See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #101
   On March 24th, 2009 at 8:06 am, CW4_KGP said:

   Well, with apologies to William (#66), I lifted his post, and added a few additional words, and fired one off to the AP (info AT ap DOT org) like this…

   With regards to your recent story about the fatal aircraft crash in Montana, wherein you describe the destination as one for the “ultra rich”, can you clarify that?

   Does the AP mean “ultra rich” as in Barbara Streisand, Oprah, the Dixie Chicks, Snoop Dog (or Dawg), John Stewart, David Letterman, Keith Olberman, Jane Maddow, Chris Matthews, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, George Sorros, Sean Penn, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, a host of politicians, and music and entertainment industry members, actors, producers, directors, “rappers,” and others?

   When the AP uses the word “ultra rich” do they include Hillary Rodham Clinton, William Jefferson Clinton, Ted Kennedy, and, John Kerry, Barrack Obama and his wife, Michelle Obama?

   I find your use of the term offensive and inappropriate. This is the sort of class warfare journalism that does not help Michelle Obama’s children, nor anyone else. It serves no valid purpose other than to allow people to say “Ha….ultra rich, huh? They got what they deserved.”

   AP used to represent the gold standard for reporting. Now, based on your reporting of the past 8 or so years, I must conclude that it has been the iron pyrite standard. Yes, Fools’ Gold. I do not need an assayer or chemist to prove it. You do it daily with your slanted, biased coverage.

2. #102
   On March 24th, 2009 at 8:09 am, conservativesRus said:

   bluesoc: I wasn’t aware that “taking a shot” at AP for their slanted “reporting” was political at all.
   Are you suggesting that asking the following questions was somehow out of line?

   Was the reference to the “ultrarich” retreat necessary? What is the relevance of how much it costs to stay at the ski resort the families were headed to — and why does it belong in the lede?

3. #103
   On March 24th, 2009 at 8:10 am, ajmontana said:

   EaRtHqUaKeS!!!!!!!!
   Nice way to wake up, a 4.7 and followed by a 3.0 in So. Cal this morning…. yeah the Ultrarich part so don’t fret AP if anyone was hurt.

4. #104
   On March 24th, 2009 at 8:22 am, conservativesRus said:

   Just so I know – what’s the definition of “ultrarich”?
   Is it defined only in terms of money? How about those who are financially well off but miserable?
   What about those who don’t have quite as much money but have complete contentment in life?

5. #105
   On March 24th, 2009 at 8:33 am, jangar said:

   On March 24th, 2009 at 6:36 am, conservativesRus said:
   Over the weekend, people were taking bus trips to protest in front of AIG employee homes.

   
   We The People should be taking bus trips to the homes of the constitution killers…and not little workers at AIG.

   On March 24th, 2009 at 7:34 am, bluesoc said:

   The only reason you are criticizing lgm and not MM is because you agree with her politics and disagree with his.

   That might be part of it, but for me it’s more about not making a lick of sense 99% of the time.

6. #106
   On March 24th, 2009 at 8:55 am, gunslingerpatriot said:

   Why should this type of reporting suprise anyone, and with just a cursory glance at what passes for journalism today you can see a clear agenda if you connect the dots.

   If I recall the msm did a simuliar job to the Duke Lax case several years ago and inferred that the players were “rich white boys” because some of their parents owned houses near a golf course and they played a sport that is considered sterotypically played by white athletes.

   If it fits a general narrative of class/race/sexual orientation/gender/ religious minority as perpeptual victim, then it can be counted on that this will be the perspective that a story will be framed in. Anything else, a story will be judged as unworthy to printed.

   GSP
   “This is Sparta!”

7. #107
   On March 24th, 2009 at 9:00 am, Jet Jaguar said:

   On March 24th, 2009 at 7:34 am, bluesoc said:

   ……..

   The only reason you are criticizing lgm and not MM is because you agree with her politics and disagree with his.

   Most of us here do indeed agree w/Michelle’s views and disagree w/lgm’s, but that’s NOT why we criticize him. lgm is like the Keith Olbermann of blogspace. I hope you don’t see that analogy as a positive.

