« Hunting Slugs | Main | Don't I Sound Excited To You? »

April 18, 2006

More Malkin

Michelle Malkin is getting some hate mail of her own over her decision to open nonviolent Santa Cruz protesters to death threats and harassment. "While they whine about the death threats that SAW organizers allegedly received," she writes, "you should see the filth and threats against my family that their minions are sending." And indeed you should. They're reprehensible. Here, by my lights, is the worst of the lot (though there's certainly competition):

From: outorsafe@adelphia.net outorsafe@adelphia.net
Mailed-By: adelphia.net
Date: Apr 17, 2006 6:31

you miserable cunt... too bad your parents were not killed in a war...

Disgusting stuff, the writer should be ashamed. And here are some of the threats sent to the Santa Cruz students, threats that Malkin managed to say "she does not condone":

From: Peter Peanut
Subject: I hope...
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 09:38:44 -0700 (PDT)

...one a fine young American very, very soon puts his shiny gun barrel
up to your left temple and pulls the trigger. Now THAT will make
America a much, much better place to live for the rest of us, you
utterly disgusting piece of shit...

"Hearing a Western woman talk about how she might want to become a
Muslim is like hearing black Americans talk about how they might want
to become slaves."

From: "Tom Ault"
Subject: outrage!
Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 13:19:52 -0400

You intolerant left wing socialist fucking cock-suckers. We're coming
to get you and when we do we'll hurt you..REAL BAD!

So Malkin's e-mails are "filth" and you "you should see them." As for those she generated to the protesters, well, she does not condone her readers threatening gangland-style execution but, in the end, everyone, she says, needs to take "responsibility" for their own actions.

What a class act.

April 18, 2006 | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Malkin:


Note also that Malkin got hate mail. Over the line hate mail, in my opinion, but mostly hate mail. The only threat I see (on her site) it to post here personal information. That's not even in the same league as a death threat.

Posted by: pfc | Apr 18, 2006 12:33:23 PM

Dummy... her, not here

Posted by: pfc | Apr 18, 2006 12:34:10 PM

And did you notice that today, in a comment on some knob's re-hashing of the discredited Michael Steele/Oreo incident, Malkin said liberals are "certainly the most profane" bigots -- and then linked back to the post where she ran some of the vile e-mails that were sent to her?

In other words, it's Let me remind you once again of the nasty names that those evil liberals called me . . . oh, some of my readers sent death threats to liberal college students? Don't know what you're talking about . . . but look, look at what those nasty liberals called me! . . .

It doesn't matter that her own readers, blogroll members, etc. prove beyond a shadow of a doubt every single day that they're every bit as unhinged and sociopathic as any far-leftie could ever hope to be -- she's going to push this silly "liberals = unhinged, conservatives = poor little victims" theme until the wheels fall off. So in addition to being completely divorced from reality, she's about as big a wuss as there is.

Posted by: Doug | Apr 18, 2006 12:35:05 PM

If she had any decency or integrity at all (and if pigs could fly, and if everyone could have a pony) she'd post examples of what the students got alongside what she got herself.

But she won't...because it's just not the WATB thing to do.

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Apr 18, 2006 12:41:42 PM

Yes Michelle is a piece of work. Is she naive? Did she not know what would happen if she alerted people of the students contact info. Yes the information may have been in a public domain but she marched the frenzy mob to it and incited them even more. Whats even sadder is that 1) she cannot admit when she was wrong and 2) she did not attempt to 'fix' the problem (ie pull the contact info). "Orcish mouth-breathers" Ezra?? Hmmm give me one guest what movie you watched this weekend. But I am still laughing. Please allow me to use it. Great job on c-span. I must admit I'm a fan now...there is nothing "Better than Ezra"

Posted by: Joel | Apr 18, 2006 12:49:14 PM

A smart lawyer would be looking into this as a potential area for civil lawsuits in the future.

Harassing phone calls are illegal. Threatening phone calls are a crime.

A good argument could be made that by posting a political enemy's home phone number, Malkin was aware that her enemy would receive many illegal harassing and threatening phone calls at home. That could be very good grounds for civil damages against Malkin.

Malkin's victims should be looking into the possibility of civil redress against Malkin.

Posted by: nemo | Apr 18, 2006 1:02:50 PM

The problem with that theory is that the goobers posted the information themselves. Legally, how could this information be "good" when posted in one place and "bad" when posted in another?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 18, 2006 1:13:14 PM

It seems that Ezra and this bunch read Malkin more than anoyone that I know. I never even read Malkin until I started posting on this blog. When Ezra starts foaming at the mouth about one of her columns, I have to go see what all of the hub-ub is all about.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 18, 2006 1:22:07 PM

Let's clear something up Freddy boy. The 'goobers' didn't 'post' the information - it was included in a PRESS RELEASE to the MEDIA, which Malkin did not recieve from them. Was this in bad form? Yes - don't include personal info on press releases (although, for college students w/o an office, what contact info would you include?). But it wasn't out there for the general public. The idea of including it was to let MEDIA contact them if they had questions or follow up, not so some right-wing crazy lady could post it on the internet and they could get all kinds of harassing and threating calls...

