Wednesday, April 5, 2006

Eric Muller's Obssession With Michelle Malkin's Work Habits

My respect for University of North Carolina law professor Eric Muller started to collapse when I saw the implausible criticisms that he made of Michelle Malkin's book In Defense of Internment. Now, not all of his arguments were absurd--but it became increasingly clear, when he compared Malkin's book to Holocaust denial, that Muller and friends are more interested in defending the position that they have staked out than in pursuing the historical truth about the Japanese-American internment.

Muller, a self-described liberal, has also argued for why certain books should not be allowed in public school libraries or in government operated bookstores. Muller even toyed with the idea of suing a publisher for selling a book to a public library that he found offensive, because it promoted Christianity. This is, of course, the essence of modern liberalism--it believes that the government is obligated to fund art projects such as "Piss Christ," but that it is completely improper for a publisher to sell a book to a public library because the liberal in question finds its religious content offensive. I am not surprised that Eric Muller is a law professor--a profession that seems to attract people with the morals of a lawyer ("99% of lawyers ruin it for the rest") and the common sense of academics.

Muller's attacks on Malkin included a nasty little posting in which he implied that Malkin planted forgeries in the National Archives to make her book In Defense of Internment look plausible--a scurrilous claim that requires some evidence to make.

Muller's latest attack on Malkin
claims that Malkin doesn't really write all the stuff that she blogs--apparently on the theory that because Muller is unproductive and not very bright (he is a law professor, after all), that Malkin couldn't possibly be that much more productive.

It is worth reading the comments on Muller's attack. Even people who identify themselves as fans of Muller tell him that he is all wet, and to make these accusations of dishonesty based on the fact that Malkin gets a lot done during the day is absurd:
With all due respect .... this is indeed an embarrassing and somewhat petty posting.

Unlike your detractors, I thoroughly enjoy reading your blog; it is on my daily list to pass through each morning.

But this? This is beneath you.

First, it is utterly banal and uninteresting. Why is it remotely newsworthy? Does Malkin have assistants? Probably. Or maybe not. But why would I care? More importantly - why would I care about assertions to that effect not established by clear evidence? If you had actual proof it would be one thing (though still not exactly riveting news).

Second, what you've done here is attack the messenger rather than the message. The beauty of Internet free speech is that it permits the free exchange of IDEAS ... and in my opinion, many of Malkin's ideas could be challenged on thier merits.

It is unfortunate in the extreme that you completely discredited yourself by gossiping about the individual rather than engaging in a mature, respectful debate about that person's IDEAS ...

How could you miss that point so badly? In your classes, as you debate important precedents, do you discuss the concepts involved? The positions?

Or do you discuss what the attorney's were wearing? Who wrote their briefs?

This really is embarrassing, Eric. Your responses in your comments are even more troubling.

As for Malkin's comments: I rarely read there since she has no comments - but I did previously when she DID have comments. In fact, I debated her several times on issues, and found her responsive and articulate. She is seriously misguided on several points ... but responded to my queries thoughtfully.

Unfortunately, every thread was quickly overtaken with trolls that make the commenters here seem polite and tame by comparison. My liberal brethren filled her blog with racist demagoguery of the worst sort. Truly hateful, vile speech.

Thus she closed her comments. Which is a shame because, again, discussing her IDEAS was a worthy use of time. Discussing HER is an utter waste of time, and I don't see how you miss that.
Some of the critical comments by Malkin's fans were riotously funny:
Brilliant! You've unravelled Michelle Malkin's clever deception! There wasn't just one blogger, as any fool can see, there were two, three, maybe four or five or six! It was Karl Rove blogging from the Book Depository, Dubya blogging from the manhole cover, and Michelle Malkin was blogging from the Grassy Knoll! Who knows how many bloggers were involved in this vast right wing conspiracy!? But none of them all together could fool you, huh? You have unravelled their clever conspiracy with, with, with GEOMETRIC logic.
Methinks thou dost protest too much...

Sure, Michelle is cute, but sending flowers might be a better way to show your crush than pulling her pigtails in the playground.

Grow up. If you are intimidated by someone who is productive and literate and makes good arguments then your complaint says a lot more about *you* than about her.
And this one:
I'm just curious, did Michelle turn you down when you came on to her or something? Remember, you were both at the same convention, you invited her for a drink, she turned you down?

Dude. she's married.

You should have hit on an easy chick, like you usually do.

You know one of those that always needs help finding their room 'cause they drank too much, again. They never remember in the morning and you don't even have to pay them.

Seriously though, this stalking thing it ain't healthy, before you know it somebody's going to get hurt. So, chill
And the best of all:

This obsession has gotten unhealthy. Put away the harpoon before you hurt someone.



No comments:

Post a Comment