8. #108
   On March 24th, 2009 at 9:01 am, bansharia said:

   dead thread dead blog

9. #109
   On March 24th, 2009 at 9:02 am, jangar said:

   On March 24th, 2009 at 8:55 am, gunslingerpatriot said:

   Don’t forget those who waste Gia’s precious resources and cause global warming…anti-greenies who fly on private planes.

10. #110
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:08 am, gunslingerpatriot said:

    jangar-
    Thanks and I forgot about the Gai devotee’s worship of motherearth, global warming, gore-hypocracy, her magesty queens pelosi/barney frankenstein.

    GSP
    “This is Sparta!”

11. #111
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:08 am, lottadawg said:

    Well now I would like to point out a couple of things.
    1. Yes I know anything cannot be posted according to terms the wonderful Michelle has mandated. A class act too.
    2 I read the names people called lgm and only said that I did not agree with two of them. I still don’t think he is stupid,as he threw a liberal bomb and a lot of people bit. I pretty well agree with most of the other names.
    3 Matthew Brown has a lot of class and it is all very, very, low.

12. #112
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:08 am, chapoutier said:

    Gia’s

    It’s “Gaia“. not Gia.

    Gia, for what its worth, is a movie starring Angelina Jolie, where she is very naked. Not that I’ve seen it many manny times or anything. That’s just what I have heard.

13. #113
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:11 am, sonofdy said:

    I think what we have learned here today is that the AP doesn’t like the ultra rich and that I have to see Gia. Many times. For informational purposes only of course.

14. #114
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:11 am, jangar said:

    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:08 am, chapoutier said:

    Thanks…sounds fun.

15. #115
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:15 am, ThatSamIAm said:

    Socialist liberal agenda. Keep a continual divide among races and economic classes. They desire to build and grow animosity in hopes of creating hate. Socialists progressive liberal democrats feed off of hate. They thrive on it. They profit from it. They maintain power through it.

16. #116
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:26 am, GraniteMan said:

    It is sad to see our great country engaging in class warfare. There is a truth that must be taught our childen that money is not the source of happiness. It is LIFE! Thank God.

17. #117
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:29 am, wighttrasch said:

    Why was it also important to note their religious leanings?

18. #118
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:31 am, wighttrasch said:

    oops; my bad–that was from a more local paper…

19. #119
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:34 am, wighttrasch said:

    aj–do you live in the Palm Desert area?

20. #120
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:36 am, bodotdot said:

    NBC’s report on the Today Show felt it important to call it a “millionaire’s-only” retreat.

21. #121
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:48 am, englishqueen01 said:

    My son is 2 – the same age as the youngest victim of this crash.

    Why did those kids – or their parents – “deserve” to die for being wealthy? Is this now the acceptable course of action against the “evil” rich and, if so, how can a toddler be “evil” because his parents made prudent decisiosn regarding their education, career, and finances in order to provide him with a better life?

    Because that’s the implication here. These “ultrarich” people deserved to snuff it because they had money. It is now only a tragedy when certain, media-approved people die, apparently.

    Me? I think about what it was like on that plane, moments before the crash, where the parents looked at their young children – who were probably scared – and knew this was the end. How terrifying. How heartbreaking. As a parent, there is no situation that frightens me more than not being able to save my child from death.

    How dare anyone – from the MSM to liberal commenters here – imply that those people deserved to die for their money.

    You want to be rich? Get off your duffs and work. Don’t try to knock these people down a peg or two to make you feel better about not having what they did.

22. #122
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:51 am, wighttrasch said:

    A tar-paper shack with a 62″ TV. Now you’re ready for class envy…

23. #123
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:52 am, chapoutier said:

    EQ,

    I think the reference to “ultrarich” was at best gratuitous and definetly comes off as callous and snide.

    But…I think it takes it wayyy too far to say that anyone, AP writer or any commenter here, thinks these people deserved to die.

24. #124
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:58 am, JT said:

    Chap,

    Jolie is naked often in that movie. And I must say she is very, very delicious.

    I think she also captured Gia very well.

