Is that a chicken joke?
If you're not a reader of the excellent blog Orcinus, you've been missing out on some incredible writing. You've also missed an incredible series of posts in which David expertly dismantles the new Michelle Malkin
Last Friday, David commented:
Has anyone else noticed that it's been a full 10 days since I wrapped up my critique of Michelle Malkin's Unhinged -- and still nary a peep from her?(More at link)
Indeed, the entirety of Malkin's response to my critique of her work over the years has been to pretend that I simply don't exist.
Isn't this someone who likes to brag before her audiences that she unflinchingly takes on her critics?
Several commenters opined that he simply wasn't "big enough" for Malkin to notice; "if he was on television," he'd get a response. David replies (in comments):
Michelle knows full well who I am and I know she reads this blog -- not regularly, but she is aware of what I've been posting. She also purchased a copy of "The Rise of Pseudo Fascism," no doubt to scour it for signs of "unhingedness."
She's counting on most of the reading public having the same reaction as you: "She's a stratospheric blogger, and he's a relative nobody: Why should she bother?" Well, the point of this post was that Malkin managed to devote a whole lot of heated words to a handful of even more obscure nobodies, but can't seem to find the time to respond to someone with at least a little more standing in the blogosphere who offers a more substantive critique.
But I think I enjoy at least some standing as influential: Orcinus, you'll observe, is on the blogroll at most of the biggest left-wing names, including DKos, Eschaton, and Alterman. I've won a coupla Koufaxes. And so on. It shows up in "influence indexes" like the one at Blogstreet.
So for Malkin to simply ignore a sustained and serious critique from this blog kind of cuts against this whole "self-correcting nature of the blogosphere" business, don't you think?
Indeed. Malkin has spewed yet another waste of good paper and precious bookshelf space; a highly qualified writer has taken her to task for her dishonesty and written slight-of-hand, she obviously knows this (and David), and she's too much of a coward to engage him in real debate. She's more than happy to point to single sentences from comment threads on blogs as examples of how all liberals are "unhinged," but a six-part critique is somehow unworthy of her attention. One reader mentioned that he had sent a kindly-worded email to Malkin, requesting a response to David's critique of her book. He mentioned that if he did not receive a response, he would send her a "ruder version," to which David replied:
I'm not waiting for someone else to point it out in a vulgar fashion, because I really don't believe in that tactic. It's expiative and sure does feel good, but I just think it obscures your argument. I'm kind of a Spinozist on this: I think passions are the stuff of life, but reason is what I believe in.
(It also adds more fuel to the Malkin fire. Don't give her more material for her second book.- Paul the interrupting Spud)
What would be nice, of course, were if other bloggers were to start pointing out her avoidance of my critique too. (Nudge nudge hint hint.) I'm just not hamhanded enough to go asking.
Well Dave; I'm doing my part. I'm sure I've got a tiny fraction of your readership, but I'm more than willing to add fuel to the fire and call Malkin out on her bullshit.
And you never know who's going to google "Malkin" and "Bullshit" and find this post.
So come on, Michelle... let's see your response. And try and write more than a paragraph, please. And make sure you you do your own work, this time.
What's the matter? Chicken?
Buck, buck, buck, BUCK-KAWWWWK!
(Shakespeare's Sister has a gargantuan readership compared to my little home in Spudville... so perhaps this will help get the ball rolling.- Paul the cross-posting Spud.)