Monday, June 7, 2010

Helen Thomas is RETIRING

Politico's reporting that Helen Thomas is retiring........would you believe me when I say I'm kind of sad this happened? I'll tell you why in a minute.........You all remember her comments about Israel...

“Remember these people are occupied and it’s their land,” Thomas says in the video. “It’s not German and it’s not Polish.”

Asked what Jews in Israel should do, Thomas says “go home.” Asked where that home is, she replies: “Poland. Germany. And America and everywhere else.”

Imagine? Uninformed, hateful, angry and a podium for all of this hate in her job as a columnist.

Here's some background on Thomas: The former United Press International reporter has been a journalist for nearly 60 years, and has covered every president since John F. Kennedy. She was the first female president of the White House Correspondents Association............" Does all of this make her above criticism? Absolutely NOT! But, I feel a little sad for her.

To end a career as long as hers with something like this strikes me as achingly sad and so avoidable.......if only bias hadn't reared its ugly head in her....and out her mouth. It's a good lesson for all journalists to be better informed and to not let their biases show in such a manner.........but it's a very high price to have such a very long career ended in humiliation.

Don't you think so?

z

154 comments:

Ducky's here said...

I think that your constant use of "bias" is very naive.

In your case, z, it appears to mean, "does not agree with me". That is hardly sufficient to constitute bias.

Probably past time for Thomas to retire but she's had a substantial career. She was one of the few who would actually ask pointed questions.

Z said...

Ducky, thanks for parroting exactly what I've so often had to remind you...you always say we're wrong for not agreeing with you...

When a journalist is so certain in her damnation of a whole country as being illegitimate and they should ALL GO BACK, that's BIAS and it's unthinkingly stupid and uninformed, you know that.
But, please, I'm not arguing Israel's right to exist with you...and neither should anybody on this planet, frankly. It's so naive and silly.

Yes, it's time for her to retire and she asked pointed if sometimes ridiculous questions very often......and I admire the "pointed" part, heck, she even DARED to ask the OBAMA REGIME pointed questions..bravo, Helen! Maybe that's why I have a secret little tenderness for her.....

However, my point was how sad that a career of so many years and with some level of respect would end with her having to shrink off into humiliation. very sad. A whole life's work erased with one stupid statement...that shouldn't have happened.

Bloviating Zeppelin said...

I'll give Helen Thomas as much professional consideration as I would receive from my own administration, had I done something as stupid as her after forty years in my own career:

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Goodbye and good riddance.

BZ

Z said...

By the way, DUCKY...
She mentioned GERMANY AND POLAND...the two countries where the most Jews DIED......the implications of her comment are even worse than I'd originally considered.
I don't know HOW I missed that the first time around. geeZ

FrogBurger said...

Great career ended in the worst manner.

But I'm happy about it.

Sick and tired of anti-semitism of these days. We're really back into the 30s, aren't we?

I did a paper on Free Mason and the 1905 French law re the separation of Church and State. In my research I got to read a lot of "L'Anti Juif", a paper of the late 1800s dedicated to anti-semitism. This kind of comments, even though they are not to compare with what I read, reminded me the idiocy, cliches and jealousy behind anti-semitic remarks.

Brooke said...

Good riddance to bad rubbish, I say. It's been a long time coming, but better late than never.

Ducky's here said...

It was a foolish offensive remark, to be sure. Does that demostrate a pervasive bias in her career? Hardly.

Impertinent said...

For me...it was the venomous, hateful, sarcastic and caustic manner / tone in which she made her statement. The "get the hell out" part floored me. It was reeking with contempt for Israel and Jews.

She's probably been successful at masking this for years, no doubt. And it probably isn't the first time she's made a similar comment either...only this time...she just forgot she wasn't at an elitist cocktail party...surrounded by chuckleheaded enablers fawning over every dribble from her chin.

My Jewish wife burst into tears when she caught this on the news. First time I've seen her react like that to what is clearly a new wave of anti semitism in the world today. Indeed...we are witnessing the 30's all over again.

I Just wonder what her reaction would have been had the Rabbi suggested she should ..."Go Back to Lebanon" where she'd have plenty of company for her views?

Pack up your broom Hilda / Helen...Oz awaits you.

Brooke said...

Of course it does.

Sheesh.

The fact that she had the gall to say it, and on film no less is beyond stupid.

But, she felt that she could with impunity. As I just said, Snow called her out on it before, in the press room.

It's a pattern of behavior.

Mustang said...

Helen Thomas’ bias appears apparent to even a casual observer. I don’t object to her being biased, most of us are. My own bias is that I prefer conservative values over the leftist absence of values. In this regard, I consider myself discriminating. I chose to admire those who contribute to America, and disdain those who do not.

Personally, I think none of Z’s guests demonstrate a greater degree of subjective bias (or hypocrisy) than Ducky. I suspect Helen Thomas and Ducky have a great deal in common; both choose to interpret new information in such a manner as to confirm what they already believe. Both are selective about their beliefs and denials. The glue of this illustration is that Ducky and Thomas both attempt to explain the behavior of others in terms of personality. Those Jews should go home, as if Judea only existed since 1948. Ducky applies personae to those of use who disagree with his communism. He chooses his words carefully to disparage our conservative values —and in doing this, he seeks to uplift himself and his own ideology.

My conclusion is that Ducky and Thomas both are full of crap. I think Thomas received her just reward; I suspect that Ducky will get his too, one day.

FrogBurger said...

This bias debate is pointless. Saying she didn't have any bias is like saying Ducky doesn't have bias, I don't have a bias, Fox News is not biased, MSNBC is not biased, etc...

Every person with some intellect will be biased.

Then it's a matter of intellectual honesty. When someone can't even back up his/her bias with stats, facts and proper logic, that's when we have a problem.

Z said...

Excellent comments all, thanks, everybody:

FB, you say "This bias debate is pointless. Saying she didn't have any bias is like saying Ducky doesn't have bias, I don't have a bias, Fox News is not biased, MSNBC is not biased, etc..."

That's what I was going to ask Ducky, particularly.
Is she NOT considered a liberal columnist? Bias.

Yes, we ALL have some bias but we don't say hateful things like this...and this just shows that her bias trumps most of ours.

Imp, I'm so sorry for your wife and so many Jews who are fearful of something like this happening again. I have a Jewish girlfriend who, 25 years ago, said "I really think it could happen again" and I THOUGHT SHE WAS ABSOLUTELY NUTS...and gave her several reasons why it couldn't.
But, then, I DISTINCTLY remember, maybe 30 years ago, being in the shower and thinking about how lucky we as Americans are, that NOTHING could touch OUR SHORES because we were so safe and prepared. Dummy me. I mention the shower because it was such a clear moment, such a moment of gratitude and assuredness that I've never forgotten that very moment.

