time talking with you, and watching you do what you do. Is there a number at which I could reach you to talk about this further? You can email me at this address or call me at [redacted].

Looking forward to speaking with you,

Rebecca Mead

*

Dear Patricia Jackson,

I’m a staff writer at the New Yorker and am trying to get in touch with Michelle Malkin, with a view to writing a profile of her for the magazine. Can you let me know the best way to reach her, or put me in touch with her?

Thanks,

Rebecca Mead
[phone number redacted]

*

I’ve got a mssg from Rebecca Mead of the New Yorker looking for your # — is there one I should give her?

– Mark Cunningham
Oped editor
NYPost
[phone number redacted]

*

Dear Michelle Malkin,

I am the editor of The New Yorker magazine, and I believe that you have
received some sort of contact from our office, but I just wanted to assure
you that our desire to write about you is serious and genuine. I can be
reached through email above or [phone number redacted].

Best regards,
David Remnick

*

On 2/16/08, Michelle Malkin wrote:

Thanks.

*

Dear Ms. Malkin, “Thanks…” but can we talk? I am at home at [phone number redacted]. Best, David Remnick

*

Dear Mr. Remnick,

Again, thank you for your reassurance that your magazine’s “desire to write about” my work “is serious and genuine.” I have no doubt that your writer is serious and that your interest in printing some sort of profile for your audience is genuine.

The question is: Toward what end?

No disrespect to you and your august publication (of which my beloved in-laws are longtime subscribers), but I have neither the time nor inclination to sit down with your staff Jane Goodall and serve as an anthropological specimen for The New Yorker’s readership. If I want to play ape for amusement, I’ll do it for my kids.

Best,
Michelle

I find it especially funny that she tries to take swipes at Mead, even though she’s not half the journalist Mead is. It’s because she knows that Mead will actually ask her hard questions, unlike the folks who wrote a puff profile piece about her at The Baltimore Sun.

Oh well, it’s not like this should actually cause Mead to abandon writing a profile — she can just do a write-around. This would be great because write-arounds are often much more harsh and blunt on the profile subject.

UPDATE: Note to Michelle Malkin. If you put quotes around a word, for instance, the word “scoop,” it’s usually a good idea to make sure that the person you’re targeting actually said the word. Otherwise it pretty much ruins the entire premise of your blog post. I find it also funny that she insinuates that I was “ripping off emails” by posting them and not providing a link. I find this funny because I found out about those emails through this post where she heavily block quotes a Politico story while expressly refusing to link to it. Better luck next time.

UPDATE 2: Below you’ll find a screen shot of what Malkin would call “blogging.” Yes, that’s the subject line of her blog post. No, Malkin doesn’t understand the basic concept of readability.

michelle malkin blog post

137 Comments

  1. darleene Says:

    Why *wouldn’t* the New Yorker want to write a profile about Michelle Malkin? I think her career and rise to influence is a fascinating story. Then again, I find anyone’s career journey, especially in journalism, regardless of their opinions or beliefs, is a fascinating story. You have to, at the very least, respect someone who’s been able to get past her address being posted online.

  2. dave Says:

    Malkin rocks. Just because she is not off the leftist deep-end does not make her a bad person. Agree or disagree with her views, at least she is not wasting her life engulfed with vapid celebrity sightings.

  3. Simon Says:

    I must admit, I’d probably enjoy reading the piece, especially since I doubt that Mead will cut her any slack. But still, it just seems that Malkin has reached that level of hatred that she isn’t worth such an exhaustive process as a New Yorker profile — which is basically a miniature book.

  4. Simon Says:

    “Just because she is not off the leftist deep-end does not make her a bad person.”

    You’re absolutely right. What makes her a bad person is she’s a racist hysteric ideologue who will stop at nothing to drag her opponents through the mud often at the expense of actual facts — and then once she’s formed a noose for herself she spins her way into oblivion by backtracking on just about every incorrect claim she had made.

  5. Tommy Says:

    I believe that e-mail exchange is a hoax. But who cares: fake but true, right?

  6. Malcom Courtland Says:

    We need this fact-based article. Here’s why and why Mrs. Malkin will never cooperate.

    Mrs. Malkin individually is sad and increasingly irrelevant. What is fascinating is how she rose to such heights and how so many people found her commentary of value and note. What chord is she striking, or more accurately struck in the past, that propelled her into national conversation.

    She rose and fell — ironically the fall (if being banned from Fox can be considered a fall) came from her stalking the Frost family (SCHIP controvery) — and there’s a lot to be learned from that experience. She seems to be the latest in a long string of media hate-mongerers, starting Father Coughlin. They come and go but leave great damage.

    Her bank account is based on feeding prejudice, fear, anger and anxiety.
    Saint Augustine once said that in the case of some individuals, an intellect may be capable of forming an objection without being capable of understanding the argument that meets that objection.

    The article will likely focus on both her journalistic history (fascinating and odious) and the forces that made her and broke her.

    Can you blame the lady? If this bubble is completely shattered how will she generate enough web-ad revenues to pay private school tuition and fund her lifestyle?

    Go to youtube and watch Chris Matthews interview her about the Swift Boat controversy. You see what a person of her ilk does when confronted with truth. Same thing she is doing now — running.

  7. jbenson2 Says:

    Michelle’s blog pulls in hundreds, probably thousands of viewers for each one you attract with your perverted sense of marketing.

    “the best magazine publishing today, The New Yorker”

    On what planet?

  8. harvester Says:

    Malcom Courtland said
    She rose and fell — ironically the fall (if being banned from Fox can be considered a fall) came from her stalking the Frost family (SCHIP controvery) — and there’s a lot to be learned from that experience

    Get your facts straight moron. She was not banned from Fox, she left on here own accord due to an uncomfortable and threatening situation with Geraldo. She did not stalk the Frost family she drove by their house to see if the truth was being told and turned out it was not. Schmucks

  9. harvester Says:

    Scoop? where did you get the scoop Mr. Simon Plagiaser. Oh let me tell you if you don’t remember it was Michelles blog on March 9 , over a month ago. Wow what a scoop! Crapweasel

  10. Johnny Says:

    Soooo, she is the “slime of the blogosphere” because you don’t like her grammer and sentence structure? Did you go to school for this uncanny skill of coming to logical and reasonable conclusions, or is it natural?

  11. Armand Says:

    “Conservative blogger Michelle Malkin is pretty much the slime of the blogosphere, right up there with Perez Hilton.”

    If Michelle is slime then what the hell are you? And exactly how long will it take for you to crawl up high to kiss her feet?

  12. Jimbo Says:

    You can just see the anger of this dude in the photo, which is his good side, no doubt.

    Bloggasm. Jackasm.

  13. JW Says:

    It’s quite obvious that most of the few people who posted here hate Mrs. Malkin, and I suppose that is their right. However, their comments seem to be based on assumptions and lies. She is not a racist (though many who dislike her resort to using racist insults against her), she was not banned from Fox News, and she most certainly did not stalk the Frost family.
    If you took the time to read some of her posts and communicate with some of her commenters you would see that there is actually very little prejudice, fear, anger and anxiety there.
    And this is interesting, “I believe that e-mail exchange is a hoax. But who cares: fake but true, right?” Why in the world would Michelle Malkin want to make up an email exchange with The New Yorker?
    As for Mr. Owens opinion of Malkin’s site… if you don’t like the style, you clearly don’t have to go there. I have no problem reading and understanding the posts and the links. Most of the readers at MM don’t need the purpose of the links spelled out for us; we are perfectly capable of following them all by ourselves. As for the updated posts, they have never confused me. You start with the main post and then read the updates in order… it’s not too difficult a concept. The headlines don’t always get a list of updates like the example shown, but it makes sense to me as a way to show that the article has been updated.
    It seems pretty clear that Mr. Owens has a hatred for Michelle Malkin that is entirely separate of her writing style. And because he hates her, he attacks her writing with unfounded insults.

    [It's too bad poor, ignorant Michelle will never reach the heights of a Simon Owens!]

  14. Benson Says:

    “You’re absolutely right. What makes her a bad person is she’s a racist hysteric ideologue who will stop at nothing to drag her opponents through the mud often at the expense of actual facts….”

    She’s racist, too? Amazing. Who is she racist against, Mr. Owens? Lemme guess: Hispanics, because she opposes awarding people who entered the country illegally.

    “She rose and fell — ironically the fall (if being banned from Fox can be considered a fall)”

    She was banned from Fox News? Funny. I thought she had decided not to go on O’Reilly after Geraldo Rivera said he’d spit on her, but she still appeared as a commentator for other shows.

    I must’ve missed this month’s edition of Moonbat Monthly.

    “the best magazine publishing today, The New Yorker”

    Yes, especially with crack reporter Seymour Hersh.

    2005: The U.S. is scouting for attack locations in Iran.
    06: We’ll be attacking Iran!

    2-3 years later, we’re still waiting his predictions to come to fruition.

  15. JW Says:

    “UPDATE: Note to Michelle Malkin. If you put quotes around a word, for instance, the word “scoop”, it’s usually a good idea to make sure that the person you’re targeting actually said the word. Otherwise it pretty much ruins the entire premise of your blog post.”
    —-

    I’m pretty sure her annoyance was with the fact that WaPo writer Howard Kurtz made it sound as though Owens had a scoop.