Posted by: NoVA liberal | Apr 18, 2006 1:25:57 PM

The problem with that theory is that the goobers posted the information themselves. Legally, how could this information be "good" when posted in one place and "bad" when posted in another?

Malkin took advantage of the students' disclosures on their press releases - statements they gave out for media contacts. If Malkin were an actual journalist with actual ethics training, she would not have made those contacts public on a website for nutjobs. That would make her liable for some pretty serious shit. Lucky her, she's just a hack, so she'll probably get away with it.

Posted by: sprocket | Apr 18, 2006 1:33:25 PM

The lartger issue is should the military be able to conduct lawful recruitment on campus or are we all subject to mob rule? And how 'bout the rights of those who would consider a career in the military? Did the protestors walk all over their rights?

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 18, 2006 1:43:46 PM

And how 'bout the rights of those who would consider a career in the military? Did the protestors walk all over their rights?

No, because any of them could always go to the nearest recruiting office.

Posted by: Tom Hilton | Apr 18, 2006 1:47:54 PM

One blog post on that gasbag was one too many. C'mon Ezra, enough with the bomb-thrower analysis. Get back to 'yer wonkish stuff.

Posted by: Adrock | Apr 18, 2006 1:48:13 PM

Even the larger issue are the reasons why the colleges and their student don't want recruiters on campus. But that would require criticizing the military, which apparantly is a sin in this country.

Posted by: Adrock | Apr 18, 2006 1:54:59 PM


The role of the military is to carry out the orders of civilian leaders. the problem with these students and why they aren't getting much sympathy other than on rabidly liberal (read Bush-bashing)blogs is that their beef is really with the civilian leaders. By attempting to hamstring the military, they selfishly put us all at risk for their agenda.

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 18, 2006 2:05:28 PM

The problem with that theory is that the goobers posted the information themselves. Legally, how could this information be "good" when posted in one place and "bad" when posted in another?

Legally, intent and effects enter into it. (Though intent would obviously be a hard thing to prove, it's a starting point). The death threats and harrassment the students are getting are criminal. And if Malkin deliberately incited them, it is (well, it might be, I am not a lawyer) a crime too. Same for if she knew it was likely, didn't care one way or another and made the post anyway. And of course, the threshold for proving damages in a civil trial are not as high as in a criminal trial.

But forget the law for a minute. Some people are suggesting, hoping really, that what Malkin did rose to the level of a crime. That's hard to say, it's still developing, appearances to the contrary this mess is still relatively minor... blah blah blah. But was it the right thing to do? Ethically? I suppose she might affect an air of injured innocence and say, "How was I to know people would send those poor misguided kids all these nasty death threats?" But let's be serious - she knew this was possible if not certain.

And you're defending her.

Come to think of it, you never talk about right and wrong. Your most common critique of The Left (TM) is not that their policies are incorrect or harmful, just that they're unpopular and out of the "mainstream" and stupid to do anything about it. Off the top of my head, I can only think of two issues or instances when you've actually voiced an opinion about ethics. You say (over and over again, really) that you're a better person than whoever you're arguing with because you believe in the rule of law and they apparently don't. And you believe that homosexuality is evil or something - if you've ever bothered to explain that in more detail, I missed it or it was in one of the very few posts Ezra has censored.

So is that it? Is that the limit of your personal moral code? "I'm better than everyone else" and "they deserve whatever they get"?

Posted by: Cyrus | Apr 18, 2006 2:08:17 PM

And you're defending her.

Exactly what did I say that would lead anyone to believe I thought it was an OK thing to do??

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 18, 2006 2:11:44 PM

Recruiters should be allowed access to recruit on public campuses. Though it did not affect my decision to join the Navy, its good to have them available to discuss a career in the military with students on the fringe. In any other time the recruiters would have been embraced (well ok maybe not embraced) but you get my point...but now during a very controversial war and especially knowing that the kids would protest...the military should have used some discretion. 10 yrs ago we would not have had a public meeting for GLBT---discretion in certain times may be in order.

Posted by: Joel | Apr 18, 2006 2:19:41 PM

I believe "exactly what" is the totality of your comments here, which long ago convinced me that you're a stalinist.

Not a very good one, mind you, since that ideology is all about power and commenting on a blog is hardly the act of the powerful -- but a stalinist nonetheless.

