New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | December 2, 2004

Cathy Young profiles Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter.

Comments

|12.2.04 @ 2:26PM|#

This issue never gets beyond the basics and Cathy Young is not helping. Relocation was not internment and there is nothing to debate in absence of the distinction.

|12.2.04 @ 2:31PM|#

When you're "relocated" behind barbed wire and guard towers, danglehorn, the term "internment" is a little soft.

Anyway, Ms. Young gives Coulter and Malkin too much credit, in treating their books as attempts at serious analysis. These writers are out to make a buck, and as every kindergarten child knows, people pay attention to you if you yell "fuckity fuckity fuck." David Horowitz is living pretty large off this strategy.

Bottom line, Michelle Malkin is a very bad girl, who needs to be taken firmly in hand. As a patriotic American (and lifelong Democrat, and government employee), I volunteer my services.

|12.2.04 @ 2:35PM|#

The best contemporary critique of Korematsu is...Korematsu, namely the dissent by Justice Murphy.

http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Korematsu/MURPHY.asp

Highlights, some of which may be relevant today:

"No adequate reason is given for the failure to treat these Japanese Americans on an individual basis by holding investigations and hearings to separate the loyal from the disloyal, as was done in the case of persons of German and Italian ancestry. See House Report No. 2124 (77th Cong., 2d Sess.) 247-52. It is asserted merely that the loyalties of this group "were unknown and time was of the essence." 14 Yet nearly four months elapsed after Pearl Harbor before the first exclusion order was issued; nearly eight months went by until the last order was issued; and the last of these "subversive" persons was not actually removed until almost eleven months had elapsed. Leisure and deliberation seem to have been more of the essence than speed. And the fact that conditions were not such as to warrant a declaration of martial law adds strength to the belief that the factors of time and military necessity were not as urgent as they have been represented to be."

...

"...it is essential that there be definite limits to military discretion, especially where martial law has not been declared. Individuals must not be left impoverished of their constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity that has neither substance nor support. Thus, like other claims conflicting with the asserted constitutional rights of the individual, the military claim must subject itself to the judicial process of having its reasonableness determined and its conflicts with other interests reconciled. "What are the allowable limits of military discretion, and whether or not they have been overstepped in a particular case, are judicial questions." Sterling v. Constantin, 287 U.S. 378, 401.

|12.2.04 @ 2:37PM|#

And this gem of protectionism and racism:

"Special interest groups were extremely active in applying pressure for mass evacuation. See House Report No. 2124 (77th Cong., 2d Sess.) 154-6; McWilliams, Prejudice, 126-8 (1944). Mr. Austin E. Anson, managing secretary of the Salinas Vegetable Grower-Shipper Association, has frankly admitted that "We're charged with wanting to get rid of the Japs for selfish reasons. . . . We do. It's a question of whether the white man lives on the Pacific Coast or the brown men. They came into this valley to work, and they stayed to take over. . . . They undersell the white man in the markets. . . . They work their women and children while the white farmer has to pay wages for his help. If all the Japs were removed tomorrow, we'd never miss them in two weeks, because the white farmers can take over and produce everything the Jap grows. And we don't want them back when the war ends, either." Quoted by Taylor in his article "The People Nobody Wants," 214 Sat. Eve. Post 24, 66 (May 9, 1942). "

|12.2.04 @ 2:39PM|#

Enjoyable article.

|12.2.04 @ 2:44PM|#

I know that a lot of people here will disagree with me, but I think this whole thing is fucking ridiculous. Recently, my 15-year old blonde, blue-eyed step daughter got the shake-down at the airport because she accidently packed a pair of scissors.

This is a fact: 100% of the hijackers during 9/11 were young, Arab men with visas. Yes, they may recruit from other sources, but this is 99% of their ranks. No amount of political correctness changes this. This whole thing of dumping old American women out of their wheelchairs is just plain stupid.

Constantine|12.2.04 @ 2:51PM|#

Cathy Young bumbles at the end when attempted to draw an equivalence between Malkin's and Coulter's high-profile books highly promoted by the right-wing propaganda machine and the fact that someone, somewhere on left left might have recently wrote something we've never heard of about how Stalin's rule wasn't that bad.

|12.2.04 @ 2:58PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy,

I do agree with you. I just don't see the connection between profiling at airports and Japanese internment.

|12.2.04 @ 2:59PM|#

Oh, and joe is absolutely right about Malkin. I find Coulter almost as horrifying to look at as she is to listen to, but when Malkin is on the tube, I hit "mute" and enjoy.

|12.2.04 @ 3:07PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy,

Might it be unwise to adopt a security policy that can be circumvented with contact lenses and hair dye?

|12.2.04 @ 3:10PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy-

While you raise some valid points, Malkin's efforts to rehabilitate FDR and the Japanese internment won't do anything to bring about a more sane approach to airport security.


