Although I probably disagree with--argh, what's her name again, the Talk Left person--about as often as I disagree with Malkin, I've always found her sane and generally decent (even if she does defend people like Kos).

A real "taxonomy" of bloggers would be an actual classification system (not a top ten list), and the genus assholo would contain myriad species, including leftus and rightus among others. As time goes by, I become more and more convinced that it's the genus that matters, not the species.

Jerks on all points of the political spectrum should realize that when they're spewing their vitriol, they're often angrily jabbing a finger at the mirror.

Bill,

I saw this shortly after it got posted. I elected to ignore it rather than deliver hits to a blog clearly undeserving of a rational readership. I agree with you that Jeralynn does not fall into that category, and I would include Pennywit, most of MyDD, and even Jesse Taylor at Pandagon. He gets pretty snarky, but usually includes plenty of reasoning to go along with it.

Both sides have their dish-throwers, and I just prefer not to bother with them.

Ed -

I've taken to ignoring a lot of it, but once in awhile something begs my attention.

And it remains that there is a certain ... "nastiness" in blogger punditry that is more common on one side of the ideological spectrum, it seems.

PS - Agree on Pennywit and MyDD, disagree on Taylor.

PSS - STAY AWAY FROM THE CHILDREN, YOU DEMENTED KIDDIE SHOW HOST!

Got to say I feel for Dean. Seems like many middle fo the roaders get bashed for failing to sheep along with the party. I'd rather bash the ones who never had an original thought that did not come from the party line. Deans a good guy so what if the thinks for himself.

Bill,

That one made me laugh out loud at the sheer pettiness and pointlessness of the attack -- and coming from the editor of what passes itself off as a major magazine! I've been referring to said troll as Condé Nasty around the house.

No, I'm serious Ed - stay AWAY from the KIDS!

:-)

Come now. The attractive martyrdom aside, "paranoiac" was a joke.

Didn't read like one. Maybe I'm the one that's irony-impaired?

But in my defense, it's hard to tell what's hyperbole with someone that labels a position that advocates the research use of non-sentient blastocysts already slated for destruction as "monstrous."

If someone doesn't agree with another individual, then the position of strength would be to counter the arguments with persuasive reasons as to why your debate opponent is incorrect, misguided or whatever. If the only counter is to employ snarky name calling, then the snarker is displaying weakness. It could be the snarker lacks in the necessary intellectual or analytical capabilities necessary to effectively counter, it could indicate holding a weak position, or just plain laziness.

Given that, tally Mithras as someone displaying weakness.

However, let's not get too holy than thou in our conservatism. There are plenty of rightie bloggers out there who are equally snarky in their postings about leftie bloggers.

I'm just glad to say that when I disagree with someone, be they to the left or right of me, I remain a model of civility.

While I agree with your article, I don't see how "Maglalang" is a personal attack equivalent to "dry drunk", with "Maglalang" being her maiden name.

Don't play dumb. Why are they using her maiden name? HINT: it's related to race.

Attack people who agree with you, why dontcha?
I wasn't playing dumb... I thought that you maybe thought that it was some sort of racial epithet. Like I said, I agree with your article.

Ok. Sorry. But the entire thrust of them using her maiden name is to declare her a race traitor that has forsaken her roots. You know, just because she took her husband's name. It's repellant.

Seems like many middle fo the roaders get bashed for failing to sheep along with the party.

Quoth Jim Hightower: "There's nothing in the middle of the road but a yellow stripe and dead armadillos."

More lefty hate for black Republicans, this time from washed-up calypso singer Harry Belafonte and washed-up comedian Dick Gregory. In video, too.

I think the Democrats are losing so many elections because Americans instincitvely vote for whichever side seems less crazy that particular year.

"I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left."

- Margaret Thatcher

The best part is that the moron doesn't seem to know what "taxonomy" means.

I know I'm just asking for trouble, but... do you really think that Michelle Malkin would be anywhere near as popular, as mainstream, or as respected if she was a middle-aged white guy? Picture a younger Limbaugh or a Michael Savage saying what she says and writing what she writes - would he get quoted favorably and be invited to speak on major news channels and stuff?

I don't think so. She's eloquent and intelligent, but nowhere near enough to account for her celebrity and her mainstream acceptance. What ideas has she had that were so original or words has she written that were so stirring that have given her a place in the top five or ten most popular right-wing thinkers these days? Why is she so famous?

Because she's an Asian woman. It shows right up front that despite writing In Defense of Internment, she's almost certainly not racist. It puts a more pleasant face on some ugly thoughts. Simply put, she's a textbook beneficiary of affirmative action. And yet, somehow she's a vehement partisan of the political party that slanders and vilifies supporters of affirmative action constantly.

I can't read the mind of everyone on the left who's ever talked or written about Malkin. But personally, when I call attention to her race, I'm pretty sure I'm not being racist. I'm trying to call her a hypocrite.

Cyrus -

1. Aside from the fact that I don't completely agree with it, there is a vast gulf between the way you made your argument and the way Mithras made his.

2. malkin does have quite a bit of natural talent, and an affinity for the style and work required for a certain brand of successful punditry, so I'm not sure that she wouldn't be in the top ten even without the looks and ancestry, which are a bonus to her appeal.

3. You equate "natural" preference - based on looks, gender and race, in a political context - with "affirmative action," (a social engineering construct enacted by the govt that promotes an artificial construct of race, often regardless of individual talent). These are two things which may seem related on their face, but are really quite different. And Malkin benefitting from her superficial attributes while also putting her nose to the grindstone and legitimately excelling is not exactly something that she can be faulted for.

I think that that's a flaw in your argument.

1. True. Even if the content is defensible, the packaging was pretty coarse. It was obviously a stupid way to phrase it, and that's giving him the benefit of the doubt.

2. I'll have to take your word for it, I haven't read as much of her work as I should have. What I have read, though, didn't strike me as any more well thought out or well crafted than a post at most political blogs.

3. I'd argue that they are more related than you give them credit for. Both of them acknowledge, and in doing so perpetuate, the fact that ethnicity (and in this case, looks, but...) can be an important attribute to consider in hiring in addition to merit/skill. Of course, it's a moot point if you're right about #2, but you said that she's benefitting from superficial attributes. Well, she's worked hard to keep others from benefitting from those same superficial attributes. I'm unimpressed.