Suicide: Not Painless

Michelle Malkin has responded to my post on UC Santa Cruz Chancellor Denice Denton's suicide. Quick recap: Malkin called Denton a "capitulationist chancellor" after Denton failed to expel or punish students who angrily protested and kicked military recruiters off campus. She posted Denton's office address, number and email (the latter were her assistant's, and all of this was available online) and encouraged readers to "take a stand" and contact her. Late last month, Denton killed herself. I summed up the situation and said this:

While no one is suggesting that her readers pushed Denton over the edge, Malkin has said nothing about the chancellor since her suicide. It might become her to apologize for smearing an academic, and directing people to direct their outrage to her office, in what were the final troubled months of her life.

Making Malkin angry is like shooting orca in a barrel, and lo and behold, this made her angry.

The blog of the libertarian magazine "Reason" is titled "Hit and Run."

They can run, but they cannot hide. And I'm not going to let them get away with their latest hit.

This sounds eerily similiar to what John Kerry said about the Swift Boat Vets. Malkin's rebuttal, if possible, is even lamer than Kerry's was.

Weigel accuses me of "smearing" Denton because I simply asked people to take a stand and quoted from a San Francisco Chronicle article reporting that the capitulationist administration knew about the anti-military activists' plans weeks in advance and had hoped that they would be rained out.

I'm convinced that Malkin misses the irony here. She didn't smear Denton - she merely called her a capitulationist. In her mind, implying that Denton wanted to bring down our military and welcome the terrorists to Santa Cruz with open arms and carrot juice is a perfectly neutral characterization. Why else would Malkin use it again in an an attempt to rebut the charged that she "smeared" Denton?

Weigel accuses me of throwing around charges of "treason" and "traitors," neither of which I used in any of my blog posts on the anti-recruiting brigade at Santa Cruz. "Seditious," yes. Treasonous, no.

That's a clever bit of parsing. Malkin didn't use the T-word in her Santa Cruz posts. (She reserves that eloquent phraseology for the New York Times). She accused UC Santa Cruz (the whole school) of "hating our troops," characterized the anti-war students being part of an "anti-troops movement," called the actions "sedition," and, yes, called Denton a "capitulationist." How in the world did I peg Malkin as a "reckless labeler"?

Weigel attacks me for not saying anything about Denton's suicide. Crikey. If I had said anything, his ilk would have jumped all over me for not having the compassion to keep quiet about her various scandals and corruptocrat ways and let her loved ones mourn in peace.

I was unaware I had an ilk. Perhaps that's the terminology you pick up writing for VDare.com.

I can't speak for my ilk, but I suggested Malkin should apologize because, for that brief, frantic moment when the terrorists almost took over Santa Cruz, Malkin thought Denton was worth going after. She blogged it for two days; it was a fairly important story, and you'd think crack correspondent Michelle Malkin was following it. It seemed strange that one of the villains of the story could kill herself and Malkin wouldn't care. But apparently she'd stopped seeing UC-Santa Cruz as a threat to America; she'd moved on to fresh outrages. Like any good hit and runner (the auto vehicular type, not the Reason type), she heard the bump under her tires and hit the gas pedal.

Finally, Weigel wants me to "apologize" for supplying readers with the public office phone number and contact info of a prominent and outspoken public official.

So much for free markets, free minds, and free speech. Are we to withhold criticism now of all public figures because they might be going through "troubled" times and any call for accountability might send them over the edge?

This would sound credible if it came from another pundit. When Malkin is attacked - and I'd argue a columnist and Fox News commentator is even a more prominent figure than the chancellor of UC-Santa Cruz - she screams so loud you can hear it from the porous Mexican border. Here was how she reacted to mail she got after the Santa Cruz stories.

The unhinged lefty bloggers who did and said nothing to condemn the violent tactics of the UC Santa Cruz thugs are treating me like I'm the terrorist. I'm not going to bother linking. You can find their trash easily enough on any search engine. While they whine about the death threats that SAW organizers allegedly received, you should see the filth and threats against my family that their minions are sending.

Malkin didn't like getting threats and hate mail; some people who don't like her even dug up her personal information and contacted her family!

Now, think: Is it possible that some Malkin readers saw the Denice Denton post and decided to look up more of her info, beyond her office address? How many of them would have ever heard of Denice Denton if Malkin hadn't decided to target her? Again, Denton didn't even insert herself in the story like some of the academics Malkin has gone after. She tried to stay out of the story; but that meant she failed to prosecute the anti-war protesters, and that brought on the wrath.

Malkin's response to all of this is a diversion, accusing me of harboring some knee-quaking fear of free speech. She refuses to consider that because she doesn't enjoy getting hate mail, maybe the people she embroils in hate mail campaigns don't like it either. Most of the time they shrug it off and move on. This time Malkin attacked a woman who was already seriously troubled, and who later killed herself. Some people would put two and two together and feel a twinge of guilt for piling on this woman. Malkin didn't.

And the dig at "free markets, free minds, and free speech" is especially rich, coming from a pundit who wants to lock down the borders and purge academics who say mean things to conservatives. None of these ideals are workable unless they include openness and responsibility. Malkin has no interest in or familiarity with either concept.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    This is when Reason "jumped the shark."

  • ||

    Has anyone else who criticized Malkin in that last thread been getting harassing emails from some Malkin flunkie claiming to be an army policeman?

  • ||

    Expecting rational discourse from Malkin is like looking for hard science at the timecube website.

  • ||

    Why even bother? The woman is unhinged.

  • David Weigel||

    Why bother? Because the shark is in the harbor, and I already paid for the waterskis.

  • ||

    Is anyone else tickled pink to see Malkin squeal like a stuck pig? (Yes, it was predictable, but it's fun too!)

  • ||

    Yeah, at some point you just back away from the drooling loon ranting on the streetcorner.

    Wingnuts are a thin-skinned lot aren't they? Like the typical bully, they can dish it out but can't take it.

  • ||

    Repeating what I just posted at TAP, people like Malkin, Coulter, et al, are so obviously acting for the bucks and glory, not from sincere conviction. Thar's gold in them thar hills of hate, and these Medusas are mining it for all it's worth. They're frauds, in the final analysis. It occurs to me that this is what we should be reminding folks about. They wouldn't recognize a principled stand if it bit them in the rear. That's what all the invective is about. That's what pays the bills.

  • ||

    Malkin should be ignored. She is anrgy cause her wrists hurt from typing 'capitulationist' four hundred times a day and refusing to learn macros...

    I wonder what happened to Malkin, she used to write decent libertarianish op-eds about the Liberty Tree and what not. 9-11 and Ann Coulter happened and she flipped out. I pity her.

  • ||

    Michelle Malkin--the world's darkest white supremacist.

  • ||

    You're a smart guy, Dave, and I like your stuff. That said, it was a little misleading to fail to include the bit about the university funds in your initial post. Readers who hadn't followed the story closely could have been mislead into thinking that the incident you reference played a larger part in the woman's trouble than one would otherwise think, knowing the full story (perhaps most Weigel/Reason readers, being the well-read and blog-addicted sort, would have, but probably not all of them).

