An Open Letter To Michelle Malkin
Dean
I am still thinking about how to respond in full to Michelle Malkin's response to me. This may be my entire response, or I may have more to say later. I haven't decided yet.
I admit to being a bit surprised and a bit disappointed. For instead of directly answering what I thought was a pretty reasonable (if slightly heated at the end) posting, she seems to have decided to delve into my comments section and dredge up some angry things I said to one of my commenters. Which was something I wrote in angry response to a troll who's been hanging out on Dean's World for a while now, regularly leaving horrible indictments of the entire faith of Islam.
Yeah I lost my temper and swore. But my comments should not be taken out of that context. I won't apologize for swearing--I'm a blue collar guy and I do talk like that when I'm angry. Nor will I apologize for defending my Muslim brothers and sisters who hate terrorists, of whom I know many.
And what did I say in that comment that was so offensive? I said that anyone who spits on the religion of many of our brave fighting men and women in the U.S. armed forces, and the faith of Muslims who are right now fighting side by side with them, is a traitor. A "G*d damned traitor" was my exact phrasing. Well if that makes you mad, too bad, because I believe it. You do not spit on the faith of our loyal citizens and allies who fight against terrorists. That's just wrong. Wrong on every level--politically, philosophically, patriotically, whatever.
But none of that was in my original article directed at Michelle. I wrote that in the comments to my article, in response to one guy who'd p*ssed me off several times before.
Still, I simply will not apologize for coming to the defense of our Muslim brethren who are engaged in the fight against terrorism. It makes me very angry when their faith is treated with contempt. I think I have a right to be angry about that. I think every American should be angry about that. You should not spit on the faith of our brave patriotic soldiers and their allies. You just shouldn't.
You should not spit on the faith of Hamid Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki either.
I'll also say I'm peeved with Michelle for accusing me of whoring for attention. Come off it, Michelle. That's totally unfair. I have about 30,000 daily readers, and its readership continues to grow over time. More to the point, when you were just starting out as a new blogger I was very supportive of you even though I often disagreed with you. I've always treated you with respect. Even when my blog had far more readers than yours I was happy to support you. I also still semi-regularly link both Michellemalkin.com and Hot Air, and have never once condemned you. We often disagree but I think you add a vital perspective, especially as a Woman of Color who is a conservative--which is nothing you should be ashamed of, even if sometimes I think your rhetoric is over the top.
I honestly, Michelle, think that I have never disrespected you, but I think you have disrespected me here. I was just looking for dialogue, but you decided to make me look like a fool because I posted an angry comment or two to my original article. (And yeah, my wife agreed with you, and that's fine too, she's a great woman and the mother of my children, but I think they were both were wrong.)
I wanted to start a real dialogue, and I think that this whole bit with quoting something I said deep in the comments to my original article sidelines the very real questions I brought up. So I'll re-iterate those questions here, in condensed form (which maybe I should have done in the first place):
1) Shouldn't we embrace Muslims who unequivocally reject terrorism as our friends and allies?
2) Shouldn't we be proud of the Muslims who wear America's uniform?
3) Shouldn't we admire and respect those Muslims who fight side by side with American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, and other places against terrorists?
4) Should we not be careful not to paint Islam in broad brush-strokes when it might alienate Muslim-American patriots, and the allied Muslims who support our efforts to defeat terrorists?
5) Shoot, shouldn't Hot Air have at least one Muslim Republican in their mix? They're out there you know. As a Woman of Color and a Republican, shouldn't you be able to understand that?
I don't think these are unfair or angry questions. I think they are good questions, important questions, that every Conservative (and every Hawk) ought to contemplate carefully. They certainly aren't intended to be attacks or indictments, and never were.
I will re-iterate my respect for Michelle. Yes, we disagree on many things, but I do not believe I have ever been nasty or condescending toward her. I think I have supported her many times even when that made me unpopular. (Even if, apparently, she never noticed.)
