Thing is, it’s happened before–to Michelle. Those of you who have followed this site for a while might remember when Gawker came up with some inept photoshops of Michelle in a bikini and ran them, to cheers from Michelle’s critics who believed this proved she was a big stinkin’ hypocrite.

Why? Even if the picture weren’t a fake cobbled together from a private picture of a college student that someone ripped off the web, would that have proven hypocrisy? SHOCKER: CONSERVATIVE COLUMNIST DOES NOT SWIM IN A BURQINI.

Well, they thought–they hoped–that those fake photos of Michelle would somehow undermine her credibility with conservatives.

They don’t know us very well, do they? Even religious conservatives who emphasize modesty aren’t going to be wagging their finger and snarling “SINNER!” at someone who was once in a beauty contest or got her picture taken in a swimsuit. So once again, this is about to fall flat, like Brick Tamlin’s attempt to belittle his opponents’ sartorial taste:

See, the Left keeps on buying its own propaganda. There are a lot of slick hucksters there who tell them what they want to hear about how conservatives think and make decisions. Thomas Frank comes to mind, as does perennial tool George Lakoff.

Hey, it’s necessary to keep the liberal Strike Force! stoked at a fever pitch of seething hatred. That’s where the activism and the money and the silencing of opponents comes from. But then the problem is that they actually believe that this is how conservatives think and feel, and they make strategic mistakes because of it.

And then everybody laughs at them.

UPDATE: “Trollop“, eh? Somebody’s been reading the Dungeon Master’s Guide.

Thanks to commenter RetFireman.

________________

{Post by See-Dubya; opinions are my own, time is my own, computer is my own, bikini photos of me are my own and you may not publish them! I was young, I needed the money…}

Future women leaders of America beware: if you plan on a career in politics, don’t allow yourself to be photographed in a bikini. Especially if you’re the type of woman who speaks out against the sexualization of young girls, the media will be eager to use it against you.

That is what we learned from conservative author Michelle Malkin last week. After she wrote a column criticizing once-wholesome singer Charlotte Church for her slide into pop star hedonism, left-wing Internet blogs discovered photographs of Malkin on spring break fourteen years ago. Accompanied by headlines like “Michelle Malkin gone wild” and “Michelle, you ignorant slut,” the blogs linked to a photo-sharing page that featured Malkin cavorting with girlfriends and posing in a string bikini.

It seemed like the perfect “gotcha” moment for the liberal blogosphere. But there was a problem: the photo page wasn’t real. I know this because most of the pictures on it belong to me.

Whoever made the photo page apparently wasn’t content to insult Malkin, an Asian woman, with racial slurs – a popular activity among her critics. Instead, they aimed to expose her as a hypocrite. Using pictures stolen from various Webshots.com accounts, including mine, the creator wrote captions to imply that I had had been a classmate of Malkin’s at Oberlin College in the early 90s – and that she was anything but a moralist back then.

By the time I discovered the hoax, liberal blogs were already hard at work smearing Malkin as a “slut,” “hussy,” and “b-tch.”

I was shocked as I scrolled through posts and reader comments about my pictures, some of them photoshopped or falsely labeled as pictures of Malkin. Racist jokes and sexual denigration were common themes.

Beneath a picture of me with a close friend from high school, someone had written, “She looks so happy back then…I wonder what made her become such a bitch? Maybe her grandma never sent her a care pack of adobo and lumpia shanghai.”

When someone commented that the photo of Malkin in a skimpy bikini appeared to be photoshopped, a reader responded, “A too small head on Malkin’s body doesn’t mean it’s Photoshopped. It just means that she has to put in the extra effort when she gives blow jobs.” The malicious posts did not appear on obscure blogs serving the political fringe. In fact, the most aggressive attacks came from a law professor at the University of North Carolina and a blog conglomerate valued at $76 million. Despite Malkin’s insistence that the photo site was an obvious forgery, the blogs continued to deride her as a hypocrite and, above all, a “skank.”

Still, I was confident that I could put an end to the hoax by coming forward as the owner of the photographs. I wrote an e-mail to Wonkette, the blog that first posted the pictures. I explained that only one picture on the page showed the real Michelle Malkin – I took it at the Conservative Political Action Conference last February, where I briefly met her. The others had been stolen from my webpage.

Three days later my letter remained unanswered, and the smear campaign against Malkin raged on. I sent a second request to Gawker, the media empire that owns Wonkette, detailing the theft of my pictures. I was optimistic that a conglomerate worth tens of millions of dollars would show some accountability toward its audience.

Two days have passed, and my inbox is still empty.

This is the brave new world of Internet media. Like many Americans, I entered it with a naïve notion of bloggers as modern-day pamphleteers, throwing the cover off stories that the establishment media won’t touch. I believed that Internet blogs, being far more democratic mediums than mainstream television networks and newspapers, would show respect for the truth.

But after visiting a few popular blogs, I realized I was sadly mistaken. At best, many zero in on political gossip and absurd non-issues, such as whether a conservative author ever posed in a swimsuit. At worst, many political blogs are cesspools of racism, misogyny, and obscenity, not to mention vicious lies.

The posts and links to my pictures are still up, and I’m no longer anticipating a response from Gawker. They are a multimillion-dollar behemoth; I’m a college kid with a claim to a few stolen photographs. They have nothing to lose by ignoring me.

However, it seems the fallout from the Malkin hoax is far from over. This morning, I received an anxious message from an Ohio State student who had just discovered the fake photo page.

She identified herself as “the girl in the bikini” and explained that Malkin’s face had been photoshopped onto her body. She asked what we could do to stop the pictures from being circulated.

The answer, unfortunately, is probably “nothing.” Gawker and its ilk appear willing to perpetuate bald-faced lies in order to advance an agenda. And they don’t mind taking a few innocent college girls along for the ride.

More here.

Ashley, you’ll be glad to know, is studying journalism. She’s a tough cookie who now understands the depths of the unhinged liberal psyche from firsthand experience–and she’ll be a great addition to our ranks. It’s the silver lining.

***

Here’s a message from Meredith Chan, the girl in the bikini, posted at the fake Flickr site:

***

Previous:

A personal aside
The Gawker smear machine
Malkin Derangement Syndrome
Do you think this is funny?

Today, a pause from regularly scheduled blogging.

I love what I do. I count my blessings every day that I can make a living as a writer. I have been privileged to meet and work with and befriend some of the most brilliant, funny, engaging, talented people through the Internet. I’ve derived immense inspiration, stimulation, entertainment, and courage from fellow bloggers and readers over the last two years.

There are many unhinged people who would like me to shut up. There are those who engage routinely in active defamation and empty ad hominem attacks. There are also those who enable, excuse, and snicker at these attacks.

When I ignore them, lies are perpetuated and assumed to be true. When I respond, I am belittled as a self-promoter, whiner, humorless scold, and opportunist. Trolls at places like the Democratic Underground and obscure far-left blogs don’t warrant responses. But when the attacks come from a publicly subsidized UNC law professor and the largest blog conglomerate (valued at $76 million in 2005), they cannot go unanswered.

There seem to be some very dense people who don’t understand that this is not just about a bikini Photoshop. It is about disseminating the fake photo to cast me in a false light and “prove” that I’m somehow a hypocrite.

Someone created a fake Flickr site by filching photos from an innocent college undergrad’s Webshots site without her permission or knowledge. That student is Ashley Herzog of Ohio University, whom I heard from yesterday. She is upset and embarrassed to see her photos manipulated, and I am sorry she was dragged into someone’s deranged scheme because she happened to have her photo taken with me at CPAC earlier this year. Whoever created the fake Flickr site intended to mislead viewers into believing that Herzog was a classmate of mine 14 years ago. Whoever created the fake Flickr site went to the trouble of posting a photo of a dorm from my alma mater to give it authenticity.

