Michelle Malkin is a dangerous idiot

[ProSense]

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Michelle Malkin is a dangerous idiot

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I can barely bring myself to post on this, mostly because I don't want to waste my time thinking about the mad, mad ravings of Michelle Malkin, but here goes:

As Heraclitus mentioned earlier, some conservatives are already responding to the Virginia Tech shootings with their typical brand of bloodthirsty insanity, and it should come as no surprise whatsoever that Malkin is leading the way. In this grotesque piece published at RealClearPolitics, she claims, with all attendant hyperbole, that "American colleges and universities have become coddle industries". Students are being protected "from hurtful (conservative) opinions" and "vigorous intellectual debate," while "Big Nanny administrators" are "allowing mob rule for approved leftist positions".

Now, I was rather critical of speech codes and the like when I was an undergraduate at Tufts -- and I wrote extensively on how higher eduction was giving way to social engineering and therapeutic soul-searching as an op-ed columnist for The Tufts Daily -- but this is patently ridiculous. It's the same old propaganda from the right, a self-serving assault on an imaginary PC paradise that exists only in their warped minds.

But my point here isn't to defend liberal education -- and institutions of American higher education -- from such ignorance and stupidity.

Malkin argues not just that students are not being taught how "to defend their beliefs" but that, rather more generally, "our higher institutions of learning stoke passivity and conflict-avoidance". And by this she means not just intellectual passivity but physical passivity as well. Which is to say, students are neither being taught how to stand up for themselves nor being allowed to stand up for themselves.

This brings us to the Virginia Tech shootings. Malkin asks: "What if just one student in one of those classrooms had been in lawful possession of a concealed weapon for the purpose of self-defense?" Yes, that's right, Malkin's twisted argument comes down to support for the possession of concealed weapons on college campuses: "Enough is enough, indeed. Enough of intellectual disarmament. Enough of physical disarmament. You want a safer campus? It begins with renewing a culture of self-defense -- mind, spirit and body. It begins with two words: Fight back."

link

Howard Kurtz writes a love letter to a wingnut

[tabasco]

1. If Michelle is so tough, how come she doesn't join the Army?

Oh that's right, she's really just another tough-talking coward.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. Good grief

She is really insane, isn't she?

[muntrv]

3. I'd like to see Michelle try and be a fighter. And what branch of the military

did she serve in that makes her an expert in weapons?

[muntrv]

4. Uh, Michelle! We already have institutions that teach people how to fight

and defend themselves. It's called the MILITARY. Why don't you go and enroll? Oh that's right, YOU'RE A CHICKENHAWK!!

[jgraz]

5. Who needs Malkin? We've got plenty of DUers making the same argument

Check out any of the VT threads in GD. There are several of our cherished members (and I do mean members) who think Malkin's idea is just great.

[Disturbed]

6. Some people just spout complete stupid shit.

Imagine if a guy with two guns blazing enters a classroom. A student with concealed weapon stands up and tries to fire back. This student would have been filled with a few bullets before he or she raised their weapon. Malkin and anyone else spouting this nonsense hasn't thought it through for more than two seconds.

[jgraz]

7. I think they've thought it through very carefully

They just had an irrefutable example of what happens in their 2nd amendment fantasy-land, and they're scrambling to come up with a way to a) help the gun industry or b) hang on to their shiny metal dicks.

So they use the Rovian tactic of going after their opponent's strongest point. "Hell, we don't need less guns, we need MORE guns!!", thus stunning everyone for a moment into quiet disbelief at their absolute batshit craziness, and forcing us to respond to an argument that nobody in their right mind would ever put forth.

In doing to, they've completely steer the conversation away from the sensible topic of how VA's gun laws allowed Cho to get his Matix on, and forced us into lala land where they can feign ignorance of court precedents and otherwise lie through their teeth. They don't care if they win this argument, because just by taking you off the real point, they've already won.