Patterico's Pontifications

10/30/2007

Allahpundit the Dirt-Sniffing Goblin

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:08 pm



Allah:

I wish I had grandkids, just so I could tell them about the day Pops was accused of circulating nutbar conspiracy theories — by Prison Planet.

Heh. It’s a long road to grandkids, my friend. But a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Uh, you do know what that step is, right?

Don’t miss Prison Planet’s return volley, which labels Allah a “frothing neocon bootlicker[]” and “dirt-sniffing neocon goblin” who is “too ashamed to admit his own dimwittedness for fear that the almighty Malkin might lose favour with him.”

Seriously dirt-sniffers (they love being called that now for some crazy reason!!!??), this is the last time we are going to throw you a life jacket and provide some badly needed resuscitation for your flagging ratings, next time we won’t be around to mop up the witch’s brew froth emanating from your mouths and you’ll be left to drown in your own drool.

Good times.

43 Responses to “Allahpundit the Dirt-Sniffing Goblin”

  1. Happy Halloween Eve to you, too.

    DRJ (5c60fb)

  2. PS – The PP return volley link doesn’t work. Did they take it down?

    DRJ (5c60fb)

  3. Is that (“Seriously dirt-sniffers…”) supposed to be taken seriously, or is Alex Jones smoking PCP again?

    chaos (9c54c6)

  4. http://www.infowars.net/articles/october2007/301007Dirt-Sniffing.htm

    The ‘m’ is missing in the link url.

    News2Use (5aa284)

  5. Thanks, News2Use. I fixed it.

    Patterico (bad89b)

  6. It must be when you click the $2300 button, it writes and sign your check….

    Heh

    Hazy (d671ab)

  7. AllahPundit is the only good reason to read what is at hotair. This attack on him was uncalled for. The problem is that his boss goes out of her way to be controversial and he is an easy target for her detractors.

    I can understand why there is such animosity toward Malkin.

    “A few things compelled me to write the book. Ever since I questioned President Clinton’s decision to award the Congressional Medal of Honor to Japanese-American soldiers based primarly on claims of racial discrimination in 2000, several readers have urged me to research the topic of the “Japanese-American internment.”

    The above came from the link to Malkin’s site. That is one of the primary reasons I refuse to take her seriously as a journalist, let alone accept that she is remotely objective.

    What she so “eloquently” dismissed was an effort begun by Senator Daniel Akaka (in 1992, before Clinton was even elected) to look into the actions of minorities in WW2 and Korea and at the decorations they were awarded. He felt that many, most of whom died in their actions, were not recognized with the nation’s highest honor due to their minority status. After several years of study the citations and actions were reviewed and 20 or so were upgraded to the Medal of Honor. Most came from the segregated Japanese 100th battalion and 442nd regiment (http://library.thinkquest.org/CR0210341/442nd/splash442nd.htm)
    http://www.homeofheroes.com/books/goforbroke.PDF

    From Bruce Sharp at
    http://www.mekong.net/random/malkin.htm#note35
    “Not surprisingly, Malkin’s book was not particularly well-received. A group of roughly 40 historians and scholars issued a joint statement describing the book as “a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness.” (35) The book flew in the face of more than a half-century of scholarship, and was contradicted even by the work of the official historian of the United States Army. “In fact,” read the statement from the Historians’ Committee for Fairness, “the author’s presentation of events is so distorted and historically inaccurate that, when challenged by reputable historians, she has herself conceded that her main thesis in incorrect, namely that the MAGIC intercepts of prewar Japanese diplomatic cable traffic, explain and justify the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans.”

    http://hnn.us/readcomment.php?id=40982

    Malkin wrote this book in 2004 and while she doesn’t explicitly say “lock up the Muslims” she leaves the clear implication that it should be a consideration.

    voiceofreason (c521b0)

  8. That is one of the primary reasons I refuse to take her seriously as a journalist, let alone accept that she is remotely objective.