Nobody would fall for such obvious fakery, right?

A law school professor did. Major gossip sites took the bait. Some people still refuse to believe it’s all fake.

If one anonymous creep, still out there somewhere, can successfully dupe supposedly smart people into believing his/her dumb but relatively innocuous Photoshops of me are real, I can only imagine what far worse things may be done.

But I’m supposed to just laugh along.

I don’t consider it pointless to hold up a mirror to liberals who think racist ping-pong ball jokes are respectable discourse. The Wonkette editors slimed me with that in response to a light-hearted Vent episode I did on the lack of conservative speakers at commencement addresses. For not laughing along with their senseless abuse, I’m considered a prude.

I don’t consider it pointless to note that the hate-filled cowards at Gawker Media have a pattern of repeatedly smearing and attempting to humiliate me. I have ignored most of their petty, pointless jibes. But I would not let Friday’s attack go unanswered. For responding to their idiocy, Wonkette guest Ken Layne accuses me of being a publicity seeker.

You posted the picture. You engaged in gratuitous insults. You had nothing better to write about.

But how dare I respond.

I don’t consider it pointless to note that a professor with whom I cordially engaged in lengthy debates over profiling and WWII history has descended into madness. I invited Muller to appear with me on radio. I encouraged students to read our extensive blog exchanges and gave out his website address on C-SPAN and in countless other appearances. If you paid attention to his behavior over the course of those interactions, what he did on Friday was no surprise. He called on his readers to get my book banned. He helped organize a “Historians’ Committee for Fairness” that demanded that any media organization that had me on to talk about my book “formally apologize to the Japanese Americans who have been slandered by Ms. Malkin’s reckless presentation and invite a reputable historian to present a more even-handed view of the evidence.” He allied himself with a hate-filled nut who refers to me as “Me So Michelle.” Later, he creepily monitored me while I was traveling. He distorted my writing so grossly that even his own readers tired of it. He trolled around on some fake Flickr site and linked to a photo he falsely asserted was of me, without verifying it, in order to make a nonsensical point about my supposed hypocrisy–a blog item which was picked up several hours later by Wonkette after a “tipster” e-mailed the story. A reminder of what Muller wrote:

With no further ado, I give you: Michelle Malkin, Spring Break, March 27, 1992. Could that be an all-you-can-drink wristband?

Here, incidentally, is the flickr page where the photo appears. Somebody forwarded it to me a couple of months ago. I chortled. Then I forgot about it — until today, that is, when her vicious hatchet job on a “half-naked” twenty-year-old “skank” brought it to mind.

Mind you: there’s nothing wrong with trips to the beach during college, or all-you-can-drink wristbands, or bikinis.

Just with hypocrisy.

Apologists believe the whole thing was presented as a joke. That would be Nick Denton’s and Ken Layne’s legal defense, no doubt, for maliciously neglecting to pay me the courtesy of verifying the photo with me before illogically accusing me of “hypocrisy,” linking to unhinged UNC professor Eric Muller’s post falsely asserting as fact that it was me, and now disingenuously playing it all off as a parody.

Gawker Media may never acknowledge their errors and apologize, but Professor Muller, who did, probably no longer thinks his post was so funny. Some apologists for Gawker Media believe no harm was done since eeeeeeh-veryone knew the photos were fake. Yeah? Go look at Jossip, which initially ran the Wonkette item as true hours after I answered the smear on this blog (although the amended Jossip post states its item ran “like four minutes” after I responded to Wonkette on my blog, Bloglines shows that Jossip posted its item nearly seven hours after my post went up). Countless more took their cue from the Wonkette headline calling me an “ignorant slut” and the Gawker headline “Michelle Malkin gone wild”–no question mark, no qualifiers. I won’t post all the abusive e-mails from readers of those sites who took their posts as straight, not parody.

There is a time to be tolerant and there is a time to draw lines. If you don’t draw those lines, bullies will be emboldened. The smug Gawker smear machine is all about pushing those boundaries with the expectation that no one will push back. They project their own cynicism, recklessness with facts, intellectual laziness, and bad faith on everyone else.

But outside of Manhattan and Los Angeles, not all of us think blogging is a for-profit enterprise founded solely to tear people down with gossip, rumor-mongering, and damaging lies disguised as “satire.” Funny how some of the loudest voices decrying the lack of civility in the blogosphere are the biggest promoters of the bottom-feeders and debasers at Gawker Media.

That is not what my blogs are about. That is not what I am about.

Since mm.com came into existence, I’ve been attacked regularly as a whore and a c**t and a puppet and a dupe and a sellout, etc. etc. etc. It comes with the territory–particularly when you happen to be a woman, a minority, and a conservative. The extensive arguments and blog posts and columns and books I’ve written are reduced to bumper-sticker putdowns by critics and their fellow travelers who couldn’t be bothered to actually read what I’ve written day in and day out for the last two years on the blog and the past 14 years in my books and columns. I poked fun at this pathology in my last book. I think what drives a lot of the haters crazy is that despite their ceaseless sniping, they can’t shut me up.

So, I’ll be back here the next day and the next cheerfully doing what I do. And the haters will be back in their pigpens doing what they do.

The wonderful thing about the Internet is that there is room for both. The wonderful thing about this country is that you are free to choose.

See you in the morning. Thanks for your continued readership!

***

Funny comments over at Tim Blair’s.

Chris Muir smiles.

A reader sends a WSJ profile of Gawker Media smear machine founder Nick Denton:

Names to Know
A WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE NEWS ROUNDUP
December 29, 2004 11:02 a.m.

Online Journal editors have highlighted 15 people to watch in 2005 — men and women who are set to shape the course of business, politics and world affairs in the next year…

Nick Denton, online publisher

The 2004 election may have made stars out of once-obscure online commentators, and larger sites have dabbled in blogs as well. Mr. Denton is looking to prove that blogging can be a business, building a small but growing galaxy of publications. Mr. Denton, publisher of the Wonkette political gossip blog and others, has become the poster boy for blog start-ups, snagging big-name advertisers with help from his highly targeted audiences. Altogether, his eight blogs, which include Gawker (Manhattan gossip) and Gizmodo (gadgets), pull in a total of more than 29 million page views monthly. Mr. Denton’s next challenge will be to sustain Wonkette in the absence of election news while forging ahead at his other blogs and perhaps founding a new “it” site. Mr. Denton has also tried to assume a leading role, recently supporting calls for blog ethics standards and launching a service, called Kinja, to make it easier for readers to keep up with their favorite blogs.

He supports “calls for blog ethics standards?”

Now that’s funny.

***
Previous:

The Gawker smear machine
Malkin Derangement Syndrome
Do you think this is funny?

***update 9/30 6:25pm…I have just heard from the student whose pictures were stolen from Webshots by the creator of the bogus Flickr site. She is Ashley Herzog of Ohio University (not Oberlin, my alma mater, as the bogus Flickr site creator misled people into believing with fake captions). She has made note of the theft of her photos on the fake Flickr site and is contemplating legal action against the creator of the Flickr site who smeared both of us. Good for her.