  16. prez Says:

    Congrats bloggasm you’ve just shown the world your premature ejaculation of a blog, and like most other experiences of similar irrational brevity….we won’t wish return either.

  17. Enlightened Says:

    Note to dumbgasm: It’s called a Sneer Quote. She wasn’t quoting you, dipwad, she was sneering at you, ie: you reported a story (Scoop) that was already reported a month ago on her very own site, something you did not bother to LINK to.

    Note to dumbgasm: You do know that once something is published, on another blog, ie: Malkin’s blog, you must LINK to it, if you use it on your blog??? Hence the sarcastic “scoop”.

    She was insulting your reporting skills by calling you Scoop – note the Upper case S, the word used as a noun, italisized to mean sarcasm. You get that right?

    You have a very long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long, long,long,long,long, long,long,long,long,long,long,long,long
    long,long,long,long,long,long,long,long,long,long,long,long,long
    long,long,long, long,long,long,long……….way to go.

    Learn the basics first – foundation is always a good thing.

  18. Bobby Says:

    That headline is easy enough to follow… maybe you’re dyslexic; you should get that checked out.

  19. Bill Says:

    Update
    find it also funny that she insinuates that I was “ripping off emails” by posting them and not providing a link. I find this funny because I found out about those emails through this post where she heavily block quotes a Politico story while expressly refusing to link to it.

    Michelle Malkin.Com
    The Politico is touting an article about an academic paper written by Barack Obama’s father (currently featured on the front page of the website with a big photo–no need to link, I’ll let you look it up yourselves), but the Politico article is more interesting for what it omits than what it includes.

    Simon Owens you really are a lousy journalist, the story you speak of was on the Politico site, there was no need to link it when you could have seen it on the front page with a large photo.

    You on the other hand could be thought of as not a blogger or journalist but a phenominal cut and paster, congradulations you learned how to copy and paste, now maybe you can work on learning to use MSpaint.

  20. Simon Says:

    re: enlightened

    The reason I didn’t link to the post was because I found it through a post of hers where she block-quoted a politico story but refused to link to it.

  21. yo Says:

    They wanted to write about her for the same reason you do. It’s the only way you can get readers. Like al franken.

  22. Enlightened Says:

    Simon – Nice try, no cigar on the Politico story. You didn’t read it obviously, otherwise you would know why she did not link to Politico in that post, and she published the e-mails you cite here even prior to that post you are refering to.

    Son, you need to use a bit more due diligence before you take on such a worthy task as trying to be the 1 Millionth blogger to bash Michelle Malkin.

  23. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Cripes – the Malkin clown car has arrived. The collective IQ of this blog page just dropped 50%.

    Being crap at spelling myself, I generally avoid spelling flames, but good God – read the comments left by Our Lady of The Concentration Camp’s followers.

    Astounding. Truly.

  24. Michael Says:

    One of these days, the liberals will understand they offer little way too loudly. STFU

  25. Enlightened Says:

    Let me do some of your work for you -

    “(currently featured on the front page of the website with a big photo–no need to link, I’ll let you look it up yourselves),”

    Did you miss that in the post you say you are using to defend your internet naivete’ re: links? It’s pretty damn self explanatory, not to mention she also links to her previous post about the e-mails you are waxing poetic about today-

    Not a very good example of post-envy-in-hopes-of-getting-more-hits-on-my-site.

  26. Simon Says:

    Re: englightened

    I don’t care what her reasoning was, I find it silly when people critique and post blockquotes without linking them, something I’ve criticized here. In fact this post is the first time I’ve ever done so in my life and I did so expressly because of that post about Politico (hence why I was able to find it so quickly, otherwise I would have forgotten all about it). As for her posting prior to that, that’s irrelevant because that’s not how I found them, I found them through the post about Politico.

  27. Enlightened Says:

    “As for her posting prior to that, that’s irrelevant because that’s not how I found them, I found them through the post about Politico.”

    Ok, so you are just stupid then. The POLITCO post you refer to has a LINK to those e-mails you moron. That post was April 15th. Today is April 22nd. Figure that one out on your own.

  28. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Wow. Just the other day Malkin got booted off Cafe Press for copyright ‘problems’ – selling shirts featuring an image she didn’t have the rights to.

    Now, she’s bitching about someone quoting her idiotic blog?

  29. Yiddish Steel Says:

    “You’re absolutely right. What makes her a bad person is she’s a racist hysteric ideologue who will stop at nothing to drag her opponents through the mud often at the expense of actual facts — and then once she’s formed a noose for herself she spins her way into oblivion by backtracking on just about every incorrect claim she had made.”

    Dunce! How about backing up your claims of racism and factual embellishment with some examples; maybe just one, Simon? That’s why you Libs are the butt of the one-liner in the blogsphere.

  30. Al-Ozarka Says:

    Michelle Malkin is a welcome voice to the blogosphere for all except those so bitterly entrenched in the leftist Hate-America movement.

    Though not by any means perfect, she brings focus to some issues that the leftist Hate-America media try very hard to smother.

    To the writer of this piece:

    Dude! Do you realize how stupid you look and sound to those who love this, the greatest nation on Earth?

    Originality, Dude…that’s what she has and you lack. You pilfered e-mails prove it.

  31. Sal Says:

    Is it any surprise that Malkin’s minions show up and start hurling insults? It’s a perfect reflection of the discourse she hosts on her blog. On any given day, you can wade through the muck to find racist, anti-Catholic, homophobic comments, including that any smart white person should fear Africans. The idea that her blog holds higher standards because she doesn’t allow profanity is laughable.

    And don’t let her fool you. She may pontificate about immigration reform but in private, she hopes it’ll never come to pass because she’d lose her shtick.

  32. JW Says:

    “Moonbats-R-Us said,
    April 22, 2008 @ 2:32 pm

    Cripes – the Malkin clown car has arrived. The collective IQ of this blog page just dropped 50%.”
    —–

    I find it fascinating the way Owens and his fans are so quick to dismiss Michelle Malkin and everyone who likes her blog as idiots. Thank you for your open-minded views.

  33. Dimsdale Says:

    This column reminds me of acquaintances that say all sorts of things about people like Limbaugh. They call him a bigot etc. and other ad hominem attacks. When asked exactly what he said to inspire this criticism, the typical response is “I don’t listen to him.”

    This sounds like what Mr. Owens is doing. I have gone to Ms. Malkin’s site on several occasions, and have had no difficulty whatsoever in following her thoughts or links.

    Is it possible that you are blinded by some preconceived notions, Mr. Owens? If she backs up her statements, then she is free to write as she pleases. Your diatribe lacks some of the qualities that earn Ms. Malkin sufficient interest to garner a request for an interview by the New Yorker.

    When were you last asked to be profiled, Mr. Owen?

    If you feel so strongly, sign up for posting privileges on her web page and defend your points. I am sure you will generate some lively conversation. I look forward to seeing how well you do.

  34. Rob in NH Says:

    Moonbats-R-Us, care to provide a link to the story of Ms. Malkin getting the boot from Cafe Press for ‘copyright problems’? Becaused as I underdstand it Cafe Press didn’t want to offer her wares because the wares were anti-Obama and Cafe Press perhaps is in the Obama Camp?? In fact, the wares are now available at http://www.zazzle.com/snob_t_shirt-235785752956751854 so so much for your copyright ‘problems’ You liberals simply throw crap to see what sticks with ZERO credibility.

  35. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Oh, no problem at all.

    Don’t require open-minded views when it comes to Our Lady of The Concentration Camps. It is beyond a doubt that she is a racist RW tool. Only follows that her fans are as well.

  36. Rob in NH Says:

    Moonbat,
    Again, care to provide a source for your views that she is Racist as well as her fans? One source, just one and I’ll put money on it that I can prove it false. Come on, I dare you….

  37. John Says:

    nice linkbait!

  38. Rob in NH Says:

    …come on Moonbat, someone who’s a racist as you say you must have tons of links for you to choose from to prove me wrong…still waiting….

  39. Rob in NH Says:

    Pay attention fellow moonbats. You can say whatever you wish, but if you can’t back it up with facts, you’re a gutless hypocrite.

    …back to work for me. Have people on wlefare to support.

  40. JWF Says:

    Lamest blogpost ever.

    Maybe when Simon grows up, he’ll realize what it takes to be a professional.

  41. Not a Yank Says:

    Simon Owens has that young and smug look. Such twits are delusional . They think too little and write too much and are absorbed in self.

    Leave him to his onanism

  42. Rich Says:

    Moonbats-R-Us said,
    April 22, 2008 @ 2:59 pm

    Oh, no problem at all.

    Don’t require open-minded views when it comes to Our Lady of The Concentration Camps. It is beyond a doubt that she is a racist RW tool. Only follows that her fans are as well.

    C’mon Moon, I thought you people were all about hugs and things.

  43. Damail Says:

    “It is beyond a doubt that she is a racist tool…”

    Bong-gurgling anarchist lie. Par for the course, though. Declare something “is beyond a doubt” and therefore think that you have closed debate. It doesn’t work that way.