    But that said, Malkin's response is what's really interesting to me. She writes: "So much for free markets, free minds, and free speech. Are we to withhold criticism now of all public figures because they might be going through "troubled" times and any call for accountability might send them over the edge?" What's interesting here is the utter lack of compassion evident in her worldview when it comes to this policia, bloggy game. There are two speed--full-on attack and retreat. To say something like:

    "While I disagreed with the way she handled that situation, I am very sorry for her and her family that she was so troubled and it led her to end her life. While I won't apologize for forcefully expressing my opinion, to the extent my readers and I caused her any additional anguish in the last weeks of her life, I am deeply sorry and I hope that she and her family can forgive me. There are bigger issues than the politcal and blogspheric aspect of any given story, and as human beings we should be able to respect that when we fight these battles."

    The thought literally would never cross her mind. It's outside her frame of reference of how to interact with people in the world. Two speeds: screeching and retraction.

  • ||

    My army policeman/interlocutor/Malkin minion is now wishing that I become part of the white slave trade in the UAE. I haven't spent much time on Michelle Malkin site, but if this is representative of her commenters, I'm starting to have some sympathy with David W.'s point of view. This person is so thoroughly annoying that imagining him multiplied by the hundreds is giving me a headache.

  • Mike M.||

    Malkin's just a big silly. A testy big silly, but silly nonetheless.

  • ||

    A Dinner invitation to all the brave Malkinite wingnut flying attack monkeys and supporters of U.S war-crimes.

    Don't be late! We'll be serving Marinated Punji Stake in your honor.
    Ever So Sincerely,
    Mike Adams

    2711 Belaire Cr.
    Atlanta, Ga
    770-457-6758

    You know where I live. Y'all come now;-)

  • ||

    Malkin is the new Wally George. Remember him? Don't worry nobody does, and that's what the screaming Mimi Malkin has waiting for her.

    It can't come too soon.

  • ||

    She was on the radio here in L.A. last weekend and it was truly astonishing how angry and panicky she sounded. Worse than Tammy Bruce even.

  • The Owner's Manual||

    Luckily for Michelle, she's dealing with closeted liberal, so she needn't try too hard at the rebutting.

  • ||

    Some dumbass comments on this topic on this blog need to be corrected.

    "This Denton had a lot to answer for in terms of the hundreds of thousands of dollars she used to renovate her University provided home and why she hired her partner for a position that needed to be created so she could get a job"

    The University renovated the home without her knowledge or consent, they simply fixed it up before the new tenant came in. It's one way to attract good candidates, dumbass.

    The University offered her partner a position as part of the negotiaton with Denton, dumbass. When a qualified executive is available, and the institution wants their expertise, they make that kind of judgement call.

    What I find ironic is how people come down on situations like this, which is a MINOR, TRIVIAL example of how any institution makes a job attractive to get qualified executives, but when it comes to the real outrage, the tens of millions paid to CEO's while pensions wither, there is not a whisper.

    Let's face it, dumbass Americans: you loooove to kiss rich butt. That is the real source of your tolerance for the Rethugs jerking your chain, for the fat cats driving the middle class into extinction, all the while you slurp up your dumbass patriotism.

    Denton was a public servant, hounded by vicious righties and dumped on by the press. Obviously she had some character weaknesses, or this viciousness would not have resulted in suicide. But people who deal this slander and attack are dealing with real people, and they have some responsibility in the situation as well.

  • ||

    "free markets, free minds, and free speech"

    if you're the right color. Otherwise, its off to the internment camp with you.

  • bbbustard||

    This is so typical of Michelle - she denies that she spews venom, while those listening to her are forced to wear protective gear to avoid being poisoned. Yesterday I posted at my small site, http://bustardblog.typepad.com , about how Michelle, while expressing outrage over 'lefties' who publish personal data about an opponent on line, did exactly that herself, by linking to a site that exposed the home addresses of Sulzberger and Keller of the Times.
    We can only hope that by having her in this country, we help the Phillipines get back on their feet without her destructive force harming all it encounters.

  • ||

    I haven't been harassed yet. It must be my halitosis, which I blame on Malkin.

  • ||

    I used to have a kitten. Michelle Malkin killed it.

  • ||

    camille: When a private corporation offers incentives to its executives, I'm not paying for them involuntarily. When the University of California allows a chancellor to install a $30,000 dog run and create a bullshit position for her significant other on the public dime, I am.

    I say this as a UC employee and resident of California.

  • Wild Pegasus||

    Yet another conservative woman who should adopt a conservative female value: silence.

    "Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent." - I Timothy 2:11-12

    - Josh

  • ||

    S.R. -

    You may disapprove of that use of UC funds, but that hardly makes it Denton's fault. If the state offers me a job, you bet I'm going to negotiate myself the best deal I can.

  • ||

    Brian: You make a good point, but it's also the prerogative of the taxpayers of California to object to that deal. We did (in the San Fransisco Chronicle, of all places). It was Denton's responsibility to do what she would with that information. I agree, though, that it was the responsibility of UC not to offer such outrageous compensation.

  • ||

    Camille Roy, I think you've dumped your data on the wrong website.

  • Ron Hardin||

    Coulter has some great lines. They're expanded on too long, is all. She has Mencken's beginnings but doesn't carry through well, is all.

    Malkin and for that matter Weigel are too small stuff to have an interesting fight over pecking order.

    I wouldn't seek out the friends either one seems to have.

  • ||

    "This person is so thoroughly annoying that imagining him multiplied by the hundreds is giving me a headache."

    Now imagine him multiplied by the millions of others like him out there in Wingnutand. That's not annoying, it's scary. And instead of giving us headaches, the day may come when they give you a number tatooed on your arm.

  • ||

    This has the makings of an interesting blogosphere playground fight. Can youngster David Weigel stand up to ruler-of-the-jungle-gym Malkin? Or will he have to call in his big brothers Tim and Nick to take care of her for him? Personally, I'm rooting for you, David.

  • ||

    What a bunch of dumbass posts by a bunch of dumbasses.

  • TWB||

    Let's face it, dumbass Americans: you loooove to kiss rich butt. That is the real source of your tolerance for the Rethugs jerking your chain, for the fat cats driving the middle class into extinction, all the while you slurp up your dumbass patriotism.

    I kinda liked the rest of what you were saying camille, but you lost me here.

  • ||

    Malkin needs a long vacation. Every time anyone says remotely critical of her, she explodes with indignation and rage.

    What the hell is wrong with her? Can't take criticism, for sure - she should take a few weeks in the Dominican Republic - and maybe bring Jesse. (Of course, there'd be no one left to write her columns if Jesse takes time off...)

  • ||

    If the original post was not meant to connect Malkin to Denton's suicide, then what was the point? Of course you're trying to connect her to the sad event. But, barring a handwritten letter from Denton saying "Malkin made me do this", it is ridiculous to see even a nominal cause-effect relationship at work here, and even if there were a note, can anyone really "drive" another to commit suicide? People survived genuine hardship and torture under the Nazis, yet survived the oppression. No one, epecially David Weigel, knows what was in Denton's mind when she gave up on her life.

    Another point; it's mentioned that Malkin might be well to "apologize for smearing an academic". What? Are academics above criticism? What does Denton being an academic have to do with anything?