Constantine-

Malkin and Coulter may have a larger audience than the lefty intellectuals that Young compared them to and therefore may (arguably) be more dangerous. The point of Young's critique was to win the sympathy of Malkin's target audience: Mostly people who don't like liberals. A comparison with fringe lefty intellectuals might help persuade that audience that Malkin's commentary is flawed. I don't think Young was trying to minimize Malkin's errors by drawing some sort of equivalence.



And if I were single I would challenge joe to a duel for the right to administer Malkin's punishment. But I think my wife would object if I brought home a hot Asian chick like Malkin, tied her to the bed, and spanked her.

|12.2.04 @ 3:13PM|#

When you're "relocated" behind barbed wire and guard towers, danglehorn, the term "internment" is a little soft.

Your ability to reproduce my name well complements your knowledge of the issue. There is no issue without the distinction between Relocation and internment.

If the Korematsu case had been about internment then there would have been no Korematsu case. It was about Relocation.

The guards at the Relocation camps were usually of the residents.

The people in the Relocation camps were not required to stay there.

If reparations for internment are justified then many of European extraction are due reparations.

|12.2.04 @ 3:16PM|#

The people in the Relocation camps were not required to stay there.

They just couldn't own property elsewhere.

|12.2.04 @ 3:24PM|#

Steve:

I was mostly feeding on the following quote from the essay:

"Malkin believes our safety is being compromised because any common-sense proposal that involves profiling -- be it extra-vigilant screening of Middle Eastern passengers at airports, targeted monitoring of visitors with guest visas from countries with terrorist links, or special scrutiny of Muslim chaplains in the armed forces -- is shouted down by invoking the specter of internment camps."

joe:

So an Arab male, using hair dye and contacts, can make himself look like a 110 pound, 15-year old girl of unmistakable Irish lineage? That would be a great trick.

|12.2.04 @ 3:33PM|#

They just couldn't own property elsewhere.

I don't believe there were legal restrictions against their buying property though that was likely impractical for most.

|12.2.04 @ 3:41PM|#

"Bottom line, Michelle Malkin is a very bad girl, who needs to be taken firmly in hand. As a patriotic American (and lifelong Democrat, and government employee), I volunteer my services."

For once you're making sense there, joe.

Nice article, Cathy.

|12.2.04 @ 3:45PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy,

"So an Arab male, using hair dye and contacts, can make himself look like a 110 pound, 15-year old girl of unmistakable Irish lineage? That would be a great trick."

Doesn't the fact that you have to adopt such an absurb pretence indicate anything to you about the strength of your underlying argument?

How many of you racial profiling smart asses decided that mixed race Jamaicans needed extra scrutiny prior to Richard Reid's arrest? Or are simply arguing for an exception to otherwise-universal screening procedures for people who are sufficiently Aryan in apperance?

Basing security on whether someone "looks like a terrorist" makes it easy to avoid the extra scrutiny by choosing operatives based on their looks, and by using simple techniques for altering superficial features. Random checks make it impossible to utilize these techniques to avoid scrutiny. If you can come up with a reason why this is not valid, I'd love to hear it, but you're going to have to do better than that.

|12.2.04 @ 3:45PM|#

D Anghelone-

OK, if they were merely relocated and were free to leave the camps at any time, why did most of them stay there? If they were truly free from coercion, why didn't they leave and start their lives over again?

Also, what happened to the homes that they had been living in pre-relocation and the assets that they had held? Were they allowed to keep those things, or at least given "fair market value" for them?

If the relocation really wasn't all that bad, then maybe you could explain to us exactly what sorts of liberties they enjoyed and what sorts of resources they retained.

|12.2.04 @ 3:48PM|#

Mr. Nice Guy,

The shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was a British citizen with a British name, a British passport, and slithgly darker than average British complexion. If only 1% of al qaeda is Anglo in appearance, that's the 1% they will use for suicide bombs on U.S. airlines.

|12.2.04 @ 4:03PM|#

Bottom line, Michelle Malkin is a very bad girl, who needs to be taken firmly in hand. As a patriotic American (and lifelong Democrat, and government employee), I volunteer my services.

This may be the first time Joe posted something here that I entirely agree with.

