Michelle Malkin distorted poll of U.S. Muslims to claim they are "cause for big concern"
In her May 23 syndicated column, right-wing pundit Michelle Malkin wrote: "If we believe the spin of Associated Press headline writers, there's little cause for concern about" a May 22 survey by the Pew Research Center on the American Muslim population. Malkin was referring to a May 22 AP article reporting on the survey. According to the AP, the poll "revealed" that the U.S. Muslim population is "largely mainstream" and "a community that in many ways blends comfortably into society." Malkin continued by asserting that "the details of the poll show that the always-downplayed tiny minority of jihadi sympathizers in America is cause for big concern." To support this claim, however, Malkin misrepresented the findings of the study. Indeed, she both exaggerated the percentage of respondents who believe that the U.S. government was responsible for the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and obscured the actual share with favorable views toward Al Qaeda.
In her column, Malkin wrote: "[O]nly 40 percent of all American Muslims believe Arab men carried about [sic] the 9/11 attacks -- joining Charlie Sheen, Rosie O'Donnell and the inside-job conspiracy-mongers." Presumably, Malkin meant to suggest that 60 percent of all American Muslims -- not the 40 percent who said they believe Arab men carried out the attacks -- are joining Sheen and O'Donnell "and the inside-job conspiracy mongers" in claiming that the U.S. government played at least some role in 9-11. But the actual poll results show that, while 40 percent of those surveyed said they believed that "groups of Arabs" carried out the attacks, "seven percent of Muslims overall say that the attacks were the result of a conspiracy involving the United States government or the Bush administration." From the survey:
Asked whether they believe groups of Arabs carried out the attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, 40% of Muslim Americans say yes, while 28% say they do not believe this, and about a third (32%) say they do not know or decline to answer the question.
When those who say Arabs were not involved in the 9/11 attacks are asked who they believe was responsible, most say they do not know or declined to answer. Seven percent of Muslims overall say that the attacks were the result of a conspiracy involving the United States government or the Bush administration. Very small proportions hold others responsible, including individuals other than Muslims (1%), Israel or Jewish interests (1%), and crazy or misguided people (1%).
Further, Malkin asserted that "[a]bout 29 percent of those surveyed had either favorable views about al Qaeda or did not express an opinion." Malkin went on to claim: "Yes, they either gave al Qaeda thumbs-up or had no opinion about the terrorist group responsible for slaughtering nearly 3,000 of their fellow Americans on 9/11 and responsible for a global bloodbath from Bali to Britain, the Middle East, and beyond." By including the respondents who did not offer an opinion on this subject (27 percent), Malkin obscured the actual share of respondents who expressed a favorable view of Al Qaeda. In fact, 1 percent had a "very favorable" view of the terrorist organization and 4 percent had a "somewhat" favorable view. Sixty-eight percent expressed an unfavorable view of Al Qaeda. (It is unclear how Malkin arrived at the figure of "about 29 percent.") From the report:
Overall, 68% of Muslims Americans view al Qaeda either very unfavorably (58%) or somewhat unfavorably (10%). Of the rest, a large proportion (27%) declined to express an opinion on the terrorist group, while just 5% of Muslims in the U.S. have a very (1%) or somewhat (4%) favorable view of al Qaeda.
According to the summary of the Pew Research Center study, "Muslim Americans are a highly diverse population, one largely composed of immigrants. Nonetheless, they are decidedly American in their outlook, values and attitudes. This belief is reflected in Muslim American income and education levels, which generally mirror those of the public." Some of the study's key findings state that "Muslim Americans have a generally positive view of the larger society"; "are highly assimilated into American society"; and "reject Islamic extremism by larger margins than do Muslim minorities in Western European countries."
There's a good discussion of this over at Glenn Greenwald's place...
I can't believe a simple AP poll would get Malkin all up a tizzy (sorry for the folksy, Rumsfeldish phrase). But, because the poll wasn't Muslim-bashing, she had to be.
I don;t know id=f she was in a "tizzy" but she certainly made some assumptions while implying that her assuptions were hard facts or statistics.
That said, if 27% of muslims refused to take a stand on Al Queda I have to ask why? What could their reasoning be if they aren't sympathizers to some degree?
I mean, if you can't make a moral judgement on Al Queda and say without equivocation that they're an evil group comprised of evil men(and that's being tactful) then what can you take a stand on? I shudder to think...
this website is beginning to remind me of those single women and men who hate kids and dont want any, but then proceed to tell parents how to raise their kids. you guys dont watch any of the news programs like savage or billo, but you want to dictate what they can say. i mean, so much for consumer's choice eh?
Bill-o and Malkin lie about things. This website shows their lies. It isn't any more complicated or simple than that.
im talking more about you posters, actually.
you feed off this, its entertainment to you. without billo you wouldnt be happy, youd have no mmfa and youd be REALLY BORED
Methinks you would be twice as bored not having anyone to insult with your hate speech.
there is no such thing as hate speech, it was made up by liberals and inserted into the lexicon along with "hate crime" so that people would think the constitution does not permit speech that is "hateful"
its just another way to grant special groups more special privileges and chew away at our rights to say what we think.
You sound like the teacher in Charlie Brown. Wha wha whaaaa, wha wha wha wha whaaaa?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech
See, there most certainly is a thing called hate speech. You just don't want to acknowledge it.
sorry but a wikipedia entry (probably written by david brock himself) does not count as scholarly text. show me where in the founding documents or any amendment that there is a limit placed on my freedom of expression aside from yelling fire in a burning building or threatening the president. We didn't hear this term until the late 90s/early 00s when gay liberals injected it into the dialogue to lobby for special treatment against being called names on the playground.
by using it over and over again and telling people it exists, the average joe will think there is a distinction between free speech and hate speech, when legally, there isn't.
all that is illegal now aside from what i mentioned is basically threatening to do bodily harm to someone or telling someone to kill/harm someone else.