  • ||

    I haven't spent much time on Michelle Malkin site, but if this is representative of her commenters

    Michelle doesn't allow comments. That would be too much like representative democracy for pundits.

    In other words, if she allowed comments on her site, the world would get a really good look at the underside of Mrs. VDare's fans.

    Michelle's actions speak for themselves, and the sun is setting on her worldview. Rather than accumulating more acolytes, the ones she still retains grow more and more hate-filled, irrational (witness the recent NYT non-issue w/r/t/ SWIFT) and, with any luck, irrelevant.

  • ||

    to camille roy at 6:26pm

    yep you're right on it. every single american loves for the rich to steal from us...all (appx.) 300 million of us think exactly the same on all matters.
    a question for you camille, do you share 100% the same opinions of your closet neighbor, co-worker or relative even... you think others do so you do too?
    this is the root of racism and ugly nationalism--you all think that and we all think thus.

    let's pack up and go home kids; camille has found us out.

  • ||

    Yet more evidence of how 9-11 sent an already unhindged post-Clinton era Right into stark raving lunacy. This is the bunch who infers "treason" when the NYT Travel section when they publish that gives the location of one of Cheney's vaction spots, yet is willing to do the same to hound and harass a women (in this case, to the point of suicide) over an political snit. I wouldn't be too surprised if Malkin starts publishing David's contact information so she can get her "ilk" can "take a stand" against another "capitulator" who dares quest her hateful, viscious, jingoistic ideology.

  • ||

    "...people like Malkin, Coulter, et al, are so obviously acting for the bucks and glory, not from sincere conviction. Thar's gold in them thar hills of hate, and these Medusas are mining it for all it's worth."

    Thanks, mombear. Hate cash is the force that keeps shit storms a'spinnin on both left and right. How sad it is that these are the kinds of people helping set our national conversation.

  • Geoffrey Kruse-Safford||

    I don't normally come here, directed here after reading Daily Kos (not a libertarian at heart or mind). Two things: 1)I love the description of those who do her bidding as Malkin's flying monkeys, LOL!; 2) I recently tried to engage a right-winger and was also told I wa part of an ilk. One question, is that bigger or smaller than a cohort? I need to find the address of this ilk cause I haven't paid my dues. I do know we aren't part of the same ilk, no offense.

  • ||

    I recently tried to engage a right-winger and was also told I wa part of an ilk.

    And here is also more evidence of the banality of American Conservatism. Not an original idea in their collective heads.

  • ||

    Well said.

    It's interesting to note that she (Jesse?) has no problem menacing Academics such as Students and College officials, but won't publish NY Times editor numbers since ones "Home is their Castle' (paraphrasing).

    Mind you, posting such info is wrong, but I'd bet the fact that the NY Times Editors has deep enough pockets to Effectivly Sue her (Jesse?) had more to do with it.

    Also, to you people linking from her site: At least David Weigel allows comments, unlike her.

  • ||

    This is when Reason "jumped the shark."

    I was thinking the same thing. I seem to remember this happening once or twice before. These spats conducted via blog posts are juvenile and I would rather the commentary at Reason stay above the fray. But hey, it's their sandbox, we just play in it.

  • ||

    "Ilk" is an actual word that you can look up. If you seriously want to know what it is, crack open a dictionary.

  • ||

    I have more fun at the "ilk" lodge than the "meese" lodge.

  • ||

    Not an original idea in their collective heads.

    That's not true. As Rush was saying today...

  • ||

    From a blog linked to under "trackback" at Malkin's:

    Well, no, Michelle. You should withhold criticism of all public figures because you are a ten-gallon idiot. Save it for the casting call for Dumberer and Dumbererer. You'll need it if Coulter auditions.

  • ||

    Well, no, Michelle. You should withhold criticism of all public figures because you are a ten-gallon idiot. Save it for the casting call for Dumberer and Dumbererer. You'll need it if Coulter auditions.

    Whoa... I just had a brainstorm for the next feel-good, comedy hit of the summer! A movie about two shrill, over-the-top, female conservative commentators as they bash and smash their way through American punditry. The message; that bitchy right-wing women can be funny too.

    Bette Midler and Barbra Streisand would kill for the two main roles! Where's my word processor? I smell blockbuster!

  • bbbustard||

    This is so typical of Michelle - she denies that she spews venom, while those listening to her are forced to wear protective gear to avoid being poisoned. Yesterday I posted at my small site, http://bustardblog.typepad.com , about how Michelle, while expressing outrage over 'lefties' who publish personal data about an opponent on line, did exactly that herself, by linking to a site that exposed the home addresses of Sulzberger and Keller of the Times.
    We can only hope that by having her in this country, we help the Phillipines get back on their feet without her destructive force harming all it encounters.

  • ||

    You know the original story had many posted comments that mirrored her rebuttal. Go for the Gold man call her a plagiarist to boot ;)

  • Eric Muller||

    The aspect of this that resonates with me is how Michelle and Jesse Malkin just move from hornet's nest to hornet's nest, stirring them and them leaving them without another thought.

    This is just what she did with the Japanese American internment. Big splash -- revive a 60-year-old slander of an entire ethnic group -- leave aging internees sobbing at the public reinfliction of injury (I've seen them) -- and then move on to the next topic that will draw attention and publicity, without a second thought.

    Horrible.

  • Geoffrey Kruse-Safford||

    I know "ilk" is a word. I am laughing at it being used by a right-winger, first on myself, then on someone else whose philosophical position is vastly different from my own. It is a way to avoid dealing with an argument by assuming that one person is repeating the same thing others are. Unfortunately, in the case here, it seems to be true; I have seen the whole "you and your ilk" thing quite a bit. I guess we should all practice the following sentence for our Congressional testimony, huh: "I am not now, nor have I ever been, a member of an ilk." BTW, it should read "was" not "wa".

  • Jim Treacher||

    I know "ilk" is a word. I am laughing at it being used by a right-winger, first on myself, then on someone else whose philosophical position is vastly different from my own. It is a way to avoid dealing with an argument by assuming that one person is repeating the same thing others are.



    I feel the same way about "Malkinite."

  • ||

    Eric:

    If that is not bad enough, there are people (my father being one of them)who hang religiously on everything that Malkin, Coulter, and their "ilk" spew from their cakeholes.

    For all its faults, American Conservatism used to have a certain degree of dignity about it. I guess it came from having stuffed shirt like W. F. Buckley Jr. as your intellectual spokesmen. However, when Conservatism's go-to person switches from Yaley Buckley to a college drop-out Limbaugh, you know it's all downhill from there.

  • ||

    For the person that said that "no one can drive you to suicide": have you ever been married?

    Just asking.

  • roger||

    I myself am anti-troop. I believe that the volunteer army is volunteer for a reason -- so that the people can express their displeasure at the government by not volunteering. And, when the government goes on an unconstitutional rampage and makes the army a mercenary force, to be sent anywhere at the whim of a tyrannical executive, I think the only patriotic thing is to convince as many people as possible not to join the army - to take Dick Cheney's stand, in the 60s, and have other priorities.

