Patterico's Pontifications

4/5/2006

Eric Muller: Asshat?

Filed under: General,Morons — Patterico @ 4:39 pm



Why, yes. Yes, he is. (‘Hat tip to Xrlq, who has an excellent post title.)

P.S. Muller employed almost identical “logic” in the first part of his “devastating” takedown of Michelle’s book on the Japanese internment (a policy I disagree with, but not because of anything Eric Muller has ever said).

Asshat then; asshat now.

UPDATE: Muller now admits his accusation was unfounded. His ungracious apology is here.

50 Responses to “Eric Muller: Asshat?”

  1. Michelles quit the shill. Isnt it ridiculous for her to be going off about Mexitude when shes one of them foreigners herself? http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004931.htm

    [Really? She’s *illegal*? — P]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  2. That should be “quite the shill.” Bad grammar day (again).

    [Also: Bad Logic Day. — P]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  3. Now, now P. As to the subject of the thread most of his commenters think he is one for sure.

    nk (8214ee)

  4. Please note that while “Patterico” is supposed to be on vacation, here he is posting in the middle of the week.

    Who really does your blogging, Patterico? Hm? You can’t keep this charade up forever. I’m on to you.

    See Dubya (3fb86e)

  5. Also, I’ll agree with you Patterico that bloggers shouldn’t be taking pot shots like that at Malkin. It is far too easy to criticize most of her Rush-like rants.

    Unlike Patterico, she’s also too cowardly to allow comments on her oh-so full-of-herself website.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  6. Unlike Patterico, she’s also too cowardly to allow comments on her oh-so full-of-herself website.

    She wasn’t always. You should have seen the crap your fellow liberals spewed there when she did.

    Xrlq (51d90f)

  7. If I got hundreds of commenters on my blog doing nothing but calling me obscene names for no other reason than my political leanings + my race + my gender, I’d shut down comments, too.

    McGehee (5664e1)

  8. She could ban the really rotten eggs if she wanted Xrlq and McGehee. Not only that, Patterico seems to do just fine here. How is that?

    [Easy. Much, *much* smaller audience. — Patterico]

    Her hate-speech does draw a certain element though, I’ll admit.

    [More like, her speech draws a certain hateful element. — P]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  9. Psyberian,

    Thanks for starting a discussion I’m interested in.

    I happen to listen to Rush when my music station plays piano sonatas or operas with dialogue. He is an entertainer. And very entertaining. He does not rant. He has a pre-selected audience who want to hear exactly what he says. He soothes them. None of them smart enough to ask “Just what is conservative about Rush besides his spiel?” For example, “How many conservatives are childless, twice-divorced, golf-playing, Palm Beach residing opiod addicts?”

    On the the other hand, Michelle Malkin gets in your face not with a conservative viewpoint but with a story from a conservative viewpoint. And all the evidence is that she lives like a conservative as well. As for comments, she makes her e-mail available. On occasion she publishes some of it.

    nk (d5dd10)

  10. “How many conservatives are childless, twice-divorced, golf-playing, Palm Beach residing opiod addicts?”

    Say what? Conservatives don’t play golf, live in Palm Beach, get divorced, etc.? Do you want to try again and see if you can cram a few more idiotic stereotypes into one sentence?

    jinnmabe (f4908a)

  11. Also: Bad Logic Day – P

    If shes going to complain about immigrants, it is far too obvious that she is one. Theres nothing illogical in that.

    [Ok. Please provide a citation to a complaint by Michelle about *legal* immigrants. Or, alternatvely, you could apologize to her for your silly comment. Which will it be? — Patterico]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  12. Take the whole thing in context, jinnmabe. But, hell, I said this a discussion I wanted. What “idiotic stereotypes”? What is stereotypical about no family life, playing golf instead of going to church on Sunday mornings, living in Florida’s version of Hollywood and being addicted to hydrocodone. Stereotypically liberal maybe — not conservative.

    nk (06f5d0)

  13. I dont mean to wear out my welcome more than usual, but let me explain one more point Patterico.

    I dont think the legal vs. illegal matters in this instance since the people who are acting up and getting her dander up are necessarily all illegally here, are they? She just assumes that all of them are illegally here? So to me, thats a moot point.