Oh, so now laws you don't agree with don't count because they weren't part of the original constitution? That explains why republicans don't believe in oversight. So what if it's a law? If you don't agree with it, just ignore it. No problem here...
you misunderstand, those laws are fine because they protect against BODILY HARM to an individual. calling someone a f** (see i have * it out here even though it isnt a curse word) is fun to do as an insult between friends or enemies. i dont use it against gays really but between heteros there is nothing wrong with it and id only see myself calling a gay guy that if he was flaunting it in public or half nude (but youd also see me call a str8 girl/guy who was doing the same thing a sl*t). i shouldnt be arrested for that:)
once i was having dinner and a guy licked another guy's cheek at the next table, while i was trying to eat. i called him an anti-gay name and left. in that context, id get arrested for HATE SPEECH when they were the ones ruining my meal.
Honestly, I think you are just exagerating the effect here. I wouldn't like to see that while I eat either, but what good comes from insulting him out loud? Did it solve anything except to make you feel better about yourself for verbally "standing up" to him? What if it was a black couple, and them kissing each other disgusted you somehow? Would you call them a t-i-double guh-er? I seriously doubt you'd be arrested for saying it, but am willing to bet you may get a good whooping...
snoopy,
it is a stereotype to assume that because they were black *I* would get beat up. what if i am de la hoya in disguise, as long as it isnt mayweather then i am good to go. or what if it was alan keyes?
anyway back to the point, being black is just a matter of BEING, it has nothing to do with what they are DOING so you are drawing a false comparison. if it were two gay men sitting there eating dinner, i dont really care to be honest with you. i ONLY care when you shove it in front of my face. if it were a hetereosexual couple of ANY color, i would have been equally offended and told them to get a room. id call them a name if there was something that came to mind.
point is that it isnt really acceptable to flaunt your sexuality in public (in my view) and if i want to tell someone something for doing so by calling them a name i should be able to do so. of if i decide to be civil i should be able to tell them 'that was inappropriate' without being called a prude or a homophobe. you know?
OK, you parsed too much into my words. I didn't assume, I did say I bet you may. That doesn't imply you will automatically get a whooping, but that there's a higher degree of probability that it may happen.
You keep acting like there is a law preventing you from spouting off. While political correctness was always about trying to be respectful in public discourse, it never had the ability to throttle your right to say anything.
My analogy was most certainly correct. The root cause of your point is you find some action unappropriate in public, hence you want to react. Let me refine my point: say a mixed race couple enters the bar, are you saying it isn't as right for someone who finds that wrong to engage in the same reactive way because they find that inappropriate in the same way you find what a gay couple does inappropriate? Unless you think they should be allowed to spout off, that is selective application of reason.
You want to react? Fine. Just remember, if the object of your diatribe finds your words out of line, they have just as much right to react and punch your lights out.
Key word in this example is "action" Snoopy. Being black isn't an action. That said I don't know of any laaws that would get you jailed, fined or otherwise for speaking your mind. But I'm no lawyer.
once i was having dinner and a guy licked another guy's cheek at the next table, while i was trying to eat. i called him an anti-gay name and left.
Daily, are you making this stuff up as you go? Was he licking food off the guys face? Well no matter, if I saw a straight couple licking each others faces I'd think that was a tad bizarre too, but I don't think I'd call them a *name*.
I guess I can see how this licking might ruin your dinner, but the name-calling was out of line. IMO.
Nice parse, Jeter! I missed it by a mile. Must be the beer.
Do I get to join the party friday?
Absolutly.
Could you bring the chip & dip ;-)
And don't forget to let Val know what kind of beer you'd like.
I'll do that, got a nice fiesta ranch that I spice up with chile pequins and onions! If you see val before me, shiner heffeweisen or Boddingtons, please!
Shiner?
Hell, if this party is in Texas, let's just go straight for the tequila and spend all night throwing $#1T at Dailykoslvr2k7...
i didnt think liberals believed in violence...
after all, i am liberal and LOVE the daily kos
Let me guess, your liberal, but everyone else here is "far left". Right?
Bill O, is that you? hey buddy... here have a (fist)... full of flowers!!
"i am liberal and LOVE the daily kos"
Somehow (probably from your spouting of right wing talking points) I just don't believe that.
Just don't get any dip on your face or KOS will get the vapors and might just faint.
no it was two whiskered guys, one with a beard too. and he licked his significant other's cheek. i think that was pretty out of line for i lost my appetite and i wanted to enjoy my food in peace. as a heterosexual male, i would still be offended if it was a man-woman doing it, but i would be LESS offended because that is something that is not rejected by my sexual tendencies.
people do those things in public because they vye for attention, and of course i gave it to them which may have been a mistake, but there is something wrong with you if you seek validation and acceptance via ramming inflammatory actions down others' eyesockets.
You could have probably been more successful if you just approached them and respectfully said "ya know guys, I would appreciate it if you wouldn't do that while I am eating. Please be a little more respectful of others concerns." and unless they were two big jack@sses, they most likely would have profusely apologized and might have bought you a drink to boot.
what country do you live in again? people who do that kind of thing dont react that way except on rare occasions.
Well, let's see. It's always worked for me when I lived in Michigan, and still works for me now that I live in Texas. You must live in one of them bitter states.
Maybe you should have just asked the waiter to bring you a nice WAAAAAAHburger with a side of French cries.
If all it takes is one PDA to not only ruin your meal, but cause you to resort to a homophobic epithet and leave, you need to relax.
I can't believe you have the stones to cry about not having the "right" to call someone a f*g, n*gger, or w*tback. And what is wrong with trying to defend people from punks and bullies like you when they can't defend themselves. Yes, there are those who can defend themselves, but not all of them.