    That’s okay. No one takes you seriously or believes you are remotely objective either. And thanks for trying to hijack the thread.

    dave (185b67)

  9. Dave,

    The link to her article about invasion was in Allah’s thread that was linked in this thread.
    To understand why one was demonized one should understand the motivations of the demonizer.

    But thanks for taking me seriously enough to respond. Have a pleasant day.

    voiceofreason (c521b0)

  10. Allahpundit’s post contains no links to articles by Malkin. Again, thanks for trying to hijack the thread. Have a crappy day.

    dave (185b67)

  11. Somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed.

    nk (7aed24)

  12. Not me. I’m not the one who tried to change the subject, tried to slag on Malkin, and then made a nonsensical post attempting to justify it.

    dave (185b67)

  13. Dave,
    The link in Allah’s post links to Prison Planet which contains the link to the quote about the MOH recipients.
    Nice try. As for slagging Malkin, that is not the case. I simply pointed out where she erred and was proven wrong — something she claims to do in regards to the “MSM” on a routine basis.
    But nice try to dodge the truth.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  14. Still trying to redirect the thread, I see. No surprise you get your info from Prison Planet. And no, you did not point out where she erred/proven wrong. You just posted to a number of leftwing nut sites/comments. You wouldn’t know the truth if it smacked you in the face.

    dave (185b67)

  15. Dave Dave Dave,
    Let me break it down for you.
    (a)Patterico reports on comments Prison Planet made about AP that (b) AP had posted in one of his HA threads which (c) link to prison planet which (d) link to the comments about Malkin (e) which have a link to Malkin’s article
    I reply that it is an unfair attack on him simply because his boss is malkin and examine the specific issue pp had an issue with in these linked threads.
    The issue was the book In Defense of Internment with a link to Malkin’s site and the quote about the MOH recipients.
    So in conclusion the PP site doesn’t like Malkin because she blew it with the facts but go well beyond calling it out and attack her employees. Patterico sees that as a foul and I agree with that.
    You call 40 hitsorians/scholars and the former official US Army historian nutcases. Okay fine – that tells me you only want the “truth” that you believe and that disparaging brave troops when convenient to promote a right wing pundit’s book is okay. Check. Got it Fella.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  16. Oh, stuff it already. Everyone knows what you were doing. And yes, those so called 40 historians are just moonbat academics. The responses to their article were a hoot. Again, stop trying to turn this threat in to a Malkin bashing fest. Go post on Prison Planet where you will, undoubtedly, feel more at home.

    dave (185b67)

  17. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

    Never read Malkin’s book, but “40 scholars and the US Army historian say she’s wrong” isn’t a valid argument. It’s just your springboard for calling Malkin names and condescending to Dave.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  18. Prison Planet:

    Referring to others as “the dregs of American politics” when your own leader has openly called for every muslim in America to be incarcerated in labor camps is rich indeed.

    Malkin, in the linked post, which does not mention Muslims nor suggest internment:

    Ever since I questioned President Clinton’s decision to award the Congressional Medal of Honor to Japanese-American soldiers based primarily on claims of racial discrimination in 2000, several readers have urged me to research the topic of the “Japanese-American internment.” World War II veterans wrote to say they agreed with my assessment of Clinton’s naked politicization of the medals, but disagreed with my unequivocal statement that the internment of ethnic Japanese was “was abhorrent and wrong.”

    voiceofreason:

    He felt that many, most of whom died in their actions, were not recognized with the nation’s highest honor due to their minority status.

    Tell me again. Who has their facts wrong here?

    Pablo (99243e)

  19. (c) link to prison planet which (d) link to the comments about Malkin (e) which have a link to Malkin’s article

    And which link completely misrepresents what is found at the link. Utterly Greenwaldian, that.

    Pablo (99243e)

  20. Chaos,

    We have reached a strange point when historians and former Army Historians have less credibility than a popular pundit or blogger who even admitted her central premise was flawed.
    By that logic everyone is right and no one is wrong. Why bother having colleges and unversities if truth has now become relative?
    There is no springboard – why did this guy attack Allahpundit? Answer because of his association with Malkin. Why does he not like Malkin? Answer: One of the reason is her very inaccurate book “In Defense of Internment”.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  21. Pablo,
    Read the citations of the MOH recipients in question. It is not unprecedented that the MOH has been upgraded from the next highest decoration. That is what happened in this case.