Posted by: wcw | Apr 18, 2006 2:21:48 PM

I believe "exactly what" is the totality of your comments here, which long ago convinced me that you're a stalinist.

When you can answer with some actual facts, do so. Until then try not to rail in abstract on emotion...please!!!

Posted by: Fred Jones | Apr 18, 2006 2:24:47 PM

I'll keep this all in mind next time any one urges folks to write their congressperson about this or that issue and some nut case takes it on himself to send a threat. After all, its possible, certain even, that some one will...

Posted by: slickdpdx | Apr 18, 2006 2:28:48 PM

I'm surprised at the heat this generated - 81 comments! is that a record, Ezra? - but I think it's the unpleasant reality of life in the i-world, and no one likes to talk or about it or quite knows what to do about it. One thing that fascinates me is that this has taken on some right left divide, when really it seems like there are jerks to be found everywhere. I don't have as much trouble with Malkin as some, but she's clearly got some things to work out on her own. I was taught long ago that you get back what you give out, and Malkin's complaints about name calling wear thin when she calls people "jerks," "skanks," and other colorful phrases. I'm not she deserves the names she gets called; but resisting the urge to do the same will a) put you in a better place when you do get the unpleasant words, and b) make it their problem, not yours.

Similarly, for someone who has eliminated any possibility of comments and clearly screens her e-mail, she's awfully cavalier about publishing information about others, and a "so what, they had it out there" really just won't wash. If Malkin's as concerned about the name-calling and threats as she claims (Lord knows, she even wrote a book about it), I'd think she'd be a little more circumspect. But then, I think it's clear she thinks name calling and threats are fine, depending on who's making them.

Finally, I'd just make a general plea: think before you write. Remember that even the folks you disagree with are people with lives and feelings too, and we could all stand to treat others a little more decently nd with some dignity and respect. And I'll do that when I communicate with Malkin, even though I think she's wrong.

Posted by: weboy | Apr 18, 2006 2:31:08 PM

Exactly what did I say that would lead anyone to believe I thought it was an OK thing to do??

Posted by: Fred Jones

No, you didn't say "I think it was an OK thing to do". But then again, I didn't say you said so. I said you're defending Malkin. It began with your very first comment in the previous thread. Money quote: "Here's the truth: All is fair in love, war, and politics. All adults involved in politics pull dirty tricks..."

You proceeded to accuse some of Malkin's critics of racism (some? most? all? I assume at least half, because you'd never be so dishonest to tar everyone who disagrees with her as having foul motives, would you...) Although I admit I could be misreading your comment "I think it would be a lot easier for the left if Malkin was WHITE. They could then justify the racism.", because to me it just looks nonsensical - if The Left (TM) was motivated by racism, then they wouldn't hate Malkin if she was white, would they?

You also dismissed any kind of political activism, like what the students were doing but certainly not limited to that, as mob rule and anti-democratic. More specifically, as you put it, "A related issue that I would like to explore is the consensus by silence that it is somehow advantageous to have mobs attempt to do end-runs around democratic processes..."

So you're saying what Malkin did is business as usual, nothing to get excited about. Most of her detractors are racist. And the students she targeted hate democracy. But you're not defending her — oh no, you'd never do that.

I'm sure you think people here are so hostile to you because you're bravely speaking truth to power in this echo chamber, but it's not JUST that, you know...

Posted by: Cyrus | Apr 18, 2006 2:59:28 PM

Returning to the original flashpoint, the military recruiters, I have this to say: Buried within the "No Child Left Behind" is language that requires high school administrators to provide student contact information to the armed services unless the student/guardian opts out in writing. If a student/guardian does so, the school, by law, is not allowed to release the information.

After signing and returning the opt-out forms to my daughers' schools, they are/were inundated with Army/Navy/Marines mailers, emails and telephone calls. In addition, the public high schools must allow recruiters to set up booths on the school grounds. The booths are not confined to "career days", but any and every day.

I wouldn't feel so angry about it if the government followed the laws they set forth, or if the high schools offered vocational education as an option for those students having difficulty with academics, but they don't. The financially and/or intellectually poor students are swept up by the recruiters. This is what we call an "all volunteer army."

Malkin and her fellow elitist hawks have no remorse for an pro-army opinions or actions, because the military doesn't effect their lives in any real way. In fact, Malkin uses the issue as grist for her well-paid civilian career.

Where's the Yellow Elephant when you need 'em.

Posted by: goodasgold | Apr 18, 2006 3:08:14 PM

Well, I'm actually talking more about the don't ask/don't tell policies that caused places like Harvard to consider shutting recruiters out. But yes, this is a bit of a different situation.

Still, I don't see what is wrong with demonstrations against recruiters.

Posted by: Adrock | Apr 18, 2006 3:14:45 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.