    In my opinion, Malkin was simply publicizing a good thing. Sure, the goons that read her are probably four square against the founding father's principles,. but getting them in the dialogue, even if that means receiving a buncha prissy letters, is a small price to pay for forcing the Bush administration to withdraw its troops from Iraq. Look, as Barry G. said in that magic address in 1964, extremism in defense of liberty is no vice.

    I only hope that Malkin continues to publicize anti-recruitment drives. We can strangle Bush's mercenary army -- and we can revive, once again, the wise notion that only Congress can declare war, and that the president has no power on his own or with some bogus declaration to place troops anywhere in the world at his whim.

  • The Liberal Avenger||

    Well - she's finally killed someone - an overweight lesbian at that. "Troubled," Malkin called her.

    Malkin is shrill, dangerous and unrepentant. Unfortunately she has also surrounded herself with sycophants who will overwhelm her with words of encouragement. "You did the right thing, Michelle." What's the life of a fat, moonbat lesbian academic worth, anyway?

    Excellent work, Michelle.

  • ||

    Did you know you can create a sporty combo muscle-car/pickup truck vehicle by adding amino acids to an ilk? That's right -- you get an Ilk-amino.

  • ||

    roger, your ideas intrigue me, and i'd like to subscribe to your newsletter

  • Geoffrey Kruse-Safford||

    Steve Darkly. LMAO!!!! Ilk-amino . . .

  • ||

    David Weigel,

    Will you marry me (and my Balls)?

  • ||

    I can see how the sample apology posted by [MSB at July 6, 2006 06:18 PM] is certainly more soothing than Malkin's actual response.

    However, after perusing both sides of the dialogue, I'm left feeling like Malkin spoke passionately about a real issue that she feels passionately about.

    On the other hand, here on the (so called) "Reason" side I see a lot of seemingly passionate speech about... what, really? I can't tell. David Weigel and readers are upset that Malkin did what? Ranted? Excercised her right to free speech? (Gasp!) insulted someone?

    Well, I can see where Malkin can be accused of rudeness, certainly, and in the wake of a suicide, sure, let's call it gross insensitivity.

    But is that really an *issue*? Is it surprising, does it move our dialogue forward? Not really, eh?

    The use of phrases like "and his ilk" is arguably cliche, fine. Yet it's amusing to note that this kind of thing is done many more times on this page than in Malkin's post. ("Malkinite" (thanks, Jim), Wingnut, and so forth.)

    One final point: I enjoyed the banter on both sides about "free markets, free minds, and free speech". I have to point out, though, that the implication of hypocorisy is not as solid an argument as David Weigel and friends might like to think. After all, it's Reason's website that uses the phrase "Free Minds and Free Markets" as part of its main marquee, not Malkin's.

  • RW||

    Congratulations, you're the atrios-flavor-of-the-month, with minions like liberalavenger projecting onto others. If that doesn't give you pause for your position you should know that you're wandering into Sullyland.

  • ||

    Furthermore, I can't trust anything Malkin says. You know why? Her blog has no carpet humping ad.

    The only two blogs I've ever found worth reading, Hit and Run and Andrew Sullivan, have both featured the humpster. Even though he didn't follow Andrew when he moved to Time Magazine's website, the past glory is enough for me.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Or will he have to call in his big brothers Tim and Nick to take care of her for him?

    Don't call me! I'm terrified of Malkin, even if she is a Holy Spirit pansy.

  • Tim Cavanaugh||

    Also, what's the big deal with getting harrassed by somebody's readers? I had fans of one of those anti-immigration talk radio guys calling my house to scream "YOU WANT TO LIVE WITH MEXICANS, YOU FUCKING MORON!" into the phone. And I've got kids. Abuse is as American as apple pie; suck it up or find a new line of work.

  • ||

    I once lived with a Mexican. Well, he said he was Guatemalan, but they're all the same really.

  • ||

    Quite frankly, I don't care about this entire episode.

    Except for the fact that Malkin continues to speak ill of the dead.

    That's just poor form.

    Whether Malkin's lunatic ravings precipitated Denton's death is both unprovable and immaterial.

    That Malkin can't even find enough civility to keep her mouth shut, or at least grunt a simple condolence strikes me as utterly crass.

  • ||

    " I had fans of one of those anti-immigration talk radio guys calling my house to scream "YOU WANT TO LIVE WITH MEXICANS, YOU FUCKING MORON!" into the phone."

    I think the only response to that is to scream "SALMA HAYEK, MOTHERFUCKER!"

  • ||

    Tim Cavanaugh says,

    "Abuse is as American as apple pie; suck it up or find a new line of work."



    But I thought that was the problem David Weigel had with Malkin in the first place. Isn't "smearing" just another kind of "abuse", and David was taking excpetion to Malkin's abuse of Denice Denton?

    So is abuse a major issue that requires all this pontificating, or is it simply "as American as apple pie" and let's all get over it?

    I'm confused...

  • ||

    I want to live with a Mexican -- Salma Hayek.

    Geoffrey -- "Ilk-amino" is typical of the sophomoric humor I occasionally spout off here. Hang around for more, or worse.

  • ||

    "So is abuse a major issue that requires all this pontificating, or is it simply "as American as apple pie" and let's all get over it?"

    *coughs*

    *points to previous post.*

  • ||

    "So is abuse a major issue that requires all this pontificating, or is it simply "as American as apple pie" and let's all get over it?"

    *coughs*

    *points to previous post.*

  • ||

    Malkin is just a bitch. She obviously makes money by controversy (just like Hannity and Limbaugh). If she were a reasoned analyst she would starve.

    Unfortunately, she is extremely dangerous and has no ethical sense. It would be interesting to research and pull up her address, find out her cell number and publish it all over the web... but then we would be no better than she is...

    And we are... we have positions but we actually care about people other than ourselves.

  • The Liberal Avenger||

    Malkin's blog used to carry the carpet-humping ad.

    Does the carpet-humper have a name?

  • ||

    I've oft said that modern political pundits are on par with pro wrestlers when it comes to relevance. The fact that she opens her screed with "you can run, but you can't hide" illustrates this point.

    Now excuse me, Sean Hannity just climbed into the ring with a foreign object that the referee didn't see.

  • ||

    Malkin can dish it out be she can't take it. She's an Ann Coulter wannabe. I hope to Christ that conservatives can dissassociate from those two whack jobs. With spokespeople like Malkin, Coulter, Limbaugh, and Hannity, conservatives look like a bunch of knuckledraggers instead of the rational, thoughtful people they are.

  • David Weigel||

    "Malkin's blog used to carry the carpet-humping ad. Does the carpet-humper have a name?"

    I take it you've never clicked on the ad. What a thing to admit!

  • ||

    Just another dishonest bit of nonsence. Jesus is there no one out there who can write an honest piece of commentary?

  • The Liberal Avenger||

    I finally clicked through on the carpet-humper: Isn't that Michael Berryman?

  • James Joyner||

    "Perhaps that's the terminology you pick up writing for VDare.com."

    Actually, the piece linked says "COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC." I presume it's just her syndicated column rather than a VDare original.

  • The Liberal Avenger||

    Malkin & Steve Sailer of VDARE:

    http://www.liberalavenger.com/2004/09/michelle-malkin-defends-white.html

  • ||

    lions and tigers and racists.....oh my.