    The part you bolded from the statement is not a direct quote from Clinton. It is Malkin’s view of the facts.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  22. The part you bolded from the statement is not a direct quote from Clinton. It is Malkin’s view of the facts.

    Yes, it is. And what I bolded in your representation of Akaka’s position is his view of the facts. Did you notice how they’re pretty much the same thing?

    As for the Army historian, do you have any quotes from him? The page you link says this:

    Not surprisingly, Malkin’s book was not particularly well-received. A group of roughly 40 historians and scholars issued a joint statement describing the book as “a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness.” (35) The book flew in the face of more than a half-century of scholarship, and was contradicted even by the work of the official historian of the United States Army.

    In the opinion of the committee, of course. Then there’s this:

    “In fact,” read the statement from the Historians’ Committee for Fairness, “the author’s presentation of events is so distorted and historically inaccurate that, when challenged by reputable historians, she has herself conceded that her main thesis in incorrect, namely that the MAGIC intercepts of prewar Japanese diplomatic cable traffic, explain and justify the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans.”

    I notice that in this heavily footnoted piece, there is no reference to any such actual statement by Malkin. Any idea why that might be? You’d think that would be important to point to in support of the thesis of the piece. Without it we’re left to wonder if it’s from the same place as her “open call for the internment of all Muslims”.

    Pablo (99243e)

  23. The part you bolded from the statement is not a direct quote from Clinton. It is Malkin’s view of the facts.

    Right, and the part I bolded in your representation of Akaka’s position is his view of the facts. See how they’re pretty much the same thing?

    As for the Army historian, can you point to where he’s contradicted Malkin? The piece you link says this:

    Not surprisingly, Malkin’s book was not particularly well-received. A group of roughly 40 historians and scholars issued a joint statement describing the book as “a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness.” (35) The book flew in the face of more than a half-century of scholarship, and was contradicted even by the work of the official historian of the United States Army.

    …according to the opinion of the committee. I see no refutation by the historian, only a vague reference to the work. And then there’s this:

    “In fact,” read the statement from the Historians’ Committee for Fairness, “the author’s presentation of events is so distorted and historically inaccurate that, when challenged by reputable historians, she has herself conceded that her main thesis in incorrect, namely that the MAGIC intercepts of prewar Japanese diplomatic cable traffic, explain and justify the mass incarceration of Japanese Americans.”

    And yet, in a piece replete with links to Malkin’s work, there’s no direct reference to any such admission. Don’t you think it’s important to the credibility of the piece to link to, or at least directly quote such a statement?

    Pablo (99243e)

  24. We have reached a strange point when historians and former Army Historians have less credibility than a popular pundit or blogger who even admitted her central premise was flawed.

    I never said they did. I said your argument was an appeal to authority, which it was.

    Now you’re using strawmen.

    By that logic everyone is right and no one is wrong. Why bother having colleges and unversities if truth has now become relative?

    Saying “Professor Johnson says she’s wrong” isn’t a valid argument because we don’t know where the disagreement is coming from, from a factual basis, from a political basis, who knows. I don’t know Professor Johnson, you don’t know him. Saying “Michelle Malkin says this; Professor Johnson, in [book or research paper title], says this” is.

    There is no springboard – why did this guy attack Allahpundit? Answer because of his association with Malkin. Why does he not like Malkin? Answer: One of the reason is her very inaccurate book “In Defense of Internment”.

    And yet besides this list of unnamed experts who we don’t know anything about you have no evidence for it. Another question is if there are inaccuracies, are they large enough or numerous enough to discredit the book’s premise? Who knows, you’re about as informative as the New York Times is when it comes to the identity of “expert” sources relating controversial positions as fact to the breathless Times reporter seeking enlightenment on the nastiness of conservatives.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  25. Haw haw haw, I’ll slag on Michelle Malkin, she’s a far right propagandist (or commenter…uh pundit… whatever you want to call her), not a journalist. Even a cursory reading of her work, which is rich in innuendo and moralizing (she is honest about that at least) will let anyone see that. The funniest part about the comments about is that the people complaining that VOR is trying to “hijack the thread” have themselves hijacked the thread defending Muckrakin’ Michelle. VOR is trying to stay on topic. So what if he took a swipe at the M?