FYI, she writes: “I looked at the fake flickr page. Nearly all of the pictures were stolen from my Webshots account, username Ashley11485. In the picture of the four girls in formal dresses, I also recognize a girl I went to high school with, Megan del Corral (she’s on the far right)…The girl in the formal dress picture (who is supposedly you), is Ohio State student Meredith Chan.”***

I have had a nice afternoon with my family. I was not going to post on the lying hate-mongers again, but they will not stop. If they think I am going to shut up about their continued deranged smear job, think again.

I sent this e-mail to the Wonkette editors at 8:13am Eastern:

From: Michelle Malkin
Mailed-By: gmail.com
Reply-To: writemalkin@gmail.com
To: tips@wonkette.com
Date: Sep 29, 2006 8:13 AM
Subject: It’s a photoshop, you idiots

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006012.htm

Hours after my post noting that the photo was fake was published, Wonkette’s sister site, Gawker , went ahead and published this:

I was working at NBC News in Washington, D.C., in March 1992, but the facts and the truth simply do not matter to these hate-mongers.

At 1:24pm Eastern, I sent the editors of Gawker this e-mail with the forwarded message I sent to Wonkette:

From: Michelle Malkin

Mailed-By: gmail.com
Reply-To: writemalkin@gmail.com
To: tips@gawker.com
Date: Sep 29, 2006 1:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: It’s a photoshop, you idiots

My post went up at 8:11am:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006012.htm

I sent this to Wonkette at 8:13am this morning…

Instead of a correction and apology, the Gawker editors insulted me some more:

Oh, it gets better.

Instead of issuing a correction and apology, Ken Layne at Wonkette suggests that I am lying about the fake photo:

I have informed Layne the photo is fake. Not only has he not issued a correction or apology, he is maliciously accusing me of lying. And notice that the Nick Denton smear machine can’t get its story straight. The Gawker editors say “Yes, of course, it’s fake!” The Wonkette editors scoff: “The story so far: Malkin is apparently claiming the all-but-naked picture of her is somehow “photoshopped,” whatever that means. Sure it is, Michelle, sure it is.”

Which is it?

Nick Denton, perhaps too busy IM’ing insults with Ken Layne, has not responded to my e-mail requesting a correction and apology.

Meanwhile UNC professor Eric Muller has issued an apology:

UPDATE, 3:00 p.m.: It appears that I was mistaken when I linked to the picture on flickr below, which I believed to be a picture of Michelle Malkin. I regret my error, and I apologize to Michelle Malkin for it. She has asked that I leave the post up — indeed, she has reprinted it — and so I will do as she wishes.

This doesn’t resolve the issue of whether Muller posted or e-mailed anything related to his false post from government-subsidized UNC computers, but it is a start.

***

Ace thinks I should sue. Any thoughts?

***

My good friend Ed Morrissey has ‘fessed up and revealed the true identitiy of the woman in the bikini:

LOL. Thanks for the laugh, Ed.

***

Update: Reader BruinEric has discovered where some of the original photos and captions that were posted onto the fake Flickr site came from–a site called Webshots. The blonde girl in the picture was not the forger. She is a victim, too:

Her real caption:

Here was the fake one:

Another bogus labeled photo from the Flickr site was photoshopped with a “3/27/92″ timestamp:

The real photo at the Webshots page is here.

Reader K. writes:

The photos are probably in violation of the Flickr terms of use agreement users are supposed to abide by – check out http://flickr.com/terms.gne – and have at ‘em. I’ve had success going a similar route with a whazoo-aperture posting a picture of me in a discussion forum that was hosted on photobucket – had the guy’s accounts nuked every time he posted the stolen picture of me.

***

Gotta love those tolerant lib commenters at Gawker:

The Wonkette editors continue to dig in and show their malice:

Reader David writes:

Michelle, trust me, they have talked to their lawyers, who told them (accurately) that parody is not actionable as libel. So now they are treating this as if it was a parody all along, which it was not.

Whatever you say, they will say something more outrageous now, as their tactic is to blend the original possible li[bel] into subsequent parody. That is why the fake photo is now in front of a relocation camp. Sick, lowlife parody, but also obvious parody.

John Hinderaker at Power Line writes:

The weirdest aspect of this latest liberal outrage is that a goofball law professor at the University of North Carolina–which is generally, I think, a reasonably well regarded institution–jumped on the bandwagon and, in all seriousness, accused Michelle of “hypocrisy” for trying to uphold normal standards of behavior despite having been photographed in a bikini in 1992. Apart from the fact that this guy 1) needs to get out more, and 2) needs to take a class in perspective so he’ll notice the proper relationship between heads and bodies, he also 3) should be fired because any law professor is expected to understand the concept of a non sequitur.

Increasingly, a basic equation is coming to dominate American politics: Liberal = hater.

So true.

Reader Marcia:

Let’s say the picture was real. How does that prove any sort of hypocrisy on your part?

You write a column denouncing Charlotte Church’s turning to raunchy dress and behavior (something every teen pop star seems to feel the need to do) with added Catholic bashing (not original either; see Sinead O’Connor circa 1987).

And Wonkette and this law prof say: “Gotcha!! How dare you decry the slutification of teen pop stars when you yourself once wore a bikini??!!”

Huh?

***

Previous:

Malkin Derangement Syndrome

***

Update:

10/10/06: A personal aside

The idiots are so blinded by hate they can’t see a two-bit Photoshop from some hater’s bogus Flickr site? And they couldn’t bother to ask me before attempting to embarrass me and calling me a slut?

You embarrass yourselves.

Rather than demand that they take their lying lies down, I am asking that they leave their smears up for all the world to see.

***

I am also filing a complaint with UNC School of Law Professor Muller’s employer. Here’s the dean’s contact information. This has gone too far.

Wonkette guest editor Ken Layne (e-mail ken.layne@gmail) is responsible for posting the Wonkette item, which I’m sure he’ll point out is more carefully worded than Professor Muller’s. Credit Gawker for having more legal sense than a UNC law professor, at least. Note Layne’s snarky comment in the comment thread:

That’s the Gawker idea of “reporting,” you see.

Here’s another dumb photoshop of me on the same bogus Flickr site that both Wonkette and Muller linked to:

Even Reuters could do better than that (notice that it appears to be the same face photo as the one used in the bikini shot).

Oh, and just a reminder of Gawker’s terms of use policy for commenters, which still seems not to apply to its own employees:

Comments Terms of Use

The comments sections on GM Sites are accessible to users by invitation only (such invitations coming either from Gawker Media editors directly or by referral from existing comment users). GM’s comment user registration system has been designed so that, if the user so chooses, they can remain completely anonymous, even to us.

In order to make our comments useful and interesting, the following guidelines have been established for comment users:

* Do not post threatening, harassing, defamatory, or libelous material.
* Do not intentionally make false or misleading statements.
* Do not offer to sell or buy any product or service.
* Do not post material that infringes copyright.
* Do not post information that you know to be confidential or sensitive or otherwise in breach of the law.
* Keep all comments relevant to the particular GM Site where the comment is being posted.
* Gawker Media will not accept responsibility for information posted in the Comments.

***

Reader J. e-mails:

In your first post this morning you say: “…they post a picture of a woman in a bikini that they claim is me (I wish I looked that good in a bikini):…”

I respectfully beg to differ, I bet you look absolutely stunning in a bikini.

Well, thanks for cheering me up.

Reader Bill:

The young woman in the photo looks to be pushing 5′ 8″ – 10″. While your razor whit certainly puts you in the big leagues, I suspect you fall a little short of 5′ 8″.

I appreciate you telling them to leave the photo up though. I personally never stop people from making jackasses of themselves, I simply enjoy watching them.

Have a great day.

I swear I am 5′ 1 1/2.” 5′ 4 1/2″ with these on.

Jason at Texas Rainmaker e-mails:

Nice to see you haven’t aged in 14 years.

Ha.

***

I am trying to find out who set up the bogus Flickr site. This picture may hold a clue:

If you know who the woman is on the right, please e-mail me. The caption is a lie. I recognize the setting. It was not taken “out west.” It was taken at CPAC in Washington, D.C. earlier this year. See:

***

More e-mails:

From reader J.

Dean Boger,

It is my sincere regret to inform you that I wish to pull my application packet from the UNC School of Law, due in large part to the behavior of Professor Eric Muller. The packet was mailed on 25 September, in hopes that it would arrive by your 1 October opening of admissions date. While I understand Professor Muller’s online activities are not endorsed by UNC, his crude and cruel remarks –targeted at columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin– reveal a certain classlessness that I would prefer not to be exposed to during my studies.

From Steve:

My eye has been honed by decades of girl-watching and my professional opinion on this bikini girl is that:

1) Her head is too small for her body.

2) Her body is too fleshy to be mistaken for you. You are a skinny little bone. Bikni Girl has chowed down a few extra pork chops.

3) That’s one ugly bikini.

Anyway, it’s an insult that they are passing off as you a girl who hasn’t skipped any desserts. The only way to put this controversy to rest is for you to post your own photo of yourself in a bikini, circa 1992, so that we, your loyal legion of fans, can compare and contrast the Real Michelle and the Bogus Michelle, point out all the discrepancies between the two, and demonstrate the superiority of Our Michelle to Their Michelle. It’s the only way to be sure. Accept No Substitutes!

In fact, to stop this kind of lefty outrage in the future, we probably should have bikini shots on file for all conservative commentators such as yourself, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Kellyanne Fitzpatrick, Page Hopkins, et cetera, so that we conservative males can instantly rebut small-minded slurs against the honor of our womenfolk. No need to thank us. We’re happy to do it as a favor to you.

Uh, no thanks!

Reader Scott:

I graduated from UNC back in 1980. At the time it was still considered a haven for hippies and liberal loonies. But those people would be considered downright conservative by today’s standards. I am ashamed of what that University has become. It is the oldest state-funded University in the country with a long tradition of academic excellence. Yet now, like so many schools around the country, it is now a breeding ground for liberal idiots.

Pay no attention to these people Michelle, they are insignificant, microcephalic cretins.

And even if that were you in the photograph, you would have been in your 20′s and it is hardly a risque photo. What is their point? Have they never seen a woman in a bikini before? The louder they cry the more it appears that they are threatened by you. They lash out at you because deep down they are seething is self-loathing.

Take care and keep the articles coming!

Stephen C.:

You would think a law professor would have a better idea of what is and is not appropriate. Just goes to show how far people of that ilk will sink.

Oh, and with regards to that bikini photo: Muller’s confusion is understandable – to them, all Asians look alike anyway, right?

La Shawn Barber: Liberal Bloggers Fall For Michelle Malkin Fauxtograph

Charles Johnson shares one of his haters’ Photoshops in “Inept Photoshop Phriday.”

Regarding the bikini, reader Tina writes:

I have that same bathingsuit! And I bought it about a year and a half [ago] at Target. Couldn’t possibly be from 1992.

Here’s Tina’s top:

Yup, and for the record (sorry to disappoint the gentlemen), I haven’t worn a bikini since I had my two kids.

Blogger Void Where Prohibited:

Just when you think the moonbats have gone as far as they can go. If that’s Michelle in that picture than I’m a Wookie. You ever seen someone 5’1″ stand next to a fridge?? They usually have to stand on tip toes to look in the freezer.

When you have to make up stuff to attack someone you are simply admitting that you’ve got nothing.

***

Update:

10/01/06 – A personal aside
9/29/06 The Gawker smear machine

The staff at Manzanar received nearly 200 letters, weighed both sides, and here is the verdict: (Hat tip: Xrlq and many other readers.)

Thank you very much for expressing your opinion about the presence of Michelle Malkin’s In Defense of Internment in our Manzanar History
Association (MHA) bookstore at Manzanar National Historic Site.

Our decision to carry the book last fall followed extensive review and
consultation with historians, academics, former internees, and others. The
consensus was that, while none substantially agreed with Ms. Malkin’s
conclusions or scholarship, it is not the role of the National Park Service
to censor dissenting viewpoints, past or present. As one prominent academic
stated, “providing only one perspective is not education, it is propaganda.
There are not many books written with this general perspective, and it’s
important to include dissenting views.”

The National Park Service’s approach to telling the stories of Manzanar is
to invite visitors to experience the site and leave with memories and
emotions fueled by their own inherent values. The goal is to increase
visitors’ knowledge level without dictating their conclusions. To that end,
Manzanar History Association and National Park Service staff work closely
to identify and review titles for the store. As of May 2005, there are 749
items in MHA’s inventory, including more than 300 books. Both of our
organizations recognize the sensitivity necessary for any book selection on
a topic as important and emotional as the World War II experiences of
Japanese Americans and others.

In the end, we chose to carry In Defense of Internment for a number of
reasons, including:

Manzanar was designated a national park unit to preserve and interpret the history of the loss of civil rights by Japanese Americans during World War II. We believe that not carrying this book could ironically be viewed as denying the First Amendment rights to free speech.

We believe that it is useful to present various perspectives when reasonable. We do not actively seek materials counter to the majority opinion or materials that are innately controversial, but wish to consider books garnering national attention, as well as books recommended by visitors or others.

We feel we have an obligation to share the unique history of the site in such a way that creates context, encourages open dialogue, and fosters commitment to keep the story alive. Presenting a variety of viewpoints, when appropriate, is essential to this process.

We do not feel that by including Michelle Malkin’s book, or any others, we are inferring National Park Service endorsement of the author’s perspective and/or opinions.

In the past few weeks, we have received nearly 200 messages on this topic.
We have read every one and are grateful for your willingness to share your
concerns and comments. Your perspective is part of an important dialog that
will help all of us to come to a greater understanding of our history and
our hopes.

On behalf of the National Park Service and Manzanar History Association,
Thank You.

Sincerely, Alisa
Alisa Lynch
Chief of Interpretation
Manzanar National Historic Site

Deepest, deepest thanks to all those who wrote, called, and blogged to keep the book on the shelves. Appreciate your support, activism, and interest in the book very much. And kudos to the staff members at Manzanar for their integrity and fairness–qualities with which Professor Muller and the rest of the unhinged academics on his embarrassing “Historians’ Committee for Fairness” seem curiously unacquainted.

***
Background (my detailed responses to Muller and his co-critic, Greg Robinson):

In Defense of Internment
Book notes
Book notes II
Arguing in bad faith
Book buzz
The end of a reasoned debate

More background (in which, in the spirit of good-faith academic debate, I repeatedly referred readers to Muller’s blog and arguments; promoted radio appearances with him while on my book tour; requested and engaged in an impromptu debate about the book with Robinson after he weirdly showed up at one of my college speaking events on a totally different topic; and plugged yet another radio debate with Muller in February):

Seattle after-action report
Forgotten internees of WWII
Book buzz
Where in the world
Radio debate
Where in the world
Robinson’s deceit
Where in the world

Related:
- Clayton Cramer, “Quick! Pull it from the shelf!”
- Dan Flynn, “Book Banning Leftists”

– Cached copy of Muller’s post.

The version published in the People’s Daily includes numerous and important inaccuracies. In many places words and sentences were removed to change the meaning of what I said. In some places words or sentences were invented that I did not say. In one typical example, where I said “China is not a
democracy” the People’s Daily version quoted me as saying “China is not a
democracy either by American standards.” At the same time, comments
critical of China were deleted.

Bennett says the interview was tape recorded, and he released a transcript of his comments regarding whether the U.S. should be the leader of the world. Bennett says the transcript shows his words “were rearranged to express a different view” than he had clearly intended. Take a look and judge for yourself:

People’s Daily version:

Yong Tang: In such sense, do you think America should be the leader of the world?

Bennett: No, I don’t think US should be the leader of the world. My job is helping my readers trying to understand what is happening now. What is happening now is very difficult to understand. The world is very complex. There are various complex forces occurring in it. I don’t think you can imagine a world where one country or one group of people could lead everybody else. I can’t imagine that could happen. I also think it is unhealthy to have one country as the leader of the world. People in other countries don’t want to be led by foreign countries. They may want to have good relations with it or they may want to share with what is good in that country. That is also a sort of colonial question. The world has gone through colonialism and imperialism. We have seen the danger and shortcomings of those systems. If we are heading into another period of imperialism where the US thinks itself as the leader of the area and its interest should prevail over all other interests of its neighbors and others, then I think the world will be in an unhappy period.

What was really said:

Yong Tang: Another question is that since the Washington Post is mainstream media in American how does the newspaper deal with the relations between America and the rest of the world? Do you think America should be the leader of the world?

Bennett: You know I don’t ask myself that question. Again that would be to express a political view, an editorial view, and I…

Yong Tang: How about personal opinion.

Bennett: You know, I don’t…

Yong Tang: First of all I think that America should be the leader.

Bennett: I don’t think in those terms. And I’m not trying to dodge the question. It’s just that my job is to help people try to understand what’s happening now. And what’s happening now is very hard to understand. The world is very complex, there are very complex forces occurring in it. I don’t think you can imagine a world – given where we are with technology, culture, with economics – I don’t think you could imagine a world where one country, where one group of people, lead everybody else. I just can’t imagine that happening. And I think it would be unhealthy if one country – whether or not it was this country or China or France or Great Britain – would describe itself as the leader of the world. People in other countries do not want to be led by a foreign country. They may want to have good relations with them and they may want to share in what’s good about that other country. But that’s almost sort of a colonial question. I feel like we’ve been through an era of colonialism, of imperialism, and we’ve seen the dangers and the shortcomings of those systems. If we are headed into another period of imperialism where either the United States or China, for example, thinks of itself as the leader of its area and where it’s interests should prevail over all others interests of its neighbor or others then I think we are headed for an unhappy period. So I guess that’s how I would answer that question. Maybe the answer is then no I don’t think the United States should be the world leader. But what I really mean to say that I don’t think we are headed into a period of history where one country or one set of ideas is going to dominate all others.

Bennett says the interview includes “numerous and important inaccuracies,” but the small portion of the transcript that he released deals with his response to only one question. It would be helpful to know if he was also misquoted in other instances, such as when he is quoted saying that

- the Bush Administration lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq,
- China is the best place in the world to be a journalist, and
- the Bush Administration is wrong to suggest that democracy is advancing in Iraq.

Bennett can quickly and easily set the record straight by releasing the tape and/or a transcript of the entire interview. I just sent him an e-mail asking him to do so.

Previous:
- Washington Post’s Managing Editor Speaks His Mind
- Reacting to Philip Bennett

Update: Although Bennett is distancing himself from the comments attributed to him, not everyone found the reported comments objectionable. My old debating partner Eric Muller, for example, called the reported remarks “mundane” and likened me to Joseph McCarthy for calling attention to them.

It’s also the 63rd anniversary of Executive Order 9066, the West Coast evacuation order signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on February 19, 1942. We’ve seen plenty of stories and op-ed pieces leading up to the event. Here are the highlights and lowlights:

The Bremerton Sun reports on the latest incident in the controvery over Bainbridge Island’s internment curriculum:

A parent of a Bainbridge Island sixth-grader said he will meet with a civil rights attorney after being denied access to a middle school classroom. James Olsen arrived Wednesday morning to attend a 90-minute history presentation regarding the World War II-era internment of Japanese residents but was prevented from entering by the principal and two Bainbridge police officers, he said. Superintendent Ken Crawford said Olsen was barred to protect the classroom environment. Olsen and his wife have been the most vocal critics of the district’s “Leaving Our Island” curriculum, which deals with the World War II internment of Japanese Americans.

What do the school officials have to hide?

Previous posts:
How not to teach Japanese internment
Book buzz

* * * * *

From Oregon’s Bend.com:

Mary M. Schroeder, the first woman to be named chief judge of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, will speak on what it means to be a woman in the judiciary in a Feb. 16 speech at the University of Oregon…. Among her noteworthy cases is Hirabayashi vs. United States, which held in 1987 that the World War II Japanese internment was unconstitutional.

The Bend.com article is referring to a 1987 coram nobis case in which Judge Schroeder overturned Gordon K. Hirabayashi’s 1942 convictions. While many have embraced the outcome of this case (and others like it) as proof that the West Coast evacuation of ethnic Japanese was “unconstitutional,” the coram nobis rulings did not affect the underlying constitutionality of President Roosevelt’s executive order. Despite what Bend.com suggests, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Korematsu v. United States (1944), which upheld the constitutionality of the West Coast evacuation, has never been overturned.

* * * * *

In New Jersey, the Bridgeton News notes that “West Coast Japanese Americans were imprisoned in internment camps during the war” and “were brought here to work at the Seabrook food processing facility.” How could they be “imprisoned” in camps if they (like thousands of other Japanese-Americans who were evacuated from the West Coast) were allowed to go to the East Coast to work? The reporter never explains the process by which thousands left the camps after obtaining security clearances, and does not mention that ethnic Japanese who did not live on the vulnerable West Coast were not required to enter the camps in the first place.

* * * * *

One of those, artist Isamu Noguchi, was profiled in the Washington Post on Sunday. To its credit, the Post notes:

As a resident of New York, [Noguchi] could have escaped the internment forced on Japanese Americans on the West Coast. In solidarity with them, however, he chose to join them in the camps for seven months in 1942.

In fact, hundreds of people chose to enter the relocation camps voluntarily–a fact I strongly suspect is not disclosed to schoolchildren in Bainbridge Island and elsewhere.

* * * * *

The Stanford Daily reports on a Forum exploring the connections between Japanese internment and civil liberties infringements in the War on Terror. One participant, 80 year-old Kiku Funabiki, told the tale of her grandfather (a citizen of Japan) being placed in an internment camp by the Department of Justice:

“The only evidence presented in the brief closed hearings was that he had contacts with Japanese naval vessels, that he socialized with Japanese naval officers and that he was an ardent Buddhist,” Funabiki said.

This evidence may strike Funabiki as completely innocuous now, but at the time, it would have been completely reckless for officials to ignore her grandfather’s contacts with Japanese naval vessels and naval officers. It’s not clear whether Funabiki’s grandfather was a Buddhist priest or merely an ardent devotee. Either way, law enforcement authorities were right to view devoted Buddhists with concern. The Office of Naval Intelligence, the United States’ premiere intelligence agency at the time, stated in December 1941 that most Buddhist priests were “to a considerable extent” under the direct control of the Japanese government and that many were members of subversive organizations.

* * * * *

An earlier article in the Stanford Daily said the Forum was inspired by Fred Korematsu’s attack on my book:

The idea for the event came from a Sept. 16 article in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which Fred Korematsu, who was detained in a Japanese internment camp from 1942 to 1945, responded to claims made by Fox News media personality Michelle Malkin.

According to the article, Malkin said that “some Japanese Americans were spies during WWII and that racial profiling of Arab Americans today is justified by the need to fight terrorism.”

However, in the 1980s a federal commission found that “no Japanese American had been involved in espionage or sabotage and that no military necessity existed to imprison them.”

A federal panel stacked with critics of internment did indeed come to that conclusion. However, the assertion that no Japanese-Americans were involved in espionage is false. See here for a list of known subversives, here for intelligence memos outlining the concerns about espionage among officials at the Military Intelligence Division and Office of Naval Intelligence, and here for some of the top-secret MAGIC messages describing Japan’s espionage activities.

Even University of North Carolina law professor Eric Muller, my loudest critic, concedes that Japan successfully recruited spies in the U.S.:

Nobody doubts that Japan and Germany wanted to set up espionage and sabotage relationships in the US with both their own nationals and others (including, but by no means limited to, children of their nationals.) And nobody doubts that in a few instances they were successful in doing this.

Muller also suggests that Richard Kotoshirodo, the Japanese-American man on the cover of my book, violated espionage statutes. (Wanting to give Kotoshirdo the benefit of the doubt, I had expressed doubts about whether Kotoshirodo’s activities rose to the level of espionage, since the information he transmitted to Japan was not classified.)

* * * * *

The Washington Times quotes Rep. John Conyers comparing the Real ID Act (which is designed to improve the security of drivers’ licenses and other government-issued ID cards) to the Japanese internment. As I point out in my book, playing the internment card is a common tactic among those who oppose beefing up homeland security today. Here’s another example from the Los Angeles Times today.

* * * * *

The Dartmouth Online continues the smear campaign against Daniel Pipes, repeating the false claim that Pipes wants to toss Muslim-Americans into internment camps:

Daniel Pipes, a New York Sun columnist who once argued that Muslim-Americans should be placed in internment camps, will bring his contentious views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Dartmouth Hall on Thursday. Pipes’ presence on campus is provoking strong feelings among students and faculty on both sides of the issue.

See here, here, and here, for bloggers repeating the defamatory accusation.

The big lie is repeated again in a noxious piece published by Final Call, Louis Farrakhan’s house organ.

*****

Finally, here’s an e-mail I received yesterday from one Kathryn Yamamoto (e-mail candycane25186@yahoo.com), indicating the abysmally low level of intellectual firepower on the other side of this debate:

Michelle Malkin,

I can’t believe you actually think what your doing is right! What you believe is bullshit! I don’t know anyone who has worst opinions than you! I know you have the right to speak your mind…..but that doesn’t mean you have to try and get people to agree. My Dad was in one of the Japanese Intern camps and he has gone to many different schools and other public places telling people exactly what went on in those camps. YOU HAVE NO FUCKING RIGHT TO SAY THE JAPANESE INTERN CAMPS ARE OK AND RIGHT! IF YOU DO TRULY BELIEVE WHAT HAPPENED TO NOT ONLY THE JAPANESE BUT WITH EVERYTHING ELSE THAT’S TERRIBLE IN THIS WORLD THEN YOUR A FUCKED UP BITCH/SLUT/DYKE/CUNT/AND ASS HOLE! When I heard about this bullshit I got so mad for you trying to get people to believe this shit! You absolutely have no reason to be popular with your stupid little books and interviews! You and all your fans who follow you are bad people! Fuck you bitch!

~Kathryn

The woman seems, I dunno, suspended somewhere between meltdown and release.

Perhaps in response to the news of my appearance, Malkin changed the topic of her lecture–certainly a new set of fliers was put up around campus.

ROTFLMAO!

The professor could have asked me directly if that were the case. He could have asked the College Republicans or the Young America’s Foundation, which sponsored my appearance. But he did none of these things before publishing his laughably self-serving speculation. My lecture topic was chosen by the CRs and YAF a month ago. The professor is more than welcome to contact Patrick Coyle of YAF for details.

I was invited to speak on campus about the Girls Gone Wild! culture. I learned at the last minute that the professor was coming to “rebut” my book at an event to be held immediately after mine. After my speech, I took questions from the audience on any subject, including several from audience members who wanted to discuss the book. I happily answered their questions. Robinson said nothing. I approached him as he lurked at the back of the lecture hall, asked why he didn’t bother suggesting a debate knowing I was there, and asked if he would mind if I sat in and participated in the Q&A. Minutes later, I was invited to join in a debate.

The suggestion that I changed my lecture topic in response to news of Robinson’s appearance is breathtakingly pathetic. And the professor knows it.

Will he acknowledge his error? Probably not.

Update: Emory’s student newspaper, the Emory Wheel, covers the events here. Unlike Robinson, Emory’s Young Democrats do not accuse me of changing the topic of my speech in response to Robinson’s visit. Rather, they say they were “confused” by College Republicans’ ads. Meanwhile, Atrios gives me his “Wanker of the Day” award based on Robinson’s factually incorrect post. Still no correction from Robinson.

Now, here’s the intriguing part. Leftists on campus (including the Emory Vegans, the Emory Libertarians, the “Revolutionary Knitters,” and something called “The Virtual Ticklefight”) were rallied by the Young Democrats to protest my visit because of their opposition to my “racist” views. The student newspaper published a flabbergasting piece from a student named Ling Guo that decried my mere presence on campus and criticized Asian-Americans for not raising more of a ruckus about my visit. The piece was titled “An oblivious community: Why is offensive speech OK?”

Before I delivered my GGW speech, I asked if Ling Guo was in the audience (surprise, he/she wasn’t) and briefly addressed the irony of these liberal students questioning tolerance for “offensive speech.” I then raised the fact that the Young Democrats on campus had invited one of my most prominent critics, Greg Robinson, to “rebut” my latest book’s arguments without bothering to invite me to join in a debate. They scheduled an event with Robinson at the last minute, which was to immediately follow my speech. According to the student newspaper, Robinson was sponsored by the Young Democrats to come and speak; the Southeast Chapter of the Japanese-American Citizens League helped organize his visit. Flyers were distributed on campus that read:

Want to know the TRUTH about WWII Japanese Incarceration Camps? Young Dems of Emory bring you the author of By Order of the President. Come see University of Quebec Professor Glenn (sic) Robinson debunk Michelle Malkin’s revisionist history…immediately following Malkin’s speech or 9:00, whichever is first

What a ridiculous and gutlessly underhanded stunt. During the speech, students noticed Robinson darting in and out of the ballroom. After my event, Robinson was in the back of the room kibbitzing with a Japanese American man who had come in protest and who had politely asked me a few questions about the book. I walked back and introduced myself to Robinson, and asked why he didn’t think to let me know of his visit or suggest to his sponsors that we debate. It would have been the fair and intellectually honest thing to do (and as a leader of the so-called Historians Committee for Fairness, Robinson ought to know something about fairness). Also, although we had never met in person, it’s not like we were total strangers (see the extensive debate from last summer here, here , here, and here).

Robinson was evasive about the circumstances surrounding his visit. Perhaps belatedly realizing how embarrassing the situation was, the Young Democrats agreed to change the format of their event and invited me at the last minute to join Robinson on stage for a back-and-forth.

The event was sparsely attended. Excluding the large group of College Republicans who came to listen and some off-campus Japanese American visitors, there were probably no more than 15 in the audience. Fortunately, both my event and the impromptu debate with Robinson were taped and the CRs plan to put both videos on their site .

Robinson repeated a plethora of errors he made in our initial debate and had the nerve to suggest (as his tag-team partner Eric Muller had earlier suggested) that it was beyond the realm of possibility for a pregnant woman with a day job to take a year to research and write a book challenging the conventional wisdom about WWII history–and more importantly, to apply the analysis to the current War on Terror (original analysis on which Robinson was largely silent).

Such intellectual snobbery is par for the course among my critics. Even as he accused me of “lifting” arguments from the late national security expert David Lowman about the so-called MAGIC cables (a baseless charge he had earlier backed away from), Robinson himself regurgitated the well-worn criticism of MAGIC made by internment scholar Peter Irons, activist Jack Herzig, and lawyer Angus MacBeth. Nor was Robinson forthcoming about his own book’s failure to address MAGIC–he devoted a scant two sentences (plus one brief footnote) to their existence and completely ignored the intelligence memos from the FBI, Army Military Intelligence Division, and Office of Naval Intelligence supporting the military necessity rationale for FDR’s homeland security policies.

I encourage those interested to view the debate when it’s posted. I’ll put up a link as soon as it’s available.

Thanks again to the Emory College Republicans for hosting me, and for all who turned out at both events.

Correction, February 5, 2005: The Emory Libertarians were not among those protesting my appearance.

Muller’s descent began shortly after I pointed out copious factual errors and mischaracterizations in his posts–errors that remain uncorrected and unacknowledged to this day.

A few days later, Muller signed the hysterical letter by the newly-formed “Historians’ Committee for Fairness.” Although Muller himself is not a credentialed historian, the letter attacked me because (among other things) “Malkin is not a historian.” The letter was roundly criticized in the blogosphere.

Evidence of Muller’s unravelling continued when he posted this entry drawing a scurrilous parallel between my argument and that of Holocaust deniers (a predictable tactic I mentioned on p. xviii of my book).

Muller, clearly losing all sense of academic propriety, has now taken to associating himself with the uninformed and bitter mutterings of Vox Day.

Finally, Muller has grandly declared victory (“It’s Over”) because I “conceded” that the Roosevelt Administration was primarily concerned about hit-and-run raids on the West Coast rather than a massive amphibious invasion. Sorry to pop your bubble of self-delusion, professor, but this was no concession. It’s the exact same argument I made in my book. I wrote on page 12: “While a full-scale Japanese invasion of the U.S. mainland was considered unlikely, hit-and-run raids were, in the view of Secretary of War Henry Stimson, “not only possible, but probable in the first months of the war, and it was quite impossible to be sure that the raiders would not receive important help from individuals of Japanese origin.”

I expect these kind of distortions from second-tier critics, but I had hoped for a higher level of debate from a professor of law at a prestigious university.

Fortunately, I am not the only one disappointed in the quality of Muller’s argumentation. Earlier this week, after a web site called the History News Network excerpted Muller and Greg Robinson’s critiques of my book, the following message from historian Ronald Radosh was forwarded to me:

Yesterday, I sent my list [Greg Robinson and Eric Muller's] critiques of Michelle Malkin’s work, which I found convincing. I owe the list an apology; Malkin has in fact responded strongly to her critics, and answered the charges meticulously. I think it should be mandatory for History News Network to post her response, having given three spaces to historians who have challenged her arguments. She has responded cogently and persuasively to many of the charges made against her in the two articles I passed on, and has proved that she has, contrary to their assertions, done a lot of primary research. It is also clear that her critics have savagely distorted her arguments. Those interested should read her book, the arguments of her critics, and decide for themselves. Ron Radosh

Thank you, Mr. Radosh, for demonstrating what academic fair-mindedness is really all about.

Update (9/13): Muller continues his attacks today, this time getting a link from Instapundit. Now Muller is kicking up a big fuss because he says he found documents which show that the prosecution’s case against Richard Kotoshirido (the Japanese-American man featured on the cover of my book) was weak. Muller apparently considers this a blockbuster revelation. However, it is exactly the same point I made in my book on page 78, where I wrote, “many of those suspected of serving Japan had not committed any crime (remember that the gathering and transmission of intelligence information from open sources before the declaration of war, such as that performed by Richard Kotoshirodo, probably was not criminal).” I made the same point on page 140, where I wrote: “Some individuals working on behalf of Japan, it should be noted, provided Japan with information that was sensitive but unclassified. Though some advocated prosecution of Hawaiian Nisei Richard Kotoshirodo, for example, it was not clear that he violated any law.” As I noted in my book, this is an argument for internment, not against it, since relying on criminal prosecutions in civilian courts would have left Kotoshirodo and other Japanese agents untouchable.

I guess it is asking too much to expect my detractors to actually read my book before launching into their critiques.

Still no word from Muller or his co-critic Greg Robinson about the numerous factual errors described in this post.

A special social studies program for Sakai Intermediate School sixth-graders called “Leaving Our Island” is missing context and rises to the level of “propaganda,” some parents say.

Their complaints will result in changes to the curriculum, but the class won’t back away from its central idea that Japanese-American internment was a mistake.

The internment of Japanese-Americans, about two-thirds of whom were born in the United States, has generally become regarded as a U.S. overreaction to wartime hysteria, but there are notable dissenters from that belief. Newspaper columnist Michelle Malkin recently wrote “In Defense of Internment,” a book that collects some of the reasons the internment decision was made.

Bainbridge Island’s historic significance as the first place Japanese-Americans left their homes on their way to internment camps makes it a logical place to draw upon the event to teach history.

Social studies teacher Marie Marrs developed the curriculum and netted a $17,000 grant from the Washington Civil Liberties Education Program to offer the program to Sakai sixth-graders. It was taught during February as part of a U.S. history curriculum.

On Thursday, the Bainbridge Island School District’s board of commissioners met to discuss the internment curriculum after parents complained about how it was being taught.

Mary Dombrowski, an island resident, shared letters she exchanged with Superintendent Ken Crawford and Sakai Principal Jo Vander Stoep. She argued the curriculum didn’t provide the historical context surrounding President Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066, which resulted in a war zone with a boundary line running through the middle of Washington and Oregon, along California’s eastern boundary and into the southern part of Arizona….

Dombrowski took issue with the curriculum’s attempt to link Japanese internment with today’s Patriot Act, saying it “rises to the level of propaganda.”

Good for Dombrowski.

***

A group of historians calling itself the “Historians’ Committee for Fairness” has denounced my book. An excerpt from their complaint:

Michelle Malkin’s appearance on numerous television and radio shows and her comments during these appearances regarding her book IN DEFENSE OF INTERNMENT represent a blatant violation of professional standards of objectivity and fairness. Malkin is not a historian, and she states that she relied almost exclusively on research conducted or collected by others.

Not a historian! Relied on research collected by others! Shocking!

The statement goes on:

This work presents a version of history that is contradicted by several decades of scholarly research, including works by the official historian of the United States Army and an official U.S. government commission.

A book that contradicts established thought. The horror! The horror!

In typical fashion, the historians end their statement with a demand for an apology. The ultimatum is addressed to anyone in the media who has had me on to talk about the book:

It is irresponsible of your producers to permit Michelle Malkin’s biased presentation of events to go unchallenged as a factual historical presentation. We therefore respectfully demand that you formally apologize to the Japanese Americans who have been slandered by Ms. Malkin’s reckless presentation and invite a reputable historian to present a more even-handed view of the evidence.

One of the members of the “Historians’ Committee for Fairness” is Greg Robinson. Another is Eric Muller, who posted Robinson’s error-riddled critiques on his web site and at The Volokh Conspiracy. Neither Robinson nor Muller has acknowledged numerous factual inaccuracies and mischaracterizations in Robinson’s critiques, which I pointed out here.

As readers of this blog, listeners on talk radio, and attendees of my book-related speeches all know, I have encouraged my audience vigorously to weigh all sides in this debate. I have directed both readers and listeners to Eric Muller’s blog and The Volokh Conspiracy, where Muller and Robinson first critiqued my book; encouraged attendees of my Seattle speech to read the work of University of Washington professor Tetsuden Kashima, who graciously came to the event; and recommend in my book that readers consider the work of several scholars and researchers who do not agree with my conclusions.

I join the “Historians’ Committee for Fairness” in their call for TV/radio producers to put the committee’s members on the air. Let everyone see who is being “even-handed” and who is not.

***

In a post titled “How to make substantive criticism look like guarding professional turf,” Eugene Volokh dissects the committee’s statement here.

Update: Clayton Cramer weighs in here. An excerpt:

I suppose that I could take the “professional standards” argument a bit more seriously if we didn’t have the recent memory of the Bellesiles scandal, where many professional historians did their best to prevent any serious examination of massive and obvious fraud from working its way into popular newspapers and court decisions.

Bob Felton of Civil Commotion comments too:

I haven’t read the book, but have been following the firestorm it has provoked, and Malkin has been a class act in the face of relentless viciousness. Her critics have carped about the book-jacket, made allegations of sloppiness which reduce to “I can’t research a book in a year,” and even made fun of her hair. They have not dunked her facts. Malkin, on the other hand, has errata online, and has done just as she said: encouraged readers of her book to read the others, too.

Roger Schlafly, the son of Phyllis, left the following comment on Muller’s site:

Eric complains that Malkin is not a historian?! Eric isn’t either! He doesn’t have a PhD or any History credentials….

(Just realized that Roger has a blog, which I’ve now added to my blogroll. His work on vaccine policy sparked my interest in the topic. If you have an open mind, check it out. Otherwise don’t bother.)

Update II: Hei Lun asks a good question: What the heck is the Historians’ Committee For Fairness?:

I Googled the Historians’ Committee for Fairness to get more information about this group. Well, okay, I actually Googled them trying to play gotcha, looking to see whether they said anything about disgraced historian Michael Bellesiles. I didn’t get a single result for “Historians’ Committee for Fairness” “Michael Bellesiles”. And curiously, I did not get a single result for “Historians’ Committee for Fairness” either. Do they even exist? Did they just spelt their own name wrong in their letter? Or is this an ad hoc group that exists solely to oppose Malkin’s book? It seems to me that if it were, they really have no business trying to present themselves as a disinterested group and calling themselves a committee for fairness. I emailed Prof. Muller about this, will report back if I get a reply.

***

According to this Denver Post article by Doug Brown, my book has stirred up quite a bit of controversy in the Denver area.

An excellent Q&A by Burl Burlingame appears in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin here. It’s more than two weeks old but I didn’t see it until today. Burlingame asserts that an estimated 38,000 Japanese Americans served in the Imperial Army or Navy during the war. That figure is much higher than others I’ve seen. (The upper-bound estimate reported in my book is 7,000.) If Burlingame’s figure is right, the number of Japanese-Americans serving in the Japanese military was approximately equal to one-third the number of ethnic Japanese evacuated from the West Coast. (I’ll e-mail Burlingame and ask him for his source; if it is reputable I’ll make a note of it on my Errata page.)

In yesterday’s post, I pointed out that Robinson had failed to correct more than a half-dozen factual errors that I called to his attention in my Aug. 6 entry:

* His false assertion that most of the [MAGIC] cables discussed in my book came from Tokyo or Mexico City and referred to areas outside the United States;

* His false assertion that those cables that do speak of the United States list Japan’s “hopes” or “intentions” rather than actions or results;

* His incorrect statement that I implied that the primary push for evacuation came from President Roosevelt;

* His false assertion that I failed to explain why immediate loyalty hearings were not granted to people of Japanese ancestry;

* His false assertion that I said that the opinion of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover on the Japanese Americans was not reliable or relied upon;

* He false statement that I dared not touch the question of why the Canadian government went through the process of relocating and incarcerating their ethnic Japanese residents; and

* His false assertion that the Office of Naval Intelligence opposed mass evacuation.

It has now been 19 days since I pointed out these errors. Robinson has posted multiple entries about my book on Muller’s site, including his “final word” on the subject, but he has not acknowledged any of the above errors. Not one.

In addition, my entry from yesterday identified more than a half-dozen new factual errors made by Robinson in his more recent posts on Muller’s site:

* He falsely stated that I said that racial bigotry played no factor in the evacuation;

* He falsely stated that there were no shellings or attacks by Japanese submarines on or near the West Coast after December 1941;

* He falsely stated that the U.S. Navy opposed evacuation;

* He falsely accused me of arguing that the decision to sign Executive Order 9066 was based in part on the shelling of the Goleta oil fields (which occurred after EO 9066 was signed);

* He mischaracterized the views of ONI officer Kenneth Ringle;

* He falsely stated that dual citizenship among Nisei was a “canard;” and

* He falsely stated that Japan’s Honolulu spy ring was shut down before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Robinson has not corrected any of these mistakes either.

Robinson has accused me of arguing in “bad faith” and of trying to “elide” his points. But I have corrected every factual error that has been brought to my attention. Robinson has acknowledged virtually none of his.

I wonder, too, what Muller thinks about this. Does he stand by the false statements described above, all of which he posted on his site or on The Volokh Conspiracy blog?

In addition, Muller and Robinson have tossed out baseless charges of “plagiarism” and “slander” against me, only to retreat from those accusations while leaving a pile of falsehoods uncorrected.

The American Historical Association’s statement on standards of professional conduct dictates that historians “must not be indifferent to error or efforts to ignore or conceal it.”

Final words, gentlemen?

Update: Muller’s lame non-response speaks for itself.

Update II: A commenter on Muller’s site accuses me of nitpicking. “[S]he mentioned somewhere before that nit picking facts or goofs should not be the basis of refuting a whole argument, namely that a broad thesis does not simply fal (sic) apart when a handful of factual ianccuracies (sic) happen.”

I am not nitpicking. Some of Robinson’s errors concern major substantive issues. Take his repeated assertion that the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) opposed evacuation and relocation. ONI was the premiere intelligence agency at the time.
Its opinion undoubtedly carried considerable weight. Yet, ONI not only did not oppose evacuation, it actually expressed grave concerns about the Japanese espionage network on the West Coast. In one post-Pearl Harbor memo, ONI cited dozens of ethnic Japanese by name (some of whom were U.S. citizens) who were suspected Japanese agents (see www.michellemalkin.com/docs.htm). Robinson’s mischaracterization of ONI’s views is not a harmless little “goof.” It is a major distortion. His ongoing unwillingness to correct himself is a breach of academic ethics and good reasearch practices.

Update III:Muller still has not addressed the factual inaccuracies outlined above, but he found time to repeat his accusation that I libeled Aiko Herzig-Yoshinaga when I wrote in my book that she surreptitiously gave confidential Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians papers to Peter Irons. Muller says the documents were neither classified, secret, private, nor confidential since Irons was allowed to view them. As I noted, these records, however, had not been cleared for public use, and Iron’s request to copy them had been explicitly denied. By the way, this was not the only time Irons engaged in these sort of shenanigans.

Update IV: I corrected the name of the American Historical Association above. (In my initial post, I incorrectly referred to this organization as the American Historical Society.)

Update V, May 18, 2005: Note correction here.