- She has an irrational hatred of Muslims.
- She has an irrational hatred of anyone who does not possess the same irrational hatred of Muslims that she has.
- That's pretty much it.
Just looking out for you guys.
PS, if you have any doubts about the paper sucking up to the Wingers now because the Times believes they are going to be "running things" in the blogosphere after the election (whether that's true or not, it doesn't matter) the same NY Times has Ann Coulter trying to "reinvent" herself today as well.
The best part is the Times won't be able to attack the lefty blogs fast enough, either.
Great job, liberal media.
[UPDATE] Thanks to DougJ at Balloon Juice for the mention, and as Betty Cracker points out in the comments, Pammy is already attacking the piece:
As expected, the New York Times did an extraordinarily nasty and fallacious piece on me. It is full of distortions, inaccuracies and lies from beginning to end.
This of course completely assures both that Geller gets to keep her hard-core winger hate the media cred, and that the NY Times will keep devoting articles to the "balanced view" that softening her rampant Islamophobia and passing her off as a "concerned citizen" is really just a feature of our media landscape, and not a bug.
Posts
3 comments:
Geller's none too pleased with the article. She doesn't say so, but I think this is the part that pissed her off:
"Ms. Geller, 52..."
To quote E.K Hornbeck in Inherit the Wind, "Is this 'Be Kind to Bigots Week'?"
Spot on, Zandar. It reminds me a bit of Howard Kurtz' fluff piece on Malkin, where he ignored her crappy "scholarship," frequent inaccuracies and general screaming McCarthyism, but that was worse than this NYT piece. Still - they shouldn't give the bigots/assholes this brand of attention and thus legitmacy. Debunk or don't bother.
Post a Comment