Lieutenant Malkin, Reporting for Duty

Ezra Klein thinks that Michelle Malkin should pay her debt to society by joining the military. But Ezra, don't you understand? Malkin is already fighting the Islamofascists, with her words. Is there a car bomb exploding somewhere? Well, Malkin's fighting that terrorist with another "Air Enron" post. Was a soldier killed in combat today? Well, Malkin's avenging his death by digging up Cindy Sheehan's divorce records. Can't you see? She's fighting on the home front - she's making sure that those dirty liberals don't give aid and comfort to the enemy by spouting this so-called "reality". Silly, silly, Ezra Klein. I'm sure Giblets will back me up on this.

Comments

[scott]

Get off the Chickenhawk meme, it's so old. How about this, I'll allow your sorry ass to talk about the military whenever I choose to since I am a veteran.

Since you've never served, you have no right to talk about my brothers and sisters at arms. To be honest, whenever you discuss military issues, you make me want to puke. I have friends serving who deserve your respect and you shit on them.

And don't give me that bullshit that you support the troops, because you do everything to lower their morale.

That seems to be the thought pattern you have and I am on a personal mission to link to your site everytime you say something stupid.

I guess we'll be seeing alot of links to your site.

[Minipundit]

Scott - I'll make you a deal. I won't ban you from commenting if you present me with one instance in which I genuinely "s**tted" on the troops, or tried to "lower their morale". You have until Sunday.

[Greg Kuperberg]

Actually this is as close as I might ever get to agreeing with this Scott fellow. He's still obnoxious and unthinking, but I could almost agree with him if he weren't. Almost.

First, I don't think that you should worry about Michelle Malkin. She's just trying to attract attention. You're obliging her.

Second, Cindy Sheehan is yet another product of the "victims are automatically right" mentality. Bush richly deserves a horsefly like her right now, but beyond that, she is really not my style.

Third, I completely agree that the best way to support the troops is to send them home. But we should concede that most of them probably don't see it that way. They put their lives at risk, and they really want to believe that it's for a good reason. The sad truth is that isn't. On the other hand, many of those that reject the sad truth now will accept it later.

[Minipundit]

I don't really care for Cindy Sheehan either, especially with the information about her anti-Semitism that's been coming out. She's associated with a group called the Crawford Peace House whose website once included a map labelling the entire state of Israel as "Palestine". Doesn't get much more anti-Semitic than that. However, digging up her divorce records is beyond tacky. It's also hypocritical, considering Malkin's feigned outrage over the NY Times' combing over of John Roberts' kids' adoption records (which, for the record, was in extremely poor taste).

Of course most troops support the war. They enlisted, after all, and not many people are willing to fight a war they oppose, myself included. And once you've already invested this much in a conflict, you want to believe that it isn't going to amount to a withdrawal and a second lost war. That basically makes the whole effort pointless. Which it is, but that's an unpleasant thought.

[Greg Kuperberg]

Of course Malkin is hypocritical. What better way is there to attract attention?

Also, I really don't think that you should threaten or bargain to ban or ignore people in on-line forums. It never works well. If it's your forum and it really seems necessary, you should just do it — no bargaining. Also it would be better to cite a rule (like no obscenities) than to blame a person.

By the way this Scott person has an interesting posting in which he plugs hydrogen cars. Interesting for negative reasons, that is. As we discussed before, this is real gullibility. From an alleged environmental consultant, no less.

[Minipundit]

I was actually going to ban him for personal attacks; I've been known to use light swears before (not sh*t, though). He also never has any actual criticisms, just vague, ad hominem attacks with no real reasoning attached. Comments are supposed to be for public discourse, not savagery.

At least one's intent in supporting hydrogen cars is good; it's better than the "damn the atmosphere, I'm buying a hummer" attitude that some right-wingers have.

