I couldn't agree more. I was finally intrigued enough to go see what you're talking about. What a bunch of disgusting bullshit.

I despise Malkin and always have. I don't go there to read - tried a couple of times, because I'm always curious. But she always seemed obviously full of shit to me. Having set this BS off without, apparently, even reading Helen's post in the first place looks completely in character to me. She never was interested in truth or rational consideration of various points. Quite the opposite. She's always been all about spewing, and about ideology, instead. And embodied in her ideology is this self-righteous stance that it's not only okay, but *GOOD,* to do all she can to *shut up* people who disagree with her.

I have no respect for that mindset and never will.

What confuses me is the number of otherwise rational people who are either surprised by this turn of events, or think it represents some change in Malkin's behavior.

I had no idea so many people bought into it.

I really find that pathetic. I guess I thought they were just going over there to laugh at her or something.

Now I'm afraid this means people actually *buy* that idiot Coulter, too.

They are both clever women, but they both are masters of superficial analysis--Malkin from a sort of "Pep Squad" perspective, and Coulter as a comic of dubious merit.

They preach to the choir, but do little or nothing to advance real debate. One can glean facts from the work of both women (they do plenty of homework), but one must filter out the continual spinning as one does it.

I would still like to read Malkin's tome on immigration, mostly because the premise is so outrageous that I'm deathly curious about how she defends it.

Also: I do have a soft spot in my heart for Malkin. She sends me plenty of traffic, and there's no earthly reason for her to have me on her blogroll, since I've publicly disagreed with her plenty of times on her signature issue (immigration). It's pity, or integrity--or perhaps a bit of both.

I read Helen's post. The only problem I had with it was that she was asking why security wasn't better, and complaining that she didn't like the very things needed to make it better. Which I told her in a e-mail.

Haven't read Malkin, but 'moonbat' seems way over the top for what Helen said.

I know everyone's going to get mad at me, but I think it comes from being an American living in the U.K.--the American side of her wants maximum liberty, and the British side leans more toward feeling that the authorities ought to make people perfectly safe.

They are conflicting impulses. But, again--it was a piece about subjective responses. It made no pretense to objectivity whatsoever. That isn't (usually) my style of blogging when it comes to issues of such gravity, but one needs to judge it on its own terms.

Let me have my book on a plane. If I can't air travel is worthless to me. Planes are uncomfortable enough as they are, no book means I'll be bored to death. They might as well drug me after I board then use the smelling salts after we land. That's how horrible air travel could become.