Gothamist: Opinionist: Mother, Fcuked

jonathan

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 19:16:08 -0500

Right on, Michael. I am as anti-war as one can reasonably be, but Sheehan's actions are motivated by either (reckless) emotion (which is in turn exploited by those of the radical left) or political conviction that existed well before her son died, not respect to her son's memory. Keep up the good work.

Michael

Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:15:48 -0500

let's give credit where credit is due, guys. malice is a fool, but the editors printed it.

Agent Orange

Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:05:45 -0500

Malice, get your political history straight. Hillary is a liberal, shouldn't you be comparing her to Stalin, not Mussolini? All the same, may Godwin smite you down...

jake

Mon, 24 Oct 2005 07:42:01 -0500

only 6 days until next sunday-- if you have an opinionist piece that you want to write, please do get in touch with me so i can have it ready for sunday.

J

Mon, 24 Oct 2005 05:07:47 -0500

Oh, come now. This cat could come up with a more coherent argument.

Kojak

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:05:02 -0500

Ugh. Usually opinion pieces, even though one sided, tend to back up their rants with relevant facts and try not to be as hateful in tone as the crap 'Michael Malice' just posted. How do you expect us to take what these posters say seriously if it’s just going to be one sided bashing? What a bad start for the opinion section. I hope Gothamist just wanted to rattle some nerves to get people interested.

areacode212

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 20:13:25 -0500

Michael Malice should stick to what he's good at, namely, coming up with clever post titles on Overheard. Like other posters in this thread, I come to Gothamist mainly to read about stuff that's happening in NYC, written in Jen's trademark light-hearted style. Even Garth Johnston's weekend posts were a bit too unGothamist-y for my tastes, but they were fine compared to this tripe. Who exactly was clamoring for weekend editorials anyway? I say drop the "Opinionist" idea and just pad out the Saturday/Sunday content with "cool things to do this weekend" posts. They'll be appreciated a lot more.

R

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 19:47:07 -0500

I applaud Jake for his efforts to try to spice up Gothamist -- I think editorials would definately make an interesting read. I think everyone just needs to calm down...this contributor is just a total dipshit and wrote a truly stupid entry. Thanks a lot Malice!

Mark

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:15:26 -0500

c'mon gothamist get your act together. we don't read the content on this site for dim witted nonsense like this. this kind of crap may play on sites whose readers favor vico-rush and others of that ilk, but doesn't seem like its going over too well here.

Mark Artis

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:14:38 -0500

Mark Artis

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:14:00 -0500

c'mon gothamist get your shit together. we don't read the content on this site for dim witted nonsense like this. this kind of crap may play on sites whose readers favor vico-rush and others of that ilk, but doesn't seem like its going over too well here.

TMo

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:08:19 -0500

Would somebody who links to an institute named after eminent conservative Barry Goldwater on his personal homepage really be posting an "ironic" commentary in this case? I can't dismiss this as a satire of badly thought-out op-eds. It just seems earnestly bad.

Brightliner

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:04:53 -0500

Just dump the whole editorial idea. I mean, come on, guys. Gothamist really can't be that hard up for content on the weekends. If there were a compelling reason for editorials here, then I'd be all for it. As it is, there is no reason, and I'd rather see fewer posts on the weekend than garbage like this. Heck, even idiotic tripe like Paris Hilton sightings in midtown would be better than this half-baked scheme.

JC

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:55:46 -0500

I like pete's suggestion that this was an ill-fated attempt at satire. Let's collectively agree that this piece was meant to be sardonic--just another example of irony gone awry. This way, we can all move on and pretend like it never happened...

Matteo

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:46:21 -0500

I have to toss in my vote with Doctor Memory. Gothamist is in my bookmark for the "something else" (cool things happening in NYC, etc) quality that I can't get from the other blogs and news websites I read. I know where to go for political grenades in the form of polemics lobbed between the Right and Left. If I have to read through more diatribes, er "op-eds" to get to Jen's stories about penguins and such, I'm going to find myself reading Gothamist less and less.

grace

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 17:03:47 -0500

i'm going to have to go with rocco on this one. i'm all for bashing people. but how did it go from that to a right-wing shout out? unbelievable. though i can't blame you because you were right to put a disclaimer on it. ptooie on the author.

w

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:43:03 -0500

A high quality op-ed piece has a well thought-out argument backed up by evidence. This piece has neither.