  • Major Mike||

    Actually, Michelle Malkin is correct on this issue. You linked Denton's suicide with criticism she made of Denton. A straw may break a camel's back, and I guess you are calling Malkin's criticism the last straw. There was a lot more going on in Denton's life than criticism by a blogger, and it is disingenuous of you to try to link her suicide to it. You have better things to do with your blog, don't you?

  • ||

    All I know is that "ilk" is a great way to fuck up the board in a Scrabble game. Also, "Man-ilk" is an anagram of "Malkin". I think you know where I'm going.

    Oh yeah, and my ilk is bigger than yours. Ha!

  • ||

    "A movie about two shrill, over-the-top, female conservative commentators as they bash and smash their way through American punditry. The message; that bitchy right-wing women can be funny too."

    At the end, after a thrilling police-chase, they could drive off a cliff and into the Grand Canyon. I hope they're doing their own stunts.

  • ||

    I realize there's a little cottage industry that does things like pick apart Morgan Spurlock (Spurling?) or Michael Moore, but who really cares what Malkin says? Isn't she just a creature of the blogosphere? A very limited portion of it at that? Every second wasted reading Malkin would be better spent reading somebody good; or doing shots of grain alcohol; or hitting oneself over the head with an anvil.

  • ||

    Why can't we post on the libertarian/pragmatist thread?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Why are Malkin & Coulter skanks but the Daily Kos gets a shrug?

  • ||

    You shouldn't take any support you get in these comments as indicative of of the attitude of thinking people generally. Apparently there's some bitterness on this blog, which may be related to the fact that Malkin's blog more popular than yours by several orders of magnitude. In fact, fighting it out with Malkin has brought you your biggest spike in readership, which will end in around 36 hours, because you cannot sustain reader interest by yourself.

    You linked an individual's suicide to legitimate criticism of that individual in her capacity as a public official. That's either stupid or dishonest. And it does imply a standard which would burden free speech, because one cannot know, prospectively, the private psychology of an individual who will commit suicide. So, if the worst should happen, the only way to avoid getting smeared as a helping to kill another is to avoid critisism. This is an anti-libertarian position, and if you're not just stupid, then it's dishonest, because after clearly implying that Malkin contributed to a suicide, you then deny it.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I don't particularly like Malkin but UC Santa Cruz is a public institution paid for with tax dollars and the military has as much right on campus as the ACLU, the Black Student Union, the Jesus Freaks, or Angela Davis (blast from the past).

    Having lived through the last era of anti-speech, when anything to the right of Mao was driven off every campus in the US I have a bit of understanding of Malkin's outrage.

  • ||

    "You shouldn't take any support you get in these comments as indicative of of the attitude of thinking people generally."

    Yeah, as opposed to the voluminous amounts of support in the discussion threads over at Malkin's blog.

  • ||

    Now excuse me, Sean Hannity just climbed into the ring with a foreign object that the referee didn't see.

    I'm tellin' ya Mean Gene, in all my years in sports broadcastin'I ain't ever seen such a henious act of brutality!"

  • ||

    Avenger,

    It's a bit over-the-top to claim that Malkin killed the pinko in question. After all, "suicide", by definition, means that the bint killed herself.

    Frankly, I'm not willing to refrain from criticising anyone because they might do themselves in.

    -jcr

  • ||

    "Oh yeah, and my ilk is bigger than yours. Ha!"

    Crimethink,
    It's not the quantity of one's ilk that matters, but the quality. :)

    But actually, let's be honest folks. Everyone fits into some sort of *ilk*. Liberals generally favor the state to engineer economic issues, conservatives generally prefer the state to carry a big stick in foreign policy and to peek into people's bedrooms (no pun intended...."is that a big stick you're sticking into my bedroom or are you just happy to see me?"), and Libertarians are an ilk who favor markets and other voluntary arrangements in preference to coercion from the state - generally anyway (not a bad ilk to belong to). Perhaps it's a mistake to automatically assume that you will agree with everyone in your ilk on any particular issue but there are at least broad agreements, generally, within any one particular ilk.

  • ||

    "Oh yeah, and my ilk is bigger than yours. Ha!"

    Crimethink,
    It's not the quantity of one's ilk that matters, but the quality. :)

    But actually, let's be honest folks. Everyone fits into some sort of *ilk*. Liberals generally favor the state to engineer economic issues, conservatives generally prefer the state to carry a big stick in foreign policy and to peek into people's bedrooms (no pun intended...."is that a big stick you're poking into my bedroom or are you just happy to see me?"), and Libertarians are an ilk who favor markets and other voluntary arrangements in preference to coercion from the state - generally anyway (not a bad ilk to belong to). Perhaps it's a mistake to automatically assume that you will agree with everyone in your ilk on any particular issue but there are at least broad agreements, generally, within any one particular ilk.

  • ||

    This thread is further confirmation for me, of my decision late last year to exit the LP after > 20 years on and off, and for the last several as a pledger. I can hardly believe that Reason does not get rid of abusive posts, or return addresses such as "mailto:malkin.is.a.dumb.cunt@eatcock.com". These add absolutely nothing to the debate and serve to illustrate the extent to which the LP has increasingly attracted losers and assorted deranged lefties, to where they now outnumber the principled. As for the original post (Weigel), I find it weak - but more revealing is the audience reaction here. I don't want to be associated with most of the posters.

    If there's anyone out there listening - come join me now in the GOP. There's real work to be done here, as opposed to self-gratification in the LP or at Reason now also, it seems.

  • ||

    Patsy Ramsey, Denice Denton, and now Ken Lay. Can someone make the hurt words stop? Because people are,like, DYING out here.

  • ||

    Some Commie traitor, who allows her fellow Commies to harass patriots, offs herself? Tough scheiss! That's one less subversive we have to deal with. Maybe the Losertarians want to brown nose all the evil, Commie academics because they know they can't take power from the election process; therefore, they go toward the unelected routes to power such as the academia and the media. Michelle Malkin is a babe and nails you guys well.

  • ||

    Is this "issue" something we should care about? Ladies and gentlement, I submit that it is not.

  • ||

    Hit & Run has really gone downhill (er, jumped the shark?). The posts increasingly have nothing to do with libertarianism and the comments are less and less reasonable. It's no wonder that so many of the best commenters have left for other fora.

    As a regular reader since day one, I'm saddened by these changes. At least Stevo and Herrick made me laugh.

  • Nick Gillespie||

    "Abusive posts" are one thing, the sort of fake email addresses cited by Don Pettengill above are another. Hit & Run has a long tradition--virtually alone among blogs of this sort--of allowing almost completely unmoderated comments, but there are exceptions and that comment was deleted upon my first seeing it.

  • Whip_Lash||

    I like Reason and don't like Malkin, but she's right and you're wrong, and it's about that simple.

    Malkin suggested that a public official acting in her official capacity should be e-mailed, a position that would be uncontroversial if the woman hadn't committed suicide for unrelated reasons. She owes no one an apology, though some of her readers who emailed may.

    She also is (slightly less) fair game in e-mail as a public figure, if she chooses to make her address public or even has it outed- but she doesn't really suggest otherwise. She merely states that many of the e-mails she gets are disgusting and beyond the pale. Of which I have no doubt.