You are a worthless piece of garbage and I hope some day you get yours.
"show me where in the founding documents or any amendment that there is a limit placed on my freedom of expression aside from yelling fire in a burning building or threatening the president."
OK, first of all, you got it backwards: you're SUPPOSED to yell "fire" in a burning building.
But if you're willing to acknowledge yelling fire in a crowded theater as speech which should endangers others and against which there can be made legitimate laws, then you've already acknowledged the basis of laws concerning so-called "hate speech." There's plenty of precedent against speech inciting people to violence.
You want a good scholarly text? Check out J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" in which he staunchly defends individual liberty and speech... except in cases in which that speech incites violence or could result in harm. He's quite explicit about this, in fact.
"there is no such thing as hate speech, it was made up by liberals"
Do you really think that? Do you think maybe it's possible after the KKK by spreading hate and recruiting racists lynched, raped, systematically spread fear throughout the South that maybe, just maybe that has something to do with hate-crime legislation?
The power of hate is a threat to innocent minorities, women and religious groups. We have seen what happens via Hitler when hate is allowed to be spread on a wide scale. Al Quaeda too and the christian right.
Lots of groups are dangerous and discriminate against & kill innocent people based on crazy hate ideas which in our country are against the law for a good reason not because "liberals" made it up. That's a foolish statement based on total ignorance of history and reality.
David Brock wrote that Anita Hill was "a little bit nutty, a little bit sl*tty."
Wasn't that hate speech?
David Brock wrote that Anita Hill was "a little bit nutty, a little bit sl*tty." Wasn't that hate speech?
Yeah it was. But he wrote a book, said he was sorry and converted to Liberalism.
So apparently he's been absolved of his sins.
Or so I'm told every time I've brought that comment of his up here.
1st time I heard that one, I would have flamed him for saying it had I known.
LOL...looks like the MMFA founder gets a free pass now that he converted to liberalism. Brock hasn't apologized to Anita Hll even though even he agreed that the book he wrote on her was a pack of lies and fabrications.I am sure this site will start praising even Michael Savage if he ever becomes a liberal.
Again with the distortions?
Why is it that those on the right have such a morbid fear of addressing an issue fairly?
David Brock has never gotten a pass on what he did before. Some of the stuff he did was really bad. He woke up, and decided that he had to turn over a new leaf, and he did so in a radical way.
What he used to do is bad. Changing was a good thing. He gets credit for being good now, and he gets credit for deciding to change, but that doesn't let him off the hook for what he did previously. That's the same thing that Jeter tried to claim, and he was wrong, and so are you.
Oh yes he did he appologized profusely IN HIS BOOK. That is a pretty good appology and cant get any more public. He said he tried to contact her to appolgize in person but she didnt want to see him and he understood.
Why do you get such a thrill from not telling the truth sometimes, Jeter?
I've been an avid reader for months, and I have never seen anyone say that what you claim about David Brock's comment about Anita Hill.
What he said was wrong.
He acknowledged it was wrong. He apologized profusely. He now stands for the truth to shine a light on those who do the same stuff he used to do.
Who has ever said that what he did was okay because of what he does now? He current behavior doesn't excuse his previous behavior. Can you please show me any post where anyone has ever said that his previous behavior was acceptable because he is different now? Any post where you have been called out as you claim?
There's a huge difference between saying that he deserves credit for making changes in his life and saying that he gets a free pass for his previous behavior.
Can you please show me any post where anyone has ever said that his previous behavior was acceptable because he is different now?...by George [But not that one] or some such nonsense;-)
Where did I write that? I never used the word "acceptable"...I said "absolved" because he'd repented & said he was sorry...oh and became a Liberal.
Why do you come here & lie?
While I shouldn't do your work for you, here are 2 responses to my post about Brock's smearing of Anita Hill from another thread:
Yes it was. In Brocks defense he wrote a booklength mea culpa about his whole career without whitewashing it one bit. He took special pains in that book (Blinded by the Right) to say his hatchet job on Anita Hill was unconcionable. Lots of people appologize. Doing so in booklength fashion is impressive to me.- solon / Friday April 13, 2007 08:32:31 AM EST
You've got to be kidding me, Jeter. Though I don't have the exact words, Brock expressed contrition for what he did, didn't he? Isn't that why he changed from being a conservative hitman to running this site? Morever, he didn't utter his apology because he was forced to, as Imus did. He did so on his own, and he completely changed his whole life. That seems like true repentence. Correct me if I am wrong. (Didn't he write the book *Blinded by the Right,* in which he exposed the right-wing smear machine and himself?) - funnymanpants / Thursday April 12, 2007 09:47:29
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010?offset=140&show=1#comments
George you keep going on about how you've been "an avid reader for months" like that makes you some kind of what? Expert? Sorry but no one is impressed..Many, including myself have been posting here for 2 or more years so knock off acting like you know it all...cause quite frankly--you don't.
What a jerk you must be in real life. This thread is not active, yet you expect me to have replied to this and scold me because I haven't? That's the definition of a jerk!
Can you please show me any post where anyone has ever said that his previous behavior was acceptable because he is different now?...by George [But not that one] or some such nonsense;-)
Where did I write that? I never used the word "acceptable"...I said "absolved" because he'd repented & said he was sorry...oh and became a Liberal.
You said "So apparently he's been absolved of his sins." I paraphrased that into what I said. I didn't attempt to quote you - if I had, I would have used quotation marks, but you've done a good job at trying to avoid the issue by making my comment the issue! If someone was absolved of their sins, that means that they are no longer culpable for their behavior, and therefore their behavior is now acceptable - their behavior is no longer grounds to hold their feet to the fire if they have been absolved of their sins!
Why do you come here & lie?
