I Want to Watch Michelle Malkin Cry

James Hanley

James Hanley is a two-bit college professor who'd rather be canoeing.

Related Post Roulette

66 Responses

  1. Zane says:

    We may not share a political party, but if you want to watch Michelle Malkin cry you’re all right by me.Report

  2. zic says:

    I really do not want to see her cry. I really, really don’t. I can’t think of much that would be less appealing. But if she does cry, thank god her makeup is good-enough quality and won’t run black streaks over her face.Report

    • Road Scholar in reply to zic says:

      The photo of Malkin that I’ve seen accompanying her column always reminded me of a Vulcan. Like she should have greenish skin, pointy ears, and go by the name T’Chelle. It’s hard to fit “crying” into that image.Report

  3. dand says:

    your links to Navarette and Malkin don’t workReport

  4. Saul DeGraw says:

    I’m not sure to say about the actual results.

    Non-Hispanic whites will probably still have a structural advantage for a while because of economic wealth and other factors. I am not sure how long this will last though.

    I wonder if the GOP will start courting Asians in California. Asians apparently feel that affirmative action screws them over in the UC system especially at Cal.Report

    • Maybe theyll make it illegal for asians to get citizenship again.Report

    • North in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

      Considering the math I don’t see how Asians could possibly be wrong about affirmative action screwing them over in the UC system.
      Race based AA is a problematic policy to begin with and when it starts regularily churning out results like directly harming the interests of one historically persecuted minority to “help” another persecuted minority then you can understand why circular firing squads comparing who was more persecuted are in danger of forming.
      Frankly I still don’t get why we don’t simply switch to class or income based AA instead.Report

      • J@m3z Aitch in reply to North says:

        Because even though African Americans have higher poverty rates, there’s a greater absolute number of poor whites, so income/class-based AA could end up helping them and not leaving enough seats for poor black students.Report

      • Road Scholar in reply to North says:

        Well, the Asian kids would at least understand the math wouldn’t they?Report

      • Nob Akimoto in reply to North says:

        Even if that’s true, the Asian-American community in general has a pretty strong sense of history, which means they’re not likely to take kindly to movements that are similar to those like the ones that ended up with the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924.Report

      • North in reply to North says:

        Prof. I can see that as being a serious problem but without the same circular firing squad mentality forming I am struggling with a solution.

        Nob, I agree the Asian-American community has a strong sense of history which is probably why they strongly dislike the idea of having their children locked out of universities and thus are not supportive of race based AA.Report

      • Nob Akimoto in reply to North says:

        Maybe, but “locked out” of universities is a relative thing, vs. the more concrete discrimination faced by immigrants from efforts to legislate them into second class status. Again, the history of discrimination on that front is MUCH more raw than children going to a tier 1.5 school instead of a tier 1 school.Report

      • KatherineMW in reply to North says:

        In addition to James’ point, the wealth, social, and geographical differences between white families and black families are pretty major even if you’re controlling for income. Ta-Nehisi Coates had some excellent posts on this; two points I remember are that black families tend to have much lower wealth than white families even if they’re middle-class in terms of income (due to housing discrimination, redlining, and such), and that middle-class and even wealthy black families are very likely to live in low-income neighbourhoods, whereas white families are not.

        TNC describes things far better than I can – here’s one of his posts on the subject: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/09/a-rising-tide-lifts-all-yachts/279978/Report

      • Will Truman in reply to North says:

        You can control for that by looking at that instead of using race as a proxy for it.Report

      • KatherineMW in reply to North says:

        I doubt it’s that simple. Centuries of slavery followed by a century and a half of discrimination are going to have a wide range of effects, many of which aren’t simple to measure or to slot into some model.Report

    • Barry in reply to Saul DeGraw says:

      “Non-Hispanic whites will probably still have a structural advantage for a while because of economic wealth and other factors. I am not sure how long this will last thoug”

      It’s not honestly deniable that the GOP is betting heavily on voter suppression. They can keep Texas red for a while, by suppressing the Hispanic vote. They can probably keep several other states consistently red, by suppressing votes.Report

  5. Jason Kuznicki says:

    Hey Republicans, this is what decades of nudge-nudge wink-wink race-bating gets you. Just saying.Report

  6. Kazzy says:

    When I see people engage in hand-wringing over demographic changes, I wish it were because of things like election outcomes. But it isn’t. If it were just about losing popular support, they’d evaluate how they can gain that support. No. It’s about white people, men, whomever losing their ill-gained power.Report

  7. Kolohe says:

    “They’re also relatively accepting of homosexuality, and they are more supportive than the general population of same-sex marriage.”

    I wonder how much of this is the age demographic profile of the hispanic population. *Young* people favor same sex marriage much more than old people, and the hispanic population skews a bit young – and that there are far more old white people in America than any other kind of old people due to simply who was here 50 years ago.Report

    • Alan Scott in reply to Kolohe says:

      @kolohe , i suppose that’s some of it, but I think it really boils down to the difference between “family values” as a political talking point and “family values” as practiced by actual families.

      I don’t consider myself Hispanic from a racial standpoint, but my mother’s mother’s mother immigrated from Mexico, and her cultural influence has had a out-sized influence on our family dynamics.

      My great-grandparents had five children. My grandparents had seven. Family is big, defined in broad terms, and supportive: Of course not everybody is absolutely friendly all the time, but there’s an expectation that you’re supposed to be friends, and you’re supposed to provide a support structure.