Mustang...thanks for reminding all of the history...as IF Jews started living in that region in 1948!!

Anonymous said...

I don't feel sad for Helen Thomas. I believe she is a hateful person who could barely conceal her nastiness or her approval depending on the issue, or who the President was.

I think "bias" is too benign a word to describe her opinions or her seething contempt for those she didn't agree with.

We're not supposed to know her opinions. She was a White House Correspondent, not a commentator. WH Correspondents are known to be somewhat adversarial in their questions, in order to flush out the answers to their questions.

It's not their jobs to give their opinions. They're supposed to have a modicum of objectivity, and respect for the office of the Presidency, and the administration. There is a line they are not meant to cross.

I never noticed that Helen Thomas displayed self restraint, which I would think a fixture like her should have known.

She abused the fact she was a woman, and as she aged, she took advantage of that as well. If she had been a man, she would have been gone years ago.


Imp, I can understand your wife's reaction. I think the terrible anti-semitic stirrings we now see from the left is alarming, hurtful, and frightening.

I believe this remark from Thomas was shocking and dripping with hate, and for your wife it is a last straw kind of thing. It's very understandable.

This incident is a glimpse into what can happen when the tables are turned on one who delighted in playing gotcha. What goes around, comes around. Good riddance.

Pris

Anonymous said...

Personally, I'm just glad that her arrogance finally caused her to exhibit her true colors. She thought she was bullet or pink slip proof. Ain't so, Helen. Go crawl into your lair & take your broom with you.

Silvrlady

Elmers Brother said...

hey duhkkky I hear she's single, I'm sure the Hearsts will give you her cell phone number.

Z said...

I do think it's sad that someone would say something so unutterably hideous after 60 years of whatever respect she'd attained in her field of endeavor.

I don't feel particularly sad about HER fall from grace, because as much as I admire anybody with the gumption to keep running at that age, I never admired her slant on anything. But, I still think it's a terrible way to end a career.
Pris, she was and, I believe, still was a columnist, too, so it's hard to break that OPINION mindset...and I believe even WH Correspondents can have an opinion in their pieces depending on who's hired them to write for them, don't you think? Whatever she was, it was DEAD WRONG to suggest Jews should march back to the land of their most horrid treatment!


Elbro..sublime :-)

Slvrlady..."her true colors" is right. As a woman of Lebanese Arab extraction, it's even more despicable and evocative.

Anonymous said...

A parody of the song from 'The Wizard of Oz'

'Ding Dong! The Witch is gone. Which old Witch? The Thomas Witch!
Ding Dong! The Thomas Witch is gone.
Wake up - sleepy head, rub your eyes, turn Fox News on.
Give a cheer, the Thomas Witch is gone. She's gone where the goblins go,
Way into a cave below. Yo-ho, too bad Tony never saw the day. Heigh-ho, sing it high, sing it low.
Let them know
The Thomas Witch is gone!'

Silvrlady

Elmers Brother said...

I don't really care what she said, she's free to say what she wants and as one commenter that I heard speak about this, if we truly believe in free speech then this is when the rubber meets the road...when we hear something we don't like.

Anonymous said...

I agree that she has every right to say whatever she wants. But we also have the right to judge what she says, especially as she is/was in what is considered to be a powerful position when it comes to forming public opinion & disseminating news. She wasn't just chatting with a neighbor over the back fence. Having that position carries with it the weight of resposibility for one's actions & words. She thought she was too important for there to be consequences. OOOOPS! Her bad!

Silvrlady

Elmers Brother said...

silvrlady, I agree to an extent, but how much sway she has on anyone is ubiquitous at best. She was no longer consdered a journalist. I say let the market decide, I'm sure her column would have died after her statements anyway.

Subjectivity is Truth.

Anonymous said...

"she's free to say what she wants and as one commenter that I heard speak about this, if we truly believe in free speech then this is when the rubber meets the road...when we hear something we don't like."

Does that mean she's free to spew only when referring to Jews, Christians or WASP's? Our military? Then fine...what would have happened to her or anyone else if they voiced the same opinions say towards...Blacks...Latinos or even reverse the scenario and tell the Pali's to get the hell out of Israel...is anyone allowed to say anything without repercussions? On tape...or privately? Do you think Jesse Jackson or Sharpton wouldn't have descended on the perp ( Don Imus for one ) if the tables had been turned? If the latter can be fired for "nappy headed ho's"...then it's only right that Helen was canned for her obvious Jew hatred. And unlike Imus...it wasn't in jest.

Let her forever stew in her own vile hypocrisy along with all those liberal pundits that she thought would protect her.

Major

Elmers Brother said...

do we think there are rational people who form their opinions based on what Helen Thomas writes?

if so how many? and how is that determined?

Elmers Brother said...

I think objectivity in journalism is elusive and some like Klotzer have suggested that it's impossible.

Elmers Brother said...

Does that mean she's free to spew only when referring to Jews, Christians or WASP's? Our military? Then fine...what would have happened to her or anyone else if they voiced the same opinions say towards...Blacks...Latinos or even reverse the scenario and tell the Pali's to get the hell out of Israel...is anyone allowed to say anything without repercussions? On tape...or privately?

is it free speech or not?

I don't like what she said but what do you suggest for consequences other than what has already happened?

Shot at dawn?

Elmers Brother said...

and with Imus...same thing.

Elmers Brother said...

the first amendment can be a b*tch

Leticia said...

Goodbye, good riddance and don't let the door hit you on your way out!

Z said...

Elbro, it's positively SPOOKY to read "Rubber meets the road" because I'd just emailed Impertinent a note this morning about Thomas dying and wrote "this is where the rubber of bias meets the road" HOW wild is THAT?
I guess you might say she has a perfect right to say anything she wants, and you'd think that's so, but let an Ann Coulter do anything NEAR this or anything else Helen's written and it's HELL TO PAY from the Left.
If it were a level playing field, we'd all be for "let them say what they want"

I think the Imus case sort of fits here......but his comment was meant as a joke, he's no more racially biased than my readers here....
Thomas' statement was misinformed and ugly and even threatening.

Faith said...

In a way I'm surprised there has been so much outcry against what she said since it's pretty standard leftist opinion on Israel these days -- oh maybe a tad over the line even there -- and the media certainly leans left and that includes her. Maybe she's surprised too for the same reason. I'm GLAD there's been so much outcry, I wasn't sure we had it in us any more to object to anything leftist.

I couldn't find out in what context she said that though, a private interview of some sort or what? I agree that she has a right to her opinion but journalists do have a responsibility to be objective when they are doing their job. (And I DO believe in journalistic objectivity and think it has been practiced in the past by journalists. Not in our postmodern age though since objectivity is pretty much defined out of the realm of possibility.)