While I shouldn't do your work for you, here are 2 responses to my post about Brock's smearing of Anita Hill from another thread:
Yes it was. In Brocks defense he wrote a booklength mea culpa about his whole career without whitewashing it one bit. He took special pains in that book (Blinded by the Right) to say his hatchet job on Anita Hill was unconcionable. Lots of people appologize. Doing so in booklength fashion is impressive to me.- solon / Friday April 13, 2007 08:32:31 AM EST
Solon's comment is not saying that he's been absolved of his sins.
You've got to be kidding me, Jeter. Though I don't have the exact words, Brock expressed contrition for what he did, didn't he? Isn't that why he changed from being a conservative hitman to running this site? Morever, he didn't utter his apology because he was forced to, as Imus did. He did so on his own, and he completely changed his whole life. That seems like true repentence. Correct me if I am wrong. (Didn't he write the book *Blinded by the Right,* in which he exposed the right-wing smear machine and himself?) - funnymanpants / Thursday April 12, 2007 09:47:29
Funnymanpants is not saying that he's been absolved of his sins. He is still culpable for what he did in the past. He is a changed man now, so he gets credit for changing, but that does not absolve him of the sins he previously committed!
http://mediamatters.org/items/200704120010?offset=140&show=1#comments
George you keep going on about how you've been "an avid reader for months" like that makes you some kind of what?
The fact that I have been posting since I retired about a month ago, but reading for much longer than that, is relevant. It means that I don't have a month's history here. I go back much longer than that! That's what it means! Someone who's been reading for a year and only posting for a month is different than someone who's been reading and posting for a month! Can't you grasp that?
No Georgie you friggin fool I meant reply to THIS thread not the one I left you to read. Duh!
God YOU can't follow simple directions, can't refute a word I wrote.
The posters absolved Brock. They didn't use THAT WORD...but even a numbskull can figure out what they meant.
All you've done since you started posting here is attack other posters and make dumb posts.
Perhaps you should retire...
I have no idea what your first comment means. I did reply to your post here as well as your post on that other thread. It appears that you are the fool.
You did not refute what I said.
I refuted what you said.
I have never seen a single person claim that Brock was absolved of his sins. The two posts you claim do just that do not do that.
As I said earlier
"There's a huge difference between saying that he deserves credit for making changes in his life and saying that he gets a free pass for his previous behavior."
Absolving him of sin would be giving him a free pass. No one suggests that they want to do that. They say that he deserves credit for making changes, and so he is not the same as people who have not (yet) seen the light.
The very first definition of absolved is "To pronounce clear of guilt or blame." No one I have seen post has said that Brock is clear of guilt or blame for what he did previously. Show me a post where someone said that he was. That would show me that someone said he was absolved of sin.
Maybe the problem is that you don't understand the defintion of the word "absolve". Hopefully the definition above helps you. The two posts you copied above don't help you prove your point.
Did you or didn't you write this? :
What a jerk you must be in real life. This thread is not active, yet you expect me to have replied to this and scold me because I haven't? That's the definition of a jerk!
Yeah you did write that and that my dumbass friend is why I wrote the following:
No Georgie you friggin fool I meant reply to THIS thread not the one I left you to read. Duh!.
Now you write this:
I have no idea what your first comment means. I did reply to your post here as well as your post on that other thread. It appears that you are the fool.
So big DUH again.
You don't even have a clue do ya?
Once again, only in your dreams did you refute what I wrote.
BTW great job getting MOST of the Hillary thread deleted because of your attacks on posters.
What a maroon!
First, if Media Matters decided to delete posts, it's because those posts didn't fit their criteria. Doris took it off topic, and it appears that it was those off topic posts that got removed. Why would you have a problem with that exactly?
Secondly, this comment by you
"No Georgie you friggin fool I meant reply to THIS thread not the one I left you to read. Duh!."
still makes no sense. I did reply to this thread. This portion of this thread was not active. You scolded me for not having replied to your post, but that was baloney. I didn't say,or mean, that the thread was archived, and that therefore I could not reply. Do you really have this much trouble with the English language? First you don't have a clue what "absolved" means, and now you think that because I said that this part of this thread was not gaining new posts, and was not active, you think I thought it was archived? Numbskull! I didn't reply because I didn't realize you had replied to me. That's what I said, and that's what I meant. How could I post and say "this thread is not active"? If the thread not being "active" means that it's archived, then I could not post that it's not active, could I?
Whatcha want to bet that you don't admit that you were wrong on this subject, and that your logic failed you miserably on this issue?
Lastly, I clearly refuted what you said. The two posts you copied did not say that Brock was absolved of anything. Catch a clue already! Being credited with turning over a new leaf doesn't absolve you of the blame for what you did before! That makes Brock different than people who don't accept responsibility, but it doesn't change the fact that what he said was hate speech!
You were wrong, and not surprisingly, you won't admit it. I point out that you were wrong, and you blame me for off topic posts getting removed. If I am 'responsible' for off topic posts being removed, that would be a good thing, but I am not responsible for it. I cannot even flag posts, and I only know that because I just tried to do it, and I cannot.
Please note that Solon, whose post you copied to use as an example of people who supposedly say that Brock was absolved of guilt, denies that he believes Brock is absolved on any guilt.
Still waiting to see any post that says he was absolved of his sins, Jeter, or an admission that no one has ever truly said that.
Either would be fine with me.
Saying that he gets treated differently than people who have not shown contrition is not the same as saying he has been absolved of his sins. I have never seen anyone who says that his previous behavior was okay.
Awfully funny how Jeter alleged that I was running from a fight by not replying to his comment here. After he rudely told me that he assumed my lack of a reply meant that I could not debunk what he said, I did reply, and totally demolished his argument. He then both misinterpreted something I said, and denied that he was proven wrong. I then demolished his arguments again, and pointed out how his allegations were even denied by one of the people he was using as proof, and he never replied.
What's the problem with people like him admitting their errors?