    Michelle Malkin exposes the insane hatred that excretes continuously from the radical left. Her book “Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild” is a classic.

  44. publicansRstoopid Says:

    Blah blah blah… more crap about a typical leftist magazine’s desire to spoon-feed a scary bedtime story to their mentally infantile left wing audience. OOOOooooOOooo. Be good boys and girls… or the big bad (albeit petite and pretty) Asian female racist (a term that has come to mean anyone who disagrees with a liberal) will get you.

    BTW – Try that at home, for some real fun!!

    “What honey??? I can’t buy that new motorcycle I’ve been wanting??? You f%^&*($ racist b^%$#!”

    Meanwhile… rewarming a story covered months ago on a blog that a decent amount of people actually DO READ (in a semi-successful ploy to actually get someone to read his own drivel) , is as close as Simon will ever get to a real “gasm” judging by above photo – and the complete lack of wit revealed in his scribblings.

  45. Sal Says:

    Her fans are absolute racists. Just look at the post from yesterday involving the eight year old black boy and the video his parents posted on YouTube. A lot of pro-lifers became pro-choice in that thread.

  46. chaosrainz Says:

    Well as a “blogger” I suppose you’re correct. She doesn’t so much as blog (in what I consider it to mean) as post stories collected from other sources and comment. I read her “blogs” because it’s a convenient place to find interesting stories about things I’m interested in, for better or worse.

  47. D-HOggs Says:

    “but why even give her the satisfaction of devoting 10,000 words about her so that she can go run to her fellow bloggers and whine about her unfair treatment.”

    That’s an interesting and equally idiotic sentiment given the fact that she turned down the interview! Further, you are clearly in need of some remedial reading courses if you can’t follow Michelle’s updates, obviously her readership is just a smidgen more blog savvy then your’s. Apparently they can read too.

    “Just the other day Malkin got booted off Cafe Press for copyright ‘problems’ – selling shirts featuring an image she didn’t have the rights to”

    Complete mischaracterization. The images you are discussing were spoofs of an Obama poster, the same poster that is all over Cafe Press…as long as people are Obama supporters that is! But if you’re not an Obama supporter you are booted off. Any simpleton can see that. Here is the link to the image in question:

    http://www.authenticgop.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=shirts

    Now take a look at all the pro-obama merchandise allowed on cafe press:

    http://www.cafepress.com/buy/obama/-/source_searchBox/x_0/y_0

    Interesting, no? Nice try moonbats-r-us.

  48. D-HOggs Says:

    From the Washington Post:

    “Update: Malkin actually posted those e-mails on her site a month ago! So much for the big scoop.”

    Go figure owens has a problem with reading comprehension, he’s already admitted to not understanding how to read simple updates.

  49. sonofdy Says:

    I love how anyone who dares to disagree with a liberal some how instantly becomes a racist right wing tool. This in itself is a bigoted view and means that if a right winger ever did make a valid point, you would miss it completely, even if it were a point that was agreeing with you. I have found that liberals are NOT ALLOWED to have a view outside of the approved views or thier fellow liberals or they will be labeled as a racist right wing tool, even if they would blow thier own brains out rather than vote for someone with an (R) after thier name. The liberal cause has become one of the most restrictive controled mind sets in history. Liberals live in constant fear of offending anyone, even if the offending comment is true. For example. I make the claim that all illegal immigrants are criminals. This is a true statement since they are all breaking the law by being in this country. Yet I would be considered racist for saying this DISPITE the fact that I did not mention race. Another example. Islam is the most violent religon in the world today. I would be considered racist because I said that. Racist against arabs I guess DISPITE the fact that i again did not mention race, Islam is easily demonstrated to be the most violent religon in the world today, and that most islamic peoples are actualy asian. So call me what you want, just don’t ever call me a close minded, sheep like, bigoted liberal. At least I think for myself.

  50. Frank Lobo Says:

    Moonbat said: “Don’t require open-minded views when it comes to Our Lady of The Concentration Camps. It is beyond a doubt that she is a racist RW tool. Only follows that her fans are as well.”

    Translation: “Oooooh, look at me!!! I am soooo very clever- see, I called Michelle Malkin ‘Our Lady of the Concentration Camps”. Isn’t that funny?!? I’ve only used it again and again because she wrote a book about how a DEMOCRAT president put the Japanese in internment camps. And that’s really funny, since all we moonbats complain about is that eeeeeevil BOOOOOOSH and how he’s taking our rights away!

    Also, I use KosKids lingo like RW and tool – aren’t I funny?!? Why aren’t you laughing? Don’t you see that only people on the right are entitled to thier opinions… if they differ from mine- why, they’re RACISTS!!!”

    This is why there has only been TWO democrats in the white house in over FORTY years… and PLEASE nominate Barry Hussein- with him as the nominee, Old Man McCain will win by a landslide. And I mean Reagan v. Mondale landslide.

    The American people will not trust thier security to an inexperienced, intelectually naive, substantively void empty suit who “talks-good”.

  51. Texas Desert Rat Says:

    Who the hell is Simon Owens?

    Sitemeter on a good day +/- 800

    MM Sitemeter +/- 160,000

    OK

  52. John Smith Says:

    If Simon wasn’t such a sexist he wouldn’t have a problem with a woman getting credit for her work. Obviously Simon has a problem with powerful woman, I only had 3 psych classes in college and it’s obvious even to me.

  53. C.J. Simones Says:

    You’ve got to be kidding. Simon writes a screed to bash MM on the basis that her blog headlines are too hard for him to read and an effete, 2nd-rate magazine wants to do a profile on her, and then the echo-chamber of like-minded nutcases parrot his tantrum with vacuous insults having the intellectual rigor of a potted plant, and this is supposed to pass as some sort of sophisticated dialog. Issue #126 of the Uncanny X-Men is more highbrow than the lot of you, and I can listen to all the whining I want when I get home to my kids tonight.

    Wow, there’s 10 minutes of my life I’ll never get back.

  54. 186 Says:

    Nice try at grabbing your 15 minutes of fame.

  55. zipity Says:

    I find it hilarious that the most close minded, intolerant, in your face, religious zealots to be found these days (next to the Islamo-facists) are the enlightened, uber-tolerant, touchy-feely, diversity loving liberal lefties. How delicious is that? You point out the close association, and lack of disapproval of the left towards the terrorist William Ayers, and they scream “Eric Rudolph, Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols!” One big difference kids, McVeigh was executed, the other two are in jail for the rest of their lives. William Ayers,Bernardine Dohrn? Free and celebrated by the Left. And they wonder why Middle America despises them….Morons.

  56. skysoljr82 Says:

    What a sad little person you are. Too much estrogen therapy for you today? I think so too. And if you disagree with me, you are worse than Hitler. Now go lay down by your dish.

  57. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Wow. The clown car’s back I see. With an angrier set of clowns than before. Should probably point out that Our Lady of The Concentration Camps is also responsible for a book called Unhinged. Somewhat ironic, no?

    And while we’re discussing irony, any of you wingnuts ever read Malkin’s blog? 95% of it is grey block quotes from other sources. Another couple of percent points would be taken up by images that she’s lifted from other people.

    Take today’s offering – think Warner Brothers knows she’s using two of their characters to make a cheap political point? And as you lot aren’t the swiftest tools in the shed, the irony is this – Malkin’s bitching about someone quoting her blog while her entire blog is created piece meal from other folk’s work.

    I’d write about it over at Malkin’s place, but her comments are for registered ditto-head users only. And as one of you tools made reference to group think and Hitler, that would be irony #3.

  58. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    And while we’re at it, Malkin’s links have “nofollow” tags. Translation for the clown car set – she pinches other people’s stuff without even having the courtesy of a Google PR reach around.

    A true charmer that one.

  59. Frank Lobo Says:

    Moonbat translation:

    “Ha! I used TOOLS again! Aren’t I clever?!?
    That really slays ‘em over at Firedoglake and Kos!

    Also, I try not to address any of the actual substance of those who disagree with me- so I’ll just call them some more names and use sexual inuendo.

    That makes me a good, little liberal!”

  60. Rich Says:

    I thought, according to the left, you have to be white to be a racist. So can a non-white liberal be a racist or just non-white conservatives you disagree with?

  61. Tonya Says:

    I know who Michelle is but who the heck is this Simon character???

    Simon, you need to get a life all your own, and fill it with some substance!

    Then you won’t feel so threatened by other successful bloggers.

    Cheers :)

  62. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Frank Lobo

    Why would anyone waste their time addressing what you believe is substance? If you’re a follower of Malkin, the most pressing issues over the last few weeks have been an Absolut Vodka ad, Obama’s lousy bowling, Obama’s favorite lettuce, and whether refusing a cheese steak makes someone the Anti-Christ. You wouldn’t know a substantive issue if it crawled up and bit you on the, ahm, tool.

  63. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Rich sez

    “I thought, according to the left, you have to be white to be a racist. So can a non-white liberal be a racist or just non-white conservatives you disagree with?”

    See, that’s what happens when you try to think. Go back to Malkin’s place – she’ll tell you what to say next.

