Suicide: Not Painless
David Weigel | July 6, 2006, 5:39pm
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.
camille roy | July 6, 2006, 6:26pm | #
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.
Aaron | July 6, 2006, 8:19pm | #
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.
biologist | July 7, 2006, 3:42pm | #
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.
Officious Pedant | July 7, 2006, 5:07pm | #
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.
Desert Fox | July 7, 2006, 5:16pm | #
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.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