(Obviously, I'm still trying to shake off the bad memes I picked up from clicking on the OlympiaPress.com ad over on the right.)

|12.2.04 @ 4:07PM|#

Michelle Malkin = quite workable except you might have to talk to her

Ann Coulter = that's a man baby

Am I wrong or are the crazies getting crazier? Compare, say, early 90s Rush Limbaugh to Michael Savage Wiener. I wouldn't even consider Rush a crazy. A hack, but not insane. But he's aging and fadin' away and guys like Savage are the future.

|12.2.04 @ 4:10PM|#

"Michelle Malkin = quite workable except you might have to talk to her"

Hell, if I met Malkin in a bar, I'd buy her a drink and start bitching about the illegals aliens bussing the tables. I'd even pretend to be down with Japanese internment.

|12.2.04 @ 4:12PM|#

And has anybody else notices the extreme hostility between Malkin and Wonkette? Obvious sexual tension.

David|12.2.04 @ 4:14PM|#

Great article.

Arthur,

"The shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was a British citizen with a British name, a British passport, and slithgly darker than average British complexion. If only 1% of al qaeda is Anglo in appearance, that's the 1% they will use for suicide bombs on U.S. airlines."

Good point, except that doesn't mean we need to ignore obvious potential threats purely to avoid offending people. If several young Arab men with passports from say, Lebanon, are getting on an airline, do we pass them on without extra scrutiny and do a random pat-down search of a 70 year old Jewish grandmother? The answer is yes, that's what we are doing in some cases now. Does this make sense to you? Does this kind of security make you feel safer?

You can't base security on looks alone for the obvious reasons you and others have mentioned. But blind, stupid randomness is no improvement.

|12.2.04 @ 4:14PM|#

Enough about Coulter and Malkin, already. Both absolutely have to be the center of attention. Both are masters of a time-honored technique, as practiced by that "hey, pay attention to me!" young woman in everyone's college class. Cross your legs, preferably long and slim, and show the lads just a glimpse of thigh. Toss your hair, preferably long and blonde but long and raven black, ala Malkin and Naomi Wolf, will do. Lean forward, with blouse not quite buttoned far enough to prevent the boys from seeing just a trace of lace. Then, when every eye in the room is on you, say something outrageous. The kind of thing that makes everyone gasp and say "Did she really say that?" Works every time. The only defense is to ignore her until she goes away and finds a fresh audience. Please do.

|12.2.04 @ 4:14PM|#

If I were single and I met Michelle Malkin in a bar, I'd tell her anything she wanted to hear and buy all of her drinks. Arabs? Deport 'em all! Japs? Intern 'em all! George Bush? My personal Lord and Savior!

That's right, I'd renounce all of my principles to score a hot chick! But I'm married, so I just do what I'm told.

|12.2.04 @ 4:27PM|#

David, on what basis are you asserting that people with obvious high-risk markers, like your gang of Lebanese men, are not being subjected to additional scrutiny?

Keeping a good random check system in place does not preclude using effective profiling as well.

|12.2.04 @ 4:33PM|#

Malkin might not be the best person to comment on airport security. She might think that the reason they always pat her down at the airport is political correctness mandating random searches, but there's nothing random about them patting her down, and the reason the guys do it is very politically incorrect.

Anyway, her experience with airport security is rather atypical.

|12.2.04 @ 4:39PM|#

"Enough about Coulter and Malkin, already."

why? if we're going to bother with television and personality based punditry, shouldn't they either be fun to look at or listen to?

coulter's a hoot, hands down. that she probably has completely weird control issues only sweetens the deal.

|12.2.04 @ 4:46PM|#

I actually remember Coulter being on Drudge's TV show on Fox News. I might be the only person who ever saw that show but anyway she used to show up in this outfit that consisted of about one square foot of fabric which to poor Drudge must have been the equivalent of a cut guy showing up oiled in a speedo to Bizarro World hetero-Drudge. Like, icky, all her girl stuff is almost falling out.

But she was hot then, if a touch hyperthyroid. I think the ciggies or something has aged her rather badly.

And thus ends my substantive contribution to this thread.

|12.2.04 @ 5:00PM|#

Can we all agree that conservatives get the hotter female pundits?

|12.2.04 @ 5:16PM|#

thoreau,

We're in agreement there. Naomi Wolf ain't bad, though. Is she a pundit?

|12.2.04 @ 5:23PM|#

Watch it, Thoreau!

|12.2.04 @ 5:26PM|#

The advent of the "Republican Party Babe" (Carville's wife was the first one I remember) is a symptom of how the GOP has changed, and not for the better, during the last 50 years.

Still, the Republicans do have better looking women. Is this because Republicans tend to be better providers? Discuss.

|12.2.04 @ 5:36PM|#

I predict that the GOP will change its mind on homosexuality when somebody realizes that their hot babe pundits will get even more attention by making out with each other.