    I don't read Reason so it can cover the ass of public officials when they make unpopular decisions on matters of public controversy. I'd listen to Rush Limbaugh if I were in that market.

  • ||

    JCR, every time I read you writing about Cocoa I'll be remembering this post, complete with gratuitous spew. *PLONK*

  • Easter Lemming||

    She lacks civility and a sense of proportion, seeks the spotlight by making outrageous claims as a shrewish wannabe plagiarizing Coulter, and lately has been sicking her untamed flying monkeys to throw shit by phone and email at private citizens and minor public figures.

    Conservatives have gone for the bottom of the dump since Buckley.

  • ||

    Does the carpet-humper have a name?

    He is known by many names.

    Carpet Humping Guy.

    El Humpo.

    Il Humpissimo.

    The Humpback of No Equipment Required.

    Englebert Humperdinck...

  • ||

    fighting it out with Malkin has brought you your biggest spike in readership, which will end in around 36 hours, because you cannot sustain reader interest by yourself.

    You should come here during convention time. The comments are filled to the brim with crazy. Not "Should the US Invade Canada" crazy, but close.

    Is it just me or is Reason the battleground for righty/lefty fights. Since a right venturing into Kos or Atrios will get shouted down or a lefty venturing into LGF and whatever major blogs on the right that allow comments will get the same treatment. Due to the relative balance here, it makes for an interesting proving ground.

    I would not use this thread as a benchmark for Reason. Blame the referring blogs on both sides for their flotsom and jetsum that decide to ef things up in here.

    With that said, as much as it pains me to say it, she's right, Malkin does not owe anyone an apology. It may be kind and decent, but that ain't her schtick anyways.

  • ||

    Thanks for the post title.

    I have been singing the Nick Drake(?) MASH theme at my desk.

    What a lovely tune.

    'A wise man once requested me, to answer questions that are key......'

  • ||

    So is the point that you cannot criticize someone because that person might kill himself? This smacks of al franken trying to attach himself to someone with an actual audience, Rush Limbaugh, to sell his worthless book.

  • Hume's Ghost||

    So is the point that you cannot criticize someone because that person might kill himself?

    No, its the point where after someone kills his/herself after you directed outrage their way after identifying them as an enemy to their country that one pauses and wonders if one's own wreckless rhetoric might have played a role in that person's death, and perhaps, just perhaps, feel a "twinge of guilt."

    Denice Denton was not a "public official." Not in the sense that its being used. She was the chancellor of a university, does that make her actions accountable to a national audience? Was she supposed to be answerable to the residents of the state of Georgia? When Malkin, or any of her compatriots, pick out some person for some latest outrage against the country, and then sick their readers on them, they are engaging in an act that can best be described as ritual defamation. It is two minutes hate.

  • ||

    "She was the chancellor of a university, does that make her actions accountable to a national audience?"

    Yes. And she was a public official. So, like I said, should we not criticize people? With this logic it would be Weigel's fault if Malkin gets in a car wreck because she was upset about his criticism.

    I am stunned at the mind set on this board. I expected more from libertarians - personal responsibility and all that.

  • Hume's Ghost||

    It's impossible to engage in meaningful debate with someone who, when facing criticism, simply reasserts his original position.

  • The Liberal Avenger||

    Malkin is a master of organizing and dispatching electronic lynch mobs. Most of us don't have this ability - or if we did, we would likely not put it to use the way she does.

    Denton's lynch mob wasn't Malkin's first or last. The Denton lynch mob was organized concurrently with the UC Santz Cruz student-targetted lynch mob which was allegedly very threatening and abusive towards the group of Santa Cruz students involved in the anti-military recruiting protest.

    Malkin is always whipping up a frenzied mob against somebody or another. She does this week in and week out with no apparent forethought about the consequences. Some - not all - of these mob actions have been way over the top. How did you feel about her mob shutting down the offices of the National Park Service when she discovered that the winning design for the United 93 Memorial contained an Islamofascist-loving CRESCENT SHAPE?! How did you feel when the mob shut down a high school out west because a history teacher had been recorded delivering LIBERAL RHETORIC TO HIS CLASS?

    She has this power, she wields it and she loves doing so. This has its consequences and she refuses to take responsibilities for the consequences.

    She is the antithesis of the model libertarian OR conservative in that she eschews all personal responsibilities for her actions. Shame on her - and shame on her supporters.

  • ||

    "It's impossible to engage in meaningful debate with someone who, when facing criticism, simply reasserts his original position."

    Not when his original position is right. Then it is impossible because you have no argument.

  • Hume's Ghost||

    Thank you. If I were to have written parody to make my point, it would have looked something like that.

  • ||

    sorry dude, but your whole series on this is lamer than Malkin's response. still laughing at all the commentors claiming Malkin is dangerous, yeah, she's a real friggin heat seeking missle folks.

  • ||

    man, this entire thread and the post the preceeds it is full of retarded metaphors. what the hell has happened here in the last year or 2?

  • The Liberal Avenger||

    Rightwing Troll Tactics 101:

    Attempt to discredit the forum using a pointed insult. "Man, this place sure has gotten shitty. What happened?"

    Attempt to discredit the forum based on incomplete demographic sampling. "So this is where Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan and John Walker Lindh hang out online now..."

  • ||

    O, Michelle, Michelle!

    (You bug-eyed belle)

    A termagant so vicious

    She channels Satan�s wishes

    Making life here on Earth a living Hell.

  • ||

    Wow. I had heard that you people were insane; and now I know. I love the blatant mis-characterizations and sentences taken out of context to try (unsuccessfully) and prove what little point you have, if any. If you cannot write honestly then why are you writing? Ann's book should have been called "Brainless: Why Do Liberals Even Try?"

    Oh yeah one more little thing: Malkin and Coulter are both wonderful Americans who truly understand the liberal agenda and their tactics. Conservatives put forth thoughtful people who are honest and debate on the merits of the argument. You "people" have Cindy Sheehan, The Bitches of East Brunswick, Air America, MSNBC, and the spectacular Jackass Murtha. You cannot even win a local election in a district whose Republican rep is sitting in jail as I type this. Truly makes me chuckle just thinking about it: what a bunch of losers. Here's an original idea: Why don't you go ask more advice from Bob Schrummy... what is he now? 0-8? 0-10?

  • thickslab||

    Michelle Malkin should be put in an internment camp. I hear she likes that.

  • Jim Treacher||

    Rightwing Troll Tactics 101:

    Attempt to discredit the forum using a pointed insult. "Man, this place sure has gotten shitty. What happened?"

    Attempt to discredit the forum based on incomplete demographic sampling. "So this is where Ward Churchill, Cindy Sheehan and John Walker Lindh hang out online now..."



    Leftwing trolls never, ever use such tactics.

  • ||

    If there's anyone out there listening - come join me now in the GOP. There's real work to be done here, as opposed to self-gratification in the LP or at Reason now also, it seems.

    Comment by: Don Pettengill at July 7, 2006 02:18 AM

    Don, meet your allies in the GOP: Cary and Steven

    Wow. I had heard that you people were insane; and now I know. I love the blatant mis-characterizations and sentences taken out of context to try (unsuccessfully) and prove what little point you have, if any. If you cannot write honestly then why are you writing? Ann's book should have been called "Brainless: Why Do Liberals Even Try?"