Freedom of speech is maybe not quite what some think it is these days either. Does anyone remember that once upon a time a person could be arrested and put in jail in this country for blaspheming God in public or "corrupting the morals" of the public and that sort of thing?

Of course political speech IS to be protected. OK, now I'm back to thinking she has a right to her opinion if she expressed it outside her function as a journalist and she shouldn't have been penalized for it, stupid, misinformed, biased and evil though I think her opinion is.

But I could change my mind again easily enough.

Elmers Brother said...

As I recall Imus was excoriated and there were calls for his firing. It's PC crapola in my opinion. At least she didn't get a pie in her face, like Coulter has so many times.

Opus #6 said...

Good riddance to Ms. Thomas.

This event reminds me of something I heard in a Greek history class. One philosopher said that he could never say somebody had a good life until they were dead. Before that, there was always a chance of screwing up.

Elmers Brother said...

she hasn't been considered a journalist for quite some time, but an editorialist and commenter.

The only time I'm aware of that we could make a claim that there were objective reporters may have been during the conception of the NYT and Ochs, his rise was due in large part to the yellow journalism of Hearst and Pulitzer, but even that is questionable.

I have serious doubts that journalists can be objective, it's an ideal certainly and even associations such as the Society for Professional Journalists includes it in their list of journalistic ethics.

Faith said...

It's just a matter of the profession's policing itself and holding themselves to a standard, Elbro, it's not impossible. If they are exhorted to stick to the facts, to choose their statements with an eye to conveying the essence of the event they are covering and to rigorously censor their own opinions -- and if they don't succeed an editor should catch it and correct it -- it is certainly possible. If it's not being practiced that simply means nobody really cares enough to enforce the requirement.

But if Helen Thomas wasn't a journalist anyway, again I'm surprised she's being censored at all for her leftist anti-Israelism.

Anonymous said...

Concerning free speech. I'm all for free speech. However, that's not what I was referring to. I was referring to her job, and what's demanded of it. That, and the baggage that goes along with it.

She's been fired so that is as it should be.

I don't like opinions on the front page of a newspaper either. I expect reporting. Editorializing is for the opinion page.

This is about ethics not rights. If your job requires certain ethical behavior, it should be observed.

WH Correspondents are reporters. Not commentators. If they go public with their opinions their reporting is compromised.

I submit, that with all our complaints about the mainstream media, we have to be consistent and expect reporting to be reporting, and commentating to be just that.

When that line is blurred we end up with mush, and we end up with a compromised end product of news.

Pris

Anonymous said...

Bill Maher's wish has come true...he has his Negro president as this comment so perfectly illustrates. And they scorned Bush for his malapropisms? I'm waiting for him to lift up his shirt and show that Mac 10.

"Full POTUS quote: “I was down there a month ago, before most of these talkin’ heads were even paying attention to the gulf. A month ago I was meeting with fishermen down there, standin’ in the rain talking about what a potential crisis this could be. and I don’t sit around just talking to experts because this is a college seminar, we talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers, so I know whose ass to kick.”

Yep...the Hip hop ghetto POTUS.

Fine example for the dopes and his minions. Disgraceful. This is my CIC?


MAJOR

Faith said...

Interesting. This was no official interview. A rabbi and his son simply caught her on video and that's the source of all this. Just a casual encounter in a way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100607/ts_ynews/ynews_ts2430

And they're going to release more of that encounter soon. I wonder what else she said.

Elmers Brother said...

It's just a matter of the profession's policing itself and holding themselves to a standard, Elbro, it's not impossible. If they are exhorted to stick to the facts, to choose their statements with an eye to conveying the essence of the event they are covering and to rigorously censor their own opinions -- and if they don't succeed an editor should catch it and correct it -- it is certainly possible. If it's not being practiced that simply means nobody really cares enough to enforce the requirement.

that is one thing the SPJ does try to do

personally I don't believe it's possible to separate a person from their bias' and it's even harder to determine the efficiency at which one can hold another to that ideal

much like peer review in science

Faith said...

Second attempt to get a functioning link:

Story about rabbi and son

Anonymous said...

"Shot at dawn?"

Of course...( get ready for this UN PC comment)...with her own Polish pistola...OK?

She should suffer as much as anyone else on the right has...for far less than that.

Like I said...fear not Helen...there's a casting call for a Speilberg ( if she can work with a Jew ) revision of the Wizard of Oz...there's only one part she's qualified for...

Major

Faith said...

personally I don't believe it's possible to separate a person from their bias' and it's even harder to determine the efficiency at which one can hold another to that ideal

That's a very depressing and discouraging opinion, Elbro. I don't think you can get rid of your bias (why would anyone try anyway?) but you certainly can learn to report factually without letting your bias affect your reporting. If objectivity isn't possible, justice isn't possible either. Have we degenerated to such an extent as a culture that we can't expect this degree of self-control from ourselves and others?

much like peer review in science

I don't know anything about that arena, but I'd suppose that if it means many peers are involved in reviewing a scientific study there's more chance of a fair report than if only one is assigned the job. Many counselors can make up for individual bias. Some version of that is in the Book of Proverbs. Or perhaps it's also a situation in which self-policing is required but not always enforced?

Anonymous said...

"Have we degenerated to such an extent as a culture that we can't expect this degree of self-control from ourselves and others?


Perhaps...and I think so. Most of us are disgusted and fed up with PC, diversity, ethnic studies, multi-culturalism and having to always...back away from attack. It's time...long over due...that we stand our ground. Which is what our Tea Party and anti government, anti congress, anti nanny state is all about.
Fully...over 80% of the voting population is disgusted with...or has no faith in our elected "leaders"

The writing is...on the wall.

Major

Anonymous said...

I have a bet for ya'll:

"How long until Al-Jazeera makes her an offer?

Major

Anonymous said...

After all...she's on the same page as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...the fooking Mad Hatter of Iran...right?

Did we all forget that?


Major

Faith said...

I hope you're right that that many are disgusted with our present political mess, Major. I hope that many are disgusted for all the right reasons. And I hope we'll start seeing the fruits of righteous discontent soon. Tomorrow is our primary here in Nevada and I am hoping for Sharron Angle, our most conservative candidate, to come up against and eventually replace Harry Reid. She's officially endorsed by the Tea Party.

Anonymous said...

"I hope that many are disgusted for all the right reasons. And I hope we'll start seeing the fruits of righteous discontent soon.

Tell ya what Faith...here's the truth. 91% of blacks still support the Hip Hop cool calm POTUS...thus the demrats too...42% of Whites support the Hip Hop POTUS ( blame that on the influence on MTV ) Facts are...are there enough NON Hip Hoppers to elect her over the scuzzball, ethically challenged ( since casino gambling and his big on the take pockets Harry ) to throw Hairy ( then Pelosi ) the hell out of this Congress?