    [Huh? — P]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  14. First, I just want to say that I can’t believe I’m going to have this conversation. Second, I have heard Rush twice in my life.

    From your two posts, it seems you equate “twice-divorced, childless” with “no family life.” Then you add the “instead of going to church on Sunday” to the golf thing. Then, you add the “Hollywood” thing to the Palm Beach crack. But I’m supposed to have gleaned all that “context” from your first post?

    jinnmabe (f4908a)

  15. Were all of the protesters interviewed to verify that they were indeed here illegally P? If not, then her distinction about illegal vs. legal falls falt doesn’t it?

    [Unless protesters were protesting a new law against *legal* immigration, then the only thing that is falling “falt” here is your criticism of Malkin. — P]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  16. Comment 11. Psyberian,

    Immigrants make the best citizens. Because they are here by choice, not by accident. Also, the Phillipines were America until after WWII. That really was a cheap shot — did you intend to comment on her coloration and accent? Not very liberal of you.

    nk (5e5670)

  17. I’m a moderate liberal nk, so some of my comments might be surprising at times.

    I have no problem with Michelle’s race at all, but to hear her preach to anyone about immigrants is a little much for me. BTW, I am against illegal immigration too. But I dont like her tactics. Theyre designed to make people hate and I hate that.

    Patterico, so you think its safe to assume that anyone protesting about draconian immigration laws are illegal immigrants? I disagree.

    [You’re trying my patience. The laws are about *illegal* immigration. If anything, they *benefit* potential *legal* immigrants, who won’t be shoved to the back of the line. Malkin’s status as an American citizen of Asian descent is totally irrelevant to any argument not based in racism, and you would do well to drop the issue immediately. — Patterico]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  18. jinnmabe, #14. So what is your dog in this fight? I listen to Rush every day. And I read Michelle Malkin every day. I got on Psyberian for comparing them. Tell me your specific beef. And, yeah, I was expanding and explaining my first comment in my second comment (the church/golf and Hollywood/Palm Beach “thing”). Are you an avid golfer, do you live in Palm Beach or both?

    nk (5e5670)

  19. If shes going to complain about immigrants, it is far too obvious that she is one.

    Bullshit.

    [There you go, Psy. Time to double your apologies. Come on. Man up and say you’re sorry. — P]

    Xrlq (51d90f)

  20. Psyberian, your comment #17.

    That was very gracious. Darn it. I am in the mood for a hair-pull. Maybe jinnmabe will oblige me.

    nk (2ab789)

  21. OK X, her parents or close relatives are or were. You get 1/100th of a point there. She’s not the regular ol’ British descendant is she?

    [Do you have a non-racist point, Psy? — P]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  22. P.

    WE TOOK THE PHILLIPINES AWAY FROM SPAIN IN THE SPANISH-AMERICAN WAR AND KEPT THEM UNTIL THE JAPANESE TOOK THEM AWAY FROM US!!! You have no point. Until 1925, American Indians who wanted the right to vote had to be naturalized. Honest. Were they immigrants too? Are Puerto Ricans and Samoans immigrants? Don’t be a Bubba even in sarcasm.

    nk (2ab789)

  23. OK X, her parents or close relatives are or were. You get 1/100th of a point there. She’s not the regular ol’ British descendant is she?

    Psyberian, it’s more like you get 1/100th of a point. You have been found to be factually wrong on your key assertion, but true to form you keep bulling ahead anyway. Here’s some free advice: you have a loser of an argument, don’t try to press it.

    JVW (d667c9)

  24. Oh, Lord. I try to keep my tendency to get nasty under control here, as it’s a family blog. Some of you who’ve seen my comments at Sondra’s and Ace’s know what I mean. But, STFU, Psyberian. You’re a moron.

    You’ve made four comments in this thread that are not only stupid, but utterly refutable. There’s only one that’s a matter of opinion, and that’s the standard lefty claim about being a “moderate.” You’re a moderate? Right. You and Cynthia McKinney.

    CraigC (8e5f52)

  25. Look, my foreigner comment was more of how the regular guy sees her, not that it was to be taken literally to begin with. See comment Number One. So it is a difference that makes no difference. Some of you are so shallow that if you find one misspelled word or something that can be mis-conscrewed as factually wrong, you think youve won the argument..