25. #125
    On March 24th, 2009 at 10:00 am, JT said:

    And Mike Brown certainly has some issues.

26. #126
    On March 24th, 2009 at 10:02 am, chapoutier said:

    And Mike Brown certainly has some issues.

    Yes, yes he did. But I think you mean Matthew Brown.

27. #127
    On March 24th, 2009 at 10:02 am, rjd27 said:

    So far as the AP is concerned, how much wealth is “ultrarich”? Just because this family was on a private jet? Does that mean Al Gore and Hollywood celebs are also “ultrarich”? I am quite sure the AP didn’t classify Natasha Richardson as “ultrarich” or her husband, Liam Neeson, in the stories on her death.

28. #128
    On March 24th, 2009 at 10:09 am, max said:

    Editor should be fired. period.
    assholes.

29. #129
    On March 24th, 2009 at 10:22 am, englishqueen01 said:

    But…I think it takes it wayyy too far to say that anyone, AP writer or any commenter here, thinks these people deserved to die.

    I don’t, because when you say they were on a trip for the “ultrarich” or going to a “millionares only retreat” (as the Today show reportedly said), especially in the wake of AIG bonus death-threats and government outrage and economic downturn, the agenda is clear: it’s meant to foster anger against these people for going on a nice vacation on the midst of a recession.

    There is no other explanation for using the terms “ultrarich” or “millionaires-only” in stories about this, otherwise. Of course, the MSM forgets that rich people die just like the rest of us. They aren’t immortal.

30. #130
    On March 24th, 2009 at 10:27 am, JT said:

    Yeah Matt Brown.

31. #131
    On March 24th, 2009 at 10:58 am, DBNinKY said:

    “…it’s meant to foster anger against these people for going on a nice vacation on the midst of a recession.”

    Now, now, EQ: disagree w/ Chap and he’ll label you “disingenuous.” (Yesterday, he labeled practically everybody on the board w/ some similar adjective!)

    BTW, I think you’re right – the media is fostering antipathy towards the upper class to play-off people’s fears and promote the Democrats-Obama administrations unequaled spending.

32. #132
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:02 am, chapoutier said:

    Now, now, EQ: disagree w/ Chap and he’ll label you “disingenuous.” (Yesterday, he labeled practically everybody on the board w/ some similar adjective!)

    Hardly true. I have never considered EQ disingenuous, though I do not think she is right here.

    And I only labeled 2 people as such yesterday, and only one of them for the first time. That is a pretty good day for me, or the board, depending on your point of view.

33. #133
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:07 am, bluesoc said:

    conservativesRus said:

    bluesoc: I wasn’t aware that “taking a shot” at AP for their slanted “reporting” was political at all.
    Are you suggesting that asking the following questions was somehow out of line?

    As I stated in my last post, I’m not criticizing Michelle’s opinion on this. I think she’s right. The AP’s wording was out of line.

    However, someone criticized lgm for bringing politics into this – essentially accusing him of taking advantage of a tragedy for political reasons. I was simply pointing out that MM is doing a similar thing.

    I don’t think it’s a secret that MM does not like the AP and thinks it has a liberal bias. She is using the story of a plane crash as an opportunity to point out such bias. That is political. If there was no political motivation, she would not have even mentioned the AP.

34. #134
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:10 am, DBNinKY said:

    And I only labeled 2 people as such yesterday, and only one of them for the first time.

    You used some unsavory terms yesterday to describe the cognitive abilities of some of the posters here. The “R” word being the one that really stands out.

35. #135
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:14 am, DBNinKY said:

    Hardly true.

    “Hardly true”…you mean as in “disingenuous?”

36. #136
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:17 am, MarcoPolo said:

    I don’t think it’s a secret that MM does not like the AP and thinks it has a liberal bias. She is using the story of a plane crash as an opportunity to point out such bias. That is political. If there was no political motivation, she would not have even mentioned the AP.

    She is using the example to reinforce her contention.

37. #137
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:19 am, chapoutier said:

    You used some unsavory terms yesterday to describe the cognitive abilities of some of the posters here. The “R” word being the one that really stands out.

    Just one of the posters, and yeah…that was uncalled for. But in my defense that poster clearly had no idea what he was talking about and when presented with refuting facts, resorted making ridiculous claims about me being a racist because I pointed out the fact that very very few black owned businesses or businesses that poor black people solicit, would be subject to a tax.

    So…in summary…I guess there are a handful of people on here that deserve the use of certain, stronger terms. Alas, the TOS prohibit me and I end up resorting to other words I probably should not use. But I don’t regret the sentiment.

38. #138
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:20 am, chapoutier said:

    “Hardly true”…you mean as in “disingenuous?”

    Misinformed.

39. #139
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:20 am, max said:

    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:17 am, MarcoPolo said:

    She is using the example to reinforce her contention.

    and quite successfully i might add… this is a political blogsite…

40. #140
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:22 am, DBNinKY said:

    Misinformed.

    Sure…whatever.

41. #141
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:24 am, NJ-Aviator said:

    BUTTE, Mont. (AP) – Three California families headed to a retreat for the ultrarich were among the 14 victims of a plane crash in Montana.

    I wonder if they’d open with that line if the ultra-rich happened to the Clinton’s, the Gore’s and the Soro’s ????

    Probably not.

42. #142
    On March 24th, 2009 at 11:25 am, chapoutier said:

    Dude… What is your issue? I have no beef with you.

    Anyway, drop it on this thread at least.

43. #143
    On March 24th, 2009 at 12:30 pm, corkie said:

    On March 23rd, 2009 at 6:50 pm, zyzzyg said:

    Who is going to take the nationaly syndicated radio host that called the Obamas ‘trash’ to task?

    On March 24th, 2009 at 7:34 am, bluesoc said:

    The only reason you are criticizing lgm and not MM is because you agree with her politics and disagree with his.

    I doubt the AP wants you comparing it to political blogs or political radio hosts.

    However, it’s probably a fair comparison.

44. #144
    On March 24th, 2009 at 1:08 pm, bluesoc said:

    I doubt the AP wants you comparing it to political blogs or political radio hosts.

    However, it’s probably a fair comparison.

    I compared her to lgm, not the AP.

45. #145
    On March 24th, 2009 at 1:23 pm, corkie said:

    On March 24th, 2009 at 1:08 pm, bluesoc said:

    I compared her to lgm, not the AP.

    I’ll walk you through this slowly.

    By your own admission you compared;

    MM’s criticism of the AP to

    lgm’s criticism of MM.

    Notice that the two entities being criticized are the AP and MM.

    Therefore, you were comparing MM to the AP.

46. #146
    On March 24th, 2009 at 1:39 pm, scott said:

    The SF Chronicle had to also use the class warfare tactic.

    Five members of a St. Helena family headed for a ritzy ski vacation

    But, at least many of the comments called them on it.

47. #147
    On March 24th, 2009 at 2:25 pm, ammo john said:

    Wasn’t that a ski resort for the ultrarich and super-celebrities that Natasha Richardson received her fatal injury? I guess for the MSM, Hollywood elitism isn’t near as bad as little rich elementary kids.

48. #148
    On March 24th, 2009 at 2:57 pm, bluesoc said:

    I’ll walk you through this slowly.

    By your own admission you compared;

    MM’s criticism of the AP to

    lgm’s criticism of MM.

    Notice that the two entities being criticized are the AP and MM.

    Therefore, you were comparing MM to the AP.

    You’ll have to do it really slowly because it’s not logically sound. I was comparing the nature of the criticisms, not what those criticisms were critiquing.

    For instance:

    - I’m criticizing you through the use of logic
    - Conservatives criticize liberals through the use of logic

    Am I comparing you to a liberal?

49. #149
    On March 24th, 2009 at 3:07 pm, corkie said:

    The subject of criticism was unarguably germane in your comparison.

    It is made no less germane by your use of an example in which the subject of comparison is not germane.

50. #150
    On March 24th, 2009 at 3:15 pm, bluesoc said:

    The subject of criticism was unarguably germane in your comparison.

    It is made no less germane by your use of an example in which the subject of comparison is not germane.