I ask because...you must be prepared to be labeled a "bigot" in order to kick Hairy's ass ( Obama approved adjective ) down those dusty Nevada roads.

Major

Z said...

Elbro, that's my point...she's an editorialist so that makes it okay to spew her opinions..just not as stupid and NASTY as this one was...

Faith, I just saw that Tarkanian's second and Angle is first, is that right? Great news.

Major, good line about Al -Jazeerah hiring her :-) Anything's possible.

Re BIAS, we all know that OPINIONS, EDITORIALS, have BIAS in them.......The LA Times pages, when they were honest, had LEFT and RIGHT on both sides of the OPINION page, and we knew that was a biased page; fair enough. (they might still have that page, I doubt it, tho)

This was beyond BIAS, this was evocative of sending Jews to the two countries which killed six million of them..........this is WAAAAY beyond bias.

Elmers Brother said...

That's a very depressing and discouraging opinion, Elbro. I don't think you can get rid of your bias (why would anyone try anyway?) but you certainly can learn to report factually without letting your bias affect your reporting. If objectivity isn't possible, justice isn't possible either. Have we degenerated to such an extent as a culture that we can't expect this degree of self-control from ourselves and others?

I've done some research and actually conducted an interview with a well respected journalism professor and he feels the same way I do. It disgusts him but and he believes objectivity is the ideal but philosophically believes it impossible. The reason I put Subjectivity is Truth (and the counter) Truth is Subjecive is that Kierkegaard felt objectivity could get in the way of truth.

I don't think it has to be depressive, it's just what we've come to expect. I suppose in the evolution of TV news there was a time when objectivity was prized (Edward R. Murrow) but even then it didn't sell. So TV news developedi it's own yellow journalism...Anderson Cooper et al.

as far as peer review...even scientists complain about the process. It's political, paradigms...new ideas...very difficult to break conventional wisdom and so much of public funds are tied to gettting peer reviewed and published AND there is no way to really measure it's batting average. There is a certain tyrrany in relying on so many experts.

Anonymous said...

More libtard dementia...and these two has beens could definitely use the Money!!

"Daryl Hall and John Oates cancel post-game concert at Chase Field because of personal stance on Arizona's new immigration law"...

ummmm...who?

They're as relevant as...ummm the Dixie Chicks? This is an example of how far we've descended into PC bullshit. Bono too.



Major

Elmers Brother said...

I realize my interview etc. is purely antecdotal.

as far as justice..is that what we have or is it a LEGAL system?

FrogBurger said...

Interesting debate about Truth. I don't think human beings are capable of achieving Truth, with a capital T. It will always be our truth through our own rationality. The absolute Truth is Godly. And even that may very well be human truth.

Elmers Brother said...

This was beyond BIAS, this was evocative of sending Jews to the two countries which killed six million of them..........this is WAAAAY beyond bias.

yes it was...please don't misunderstand...

she has the right to say it and we have every right to judge it as wrong but do you think she was objective before this statement? or was it obvious to even the casual observer what she believed?

so I ask if what we are really upset about is that she was blatantly public about it?

that she spoke the words when we knew all along what she really thought?

Elmers Brother said...

Elbro, that's my point...she's an editorialist so that makes it okay to spew her opinions..just not as stupid and NASTY as this one was...

and again I would say the first amendment can be a you know what

Anonymous said...

" The absolute Truth is Godly. And even that may very well be human truth.


Aren't we taught to believe that we are made in His image and likeness? I have been taught that.

Yet...we hate. Face it..we do..and we have to. In order to face some truths. I have an uncle...who is still a Jesuit priest...and he makes me blush to this day when he expounds on the politics of today.

I've been taught that the Jesuits..are the intelligentsia of the Catholic Church.

My Uncle..."Father Joe"...is a man. A man who is in the unique position of realizing...the demise and the end of our faith in G-d.

The Jesuits make policy for the Church...

Major

Z said...

She's always been an Arab liberal...biased against Israel as much as Wolf Blitzer on CNN, etc etc.........
I don't know what all she's said in the past exactly but for me to know she's an Arab shows that she'd said SOMETHING.

This was beyond just 'bias'...I'm not quite getting your point, I guess, Elbro. We all know that any opinion writer can give any opinion, this is a free country, but we don't normally see people evoke holocausts and suggest sending Jews back there........I mean, we know that won't happen in Germany again...or POland...but it just sounded SO BAD, so gut-driven.

Z said...

Major, Father Joe is probably right..does he venture a guess we could have a revival here?

Z said...

now, I have to go put this darned foot back UP...see you all later. xx

Ducky's here said...

I say put her in a steel cage match with Glenn "He's Psycho" Beck.

Throw in a couple of folding chairs, first one out keeps his job.

Elmers Brother said...

This is about ethics not rights. If your job requires certain ethical behavior, it should be observed.

I think it's more about free speech. You're right in that the market decided. She no longer is held to that ethical standard if you are an editorialist or political commentator.

While Helen has not been a member of the WHCA for many years, her special status in the briefing room has helped solidify her as the dean of the White House press corps so we feel the need to speak out strongly on this matter.

I guess I'm saying that I'm not defending what she said, just her right to say it.

Elmers Brother said...

I'm also saying that our expectaions at getting at truth through some pre-conceived notion of ethical unbiased journalism is not going to happen.

Elmers Brother said...

I say put her in a steel cage match with Glenn "He's Psycho" Beck.

and she's the Mad Arab

Z said...

Elbro...this can't have been her decision...when your agent and the world tell you that was BAD, you have to stop...who's going to risk going on and having her byline on anything?
Of course, that's what you're saying...I know she has a right; but must we put up with ANYTHING anybody says in public? really?
Well, the market decided, didn't it.....
Imus's market came right back because people knew he wasn't serious and, anyway, he genuflected from here to kingdom come to Al Sharpton, etc etc...ugh

Anonymous said...

"does he venture a guess we could have a revival here?

Ms. Z...ya know...I'm a simple man...a soldier... inarticulate...Uneducated by Harvard standards( I'm a a White Colonel Alan West if you will ( I love this guy cause we're kin...brothers and soldiers who will never...ever abandon each other...ever!) Something that many of us will never understand. That's a result of bonding...that fraternity earned through hard times. ( hey...I know the Duckfarts want to puke ) but...when I see an emblem on another soldiers uniform...a decoration...a chevron on his sleeve...I know where he's been ( ask Mustang ) even a "tag" on his car that says...Marines..or AF...whatever. I know...he's a brother. I know...I can depend on a man like that.

But everything else aside....when my uncle...a priest...and a SoJ at that...says we're fooked...I tend to tuck in a bit. I never say..".Why Joe"? I leave it to him...a mighty man...and an honest one at that to tell the truth.