    I really resent the racism charge P. Is that the best youve got?

    [Actually, the relevant question is: is this the best *you’ve* got? Like Darleen, I find your comments on this thread pointless and offensive, but won’t draw conclusions about you as a person. Your history of comments here reveals you to be someone whose heart, at least, is usually in the right place. But here, I confess that I see absolutely no relevance to your insistent references to Malkin’s Asian ancestry. And you have done nothing to clarify the supposed relevance of that ancestry, which failure leaves you open to charges that you are simply employing an Asian version of the “Uncle Tom” argument — how dare a person of Asian ancestry raise her voice against *illegal* immigration! It is an argument that makes absolutely no sense. That’s why you’re getting such a negative reception. — P]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  26. Thank you for editing my comment in #1 too Patterico. You removed my quotes; it originally said:

    … Isnt it ridiculous for her to be going off about Mexitude when shes one of them foreigners herself?

    Removing the quotes changes the meaning and you intended to do that, didnt you?

    [I didn’t touch your comment except to add mine, which is necessary because I’m on a Treo. I don’t see quotes in your corrected version either. Be assured that I had no intention of altering your comments, which look plenty silly without any editing whatsoever. — Patterico]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  27. Oh my gosh, apologies all around. My comment number 22 was directed to Psyberian not Patterico. That’s what I get for getting lazy and not typing out the full name. No alarm bells, either, until I saw that Psyberian was addressing Patterico as P.

    nk (2ab789)

  28. Psy

    You look at Michelle and immediately think “immigrant”. You look at Michelle and castigate her for criticizing other “brown” people because, well, since she’s “brown” she should think a certain way.

    That’s racism.

    And you’re attempt at backpeddling in #25 that you weren’t really speaking for yourself, but in somesort of hitherto undeclared third person POV is, frankly, laughably transparent.

    Dear, when someone points out you’ve stepped in dog doo, clean it off and move on. Don’t go back and breakdance in it.

    Darleen (f20213)

  29. Psy

    And to make myself perfectly clear… I don’t know you personally, so it is quite possible that you are NOT a racist.

    But your whole schtick on Michelle is racism.

    Darleen (f20213)

  30. Unless you are 100% Native American Indian, you are of “immigrant extraction”. Simple. Period. Since I have less than 25% American Indian blood, I come from an immigrant ancestry. Does that mean that I can have no voice re illegal immigration?

    Those people that do not want to read Malkin or disagree with her opinions are free to do so. Attack her opinions, not her ancestry. To call her a hypocrite because she is in favor of stronger borders and a sane, balanced immigration policy is ignorant.

    Oh, I don’t know if all or the majority of the people protesting are illegal immigrants. It makes no difference. What is important is what they were/are protesting and the manner in which they were protesting.

    And yes, those people here with documentation that did not go through the immigration process are illegal aliens, not the favored term used such as undocumented workers.

    RLS (0516f0)

  31. Look, my “foreigner” comment was more of how the regular guy sees her, not that it was to be taken literally to begin with.

    To quote Xrlq, “Bullshit.” If that were the case, then you would not have come back with this:

    If shes going to complain about immigrants, it is far too obvious that she is one. Theres nothing illogical in that.

    On the bright side though, Psyberian, you would make an excellent Readers’ Representative to the Los Angeles Times.

    JVW (d667c9)

  32. Who cares about Malkin’s ancestry? She’s a sloppy (at least) ideologically-driven smear merchant regardless of where her parents came from.

    Josh (8fcb37)

  33. Gee, Josh…it appears from your link that Malkin did exactly what one should do, be it Newspaper or book. That is, acknowledge that you have possession of bad information and make a correction both to the facts presented and the opinion you drew from the facts.

    Of course, to you Josh, anyone presenting “facts” is a smear merchant.

    RLS (0516f0)

  34. A retraction after 9 months of stonewalling and a failure to verify sources before accusing people of stealing documents, that’s exactly what one should do? And, of course, the “facts” she presented were untrue, but that’s good enough for RLS, as long as it smears them evil libruls.