    EdWood (c2268a)

  26. You’re right about one thing, Ed. We should be talking about the shreiking nutbars at Prison Planet. With whom you seem to agree…

    Pablo (99243e)

  27. Chaos, you’re speaking logic and reason. Something VoR (ironically) isn’t very familiar with.

    Of course, now I want to look for a reason to call someone a “goblin”…. I rather like it! (Seeing as my favorite Warcraft race is the troll, and that’s already been taken in Net Speak, I need some change.)

    Foxfier (97deae)

  28. OK, M Malkin IS a journalist compared to some of the posters on Prison Planet. Whooo hoooooo!

    EdWood (c2268a)

  29. Chaos,

    Unnamed experts?
    Try looking at the link. The list of names and the universities they work for are there.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  30. I’d recommend the book “The cult of the Amateur” by Andrew Keen. It is a very good read on the current state of the web versus traditional journalism.
    It doesn’t take sides as far as politics goes. It does point out how many people are allowing themselves to be spoonfed information and opinions that are not always factual.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  31. Unnamed experts?
    Try looking at the link. The list of names and the universities they work for are there.

    You didn’t name them. You are still engaging in the fallacy of appeal to authority. Start listing some facts or go waste other people’s time somewhere else.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  32. Chaos,
    You are in denial. Citation #36 in the above link states the following from a congressionally mandated commission on the subject of internment.

    “The Legislature finds and declares that the federal Commission
    on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) was
    established by Congress in 1980 to “review the facts and
    circumstances surrounding Executive Order 9066, issued in February
    19, 1942, and the impact of such Executive Order on American citizens
    and permanent residents… and to recommend appropriate remedies.”
    The CWRIC issued a report of its findings in 1983 with the reports
    “Personal Justice Denied” and “Personal Justice Denied-Part II,
    Recommendations.” The reports were based on information gathered
    “through 20 days of hearings in cities across the country,
    particularly the West Coast, hearing testimony from more than 750
    witnesses: evacuees, former government officials, public figures,
    interested citizens, and historians and other professionals who have
    studied the subjects of Commission inquiry.”
    (c) The lessons to be learned from the internment of
    Japanese-Americans during World War II are embodied in “Personal
    Justice Denied-Part II, Recommendations.” The CWRIC concluded as
    follows: “In sum, Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military
    necessity, and the decisions that followed from it-exclusion,
    detention, the ending of detention and the ending of exclusion-were
    not founded upon military considerations. The broad historical
    causes that shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria,
    and a failure of political leadership. Widespread ignorance about
    Americans of Japanese descent contributed to a policy conceived in
    haste and executed in an atmosphere of fear and anger at Japan. A
    grave personal injustice was done to the American citizens and
    resident aliens of Japanese ancestry who, without individual review
    or any probative evidence against them were excluded, removed and
    detained by the United States during World War II.”

    Yet somehow she knows something they don’t?