      That’s not really an environment that favors homophobia in this day and age. If gay family members are out of the closet, that familial closeness forces others to confront any prejudices. And once you’ve gotten over that big barrier from “the thing you do is evil” to “live and let live”, that value for families is going to push people all the way to “looking forward to your wedding” right quick.Report

  8. I blame Burt Likko for not having kids.Report

  9. j r says:

    One of the most interesting things about Michelle Malkin is that she went to Oberlin. This fact seems odd at first hearing, but really makes perfect sense. Her prose is exactly the sort of overwrought, jargony, mixed metaphor-heavy nonsensical jibber jabber that one might expect from an over-eager liberal arts college undergrad. It’s just in service of right wing talking points.Report

  10. Snarky McSnarksnark says:

    Damn you, James, and your clever titles. I was suckered into reading this at the prospect of an operatically-suffering Michelle Malkin, and was instead suckered into an analysis of changing secular population demographics.Report

  11. Burt Likko says:

    More salsa is being sold in California supermarkets than ketchup! Do you know what this means?Report

  12. dragonfrog says:

    The simultaneous pro-life / pro-choice thing doesn’t seem the least bit surprising to me – it’s more surprising that seemingly intelligent people can be surprised by it.Report

    • zic in reply to dragonfrog says:

      I think that it’s consistent and humane thinking — a preference for responsible behavior that decreases unwanted pregnancy as much as possible (responsible meaning accessing and using contraceptives responsibly, not just abstinence); and recognition that sometimes things go wrong for reasons we should not judge; and that we value a culture of life, which also respects the life of the woman who finds herself pregnant.Report

      • Kim in reply to zic says:

        A lot of low income religious people have these beliefs, in my anecdotal experience.
        I praise them for continuing to value life, and also understanding that shit happens, and sometimes you can’t do what you’d like.Report

    • J@m3z Aitch in reply to dragonfrog says:

      I agree with both Dragonfrog and zic, but didn’t want to digress in my post. In the comments, though, is a perfect place for such a digression. My only surprise is that the combination is eo pronounced in a particular ethnic group. It’d be interesting to further explore what’s going on there.Report

      • dragonfrog in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        That is an interesting question – to what degree is that an exception among Latinos (and, as you noted in the article, since Latinos skew somewhat young and whites somewhat old, to what extent is does it remain if you correct for age).Report

    • Jim Heffman in reply to dragonfrog says:

      I think it has more to do with the definition of the positions as absolute and mutually exclusive.Report

      • dragonfrog in reply to Jim Heffman says:

        An oversimplification? In the press? How can that be?

        That’s pretty much what I was thinking – being both against people taking drugs and against drug prohibition by the state is finally getting understood. The same position with respect to other things including abortion seems more or less advanced depending on the issue, though it doesn’t seem like there should be much of a leap in logic from one to another.Report

    • Matty in reply to dragonfrog says:

      It’s surprising if you’ve been using pro-life as short for “thinks abortion should be illegal” and pro-choice as short for “thinks abortion should be legal”. It’s difficult to see how you can believe both of those.

      If the combination means wanting abortion to be legal but wishing it to be rare I doubt you’ll find a lot of self identified pro-lifers who would disagree. To the best of my knowledge no one is arguing that there should be more abortions.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Matty says:

        In a number of arguments I’ve seen, someone opens with “I’m pro-life…” and the question quickly comes “But what about rapeincestmotherslifeindanger?” and they say “well, of course *THAT*’s okay” and the answer comes, let’s all give it together: “Then you’re pro-choice”.

        Surely I’m not the only one who has seen that.Report

      • Mike Schilling in reply to Matty says:

        And I’ve seen (on this very site) polls that say Americans overall disapprove of second-trimester abortions cited as evidence that we’re pro-life.Report

  13. StevetheCat says:

    Completely off topic, but serious question.
    How many times did you vote for Granholm?Report

    • J@m3z Aitch in reply to StevetheCat says:

      None. In her first run I’d only been in Michigan a year, had no expectation of remaining here, and was commuting to Illinois, so I neither voted nor paid much attention,* beyond noticing that her opponent, Dick Posthumus had a personality to match his last name. (He did win admiration from me, though, because when he was asked what he’d do if he lost the election, he simply said, “I’ll go back to my farm.”)

      When she ran for re-election, even my Democratic friends agreed she didn’t really deserve a second term, but of course they weren’t going to vote GOP. I don’t remember if I voted or not, but I know I didn’t vote for her.

      *I don’t like to vote if I have no long-term commitment to a place.Report

  14. Matty says:

    80% of Hispanics speak English? I thought the definition of Hispanic was having Spanish as a first language.Report

    • J@m3z Aitch in reply to Matty says:

      Nope. It’s having ancestry from a Spanish speaking country. More or less. The boundaries are rather imprecise.Report

      • Glyph in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        “The boundaries are rather imprecise”.

        Tell me about it. On one side of my family we can trace back to some of the original Spanish settlers in America. In fact there are descendants that are involved in a long-running, insanely-complicated and probably ultimately-fruitless legal action against the US Government, to get monies they believe they are technically owed as a result of treaties/deeds/land changing hands between the US Govt. and Spain (psst, nobody tell the Native Americans who were, you know, there first). But I don’t claim Hispanic ancestry (though I AM an excellent lover).Report

      • Glyph in reply to J@m3z Aitch says:

        That should read, “I don’t claim to be Hispanic”. Obviously I just claimed the ancestry.Report

    • Alan Scott in reply to Matty says:

      Also, don’t assume that first language is the same thing as preferred language or language of fluency. Children born into Spanish-speaking homes in the US still typically speak English with as much or more fluency than they speak Spanish.Report