It's okay for him to demand that I reply, but then he can simply stop replying when it turns out to be inconvenient for him to have his distortions and his errors pointed out?
Still no reply!
No Jeter that is NOT absolving anyone. I am not God nor Anita Hill it is not up to me to say he is forgiven, I would think that is axiomatic. What it DOES, what any sincere appology does to ME is accept that THEY believe they were wrong and makes me think we probably wont see that kind of action in the FUTURE. That is the only sort of judgement that is for me to make. I certainly think his hatchet job, which is what I called it was wrong, no absolution from me. This is a simple concept.
"without billo you wouldnt be happy"
Wrong... No Bill O'Reilly would mean no more of the extremist right wing insanity that has plagued us for the past six years. Two party system? Yes. Bi-partisan government? Yes. Right wing wing insanity? No thanks.
what websites would you peruse, hmmm?? drudge and digg get boring after awhile you know...you need mmfa, you need your billo fix to satisfy you during your lunchbreak. come on, admit it..
you're starting to remind me of those bloodsuckers you pick up in dirty stagnant water. You survive by leaching off of others and are immune to the pain you inflict as you proceed to suck us dry. Fortunately, there's salt...
Very wrong... but it amuses me how right wingers continually project their own behavior and motives to liberals.
you are right, that is why i am here. make no qualms about it, this is pure entertainment to me. i love to see mmfa squirm daily at the onslaught info that comes out on talk radio/fox news and then see people who have no interest in watching any of these networks (even if they cleaned up their acts), pretend to be outraged. its a flamefest for anti-oreilly trolls, and that is why you attract other types of trolling here:) *cough*
Well, at least your honest about it. You prefer rubbing salt to public discourse. AKA ditto head.
id HARDLY call this public discourse. read the posts on the hush bimbo piece, every other lib post is about viagra or oxycontin. there is no elevated discourse here.
Oxycontin comments...?
Actually, I think the oxycontin comments about Rush Limbaugh are relevant and fair game. In my opinion, Rush Limbaugh's on-air "performances" have been slipping for a while. Oycontin is a very serious addiction. Catch my drift...?
oops, anyway my point was that at least i admit why i am here. you are not here on some research mission or quest to end oreilly's reign, youre here because this is a fun website to check and that's all.
I disagree to a point. Although I do find this sight often very entertaining, I do like the information here. It is presented in a factual layout that I prefer. None of the mindreading and strained logic of many other media watchdog sites.
Yeah, this is the only website on the whole, wide internet I ever visit. How perceptive of you, Daily.
And MMFA doesn't?
doesn't what?
Hey Daily you punk, you flagged our exchange from last night! Are you that mad at me for wiping the floor with your talking points?WEAK dude, WEAK. There were alot more comments than this.
I think it meant "and MMFA doesn'y lie?"
I went to the site, and checked out the first item, regarding MM's item about O'Reilly's book. O'Reillly made a statement about the MSM wanting Air America to succeed, and backed it up by saying there was lots of press about Air America, and very little mention of conservative media.
MMFA responded by doing an actual count of mentions of liberal vs. conservative media, and found it just the opposite of what BilldO claimed.
Here is part of the "debunking" from the anti-MMFA site;
"What Media Matters doesn’t tell you is that the 1,000 stories on Rush Limbaugh were most likely about his June 2006 arrest for Viagra. .... Meanwhile, it’s quite likely that the 300 citations of Al Franken were in reference to reviews and promotion for a movie about him called "God Spoke." "
I think the phrases "most likely" and "quite likely" make it pretty apparent that this site didn't actually do any research, but is pretending to expose lies with completely imagined facts.
But I'd bet it's convincing enough for at least one person to post a link to it.
The second and third are even worse. The Second point was that O'falafel claimed specific papers had a liberal editorial bent. MMFA showed they endorsed Bush for President. They chime it with that doesnt encapsulate their entire editorial philosophy. Yet O'Reilly offered NOTHING to back up his claim, at least this was SOME evidence, I mean IF they had such a BIASED, monolithic, liberal bent its hard to imagine them endorsing Bush how many liberals do YOU know that like the guy
The third pathetic attempt was about O'Bullyboys claim that there was a groupthink that attacked Passions of the Christ and praised Farenhiet 9/11 citing one author he claimed said that Passion had exploited Jesus death a claim NEVER substantiated the exploitation the guy cited was the exploitation of gore, and MMFA showed the other author Hornaday said she took exception to both movies and enjoyed aspects of both movies. The site says that she DID criticize Gibson for bad history which MMFA never denied, trying to make it look like MMFA chose an article that didnt mention O'Reillys direct claim against her to make it look like she didnt make it when the POINT is where is the groupthink? Where is the universal condemnation of one movie and lauding of the other when she says virtually the same thing about both movies when asked about them? The site is a joke
So, if I think someone should be taken off the air, I should give them (and their advertisers) another listener?
Hmmm, maybe if I want to stop violence in Iraq I should go over there and build some IEDs...
You mean like the right wingers who come here to complain every single day posting over & over. Never donating a dime to Media Matters a service they use every single day, but that doesn't stop them from always trying to dictate and try to control what MMFA posts.
I'm sorry, but you lost me after you equated Bill O. with news. And I don't mean you lost me as in I couldn't follow you. I meant you lost me as an interested party in any of your opinions.
After reading this article I immediately went to Malkin's website, hoping to leave a comment about her screw-up, but guess what...no comments alllowed...
Malkin is a coward.
Yea, I'm sure it would have been a respectful one...No asian stereotype jokes or name-calling...