Please?

|12.2.04 @ 5:44PM|#

Amen, thoreau!

Just because she's on Fox News doesn't mean she's a Repub, but if so, Molly de Ramel(formerly Molly Falconer) lends support to the theory. Anyone else agree? She appears on Neil Cavuto's show every now and then. I'd watch it just to get a glimpse of her.

|12.2.04 @ 5:55PM|#

thoreau,

I thank you for a reasonable response but you err in projecting on to me the standard argument.

Internment was and is SOP. Everyone did it and most nations did it worse than did the US. And it is still done. Internment was not some anomaly of the US in WWII.

Everyone did it and not just in WWII.

Internment was and is an internationally accepted practice.

As to the US, that Relocation was not internment is the point and is why it was wrong. That is the point. That is why the distinction is necessary.



OK, if they were merely relocated and were free to leave the camps at any time, why did most of them stay there? If they were truly free from coercion, why didn't they leave and start their lives over again?

I didn't say they were "merely" relocated.

Most, but not all, stayed for having no other place to go. I believe it was some 5,000 who relocated to other than the camps.

They were not free from coercion. Relocation was mandatory.

BTW - others were relocated but for a shorter period of time. And still others were "excluded" which was being relocated by a short distance from the coast.

Also, what happened to the homes that they had been living in pre-relocation and the assets that they had held? Were they allowed to keep those things, or at least given "fair market value" for them?

That is aside from any point I would make.

If the relocation really wasn't all that bad, then maybe you could explain to us exactly what sorts of liberties they enjoyed and what sorts of resources they retained.

It was that bad. That is the point. The point is that Relocation was not internment. Internment was and is SOP.

|12.2.04 @ 5:58PM|#

OK, then what's the difference? What's this "internment" you speak of, as apart from "relocation," that's so routine?

Also, "everyone else does it" isn't a very good defense.

|12.2.04 @ 6:05PM|#

Republican girls may be hotter, but Democrat chicks are easier. None of those sticky morals to deal with. Plus, you're more likely to score a threesome, another advantage to a lack of an ideological hatred of homosexuality.

Libertarian girls, well, both of them are probably a good time, but good luck finding them (besides, you may not like what you find). :)

Here's hoping my libertarian girlfriend still doesn't read these boards. :)

|12.2.04 @ 6:20PM|#

Kathy, Kathy, Kathy.

You've broken the first rule of reason: Never, never, never, try to rebut a completely irrational argument.

Let it bleed.

|12.2.04 @ 6:21PM|#

OK, then what's the difference? What's this "internment" you speak of, as apart from "relocation," that's so routine?

It's the internment that is SOP. The difference is but a Google away, sir.

And such a rich and edifying Google:

Swiss

Internment

War must be hell or something.

|12.2.04 @ 6:25PM|#

Kathy, Kathy, Kathy.

Never, never, never spell Cathy, Cathy, Cathy as Kathy, Kathy, Kathy.

|12.2.04 @ 6:28PM|#

"The shoe bomber, Richard Reid, was a British citizen with a British name, a British passport, and slithgly darker than average British complexion."

Looks more than a "slightly" darker than the average limey to me, but it's all a matter of degree. I think that if the TSA wouldn't stop him, customs probably should've. He looks like he might be at least carrying a block of hash in his shoes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1775000/images/_1775683_reid150ap.jpg

"Republican girls may be hotter, but Democrat chicks are easier."

Well, Eleanor Clift and Helen Thomas certainly get me all worked up. Er, I mean, throwing up.

|12.2.04 @ 6:33PM|#

The "funny" thing about the internment of American CITIZENS of Japanese ancestory was that it was largely a "liberal" project, here using the term "liberal" to denote those who favor the purvasive use of government power (not the 19th century "classical" meaning of the term).

It was undertaken by FDR, certainly the most liberal POTUS ever. It was urged by Earl Warren, as AG of California. And the two "great liberals" of the Supreme Court, William O. Douglas and Hugo Black, signed off on it unreservedly in Korematsu. Black, in fact, wrote the opinion.

If you want to see proof that horror over Korematsu is not some "politcally reaction" of American left of the 60s, 70s and 80s, you need go no further than the THREE dissents to the majority opinion. All are compelling in their own ways (and, please note, these dissents were written while American boys were dying by the hundreds, sometimes THOUSANDS, every week).

Justice Roberts didn't beat around the bush--the first sentence of his dissent is as follows:
"I dissent, because I think the indisputable facts exhibit a clear violation of Constitutional rights."

