Of all the dumb-ass things Michelle Malkin has ever written (and she does it deliberately) this is the one that got me mad:
Sorry, but Melinda Gates? She marries the software mogul after he has done his greatest work...and that makes her a co-person of the year?
Melinda Gates is more than worthy. She gave humanity to a man who needed it desperately. And in turn she is shaming the rest of us into action (well, those of us with hearts and brains).
What struck me most in Times' cover story is how old Bill looks. He's younger than I am, for gosh sakes! (Oh, right.) His face is lined, his neck is stretched. Only a few pictures showed anything different -- those where he was looking at his wife.
Bill married Melinda rather late. He was 39. It was the year his mom, Mary, passed away. Melinda was a product manager at the company. He was ready. What she saw in the shuffling geek I don't know. It wasn't the money.
Melinda changed Bill into someone Mary would be proud of. She's as bright as he is, but she brought a new perspective to Bill's life, and a moral imperative he had avoided for years. She gave him back his humility, she took him out of his mind and into his heart, a place many geniuses never get to go.
Now look at them. Look closely at the work they're doing, and how they're going about it. He's got a passion in him now I last saw in the early 1980s, when he was still going to Comdex without an entourage, walking into John Dvorak's parties unannounced, eyes alight, reedy voice pitched high.
Only this is a different energy. It's a reflected energy. It's a mature energy. He's a grown up, which is a very good thing for someone to be.
And it's all due to Melinda. Without her, I don't know what he'd be. Crazy, maybe. Melinda took Bill Gates out of himself, out of his own smallish conception of himself (the businessman, the geek, the kid, the paranoid, the striver) and she made a man out of him. She showed him how to care, and how to do something with that caring, and she made a man of him.
It could have turned out differently. She could have been as consumed by business as he was. She could have been flighty. She could have been Courtney Love or (god forbid) Michelle Malkin, a self-hating egotistical toady. No one knows who they're going to marry until long after they've done it. You can control a lot in life, but who you're married to, not so much.(I've been lucky too, Bill, only for 28 years as of tomorrow, so there.)
For my money you can take Bill and Bono out of the picture entirely if you like.
Melinda Gates deserves to stand alone as Woman of the Year.
I really don't think Bill would object.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business journalist for over 25 years and has covered the online world professionally since 1985. He founded the "Interactive Age Daily" for CMP Media, and has written for the Chicago Tribune, Advertising Age, and dozens of other publications over the years.
1. Brad Hutchings on December 23, 2005 01:00 AM writes...
Let's see... Bald middle-aged white guy calls young, Asian American woman a "self-hating egotistical toady". Multiple choice question:
(A) Sexist
(B) Rascist
(C) All of the above
In true liberal tradition, there are no wrong answers.
Now, shouldn't we all resolve to just respond to the main point people are making rather than taking things out of context to make cheap personal attacks? Like Michelle's point that Time's POTY (and honorable mentions) is more appropriate to People magazine than the wannabe news magazine of record?
Permalink to Comment2. Brad Hutchings on December 23, 2005 01:06 AM writes...
I'm sorry, I forgot to paste in a link to a very recent post Michelle made about the "self-hating" minority meme. What a poor choice of words Dana. I really feel bad for you for not knowing how bigotted that phrase is.
Permalink to Comment3. Rich Westerfield on December 23, 2005 01:31 PM writes...
Time has been doing this for years. It sells copies. They're a business. And no, it's not People. There's a big difference between celebrating Melinda vs. Eva Longoria or Katie Holmes.
I doubt Dana had any racist or sexist intent. But he probably would've been better served just calling Michele Malkin what she is, an ass.
Malkin is to editorial journalism what Madonna is to pop music. It sells, but it's all contrived bullshit that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. There's no 'there' there. Actually, Courtney Love might be the better analogy - Coulter was Madonna, so Malkin is the pale comparison.
Give me O'Reilly. Hell, give me Rush. In addition to being better informed, both have managed to retain at least some humanity.
Amazing what some people will do to make a name for themselves.
Permalink to Comment4. Nate on December 23, 2005 02:29 PM writes...
I have to agree that the start her blog entry here is real bad. And I don't really see how it could be taken out of context; the afforementioned quote is pretty obvious a derision in its full context.
Michelle's adoration of Bill Gates is a topic in its own right, but it's mighty unfair of her to express it by bashing his wife.
Permalink to Comment5. Brad Hutchings on December 23, 2005 04:17 PM writes...
You are very kind in your interpretation, Rich. But honestly, I have never heard "self-hating" used to mean anything other of working against the interests of one's (assumed) group, usually religious or racial. Googling for it right now, I see the first three pages with references to self-hating Jews (those who oppose Israel), self-hating Democrats (those who oppose the most liberal agenda), self-hating blacks (those who don't line up with Jesse Jackson), etc. Not one reference to someone who just literally has a low self-worth (i.e. hates himself).
Actually, the first time I heard the term was in college when my friend whose last name is Nguyen was running for a student government seat was was accused of being a "self-hating banana" (yellow on the outside, white on the inside) by the Asian Pacific Student Union when he went to give a candidacy speech to them. It is a profoundly hateful term with very little other context or historical usage.
But as I said above, I think Dana's word choice was most unfortunate, and would certainly give him the benefit of the doubt if he would just own what he inadvertently said and apologize. You know, in the ugly game that is racial politics, it's one thing for a member of a minority to call out someone in his group for not towing the line. It's quite another when a cracker, I'm sorry, that didn't come out quite right, a member of the majority racial group does that in reference to a member of a minority racial group.
Merry Christmas all!
Permalink to Comment6. Barry Benjamin on December 30, 2005 03:37 PM writes...
Season's Greetings to all!
Permalink to CommentIf that is to politically correct, Oh Well!
What difference does Dana's opinion mean? We all have them, right?
I guess in my opinion Melinda Gates's opinion counts somewhat more that Dana's or yours or mine. She is the one helping to decide where billions of dollars will be spent.
I guess also the President's opinion counts, too. I am talking about any of our Presidents. Bush, Clinton, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Washington, Jefferson.....
One of you was talking about a choice of words and I thought to myself how does that person know why someone chooses the exact words to use at any particular time? Do people really get upset over the way someone chooses words when they are giving thier opinion? I can see where it can make a big difference if someone was stating a fact in a deposition, but in this case I believe it is just for the sake of conversation. Kind of like what the magazines do when they print a story. It sells magazines! I am not sure anyone's conversation here sells anything.
7. Sam. K on January 31, 2006 05:10 PM writes...
I am impressed with this page...setup really nice. Doesn't take forever to load pics, like mine... Very impressive.. http://mask.ziarc.com
Permalink to Comment