Feel free to email her: writemalkin@gmail.com
For a bigot, she's not even pretty. Seems to be the trend these days. "Look, ma! I can make a huge salary on US network tv by being a racist!" Join the boycott, don't watch their garbage, don't contribute to their ratings.
funny how it isnt sexist of you to talk about her looks (you dont bring up looks when you call rush a bigot), yet its sexist for someone to say 'hey look, for a lesbian rosie sure isnt pretty like on all those pornos, she is so fat and ugly!'
typical liberal pseudo-evolved brain
Weren't you the one who complained that the posters here mocked Rush's pill habit? We're equal-opportunity mockers, here.
Maybe Ann Coulter gets more gender-bending epithets, but Bill O'Reilly gets his loofah/falafel comments, too.
honestly i think she's kinda cute, in a weird wingnut loud mouth (with nice lips) kind of way. I don't know, opposites attract?
youre SICK. you do know she is ORIENTAL right?
"Oriental"
You mean like a rug? I do know that shes asians. I see your true colors KOS, shinning through like a rainbow. I refrain from joining in on thrashing your receiving, but everyone else seems to be doing a fine job.
Keep it up guys!
So let me get this straight... I'm sick... because she's.. oriental?
Well look who's the bigot/racist now!!
HAHA actually i call my chinese friend oriental all the time, he gets really annoyed by that term. but then he calls me a mutt right back...good times
"HAHA actually i call my chinese friend oriental all the time, he gets really annoyed by that term."
I wonder why you?
Not to cause any more trouble or to even look like I support Kos' posts, but I am curious, what is the problem with the word 'Oriental'?
It's definition is easy: 1. EASTERN; 2. Of or relating to the Orient/Asia. 3. Lustrous and valuable 4. A native or inhabitant of the Orient.
Seems to me that this term is nothing more than an adjective denoting region - or, even a flattering term. What's the big deal? I truly don't understand why using this term is a problem.
How is this any different from me being described as 'occidental' or, more commonly, a WESTERNER? Please enlighten me.
As for Kos' previous posts as to his actions in a restaurant and the use of a socially unacceptable term: well, who cares? I mean, using such words isn't nice, it's rude, and it only shows that Kos cannot come up with something more intelligent to say (instead of using f*g), but for goodness' sakes, haven't any of you ever heard of "sticks and stones..."? While words like that do nothing but to inflame others and make people look ignorant, they truly don't harm you. So, Kos, you might be a sad, ignorant shell of a human being, I'll support your right to say whatever the hell you want.
"Not to cause any more trouble or to even look like I support Kos' posts, but I am curious, what is the problem with the word 'Oriental'?
It's definition is easy: 1. EASTERN; 2. Of or relating to the Orient/Asia. 3. Lustrous and valuable 4. A native or inhabitant of the Orient."
Do you go around calling be people colored or negro? Maybe accurates, but words mean different things to different people. My wife is "ASIAN" she is not Oriental which usually decribes an object. I do see your pont, but can you se mind as well?
Kos can say whatever he wants, the context of his speech leads me to feel a certain way about him. He has every rigt to continue to make a fool of himself and show his ignorance. Find by me.
It seems to me that we agree; however, unless you're Mr. Webster's reincarnation, "oriental" can refer to objects, animate and inanimate (which includes people). No offense intended, but your wife is oriental (i.e. from the East, or Asia). She is also Asian. Either word is perfectly acceptable in the English lexicon. If you or your wife take offense at it, then it's you who have the problem, not others who use the word as it is intended.
You didn't answer the second part of my post...why isn't it ok for people to refer to things of the East as 'Oriental', but it's no problem for people in the West to be referred to as 'Occidental'? What sort of slur is connected with these words? None that I have experienced, or read in any dictionary.
"You didn't answer the second part of my post...why isn't it ok for people to refer to things of the East as 'Oriental', but it's no problem for people in the West to be referred to as 'Occidental'? What sort of slur is connected with these words? None that I have experienced, or read in any dictionary."
Negro, by webster's and your standards is an exceptable term for Black people but do you go around calling people negros? It's the same thing. I didn't say you can't say it, but don't act shocked when you get a less than favorable reaction from people. People for the most part just don't like it, as is their right.
How often do you actually hear people refering to Westerners as 'Occidental' (maybe we travel in different circles)? If a large portion of the western (I assume your refering to white people solely) population did not like being referred to as Occidental, the courteous and polite thing to do would be to refrain from referring to them in that way. Now that I am aware of this terms use I would rather refer to people by their nationality or ethnicity. Many Asians do not like to be refered to as Oriental, I can respect that. Most Asian I know would politely ask you not to refer to them in that way, some would say "F*** You!" and some wouldn't pay it any mind.
Michelle was born in the US:
"It's definition is easy: 1. EASTERN; 2. Of or relating to the Orient/Asia. 3. Lustrous and valuable 4. A native or inhabitant of the Orient."
How is she Oriental?
I'm not a PC cop, but a little political correctness, which I interpret as politeness, can go a long way in this world.
To be clear Kos can say what he wants rude or not. I still think he's proven himself a moron.
"The term "Oriental" (from the Latin word for "Eastern") was originally used in Europe in reference to the Near East. It was later extended to the rest of Asia, but came to refer to Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians in the 19th and 20th century US, where most Asians were Chinese (and later Japanese and Filipino). By the late 20th century, the term had gathered associations in North America with older attitudes now seen as outmoded, and was replaced with the term "Asian" as part of the updating of language concerning social identities, which critics have derided as political correctness"
"The term "Oriental" (from the Latin word for "Eastern") was originally used in Europe in reference to the Near East. It was later extended to the rest of Asia, but came to refer to Northeast Asians and Southeast Asians in the 19th and 20th century US, where most Asians were Chinese (and later Japanese and Filipino). By the late 20th century, the term had gathered associations in North America with older attitudes now seen as outmoded, and was replaced with the term "Asian" as part of the updating of language concerning social identities, which critics have derided as political correctness" -MONKJ
This was all you had to tell me! :) The original question was, 'what is wrong with the term oriental? I have never heard any pejorative definitions of the word 'oriental' (as I have with negro, colored, and all of the rude words one would use to disparagingly describe people of a certain race/ethnic identity), hence my very first question in my very first post on this thread. I was seeking the answer as to why some people find it rude. However, I disagree with putting the word 'oriental' in the same category as negro, colored, etc. I don't believe that they carry the same "weight" (if you will) of hatred.