    And the names:
    Allan Austin, Misericordia College
    Eiichiro Azuma, University of Pennsylvania
    Allida M. Black, George Washington University
    Matthew Manuel Briones, Harvard University
    Laura Card, University of Utah
    Elena Tajima Creef, Wellesley College
    Louis Fiset, University of Washington
    Shelley Fisher Fishkin, Stanford University
    Heather Fryer, Creighton University
    Stephen Fugita, University of Washington
    Thomas Fujita-Rony, California State University, Fullerton
    James Gatewood, Brown University
    Neil Gotanda, California School of Law
    Arthur W. Hansen, California State University, Fullerton
    Michiko Hase, University of Colorado
    John Howard, King’s College, University of London
    Moon-Ho Jung, University of Washington
    Scott Kurashige, University of Michigan
    Tom Ikeda, DENSHO
    Tetsuden Kashima, University of Washington
    Eileen Kurahashi, National Center for the Preservation of Democracy
    Karl Kwong-Liem Kwan, Purdue University
    Kevin Leonard, Western Washington University
    Daryl J. Maeda, Oberlin College
    Robert Maeda, Brandeis University
    Takeya Mizuno, Bunkyo University
    Mitchell Maki, California State University, Los Angeles
    Eric R. Muller, University of North Carolina Law School
    Don T.Nakanishi, University of California Los Angeles
    Franklin Ng, California State University, Fresno
    Setsuko Matsunaga Nishi, Brooklyn College, CUNY
    Gail M. Nomura, University of Washington
    Greg Robinson, Université du Québec À Montréal
    George Sanchez, University of Southern California
    Mitziko Sawada, Hampshire College
    Robert Shaffer, Shippensburg University of Pennsylvania
    Stephen H. Sumida, University of Washington
    Andrew B. Wertheimer, University of Hawaii
    Yuh Ji-Yeon, Northwestern University

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  33. Chaos,

    Even Reagan agreed it was an injustice. A congressional commission studied it. 40 academics debunked it. Yet you hang onto the book as a fifth gospel.

    13000. (a) This part shall be known and may be cited as the
    California Civil Liberties Public Education Act. The purpose of the
    California Civil Liberties Public Education Act is to sponsor public
    educational activities and development of educational materials to
    ensure that the events surrounding the exclusion, forced removal, and
    internment of civilians and permanent resident aliens of Japanese
    ancestry will be remembered, and so that the causes and circumstance
    of this and similar events may be illuminated and understood.
    (b) The Legislature finds and declares that the federal Commission
    on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians (CWRIC) was
    established by Congress in 1980 to “review the facts and
    circumstances surrounding Executive Order 9066, issued in February
    19, 1942, and the impact of such Executive Order on American citizens
    and permanent residents… and to recommend appropriate remedies.”
    The CWRIC issued a report of its findings in 1983 with the reports
    “Personal Justice Denied” and “Personal Justice Denied-Part II,
    Recommendations.” The reports were based on information gathered
    “through 20 days of hearings in cities across the country,
    particularly the West Coast, hearing testimony from more than 750
    witnesses: evacuees, former government officials, public figures,
    interested citizens, and historians and other professionals who have
    studied the subjects of Commission inquiry.”
    (c) The lessons to be learned from the internment of
    Japanese-Americans during World War II are embodied in “Personal
    Justice Denied-Part II, Recommendations.” The CWRIC concluded as
    follows: “In sum, Executive Order 9066 was not justified by military
    necessity, and the decisions that followed from it-exclusion,
    detention, the ending of detention and the ending of exclusion-were
    not founded upon military considerations. The broad historical
    causes that shaped these decisions were race prejudice, war hysteria,
    and a failure of political leadership. Widespread ignorance about
    Americans of Japanese descent contributed to a policy conceived in
    haste and executed in an atmosphere of fear and anger at Japan. A
    grave personal injustice was done to the American citizens and
    resident aliens of Japanese ancestry who, without individual review
    or any probative evidence against them were excluded, removed and
    detained by the United States during World War II.”
    (d) The Legislature further finds and declares that President
    Ronald Reagan signed into law the federal Civil Liberties Act of 1988
    and declared during the signing ceremony that “This is a great day
    for America.” In that act the Congress declared as follows:
    “The Congress recognizes that, as described in the Commission on
    Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians, a grave injustice was
    done to both citizens and permanent residents of Japanese ancestry
    by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during
    World War II. As the Commission documents, these actions were
    carried out without adequate security reasons and without any acts of
    espionage or sabotage documented by the Commission, and were
    motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a
    failure of political leadership. The excluded individuals of
    Japanese ancestry suffered enormous damages, both material and
    intangible, and there were incalculable loses in education and job
    training, all of which resulted in significant human suffering for
    which appropriate compensation has not been made. For these
    fundamental violations of the basic civil liberties and
    constitutional rights of these individuals of Japanese ancestry, the
    Congress apologizes on behalf of the Nation.”