Major

Elmers Brother said...

Of course, that's what you're saying...I know she has a right; but must we put up with ANYTHING anybody says in public? really?

do we have free speech or not?

Karen Howes said...

Good riddance to the old bag.

Anonymous said...

"do we have free speech or not?



Ask David Duke? Or a KKK guy?

I think not....or depending on what social sphere you orbit in. I say....lets bring BACK...FREE SPEECH...OK? Like you think we've ever really had it?

Major

Ducky's here said...

Come on Major,it doesn't have to be a Snake Pliskin scenario...

Johan Galtung, was on today's Democracy Now! talking about the imminent collapse of the empire , it can be a golden opportunity for the country to re-formulate itself.

and we all know we's sorely due for some re-formulatin'.

Anonymous said...

"it can be a golden opportunity for the country to re-formulate itself.



According to whose definition of "re-formulate"? I'm certain...I won't like yours. Because I know...it won't be for the continuation of this Republic. And...I'll stop you along with about 200 million others.

Major

Elmers Brother said...

Ask David Duke? Or a KKK guy?

well he did get elected in Louisiana and run for President...you think that's not free?

Elmers Brother said...

and we all know we's sorely due for some re-formulatin'.

I prefer a divorce duhkkky, I know you're familiar with that.

Anonymous said...

"personally I don't believe it's possible to separate a person from their bias' and it's even harder to determine the efficiency at which one can hold another to that ideal "

Elbro, Mr. Pris worked in intelligence research and analysis for over 40 years. The main demand by the director of his group was, "keep political bias out of it".

The goal was credibility and the best effort was reporting the facts for the most reliable result.

It can be done, and it was. His group was highly respected for reliability and credibility. It's dedication to excellence, over and above a personal bias.

It's too easy to excuse laziness or bias, as an excuse for less than professionalism. Discipline is required. If it isn't, then the result can be harmful, or even dangerous.

This is why high standards are necessary. When they're lowered, all hell will break loose, and in journalism, there are now, next to none.

We, as a country are paying for it in spades. We have almost no reliable media.

Lowering of standards, and political correctness rule the day. It's unacceptable, and in the long run contributes to ignorance and political corruption.

If Thomas was not a journalist, what was she besides a useless agitator? The Washington press corps, has relinquished their responsibility, and the citizenry is ill served.

Without responsible journalism we have an ignorant populace, and I'm not willing to excuse that.

Pris

Faith said...

I haven't been keeping up with the polls, Z, I've heard different things from here and there over the last days and weeks. Recently it seems Sue Lowden fell behind, some think because of her nasty ads against Sharron -- I don't have TV so I haven't seen her ads. Sharron is doing well, from what I've heard and judging by the look of her website, but Tarkanian has name recognition and popularity. http://www.sharronangle.com/

As for being willing to be called a bigot, Major, Sharron must be used to it by now, no way you get the conservative record she has without that coming down. We're ALL bigots, I get more than my share I think because I go to some liberal type websites where I'm bound to pull for it. Not that I take it WELL, though. I'm getting SO tired of it.

Elbro: If the professor of journalism was trained in today's journalism he might well be unable to imagine true objectivity.

I don't get the conflict between objectivity and Truth but if we're talking Truth on the order of Biblical revelation we're simply to believe it, believe God's chosen witnesses as recorded in the Bible. Not subjective, maybe not objective either? I never liked Kierkegaard myself, too much of a rationalist/liberal theologian rather than a simple believer.

Ducky's here said...

The truth will be known when the last witness is dead.

Craig and Heather said...

and we all know we's sorely due for some re-formulatin'.

Yep.

We've definitely been flirting with godless socialistic thinking too long.

H

Elmers Brother said...

This is why high standards are necessary. When they're lowered, all hell will break loose, and in journalism, there are now, next to none.

I don't think we should get rid of or lower the standard, it's that there is little we can do to measure the efficiency at which it is held and may only be a facade in the first place.

it's like asking the wolf to guard the henhouse

Elbro: If the professor of journalism was trained in today's journalism he might well be unable to imagine true objectivity.

He was a PhD who wrote books on the history of journalism so perhaps you're right.

I'm only becoming familiar with Kierkegaard, so I won't pretend that I understand all that he hd to say about this but the geste of what he thought was this:

What would be the use of discovering so-called objective truth, of working through all the systems of philosophy and of being able, if required, to review them all and show up the inconsistencies within each system; what good would it do me to explain the meaning of Christianity if it had no deeper meaning or significance for me and for my life; what good would it do me if the truth stood before me, cold and naked, not caring whether I recognized it or not and producing in me a shudder of fear rather than a trusting devotion?

He realized that no amount of knowledge could ever provide a meaning for life.

He didn't deny the value of objective knowledge but that the 'objective facts' of a life cannot account for its existential quality. His point; objective information reveals facts or truths, not truth. An example:

What makes one a Christian is not the objective condition of their lives but their inner condition; truth is a subjective condition, not an objective one.

Objective truth cannot give anyone a reason to live, it can't answer the question: What am I to do? Other systems and arguments...scientific, philosophical, theological cannot provide the idea for which I can live and die. This was radical in an era where faith was seduced by science that inevitably leads to 'progress'. He believed that the modern age was too fascinated with objectivity and reliance on scientific understanding because they never see the individual.

Philosophers traditionally agree that arguements and evidence should be evaluated rationally and objectively; bias or partiality is usually considered a weakness in an argument, so too with science.

Kierkegaard disagreed. He considered objectivity, impersonal and impartiality dangerous, insulting and ugly delusions. Impartiality was impossible and claims of objectivity and disinterest are alwasy lies. Preferring objectivity is in itself a bias. Our desire for objectivity deceives us by obscuring our individual (subjective) responsibility for our evaluations. If we reject "X" because it is inconsistent we still have subjectively chosen certain values; objectivity and consistency.

I'm only trying to become more familiar with him but I do admire his disdain for state sponsored religious institutions and the loss of the individual to collective systems and theories.

Elmers Brother said...

The truth will be known when the last witness is dead.

sounds too much like Keynes duhkkky

Elmers Brother said...

He thought that 'the crowd' are anonymous creatures too dependent on experts to point the way to salvation or personal growth.

The press exposes personal lives of celebrities and reinforces the sameness and mediocrity of the people we elect or celebrities and seems to suport his conclusion that the modern age remains an era of increasing dullness, conformity and lack of genuine individuals.

So the questions he poses is this

How do we become our true selves when we live in an age dominated by sophisticated (internet, press mega churches etc) ways of influencing our thoughts, feelings and actions?

How do we become passionate about becoming ourselves in a world seduced by conformity?

Deborah on the Bayside said...