Yes, I am a liberal, but I don't necessarily believe in political correctness. If one wants to censor one's speech as to make sure not to be rude to or to placate others, I laud them for their efforts in trying to keep society civil. On the other hand, sticks and stones...
On a personal note, I live in San Francisco. I've used the term 'oriental' on occasion and no one has blinked an eye. Further, you can see 'Oriental Markets' everywhere here. Double standard?
"On a personal note, I live in San Francisco. I've used the term 'oriental' on occasion and no one has blinked an eye. Further, you can see 'Oriental Markets' everywhere here. Double standard?"
Oriental Markets have Oriental things in them it's not necessarily describing the people. What double satandard are you talking about? Are you still on that Occidental double standard kick? To be honest I have never heard anyone referred to in that manner.
"I've used the term 'oriental' on occasion and no one has blinked an eye."
Like I say some people aren't bothered at all. You keep bringing up dictionary standards and yet you say the word negro carries more weight. How do we measure the how much weight a word carries? How are you so certain that referring to an Asian person as an Oriental does not carry an equal amount of weight "to them"?
I was once at a hospital to visit my newborn niece with my wife. We went into the gift shop to get a stuffed animal for the baby and the lady at the register made this awkard comment to me and my wife.
"Are you a couple, Negro and Oriental mixed babies are so cute."
No she was at least in her 70s and we both knew there most likely wasn't any malice behind what she said so we just shrugged it of but it was a very awkards moment for us. If she had said Black and Asian I honestly don't think it would have been as awkard. Is it wrong that I feel this way? I'm not going to get on somekick about you not understanding if you are not Asian or Black (a fact I can't claim to actually know about you) you wouldn't understand, that wouldn't be fair. Maybe you just don't understand our perspective and why it was awkard for us, but are we not allowed to feel that way?
PS I'm not attacking you I really am interested in your opinions and you are doing much better than Kos. I'm actually enjoying this discussion.
To answer your question regarding the "weight" I put with the word negro versus the word oriental. This might have to do with my personal ignorance of the word 'oriental' and it's connotations (other than the dictionary definition we discussed earlier), but we know for a fact that the word 'negro', carries with it a nasty connotation. It is considered inflammatory nowadays. I am pretty sure (with no factual basis, just hunch), that it has to do with the association of negro to the word negroid and the other 'n' word that I won't dare mention fully. See, the word negro and words associated with it (such as I have demonstrated) carry a very negative connotation, and IMHO, more derogatory than 'oriental' because of our nation's history with regards to African Americans (not to say that the U.S. policies towards Asians have been good, but cannot compare to hundreds of years of slavery, no?). For me, this is why the 'n' word and words associated with it carry more weight than 'oriental' (with me, anyway). Remember, this is only a supposition, absent hours of long research; I'm only throwing theoretical possibilities.
As a caucasian male with an advanced education in linguistics, I am always intrigued with the sociolinguistic ramifications of certain words. Now to me, words only have the value you give them. While dictionary definitions are the means by which we use words, context and true meaning, along with many other factors, determine how we understand the meaning of a word. The example you gave was PERFECT. The lady in the gift shop at the hospital probably meant no harm. You probably didn't feel threatened by her. Although you might question her choice of words, her intent was to COMPLIMENT you! So, we need to look at intent. If I refer to your wife as oriental, I mean nothing more than the fact that she is from an Asian nation. Yes, I could have used Asian. But, as an individual, it is my right to choose what words I use. Now knowing that 'oriental' is a word that might have negative connotations, I will have to be much more careful about how I use it - because that's just the way I am (it's not as though I use it every day, or even every other day...you get my drift). Intent is the key. Earlier in this thread, DailyKosdude (or whatever) called a pair of gentlemen (in public, no less) f*gs. Now that word has only ONE meaning in this nation. It is meant to harm, inflict pain, and categorize someone as unacceptable. Kos' attitude was not necessary, as he was trying to enjoy his meal, so were others who might have heard him use the pejorative word (and could have possibly ruined THEIR dinners!). His handling of the situation was poor, to say the least. My partner (male) and my roommate (male) and I always refer to each other as f*ags (yes, we are gay). We can do that, just as African Americans can claim the 'n' word.
Sorry to ramble. The point I wanted to make was INTENTION. As participants in a conversation, receivers have the responsibility to properly ascertain what it is that senders say and their intentions.
And one more answer to a question in your post:
Michelle was born in the US:
"It's definition is easy: 1. EASTERN; 2. Of or relating to the Orient/Asia. 3. Lustrous and valuable 4. A native or inhabitant of the Orient."
How is she Oriental?
---Because she is of or relating to the Orient/Asia. OR - a native or inhabitant of the Orient. She might have been born in the U.S., and is very much a citizen of the U.S., but her roots are still in Asia.
"While words like that do nothing but to inflame others and make people look ignorant, they truly don't harm you."
No they don't harm me and people have the right to say what they want. I also have the right to call them a$$holes.
I agree with your right to call anyone whatever you'd like, but using such language doesn't advance your position. Using inflammatory language doesn't do anything but make you look as though you cannot intelligently rebut an argument. It's what many Republicans do (witness the myriad articles here reporting right-wing bomb-throwing).
I wish we had emoticons, but please don't misinterpret my tone in this.
I completely understand your point, but I can't pretend that I am above calling an a$$hole and a$$hole. That would just be dishonest on my part and I don't like to send mixed signals, it's not in my nature. I could eloquently elaborate about the error of his ways, but for the sake of time a$$hole is quite effective.