I think I'm done for now, although there are other specifics I may need to address later (well over a dozen trackbacks, and countless comments all over the place. Wow, the head spins). But I still think that Ali Eteraz, a Muslim-American who hates terrorists, understood my point much better than most.
Update: In response to Dean's World commenter "clarenancy," who says I have given no specific links against Michelle, I respond by saying that I tried to avoid that. Listing such things would read like an indictment, and I was trying not to do that. I thought I was writing to a friend and comrade-in-arms, not an evil person who needed to be denounced. As I said, it was a call to conscience, not a fight I wanted to pick.
Still, some of Michelle's postings that I think could have been better-phrased include:
The Religion of Peace Firebombs &Fatwas
Hmm. Not the violent nutjobs, but all advocates of the "Religion of Peace?"
Muslims kill Christians in Nigeria
Not Islamic radicals and extremists. Just Muslims.
In I Support the Pope, Michelle says things like, "The Muslims clearly have no response to this, because their religion was spread by the sword, and we can see it is spread so still by the forced conversions of Steve Centani and his camera operator." Not Islamic radicals or extremists. Just Muslims.
Her co-blogger at Hot Air, Bryan, posted this extraordinarily pretentious and condescending article defending the notion that Islam is inherently violent based on the Koran.
Muslims Will Execute Christians, wherein she describes three Christians who were convicted of fomenting violence that killed hundreds of Muslims in Indonesia--and implied that somehow Christians are put to a double-standard. But she did not mention that three Muslims are now on Death Row in Indonesia for the bombing in Bali. Yes, one Islamic radical got off with a light sentence of only a couple of years, but three other Muslims are sentenced to die for their horrible murder of Australian tourists and non-Muslim Indonesians.
On the other hand, Michelle wrote in Criticizing Islam on the Airwaves the following: "For the record, I do not consider all Muslims terrorists and would not call Islam a 'terror organization.'"
Again I do not mean, and never meant, to indict Michelle. I honestly hoped it would be a dialogue between friends and allies, who have supported each other for years. I just wanted to ask the question: shouldn't we do a better job of recognizing and embracing our Muslim friends who hate terrorism and radicalism? Who serve in our armed forces, and/or fight alongside our armed forces in the fight to capture or kill terrorists?
Please also see the last two or three minutes of this video.
Please also see this statement by Prime Minister Maliki:
These men are our allies. But not merely our allies, they are our Muslim allies.
Is it too much to ask you to remember that whenever you can, Michelle?
Seriously Michelle, you shouldn't be mad at me. It was only because I respect you that I brought up these questions in the first place.
Peace and respect to you, my sister.
Update 2: Something I have noticed in the angry responses to my question is the running theme that I somehow "attacked" poor Michelle. Please. Read my original question, without delving into the comments. Was there any attack there? I don't think there was. I think it was an honest call to the conscience of a fellow Hawk, with questions I thought badly needed answering. Anyone who thinks I was beating up on poor Michelle is just being sexist and stupid. If I didn't respect her in the first place I would not have posed the questions as I did. Let's dispense with the "Victim Michelle vs. Brutal Dean" narrative--which Michelle never suggested and neither did I. Such a narrative demeans us both.
All Related Posts (on one page) | Some Related Posts:
Let me offer my opinion. I can see how some folks (Michelle?) didn’t pick up on the main point of your first post.
Yes, you telegraphed it in the first line, and they should have picked up on that. But you could have made it clearer, if only for those who aren’t familiar with your style.
Your regulars know how you often throw things out there with your first post, and then zero in and clarify things in the comments as you go along.
But new readers probably don’t know that, and they might not be used to following a thought as it develops and clarifies. Especially those who are unfamiliar with subtlety.
And you can expect many readers of that type to show up when you challenge someone like Michelle. Subtlety is certainly not her style. Not that there is anything wrong with that….
As a long time reader, I know the way you typically communicate. And I know your style is not quite the norm with many folks. Considering the audience, I think you could have made your point better.
But when it’s all said and done, I bet you and Michelle will both be voting mostly Republican in a few weeks. So it’s good to keep talking.