Helen Thomas' biases leak out like a dripping faucet. It's time to change the washer.

I won't miss her leftist hubris any more than Walter Cronkite's. It's a shame to end your career in humiliation, but I don't much care. What was in the well of the heart finally came up through the bucket of the mouth. Time to go.

Faith said...

There's probably a context for what Kierkegaard is saying that I'm missing so I don't really get what he's trying to say. If he's complaining about science's claims to supplant Christian revelation -- which was the big issue in his day (and still is really) -- that I get, but what you've quoted of his putting it in terms of objectivity versus subjectivity loses me.

What makes one a Christian is not the objective condition of their lives but their inner condition; truth is a subjective condition, not an objective one.

If this is what he says there's something very wrong here. Subjectivity isn't just an "inner" state of some sort, and objectivity certainly isn't about our "outer condition" whatever that means. Subjectivity is normally regarded as a personal opinion or judgment as opposed to an objective assessment. Both are inner "states" in a sense so that's irrelevant to distinguishing them.

Christian belief is NOT "subjective" and I think that's where K went seriously wrong. He got into that really dangerous idea of Christian belief being a "leap of faith" -- blind faith, right? That's a degree of subjectivity that to my mind simply cancels out all the claims of Christian believers down the centuries. No, we believe in a REAL REALITY, we make no blind leaps, we assent to something we've come to recognize is OBJECTIVELY true. God sent witness after witness after witness and made sure what they witnessed was recorded. Witness testimony of the kind and degree given in scripture is as good objective evidence as you can get. If you know in your spirit that the Bible was inspired by God that adds validity to the witness testimony you aren't going to find anywhere else.

Objective truth cannot give anyone a reason to live, it can't answer the question: What am I to do? Other systems and arguments...scientific, philosophical, theological cannot provide the idea for which I can live and die. This was radical in an era where faith was seduced by science that inevitably leads to 'progress'. He believed that the modern age was too fascinated with objectivity and reliance on scientific understanding because they never see the individual.

Unfortunately I suspect he himself was influenced too much by that same zeitgeist and that may be why he never seems to get to the crux of the matter. I mean, of course he's right that science and human reason will never give us a reason to live or satisfy anything of our real human needs, needs created by our having been made in the image of the God who created us, and ultimately amounting to a need for a relationship with Him, God Himself. Science and philosophy can't give us anything close to that. But in their own realms we can require objectivity of them.

So the critique is correct but unfortunately even in trying to defend Biblical revelation he seems to have adopted terminology that deprives Biblical revelation of its power.

Elmers Brother said...

If Thomas was not a journalist, what was she besides a useless agitator?

do you consider Beck objective?

Elmers Brother said...

well I'm not here to defend him necessarily but I will say that what I posted is not comprehensive

Witness testimony of the kind and degree given in scripture is as good objective evidence as you can get.

It would work in a court of law, eyewitness testimony etc.

Objective?

Z said...

Beck exposes a lot of uncomfortable truths...Thomas' statement was hateful.

Ducky's here said...

Do you consider Beck a journalist?

Elmers Brother said...

Christendom, in Kierkegaard's view, made individuals lazy in their religion. Many of the citizens were officially "Christians", without having any idea of what it meant to be a Christian. Kierkegaard attempted to awaken Christians to the need for unconditional religious commitment.

Kierkegaard accused Christian religious institutions of not being genuinely religious. Intellectual scholarship in Christianity was becoming more and more like Hegelianism, rather than Christianity. This made the scholars of religion and philosophy examine the Gospels from a supposedly higher objective standpoint in order to demonstrate how correct reasoning can reveal an objective truth. This was outrageous to Kierkegaard because this presupposed that an infinite God and his infinite wisdom could be grasped by finite human understanding. Kierkegaard believed that Christianity was not a doctrine to be taught, but rather a life to be lived. He considered that many Christians fell short of being real Christians:



No, we believe in a REAL REALITY, we make no blind leaps, we assent to something we've come to recognize is OBJECTIVELY true

So you were not influenced at all by pastors or other Christians?

Have you seen heaven?

Will apologetics alone save someone?

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

I'm not trying to argue with you Faith, just trying to understand and learn.

Elmers Brother said...

Do you consider Beck a journalist?

no he's a commentator and he has a bias

so why would Thomas be held to a different standard than Beck?

Z said...

Beck doesn't consider himself a journalist and neither do I. NO, he just does tons of research and investigations and reports about them. In that way, I guess, you could call him an investigative journalist.
Trust me, Ducky, you haven't seen what he's exposed, you just automatically buy into the BECK'S A NUT lib place of fear, and I"m not going to argue Beck here.
I wasn't a fan until I started watching more often and now I see his information's pretty air tight and indisputable; as he said just the other night "If anybody was doing honest writing on these points, they'd win the Pulitzer" and he's right.
But, nobody IS.
I know it's threatening but it's important people pay attention.

But, I know...the left's painted him a loon, so it's hard for people to get past that; that's a very beguiling, effective way the left has, I must admit.
Look, if he wasn't threatening, you think the White House would be so scared of him? I don't think so.

Elmers Brother said...

But in their own realms we can require objectivity of them.

you do see the irony in this statement based on what Kierkegaard thought?

Faith said...

He thought that 'the crowd' are anonymous creatures too dependent on experts to point the way to salvation or personal growth.

Well, that's certainly true, but there shouldn't even be a question about "salvation" in such a context. What does the term mean in that context? And what does "personal growth" have to do with Christ either? The terminology is not Christian. It's easy to see how K became one of the fathers of Existentialism, though, with that kind of terminology.

The press exposes personal lives of celebrities and reinforces the sameness and mediocrity of the people we elect or celebrities and seems to suport his conclusion that the modern age remains an era of increasing dullness, conformity and lack of genuine individuals.

But is that the fault of the press or the fault of our loss of higher cultural standards?

"Genuine individuals." There it is again. That's the language of 20th century Existentialism. It did corrupt some Christian churches, but it's very far from the spirit of Christ.

So the questions he poses is this

How do we become our true selves when we live in an age dominated by sophisticated (internet, press mega churches etc) ways of influencing our thoughts, feelings and actions?


Oo, there are much much better critiques of all these influences than Kierkegaard these days. Immersing yourself in the Bible alone should shake off a lot of that influence. But there are good preachers out there identifying the false movements in the churches.

Again, that Existential notion, "becoming our true selves." This is really just psychobabble, Elbro, it's NOT about the Christian life. You could even say it's the opposite in a sense, as Jesus says we are even to hate ourselves, not save our lives but die to ourselves, give up our selves, to follow Him. The very idea of "self" is out of place here, even opposed to Christ. Self has to go, and that's a HUGE task, to be undertaken daily with God's power, which hardly any of us have even begun to do. The LAST thing we need is teaching that doesn't even make this our aim.