I also understand your point about republicans resorting to such language. Please believe your words are not lost on me, but I am your average American (leaning towards a liberal viewpoint). I kind of don't like when Liberals pretend they are above getting their hands dirty. It's very disengenous in most cases and one of the reasons the "right" right feels they can get away with labeling liberals as wussies.
I love to have involved conversations with people of different backgrounds in opinions an honest debate if you will. I've determined I won't be getting that from "KOS".
"HAHA actually i call my chinese friend oriental all the time, he gets really annoyed by that term. but then he calls me a mutt right back...good times"
Wow, you really sound like a class act. I wish I knew your friend -- I'd like to suggest a few other things that he could call you.
It's OK, DTrain. Even though I don't agree with Michelle Malkin, I do agree that she is an attractive woman. :)
Tanks, CSL. I don't know what it is about them, but I am attracted hard-core to hot or cute women that I disagree with politically... Just bein honest. One quick thing, I think MJ and I just had a problem with this gem from DailyKus (paraphrasing from memory):
"your SICK. Don't you know she's ORIENTAL?"
now lets try this
"your SICK. Don't you know she's CAUCASION?"
or this
"your SICK. Don't you know she's BLACK?"
I think you might understand how that can be offensive to some people although it turns he was just trying to be funny. No matter how horrid the attempt was.
I know how inflammatory Kos was. I was simply pointing out that it's alright to notice that people you don't necessarily agree with politically can also be attractive - and it's OK to admit it! :)
ooookkkk.... so i presume you were just pulling my leg.
(shaking leg incessantly)<------------
Malkin is a hack. Every article she writes is proven to have false data. Then she must spend days defending it, and usually loses. Even when quoting the PEW studym she cherry-picks those points to enflame her, already dangerous and radical base of wingnuts. You never see her on TV being confronted, as she refuses to defend herself. I read the entire PEW study, and found, other sources online, that the militant Evangelicals in America are far more accepting of abortion clinic bombings, as justified, than Muslims supporting suicide bombings. We have a dangerous militant ideology in America, and it's religious based.
What it isn't is Muslims.
Of course she's a hack. She's doing what she's paid to do...lie. Her corporate masters have a huge stake in the "War on Terror" so a poll which indicates that most Muslims have blended peacefully into society is counterproductive for their bottom line.
Well, any guesses as to which former troll has returned under the name of Dailykosluvr? At least he proudly admits to being a troll...how refreshing.
what troll has returned? im a far lefty like you and i read the daily kos every morning over scones w/ jam
Truth Deflector, is that you? Maybe Colonel Roy? Welcome back! Are you shaving yet?
I think women of Filipino descent are a national threat to this country especially when they start spouting such bull.
El Rushbo was talking about this poll yesterday, and I had to admire his scientific method.Leaving aside the inherent problems with public opinion polls, Rush did some on-the-fly tweaking of his own.
Anybody who responded with an answer other than "strongly disapprove" was added to the "approve" group, because, as Rush explained, any other response than that was tacit approval of Al Qaeda.
By the time he was done with this poll, I think most Muslims were members of Al Qaeda.
Rush is a skilled liar...that's why they pay him so much. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity will be chirping about it soon, if they aren't already. I would expect to hear a lot more about this poll in the coming weeks, as Cheney/Bush prepares its case against Iran. The Defense Contracttors have a backlog of smart bombs...gotta move 'em!
TALKING POINTS UPDATE: As usual when I listen to Rush or his clones, I think "who's buying this ?", and somebody volunteers to answer my question.
EHull checked in at about 3 posts into this item with the same take as rush.Looks like about a 30 hour cycle from the Oxycontin's mouth, through the CPU (Conservative Propaganda Unit) and onto MMFA.
When we talk of political correctness, or "politeness," (asian vs. oriental) it should only be used toward innocent people. Republican trash-talkers like Malkin shouldn't be covered with Politeness- Correctness. She loses that priviledge when she opens her mouth in the public square and spouts lies, distortions and distractions.
Here, watch this and learn: "Hey, Michelle! Me so horny-Me so horny! Me love you're Nazi talking points long time, girl!
No, that's not ok. It's fair game to attack Malkin because she is dishonest, intellectually challenged and an unanalytical reporter of whatever the powers that be tell her to report. It's not civil to attack her on the basis of her appearance or her vocal tone, as well as not even part of the point nor the problem with her being given a podium that reaches more people than a soap box in a park would. It is simply bigotry to attack her based on her ethnicity no matter what side one is on, just as it is bigotry to attack anyone based on their ethnicity.
That wasn't cool at all.
No. No. No. Racism is racism. I suspect you are a conservative troll pretending to be a liberal troll from your weak and stupid racist argument. Go back under your bridge!
Agreed, no double standards here, libs or repubs will held to the fire if they cross that line.
Malkin is a liar and a meat puppet for the right. She's one of those cyborg Republican apoliogists who will say anything and everything to discolor, distract and misinform with a certain degree of precision and robot-like function.
She gets no special treatment from me. She trash talks liberals and democrats and has used much more dangerous and distracting language in her riduclous rants than me quoting a famous scene from a movie we all watched.
The difference is that she's helping fuel a machine that's killing hundreds of thousands.
Or, as Rush Limbo has said about his pathetic Obama, the Magic Negro bit, what I said wasn't about asians or women, it was poking fun at Stanley Kubrick! Stanley Kuibrick was the target of my racial slur and you guys thought is was about Michelle Malkin? Boy, are you dumb!
"She gets no special treatment from me."
Right -- but Billie, treating someone with civility and basic humanity isn't special treatment at all. Taking shots at Malkin's racial/ethnic identity does nothing to counter her claims; it only makes you look like an ass.