  64. Frank Lobo Says:

    Moonbat checklist:

    __ Condesending tone/attitude: CHECK
    __ More name calling: CHECK
    __ Hitler/Jesus reference: CHECK
    __ More sexual inuendo: CHECK
    – Couldn’t buy a clue: CHECK

    Congrats, Moon-unit you just took the Gold in the Far-Left-Olympics… now hurry, your hero Keef Olberloon will be on soon with another Specul Komment!

  65. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    We’ve already established what happens when wingnuts try to think for themselves. Thanks to Frank, we can now observe what happens when wingnuts attempt to be funny.

  66. Frank Lobo Says:

    “We’ve already established what happens when wingnuts try to think for themselves. Thanks to Frank, we can now observe what happens when wingnuts attempt to be funny.”

    Just following your lead, Miss…

    I just love how liberals simply brush off other people’s opinions by claiming that they have someone else “tell them what to think” or somehow – because they don’t agree with them – they are brainwashed. Because, as well all know- “free-thinking” libs NEVER get ANY talking points from Media Matters/MoveOn/KosKids/Firedoglake/MSDNC/etc. etc. Whenever a liberal gives an opinion- its just their own. But when a conservative dares to speak- look out! Its all Rush/Malkin/O’Reilly/Hannity robots!

    Then, whenever they are on the losing side of an argument, the name calling and sex stuff (or Hitler) comes out.

    Thanks again, lady- its because of people like you that McCain will win by a L-A-N-D-S-L-I-D-E!!!

    Keep up the good work.

  67. harkin Says:

    Rips off letters from MM’s site with no attribution then rips MM for a justified sneer quote???

    First says he has no idea why the New Yorker would want to profile MM, then says he has no doubts they would have taken swipes at her, possibly even shredding her?

    This tool has all the objectivity of the New Yorker without the flowery prose.

    LOLOLOL

    Welcome to the world of Playskool blogging!

  68. Kata Says:

    It wasn’t Michelle who claimed you got a scoop it was Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post.

    Amazing how you insult Michelle when you can’t understand what she clearly writes.

    And Michelle doesn’t just write on her blog she is a syndicated columnist, and has worked for traditional media in the past.Thats why the New Yorker was interested.

    How can someone as clueless as you, Simon, be running a blog about the media?

  69. scott Says:

    I read Michelles blog everyday, that and about 5 others, I don’t read this one (never knew of it before she pointed out the story), and won’t be starting.

  70. C.J. Simones Says:

    Frank, my cartoon bubble of Moonbat is showing alot of foam at the mouth. And is she wearing a hose or is that a vein on her forehead starting to pop out? Is she going to end up as collateral damage from Operation Chaos?

  71. Frank Lobo Says:

    Ha!
    We can only hope, C.J.!

  72. Frankly Opinionated Says:

    This post and the moonbatic comments are proof positive that I have missed nothing by not reading the moonbatosphere. These tinfoil hatters really do “Believe everything they think”! Take it from a very successful Debater- Have a basis for your argument, rather than just rhetoric. It would have helped many who went up against me.
    Now back to the truly substantive wingnut blogs.
    nuf sed

  73. Frankly Opinionated Says:

    Malcom Courtland is a typical moonbat. Just as with all liberals; he will not allow the facts to get in the way of his story. Dipshit! Yeah, you Malcom; She was not fired from FOX. In fact she is doing a segment tonight. Do all you libs feel an obligation to lie as regularly as Hillary?
    nuf sed

  74. Rick Says:

    You’re such an idiot. Your differences with Malkin are politically motivated – plain and simple.

    Hey, why don’t you write about this one for a change… when Markos from DailyKos writes on his blog, it’s usually laced with senseless profanities and is geared towards a third grade reading level for his mindless sheep. When he writes his coveted Newsweek opinions, he for some reason feels the need to clean all that up and throw in a bunch of $10 words (which he undoubtedly has to look up).

    But you wouldn’t consider using objectivity in your writing – so just keep attacking conservatives.

  75. Damail Says:

    Let me guess: Malcolm heard Keith Olbermann spout out of his pie-hole that Michelle Malkin got fired and therefore assumed that it was true. Malkin could take Olbermann on in a debate and utterly puree’ him if given the chance.

    But, as we all know, Olbermann never debates people that he disagrees with. Ever.

  76. Rob in NH Says:

    Moonbat, you’ve had almost 24 hours to supply us with one link, only one that shows MM to be a racist. Instead you try to change the subject. I came back this am just to see if perhaps you had the balls to put up or shut up and unfortunately for all us “tools” you’ve done neither. Not surprising…coming from a liberal. Are all the libs in training paying attention?!

  77. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Frankly, Frank, et al

    Heh. First of all – I’m a bloke. Very big bloke. And old too. Not sure where you got the ‘Miss’ and ‘Lady’ but no matter. In terms of my liberal use of the term ‘tool’, and your aversion to same, check out Malkin’s blog – there are at least three current, front page features where she uses the very same word to describe her political opponents. In fact, looks like ‘tool’ is one of Malkin’s insults de jour. Using typical wingnut hypocrisy, I’d assume it’s OK for Our Lady of The Concentration Camps? I suppose when Malkin calls others ‘tools’ it’s a shining example of the enlightened discourse you’re bleating about?

    And BTW – I do realize that you were trying to be clever (with whatever limited resources the good Lord saw fit to bless you with) but according to your own Moonbat Checklist, Malkin could be quantified as a Moonbat herself. Well done boy. Be sure to let your little darling know.

    And Frankly – a great debater are you? Then why do you frequent Malkin’s blog where debate is not allowed, comment posting open only to those that agree with her, rather than sharing your debating brilliance with the rest of the interwebs? You see son, back-patting folks who are your philosophical dopplegangers does not qualify as debate.

    Though it certainly does explain why you believe you’re good at it, when all evidence is to the contrary.

  78. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “Moonbat, you’ve had almost 24 hours to supply us with one link, only one that shows MM to be a racist. Instead you try to change the subject. I came back this am just to see if perhaps you had the balls to put up or shut up and unfortunately for all us “tools” you’ve done neither. Not surprising…coming from a liberal. Are all the libs in training paying attention?”

    I’m sorry. Didn’t realize that there was a posting regulation about supplying links to wingnuts. 24 hours is almost up you say? Okay, here’s one – MichelleMalkin.com. Should keep you busy for a few hours.

  79. whysoangry Says:

    Moonbats-R-U, let me ask you something: If you’re so gifted and so clever and so current on the State of Tool Use, what are you doing commenting on such a shitty blog? This flood of people stopped by to see what’s up with Mr. Copy-n-Paste. And what’s here was mildly amusing.

    But you have special skills, using “doppleganger” and all.

    So what’s up?

  80. Surprise Says:

    Message to Michelle Malkin fans that is trashing this place

    Don’t you feel fool for Michelle misleading statements? I mean she always bash the media, and she is doing worse incomparable to the MSM she criticize which by the way gave her the fame. That bi*** does not even allow anyone to comment, and you guys come over here talk about moonbats, please, you are malkin bats,

    She lied as always she does and said this blog ripped off her emails, he didn’t , it is legitimate use, but bitch like your lord Malkin cannot understand that. I laugh off at this post , about hillarocky and barocky, she is acting like 8 years old, and the funnier she puts “I ll try and get some sleep”) in the title, what an idiot , who cares you get sleep or not. why it has to be in the title.

    Anyway, thank you idiots, I found this blog and I bookmarked it for future reading . hope you keep being idiots.

  81. Surprise Says:

    Oh some shitbag wants proof that Michelle Malkin is a racist? What an idiot, go google her, and see for yourself, or her book about supporting internment of the Japanese and defending it, and inferring the same for Arabs and clearly asking for racial profiling against them.

  82. Rob in NH Says:

    Thank you Moonbat for proving my point once again. I simply asked you to back up your quote calling Michelle Malkin a “racist”, by supplying me one (1) link that I could then attempt to refute and prove you “bomb thrower”, another words, for you to put your money where you’re mouth is and you’ve prven to me any anyone else reading these comments that you can not. A true gentleman/woman would retract those comments if they were unable to back them up. Like most liberals however, you apprently live and breath in an echo chamber.This isn’t even fun; like taking candy from a baby.

  83. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “But you have special skills, using “doppleganger” and all. So what’s up?”

    The War on Christmas is on hiatus, my Che Beret is at the cleaners and I’m on break from reading Marxist poetry down at the local kindergarten playground.

    Had a few minutes to kill…

  84. JW Says:

    —————–
    Sal said,
    April 22, 2008 @ 3:28 pm

    Her fans are absolute racists. Just look at the post from yesterday involving the eight year old black boy and the video his parents posted on YouTube. A lot of pro-lifers became pro-choice in that thread.
    —————–
    That is clearly untrue. How much scanning did you have to do to find the one comment where a person made a (tactless) pro-choice joke. It was one comment of over 100 and it was not supported by the other commenters.

    —————–
    —————–
    Moonbats-R-Us said,
    April 23, 2008 @ 8:18 am

    …Malkin’s blog where debate is not allowed, comment posting open only to those that agree with her…
    —————–
    Also completely untrue. Michelle periodically opens her registration to anyone who knows how to type in a name and email address. If you ever read any of the site you would see that there actually are liberals who comment there. The reason she restricts commenting to registered users is because of hit-and-run attacks by liberals who spew hate and racism at her.