As I said in my post about this, I like both of you, and I don't necessarily agree with all of her response. But I didn't get your original post, mostly because you had no links to back up your accusations (or, if you like, "questions").
But now, in response, I've given specifics. So now do they amount to accusations and attacks? I was trying to avoid that in the first place.
I'm just not sure what I could have done better. I tried to be respectful in my first posting, and I even emailed her and told her I had nothing against her and respected her. And emailed a few other bloggers and told them I hoped this would garner a useful discussion amongst hawks and not an indictment.
Yet somehow it's turned into that anyway. Should I just not link a girl blogger or what?
thass why the title.
guess she hasnt read it.
lol.
Dean, what has gotten into you?
It's not as if Michelle Malkin is the only one who thinks you have gone off the rails here. I have pointed out in detail the weakness of your initial presentation. I have read every Malkin link you posted and I'm just not seeing what you're seeing. Yes, I've got two X chromosomes, but there are dozens of other commenters and blog-proprieters who are XY who agree with me.
Before this series of posts, I would've thought that "girl blogger" comment is just beneath you. I give up.
Well now you've got your specific citations, and I can come up with more if you want more. Since all my initial statement was a call to conscience, can you please get over your high dudgeon over my supposed evilness?
I often say mean things about Democrats on my site, but I would be really annoyed if someone implied that I hate all Democrats. Hell, I live in San Francisco; practially all my friends are Democrats. I just don't think it's necessary to add parenthetical "I don't mean all Democrats" to everything I write.
Now question number 4 is arguably worth debating, and if that had been the thrust of your original post, I'll bet Malkin wouldn't have been so snarky in her answer. But the post seemed to me to be more of the questions 1 to 3 variety, and if Malkin read it the same way, her response was understandable.
(and question 5 is presumptious. Coblogger diversity is a great schtick, and one of the strengths of Dean's World, but why should Malkin want to copy your idea? She's got enough ideas of her own.)
I just made it all up in my delusional and offensive fantasies.
Got it.
I would say no, your original post was not an attack. OTOH, I really did not understand the basis for it.
I read MM, Hot Air, LGF, and Jawa (as well as Dean’s World) pretty much every day. I am comfortable saying that they all, very consistently, highlight any moderate statements by any moderate Muslims with support and approval. They are just as quick to link a Muslim claiming violence is incompatible with Islam as they are to link a Muslim calling for suicide bombings in the name of Allah. Yes, the rhetoric against the bad guys goes over the top much of the time (cough). I think you are off base claiming that they do not differentiate between Muslims in general and that portion of fanatics that would do us all harm.
BTW – why do we even have to discuss “moderate Muslims”? Do we have to go out of our way to seek out moderate Christians? Moderate Jews?
How much sense does this make:
1) Shouldn't we embrace Christians who unequivocally reject terrorism as our friends and allies?
2) Shouldn't we be proud of the Christians who wear America's uniform?
3) Shouldn't we admire and respect those Christians who fight side by side with American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, and other places against terrorists?
4) Should we not be careful not to paint Christianity in broad brush-strokes when it might alienate Christian-American patriots, and the allied Christians who support our efforts to defeat terrorists?
5) Shoot, shouldn't Hot Air have at least one Christian Republican in their mix?
The answers are pretty obvious right? (Except for 5 maybe). It would never occur to anyone to ask these questions because the answer is obvious… There are Christian terrorists. There are Jewish terrorists. Yet no one is calling for others to go out of their way to highlight people of those faiths who are outspokenly against terrorism. Does it make the news and get highlighted in the right-o-sphere when a priest or a rabbi calls for peace and tolerance?
FWIW I am not religious. But these days I see just as much broad-brush painting of Jews and Christians as I do Muslims. Hell – the so called opposition party is going to bend over backwards to give any Muslim a break before they would a Christian or a Jew.
I guess I just don't get what you were after with this...