    Oh yeah one more little thing: Malkin and Coulter are both wonderful Americans who truly understand the liberal agenda and their tactics. Conservatives put forth thoughtful people who are honest and debate on the merits of the argument. You "people" have Cindy Sheehan, The Bitches of East Brunswick, Air America, MSNBC, and the spectacular Jackass Murtha.

    Comment by: Cary at July 7, 2006 01:46 PM

    Some Commie traitor, who allows her fellow Commies to harass patriots, offs herself? Tough scheiss! That's one less subversive we have to deal with. Maybe the Losertarians want to brown nose all the evil, Commie academics because they know they can't take power from the election process; therefore, they go toward the unelected routes to power such as the academia and the media. Michelle Malkin is a babe and nails you guys well.

    Comment by: Steven at July 7, 2006 02:38 AM

    asking for or suggesting an apology isn't unreasonable, whether you think one is deserved or not. so much for the right and the Republicans ending the politics of personal destruction.

  • The Liberal Avenger||

    hehe - you know it, Jim!

    Although, the dynamic isn't quite the same. We lazy lefty bloggers have plenty of tricks up our sleeve, but that isn't one of them.

    I couldn't imagine showing up here and saying, "Oh my god - Patterico and Max Boot are hanging out here now! I'm out of here!"

    How about simply, "Chimpy McHitlerburton! Chimpy McHitlerburton!"

  • ||

    I find it very interesting, the number of posts about Michelle Malkin. She has obviously pushed lots of buttons.

    As an alum of UCSC I don't see what Malkin has done to offend, certainly I do not feel offended in any way. UCSC is a fabulous school, and I am very fortunate to have graduated from there.

    What the left and the right don't seem to appreciate is that Denton's suicide was not about what Malkin said or did. How could it have been? Suicide is a brutal choice made by people who think they have no other options. It can only be a sign of deep personal disturbance.

    It is difficult to see how her suicide could have been about politics at all: Santa Cruz is an overwhelmingly liberal town, so Denton was in very good company.

    If we want to look for external answers, it was not about politics, it was about corruption. Denton wasted no time instituting $600,000 in renovations to her university-provided housing, and installing her lover in a $190,000 per year position that she herself created. This has nothing to do about politics: Corruption is the same, on the right and on the left.

    Denise Denton couldn't live with herself. Anyone who credits Michelle Malkin gives her way too much credit.

  • ||

    Michelle Malkin is just an anagram for "Chill, man-like me."

  • ||

    The University renovated the home without her knowledge or consent, they simply fixed it up before the new tenant came in. It's one way to attract good candidates, dumbass.

    The University offered her partner a position as part of the negotiaton with Denton, dumbass. When a qualified executive is available, and the institution wants their expertise, they make that kind of judgement call.

    Comment by: camille roy at July 6, 2006 06:26 PM

    I don't know if the above is correct, but camille has already address preemptively your point, desert fox. as an underpaid public university employee, I agree that the administrators and top people seem way overpaid, but that's not their fault, it's the fault of the people above them who agree to those salaries.

  • ||

    as usual, some folks miss the point. publishing personal contact information is hardly "free speech". in many cases, especially when the intent is to do harm (and anyone who thinks that malkin releases her army of militant zombies to do anything else is delusional) it's harassment.

    the point that I find most illuminating here is the fact that malkin went on and on about the horrible bits of mail she got when her own contact information was published. I wonder if she's ever stopped to think (not a word usually associated with her) about the sort of mails and phone calls she thinks he minions direct at the people whom she chooses to reveal to the world?

    and of course she's one of the people who claims that "liberal" news papers who post information about state secrets are traitors, even if their ultimate goal is an informed electorate. her ultimate goal is hardly as noble, I suspect.

  • ||

    Malkin is not dangerous, particularly, in the physical sense, but as a symbol of a much broader rot. And she attracts those like herself, with meager critical thinking skills, a lack of anything resembling compassion, and little political insight, and directing them at imagined enemies of The State.

    What's the upshot? A debate over whether Article II powers trump Article I. A debate over the appropriate use of torture, and what exactly constitutes torture. Bigotry of the worst sort oozing its way into the public discourse as though mainstream. Calling for the imprisonment and trial for treason of JOURNALISTS!?!?!?Congressional members debating FLAG DESECRATION in the face of the First Amendment?!?!?

    See, what Malkin/Coulter/Limbaugh actually does is take factually suspect assertion, create a story around it dumbed down for her audience, and then tries to explain that the big bad "Man", always in the person of Godless liberals, is personally attacking them. That's why she moves on to the new, esoteric thing. If she doesn't continually give her audience a new outrage, she'll quietly slip off the grid.

    It's the classic story of an ignorant woman, with no ideas that don't proceed from the position of despsing liberalism (is there not one thing, not one, that liberals do that is beneficial?), pre chewing nothing stories for dissemination to her even more ignorant, or profoundly incurious, audience.

  • ||

    Biologist,

    Here is what I found regarding Denise Denton's employment package with UCSC:

    A personal salary of $272,000 per year;

    A position for her partner Gretchen Kalonji at $192,000 per year;

    �Moving expenses� for relocating from Seattle at $68,000.

    A �housing allowance� for partner Kalonji of $50,000, who will be working about 60 miles away from her in Oakland.

    Free housing in a large mansion on the UC Santa Cruz campus: 4,124 square feet for public functions and 2680 square feet in the private section.

    Unknown but substantial expense allowances for travel and entertainment.

    The San Francisco Chronical reports:

    "In her kitchen, she wanted a new Sub-Zero refrigerator and new dishwasher, microwave and gas stove. In the living room, among other things, she wanted a new couch and chairs. She also wanted new carpet and fresh paint throughout her residence."

    It sounds like "dumbass" was right. She also wanted--and got--a $30,000 backyard dog run for her pet. Of course, it is entirely possible that UCSC decided to install a $30,000 dog run in case the unappointed chancellor-to-be had a dog that needed running.

    Denton's package was not bad for government work.

  • ||

    it's egregiously high, but not unique. that's my point. the instructors themselves (including myself) are typically underpaid (of course, I'm not objective on this point). I'll be the chancellor for a flat $200,000, and I'll pay my own moving costs, housing, buy my own automobile, etc.

    however, Florida university presidents are paid comparably to what Denton got, and Florida's cost of living is much lower than California's. therefore, the situation is more of a taxpayer ripoff here than there. there's nothing unusual about Denton's case that she should be singled out. the problem is universal and systemic.

  • ||

    it's egregiously high, but not unique. that's my point. the instructors themselves (including myself) are typically underpaid (of course, I'm not objective on this point). I'll be the chancellor for a flat $200,000, and I'll pay my own moving costs, housing, buy my own automobile, etc.

    however, Florida university presidents are paid comparably to what Denton got, and Florida's cost of living is much lower than California's. therefore, the situation is more of a taxpayer ripoff here than there. there's nothing unusual about Denton's case that she should be singled out. the problem is universal and systemic.

  • The Liberal Avenger||

    I have seen what Camille reported elsewhere.