    [I assume that Josh believes that Muller is a “smear merchant,” since he accused Malkin of dishonesty based on 15 minutes of “research” that turned out to be anything but “double-checked”? — Patterico]

    Josh (8fcb37)

  35. blah blah blah

    [Croche has not retracted his lies from the other day — including his false claim that I spent $100 on a sushi dinner and “bragged” about it (I don’t even eat the stuff) — so his comment looks even more like gibberish than usual. — Ed.]

    m.croche (85f703)

  36. nk, I forgot, what were we talking about? Oh, yes. Look, it seemed to me that you were saying that Rush doesn’t “live” like a conservative and, as evidence to back up that assertion, stated that he a) played golf, b) lived in Palm Beach, c)didn’t have kids, d)was divorced twice, and e)was addicted to painkillers. I was questioning why you thought golfing, or where in the country he lived was relevant at all. Also, the childless, divorced thing is kind of dumb too (although as a stereotype, I suppose it’s less laughable). Apparently conservatives don’t get divorced, and MUST have kids.

    Then you say that Michelle “lives” like a conservative. But I see that as the point of this little incident with Muller. Deal with conservatives based on their ideas and arguments, and not with ad hominem attacks (and don’t try to prop up their ideas and arguments with ad hominem praises either).

    jinnmabe (0fb1ed)

  37. Hey jinnmabe,

    It’s a new day. Yesterday, I had just spent three hours in a dentist’s chair(two novocaine shots) plus one hour’s drive in rush hour traffic and I was sorer than a boil. And more dopey than usual. But I got the idea for my comment from Rush himself (to whom I listen regularly). He asked, not too long ago, why people who live conservative lives vote liberal. Anyway, I was trying to pick a fight with Psyberian over Michelle Malkin and not with you over Rush. He is very good at his job and very entertaining and mostly I enjoy listening to him although he raises my blood pressure on occasion.

    nk (4d4a9d)

  38. I assume Patterico understands the difference between a book that purports to be thoroughly-researched, fact-checked, and edited, and a blog that does not. I also assume he understands the difference between nine months and a few hours.

    Josh (8fcb37)

  39. Then what should we use in place of quotes Patterico? If they are going to magically disappear without warning, then we need a substitute that sticks around a little longer. I’ve never had this problem before, so it’s extremely strange.

    I think that most of you know what I’m saying and are just trying to jerk my chain. But just in case, I’ll try one more time for the intellectually challenged of you and I won’t use any quotes. There is no hint of racism in what I’m pointing out either.

    Michelle’s parents were immigrants. She owes her life here to recent immigration then. But does that stop her from unloading both barrels on immigrants without carefully singling out the illegal ones? Of course not. That’s not the careless and callous Malkin way. She just links to another site trying to make people hate all immigrants, which is sophomoric, insensitive and immoral in my book. To be fair, the site she links to does try to single out illegal immigrants, but she knows that the article’s effect on people actually demeans all immigrants. I wouldn’t blame her parents if they disowned her for that stunt.

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  40. Hmm. This must be more of that “racist code” liberals keep talking about, and that only they can see.

    Look, Psy, when people say they draw a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants, I usually think that means they draw a distinction between legal and illegal immigrants. Why wouldn’t you take that sort of statement at face value?

    See Dubya (f3a346)

  41. See Dubya, most people drop qualifications. So [QUOTE] illegal immigrants [END QUOTE] becomes simply [QUOTE] immigrants. [END QUOTE]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  42. I think that most of you know what I’m saying and are just trying to jerk my chain.

    When are you going to stop dancing in the dog doo, clean your shoes and realize that your problem is most of us are well aware of what you said and it is you making it worse.

    Like the crack about Michelle’s parents “disowning her.”

    JAYsus on a Pony!

    Darleen (f20213)

  43. Psy’s original comment links to a Malkin post in which she links to Freedom Folks site’s post in which they criticize the banning of American flags at a school in Colorado. At the end of the post, they use the term “Mexitude” as a play on Dhimmitude. That may be a little shrill (I don’t necessarily like comparisons of the La Raza crowd to Islamofascists, despite the obnoxiousness of the former), but I don’t think it justifies Psy’s claims that Malkin is somehow anti-immigrant. It certainly does not justify Psy being blatantly wrong on Malkin’s place of birth, especially since it is so easy to look up.