  85. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “A true gentleman/woman would retract those comments if they were unable to back them up. Like most liberals however, you apprently live and breath in an echo chamber.This isn’t even fun; like taking candy from a baby.”

    It’s funny that you mention echo chamber – pretty apt way of describing Malkin’s wingnut only comment section. You’re having problems with the concept so before you embarrass yourself further, let me explain.

    In simple terms, the phrase echo chamber describes one opinion being repeated over and over again. On this ‘shitty blog’ you’re allowed to insult the blog, other commenters, the author, liberals, conservatives, etc. Check upthread – you’ll see the terms like “moron”, “idiot” and “tool” (My and Malkin’s current fave) being tossed around with abandon. That indicates the presence of opposing opinions – the exact opposite of an echo chamber.

    On Malkin’s blog, any dissenting opinion is deleted and the commenter’s account nuked. Only group think opinions that align with Malkin’s point of view are allowed. Thus, you get a ton of back-patting comments which all say basically the same thing. That, my dear boy, is the exact set of circumstances that the term “echo chamber” was coined to describe.

    As you seem to have problems grappling with this rather simple concept, I don’t think it would be wise for you to tackle a more complex issue – such as what is, and what isn’t racist.

  86. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “The reason she restricts commenting to registered users is because of hit-and-run attacks by liberals who spew hate and racism at her.”

    Hit-and-run you say. Kinda like what the clown-car set are doing around here, huh? Read upthread sparky – see what passes for intellectual conservative discourse in a free-for-all comment section.

  87. JW Says:

    ———-
    Moonbats-R-Us said,
    April 23, 2008 @ 10:11 am

    On Malkin’s blog, any dissenting opinion is deleted and the commenter’s account nuked. Only group think opinions that align with Malkin’s point of view are allowed. Thus, you get a ton of back-patting comments which all say basically the same thing. That, my dear boy, is the exact set of circumstances that the term “echo chamber” was coined to describe.
    ———-
    On what do you base this crazy assertion?! People occasionally get “banned” from MM, but only if they use excessive foul language, are harrassing or threatening, completely hijack a thread, etc… The lie you posted above is clearly not based on any real experience at MM’s site and appears to be rooted in a blind hatred for Michelle that completely clouds your ability to look objectively at anything associated with her.

  88. JW Says:

    ———-
    Moonbats-R-Us said,
    April 23, 2008 @ 10:20 am

    “The reason she restricts commenting to registered users is because of hit-and-run attacks by liberals who spew hate and racism at her.”

    Hit-and-run you say. Kinda like what the clown-car set are doing around here, huh? Read upthread sparky – see what passes for intellectual conservative discourse in a free-for-all comment section.
    ———-
    My point exactly. An open comment section restricts intellectual discourse rather than encouraging it. And please try to respond my comments based on my words and real facts rather than referring to the comments of others. You have no idea if I support or reject the words of others here, please don’t presume to know my mind.

  89. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “People occasionally get “banned” from MM, but only if they use excessive foul language, are harrassing or threatening, completely hijack a thread, etc”

    See, that’s odd. You’re attempting to argue against my point, while at the same time, making my point. You’re still grappling, so let me make it even simpler.

    Read the comments upthread. Do you believe for a second that Malkin would let comments calling her an “idiot” “stupid” or “moron” stand for a second? Do you honestly believe that multiple comments referring to her website as a “shitty blog” would be left intact? I’m betting no – they’d be banned for “spewing hate”, “foul language” and/or “hijack(ing) a thread” – your words.

    Yet you lot feel free to come to someone else’s blog and leave comments using those exact phrases and sentiments. It’s called hypocrisy – the wingnut stock in trade – and obvious to anyone who’s not safely sequestered in RW blogs.

  90. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “My point exactly. An open comment section restricts intellectual discourse rather than encouraging it.”

    Wah? So why, if you’re interested in “intellectual discourse” are you posting on a blog that features an open comment section? Oh, that’s right – on Malkin’s blog you’re forced to behave. On an open comment blog, behaving is optional – so when given the choice, you lot resort to “moron”, “idiot” and “shitty blog”. No flipping wonder Malkin has to keep you lot in check.

    And here I thought you lot were the party of personal responsibility.

  91. Simon Says:

    “Read the comments upthread. Do you believe for a second that Malkin would let comments calling her an “idiot” “stupid” or “moron” stand for a second? Do you honestly believe that multiple comments referring to her website as a “shitty blog” would be left intact? I’m betting no – they’d be banned for “spewing hate”, “foul language” and/or “hijack(ing) a thread” – your words.”

    Actually, these were the most tame of the comments. There were about 15-20 comments so hateful and vitriolic that I filtered them.

  92. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “Actually, these were the most tame of the comments. There were about 15-20 comments so hateful and vitriolic that I filtered them.”

    Alas, it’s what happens when the Party of Personal Responsibility Clown Car goes on an unsupervised field trip away from Mama’s place. When behavior is an option, they’re likely to mess up the place.

    Nice post BTW

  93. Enlightened Says:

    How funny is it that poor wittle Simon has one commenter wiping his ass – C’mon Simon – you better come out and play with MoonbatsRNuts else you lose your sock puppet privileges.

  94. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Jeezus – is this what passes for RW snark these days? Malkin needs some better acolytes.

  95. JW Says:

    “Read the comments upthread. Do you believe for a second that Malkin would let comments calling her an “idiot” “stupid” or “moron” stand for a second? Do you honestly believe that multiple comments referring to her website as a “shitty blog” would be left intact?”
    Yes. I do think those comments would be left. It happens all the time. I your definition of excessive foul language and harrassment differ.

    “Yet you lot…”
    Exactly what I was talking about. I am one person, not every poster here with whom you disagree.

    “It’s called hypocrisy – the wingnut stock in trade – and obvious to anyone who’s not safely sequestered in RW blogs.”
    You honestly believe that hypocrisy is exclusively a right wing trait?! That’s not really worth response.

  96. JW Says:

    “Read the comments upthread. Do you believe for a second that Malkin would let comments calling her an “idiot” “stupid” or “moron” stand for a second? Do you honestly believe that multiple comments referring to her website as a “shitty blog” would be left intact?”
    Yes. I do think those comments would be left. It happens all the time. I your definition of excessive foul language and harrassment differ.

    “Yet you lot…”
    Exactly what I was talking about. I am one person, not every poster here with whom you disagree.

    “It’s called hypocrisy – the wingnut stock in trade – and obvious to anyone who’s not safely sequestered in RW blogs.”
    You honestly believe that hypocrisy is exclusively a right wing trait?! That’s not really worth response.

  97. JW Says:

    “Read the comments upthread. Do you believe for a second that Malkin would let comments calling her an “idiot” “stupid” or “moron” stand for a second? Do you honestly believe that multiple comments referring to her website as a “shitty blog” would be left intact?”
    Yes. I do think those comments would be left. It happens all the time. I your definition of excessive foul language and harrassment differ.

    “Yet you lot…”
    Exactly what I was talking about. I am one person, not every poster here with whom you disagree.

    “It’s called hypocrisy – the wingnut stock in trade – and obvious to anyone who’s not safely sequestered in RW blogs.”
    You honestly believe that hypocrisy is exclusively a right wing trait?! That’s not really worth response.

  98. JW Says:

    Wow. I am very sorry about that triple post. I have to learn to be more patient.

  99. JW Says:

    “Wah? So why, if you’re interested in “intellectual discourse” are you posting on a blog that features an open comment section? Oh, that’s right – on Malkin’s blog you’re forced to behave. On an open comment blog, behaving is optional – so when given the choice, you lot resort to “moron”, “idiot” and “shitty blog”. No flipping wonder Malkin has to keep you lot in check.”
    You don’t really trade in intellectual discourse, do you? You also clearly don’t grasp the concept that I am an individual and not every poster here. I never called anyone a moron or idiot and I don’t swear.

    “Actually, these were the most tame of the comments. There were about 15-20 comments so hateful and vitriolic that I filtered them.”
    Moonbats – as Simon shows here, everyone gets inappropriate comments and everyone filters them. Neither conservatives nor liberals can exclusively claim insult. Simon has had to filter some hateful comments from conservatives just as Michelle has to occasionally filter some hateful comments from liberals. Are you saying it’s okay when Simon does it, but when Michelle filters it equals this: “…any dissenting opinion is deleted and the commenter’s account nuked. Only group think opinions that align with Malkin’s point of view are allowed.” ?!?

  100. Party Girl Says:

    Moonbat, do you even understand the use of ‘NOFOLLOW’ in a link? Obviously not and do your own research on it before criticizing it’s use.

  101. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “You don’t really trade in intellectual discourse, do you? You also clearly don’t grasp the concept that I am an individual and not every poster here. I never called anyone a moron or idiot and I don’t swear”.

    Well, speaking of who’s not grasping what, I was speaking in generalities about Maikin’s blog, which, for what it’s worth, is what this comment thread is about. It is not about whether or not you swear. No offense, but that’s not germane to the topic. I swear. A lot. But that doesn’t matter either.