Justice Murphy was even more blunt in his opening lines:
"This exclusion of 'all persons of Japanese ancestry, both alien and non-alien,' from the Pacific Coast area on a plea of military necessity in the absence of martial law ought not to be approved. Such exclusion goes over 'the very brink of constitutional power' and falls into the ugly abyss of racism."

(Surprise! The concept that racism was involved wasn't invented in 1968).

Finally, to me the most compelling dissent was written by Justice Jackson--soon to be chief US prosecutor at Nuremburg. It is far more pursuasive than anything to come out of the "enemy combatant" cases decided by our contemporary court (with the possible exception of Scalia's opinion). I urge anyone truly interested in this subject to read it.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=323&invol=214

PS: Cathy Young is well-intentioned, I'm sure, but her constant need to "balance" her columns has made her almost unreadable for me. How about just tearing someone, left or right, a new ass (figuratively) once in a while, and quit trying to show that there are others as "equally bad" "on the other side"? And Malkin, for all her actual physical attributes, is surely a worthwhile candidate.

|12.2.04 @ 6:37PM|#

"Never, never, never spell Cathy, Cathy, Cathy as Kathy, Kathy, Kathy."

Yes, that would be Cathy. So?

|12.2.04 @ 6:38PM|#

D Anghelone-

OK, I checked out the 2 links that you posted. I understand what internment was. I still don't know how "relocation" differs. Is it just a matter of legalese, in that different words are used under different circumstances, but either way you're confined and not allowed to leave?

You hinted that there was a more practical difference when you wrote "The people in the Relocation camps were not required to stay there." You also wrote "Most, but not all, stayed for having no other place to go. I believe it was some 5,000 who relocated to other than the camps."

Are you saying that they were coerced to go to a particular geographical region, but not obligated to live in the camps? i.e. they got orders saying "You, Mr. Yakamoto, are ordered to take your family and live within X miles of such-and-such town. You can live in the town or in the camp that we provide."

However, all of this is conjecture because you still haven't articulated to what extent their conditions differed from the popular conception of being confined to a camp and not being allowed to leave. Were they allowed to leave during the day to shop and work? Were they allowed to live anywhere within X miles of the camp?

Not that such latitude would condone their treatment, but you seem to be implying that we are operating under some misconception, and I'd like to know what the misconception is. How did their relocation differ from being coerced to stay in a camp?

|12.2.04 @ 6:45PM|#

Internment is standard for nationals of hostile countries in time of war. As I understand their are conventions to cover it in much the same way as the Geneva Conventions for POWs.

During WWII the German, Italian and Japanese diplomatic legations were interned for the duration. So were various other nationals of those countries who were in the US at the start of hostilities. None of these internees were entitled to any compensation.

The Majority of Japanese "relocated" in WWII were US citizens and for that reason did not meet the standard for lawful internment.

I haven't read Malkin's book but one review I read mentions that she brings up the internments of germans as somehow equivalent to the Nissei internment. I believe that is a serious misreading of history.

Another interesting point is that Japanese in Hawai'i where there was a lot more evidence of subversion were pretty much left to themselves, although the FBI did a lot of surveillance. Of all people, J Edgar Hoover opposed relocation.

I now get your point D Anghelone. I thought you handled it rather clumsily.

As an aside I heard on some WWII show recently that a third of GIs in Europe after D-Day had German ancestry. I was not particularly surprised but I did find it interesting.

|12.2.04 @ 7:26PM|#

OK, I checked out the 2 links that you posted. I understand what internment was. I still don't know how "relocation" differs. Is it just a matter of legalese, in that different words are used under different circumstances, but either way you're confined and not allowed to leave?

"Internment" seems to be something of a catchall term for the detentions of suspect foreign nationals, generally during time of war. As bad as the practice can be, it's better than the prior practice of slaughtering them to be rid of them.

As said by Mr. Bartram, Relocation was for US citizens rather than furriners. Legalese or illegalese, it can't be real good to force an ethnic category of citizen to move from all they have and know.

You hinted that there was a more practical difference when you wrote "The people in the Relocation camps were not required to stay there." You also wrote "Most, but not all, stayed for having no other place to go. I believe it was some 5,000 who relocated to other than the camps."

Relocation was mandatory but the camps were not. Some J-As did find work inland and so were able to avoid the camps. The Feds had to build the camps for the bulk who couldn't find such work or who were refused admittance by hostile inlanders. The Feds, as it were, didn't want them in camps as that was a drain of needed resourses.

