Sunday, October 08, 2006

Michelle Malkin & Jim McGreevey: Dying to Belong

Here are two people who are single-handedly undoing the course of progress and acceptance in America:

Michelle Malkin and Jim McGreevey suck. *Pun sorta intended.

Michelle Malkin is all sorts of pissed off at the New York Times because they mentioned the fact that she's Filipina. Yes, Michelle Malkin, nee Maglalang, that tank-top wearing, caramel-skinned Conservative sell-out is crying foul after reporter Virginia Heffernan mentioned the pundit's ethnicity in an article about Malkin's attack on YouTube.

Says Malkin: I love how the always oh-so-sensitive New York Times has no problem throwing my ethnicity into an attack, when my ethnicity has nothing at all to do with the subject (the jihad vs. anti-jihad war at YouTube).

Here's why Malkin's etnicity matters:

-- Malkin has done everything in her power to whitewash herself.

-- Her psyhotic desire to belong to the "winning" team has her screaming like a banshee for a cause that undermines the very values that have allowed a woman of color to become such a visible figure in our society.

--She boasts on her blog: [I] opposed publisher [of Seattle Times] and supported successful campaign to abolish race-based affirmative action in government hiring, contracting, and college admissions.

-- Her book In Defense of Internment draws psychotic parallels between the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII and the need for similar actions with Arab Americans today.
Among other hallucinations, the book claims to expose "how both Japanese American and Arab/Muslim American leaders have united to undermine America's safety."

I would dare say that Michelle Malkin is the Jenna Jameson of the Conservative movement. Here you have a woman of color begging to have her race stripped of her while she whores off her wit and intelligence to advance the cause of the Republican party.

What a godsend she is to the white Republican establishment -- to have one of the little brown ones speak out against affirmative action and espouse the homophobic and xenophobic ideals of their party.

Kudos to Virginia Heffernan for pointing out Malkin's most egregious trespass -- that which she has perpetrated on herself and her heritage by becoming a puppet for a slowly dying cause.

So what's my beef with Jim McGreevey?

To hear him speak about his newfound "truth" is like watching a man possessed by Pat Buchanan and George Michael. Every utterance out of McGreevey's mouth as he promotes his new book The Confession, especially his embarassing, vomit-inducing appearance on Oprah, reveal a man still struggling with a major identity crisis.

I can't even applaud him coming out of the closet. Jim McGreevey didn't say he was gay, he revealed himself to be a depraved, co-dependant, lying son-of-a-bitch, who like Michelle Malkin was all too eager to sell his own people out just "to belong."

He told Oprah that even though he marched in Gay Pride parades, he refused to vote in favor of gay marriage out of fear that he would be outed. He went into detail about his trysts behind a Synogauge (DAYS before Rosh Hoshanna no less, OY the timing!), he said he had a penchant for anonymous sex with truck drivers, and that he met "the love of his life" in an Israeli whom he would later sleep with in his wife's bed while she was holed up in a hospital recuperating from a Cesaerian section.


This isn't truth or liberation, this is a twisted man who is still acting out of homophobia. WHERE THE HELL ARE ROSIE AND ELLEN to distract America's attention from this wacko fag?

To make matters worse, McGreevey invited Oprah's cameras to his new home which he shares with his "life partner" of six hours (or months).

James and I were flipping out while we watched, in horror, how this idiot confirmed Middle America's worst fears about gays:

-- That we're whores
-- That we lie
-- That we ruin families
-- That we're self possessed and only out for own satisfaction

As I think about topics to write about on this blog, and as I question its effectiveness, I am thankful for the example provided to me by Michelle and Jim. Unless I speak out as a gay person of color, the only point of view this country is going to hear is that of these two self-hating loons. I can't let that happen.


Jason said...

""""-- That we're self possessed and only out for own satisfaction""""

What exactly does that mean? People say it about gays all the time but never really bother to elaborate or give concerete examples.

GayConservativeLiberal said...

Jason, thanks for the comment. What I mean by "self posessed and only out for own satisfaction" is that people think all gay people are all just out to sleep around and have fun, even at the expense of bigger things like family and health.

GRT said...

Mightn't it also be limited to sex? One of them said something like we are "obsessed with sex."

Otherwise, the self possessed and self-satisfaction fits everyone, pretty much.

If they don't focus on sex, then it becomes clear that gays are just as normal, and, quite possibly, as boring as anyone else they might know, including themselves. Then where would they be? No "other" against whom to rail would find them in a pickle.

All that bile building up pressure and no release valve in sight--they'd have to invent us.

Ooops! They did.

Berdo said...


I feel the need to disclaim some of my responses by reminding you that I think highly of you - well, as much as I know of you from your blog. But this post of yours is reprehensible. And that's an understatement.

I am not a huge fan of Malkin's. I don't like her tome defending the Japanese internment. I think her columns can be snarky, etc. But to call her a the same breath as McGreevey is just awful. She takes more crap - more invective, racial-epithets than, I would guess, virtually any other columnist in the world because she holds unpopular opinions (ones that I often think are wrong, at best). A sell-out to her race suggests that she should be holding to the view most of those of her descent hold of the world - and if that's what you think, then you need to take your judgment to its logical end. All people of a certain race or ethinicity should walk in lockstep groupthink and never part from her lest s/he be accused as a sell-out. If you do not mean that - I would suggest rethinking what you wrote about her. Say what you want about her - but a sell-out - or a coward - she is not - unlike so many who subscribe to the belief that to break ranks in a very real way is too much for them to bear.

By contrast, McGreevey - this self-described "gay American" got caught having sex with a piece of ass he hired and put up in apartments, six-figure jobs, etc. while married to his second wife with kids, etc. I don't need to tell the whole story. He plays into the worst, most base gay stereotypes and thinks he's some sort of martyr. He's a disgrace - and mostly to the gay individuals who come out not because they are backed into corner and not after 20 years of betraying their families and their "personal truth" as a means to indulging every personal whim.

GCL - I get the feeling that in a quest to be even-handed about what you say you draw parallels that even you must, once in a while, whince at these types of posts. Your other posts are too insightful - it's like this one came from a completely different person.

James said...

Mc Greevey is an ass! Plain and simple. His so-called confession has set the gay population back even further in the eyes of the right wing. I don't envy the next gay man who runs for governor. Also, he referenced the 12-steps of recovery several times on Oprah; specifically about making amends. Well, he left the part of the statement that says you should make amends --- except when it harms other people. Aside from everything else, I don't think Dina loved to hear that he was banging Golan on their marriage bed while she was in the hospital having a C-Section. Jim - tell it to your priest and save us the aggravation.

GayConservativeLiberal said...

Berdo, thanks so much for your very thoughtful response.

The parallel I drew between Malkin and McGreevey is that they are both all too eager to separate themselves from the groups they are so obviously a part of.

Malkin has sneered on more than one occasion at the label of a "woman of color." Her defense of a morally reprehensible program of internment of naturalized Japanese American citizens screams "Hi everyone, I'm the gook you can trust."

And before I'm attacked for using the word gook, let me make it clear that I hold the same opinion of these Latino republicans who want desperately to belong to the winning team -- even at the expense of their heritage.

And I bring up the issue of heritage because I firmly believe that the Republican party is the party of rich and/or biggoted, but most importantly, WHITE Americans.

If Malkin were a lesbian she'd be all up in Anne Coulter's goodies. She's that obsessed with being something she will never be.

As it pertains to McGreevey, we can all agree that he's pretty scummy. And while he takes the cake with reckless behavior, he too is guilty of apologizing for who he is.

Bill Clinton hasn't gone on TV to talk about every last tryst he's had (Lord, we'd still be glued to the set if that were the case). McGreevey, however, feels the need to bring homosexuality to the forefront of the American debate by exposing his own experience as a gay man.

"Hey, we (gay people) make mistakes, we're human. Forgive us and accept us."

No, not really.

My post on Malkin and McGreevey is centered on the premise that both of them belong to minority groups and they are both appologetic and ashamed of it. Their actions speak loudly to that.

Berdo said...


I can not believe these words are coming from you of all people. I will take time to respond to this - even with the understanding that you probably have to move on and will not be revisiting the topic.

The parallel you draw between Malkin (a controversial but brave woman who has never said or done anything to suggest she is ashamed of who/what she is) and McGreevey (a liar, a coward, a sexual harasser and a delusional jerk who thinks he's a martyr for abusing power in virtually every way someone can) is the result of so much tortured logic and predisposed bias.

Malkin's issue has always been with people who have made her race, rather than her arguments, their primary focus. She is proudly filipino, regularly reminds people of her background. I couldn't be more bothered by her defense of internment - but it's your bias - not her words - that have led you to believe that she believes in internment in the services of an "I'm the gook you can trust." She took a position that virtually nobody - Republican or Democrat -would agree with. Who's trust is she looking to gain?

With your comment about Latinos who betray their heritage to be on the winning team is so rife only reveals your obvious belief that anyone who thinks for themselves in a way you don't approve of is a traitor to their heritage. Until this post - I would hever have pegged you as someone so myopic and, yes, spiteful, as to hold to an anti-intellectual canard like that one. People who break ranks and take unpopular opinions are neither heroes nor traitors. They are individuals - who do, however, exhibit more critical thinking skills and bravery than most of those who walk in lockstep with "their heritage" without ever thinking for themselves.

Your comment about Republicans are gross. Do you want me to run down the list of RICH WHITE MALES in the Democratic party? John Kerry? Ted Kennedy? Bill Clinton? Ned Lamont? Virtually all of Hollywood? The idea that rich white males reside more prominently on the right is a modern fabrication. And given that people like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (anti-semites) and Robert Byrd (former KKK Grand Wizard) and countless other proudly identify themselves as liberals (as well as the people who call Michelle Malkin an Aunt Thomasina and a "coconut") should maybe think your popular but false stereotypes. I identify with neither party - so maybe it's easier for me to call a spade a spade and leave partisan bullshit out of the mix.

You said: "My post on Malkin and McGreevey is centered on the premise that both of them belong to minority groups and they are both appologetic and ashamed of it. Their actions speak loudly to that."

Name one time Michelle Malkin, or ever Latin conservative you smeared with your thoughtless broad generalization, ever apologized for what they are or expressed shame. And name one thing they ever did to be discussed alongside with someone who had expressed shame, disgraced his office, betrayed his wife and kids, and forced himself in a fit of power on the men who work for him.

GayConservativeLiberal said...


Awesome post...your thoughtfulness is refreshing.

Let me address the last paragraph in your comment:

"Name one time Michelle Malkin, or ever Latin conservative you smeared with your thoughtless broad generalization, ever apologized for what they are or expressed shame."

My answer: By supporting internment, by filming herself at a fast food joint in Philadelphia that refuses service to non-English-speaking patrons,


Malkin is not only taking an unpopular point of view, she's espousing the point of view that disses her own immigrant heritage.

Now, on to your argument about McGreevey:

"And name one thing they ever did to be discussed alongside with someone who had expressed shame, disgraced his office, betrayed his wife and kids, and forced himself in a fit of power on the men who work for him."

I don't think McGreevey forced himself on anyone. And if he did, the "victim" was all too eager to be victimized since he moved to the US from Israel to work for McGreevey. That said, McGreevey and Malkin are two peas in a pod --McGreevey is denigrating the gay community with his sordid confessions; Malkin is championing racist political agendas in spite of her own heritage as a woman of color.

Get it?

gay person of color said...

I agree with you wholeheartedly, and I am glad you wrote what you wrote. I don't know why it is, and I am sure there is a complex history behind it, but it seems to me that a lot of Filipinos try to "whiten" themselves not only in America and other white countries but also in the Philippines. It is a bizarre phenomenon that merits much more analysis than I am giving it here, but on a very simple level the situation is just an extension of the global notion that lighter is better. Michelle Malkin is a personification of this idea in so many ways.

Berdo said...


You’re awesome. Don’t let me tone impart that I think otherwise. This the only blog I have even paid attention to (aside from Andrew Sullivan) in a long time.

I am sorry – but your argument still doesn’t hold water – to say nothing of the rest of my post that remains unanswered. I don’t like Michelle Malkin’s extreme positions – but her point is that an immigrant must go through the necessary stages to obtain citizenship and is under an obligation – to some degree- to assimilate to the land they choose. On a sidenote, I remember my grandmother getting charged huge amounts of money to have a car take her to the doctor on the few occasions when a member of our family could not do it. On the flipside, under current regulations, an immigrant would get that car FREE. So, a citizen pays. But someone who enters this country illegally and doesn’t pay taxes is given more. What do you think that says to all the people who enter this country LEGALLY and gain citizenship? Mark Steyn recently remarked that there is a new wave of thought that the land must assimilate to the person. This can not be done – nor should it be expected.

Meanwhile, even if you could make the argument that she is dissing immigrants – you could not make the argument that she is singling out her own heritage anymore than anyone else’s. I still don’t understand why you think the examples you give support that contention.

There is an inherent degree of “forcing” yourself on someone when you are far more powerful, and, in fact, the EMPLOYER of the person you are hitting on. The employee has to consider what will happen to his/her job if they refuse the advances. So whatever Golan liked or disliked (the guy comes off like a sleaze) it is McGreevey who came on to him – had the power to either create a sexual relationship or nor – and who provided money and power to Golan in return for submitting his body to him.

Sorry. Don't got it.