Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links

  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...

  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

    • «
    »

    Agenda? What Agenda?

    Posted by Jonathan on April 13th, 2004 (All posts by )

    Compare and contrast:

    This

    support our troops

    . . . and this

    these were the only photos we could find, honest
    (All images are from Wednesday, April 7.)

     

    This entry was posted on Tuesday, April 13th, 2004 at 4:21 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

    6 Responses to “Agenda? What Agenda?”

    1. Lex Says:
      April 13th, 2004 at 10:30 pm

      Liberals like to see our troops in body bags. Everybody else likes to see them shooting at America’s enemies.

    2. MatyaNoBaka Says:
      April 14th, 2004 at 9:36 am

      At first, reading the headlines, it seemed more an even group to me. The NYT even seemed tame compared to Investor’s Business Daily.

      It took a while to notice the pictures.

      Yup, bring them home or they will come home like this. There is no acknowledgement of a constructive mission.

      Matya no baka

    3. Lex Says:
      April 14th, 2004 at 10:04 am

      OK, I’ll come out and just ask. What does Matya no baka mean?

    4. MatyaNoBaka Says:
      April 14th, 2004 at 11:40 am

      Roughly “Mark is an idiot” or “Mark is a fool”. I started using it as a nickname when i was subscribing to Japanese manga i couldn’t read. Eventually i learned enough kanji that i could get the drift of many of them.

      Matya no baka

    5. Scott Burgess Says:
      April 14th, 2004 at 6:18 pm

      Compare and contrast?

      Well, the Moonie Times headline puts the body count at 50% higher than that of the NYT … is that the right answer?

    6. Jonathan Says:
      April 14th, 2004 at 7:46 pm

      The Wash. Times may have been published later (I took the photo near DC). OTOH the Wash. Post characterized the number of U.S. deaths as “about a dozen” — I don’t know if that’s because the Times was published later or the Post was being cautious.

      I was reacting to the photos, which in the case of the NYT and Wash. Post struck me as being even more blatant statements of opinion than I have come to expect. OTOH, an anti-war friend of mine pointed out the sensational NY Post headline, so I guess there’s something here for everyone.

    «
    »