Are you saying that they were coerced to go to a particular geographical region, but not obligated to live in the camps? i.e. they got orders saying "You, Mr. Yakamoto, are ordered to take your family and live within X miles of such-and-such town. You can live in the town or in the camp that we provide."

I don't know all of the particulars but that's pretty much the story. Some Italian-Americans were forced to relocate, for a short time, but they were not rejected as were the J-As so camps were not a consideration.

However, all of this is conjecture because you still haven't articulated to what extent their conditions differed from the popular conception of being confined to a camp and not being allowed to leave. Were they allowed to leave during the day to shop and work? Were they allowed to live anywhere within X miles of the camp?

I think we again deal with dejure versus defacto. If the camp is in an isolated area then there is nowhere to go.

Not that such latitude would condone their treatment, but you seem to be implying that we are operating under some misconception, and I'd like to know what the misconception is. How did their relocation differ from being coerced to stay in a camp?

For all I've read, the Relocation camps were like military facilities without military law. That J-As were effectively forced into the camps is what was wrong.

|12.2.04 @ 7:31PM|#

Another interesting point is that Japanese in Hawai'i where there was a lot more evidence of subversion were pretty much left to themselves, although the FBI did a lot of surveillance. Of all people, J Edgar Hoover opposed relocation.

The Hawaii problem was no problem at all. All of Hawaii was placed under martial law.

I now get your point D Anghelone. I thought you handled it rather clumsily.

I invite you to try making the point adroitly.

|12.2.04 @ 7:33PM|#

I love how the post became a discussion about republican and democrat girls, and whoever said there are only 2 libertarian girls, here's at least 3!

http://collegehumor.com/?image_id=77320

http://www.collegehumor.com/?image_id=85578

http://www.collegehumor.com/?image_id=80262

David|12.2.04 @ 7:48PM|#

"David, on what basis are you asserting that people with obvious high-risk markers, like your gang of Lebanese men, are not being subjected to additional scrutiny?

Keeping a good random check system in place does not preclude using effective profiling as well."

Joe,

If that's what we are doing than fine. But I've read a number of reports describing situations similar to what I mentioned -- Middle Easterners with foreign passports sailing thru security while U.S. citizens got pat-down searches. These were travelers' accounts so it's anecdotal evidence and I may be incorrect in my assumptions. However, given the attitude of political correctness and the fear of having sensible precautions labeled as "profiling," I don't have much confidence in government airline security procedures.

Btw, on the Coulter/Malkin thing, I don't equate Coulter & Malkin. Coulter is a provocateur who cynically pushes the envelope in order to gain attention, sell books and appear on screamfest political shows. Although I disagree with Malkin's internment argument and her positions on some other issues, I think she deserves to be taken more seriously than Coulter. Plus she's much hotter than Coulter :).

|12.2.04 @ 8:15PM|#

Donald, call me cynical, but I think their BOYFRIENDS are the libertarians ;-)

|12.2.04 @ 8:48PM|#

Re: Libertarian girls

I've seen pics of Cathy Young that look kinda cute (can't find them on the Internet though).

And I've seen pics of Virginia Postrel that look pretty damn cute:

http://libertyblog.com/archives/photos/postrel.jpg
http://www.freedomkeys.com/postrel3.gif

... but it would probably be polite and prudent to exempt any women closely associated with REASON from further discussion of this topic.

With that exclusion rule firmly in place, I must say:

Libertarian/conservative hybrid Ilana Mercer is downright hot:

http://ilanamercer.com/index.htm
http://ilanamercer.com/guest.htm
http://ilanamercer.com/pictures_1.htm

Perhaps one could do worse than Sarah Fitz-Claridge:

http://www.fitz-claridge.com/020201-1Florida.html
http://www.fitz-claridge.com/pictures.html

Sabine Herold is pretty cute, and may be the best, most libertarian thing to come out of France since "laissez faire":

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/uploads/sabineatrally2.jpg
(in the blue top, although les femmes on either side of her look tres yummy too -- could there be an undiscovered trove of hot libertarian-minded babes in France??!!)

http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/uploads/sabinespeaks2.jpg
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040112_schwartz_herold.php

|12.2.04 @ 9:56PM|#

OK, so internment is a legal term with a specific meaning. It refers to the detention of foreign nationals during time of war. The US citizens of Japanese descent were not foreign nationals and hence were not "interned."

Glad we got the dictionary portion of the debate straight. You still come across as trying to diminish the harm done to them. You insist that the relocatees (or at least some of them) enjoyed some freedom of movement, but you apparently aren't sure just how much freedom of movement they had, except that they were not all obligated to remain within the confines of the camp. That's still not much freedom, especially if they are restricted to a small radius near the camp, the area is remote and hence has few job opportunities, and they've been branded as disloyal in time of war.

