Speaking of the crazy; the bookers at NBC have decided that we haven't lived through enough outrage and crazy, so they decided to book Michelle Malkin with Matt Lauer today. Is it a slow news week or something? Did anything happen that made Malkin worthy of a national platform after the venom she has spewed over the past years. Lauer was clearly over his head on this, which is outrageous in itself. The man has years of experience as a reporter before he became a fluff morning host, so my only conclusion about his paralysis in the face of Malkin is that he is too wedded to the lifestyle that the paycheck brings to rock the boat much. They acted like he was gonna take her apart, but he hardly got a word in edgewise, and as she spewed lies and attacked President and Michelle Obama he didn't demand proof. So, once again NBC has given Malkin a platform to float lies into the American psyche basically unchallenged.
Racial Opportunist, my foot!! Look in the mirror Michelle! Who wrote a book about the internment camps being a GOOD thing? Who had the book challenged by "The Historians' Committee for Fairness," who said that it had not been peer reviewed, and that it's central thesis was ...er...false! On and on....a quick look at Wikipedia would have given them all of the information they needed!
Maybe she has a book out but I'm sure that many KKK members have "books" out as well. Just because she wrote a book, it doesn't mean that what is in it is true. And for some reason, the research department didn't prepare Matt to even question the claims that Malkin made. Just the cover alone is a tip off that its a backwards day book. She takes everything that the Bush administration was accused of, with evidence, and restated it without evidence....hmmmm...and Matt had little to say about this; NBC seems to think this is a ratings getter. I say no, its not! Stop booking crap or I'm going to boycott your sponsors. I already am boycotting Starbucks for giving Morning Joe 10 mil as a representative of what Starbucks stands for? huh? In that case I will avoid Starbucks totally and encourage my friends to do so (more on Joe at a later date.) I love Maddow and Olbermann on MSNBC, but this void in the morning between the fluff and the Joe is really difficult to parse. Keep the fluff fluffy if you must! keep the idiot Joe in a janitor closet and give Larry O'donnell his spor, or better, Sam Seder and Marc Maron! If you cant even properly research and interview the crazies, don't have them on in the morning...or invite Rachel to do the interview!!...now, that would be news and ratings! Even just someone who knows something would be preferable to this.
I, for one, am going to let republican Today Producer Steve Capus as well as the Head of NBC News, Jim Bell, know that I don't want this type of fringe character on the morning show, or any of the shows that I watch on their network. Her booking is nothing more than a silly stab at ratings, because men seem to like her looks, and they are hoping for some sparks to fly with Matt . It didn't happen and I wonder why he isn't tired of this. It was pathetic, and the fringe Malkin crowd feel like she "owned" him because he didn't challenge her insane claims. Oh well.....
She's vile, weak, and lacking substance or insight. Dave Neiwert dissected her "scholarship" on internment camps, and after her crusade against Graeme Frost, she should be shunned.
There's a long list of people I simply won't listen to anymore. They've demonstrated they're crazy and dangerous; that's all anyone should need to know. When she appeared, I turned off the TV.
On a related note: when John Bolton was on The Daily Show last night, I didn't shut off the program, but it was really close.
You consider Wikipedia definitive and ACCURATE?? My oh my!!
The article on Malkin is definitively BIASED! It may be accurate. I can't judge that, but given the tone I dismiss the rest.
In general, I find the "facts" contained in Wikipedia articles to be "questionable" at best. At least those articles about subjects I know well are more wrong than right. So statistically, I must assume that ALL [or to be charitable, most!] articles are wrong... My challenge is to know the difference.
People are angry and they are looking for an outlet....and the men like her lips and want her to give them a b-j. She is all full of lies and less fact checked than coulter, if thats possible... why dont you do a review of it Barry...Im sure youve read it, tho I don't know what you have to be angry or racist about.... she literally takes the proven claims about the Bush administration and flips them back on Obama...and of course, she is a self hating racist herself...so, I dont knwo what to make of it, except that the folks who can afford computers and to use Amazon are buying her book. There are probably KKK screeds on the internet that are as well read...Ted Kazinsky had something like that out there I think. I dont see what her point of view is constructed to help...I don't sse how anyone can say that the last 8 years were better than anywhere that we are heading. If we're going into debt, why not do it on health care rather than war?
Some rights of this page's plain text stuffs are reserved for the author.
The opinions expressed herein are solely those of the authors of said opinions, and do not in any way represent the opinions of other contributors.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
On a related note: when John Bolton was on The Daily Show last night, I didn't shut off the program, but it was really close.
Don't stop with your posings and posturings, your slimy excretions; my schadenfreude is better than a shot of steamed milk in your cappuccino.
And, keep watching those polls, you socialist freaks. Keep watching.
The article on Malkin is definitively BIASED! It may be accurate. I can't judge that, but given the tone I dismiss the rest.
In general, I find the "facts" contained in Wikipedia articles to be "questionable" at best. At least those articles about subjects I know well are more wrong than right. So statistically, I must assume that ALL [or to be charitable, most!] articles are wrong... My challenge is to know the difference.
She is all full of lies and less fact checked than coulter, if thats possible...
why dont you do a review of it Barry...Im sure youve read it, tho I don't know what you have to be angry or racist about....
she literally takes the proven claims about the Bush administration and flips them back on Obama...and of course, she is a self hating racist herself...so, I dont knwo what to make of it, except that the folks who can afford computers and to use Amazon are buying her book.
There are probably KKK screeds on the internet that are as well read...Ted Kazinsky had something like that out there I think.
I dont see what her point of view is constructed to help...I don't sse how anyone can say that the last 8 years were better than anywhere that we are heading.
If we're going into debt, why not do it on health care rather than war?