    http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/edc/13000.html

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  34. Hmmm…
    http://hotair.com/archives/2007/10/27/ron-pauls-campaign-paid-conspiracy-nut-alex-jones-1300

    ALLAHPUNDIT: ” The likeliest explanation is that it’s some sort of service fee, either Jones doing something on behalf of the campaign or allowing the campaign to do something using his property. Either way, I’m mighty curious to know what special service might have been provided such that Paul’s people couldn’t have gone elsewhere and gotten the same deal from someone who isn’t a degenerate conspiracy theorist. There’s another question for the media to ask him during one of his myriad cable news appearances. Annnny day now.”

    I understand there has been a retraction/fake apology.
    It’s clear to me who started “the fun”, and deserves every little label they elicited, much the conspiracy theorist, whilst attacking the labelled same.
    Shame shame !

    SiliconDoc (da9276)

  35. Chaos,

    If you check the citation #36 you will see that a congressionally mandated commission completed a study in the 1980’s that stated pretty definitively that the internment was absolutely wrong. Citation #35 has the list of names.
    Reagan signed off on a reparations bill and endorsed the same study.

    I’ll take Reagan’s judgment any day over someone selling a book with proven inaccuracies….

    voiceofreason (19ec2e)

  36. Voiceofreason, I’m fairly well read in WWII history and I don’t accept all that Malkin says in her book although she has some valid points together with some stretching of the argument IMO. But really, claiming that a congressionally mandated commission settled a historical matter is pretty ridiculous.

    SPQR (6c18fd)

  37. SPQR,

    The references if you care to follow them up quote J Edgar Hoover and administrations officials responsible for the internment. I don’t know what kind of proof is needed to convince you. Read the links to the commission findings first and then tell me it is ridiculous.

    And her book supports the suspension of 110,000 people’s constitutional rights and the permanent loss of their property. I find it rather hard to see anything that justified that action.

    voiceofreason (19ec2e)

  38. A political commission’s “findings” are not going to convince me on any historical topic, voiceofreason, least of all on one as politically charged as this.

    I’ve read much of the material in question.

    It is easy to make the internment look bad when you have things like the General in charge of the west coast defense zone ( DeWint ? I’m blanking on his name ) giving blatantly racist testimony to Congress in support of the internment. It is obviously more difficult to make the internment look justified. I don’t think that Malkin succeeded in doing that. And her book does not reach my standards for history rather than political polemic. I do not believe that the exclusions and internments were reasonable nor justified, however, I think that she did succeed in showing that the issue in context had more complexities than it is given in contemporary accounts.

    SPQR (6c18fd)

  39. vor, any response to my #23?

    Pablo (99243e)

  40. Pablo,
    See #32 and #33.

    SPQR
    Thanks for the reply and explanation. Last thought from me is that the commission and the college academics were separate efforts as I understand it. Appreciate the dialog.

    voiceofreason (52dd66)

  41. vor,

    Pablo,
    See #32 and #33.

    I did, and they aren’t responsive to my #23, which is why I asked. Where does the army historian refute Malkin? Where did she “herself concede(d) that her main thesis in incorrect”?

    Pablo (99243e)

  42. Pablo,
    This will be my last post on this subject.
    The Command Historian is James McNaughton. His statements as well as Malkin’s can be found at
    http://www.isthatlegal.org/Muller_and_Robinson_on_Malkin.html

    This links to an exhaustive examination of the book by another historian and includes communications and statements from/by Malkin.

    Voice of Reason (10af7e)

  43. I’m curious just how many of you have a firm grasp on history, especially that which pertains to the Japanese Americans during WWII. From the many comments, it would seem there are not a few authorities here. I recommend a good read through the following website. Hopefully it will calm down the more dogmatic historians, and enlighten all.

    http://home.comcast.net/~eo9066/Intro.html

    Wes Injerd (2175ae)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3774 secs.