« The Snickers Ad Is Gone For Good | Main | Listening to bad advice »

Real Heroes

Michelle Malkin has a column today about who many on the left call hero and it is not the men and women of the United States military.

Mary Katharine Ham reminds us of some other heroes doing amazing work to bring us the stories from Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and they can use your support.


Comments (25)

Malkin is such a tween wann... (Below threshold)
bryanD:

Malkin is such a tween wannabe (check out the Lennon '65 cap and the Girls Gone Wild knot) it practically screams "Love meee! I'm cool and wortheeee!!! (Am I caucasian yet?)"

The link. (Oh, yeah!): <a h... (Below threshold)
bryanD:
A new low for you, Brian. Y... (Below threshold)

A new low for you, Brian. You utterly ignore the SUBSTANCE of Michelle's piece to focus on inane trivialities and racist slams. You really ARE a miserable, pathetic little turd, ain't you?

J.

Really despicable crap, bry... (Below threshold)

Really despicable crap, bryan. But I suppose you think it's okay to spew racist garbage if the victim is a conservative.

Bryan. typical liberal resp... (Below threshold)
VagaBond:

Bryan. typical liberal response. attack the person. not the issue. well done.

I despise Malkin, which is ... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

I despise Malkin, which is my right, but i wish Bryan and others would grow up and argue the issues instead of using racial and/or sexist invectives. I see so much of this about Pelosi and Hilllary and Culter and Malkin and it's beyond juvenile and sickening.

It's a sign of just how wre... (Below threshold)

It's a sign of just how wretched someone has become when HUGH is distancing himself from the guy's racist, sexist, bigoted screeds...

J.

As a liberal who can probab... (Below threshold)
tas:

As a liberal who can probably speak for many other liberals, let me just say that I've never heard of the man Malkin penned a column about who is supposedly my "hero". Nor did Malkin ask me who my heros are, so I would ask her that she cease from speaking about my beliefs.

It's a sign of just how ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

It's a sign of just how wretched someone has become when HUGH is distancing himself from the guy's racist, sexist, bigoted screeds...

J.

Absolutely true ...

As a liberal who can probably speak for many other liberals, let me just say that I've never heard of the man Malkin penned a column about who is supposedly my "hero". Nor did Malkin ask me who my heros are, so I would ask her that she cease from speaking about my beliefs.

TAS, had you read what was listed earlier, you would have noticed the phrase "many" - not all - being used. So, when you say that you "can probably speak for many other liberals", you are doing the same thing Malkin has done.

As to the story, I can't speak to why you have never heard of it - it's been going on for months.

However, I do understand your frustration. The only time I listen to Fox News is during times of national crisis (like Katrina) when I pretty much listen to all news stations, but, if I dare to express an opinion, I inevitably hear that I must have heard my opinion on Fox because conservatives - and especially female conservatives - are not bright enough to think for themselves. And as to Coulter, Rush, and a few others that I frankly have never heard of .... I firmly convinced that most of their audience must be liberals because I don't know any conservatives who listen to them.

tas: Sort of like that Ted ... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

tas: Sort of like that Ted minister caught in Colorodo with a gay lover and meth. All of a sudden all evangelical Christians followed him when I never heard of him.

Lorie: BryanD needs to be banned. I do not want to be a part of any web site that lets racists comments come forward. That was a very low shot at Michelle. ww

Jay:I appreciate t... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay:

I appreciate the approbation. HUGH meaning big intellect and heart. Or HUGH meaning just another FAT guy?

H

No, "HUGH" as in "emphasis ... (Below threshold)

No, "HUGH" as in "emphasis added." It's modified by the preceding "even."

I use caps to simulate added verbal stress, because I'm too lazy to use the coding for boldfacing regularly.

It's different when I'm writing posts -- the software allows me to boldface and whatnot much more readily.

J.

JayBummer... (Below threshold)
Hugh:

Jay

Bummer

H

Perhaps, Bush will honor i... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Perhaps, Bush will honor in the future, some of these people, doing such amazing work in Iraq, with the ultimate tribute for heroic contributions to Iraq :"The Congressional Medal of Freedom" to join such a privileged short list of luminaries as George 'slam dunk' Tenant and Coalition funds' administrator' Jay Bremer, whom Bush praised in 2004 at the medal ceremony: "Iraq is free today (not the crapfest portrayed in the media) and you helped make it that way". He certainly did.

correction Paul Bremer... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

correction Paul Bremer

OV: I feel the same frustra... (Below threshold)
tas:

OV: I feel the same frustration, too, though I think we feel different levels of it. I see the left's complaints about conservatives listening to Foxnews and Ann Coulter as being more valid being both entities derive their income from somewhere and, well.. They certain;y aren't getting funds from the left. :) By contrast, when a columnist like Malkin claims that she knows who my heros are, these figures are seemingly picked out of a hat. They aren't author's or media figures, or a media organization; they aren't leaving off donations from the left. And everytime I see a situation like this it reminds me of the GOP's field day with Ward Churchill and how it was shoved down my throat that Ward represented the left when, in reality, not only was Ward to the far left of the Democrat Party but he was to the left of the Greens, too. I very much doubt that many people on the left had even heard of Ward Churchill before the rightwing blogs attacked him, yet here he was being portrayed as one of my "heros".

I think the difference here between misconceptions that the left perpetrates on the right and visa versa is that, on the left, it's less of a misconception because what we apply actually does have a lot of support and funding from the GOP. The target audiences of Foxnews and Ann Coulter are Republicans and, let's face it, they're both swimming in money. That money has to come from somewhere, and the most obvious target for "where" is their target audience. But when the left is told that figures like Ward Churchill represent us it's faulty because these people aren't making a living off us.

WildWillie: Most of what I said to OV I would have replied to you with, too. In the case of Haggard, the Colorado minister, while he wasn't a hero of all conservatives the fact is that he derived a high income off his target audience: Republicans. That's the empirical evidence that he received a lot of support from the right. And being able to frequently communicate with President Bush also, in the left's eyes, solidifies his support from the right.

tas, what a load of crap. "... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

tas, what a load of crap. "the liberals do the same thing to the conservatives but the difference is the liberals are right in doing so"...yeah, sure.

The lefts biggist heros are... (Below threshold)
spurwing plover:

The lefts biggist heros are the jerks who burned thier draft cards and ran away to canada and europe during vietnam or the ones who were commiting all those act of terroiem in this nation during the 70s like the WEATHERMEN UNDERGROUND, SLA, and numerous other and of course HANIO JANE and her act of treason

TAS, while I wouldn't have ... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

TAS, while I wouldn't have chosen D-Hoggs words, he is absolutely right. You are just making it up while you are talking.

Fox News is inaccurate because Republicans listen to it? You can argue the facts of what they present, but they aren't inherently wrong because a Republican listens to it. Nor is being a Republican make you inherently wrong anymore than someone being a Democrat makes them inherently wrong.

As to the funding issue, I suggest that you have little knowledge of how major organizations are funded today if you honestly believe what you claim. Money talks just as loudly from the left as it does from the right and for you to claim that it is wrong when its from the right, but acceptable from the left is simply partisian politics.

As to Haggard - I never heard of him before his public embarrassment. Any number of people visit the White House - your assumption of his access being "special" is simple that - an assumption.

OV, you are right on the ma... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

OV, you are right on the mark. Lefties like Tas have always use a general broad brush to paint all things republican bad. So, in England, the three letter bombs are suspected of being sent by eco terrorists. Eco terrorists are leftist in their beliefs, so in Tas' reasoning, all leftists engage in eco terrorism. ww

OV: And I'm not going to re... (Below threshold)
tas:

OV: And I'm not going to reply to D-hoggs because it doesn't appear like he's open to conversation -- just liberal bashing. Which is expected from some quarters on a conservative blog, and I am the interloper here, but the battles I choose on here are the ones I think are will result in less hostility because flame wars on blogs is so 2005.

Anyways, I hardly see where I'm just making this up on the fly. If anyone is making stuff up on the fly it's people like Michelle Malkin whose paycheck depends on pumping out column after column attacking the left, and after a while people like her run out of targets so she she seemingly makes stuff up. In this instance, she implies that somebody is a "hero" on the left when most people haven't even heard of this person. Now if she wants to criticize this person's views, fine, but it's fair to ask that people like me be left out. Instead, Malkin seeks to use some nobody as a hammer against the entire left, so color me a little PO'ed.

As for my other arguments, you've misconstrued them.

Fox News is inaccurate because Republicans listen to it? You can argue the facts of what they present, but they aren't inherently wrong because a Republican listens to it.

I never mentioned anything about the accuracy of Foxnews (that's an entirely different conversation). The only reason I mentioned Foxnews is because (I think) you said that you don't pay attention to Foxnews and you were sick of liberals saying that everyone on the right pays attention to Foxnews and people like Ann Coulter. You defined this as being frustrating. I said that I feel the same frustration about what the right applies to my side, but, here's the thing... When the right implies that people like Ward Churchill and Ehren Watada are representatives of the left, it's inaccurate because these figures are hardly heard of and don't receive funding from the left. I have yet to here of a similar case of the left attributing the beliefs of a nobody to the right as a whole because our targets are funded and enriched by the right. Even if you hadn't heard of Haggard before his downfall, fact is that he sucked down a paycheck from GOP support and was frequently audience to President Bush. He was part of your party -- very much more so than a Ward Churchill or Watada.