    And if you’re going to discuss, or defend Malkin’s registered user policy, and the behavior of her followers here, then that’s the subject of the debate, not whether or not you called anyone an idiot. Unless you’re the only registered member at her blog, and the only Malkin follower commenting in this thread. Which you’re clearly not – on both counts.

    But as you’ve seen fit to bring this discussion down to a ‘you’ level – do ‘you’ think it’s appropriate for Malkin followers to spew their ‘hate’ on a comment section of a blog (oh, look, Frank Lobo just called Simon a ‘jackass’ in another thread) while Malkin, and her followers, seem to believe that such discourse is off-limits on her blog.

    Is that not hypocrisy? Let’s agree that “they do it too” is a grade school arguing tactic, with no place in lofty political discourse.

    Go.

  102. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Moonbat, do you even understand the use of ‘NOFOLLOW’ in a link?

    Why, yes. Yes I do. That’s why I mentioned it.

  103. JW Says:

    Moonbats – I apologize if it seemed as though I was trying to make this thread about me. That was never my intention. I simply meant that when you replied to specifically to quotes from my comments you always did so with arguments that relied on the comments of others.

    In answer to your question: No, I do not think it is okay for people to resort to foul language and name-calling. I always cringe when I read comments where people who are arguing on my side do so in an inappropriate and juvenile manner. But, unfortunately, it happens on most all blogs and it is not for me to control; all I can do is control my own writing. And I did not say that “Malkin followers” think it is off limits in her blog, people resort to name-calling there too. Not everyone by any means, and it doesn’t go unnoticed. People call each other out on it quite often. And it has to get vulgar and out-of-control before action is taken against the commenter. As for Michelle herself, I guess I cannot comment on what she deems appropriate or not. However, in my experience she does not go around banning people for calling her an idiot or slipping in a few swear words. I believe that her standards as far as language and content are concerned apply regardless of the political ideologies of the commenter. You implied otherwise.

  104. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Thanks JW for that eloquent response – you’ve stated your position very well. I don’t agree with some of what you said, but we’ll leave it for now – afraid I have to get some work done or I’ll be adding to the unemployment ranks.

    In closing, let me say this – we could probably have some decent political debates, despite our differences.

  105. JW Says:

    I appreciate that, Moonbats.

  106. Frank Lobo Says:

    Miss Moonbat said: “I’m a bloke. Very big bloke. And old too. Not sure where you got the ‘Miss’ and ‘Lady’ but no matter”

    I guess I just figured you were female, ’cause you whine like a little girl.
    Prove me wrong…

  107. mike Says:

    Simon,

    Surely you are familiar with “scare quotes”.

  108. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “I guess I just figured you were female, ’cause you whine like a little girl.
    Prove me wrong…”

    Jeezus Frank – that the best you can do? Really now…

  109. Sal Says:

    From Malkin’s website this afternoon. But don’t question their racism.

    ” On April 23rd, 2008 at 2:37 pm, melinda said:

    I’m telling you guys… DHS needs to invest in Illegal Immigrant BUG-ZAPPERS. If an illegal gets within 12 inches of the border, they get a warning zap… if they get within 6 inchez of the border- ZZZZZZZZAAAAAAAAPPPPPP!!!

    Mexican Crispy Critter anyone?

    ” On April 23rd, 2008 at 2:42 pm, melinda said:

    THE CURE FOR THE BORDER FENCE!!! Click Below!! :)

    http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/9373/bugzapperes5.jpg

    ” On April 23rd, 2008 at 2:44 pm, bananny said:

    Melinda,

    Zappers? LMAO! Someone could make a fortune!”

    “On April 23rd, 2008 at 2:47 pm, melinda said:

    Bananny,
    I seriously think it would work!
    Can you imagine, “Don’t tase me ese’! “

    *zap!*”

    ” On April 23rd, 2008 at 3:22 pm, Roman Con said:

    Solution:

    Step 1: Install high-output sprinklers along the border.

    Step 2: Charge sprinklers with a mixture of BBQ sauce, A-1 and “essence of bacon,” and activate sprinklers.

    Step 3: Release big, mean stray dogs along border.

    Step 4: Enjoy a more secure America.”

    ” On April 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 am, GaMidnightRider said:

    I am so glad i stocked up on ammo before the summer fence rush.”

  110. P.J. Says:

    Dear Malkin readers
    —Get a life and don’t try to wonder too far from her site, cause when you do you all sound like a bunch of morons :)

  111. Jim Says:

    Moonbats-R-Us, for crying out loud, please quit using the clown car joke. Whether you are a supporter of Malkin or not, that incredibly unfunny and incredibly lame insult fell flat the first time you used it. Continued repetition is not going to make it any less lame or any more funny. As for the internment camp accusations, I wonder, do you think Franklin Roosevelt was a bigot, or was he doing what he thought was necessary to protect the United States during a time of war?

    I am curious Moonbats R Us, are you a fan of the Daily Kos? If so, you would do well to refrain from claiming that Michelle Malkin is a racist. The Daily Kos contains more anti-Semitic rants than a Jeremiah Wright DVD. You know what they say about glass houses.

    As to the notion that comments left on a site are somehow indicative of the thoughts of the blog host, I can only ask what we are to think of all the posts on Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and other various left-wings sites wishing for the death of Tony Snow and Dick Cheney. And citing the comments section when accusing Malkin herself of being racist is beyond lame; if you took the time to find supposedly racist comments and yet still couldn’t find anything racist written by Malkin without citing ridiculously vague positions she supposedly taks, you should probably either put up or shut up. Take this site for example. It is pretty obvious that the vast majority of the comments left above are not representative of the views of Simon Owens. In other words, using comments to to try indict Malkin (a failed effort)is sloppy and lazy and laughably unconvincing. Mr. Owens, I do commend you for having the balls for allowing comments from people that disagree with you. That is more than can be said for many blogs and their authors, including the ridiculously thin-skinned Kos. And the claim that dissenting views are deleted from Malkin’s site is pure unadulterated crap.

    I would be willing to bet everything I own that 99.9% of the people calling Malkin racists have not read more than two or three pages from her site. If they had, they wouldn’t be obfuscating like crazy when asked to actually cite her views and produce, you know, evidence. And googling Michelle Malkin and following links to unhinged rants on left-wing blogs hardly counts. Despite your ridiculous protestations otherwise Moonbats, you have convinced approximately zero people that have read your comments that you are actually acquainted with anything at all written on Michelle Malkin’s site.

  112. Surprise Says:

    JW claims Michelle Malkin has kind of open comment section for differing opinions, what a joke, I have been to lots of war bloggers site, they have similar approach: censor, censor and censor, but censor only the opinions that you disagree with, simply call those different opinions trolling, hit and run…etc , really you should admit that war blogs like Michelle Malkin, LGF and hot air are not free environment for intellectual discussion, just look at their comment section on any MM article comments and show me where is the liberal – conservative debate?

    She open registration rarely and she bans as she please per her terms of use.

  113. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Ahm – this comment was let stand on Malkin’s blog…

    :No peace no justice! We say NO more empathy for angry Blacks until they clean up their act. Balck Americans -if you are angry because some white guy wears stupid “black face” make-up, or dresses up as a rube klansman, or you find or more likely place a noose on your own door or burn a cross – guess what? Too f-ing bad. Go cry to OJ. I no longer care what you say or think. I am tired of your bitter false accusations that all whites are racists, or that I am a racist because I worked my tail off to be successful, racist because I opposed taxes which have done nothing but destroy Black families and enrich their Judas leaders.”

    It’s “too f-ing bad” if someone burns a cross on someone’s lawn, or hangs a noose on someone’s door? Racial inclusion at its very, very best. Well done, Malkinites, well done.

  114. Simon Says:

    Wow, Moonbats-R-Us, good catch. Remember all the posts Malkin has devoted to pointing out outrageous anonymous comments on the Huffington Post? You can refer to that comment on her own site next time she does it.

  115. Frank Lobo Says:

    Miss Moonbat whined- “Jeezus Frank – that the best you can do? Really now…”

    No, actually, I can do much better- but then, the comments section would like all the other liberal, hate-fests; filled with vile profanity-laced invective.

    So, I’ll just call you a little girly-man.

  116. JW Says:

    “Sal said,
    April 23, 2008 @ 7:30 pm”

    Sal – Those were just a few comments. Most people did not express similar sentiments. And, if I remember correctly, the zapper comment was criticized by others. You really can’t judge everyone off of a few comments.
    —–
    “P.J. said,
    April 24, 2008 @ 12:08 am

    Dear Malkin readers
    —Get a life and don’t try to wonder too far from her site, cause when you do you all sound like a bunch of morons”

    Thanks P.J. I’ll try to remember not to *wonder* too far. I wouldn’t want to be put to shame by intellectuals like you.
    —–
    “Surprise said,
    April 24, 2008 @ 2:26 am

    JW claims Michelle Malkin has kind of open comment section for differing opinions, what a joke, I have been to lots of war bloggers site, they have similar approach: censor, censor and censor, but censor only the opinions that you disagree with, simply call those different opinions trolling, hit and run…etc , really you should admit that war blogs like Michelle Malkin, LGF and hot air are not free environment for intellectual discussion, just look at their comment section on any MM article comments and show me where is the liberal – conservative debate?

