Anyone can complain about a review and have it reviewed for deletion.

And although I share your distaste for Malkin, I saw a “review” there that claimed he paid her $65 for a “half and half”. Over the line, in my opinion and I wouldn’t be sad to see that deleted.

And of the remaining negative reviews, a couple of typical ones say she’s a “lazy fascist” and “alien who eats mammals.” This isn’t clever, and it isn’t informative.

If I were considering buying the book, and I’m not, I would want to read an informed negative review, not adolescent name-calling.

November 2, 2005 @ 3:30 am | Comment

Boo, fully, totally agree! The reviews I was laughing out loud at were the POSITIVE ones written as parody. (I hope you know i would never refer readers to the kind of mindless crap you describe.)

For example:

*****
An instant classic.

A brilliant parody of the hackneyed and cliched nature of modern conservative writing. Take one spoonful of “evil-liberal”, add two heaping scoops of exaggeration (how liberals are destroying america and want to steal your wife, tax your children, and rape your SUV), throw in lots of cliches and cherry pick examples to prove your point. All the while, ignoring the mirror image examples of right wing hysteria and hypocrisy.

All in all, a classic souffle of unoriginal cutting and pasting.

Well done.

November 2, 2005 @ 3:37 am | Comment

Saw her promoting her book on O’Reilly yesterday, natch. I have to say it was surreal, a veritable propaganda circle jerk. I can’t believe anyone would actually pay money for a book like this when I can get the same for free reading her blog.

November 2, 2005 @ 5:00 am | Comment

There are all kinds of idiots out there. “Unhinged liberals suck.” Now you don’t have to buy her book.

November 2, 2005 @ 6:07 am | Comment

Richard, I figured some high-quality stuff must have been deleted.

Based on the limited stuff I’ve read of hers (and I’d like to keep it limited!), I see her as a kind of dull-witted humorless sociological phenomenon more than anything else. Probably the fat middle-aged guys who comprise the bulk of her audience will buy her book out of a sense of obligation more than anything else; a kind of penance for the thoughts they have when they see their right-wing Asian fantasy bimbo on TV.

November 2, 2005 @ 6:57 am | Comment

penance for the thoughts they have when they see their right-wing Asian fantasy bimbo on TV

Who are these people who find her attractive? There are some hot filipino women out there but Malkin is decidedly not one of them. And I’m basing my opinion on nice photos of her, not the picture Richard posted that makes her look like the Rancor from Return of the Jedi.

November 2, 2005 @ 7:26 am | Comment

Pundit? Or Jabba the Hutt’s ravenous pet? You be the judge:

http://tinyurl.com/c69tp

November 2, 2005 @ 7:33 am | Comment

Malkin action figure?

http://tinyurl.com/8alax

November 2, 2005 @ 7:34 am | Comment

I couldn’t resist putting them side by side:

Michelle Malkin: Journalist? Or Star Wars Monster? We Report, You Decide

November 2, 2005 @ 7:44 am | Comment

What? Are you saying this isn’t the ultimate babe? 😉
http://tinyurl.com/9jgnf

November 2, 2005 @ 7:56 am | Comment

Oh I have seen this woman many times before on TV. She is a very extreme conservative and defends racial profiles and defends putting Japanese into internment camps during WW2 ( Of course I support that too, but for different reasons)

November 2, 2005 @ 12:07 pm | Comment

I support that internment because there was indeed intelligence that there were many Japanese intelligence officers living civillian lives in the USA. So I don’t think interning all Japanese was too strong an action to stop those intelligence officers.

But the interned Japanese were treated badly like the Jews were by Germany. So I don’t think it was such a big deal. In China, the Lao Gao camp is a lot more intense than the internment.

November 2, 2005 @ 2:38 pm | Comment

But the interned Japanese were not treated badly like the Jews were by Germany. So I don’t think it was such a big deal.

So your argument is: it was racist, but millions of people didn’t die so the racism is no big deal.

And you see nothing morally wrong with that argument?

So by the same logic, if a few Chinese people in America are in fact conducting industrial espionage, I can lock them all up, right?

November 2, 2005 @ 3:04 pm | Comment

Correct, her book will be sought after by middle aged, fat white blokes in the midwest who can finally wank to a right-wing Asian ho.

November 2, 2005 @ 6:14 pm | Comment

I’m blaming Richard for this, because he’s just part of a wider trend … but this campaign by “silly photo” (against Bush, Cheney, Malkin etc) is no better than name calling. It does nothing to further the argument, and just makes the blogs, newspaper etc. look like they’re written by someone with the political maturity of a 5 year old. “You’re ugly and your mother dresses you funny”

Richard, are you trying to tell me that you’ve never been caught on camera with an odd expression on your face? Photos you are deeply ashamed of? Everyone of us has. It’s a hazard of the “still picture” capturing a fragment of a person in motion.

This is more of the same of what lost you the last two elections in the US. All of your campaigning is aimed at people who already agree with you. The photos will please people who already dislike these people, but alienate those who don’t already agree with you. The Democrats were convinced that they would win the last two elections because they couldn’t imagine how anyone could disagree with them.

My point? Photo campaigning – good to get a laugh out of partisan supporters. Worse than useless as an instrument of political dialogue.

November 2, 2005 @ 6:52 pm | Comment

Sorry to offend you, Filthy. I admit, it’s not the highest level of discourse to put up unflattering photos, but it shows Ms. Maglalang for what she is, a flame-throwing “unhinged” bitch. And Bush is an arrogant scowler. Last year they (the right) put up unflattering photos of Kerry everywhere, featured prominently on Drudge. They did the same for Cindy Sheehan, Michelle herself leading the pack (check it out for yourself). I was silent, because while it’s a cheap shot, it’s legitimate enough – the photos are real and they get across a point. Take it or leave it. If I put up similar photos of Hu or Mao you’d be creaming in your jeans. I use this device sparingly (I can think of five such photos I’ve put up here – Michelle, Cheney, Bush, Condi and Zell Miller) over the course of more than three years, and I only do it when I feel the photo really tells us something. I think this photo tells us something.

November 2, 2005 @ 7:11 pm | Comment

How much can a portrait show you about a person’s character? Every portrait is selective, yes. But:

Rembrandt.

November 2, 2005 @ 7:17 pm | Comment

I loathe Malkin probably as much as you do, but I really do wish you had resisted with that photo. I think her views make her look stupid enough without resorting to that. It just dilutes your point.

Take the high ground Richard!

November 3, 2005 @ 12:54 am | Comment

Okay, I’ll save it for extra-special occasions, I promise.

But again, I feel the photo tells us something about her. It captures her very essence.

November 3, 2005 @ 12:58 am | Comment

I support Richard on the photo, partly because, as he says, it “captures her very essence” but also because it is funny! The critcics should lighten up, this is not a tremendously serious post.

November 4, 2005 @ 7:12 pm | Comment