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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I see you started reading Fahrenheit 451, very nice. The "challenge" link is broken, by the way...
ReplyDeleteYou started reading Farenheit? It was actually one of the books I'd put away mentally to recommend to you :)
ReplyDeleteI 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
Mottel: That was my point: they throw around big names but don't give any real heavy weight.
ReplyDeleteAt 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteMore non-experts pretending they know something.
ReplyDeleteI 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
ReplyDeleteUnless one day Chelsea decides to run for prez...
ReplyDeleteUnless you think of this as hashgacha pratis Ester Hamalka in reverse kind of thing.
ReplyDeleteyossi: care to share your reasoning?
ReplyDeletejust a ton wealthier, that's all. the guy she married was a gazillionaire. he had more money than the trump name.
ReplyDeleteI 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
i didn't read your links. what do they basically say?
ReplyDeleterich 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
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"chit chatting" is your cortona. I just made up that word :)
ReplyDelete"Cortona" is your cortona.
ReplyDelete