    "Yes, I'll come to work for you and live on campus if you do xyz in improvements to the Chancellor's residence."

    That's a little different than saying, "Yes, I'll come to work for you if you give me $600k to make improvements to the Chancellor's residence."

    In the grand scheme of things, an "executive" job at that level that must include relocation and must include a residence, $600k for renovations doesn't sound excessive or unusual.

  • Jim Treacher||

    hehe - you know it, Jim!

    Although, the dynamic isn't quite the same. We lazy lefty bloggers have plenty of tricks up our sleeve, but that isn't one of them.

    I couldn't imagine showing up here and saying, "Oh my god - Patterico and Max Boot are hanging out here now! I'm out of here!"

    How about simply, "Chimpy McHitlerburton! Chimpy McHitlerburton!"



    An interesting perspective, well expressed.

  • ||

    As a point of reference, how does Denton's pay and relocation package compare with a defensive co-ordinator (football coach) at a school of similar size and stature? I don't know if UCSC even has a football team.

    I read several stories from the California papers after the suicide headline caught my morbid little eye whilst perusing Google News. There was no mention of Malkin, and many references to the financial details of her employment. The "job" for her "partner" was a particular topic of interest. There was also, apparently, a considerable amount of friction between Denton and the student body; one story referred to an incident shortly before she departed in which she was physically prevented from evading a student group who insisted on performing some sort of "educational play" or performance art for her benefit.

    One shudders to imagine. I, subjected to performance art by UCSC students, would in all likelihood have been moved to pick up a cobblestone and bash out my own brains on the spot.

  • ||

    I think that what caught peoples' eyes was not her salary and package, but rather the fact that her lover got $192,000 as well. I agree that it is a free country and that people earn what the market will bear, but this is cronyism. The fact that the UC Regents (or whoever approved Denton's package) agreed to it, assuming they knew and approved of it, does not change the fact that it was more than a bit over the top.

    And if people are talking about it here on these posts, I imagine it was the talk of the town. As a student there I remember that the front page of the Sentinel was dominated by missing dogs and fallen pine trees. Santa Cruz is one small town.

  • ||

    jobs for spouses are also regularly arranged when hiring desirable faculty as well.

  • ||

    At the same university?

  • ||

    yes

  • ||

    I'll even go you one better: I have no idea what Denton's partner was asked to do but the wife of a former president of our university was paid to essentially host formal events for guests of the university.

  • ||

    This country would be a better place if anyone that presides over publicly funded entities expected to be held accountable for the decisions they make. That kind of thing leads to better decision making (usually).

    On the other hand, it is enjoyable to react violently (in word or action) to those with whom we disagree.

    Yes, A Fonz, the shark has been jumped.

  • ||

    What a load of crap. This is not Libertarianism, but simple moonbattery.

    I have been at UC Santa Cruz for a number of years. Malkin is correct. The majority of UC Santa Cruz denizens hate the troops.

    Weigel knows not of what he speaks.

  • ||

    well, thanks for clearing that up, Marky

    how's the funky bunch doing? well, I hope

  • dhex||

    "Oh yeah one more little thing: Malkin and Coulter are both wonderful Americans who truly understand the liberal agenda and their tactics. Conservatives put forth thoughtful people who are honest and debate on the merits of the argument. You "people" have Cindy Sheehan, The Bitches of East Brunswick, Air America, MSNBC, and the spectacular Jackass Murtha. You cannot even win a local election in a district whose Republican rep is sitting in jail as I type this. Truly makes me chuckle just thinking about it: what a bunch of losers. Here's an original idea: Why don't you go ask more advice from Bob Schrummy... what is he now? 0-8? 0-10?

    Comment by: Cary at July 7, 2006 01:46 PM"

    i refuse to believe this is real. i am drawing a line in the sand, and sticking my head in it.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Hume, I know this is prolly after the fact but I don't see how you can claim that Denton is not a public official. She works for the government and is paid with tax dollars. The fact that she isn't elected isn't really a factor.

    I can see a little merit in your statement that she shouldn't be accountable in Georgia since she is a Californicate state employee, but even still, all government employees should have some accountability to all taxpayers just by virtue of the fact that what happens in Ca today is coming to your state soon.

  • Hume's Ghost||

    I didn't claim she wasn't a public official, just that she wasn't a public official in the sense that its being used to justify sicking a horde of angry readers on her after she was declaired a seditious traitor to the nation.

    She did not work for the government. She worked for UC Santa Cruz, which received federal funding.

    The accountability of persons receiving federal funding should be to the government. And the government is accountable to us.

    If someone in Dakota has a problem with their tax money being aportioned to fund UC Santa Cruz then they should be contacting their reps about it.

  • bernie||

    No one commits suicide because of criticism. The overwhelming cause is untreated medical depression.

    There are some other reasons for suicide such as brain-washing which explains Palestinian suicide-bombers, but they are not significant in number.

    I linked to this article from Michelle Malkin - Cruella de Blog

  • ||

    "While no one is suggesting that her readers pushed Denton over the edge"

    LOL...what a load of horsesh$t that claim is! You went outopf your way to imply it without saying it...how disingenuous can you get!?

    It's seems obvious what's going on here...You bought waterskis and you have to pay for them, so you run a smear on someone more popular than you to get traffic to your rag....

    Malkin should follow Coulter's lead and complain about such opportunists as yourself riding her coat-tails to get recognition and traffic...

    Michelle Malkin--the world's darkest white supremacist. Comment by: ESB

    Before you hurl mud at Malkin readers you should take a gander at your own...:/

    HAVE A GREAT DAY!...:)

  • ||

    I thought both sides jumped a great white here. Malkin isn't responsible for that lady's death. But Malkin and her minions should appreciate if you get a bit nasty when you go out bear hunting and kick a few cubs in the teeth for the sport of it along the way, don't be shocked if you get attacked by the bears in return, or at least accidentally shot by Dick Cheney.

  • ||

    In reference to the moob's post, it's kind of like people who write snarky emails and posts and then are shocked, just shocked, and offended, demand apologies, etc. when anyone responds in kind. This is the mentality of the bully isn't it? "I should get to speak or act as nasty as I-wanna-be to you but don't you dare even raise an eyebrow at me." These bullies include the screeching right luminaries like Malkin, Coulter, O'Reilly and Limbaugh and the snarky left like Moore (remember when he took out a restraining order on his former employee who was trying to video tape an interview with him?), Franken (writing witty but nasty shit for SNL long before Limbaugh came on the scene) and Churchill, et al. It's like watching a bunch of arrested adolescents getting to act out in the public eye.

    Then again, maybe I'm the silly one as they're all snarking and screeching their way to the bank. Maybe they even get together for secret parties and say things like, "Okay, Al, I'm going to call the liberals a bunch of ugly morons, so how about you write a book calling me a big fat idiot. I'll even help you write the chapters." Maybe they have a secret corporation where at board meetings they plot strategies, etc.: "okay, hey, who wants to mock 9-11 widows? C'mon people, this will be great....oh, okay, thank you Ann once again for having the biggest balls in the room....Ward, want to get in on this one, too? Coolio."

    P.S. write a snarky reply to this and I will chase you through time.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement