Thursday, December 3, 2009

Thinking is so 80's

So Chelsea Clinton is engaged to a Jewish guy, which leads to the great questions like: Will she convert? Is this "good for the Jews"?

This article quotes all sorts of people whose "expertise" ostensibly makes their musings more relevant than other people's musings. But after all the musings, the article doesn't tell you anything you couldn't have thought up while hanging around and chit chatting with friends.

Is this the function of an article? To replace chit chatting with real people? Or should articles tell us something we didn't know before and challenge us to think?

16 comments:

  1. I see you started reading Fahrenheit 451, very nice. The "challenge" link is broken, by the way...

    ReplyDelete
  2. You started reading Farenheit? It was actually one of the books I'd put away mentally to recommend to you :)
    I love how The Highway Back To Krenitz is hyper-linked under "challenge us to think"
    Indeed.

    L'gufo shel inyan - they hardly quote intellectual, or spiritual heavyweights (Wolpe is the Conservative equivalent of Shmuely Boteach sans the Judaism.) While I'm not overly familiar with the Daily Beast on a whole, the section from which you seem to be quoting would appear to be a celebrity gossip section

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mottel: That was my point: they throw around big names but don't give any real heavy weight.

    At least celebrity gossip informs you of something: you wouldn't know what the celebrities are up to without the gossip papers. But this is just a bunch of stupid analysis from non-experts.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sarabonne: that link was supposed to take you to "http://www.eholdsforth.blogspot.com lol jk" Different browsers might handle this link differently. my current browser is just ignoring it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. More non-experts pretending they know something.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think trump's daughter marrying a Jew could be 'bigger' and have a larger effect on the 'is it good for the Jews or bad for the Jews' than chelsea clinton

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unless one day Chelsea decides to run for prez...

    ReplyDelete
  8. No question, mixed marriages are bad for the Jews.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Unless you think of this as hashgacha pratis Ester Hamalka in reverse kind of thing.

    ReplyDelete
  10. yossi: care to share your reasoning?

    ReplyDelete
  11. just a ton wealthier, that's all. the guy she married was a gazillionaire. he had more money than the trump name.
    I have not followed chelsea's career at all, but I can't see her entering politics anytime soon.
    because maybe in 15 years she'll run for pres. or something, and has a jewish husband, that's something big?
    much sooner than that we'll have more powerful Jewish politicians on stage

    ReplyDelete
  12. is a rich goy marrying a jew better than a famous goy marrying a jew?

    (Anyhow, notice that Yossi doesn't need any experts to figure this stuff out.)

    ReplyDelete
  13. i didn't read your links. what do they basically say?

    rich vs. famous... which means more power? in this case I think money. chelsea clinton? seriously, perhaps famous, but not powerful, like the a-list celebs

    ReplyDelete
  14. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "chit chatting" is your cortona. I just made up that word :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Cortona" is your cortona.

    ReplyDelete

Forth shall ye all hold.