[scott]

Yes, I truly am an Environmental Consultant and I actually drive an SUV because I need something larger than a Prius to go to contaminated sites and actually do some good for the environment. As such, I see the environmental world in the reality that it is, not the "the world is going to burn up, give me money state" that Greenpeace and other such organizations see it.

Ban me, please! That is how all lefties handle confrontation.

[Greg Kuperberg]

Scott: If you truly are an environmental consultant, then you surely have the training to understand that hydrogen is a way to store or transport energy, but it is not an energy source. In fact, it takes more energy to make hydrogen fuel than to burn fossil fuels directly. It is therefore a fake "alternative" to fossil fuels. It is as illogical as proposing batteries as a way to save electricity.

Dylan: On the contrary, I think that bad logic goes hand in hand with the worst human instincts. Very few people are inherently immoral. It takes a lot of gullibility, ignorance, and unreason to lead most people to evil. In particular, when a leader proposes something as illogical as the "hydrogen economy", something of no real benefit to either liberals or conservatives, then you can be sure that he's up to no good.

[Minipundit]

Nice to know you couldn't muster up a single bit of evidence to support your accusation that I hate the troops.

[Minipundit]

Greg - All true. But why would anyone in the know want people to use hydrogen? What is the financial motive?

[Greg Kuperberg]

First, the current motive is for Detroit to get some nice research grants ($240 million in the latest budget request) that makes them look Politically Correct. It doesn't matter if people actually drive hydrogen cars in the forseeable future; it's still a win-win for them. All the more so if environmentalists are fooled by the initiative, which sadly some of them are.

But another side to your question is where the idea of hydrogen cars really came from. (If Bush had invented this boondoggle completely on his own, it could just as well have been helium.) I think that the original idea was not that hydrogen might be an energy source, which really makes no sense whatsoever, but rather that it might be a pollution-free fuel. If you want no local pollution whatsoever from cars, your two basic choices are hydrogen and electricity. Once upon a time (before global warming, before the oil embargoes) smog was the big problem with cars.

But now people care more about global pollution and energy conservation than about local pollution. So in our situation today, hydrogen fuel is a complete non sequitur. It would only make a shred of sense if the United States massively shifted to nuclear power from other forms of electricity generation.

Even then, no more than a shred. Not only is hydrogen a non-answer to the energy crisis, it's not remotely competitive with gasoline in terms of vehicle range and vehicle weight. It's decades away from being practical, at best. You could hardly think of a less accountable energy R&D program.

[Minipundit]

Ah, corporate welfare. Isn't it wonderful?

[scott]

Greg,

Actually hydrogen can be utilized as a fuel technology (see here for instance: http://www.eere.energy.gov/hydrogenandfuelcells/production/basics.html). Ethanol is the newest fuel of choice--even though it's a horrible fuel and the use of it is a sop to the corn growing states-- and it currently cost more to manufacture and utilizes more energy than the savings realized. They are currently building more ethanol manufacturing facilities, which in turn will provide more product and lower the cost. That's how free markets work.

How do you feel about recycling, buddy? Do you know it costs more to recycle bottles and cans than it would cost to just landfill them? Should we stop recycling as NYC did for the first years of Bloomberg's administration?

New technology is not going to be cheap and the fight to stick with with conventional fuel sources will be fought hard.

You can scoff all you want, while you discuss the topic with your McDonalds co-workers, I have been discussing it with the engineers who are advancing the technology.

[scott]

As for proof of you disrespecting the troops, I am on a business trip and have a business to run while 1,000 miles from my office. That would kind of be like if the entire St. Mary's High School football team came in and ordered Big Mac's and fries from Greg all at once, I am busy. I will report back shortly, believe me.

[Greg Kuperberg]

Scott: You still don't seem to grasp, or maybe you just don't want to admit, that hydrogen isn't a fuel source, it's a fuel product. Is the point that corn should be the fuel source instead of petroleum? If so, ethanol would be a much more practical end fuel from corn than hydrogen. Whether ethanol as fuel is better than gasoline is a question; historically ethanol has been a subsidy scandal. Hydrogen fuel is just a big fat red herring.