You feel strongly about (what you see as) offending Muslim friends and allies by painting all Muslims as evil, and other people feel strongly about (what they see as) downplaying the widespread anti-Americanism, anti-Semitism and support of extremism in the Muslim world by only condemning some esoteric group called "Islamists". Yes, accusations that Islam was spread by the sword are laughable when made by Christians (as my Finnic ancestors from 700 years ago could attest,a along with scores of other peoples converted by a Christian sword).
But not all the arguments are wrong, and neither is yours - but where to draw the line is rather obviously not where you drew it. Give things time to cool down, and present your case again.
Go back and read it again, then. I did not spend 6 paragraphs on the fact you had no links.
Then you can read here for an response to the links you provided in the comment thread.
I haven't seen any answer from you supporting your bizarre analogy and bogus strawman arguments. I haven't seen any substantive response from you since you provided the links. You seem to think the links support your arguments. I don't see any evidence there of what you're claiming, nor do many others. From where I'm sitting, you haven't really answered my critiques at all.
One point I disagree with: I do think the original post was something of an attack on Michelle. No, Dean didn't call her names. No, he didn't cuss at her. No, he didn't threaten her. But when you "call someone out," say you usually respect them, and claim that they are unjustly treating innocent people "like enemies and liars," that's pretty confrontational. Combine that with a failure to provide any links to back up his statements, and it amounts to a rant that does little to invite the type of civil discussion Dean claims he wanted. (In all honestly, I think Michelle showed considerable restraint in her response.)
Further, after spending some time reading posts at the various blogs Dean has "called out," I have to say that my impression is that his original post was something of a non sequitur. It's obvious that there are differing views about the nature of Islam (I think there is certain degree of "talking past each other"), but no where did I get a sense that any of the authors don't recognize that not all Muslims are the enemy. I haven't read each site exhaustively, but based upon what I have read, I think JoanH has it right in saying: "I don't see any evidence there of what you're claiming, nor do many others."
As for Dean's behavior in his own comment section, I have to agree with whoever it was that said he'd lost a lot of respect for him. It's hard to take someone seriously when he's going off like that, and it seems like it's happened more frequently lately. His blog, his choice, of course.
Dean,
I've never understood your harsh criticism of LGF, Jawa, etc. It seems to me that anyone who truly believes that all Muslims are the enemy would also be advocating a Dresden or even Hiroshima style shelling of Middle Eastern cities as well as the expulsion of all Muslims here in the good old US of A. I don't see anything close to that on the blogs you've mentioned.
Furthermore, a person who viewed all Muslims as the enemy would not be supporting democracy in the Middle East, and most certainly not at the expense of our own blood and treasure.
I'm not sure that I've lost respect for you, Dean, but this is a side I've not seen before and I found it quite... unsettling? Disturbing?
Something like that.
In the past when you've brought up this issue, I had typed out an argument similar to the above but decided against posting it. Not exactly sure why, but now I realize that the decision at least saved me from being called a fucking traitor, by the host, for all of Dean's World to see. ;-)
But in so doing, you put forth accusations for which there is no evidence. That, to many, is seen as worse than a link-based indictment.
Provide a link, and we can start a discussion. It has to be about the facts before it can be about the conversation.
And just so you don't think that I'm choosing sides:
I frequently disagree with Michelle.
I also thought that the article about "Muslims will execute Christians" showed a double standard, and publicly said so on Hot Air.
There is a discussion to be had here, but it has to be based on the facts.
Link:
at least dean has comments.
im not registered to hotair, and malkin doesn't have comments, so i spit damn here.
scroll down.
Patterico, you are a hypocrite also. You were here for malkin spewing crap on the cartoon controversy and her braindead position on Dubai Ports World. Gasp! shudder! eek! Muslims in our ports!!!
i guess my comment could be addressed to you too.
here's a reprint:
My parents are blue collar, and I think I heard my mother say "damned" just once during my childhood when I'd pushed her to the brink. I don't remember what it was she wanted me to do, but I did it immediately. Otherwise, they didn't even say "heck" and "darn," which were considered euphemisms for blasphemy. Same with their friends from church, most of whom were in the same social stratum. You're free to talk as you like on your own site, of course; it's just that the pseudo-earthy reverse-snobbery justification has always irked me. Besides, you don't have to spend much time around I-bankers or lawyers to be disabused of the idea that there's something inherently working-class about cursing a blue streak when angry.