    Psy, if you have other instances of Malkin “unloading both barrels on immigrants without carefully singling out the illegal ones,” provide links to them and I for one will try to evaluate your claims with an open mind. I should warn you, though, that I don’t think I will consider her linking to other posts unless you can show that she fully supports 100% of their position. Otherwise, I will have to assume that you are just talking out of your rear end and making it up as you go along, like you did with your claim that Malkin was an immigrant.

    JVW (c5e186)

  44. I know Psyberian was being sarcastic with “them foreigners”. Having made enough of a fool of myself yesterday by mixing up “P” and “Psy”, I am not in favor on nitpicking him any more.

    nk (77d95e)

  45. Well thank you NK (#44).

    [FWIW, Psy, everyone else’s quotation marks and apostophes come across fine on my Treo, but for some reason, your comments all appear completely devoid of either. I’m not saying this is your fault, but it’s just the way your comments are coming across on my device. Odd. Sorry for any inconvenience it’s caused. I really don’t think missing quotation marks are at the root of the disagreement, but if you inserted them and they disappeared after editing, I can see why you’d find that annoying. I assure you it’s not deliberate. — P]

    Psyberian (dd13d6)

  46. Legal, Illegal, What’s the Diff?

    I recently got in a political debate with some psycho from Siberia. He started off by railing about what a hypocrite William Bennett is, railing about the evils of crack cocaine and all, when everybody know he’s a pharmacist himself. My friend …

    damnum absque injuria (38c04c)

  47. According to Psyberian, “See Dubya, most people drop qualifications. So [QUOTE] illegal immigrants [END QUOTE] becomes simply [QUOTE] immigrants. [END QUOTE]”

    So according to Psyberian, it is impossible for someone who is against illegal immigration but not against legal immigration to state his position because to most people the phrase “illegal immigrant” is indistinguishable from “immigrant”.

    One wonders how he came to such an unintuitive conclusion. When *I* see the word “illegal”, I don’t just skip over it. In fact the word seems quite significant in most contexts in which it occurs. For example, if my lawyer told me, “you can spend that money but it would be illegal”, I’m not likely to interpret this as “you can spend that money but it would be [some meaningless and ignorable word]”.

    In fact it seem obvious that *most* uses of the word “illegal” are quite significant to most people. The phrase “illegal immigrant” would then, if Psyberian’s theory were true, be an exception. Why does he think this exception exists? It couldn’t really be that he has observed others ignoring the term because he can’t see into their minds to see that they don’t think there is a difference between illegal immigrants and legal ones (although he seems to think he can).

    The only answer left then is that Psyberian is projecting. He himself doesn’t see any meaningful distinction between legal immigrants and illegal immigrants. This is consistent with the fact that he also seems unable to distinguish between immigrants and Americans who were born to immigrants, and that he can’t distinguish between the various sorts of brown people. Methinks that Psyberian has a general problem with telling “those people” apart.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  48. Doc: It is meaningless to those on the left who would prefer to massage the distinction down from “legal/illegal” to “documented/undocumented”.

    See Dubya (f3a346)

  49. SD, I agree, but while it’s commonplace among liberals to accidentally-on-purpose mix up legal immigrants with illegal ones, it takes a special talent to mix up illegal immigrants with individuals who aren’t immigrants at all.

    Xrlq (0e6733)

  50. Two things you should know about Rush’s family/non-family status:

    1) The day after he announced that he and his wife were divorcing, he came on and said that his wife had asked him to clarify that it was she who wanted the divorce, and not him.

    2) In 1991 or 1992, after his first divorce and before his second marriage, a caller tried to get Rush to “admit” that he wasn’t really a conservative because of course Rush was sleeping with the women he was dating, wasn’t he?

    Rush was very reluctant to have this discussion.
    However, this caller was insistent that Rush declare that he really was a hip playboy, and Rush finally said, “Sir, I do not engage in sex outside of marriage.”

    I gained profound respect for him at that moment. In case you don’t remember, this was years before the abstinence education made the big time, and abstinence and virginity were decidedly uncool.

    Teri (afca91)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3160 secs.