Recycling sometimes makes sense and sometimes doesn't. Everyone understands that cars should be recycled; that has been done for decades. Should glass be recycled? Paper? It depends on the situation. If your point is that some of the recycling programs are illogical, then you're right.

[scott]

No Greg, you don't seem to get it so I'll type slower and use smaller words. Gasoline is a product that is derived from its source, crude oil. Hydrogen will be manufactured and used as a fuel source. Oh never mind.

Just curious Mini, now that the Able Danger story is breaking larger even at the NY Times, will you be saying anything about it? This puts the Clinton administration, Gorelick and Cohen in the spotlight for not only failing to act, but failing to act when they knew Mohammed Atta's name and could have stopped the whole of 9/11 from occurring.

[Minipundit]

Scott - If you're going to be this abusive to people who disagree with you, I'm going to have to ask you to keep to your own site.

As for the joke that is Able Danger, it's just an excuse for Republicans to further politicize 9/11 and condemn Clinton, which they haven't gotten tired of doing four years after he left office. See Kevin Drum for more on the issue.

Aren't you going to say something about the stalking, restraining, and murdering of an innocent man by racist London police? No? Okay then.

[scott]

Yes I am. I feel sorry for the mans death. You're looking past the real cause, however. If radical Islamic terrorists hadn't killed innocents on the tube, that guy would still be alive. You folks on the left look for root causes, that's the the root cause for the mans death.

Fortunately, we have not been attacked since 9/11, and regardless of what you say, the Bush administration deserves credit for that. When the next attack does happen, you'll jump all over him. Why not give credit when it is due?

When we are attacked, we will have to follow the lead of Blair and institute procedures as he has.

Like I said, ban me, it won't stop me from pointing out the falsities of your statements when I see them. That's the typical liberal way to handle things, shut them out. In fact, if I wasn't commenting, I'd be posting at my site this same thing.

[Greg Kuperberg]

"Gasoline is a product that is derived from its source, crude oil. Hydrogen will be manufactured and used as a fuel source." Hmm ... maybe someone else can explain this distinction?

[scott]

Pretty simple, dude. Hydrogen does not occur naturally in large amounts...ah, nevermind. Read the article I linked to. It explains so you may be able to understand.

I'm glad we have bright, forward thinking people working on this problem. They see potential, you see nothing.

It kind of sums up the liberal mindest in a nice little package.

[Minipundit]

Scott - how does the death of a Brazillian man have anything to do with Islamism?

By the way, the reason we haven't been attacked since 2001 is because, quite frankly, 9/11 was a fluke. Terrorism just isn't a major threat to the U.S. See here.

[scott]

You really aren't serious, are you? As for the poor Brazilian gentlemen. It's really simple, the police in London would not have been jumpy if the attacks had not occurred.

That is pretty damn simple, is it not?

My reply here:

http://environmentalrepublican.blogspot.com/2005/08/amazing.html

[scott]

BTW, don't even bother banning me. If you believe that we are not a target of terrorism and actually made that statement above, I want no part of any discussion you may be having.

You do a grave diservice to those who died on 9/11 and I choose not to be a part of this site. You make the DU and Indymedia look like sane, intelligent folks by comparison.

[Fred Fry]

Can the left please decide:
Was 9/11 engineered by the Bush Administration or was it a fluke?

I find that believing in both of the above choices very disturbing.
- 9/11 a fluke?
- 93 WTC bombings another fluke?
- USS COLE a fluke?
- US Embassy bombings a fluke?
- Pan An Lockerbie a fluke?

Don’t you get it? We are all walking around with bullseyes on us. This has been going on long before the world knew that President Bush had a son who was to become President. It won’t end after he leaves office either.

[scott]

It will not, Fred. They have their collective hands over their ears screaming "na na na" and can't hear.

This is the feeling of our enemies:

http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/18855/