How do we become passionate about becoming ourselves in a world seduced by conformity?

Don't we want to give UP ourselves and become conformed to the image of Christ? Isn't THAT our job as Christians, not "becoming ourselves" but becoming more like Him? What we are in ourselves is miserable rotten fallen human beings, sinners. Christ died to restore us to restore the image of God in us. To do that we have to learn to GIVE UP ourselves, and put all our passion into knowing and obeying Him.

Romans 12:2
And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

I can see why I always had a problem with Kierkegaard. I never got far enough into him to see this much though, so I appreciate this lesson in his thought. Of course it only makes me all the more certain that he was very wrong and that Christians should leave the poor man to whatever he was trying to do in his own day and age that may have had some validity then (I'm trying to be generous) but is pure poison now.

Z said...

Beck has a bias to stand up for America's history and future.
Thomas hates Jews.

I'm going to bed and get this foot up...and I can't catch up with y'all, anyway!

Goodnight.

Elmers Brother said...

Don't we want to give UP ourselves and become conformed to the image of Christ? Isn't THAT our job as Christians, not "becoming ourselves" but becoming more like Him? What we are in ourselves is miserable rotten fallen human beings, sinners. Christ died to restore us to restore the image of God in us. To do that we have to learn to GIVE UP ourselves, and put all our passion into knowing and obeying Him.

I don't disagree with you, I'm trying to understand where he is coming from.

But in a sense I think he is suggesting that we have to work out our own faith. He really despised the institutional state church.

So there are no spiritual children...just because my parents were Christians or I attend church, know all the apologetic arguments...none of them save me. They are objective truths but they don't tell me how to live or what God would have me to do...if I am truly to lose my life for Him...I must know what He wants for MY life. That could be very different than what He wants for your life? Yes? In that sense, in my understanding he made sense.

Faith said...

No, we believe in a REAL REALITY, we make no blind leaps, we assent to something we've come to recognize is OBJECTIVELY true

So you were not influenced at all by pastors or other Christians?


Of course, but insofar as they all testify to the same truth the Biblical witnesses testify to they simply add to our OBJECTIVE understanding of the Truth. The Bible is the standard and human beings may fail in many ways but there is always that thread of objective truth that shines through it all. Hold onto the Bible and Christian teachers and preachers and friends can only solidify your OBJECTIVE grasp of the truth.

Have you seen heaven?

No, what does this have to do with anything?

Will apologetics alone save someone?

Certainly not. What does this have to do with anything?

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

Absolutely. Though I much prefer the solider King James: NOW FAITH IS THE SUBSTANCE OF THINGS HOPED FOR, THE EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN.

The words in the KJV seem to be trying to convey to us the solidity and objectivity of what faith really is while the words in your translation make it weakly subjective. Faith is not the airy fairy subjective personal belief of the blind leap, it's something solid and real. When you have true faith THEN you really begin to understand Reality, then you really begin to KNOW, then you have EVIDENCE, real evidence.

Elmers Brother said...

Have you seen heaven?

No, what does this have to do with anything?

Will apologetics alone save someone?

Certainly not. What does this have to do with anything?

they have to do with Kierkegaards argument


this essentially is the crux of his argument

apologetics seems like a reasonable objective way of discovering truth but it still does not save

trusting others who influence us such as pastors etc...does not save us

believing in a heaven...takes faith though the there is no empirical evidence (besides the Bible)) to suggest it exists

Elmers Brother said...

the word evidence in the Greek

It is the kind of proof an attorney would present in a court of law that would produce a
conviction. So, your mighty trust in the foundation of your faith produces the evidence that convicts you and your acts as a
follower of Jesus Christ.

Faith said...

I don't disagree with you, I'm trying to understand where he is coming from.

But in a sense I think he is suggesting that we have to work out our own faith. He really despised the institutional state church.


I'd have to know more about what was wrong with the church in his day. I suppose from what you are saying that it was a dead church in which you learned by rote but never had a living personal relationship with God? Or was it already teaching liberalism and compromising with science as the liberal churches came to do after Darwin?

Did he really put his finger on the problem or did he fail in his critique? See, I get the feeling he missed something important even though he may have been right in a basic way about the problem of the institutional church of his day. State churches get to be like Catholicism, dispensing a phony salvation through external rites and rituals. Is that what he was objecting to? If so, he doesn't seem to have ever found the cure, which is the revelation of God Himself in the Bible.

So there are no spiritual children...just because my parents were Christians or I attend church, know all the apologetic arguments...none of them save me.

Yes. You ARE describing an external rote sort of religion, and yes, none of that can save you, and even if your parents really ARE Christians and even if what you've been taught is all true, if you do not have your own personal relationship with God through His word you are not saved. Knowledge can't save you.

They are objective truths but they don't tell me how to live or what God would have me to do...if I am truly to lose my life for Him...I must know what He wants for MY life.

OK, I'm getting a little bit how you are using these terms. Yes, it could all be objectively true but it can't save you.

However, when you really grasp that the Bible is truly objectively true THEN that can be the door to the Reality that is missing until that point. Something has to reach out and grab you and make you know that this really really is really really true, and not just an intellectual assent but a living breathing Reality. THEN you begin to live it and not until then. The intellect can't save anybody. Reason can't save anybody.

But I don't think Kierkegaard's choice of words will get you closer to where you want to be either. As I said, MAYBE in his day his critique could have done it for some (maybe, but I wonder), but in our day I think his words just put up a barrier and lead us back to the flesh and the world and the self and psychology and philosophy.

That could be very different than what He wants for your life? Yes? In that sense, in my understanding he made sense.

Well, of course God's call on your life is going to be entirely different from His call on mine, but I've been focused on the basics which are the same for all of us -- to conform us all to His image, to take on His attributes and give up our own while He directs our particular paths.

Does Kierkegaard write about prayer at all? I've been coming to realize that I don't pray enough and how hard it is to pray enough but how essential it is. There is no other way to make contact with God Himself. Yes He speaks to us through His word and prayer has to be fed by His word anyway, and He may speak to us in events and all kinds of things in our lives, but prayer is our way to communicate with Him directly and even come to experience Him directly if we are persistent and consistent about it.

Faith said...

apologetics seems like a reasonable objective way of discovering truth but it still does not save

trusting others who influence us such as pastors etc...does not save us

believing in a heaven...takes faith though the there is no empirical evidence (besides the Bible)) to suggest it exists


No, there is only witness evidence. But what witnesses we have! -- God Himself, the Lord Jesus, Paul, Isaiah, the apostle John. Science is foolish to discount this kind of evidence.

But again, no, intellectual knowledge alone won't save.

But it can lead to an experiential knowledge that IS at least a major part of salvation.

Faith has to be practiced.

