You can practically see Michelle Malkin’s lips curling up with ecstasy as she applauds the announcement of Frank Miller taking the reigns of a Batman vs. Al Qaeda comic book.
I’m guessing Malkin’s never cracked a Frank Miller comic in her life. Let’s just say that one of the major villians in the seminal Dark Knight Returns was an old decrepit, evil right-winger that was the spitting image of Ronald Reagan.
I know all about going off half-cocked, but these guys do it day in and day out, with style.
Looks like I won’t be seeing Sin City II, it’s a shame because Sin City was good.
If anyone thinks they’re going to pigeonhole Frank Miller’s politics based solely on the fact that he dislikes al-Qaeda, they’ve got another think coming. It’s clear the guy is more of a misanthrope than anything else; he’s got little patience for certain kinds of liberalism, true, but he also seems to hate authority and power of all kinds. Basically, I think he’s peculiar kind of a nostalgic, anarchistic crank. Here’s a quote from Dark Knight Returns that Batman says to Superman: “You always say yes — to anyone with a badge — or a flag -no good.” Can you imagine John Derbshire saying that?
Ian, glad to see your hold on your ideology is so strong a freaking comic book that disagrees with you could so easily dislodge it.
Sin City 2 is certain to feature extensive revenge/torture scenes to criminals. What conservative are you if you can’t get behind torture, Ian? Anyway, how shitty would life be if you had to limit yourself only to authors and artists who agreed with you politically? And who the hell’s side is Frank Miller supposed to be on, politically? Vigilante sadists?
Looks like I’ll have to cut off my nose, it’s a shame because it really ties my face together.
“see Michelle Malkin s lips curling up with ecstasy”
So Malkin can’t just take pleasure in a comic that portrays Al Qaeda as evil.. Her “lips (are) curling up with ecstasy”
Your obsession with Malkin is a little disturbing. Argue for or against by why the continued ugliness?
Dugger, I Don’t Like it When Someone Mentions your Weight as if it Matters. It Doens’t your arguemnts are Fodder Enough.
Speaking as an American, I guess once you hear someone start arguing for concentration camps, you start to take the debate a little bit personally.
Tom, who categorically rejects the idea of American concentration camps, unlike some people he could mention.
TomY,
Be careful. Who has started arguing for concentration camps? Perhaps you are referring to conservative Malkin’s support of Democratic liberal FDR’s policy of internment in WWII. Most people conjure up a Nazi Auschwitz or Siberian slave labor camp when they think concentration camp. Perhaps you had an atypical definiton in mind. Like Gitmo? Where the ‘internees’ gained weight? That it?
I wonder why leftists are seemingly afraid to debate Malkin on merit. Are they scared of her ethnicity. Her potential popularity as a conservative personality?
Dugger
Please point out where I’m making any sort of statement about Malkin’s looks (I find her pretty attractive physically, as I’ve noted before). I just find her to be a megahack of epic proportions.
From the Oxford English dictionary: “camp where non-combatants of a district are accommodated, such as those instituted by Lord Kitchener during the South African war of 1899-1902; one for the internment of political prisoners, foreign nationals, etc.”
Concentrating foreign nationals in a camp? Yep, Malkin argued for it. Just because FDR did it doesn’t make it right by me. I’ll debate the merits of this one any fucking day of the week, Dugsy.
You ought to get out more.
TomY,
I would debate you, but I’m getting scared now that you have used a bad word. Wooooo!
BTW, you already are wrong on major point. “foreign nationals”???
Malkin advocated no internment but supported FDRs policy on internment of certain American citizens – not foreign nationals.
Perhaps it would be better if you first developed an understanding of the basic premise before you start arguing against it. Now that I think of it, your ready-fire-aim approach is typical of the left re Malkin.
I suggest reading the thoughtful discussions of Muller, Volokh and Robinson re Malkin.
Dugger
Willfull obtuseness is a hallmark of your cult leader, so it’s no suprise to see you exhibiting it as well, Dugs. Concentration camp does not necessarily mean extermination or death camp. Either way, it’s hilarious to see you refer to “thoughtful” discussions of the issue on the right! What a wonderfully typical righty rhetorical device — anyone discussing a topic you agree with is granted the exalted status of being “serious” “thoughtful,” or “reasonable” as opposed to the liberal position which is “unhinged,” “hysterical,” argued by “barking moonbats” in “the fever swamps.” Never mind the fact that the “serious” conservatives are arguing for fascism. Could I get a “thoughtful” discussion of the merits of slavery, too? Come back when you have an argument to make, why don’t you.
From Britannica: “internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals…” How those nits tasting, Dugs?
And you accuse me of nit-pickishness.
I think those American citizens (who all shared a certain ethnicity) would be covered by the “etc.” in Tom’s definition.
And OW:
“Lips curling with ecstasy”??
What on earth are you talking about? Forget who we’re talking about and why. That just makes no sense.
Quaker,
Nope. TomY I’m sure appreciates your help, but he messed up.
