Tuesday, April 22, 2008
News you can use
No. Way. She would not do that.
Yes she would!
For those of you who wonder which terrorists support which Democratic contender, Michelle Malkin has produced a handy reference card.
[Scheduled]
3 Comments:
By 
Christopher Chambers, at
Tue Apr 22, 10:08:00 PM:
I'm curious. Is this journalism, even in the broadest sense? What exactly does this add to, well, anything?
We just completed our last Daniel Pearl Project seminar class at Georgetown tonight, and--this is not a digression, will tie it in a sec--I'm still weirded out by how many lacrosse playing white frat boys there (and at U of Maryland) are running about w/Obama buttons...must be a youngster thing?--putting into practice what the kids have learned, we did discuss stuff like Malkin's ravings, etc. Compared them (and 90% of the crap on Fox) to the punditry on Al Jazeera and the conspiracy theory re: 9/11 "exposes" on Pakistani TV...and frankly no one could tell the difference. Just opposite sides of the same crusty, tarnished coin.
We can do better. So can you. Why don't you try? Well, because you don't have to. But isn't that what makes us great--doing right and good even though we don't have to? It can't all be about power and venal stuff, insouciance, ignorance...snarky gotcha attack politics, protecting powerful wallets above all, can it? ;-)
By Gary Rosen, at
Wed Apr 23, 03:37:00 AM:
"We just completed our last Daniel Pearl Project seminar"
Hey Chrissy, did your "Daniel Pearl Project Seminar" mention the fact that Islamic savages sliced off Pearl's head because he was Jewish? I'm betting not, just like the piece in the NYT magazine that somehow managed to skip the most relevant fact about Daniel Pearl's life and death.
I remember when Pearl was kidnapped, all the "smart guys" in the media (smart like Chrissy LOL) talked about how he was a "bargaining chip" and what kind of statement the kidnappers were trying to make, the poor oppressed dears. And I was telling myself, "They're going to kill him because he's Jewish". Unfortunately I was right but the pious smarmy Jew-baiters like you, Chrissy, and the MSM have never had the balls to own up. If my hunch is right about your "Daniel Pearl Project" at Georgetown (probably led by John Esposito), Chrissy, Malkin is way closer to legitimate journalism than this horseshit.
By JPMcT, at
Wed Apr 23, 07:22:00 AM:
Just a couple of valid questions about the first post:
1. How is it a "raving" to state in a public forum that a presidential candidate has friendly ties with subversive elements? Please explain? If we knew this about Jimmy Carter before he was elected, the world would be safer and the Nobel Committee would not look so foolish.
2. What EXACTLY is it about Fox News that constitutes "crap"? I always hear this about Fox news from members of the illuminati. These same enlightened ones seem to like their news heavily filtered, thus they enjoy the New York Times and MSNBC. Is unfettered truth "crap" to some people? What's the difference betweem "crap" and "ravings"? If one looks at the subscribership of the NYT and the ratings of MBNBC, it would seem to me that they could use a healthy dose of raving crap to keep themselves from bankruptcy.
Go ahead...enlighten this poor oaf...