    She open registration rarely and she bans as she please per her terms of use.”

    Surprise – While it’s true that registration remains closed most of the time, I must ask on what experience you base your assertion that “she bans as she please…” How many of the threads there have you actually read? If you had done more than skim sites for examples to back up your preconceived notions of MM and her readers, you would have seen that real debate does happen there.
    —–
    “Moonbats-R-Us said,
    April 24, 2008 @ 11:13 am

    Ahm – this comment was let stand on Malkin’s blog…

    It’s “too f-ing bad” if someone burns a cross on someone’s lawn, or hangs a noose on someone’s door? Racial inclusion at its very, very best. Well done, Malkinites, well done. ”

    Come on Moonbats – well done Malkinites? I’m sure that you’re aware that this is not a representative comment. Why do you insist on lumping everyone who comments on MM’s site into one big stereotype?

  117. Simon Says:

    How did this place become a back-and-forth flame war that’s going on this long? I thought if I didn’t comment and stoke the flames then it would eventually die down — I’m surprised that there are several people who are still returning to this thread several times a day.

    Not that I’m going to stop you; flame away.

  118. Frank Lobo Says:

    “How did this place become a back-and-forth flame war that’s going on this long?”

    Because an elitist little-nobody decided that he could flame one of the most prominent bloggers in the country. Why? Because he didn’t like her politics. Or her looks. Or her blog’s layout.

    You made this bed, Mr. “Look-At-Me”, now lie in it.

    We’re looking.

  119. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “You made this bed, Mr. “Look-At-Me”, now lie in it. We’re looking”.

    Oh look – Franks trying to be all dramatic and stuff. Dude – you’re an asshat and a pussy. And that’s coming from your very own ‘girly man’.

  120. Frank Lobo Says:

    There you go- Miss Moonbat, I knew you’d show your true colors (pink and yellow) eventually!

    Good.
    Little.
    Liberal.

  121. Surprise Says:

    Re: JW

    “Surprise – While it’s true that registration remains closed most of the time, I must ask on what experience you base your assertion that “she bans as she please…” How many of the threads there have you actually read? If you had done more than skim sites for examples to back up your preconceived notions of MM and her readers, you would have seen that real debate does happen there.”

    What? I said I base it on her terms of use, read her terms of use when you try to register, and see she can ban you for anything she please.

    and let me give you example of banning on a thread I read today:

    On April 24th, 2008 at 6:39 pm, jbh50 said:

    A Mexican stealing? Wow this must be a really slow news day!

    [NOTE FROM SEE-DUBYA: JBH50 won’t be joining us anymore. I’m leaving this comment up as a clear example of what will get you banned.]

    On this link:

    http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/24/mexican-official-caught-stealing-white-house-blackberries-invokes-diplomatic-immunity/

    (in case the link is not visible well, this is on the article of that talks about a “Mexican official” caught stealing.)

    Now don’t tell me just because not Michelle herself banned this guy for saying nothing, we cannot say she ban as she please, because she is the boss of the site and obviously instructed or should have instructed her editors/managers about what to do and who to ban.

    Notice how simple what that guy said, and get banned. Now tell me is that justifiable? don’t you want to express yourself freely? I hang out on some of these kind of sites, and I m really really really careful in my wordings to avoid getting banned, actually I sometimes avoid posting comments , why?

    Here and on many other blogs and news sites I don’t even care if manager of the site get offended, upset, cry, because I know they tolerate my opinion and I respect them for that, how great isn’t it? Citizen democracy in practice, if you comment on Michelle blogs, feel yourself like a poor Chinese in communist China, except nobody will arrest you, but they will silence you on the blog in the same way, and they will pretend they are right and democratic and rule of the people…etc

  122. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Jim sez – “Moonbats-R-Us, for crying out loud, please quit using the clown car joke. Whether you are a supporter of Malkin or not, that incredibly unfunny and incredibly lame insult fell flat the first time you used it. Continued repetition is not going to make it any less lame or any more funny. As for the internment camp accusations, I wonder, do you think Franklin Roosevelt was a bigot, or was he doing what he thought was necessary to protect the United States during a time of war?”

    Afraid the clown car brings me never ending glee, so I’ll continue to use it to describe blog raiding parties that travel from comment section to comment section. It is particularly apt in this situation, considering the ‘quality’ of comments above,. I’m sorry you disapprove and find it unfunny, but you’ll just have to deal.

    As you are well aware, the full title of Malkin’s book is In Defense of Internment: The Case for “Racial Profiling” in World War II and the War on Terror (a book, by the way, so full of errors that she had to print errata). It attempts to use Japanese internment during WWII as a rationale for racial profiling of (wink) ‘those people’. Strangely, denizens of her comment section often opine that one can’t be racist against Muslims because being Muslim isn’t a race. That, by the way, is racist sleight-of-hand, clever only to other like-minded dolts.

    Her other book Invasion talks about the menace of (wink) those other people. In fact, many of Malkin’s issues revolve around, in no particular order – immigrants in general, Muslims, Mexicans, blacks, the gays and liberals. She doesn’t like the French. She’s iffy on the Brits. With Obama running in the democratic primaries, she’s now taken a special interest in blacks, their churches, etc, with a strange fascination with crimes that involve blacks (while still keeping an eye on Mexicans too, just to keep things fair). Not sure, but I don’t see her focusing on crimes committed by whites, even in the name of fairness, and any that is featured never features the underlying message “well (wink, wink), you know how those whites are”.

    While a lot of her material is not racist per se (some most certainly is, including her Immigration blog which while dated now, is still live on her site and features article posts – not comments – from folks connected to self-described “white nationalists”) a lot of her material is racially tinged ‘chum’, guaranteed to attract folks who post the most racist garbage (like the nice example I pasted above). Malkin is vehemently opposed to the NAACP, UNITY and other anti-racism groups referring to them as “grievance-mongers”. Not exactly the poster girl for racial tolerance. She throws racially driven red-meat to her readers, and then tries to distance herself from the drivel posted in her comments section.

    Not even particularly clever – a cheap parlor trick really – but as long as it gives you, a supporter of Malkin, solace, so be it. I understand that racists generally resist being referred to as racists, nor does anyone like to think they’re associating with racists. And I suspect Malkin has all sorts of data and logical POVs that explain, quite dryly, why being opposed to brown people, gay people, other religions, etc. isn’t racism or prejudice at all. Racists always do. At least the good ones.

    It is not just the racist underpinnings to her site (as well as that of her ‘members’) that bothers me – it is that she is repeatedly, and spectacularly wrong so frequently, and on so many issues. Witness the recent Jamil Hussein fiasco, for which Malkin states “Just to clarify, I’m not apologizing for anything”. Of course she’s not. That would require responsibility, and credibility, two traits that Malkin is sorely bereft of. She is a partisan hack, part of the RW noise machine, operating in an environment that has no checks and balances and without any accountability whatsoever. In the context of this conversation, she is forever screen-grabbing comment sections of LW sites to discredit them, while her ‘followers’ decry anyone that does the same to her. When racist garbage is pointed out, it’s explained away as ‘cherry-picking’, ‘taking items out of context’ and not being reflective of the otherwise open-minded, fair and tolerant members of her blog. That, by the way, is sarcasm.

    Jim sez – “I am curious Moonbats R Us, are you a fan of the Daily Kos? If so, you would do well to refrain from claiming that Michelle Malkin is a racist. The Daily Kos contains more anti-Semitic rants than a Jeremiah Wright DVD. You know what they say about glass houses.”

    No, I am not a fan of Daily Kos, or The Huffington Post (no more than I’m a fan of Free Republic or Town Hall) so I need to refrain from nothing. More anti-semtic rants? I’m willing to bet that you’re conflating points that are critical of Israel with anti-semitism, a cheap tactic often employed by pro-Israel folks to tamp down debate, but no mind. You had to find a racist LW parallel to the claims being made against Malkin, and that’s probably the best you could do (which, by the way, is kinda my point). But let’s take that at your face value. However, using a Jeremiah Wright DVD as some sort of barometer of anti-semitism? Please – if you’re attempting to elevate the discussion, let’s leave the non sequiturs aside. As to your main question, and having brought Kos to the table for comparison, let me make this point – if you want to claim that Kos is racist based on comments posted there, then logically, you have to grant that Malkin’s blog is equally racist based on comments posted on her blog. Or, if you want to give Malkin a pass on her comment section, you have to give Kos the same benefit. As I am not a fan of Kos, your ‘glass houses’ analogy is inappropriate, but I will suggest that it is you who can’t have it both ways. Alas, you’ll try – it’s generally around this point that you’ll toss in a “but that’s different”.

    Jim sez = “As to the notion that comments left on a site are somehow indicative of the thoughts of the blog host, I can only ask what we are to think of all the posts on Daily Kos, The Huffington Post and other various left-wings sites wishing for the death of Tony Snow and Dick Cheney.”

    In regards to comments on Kos and Huffington – if what you say is true, then comments wishing death on Cheney or Snow are disgraceful and to be condemned. I’ll condemn them, and the posters, in a heart beat. Comments like this on Kos and Huffington would indicate that a percentage of posters are dicks. Now, will you admit the same about Malkin’s crew and their racist, intolerant garbage? Yeah, I know, “that’s different”.