Doctor Memory

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:41:16 -0500

(Pardon the bad link, above: that was supposed to be "complete idiots.")

Schizohedron

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:39:54 -0500

>There are literally dozens of politically shrewd people in the Democratic party who would make excellent Commanders-in-Chief. My friends and I were having a similar discussion the other night. Whom do you consider to be good potential candidates?

Doctor Memory

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:38:33 -0500

Well, Jake, your earlier correction that you guys are trolling for comments, not ad hits, certainly turned out to be accurate. It does leave me wondering, however: why, precisely, do you think that turning Gothamist into a cut-rate Slashdot (or really, in this case, usenet politics newsgroup) is a worthwhile goal? People already know where to go if they want to hear complete idiots spew nonsense dressed up as political analysis. Gothamist stays in people's daily bookmark list because it provides something else. You fuck with that formula at your own risk: bullshit like this leaves me wondering why I'm not just paging through my print copy of Time Out NY, and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that I'm not the only one. If y'all are so desperate for a hit of 'online controversy' and 'debate' (ie: yet another forum for jackasses to yell at each other), why not just go all the way and create a dedicated site for it?

Mike B.

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:31:10 -0500

Lame, Jake! You can't excuse a bad piece of writing by telling us that we couldn't do better. (Most of us probably could in this case, but that's not a prerequisite for finding fault.) It's one thing to run a strongly worded polemic, but quite another to run a piece so incoherent in its rage and hatred that it can't even come up with any supporting evidence. Disgraceful.

sid

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:17:00 -0500

I agree..This is a piece of crap!

Rocco

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:13:59 -0500

This piece has all the logic of a homeless paranoid's cardboard sign. I was in the mood for some Hillary bashing, and all I got was some right wing crazy talk. Are you at Gothamist hoping to draw attention via the smoke coming off of these crazy flame-posts?

TMo

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:01:11 -0500

1. That's really great logic: We publish a hopelessly juvenile, horribly written op-ed. We think it will make better writers want to write for us. C'mon guys! 2. The NY Times editorials probably didn't start off this badly.

jenna

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:57:46 -0500

Anything that started off by outlining it's purpose would be better than this piece. Malice compares Clinton and Sheehan as if there is a choice to be made between them and even says "Politics is often choosing between two evils." Is this simply because Sheehan won't back Clinton unless she supports pulling out of Iraq? It's not as if Sheehan will be running for president. Why is there a choice to be made between the two? Especially for those of us (obviously including Malice) that don't like or support either of them. I don't get it.

uh no

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:54:50 -0500

uh, no. how about we ban this writer from posting again. yes. let's give someone else a try. i feel like i'm reading my alma mater's student newspaper oped page.

jake

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:42:35 -0500

i expected exactly this reaction! so i have two responses: 1. if you really think you can write something better, you are welcome to give it a shot. 2. the NYTimes editorials probably took at least a few weeks to get their groove on-- so let's all take a deep breath and give michael and the other opinionistas some time to catch their stride.

Eric Kissack

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:39:53 -0500

sexist, ill-informed, repulsive garbage. i think maybe you guys should re-think this whole op-ed thing.

pete

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:36:10 -0500

I think it's supposed to be a joke, a sort of satire of sunday op/ed's in general,though the humor is very dry.

P

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:35:02 -0500

This is worse than some pretty bad blogs on both the left and right wing ends of the political spectrum. Gothamist isn't exactly a place to go for solid writing or thoughtful content, but this is definitely a low.

i'm pat bateman!

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:30:44 -0500

ew. this is really bad, you guys.

Nathan

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:29:51 -0500

This is a BAD op-ed piece, i at first was all for some gothamist op-ed, but the logic in this piece is just downright non-existent and the arguments amount to little more than flame bait.

Joe

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:29:39 -0500

This retarded editorial sure made me like Overheardinnewyork.com a heck of a lot less. :-\

bertiewoo

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 15:10:07 -0500

Dear Gothamist, This new editorial feature every Sunday sucks. Please stick to your old formula. This Malice guy has the reasoning powers of a potted plant.

z

Sun, 23 Oct 2005 14:58:40 -0500

"failed in her natural role as mother" And you're accusing her of being sexist?