He said: “Concentrating foreign nationals in a camp? Yep, Malkin argued for it. Just because FDR did it doesn t make it right by me.”
And why the visceral, physical criticism of Malkin? The nasty embellishment? You tell me. In context, its a little ugly.
TomY,
Your punt had poor hang time.
Again: Where and when did Malkin advocate American concentration camps?
As to the thoughtful considerations, perhaps you are unaware that Muller is a strong critic of Malkin and my remarks covered both sides. You should read some of those debates before you criticize.
Dugger
Maybe you should concentrate less on your folksy metaphors and more on, you know, actual arguments? I’ve yet to see one from you…
Well, she defends concentration camps on her website, for one thing: “In Defense of Internment provides a radical departure from the predominant literature of civil liberties absolutism. It offers a defense of the most reviled wartime policies in American history: the evacuation, relocation, and internment of people of Japanese descent during World War II”
Since you missed it, from Brittanica: A concentration camp is defined as an internment centre for political prisoners and members of national or minority groups who are confined for reasons of state security, exploitation, or punishment, usually by executive decree or military order. Persons are placed in such camps often on the basis of identification with a particular ethnic or political group rather than as individuals&
Hey, it’s not my fault you don’t know the basic definition of the term, or the fact that she indeed, 100%, defends putting people into concentration camps. My position hasn’t evolved; when you asked what I meant by concentration camp, I provided the definition. But since it seems to bother you, you can do what conservatives always do when they want to feel better: trade in your civil liberties for some brief comfort! Stick to the kuntry komedy next time; logic aint yer strawng poynt, Bubba!
She defended FDRs policy of internment. She did not and does not advocate putting foreign nationals in concentration camps. Sorry but you were flat wrong on that.
My ‘folksy metaphors’ usually irritate, but can’t help that. I try to keep it light.
You tactic is in this argument has evolved into claiming you didn’t mean Auschwitz etc type camps but more a sterile dictionary meaning of camps – like Gitmo where detainees could practice their religion and actually put on weight. Seems, then, to render your first assertion “guess once you hear someone start arguing for concentration camps, you start to take the debate a little bit personally” somewhat irrelevant, doesnt it? You get hot bothered about a terrorist detention facility where the detainees put on weight and practice their religion? TomY1 meet TomY2.
Dugger
Well, when they’re not on a hunger strike, that is.
“defends putting people into concentration camps.”
You are coming around. At least this time you have dropped the foreign nationals claim. I still recommend reading the adults, Muller, Volokh etc. Don’t trust me, or OW. Read those guys, if you dare. Its not all good virtuous guys versus evil interning racists. Roosevelt was well intentioned and he and Malkin would contend, in their times, had justification for what he did. Many think otherwise. They may be right. But it is more than cheap sloganeering and name calling.
Dugger
My first post on this subject, I wrote that Malkin was “arguing for concentration camps” Now I’m writing she “defends putting people into concentration camps.” Have you admitted that she wants to put U.S. citizens in concentration camps yet?
TpomY,
You go astray on two points. First you said foreign nationals. Roosevelt’s internment program targeted American citizens. Secondly, you use present tense (wants to) to describe Malkin’s past defense of somebody else’s internment program.
I tell you again: to reduce this argument to some kind of cheap dismissive slogan is wrong. There is interesting discussion and give and take, for the pen minded.
BTW, Malkin merely defends the logic of FDR’s decision in that time and place (based primarily on intelligence – there is some disagreement on that intelligence, though). How is it Malkin’s argument is worthy of such abuse and ugliness but the man who actually originated and implemented that policy is a liberal saint?
Dugger
Whether concentration camps to come or concentration camps of yesteryear, I’m glad you’ve admitted Malkin is defending the use of them against U.S. citizens. If anyone goes after her personally for shilling for concentration camps, they are morally justified. FDR should not have used them, and no one should be defending them today as a thin pretext for eventually rounding up muslims, which is what she’s doing.
Well the ‘thin pretext’ is your imagination at work. I mean we can dream up ‘thin pretexts’ for the other side all day that makes them look bad. That makes the debate a slam dunk we if we can do that.
And I see you finally acknolwedged your mistake on US citizens versus foreign naturals. And that you acknowledge Malkin was defending a policy that is now about 60 plus years old – during war time, which has been responsibly debated on the Internt w/o name calling and cheap sloganeering.
Malkin’s arguments might be faulty but if we all get over the Iternet are racist criticisms (not you) of her and vulgar name calling, we won’t know will we?
Dugger
[...] Note 2: Michelle Malkin says she has no stomach for superheroes that don t acknowledge 9/11 and terrorism. Again: Lex Luthor is trying to destroy an entire continent, and Superman has to (literally) change the face of the earth to stop him. Sounds like terrorism, a definite villain, and about as clear cut a hero as fact or fiction have ever devised. Malkin also once again shows that when it comes to comic genius Frank Miller she has no idea what the hell she s talking about. [...]