    Could you explain that further? I’m not sure what “subject” refers to.

51. #151
    On March 24th, 2009 at 3:56 pm, corkie said:

    The AP was MM’s subject of criticism.

    MM was lgm’s subject of criticism BECAUSE of her criticism of the AP.

    Then, you criticized socky for differentiating between MM and lgm.

    You claimed that socky ONLY differentiated between MM and lgm because he agreed with one’s politics and not the other.

    Your claim is preposterous on many levels.

    MM wasn’t politicizing a tragedy. MM was politicizing the fact that AP politicized a tragedy. Certainly you understand the difference.

    Furthermore, MM has NEVER claimed to be a non-politicizing source of information. Therefore, she should be judged upon a different set of criteria as the AP (unless of course the AP wants to be judged as a partisan source of information).

    Get it yet?

52. #152
    On March 24th, 2009 at 4:14 pm, bluesoc said:

    MM wasn’t politicizing a tragedy.

    If she wasn’t politicizing a tragedy then she should have differentiated between her coverage of the tragedy and of the AP article. She intertwined the two and used facts from the tragedy to show just how bad the AP is.

    Furthermore, MM has NEVER claimed to be a non-politicizing source of information.

    I didn’t claim otherwise. That’s why I only compared her to lgm and not the AP. I still don’t think your claim about me comparing her to the AP is sound. It simply does not follow logically and is merely something you read into my comments which is not there.

53. #153
    On March 24th, 2009 at 5:06 pm, corkie said:

    …she should have differentiated between her coverage of the tragedy…

    She didn’t provide coverage of the tragedy. She was only covering AP’s coverage of the tragedy. Information about the tragedy itself was merely provided as context. You have no argument here.

    You criticized socky’s comments. You had no basis for doing so unless you think lgm’s comparison of MM to AP was appropriate.

    Now, if you admit that you had no basis to criticize socky, then I will gladly back down.

    However, if you continue to believe that your criticism of socky is appropriate, then you must admit that you are sanctioning lgm’s comparison of MM and the AP.

54. #154
    On March 24th, 2009 at 5:42 pm, bluesoc said:

    Information about the tragedy itself was merely provided as context. You have no argument here.

    Context for what, exactly? She quoted three different articles. That’s quite a bit of context. In fact, I’d say it borders on exploitation.

    You criticized socky’s comments. You had no basis for doing so unless you think lgm’s comparison of MM to AP was appropriate.

    First, when did he compare her to the AP? Actually, what lgm actually said is immaterial.

    Also, I’m really unclear as to why I have to agree with lgm to criticize socky. I actually agree with Michelle that the AP should not have written the story in such a way.

    Regardless, I was unaware that one must take a side in a debate in order to point out hypocrisy.

55. #155
    On March 24th, 2009 at 5:58 pm, corkie said:

    I was unaware that one must take a side in a debate in order to point out hypocrisy.

    Why do you continue to over generalize issues? This is clearly situationally dependent.

    I’m done attempting to explain this to you.

56. #156
    On March 24th, 2009 at 9:07 pm, dadinseattle said:

    Now it turns out that one of the families was owner of a profitable chain of abortion clinics and the plane crashed near the tomb of the unknown unborn.

57. #157
    On March 26th, 2009 at 4:00 am, Danceswithdachshunds said:

    Is it a sign? A plane crashes within a few feet of a cemetery prayer memorial “Tomb of the Unborn” killing the children and grandchildren of a man who paid for the trip with the riches he made from his company which has among its holdings – Family Planning Associates who performs more abortions in California than Planned Parenthood.

    http://www.gingiedmonds.com/

58. #158
    On April 9th, 2009 at 7:30 pm, Politicalguano said:

    AP is a diseased corpse. AP doesn’t have any problem with the ultrarich so long as they are Marc Rich (criminal billionaire), T Heinz, T Kennedy, G Soros, name any democRAT senator. These are the “good” ultrarich who use their wealth as a weapon to damage the poor and give nothing to actual charities. As long as one is an enemy of humanity, AP will find something nice to say about you. If you are an actual humanitarian, AP will provide a cross and nails to execute you.