Patterico's Pontifications

9/29/2006

Eric Muller: Curvaceous Hypocrite

Filed under: Buffoons,Humor — Patterico @ 6:28 pm

Doofus Eric Muller recently mocked Michelle Malkin, calling her a hypocrite for writing a scathing column about Charlotte Church’s skankiness, while Malkin herself supposedly appeared in a bikini in this Photoshopped shot. (Note the exceedingly small head.) Yet it appears that Muller is quite the hypocrite himself — as he has disturbingly appeared in an almost identical pose. See the awful truth here.

Who’s the hypocrite now, Eric?!

More details at Michelle’s site. (H/t Jeff C.)

By the way, I disagree with Michelle’s decision to complain to Muller’s employer. It’s tough to put myself in her position, of course, but Muller — while typically overeager to believe the worst about Malkin — seems to have believed in good faith that it was Michelle, and would likely have pulled down the whole post in shame if he thought he could get away with it. (Note that he is not allowing comments on the thread — a wise choice, as any commenters would certainly be handing him his head, and he doesn’t like to be embarrassed on his own blog.) I think if I were Michelle, I would let Muller’s obvious embarrassment speak for itself, and concentrate my fury at the Wonkette scum, who are still accusing her of lying.

19 Responses to “Eric Muller: Curvaceous Hypocrite”

  1. It’s too bad that you keep a kinda classy joint here, Pat, ‘cuz it might be fun for everyone to have an open thread in which they could relate their sexploits with Wonkette.

    I’d have posted it at Jeff’s place, but it’s down.

    Dan Collins (0e2175)

  2. It would be interesting to see Eric Muller’s explanation of how that picture would show Malkin’s hypocracy even if it were real.

    Maybe he needs a vocabulary lesson. Hey, Eric, when someone advises young people not to act the way they did as a young person that isn’t called “hypocracy”, it’s called “attempting to pass on the lessons of experience”.

    On the other hand, that photo, even if it were real, doesn’t show Malkin doing the things she criticized Church for. She didn’t criticize Church for wearing a bikini indoors at a private home (or even at a public beach for that matter). How this could possibly add up to hypocracy, even if it were real and the photo were taken yesterday, I don’t get.

    Doc Rampage (47be8d)

  3. – How about those Mets.

    Big Bang Hunter (9562fb)

  4. Sheesh! I wish you’d stop calling them scum. After all, scum floats. Sedimentary Slime is much more appropriate, imho. Especially when you consider it’s sustenance for the slime sucking bottom feeders in the MSM.

    Maybe the geologists are right and both will become hydrocarbon fuel at some future date.

    Faster please.

    RiverRat (8ec098)

  5. I agree this doesn’t need to go to employers or lawsuits or anywhere else.

    There is such a thing as self-help. Michelle Malkin has a megaphone, good friends, and the facts on her side. She can remedy any harm done to her reputation by her own efforts, with a little help from her friends.

    David Blue (b5bed4)

  6. Please recount your detailed recollections of sex with Wonkette (or Eric Muller, if you’re person enough to admit it) here.

    Dan Collins (54553b)

  7. I have no problem with Michelle going to his employer, considering he’s employed by my tax dollars here in North Carolina.

    Capitalist Infidel (83e7a9)

  8. Well, I couldn’t see the flickr photo, as it says it is marked private.

    Bob (120b51)

  9. Yet it appears that Muller is quite the hypocrite himself — as he has disturbingly appeared in an almost identical pose. See the awful truth here.

    But that wouldn’t make him a hypocrite. He’s criticising malkin for hypocrasy, not “skankyness.”

    actus (10527e)

  10. It would indeed make him a hypocrite if you can’t understand a freaking joke.

    Patterico (de0616)

  11. It would indeed make him a hypocrite if you can’t understand a freaking joke

    Malkin was making a joke?

    actus (10527e)

  12. Liberals can be the biggist bunch of hypotcrits you ver saw

    krazy kagu (4455b0)

  13. This seems to be one of those ‘wrestling with pigs’ moments; if you decide to take part, you get dirty and the pig enjoys it. The absolute disingenuousness of Wonkette says it all. Their target audience must surely be the uninformed radical chic.

    Rise above it Michelle and let them continue on towards obscurity.

    harkin (7f0965)

  14. I have no problem with Michelle going to his employer, considering he’s employed by my tax dollars here in North Carolina.

    Your personal tax dollars, and no one else’s I’m sure. Besides, nobody employs him to write his shitty little blog; he does that on his own time. Fisk the hell out of the guy, but don’t go after his job.

    Xrlq (a6076b)

  15. He’s criticising malkin for hypocrasy, not “skankyness.”

    For the first and last time, it is spelled hypocrisy.

    As for your statement, in order for her to be a hypocrite in this case, she’d have to be a “skank.” She’d have to be a “skank” herself, since she called Church one, in order for the claim of hypocrisy to stick.

    So it’s one and the same. If she’s a skank, she’s a hypocrite. Since she’s NOT a skank, how can she be a hypocrite?

    otcconan (50e5f2)

  16. She’d have to be a “skank” herself, since she called Church one, in order for the claim of hypocrisy to stick.

    She’d have to exhibit behavior that her standards would call skankyness. Not his standards.

    actus (10527e)

  17. She’d have to exhibit behavior that her standards would call skankyness. Not his standards.

    Okay….

    Our only knowledge of what her standards for that are, are Church’s behavior, no?

    So even if that were her in the picture, which is obviously not her, and obviously photoshopped, it surely does not rise to the level of “skankyness” that MM has ascribed to Church. She did say she hasn’t worn a bikini since her kids were born…so implicit is that she did before. Obviously she doesn’t have a problem with that.

    The real problem is someone using an obvious fakery to ascribe to someone else a “crime” that as you say, is only a crime if she believes it to be one….I don’t believe I’m actually debating this point, actually. What you’re basically saying is that the only judge of what is “skanky” in this cas is Michelle…in which case, you’d have to find a picture that SHE would call “skanky.” Hence, the photoshop, the obvious attempt to find something reprehensible in her background. If they were going to do this it’d been a ton easier to find a nude photo to graft her face on…that would be the home run they’re looking for, but it wouldn’t cut the mustard on a family site. In essence, the only way she could have possibly been as skanky as Church would have been for her to have been photographed, in public, dressing (or not) and behaving as the person she criticized. She’d have to be a porn star.

    otcconan (8c12d4)

  18. Which means to say, she’d have to be a porn star to be guilty of hypocrisy in this case.

    otcconan (8c12d4)

  19. that picture you link to on Yahoo! Flickr is security taqgged as private.

    Fix something or remove the link.

    paul a'barge (a32b6d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.2969 secs.