Well, we’re almost through with the (2⁴+1)^th day that I’ve been the sole contributor to MW. Here’s a breakdown of how writing about Malkin, instead of just plain ol’ reading her, has affected my life.

I have…

• Increased my daily writing output.
• Quit smoking.
• Lost 11 pounds.
• Increased my “staying power”.

Not too shabby. Criticism, constructive or not, is always welcome.

Anyone concerned with human rights should be appalled by the (laughably weak) charges against Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci. Unlike Michelle, I do not agree with Fallaci’s assessment of Islam, but I am willing to concede that her writings (from what I have seen) do not constitute “hate speech”, which is the basis of speech-restricting laws, such as those against Holocaust denial.

That said, is Michelle’s reporting of the facts accurate? Of course not. Her agenda requires that she distort the narrative to the extent that she can claim that ‘European dhimmitude’ will land on U.S. shores in no time. In her Women Warriors episode of VENT from May 9, our esteemed host claimed that Fallaci “faces up to two years in jail, in Italy”. It appears that she found this fact in a WSJ editorial that was written well before the law was changed in January 2006. From the New Yorker Fallaci profile that Malkin herself linked to:

A Mussolini-era criminal code holds that “whoever offends the state’s religion, by defaming those who profess it, will be punished with up to two years of imprisonment.” Though the code was written to protect the Catholic Church, it has been successively amended in the past ten years, so that it encompasses any “religion acknowledged by the state.” The complaint against Fallaci marks the first time that the code has been invoked on behalf of any religion but Catholicism. (In January, Fallaci’s supporters in the Italian Senate pushed through an amendment to the code, reducing the maximum penalty to five thousand euros.)

As a respected member/journalist of the New Media, I’m sure Michelle will be eager to clear this up for her readers, and call for the repeal of this oppressive statute.

Vox Day’s column this week laments the shift of the conservative movement to (and its subsequent dry-humping of) The Left, and he finally does what none of us have had the courage to do: Peg down Michelle’s politics with a single label based on a single controversial stance on a nonexistent issue.

[I]t is debatable as to which group is in worse shape, the ‘’conservative'’ politicians or the ‘’conservative'’ commentariat. While the leftward drift of the administration and the Congress have not escaped notice despite the best efforts of its cheerleaders to play it down…

Indeed, what with Michelle Malkin pushing FDR’s internment program, Ben Shapiro, Sean Hannity and numerous others pushing Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy, Larry Kudlow pushing Richard Nixon’s monetary policies and the editors of National Review harboring a Harry Truman-style crush on the United Nations, one has to wonder if a liberal media is redundant these days.

There you have it. Michelle is a New Deal Democrat because she wants to lock up the undesirables. If this seems a bit farfetched to you (as it does to me), take solace in the fact that you are not a genius like VD. We’ll never get to hang at those hot MENSA orgies. American politics is, like, totally hard to understand.

****

For more on being a Pro-Internment Leftist, read Neiwert’s latest!
(more…)

****

From the AILF’s Five Myths about Immigration by Douglas Massey:

Immigrants are less likely than natives to use public services. While 66 percent of Mexican immigrants report the withholding of Social Security taxes from their paychecks and 62 percent say that employers withhold income taxes, only 10 percent say they have ever sent a child to U.S. public schools, 7 percent indicate they have received Supplemental Security Income, and 5 percent or less report ever using food stamps, welfare, or unemployment compensation.