You still come across as trying to minimize the harm done to them.

So what's your point, aside from the fact that we didn't use the correct terminology to describe rounding up citizens on the basis of ethnicity, dragging them away from their homes, and dropping them in a remote area?

|12.2.04 @ 10:00PM|#

At the risk of adopting the signature manner of a certain poster who shall go un-named (his names are Legion, for they are many ;-), I want to respond to one more point and take somebody to task for phrasing.

For all I've read, the Relocation camps were like military facilities without military law. That J-As were effectively forced into the camps is what was wrong.

Is that to suggest that it wouldn't have been wrong to drag them away from home and dump them in an area with more opportunities? I would maintain that forcing them away from home is wrong no matter what, regardless of whether they were sent to a camp or to a city full of opportunities.

Besides, since I know many of the libertarians on this forum are skeptical to civil liberties arguments, let's stick to what real libertarians care about: Some of them owned homes and businesses, and were hence stripped of private property!

|12.2.04 @ 11:17PM|#

Stevo Darkly,

Sabine Herald is God's gift to man. She is incredible looking. Ilana Mercer is not bad, but Sara Fitz is a butaface as in has everything but a face. For my money the hottest conservative chick not getting a paycheck from FOX is Laura Ingram.

|12.3.04 @ 12:20AM|#

I suggest the following:

John Ehrman, The Rise of Neoconservativism: Intellectuals and Foreign Affairs, 1945-1994

Mark Gerson, The Neoconservative Vision: From Cold War to the Culture Wars

Richard Perle, et. al. A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.

There are also a bunch of Weekly Standard pieces on Leo Strauss, etc.

|12.3.04 @ 12:23AM|#

Damn. Wrong thread.

|12.3.04 @ 1:04AM|#

But John -- I was talking about libertarian girls, not conservatives necessarily.

Oh! Oversight! I forgot about Angela Keaton of Liberated Space -- she has a certain flair.

http://www.elfis.net/images/girls/MAK.jpg
http://www.liberatedspace.com/Gallery/

Oh, and re: Sarah Fitz ... tastes will differ, of course, but let's stick to the "if you can't say something nice..." rule, por favor. Libertarianism is a fairly small community, after all. It's quite possible the subjects of my Cro-Magnon slobberings will someday run across this thread and see what is said about them. Let's keep it life-affirming, eh? :)

|12.3.04 @ 6:33AM|#

You still come across as trying to minimize the harm done to them.

I don't know why that would be.

The figures I've seen say that some 15,000 Japanese and some similar number of Europeans were interned. Those people were mostly non-citizens. That leaves more than 100,000 Japanese-American citizens forced to relocate with nearly all effectively forced into Relocation camps.

Had the thing involved just internment of non-citizens it would not now be such an issue. The issue, as in real estate, is relocation, relocation and relocation.

|12.3.04 @ 7:04AM|#

thoreau,

If we are truly looking to the past to see what might today be done to Middle Easterners, or others deemed suspect, then have a look at this which is now public law. Is that gospel or does it contain some pandering? Beats me but it does suggest some fairly extensive "profiling." Similar legislation for German-Americans is in limbo.

|12.3.04 @ 8:30AM|#

"Doesn't the fact that you have to adopt such an absurb pretence indicate anything to you about the strength of your underlying argument?"

Dude, this is totally entrapment. You're the one who introduced the absurb notion of hair dye and contact lenses when I made a very specific point about a skinny, 15-year old american girl being shaken down by airport security.. c'mon, man.

"Keeping a good random check system in place does not preclude using effective profiling as well."

YOU support profiling!? I'm really curious here.. what do you consider "effective"?

Angela Keaton|12.3.04 @ 10:10AM|#

Ronald, Mr. Fletcher:

There are many hot libertarian chicks. Amanda Phillips of the Free State Project, Rachel Mills of the "Ladies of Liberty," Stephanie "vs. the machine" Sailor. Even Nancy Lord was a hot number back in the day.

|12.3.04 @ 10:15AM|#

"I invite you to try making the point adroitly."

I'm sorry, my reply was also clumsy.

I misunderstood your original post. When you elaborated I understood.

I find myself in good company though. The esteemed thoreau inferred this "You still come across as trying to diminish the harm done to them.". That is essentially how I had read your original post.

Even within the context of the legitimate internments they were abuses, suffice it to say the authorities were not overy scrupulous about civil liberties. "Better safe than sorry" seemed to be the guiding principle.

The Nissei internment (it is still generally referred to that way) while promoted as a public safety move quickly degenerated into (if it wasn't already) a naked grab for property and land, mostly to benefit of Earl Warren's cronies.

