Self-satire, but not as she intended.


by Ted Grant

Michelle Malkin is angry. Yes, I know, that’s pretty much her default state, but now she’s angry about someone else being angry. Specifically, she’s upset that former NAACP chairman Myrlie Evers-Williams was critical of the New Yorker’s recent “Obama as terrorist” cartoon. How the woman who got Dunkin’ Donuts to pull an ad campaign because she didn’t like the pattern on Rachel Ray’s scarf can accuse anyone else of needing to “grow a brain” is a philosophical question not appropriate to discuss here, because the real gem of a comment comes from one of Michell’s faithful followers, one “emjem24″:

I wanted to mention what a shame that people like this woman keep bringing up “lynching” and in the same way, do a disservice to the black community.

Many blacks paid for HER civil rights with their lives. Does she get that or are their deaths just so much more politically expedient for the joy of using that word like some self-fulfilling prophecy or something?

I wonder if all the family members of those who’ve been lynched would accept such “death politicization?” It’s really a shame.

One more thing, it must be so “hard” to be black like her. Accuse others of “lynching” when they criticize you or even immortalize you in a cartoon.

Oye Vay, Ms. Evers-Williams needs a new schtick ’cause this one’s gettin’ real old. Do you think she cares about the impact of illegal immigration in the black community?

For those not in the know, here’s an article about Ms. Evers-Williams deceased husband.

Yes, that’s right. The widow of slain civil rights activist Medgar Evers was just accused of not only being stupid, but of not appreciating the sacrifices those in the civil rights movement have paid.

So, are American conservatives just completely and utterly without any sense of shame or human decency, or hopelessly stupid?



4 Comments

  1. So, are American conservatives just completely and utterly without any sense of shame or human decency, or hopelessly stupid?

    Embrace the power of “and”.

    #1 Kathy Walton

  2. I’d have to say both.

    #2 Sallyp

  3. ADMIN NOTE: the previous post has a weirdly mangled permalink url.

    #3 Dayv

  4. Wow. The second post gets bonus points for shoehorning Malkin’s pet issue into the proceedings.

    And I think it’s mostly a matter of deciding what you think before examining the evidence and then forcing the evidence to fit what you already think. At least that’s the impression that I get from reading Jonah Goldberg.

    #4 Frowny McBeard

Leave a comment!