I'm a neutral party in this conflict. I'm not on Ralph Peter's side, and I'm not entirely on JihadWatch's side, and I am definitely not on the Left's side of let's give Iraq to the wolves.
So in a way, I can perceive why LGF and Malkin saw your post, Dean. They saw it as an accussation against them that they were heartless and immoral for not sticking up to our allies. Since Malkin does believe she sticks up for moderate Muslims and good Muslims, your lack of specifics Dean, seemed to her as a broad based broadside. Just out there, with no specific target. Your reply to that one guy, further contributed to a sense that you were ranting and enraged, not being reasonable or open minded. This of course, would not prevent LGF and Malkin from responding as to why they support Iraqis or why they don't attack those who attack Iraqis as being lazy layabouts. However, it would discourage them from doing so if they believe they are not finding an open forum.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a Matoko-Chan. The only Muslim allies I recognize are those in Iraq and Afghanistan, more or less. If a person hasn't proved his loyalty and friendship to me, I'm not exactly going to turn my back on him and his family of jihadists, now am I.
As for Dean's argument. Logically, it was consistent inside of its premises. Meaning, there IS a problem with people, Americans, who sacrifice Iraqi allies for some perceived gain. Let's say Ralph Peters who wanted to get out, 3 state solution, get the Iraqis fighting and we do our own thing. That's not exactly loyalty to our allies, you know. However, those people who scorn our allies and are willing to sacrifice them, are not LGF and Malkin in my view. If Dean believes otherwise of JihadWatch and Co, then he definitely does need to bring up specific examples and his interpretations of those examples. While Dean gets some points for not trying to be pedantic with a list of stuff that he rants on and on about concerning LGF or Malkin. We are after all, not in a conversation, but an exchange of letters. With such an exchange, precision matters a lot more than length. In a conversation, if someone started presenting me 50 specific points that they found wrong with me, at the same time, then it might be a little bit rude. But on the internet, it is just good policy to present a list of grievances as the Founding Fathers did.
OK, but would you agree that if I had given a lengthy list of citations, it would have seemed like an indictment? Because I was not wanting to level an indictment. I thought it would be a discussion, not an angry point/counterpoint.
if you want a discussion dean, you need to use private email. If you want a debate, in the public, that is another thing entirely. They attack you precisely because they perceive you as having attacked them. It is a classical diplomatic scenario for those who study military history and diplomacy.
The conclusion, however, is pretty inaccurate. In that Dean concludes that this then means Malkin and Co are guilty of the premise outlined in the first place. They are not, and even if you changed the logic structure, it doesn't make the conclusion any more correct. Therefore the second premise, which is that the things JihadWatch and Malkin write and title, are condescending or so and forth concerning Muslims, is incorrect. Why? Because it all goes back to the original premise of Dean's. Is Malkin and Jihad Watch part of the same faction as skippy and Ralph Peters, do they believe sacrificing allies in the Middle East for pragmatic benefits to America is a good long term solution?
Since they do not, then obviously, Dean's logic breaks based upon deduction, not induction. Since it is deduction, this is independent of any evidence Dean may present or Malkin refute. Why does this matter? Because as I see it, Dean started with deduction first, when he did not include specifics. He wasn't going about it scientifically, point/counter-point after all. So when Malkin and LGF say that Dean is painting them with strawman brushes, they are refering to the premise that Dean used to formulate the keystone of his argument.
So that would have to be my conclusion, concerning whether I think Dean's arguments are correct or not. On both Malkin and Co, as well as his original argument.
I just wanted to ask the question: shouldn't we do a better job of recognizing and embracing our Muslim friends who hate terrorism and radicalism? Who serve in our armed forces, and/or fight alongside our armed forces in the fight to capture or kill terrorists?
basic premise correct.