As I understand it the Japanese-Americans were allowed to take what they could carry in a suitcase. This left a bonanza of personal and real property up for grabs at fire sale prices.

|12.3.04 @ 11:09AM|#

I find myself in good company though. The esteemed thoreau inferred this "You still come across as trying to diminish the harm done to them.". That is essentially how I had read your original post.

It's been frustrating to me that this issue always elicits that response. Stepping from the trodden path is seen as stepping into the racist muck. Frustrating as well is that no more scholarly libertarians have taken to investigating the matter. There is more to be known if the Feds can be induced to releasing all that is held in various agencies.

I don't know what were the actual financial losses of the Japanese-Americans. They were supposedly compensated in 1948 but I can't know how adequate was the compensation.

|12.3.04 @ 12:56PM|#

One more link.

I don't know about the Institute for Historical Review but this libertarian fellow seems solid. I gather he's written for something called Reason.

I think he gives perspective to the thing that is elsewhere lacking.

|12.3.04 @ 9:26PM|#

David,

"If that's what we are doing than fine. But I've read a number of reports describing situations similar to what I mentioned -- Middle Easterners with foreign passports sailing thru security while U.S. citizens got pat-down searches."

A responsible, effective profiling system is not the same as patting down every single Middle Easterner with a foreign passport. That would be sloppy, wasteful profiling.

|12.4.04 @ 2:50PM|#

Angela Keaton -- thanks for the leads on libertarian hotties!

I can only find one or two photos of Amanda Phillips, but they indicate a cute face and petite bod.


http://www.rachelmills.com/brown2.jpg

http://www.hippotimes.com/images/rachelmills.gif

http://rachelmills.com/redwhitebluerachelweb.jpg

|12.4.04 @ 2:52PM|#

Oops! That last post was a mistake. I was about to add something about Rachel Mills and I, er, posted ... prematurely. Bear with me and I'll continue later. After I've had a chance to rest a bit.

|12.4.04 @ 3:26PM|#

"It's been frustrating to me that this issue always elicits that response."

I, for one, am sorry for the misunderstanding.

BTW, Good article.

|12.4.04 @ 3:54PM|#

Son of an effing bitch! I just hit the wrong button and lost 45 minute's worth of HTML work that would have given you all direct links to back up the following assertions from me. Well, screw it, you'll have to cut and past the URLs. I'll just say:

- Rachel Mills is extremely HOT! (But married)

http://rachelmills.com/businessheadshotsmall.jpg

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/pict/0211/calendar.jpg

http://www.rachelmills.com/brown2.jpg

http://www.hippotimes.com/images/rachelmills.gif

http://rachelmills.com/redwhitebluerachelweb.jpg

http://www.rachelmills.com/bwprofile.jpg

http://www.rachelmills.com/brown1.jpg

It's an added plus, she's also quite petite -- http://rachelmills.com/Rachel_Resident.jpg -- I like a woman I can throw over my shoulder and carry to the top of the Empire State Building.

- As for Stephanie Sailor, she has a lovely, sexy face ...

http://www.freedomkeys.com/stephsailor.jpg

... and is build like a brick arms-locker besides!

http://www.sailorvsthemachine.com/images/StephSailorGun2001.gif

- Finally, I can see some potential in Nancy Lord, but maybe it would be better if she dressed more like Angela Keaton.

PS: I'm afraid this thread has taken the character of a room in which most of the occupants are seated around a table and having a Serious and Intellectual Discussion, except for a few who are jostling around a peep-hole into the girls' locker room next door, steadfastly ignored by the others. I'm in the Fun group, but I admire the doggedness of the Serious ones nonetheless.

b-psycho|12.5.04 @ 2:35PM|#

Michelle's entire book can be refuted with one phrase:

"look in the mirror, and then pack your f^%$ing bags"

|12.5.04 @ 6:32PM|#

Michelle's entire book can be refuted with one phrase:

"look in the mirror, and then pack your f^%$ing bags"

Yeah, send her to Manila or to Crystal City.

If those f^%$ing Japs had finished the job there wouldn't be any damned Filipinas to have to listen to.

|12.6.04 @ 3:31PM|#

Stevo Darkly,
Those last ones are indeed some hot ass libertarians (I assume they are lobertarians)
Strangely enough, I really like the French chick

|12.16.04 @ 1:43AM|#

I looked at Ms. Fitz-Claridge web page (excuse me--I mean shrine to herself) and have seen her in person....and since my mother taught me "if you can't say anything nice.."................ Well, you get the point.