Nonsense. Everyone on the internet knows what pop-ups are, and most of us who have ever logged on (I would venture to guess all of us) have been unfortunate enough to have been confronted with adult images that we didn't want to see. Everyone knows that people who are strong advocates on either side of the political spectrum get hate mail. What people may not know is the highly personal and hateful nature of the mail the Filipina Malkin receives.
Doubletalk. Most of us know what hateful e-mail is. Most of us know how to spell out vulagrities. Why spell out the vularities on a website that may have kids reading it? Why perpetuate the vulgarities when it isn't necessary? That was Malkin's point about Laura Bush. Yet she does the same. That's hypocritical. To defend such hypocracy is silly.
Even the mail that didn't use FCC-banned language was suggestive of attitudes about Asian women that are as shocking as any prejudice still existing in American society.
You can communicate the prejudice without spelling out the vulgarities. BTW, while Malkin was spelling out the vulgarities, she neglected to doucment the email addresses of the poeple who sent those e-mail. That would have been far more imformative than spelling out the vulgarities. But, she made her choice of what to edit out.
If you are the type of person who faints at the sight or sound of the f-word, maybe the emails that Malkin posted were worse.
Me, I not the type of person who faints at such. Why even bring that strawman up? I simply holding Malkin to her own standards.
The fact that you narrowly focus on the word and not the much more disturbing context in which it was used leads me to believe that you personally aren't offended at the word itself -- you just are trying to discredit Malkin by saying she doesn't have the right to expect better behavior from Laura Bush because Malkin put the word in her blog uncensored. That's silly.
I never said she doesn't have the "right". I'm saying she's being hypocritical.
No. I think she's dead wrong about Puffy AmiYumi.
I don't know what Puffy AmiYumi is. I think she was wrong when she reported on and misrepresented what Armstrong Williams did several months back.
Uh huh. I was right.
Why even bring that strawman up? I simply holding Malkin to her own standards.
Are you kidding me? Your entire argument against Malkin is a straw man! You don't know Malkin, and you don't set nor define her standards -- only she does.
In your eagerness to defend those jokes, you just decided in your own mind that if she thought a couple of Laura's remarks were unbecoming a First Lady, she should be so offended by the f-word that she wouldn't put it in her blog in any context. Neither situation has anything whatsoever to do with the other. And it is my opinion that you know that's true, and that's why you didn't answer my closing question. So, I'll ask again: Are you seriously suggesting that you would be in 100% agreement with Malkin if she had put "f*ck" on her site instead of spelling out the word?
I am a black conservative and Armstrong Williams has lost his credibility with me, and so have any other pundits who got paid by the White House. It's shameful to pretend that you are an independent commentator when you are being secretly paid to promote policy. And it's shameful for the White House to solicit that kind of support.
In both Laura' s speech and the Williams situation, Malkin and I utilize "the other shoe test." I would have slammed the Clinton, Gore, or (heaven forbid) Kerry Administration for doing the same. To do less would make us hypocrites for real -- not in the way you've trumped up charges against Malkin.