  123. Simon Says:

    Moonbats, I hope you stick around at my blog long after this thread has died. I have a feature article I’m publishing Monday that you might like.

  124. D-Hoggs Says:

    moonbats has yet to answer for at least one of his flat out lies. Typical little liberal. Throw out some ridiculous claims, hope they stick, when show to be completely false, ignore, ignore, ignore….

    “Just the other day Malkin got booted off Cafe Press for copyright ‘problems’ – selling shirts featuring an image she didn’t have the rights to”

    Complete mischaracterization. The images you are discussing were spoofs of an Obama poster, the same poster that is all over Cafe Press…as long as people are Obama supporters that is! But if you’re not an Obama supporter you are booted off. Any simpleton can see that. Here is the link to the image in question:

    http://www.authenticgop.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=CTGY&Category_Code=shirts

    Now take a look at all the pro-obama merchandise allowed on cafe press:

    http://www.cafepress.com/buy/obama/-/source_searchBox/x_0/y_0

  125. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “moonbats has yet to answer for at least one of his flat out lies. Typical little liberal. Throw out some ridiculous claims, hope they stick, when show to be completely false, ignore, ignore, ignore….”

    Hmmm. Let’s see what Malkin has to say. I’ll cut-and-paste, right from her blog. Okay, here we go

    “We’ll have to add the Arugula image to our Snobwear collection–if CafePress puts our products back up. They’ve yanked our merchandise based on “content policy usage” concerns, which we have already addressed. I’ll keep you posted.

    Update: CafePress has removed our Snob-ama products again, citing copyright infringement concerns.”

    As you seem to be either a particularly slow wingnut, or perhaps just a typical wingnut just having a slow day, I’ll re-quote it again. But more slowly this time.

    “CafePress has removed our Snob-ama products again, citing copyright infringement concerns.”

    In case you’re an exceptionally dense wingnut, let me explain it further with cap locks pointing out the important stuff. MICHELLE MALKIN WROTE on HER blog that Cafe Press BOOTED HER OFF CITING COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT concerns.

    Good heavens. You’re not claiming that Malkin herself is a “typical little liberal” who “throw(s) out ridiculous claims”. Are you?

    Further, when it comes to artwork, copyright literally means “right to copy”. The people who are selling pro-Obama stuff have the “right to copy”. Though I suppose I shouldn’t expect people who read Malkin’s blog to understand such lofty concepts as intellectual property rights.

    Too much elitist intellectualism involved.

  126. Frank Lobo Says:

    Whatever you say, Mary…

  127. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    While we’re at it, should also point out that your girl has a little R in a circle beside Michelle Malkin on her blog masthead. That indicates the phrase Michelle Malkin is a registered trademark. As you seem to be less than clued about this stuff, let me explain what that means.

    I couldn’t set up a Cafe Press shop and sell stuff with Michelle Malkin on it, without her permission and one assumes, giving her a cut. That’s fair enough – her name is her property and she’s earned the right to profit from it.

    However, she’s not quite so ‘understanding’ when it comes to other people’s trademarks. Like the time she got all hissy because Cafe Press yanked merch when people were selling stuff that used a MoveON.org registered trademark without their permission, or giving them a cut. She actually called MoveOn.org “bully smear merchants” and “legal thugs” for trying to enforce THEIR trademark rights and referred to the enforcement of TM rights as a “thuggish cease-and-desist campaign”.

    Naturally, she disguised her intellectual property hypocrisy by conflating it with first amendment rights, which you dim-bulbs bought hook line and sinker, claiming then (as you are now) that Cafe Press is biased against wingnuts. Which they’re not.

  128. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Frank – you really are a bore. Cough up some of your self-described debating skills or piss up a rope. Mary? Jeezus – you’re starting to make Malkin’s fans look worse than usual.

  129. Frank Lobo Says:

    Well, you’re absolutely right, Miss Moonbat- how in the world can I compete with your last missive to me:

    “Dude – you’re an asshat and a pussy.”
    Such finely honed “debating skills” you possess… I bow before your intellect.

    Your true colors are showing again (pink and yellow).

    Good.
    Little.
    Liberal.

  130. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “How in the world can I compete with your last missive to me:”

    True enough, Frank. True enough.

    “I bow before your intellect.”

    Why, thank you Frank. Looks like you’re not so clueless after all. Your hang-up about me being female remains a little disconcerting (though, from what I read about your cohorts in the GOP – Foley, Craig et al – not altogether uncommon with folks of your political persuasion).

    Looks like you missed the Clown Car though.
    Guess you’ll have to hike it back to Mama’s basement.

  131. Frank Lobo Says:

    Well, unlike Foley or Craig- its DEMOCRATS that actually HAVE SEX with underage persons (boys and girls), ie- Gary Studds, Mel Reynolds.

    But, I digress…

    I only wished to point out to the operator (and readers) of this site the silliness of his Malkin post. But, your own messages, Miss Moonbat – have done more to prove my point than any of the nonsense Simon has posted.

    You have chosen to demonstrate how dumb and intellectually vapid conservatives are… by BEING dumb and intellectually vapid. Good. Little. Liberal.

    People who live in glass nut-houses shouldn’t throw stones.

  132. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    Uh-uh Frank. Didn’t mention anything about underage sex, which despite your somewhat perplexing efforts to shoe horn into the discussion, has nothing to do with anything.

    You’re grappling, so let me make it clearer – I implied that you were sexually confused. After being told that I’m a bloke – a big bloke who is tougher than, and undoubtedly outweighs, your scrawny ass – you insist on calling me “Miss”, “Lady” and “Mary”. This would indicate a certain level of sexual identity confusion.

    Others who suffer from this ‘confusion’ are people like Craig, Foley and Haggard, who not only vehemently deny being gay, but actively, and ferociously, campaign against the gay. While trying to give other blokes blow jobs. That sort thing.

    Anyhoo, face it Frankie boy. You lost. You got spanked. And this incessant wriggling on the line just makes you look stupid. By extension, you’re making Malkin look silly. While bleating about discourse and debate, you actually haven’t made One. Single Point. So how I’ve managed to prove that point is beyond me.

    It’s to the point where I’m actually starting to feel a little pity, so here’s what I’m gonna do. Just for you Frankie boy. I’ll bow out now and give you the very last word. Make sure it’s a good one. Perhaps the Clown Car will come back and give you a hand. I won’t post in this thread again, and you can boast to your ditto-head friends that you stomped a Good. Little. Liberal. The fact that you never really stood a chance will be our dirty little secret. As will all the weird sexy stuff.

    Go.

  133. Frank Lobo Says:

    Miss (or is it Mrs.?) Mootbat said:
    “Blah, blah, blah- liberal talking point, liberal talking point, blah, blah.
    I have no real point, blah, blah, blah, I’ll bring up Republican sex scandals, but don’t you dare point out that Democrats have sexual predators in thier ranks from the President on down!

    More blah, blah, blah, I’m so smart and clever – all the other girls at KosKids and HuffPo tell me so! Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

    Oh, yeah- one more thing- BOOOOOOH is eeeeeeeevil.”

  134. JW Says:

    “Surprise said,
    April 25, 2008 @ 3:12 am…”

    I never claimed that she couldn’t kick people off at will. In fact, I think I said that she can. What I was refuting was the claim that she just randomly kicks people off left and right every time they disagree with her positions. That’s simply not true.

    As for the example you gave, it looks to me like see-dubya removed that commenter because of the racist sounding comment. And as far as I can see, Simon has said he has to get rid of inappropriate comments on this thread. It appears that you think it’s wrong for Michelle to have a policy on that, but okay for others. And I would bet that it is because of your preconceived notions, which means that there is probably no point to me discussing it with you.

  135. D-Hoggs Says:

    What a frigging idiot you are moonbats. Malkin states that Cafe Press “CITED” copyright infringement. She in no way admits to it, which is why the shirts are being sold on another site, nor does it make it true just because they “CITED” it. What an idiot you are. If there was a copyright concern, they wouldn’t be sold on the authenticgop site either jackass. Furthermore, if you really believe that the other sellers on cafepress have received some kind of permission for using similar artwork, you are more retarded than I ever imagined.

  136. Party Girl Says:

    It’s no surprise Moonbat again speaks without checking out it’s information. Just like it’s refusal to truly understand the nofollow in a link, it doesn’t bother looking at Cafe Press’ everyday operations. Cafe Press is trigger happy and will pull anything and everything that it feels would bring anything/anyone down on them for allowing it and calls it all “copyright” concerns.

    Keep talking moonbat, you prove yourself more ignorant with each post.

  137. Moonbats-R-Us Says:

    “Keep talking moonbat”.

    Party – as you seem to be a particularly dense variety of wingnut, please note that folks – even your most frothing RW compatriots – stopped arguing in this thread a few days ago.

    It. Is. Finished. And you lost.

    Instead of performing comment section necromancy, why don’t you have a go at the couple of more recent posts that discuss your girl.

    I’ll meet you there if you like.

    Then you can show me how ‘ignorant’ I am.


Blog Widget by LinkWithin