In short, the figures my side goes after enjoy a much wider base of support on the right. If you really don't want them representing you, then give'em the boot... But it deserves to be noted, accurately, that some of these entities enjoy a good amount of support from the righ, whereas people like Ward Churchill really don't.

As to the funding issue, I suggest that you have little knowledge of how major organizations are funded today if you honestly believe what you claim.

Foxnews narrowcasts to a conservative audience and that's who their advertisers target. Ann Coulter is a wealthy author who makes the NY Times bellseller lists. If you'd like to show me how these two examples aren't receiving massive conservative support I'm all ears. :)

So, in England, the thre... (Below threshold)
tas:

So, in England, the three letter bombs are suspected of being sent by eco terrorists. Eco terrorists are leftist in their beliefs, so in Tas' reasoning, all leftists engage in eco terrorism.

If that were the case, then I must support byranD. Err, wait a second, I'm not that much of a jackass...

tas, you can choose not to ... (Below threshold)
D-Hoggs:

tas, you can choose not to reply to me all you want, but the fact remains that you are a hypocrite, plain and simple. You say you agree there is too much bitterness and you feel the frustration of both sides attacking each other all the time...then you go on to say that, well, the left is at least correct in their attacks. Can you be anymore partisan? I think not. I would hope you couldn't be anymore ridiculous, but I have a feeling you can.

TAS, I too share your inter... (Below threshold)
OhioVoter:

TAS, I too share your interest in having a civil discourse. That's why I find it so unfortunate that you have chosen to *NOT* practice what you preach and, instead, engage in blatant partisianship. I see no reason for your conservative bashing in place of just discussing the issue.

Anyways, I hardly see where I'm just making this up on the fly.

What I was referring to was your choice to make up reasons for the actions of others to basically cover your ignorance of the subject. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but I really have no choice.

You don't know who Ehren Watada is so Malkin must have made him up? The Ehren Watada story has been in the papers for months - I can't begin to imagine how you *HAVEN'T* heard of him before - but, according to you, it's not your fault, it's Malkin's????? (Note: As I typed this, the Ehren Watada was reported on the national news on the radio on in the same room.)

Had you read what was said, you would also realize that Malkin *NEVER* said "all the left" - she said "many on the left" so your characterization is inaccurate.

As to Malkin receiving financial support from the right. - your choice to single out Malkin (and Fox News) as receiving support is odd - to say the least. Malkin and Fox News operate in the marketplace - just like the NYT, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, etc, etc. EVERY group that works in the marketplace depends on their market for support. If you are going to damn someone for it, then you have to damn the left as well as the right for the same thing. Therefore, your position is hypocritical in singling out the right.

Another example of your hypocrisy ...

I have yet to here of a similar case of the left attributing the beliefs of a nobody to the right as a whole because our targets are funded and enriched by the right. Even if you hadn't heard of Haggard before his downfall, fact is that he sucked down a paycheck from GOP support and was frequently audience to President Bush. He was part of your party -- very much more so than a Ward Churchill or Watada.

You eagerly embrace Haggard as an example of the right despite the fact virtually no one ever heard of him before. You quickly claim that he got his financial support from the GOP - which is a political party - rather than the members of his relatively small congregation which would be the accurate statement.

In short, the figures my side goes after enjoy a much wider base of support on the right. If you really don't want them representing you, then give'em the boot...

Again, your comments are unbelievably hypocritical. Haggard doesn't represent "my party" - at most, he represents HIS church - which I also NEVER heard of before his public embarrassment. Should we assume that since your party includes an elected member who once was a member of the KKK that YOU support the KKK and what it stands for? You haven't booted him out yet, have you? Therefore - according to your view - it must mean that you support his beliefs right?

If you want to be taken seriously, practice what you preach, So far you are guilty of the very thing that you are attacking Malkin for doing.

When the right implies that people like Ward Churchill and Ehren Watada are representatives of the left, it's inaccurate because these figures are hardly heard of and don't receive funding from the left.

This comment is simply incorrect. If you believe that those two receive not funding from the left, You really need to educate yourself about the stories before making such comments.

[email protected] (Below threshold)
Free Paris Hilton XXX Video!!!:



Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy