Why no Michelle Malkin on the list?

“I think BrianB erred in attributing malice to Malkin’s exclusion in these lists and should apologize for it”

Yuga threw the ball and I swung. So what if it’s a homer? Don’t blame the messenger. A hundred years of shallow demcoracy would make any people ethically uninclined.

Michelle Malkin is a Republican and is therefore a believer in assimilation rather than in diversity of culture in a melting pot. The moment you get that US citizenship, you are no longer what you were, Asian, African…you are an American without hyphen.

Even before her popular blog, Filipinos in the US expressed their disgust in forums to this plain looking lady who has nothing but contempt for her third world country.

I’ve known of her existence for a long time. I own a list if that qualifies as the kind of ‘list’ Abe meant, but Michelle isn’t there. Why? It’s a user-submitted list. If Michelle doesn’t want in, I couldn’t care less. If you don’t want in, fine by me! That doesn’t make you any less Filipino, or by BrianB’s scandalous contention, ‘unethical’.

BrianB may have a valid point in saying that Filipinos are generally “unethical” but the discussion is getting too off-topic and out-of-hand already. Frankly I think the insinuation that Michelle Malkin was not included in these lists because of “cliquishness” and ultimately because of Filipinos’ “lack of ethics” is quite a long stretch of imagination. I believe it’s simply because of ignorance; I think only a few local bloggers are interested enough in U.S. politics to read Malkin’s blog and know that she actually has Filipino roots. Heck, I was only aware of this issue only know and it seems Yuga only learned of it recently, as well, and to think he’s already in the loop. I think BrianB erred in attributing malice to Malkin’s exclusion in these lists and should apologize for it.

That said, if the only criteria for being called a Filipino blogger is that the blogger has significant Filipino ancestry (maybe at least 1/2?) or is a Filipino citizen, then that blogger should be classified as such and included in these lists. Malkin falls under this definition and should be included, unless she opts out.

And can anyone tell me what the heck does this mean?

“A social observation need not be general in order for it to be valid.”

You’re a funny guy. You’re like the Catholic Church. Yeah, you say you believe in freedom of speech but then you turn it around by saying people should be responsible for what they say. “Freedom with responsibility.”

Are you this kind of guy, Nick? Does your brain work this way? When I said polite, I wasn’t quoting you. You are polite. That is an accusation. Freedom of Speech doesn’t go with responsibility, Nick. No one is responsible if no one gets punished. Philippine politicians are very good examples of that.

And don’t lecture me, friend. You’re a sixty-year-old man. You don’t like what I said just say so. Don’t presume to teach me how to speak or act. And I mean it. I’d rather you make a general statement too.

Again, you can make that generalization, it doesn’t make it any more valid.

Politeness shouldn’t even be your focus with regards to the corrupt elite, because it isn’t the politeness that leads to that corruption in the first place, nor is it the extraction of that politeness that leads to the end of corruption.

Indeed, politeness is a friend to the decent, but is not needed for any social commentary.

But then again, you overlooked one thing, I didn’t say polite, I said responsibility.

Responsibility leads to credibility in social commentary, what trust can we have in your statements, when they aren’t even valid?

He, I’m not as polite as you, nor do I want to be. Politeness, if I may make another general observation, is the friend of the corrupt elite.

A social observation need not be general in order for it to be valid.

The validity of the statement comes from the statement not whether or not that person is a foreigner.

My rebuttal, as you can read, mentions nothing about who you are, but is focused on what you said.

Whether you were a foreigner or not, I take exception not on who says it, but what that person said.

Of course, there is a need for social observations, but it need not castigate the majority, in order to further your agenda.

We get it. There is corruption, there are ethical problems, there are problems even with crime, and poverty..

But these are not exclusive Filipino problems, by which your comment makes it sound to be.

This is the responsibility that we must take upon ourselves. Not self censorship, but self responsibility.

To say that we need to improve our ethics in general would be more responsible than saying that Filipinos are unethical. Both are social commentaries, only one is a responsible commentary.

BrianB, what gets on my damn nerves is people such as yourself, who must, and do, write in general terms..

describing Filipinos as unethical. And yet, if I can find just one Filipino who is ethical, your statement would already be shot down.

Indeed, it is not right for anyone, to use discriminating language in order to further their own agenda.

To say that this specific person, Malkin, is unethical, may be the correct statement, and more appropriate for this situation, but to castigate an entire race, in a commentary, it’s as if you know each and every Filipino who has ever lived.

You said: They let emotions and personal preferences get in the way of principle, policies, rules

This definition could be any person that is unruly…

Not necessarily that of a Filipino.

I’ve seen Malkin on television, and the sad thing about having neocons as bloggers, or any political extremist as pundits, is that they cannot back off even when they know they’re wrong. They have to pander to their audience’s political leanings lest they be ostracized for having a separate opinion…

sorry that’s “forced earlier in her career to face the prospect”

BrianB: hinay hinay lang. Even if you’ve had bad experiences, it still is not good to generalize.

And I think that Abe is trying to be fair by posing this entry. So… sino nga ba dapat ang kasama sa listahan?

To BE Filipino means that the person in question feel like he/she belongs to this cultural identity. I know of a handful (including Malkin) who do not really belong to that list, at least in my opinion. It’s not being cliquish. It’s just trying to identify if these people really do fit the definition of FILIPINO.

About her being omitted. Filipinos are not very ethical people. They let emotions and personal preferences get in the way of principle, policies, rules, etc. She’s a Filipino blogger definitely and should be the number one on the list.

Note: I’ve experienced this lack of appreciation for ethics by other Filipinos all my life so I know what I’m talking about. If you guys want to put up a list of Filipino Bloggers and include all bloggers of Filipino descent then you should definitely include Malkin. Who cares if she eventually mocks that list. And please stop rationalizing the omission by saying, “But she doesn’t really mingle with us pinoys. Wah, wah, wah.” For Godsakes! I’ve lives in this country my whole life and there’s nothing that pisses me off more than this cliquish attitude. Cliques are nice, by all means have a barkada but barkadas is not the be all and end all of existence. You all need to deal with other people fairly and ethically. Even if someone pisses you off. Just ask him to go out to the parking lot or something, but don’t bend the rules because you hate him. THis is uneducated, primitive behavior and believe me when I say, I SEE IT EVERY DAY.

Abe,

on a side-note, do you know if there’s been a glitch in WordPress lately? I haven’t been receiving or been able to Pingback other blogs as of late..

I know Manuel linked to this post recently, but he also doesn’t show up on the comment thread..

Caterina Fake always mentions that she is half-Filipina. She even agreed to be featured on PINOYexpats.

Michelle Malkin (at least that is what I have observed but I could be wrong) does not seem to talk much about her Filipino-ness.

Although… I have to say that what she blogs about is irrelevant of her ancestry so she does not really have to talk about being Filipino on her blog.

Oooooh. So who are these “couple more bloggers” pray tell? :)

This is like asking why “New York” or “London” or “Paris” don’t appear on the list of favorite vacation places of homeless street children in Calcutta or Manila.

@Yuga, point taken. but i don’t she’s that SEO savvy enough to do a “John Chow”.

@Paul, i beg to disagree. Yes, she is displeased but does she have to stretch it at the cost of cowering and calling us a “pitiful nation”.

I do know she is an Ann Coulter wannabe. That says everything. LOL.

Hey, having filipino/filipina parents doesn’t necessarily mean that you are one. that’s a given.

Why isn’t she on the list?!?!?

Because, in her column entitled “The Mollycoddling Milksops of Manila” (after the Philippine pull-out from Iraq when Angelo de la Cruz was held hostage), she said:

” I never thought I’d say this, but I’m deeply, mortifyingly ashamed of my parents’ native land. “

“But why isn’t she on our list?”

Because she’s a bitch.

She’s a wannabee Republican attack dog. She’s embarrassed herself so many times on TV no one invites her to guest anymore. She accused John Kerry of shooting himself during the Vietnam War without evidence — and she’s supposed to be a “journalist”.

But do put her on your list since it will obviously piss her off that she is being associated as a Filipino.

She wants nothing to do with the Philippines. This is the same woman who cats as Bill O’Reilly’s stand-in.

The only time she mentions the Philippines is when they are being ‘moonbats’ and ‘weak’ in the face of ‘Islamofascists’ (sorry but anyone who uses that word has no clue what fascism is).