Listing such things would read like an indictment, and I was trying not to do that.
Sometimes things happen regardless of how you intended it. Self-fullfilling prophecy. Attempting to make it less an indictment, actually made it more of one, given how people perceive things. Human psychology, really has little to do with facts.
This very statement--that Islam is incompatible with democracy--is why I fight so hard with many of my friends on the Right: accepting that statement means we have to declare war on the entire Muslim world if we're to hope for human freedom to survive.
you know, Dean. If you had mentioned that you are fighting with Ralph Peters, instead of saying the "right", you would have been able to enlist Malkin's help instead of her enmity. Just saying.
I think that many of America's rightists--including, sadly, Michelle Malkin--have done a piss-poor job of making such vital distinctions.
if you look at your original post, here Dean. You will see that after listing some general critiques of the "right" concerning bad behavior in characterizing Muslims, the first person you mention specifically on the right, is Michelle Malkin. Why would she not take this as an indictment against her? You said you had problems with friends on the right, concerning how they treated Muslims, and then you mention her. So she has to ask herself, is this about an open letter from Dean asking her for help to fight against American ally disrespecting Ralph Peters, or is this an accussation from Dean that Malkin has a problem he doesn't like? Tricky, Tricky.
Indeed, I would like to publicly challenge Michelle Malkin: you've said you've stopped using terms like "Islamo-fascist" and "Islamic radicals" because they don't make sense. Oh really? Then how is it, Michelle, that you guys at Hot Air and Michellemalkin.com still approvingly highlight statements by America's Iraqi and Afghan allies, like Hamid Karzai and Nouri al-Maliki? They are Muslims. Born and bred Muslims. They're Muslims right now. They will almost certainly die Muslim. So why do you treat them like enemies and liars?
After that kind of rhetoric Dean, it is quite obvious that it would be taken as an "indictment". First you make a point about them not using such words because it doesn't make sense, without explaining what they meant, and then you say that they support allies like Karzai, presumably hypocritically. That's not exactly a call for help from Malkin and Co, Dean. Surely, you recognize that. Why does Malkin and Co treat them like enemies and liars when Michellemalkin.com still approvingly highlights statements by America's Iraqi and Afghan allies? Irrespective of the facts, that makes no sense logically. Why would they approvingly highlight Karzai's statements while treating Karzai as a liar? No sense dude.
This is our Muslim ally, damn it. Should you not acknowledge him as such??
okay, okay, it's almost over. Meta-secondary conclusion, as a reminder. First premise of dean, that Muslim allies are the Good, is correct. Conclusion of first premise, and second premise based upon first conclusion, however, is pretty wrong. The conclusion or the premise that Malkin treats our allies like enemies, or that Malkin and Co are disrespecting our allies, is incorrect. It is that incorrectness that LGF and Malkin have seen and are attacking, Dean Esmay.
I'm trained in cause and effect. Can you honestly tell me that you do not believe that Malkins bigotry against muslims didn't completely inform her position on DPW? Can you honestly tell me that her racist-bigotry-masquerading-as-logic-coverage of the cartoon trauma-drama and the pope's speech isn't hurtful to sesibilities of hundreds of iraqi muslims that are dying every day?
Those Iraq policemen, soldiers and citizens are our allies too.
Also, how can there be a debate without comments? Malkin has no comments, hotair has a small set of registered claquers and toadies that never criticize her. Dean allows generous criticism and debate in his comments. Frankly, I would like to comment there, but i can't. Dear Lord, Bryan is barely literate as near as i can tell, he just called the wahabbists and salafis "reformists"--- they kill reformists or issue fatwa on them. They are obvious fundamentalists.
what meant to say was malkin's bigotry completely informed her position on DPW.
and check my post. nearly the entire rightosphere was on the side of the angels on that one.
malkin has never admitted that she was wrong.
im bettin' she wont.
could a muslim co-blogger have prevented her from looking so very stupid? ;)