Again, Kierkegaard seems only to lead to another just as deadening form of intellectual understanding, far from salvation, far from the living truths of God's revelation.

Elmers Brother said...

But I don't think Kierkegaard's choice of words will get you closer to where you want to be either. As I said, MAYBE in his day his critique could have done it for some (maybe, but I wonder), but in our day I think his words just put up a barrier and lead us back to the flesh and the world and the self and psychology and philosophy.

This is mostly academic for me, I'm not looking for answers from Kierkegaard but I do think that God does care for us as individuals, gives us certain gifts, callings etc as you allude to.

-- to conform us all to His image, to take on His attributes and give up our own while He directs our particular paths.

Perhaps this is what Kierkegaard had in mind.


Does Kierkegaard write about prayer at all? I've been coming to realize that I don't pray enough and how hard it is to pray enough but how essential it is. There is no other way to make contact with God Himself. Yes He speaks to us through His word and prayer has to be fed by His word anyway, and He may speak to us in events and all kinds of things in our lives, but prayer is our way to communicate with Him directly and even come to experience Him directly if we are persistent and consistent about it.

I haven't got that far into his writings yet.

Elmers Brother said...

No, there is only witness evidence. But what witnesses we have! -- God Himself, the Lord Jesus, Paul, Isaiah, the apostle John. Science is foolish to discount this kind of evidence.

it's not scientific that's why...it's legal testimony

Again, Kierkegaard seems only to lead to another just as deadening form of intellectual understanding, far from salvation, far from the living truths of God's revelation.

I'm not sure of this yet, but I will try to discover it.

Elmers Brother said...

Something has to reach out and grab you and make you know that this really really is really really true, and not just an intellectual assent but a living breathing....

a leap of faith?

Faith said...

No, not a leap of faith. The point is that to my mind a leap of faith is based on no real understanding, let alone a sense of how really really true God's revelation is. Maybe it's a failure to grasp what K really meant but it just sounds like making a wild stab in the dark toward something you have just the barest hint of an idea might have something to it. But I was trying to contrast that attitude with the really really real stuff. It is no blind leap when you have that sense of its real reality, it's not blind and it's not a leap, it is an open-eyed embrace of what you KNOW to be true.

The distinction between legal and scientific evidence is a tad strained. James Hutton comes back from Siccar Point convinced that the rock formation there proves that the earth is old. He writes it up. The scientists who hear his paper don't have to go and see Siccar Point for themselves, to replicate his discovery empirical-science style, they simply BELIEVE HIM. They believe his description and they are either persuaded or not persuaded of his conclusions based on it.

Same with Darwin's witnessing of the flora and fauna on his Beagle journey. True, these things CAN be replicated. The scientists CAN go to the Galapagos and see the turtles and the finches if they want, but they don't have to. They can simply believe Darwin. And MOST of science is that way.

Of course they came to the wrong conclusions about it all, but the observations themselves were quite trustworthy.

The Bible's are even more so, and the interpretations are divine.

beamish said...

Helen Thomas said something monumentally stupid.

In other, related news, the sun rose this morning.

Elmers Brother said...

The scientists who hear his paper don't have to go and see Siccar Point for themselves, to replicate his discovery empirical-science style, they simply BELIEVE HIM. They believe his description and they are either persuaded or not persuaded of his conclusions based on it.

but they can go see it if they want

we can't prove scientifically what time we got up this morning but through legal testimony we can establish the fact....

unless we are able to go back in time

Elmers Brother said...

and if one subscribes to this definition of science:

Good science must be: observable, repeatable (in a controlled environment), falsifiable, and able to predict new facts or events.

Elmers Brother said...

And MOST of science is that way.

yes, often times it is a faith system whose batting average is rarely worked out.

Craig and Heather said...

Elmers Brother,

I'd be interested in hearing your conclusion about Kierkgaard's work

Have only read snippets about him and believe his view was an overreaction to the cold, lifeless ritual of the church in his time.

God is transcendent, for sure, but Existentialism places God up and over all, while also removes a sense of trustworthy solidity about His Person. It seems to ignore the fact that God came down to us in order to make Himself known in a way to which we can relate.

Faith said:

But again, no, intellectual knowledge alone won't save.

But it can lead to an experiential knowledge that IS at least a major part of salvation.

Faith has to be practiced.


Her statement acknowledges the necessity of BOTH intellectual, objectively focused information and experiential, subjective.

Christianity is a relationship, and both elements are necessary in any relationship.

If Kierkgaard meant we must take a blind leap of faith, he was wrong.

If, by "leap of faith" he meant we must accept that God is God, we are simply clay pots in His hands, and can trust that He is good even when we DON'T understand what He's doing....I'd say his understanding was pretty Biblically accurate.

Truth is subjective, for sure, but only as it relates to the Author of truth.


Anyway, your discussion has been interesting to follow.
Heather

Joe said...

Ducky: "Does that demostrate a pervasive bias in her career?"

Maybe...maybe not. But it DOES typify it.

Joe said...

Somebody tell me where we got the idea that everybody has carte blanche freedom of speech. You don't have free speech in my home, or on my blog or in a crowded theater.

As I read the First Amendment, it clearly has Congress as its subject and forbids lawmakers from impinging on free speech...specifically political speech directed at them.

How did we interpolate that to common vulgarity (not nasty language, vulgarity as in the lowest common denominator)?

Now, the press IS guaranteed the freedom to say what it wants to say against or for politicians. It is not (Constitutionally) free to slander or impeach with reckless abandon.

I submit that the mis-construing of the meaning of free speech is one of the dire causes of our troubles as a society.

Z said...

Joe "I submit that the mis-construing of the meaning of free speech is one of the dire causes of our troubles as a society."

I think it's our very freedoms which are bringing us down, killing us...look how muslims know our rights better than we do and use them against us.

Faith said...

Joe, how right you are about the misunderstanding of freedom of speech! The product of a century of judges who had been cut free of the nation's Christian roots and had come to embrace the false idea of an "evolving" code of justice.

Elmers Brother said...

what would be the meaning of free speech if Thomas is not allowed to be her vulgar self?

who would decide what would be vulgar?

would there be code words that you could use and not use?

who codifies it?

what would the punishments be?

tha malcontent said...

She’s so ugly that she would make a buzzard puke! Her apology wasn't worth a hill of beans.. Progressivism means never having to say you’re sorry. All I can say is that it was about frigging time. I hope that she went back under the rock that she came from.

Z said...

"who would decide what would be vulgar?"

That's the scariest part about this, Elbro; Americans used to know what was vulgar and what was not.

Craig and Heather said...

How did we interpolate that to common vulgarity (not nasty language, vulgarity as in the lowest common denominator)?

I think that happened about the same time "liberty" was redefined to mean "license".

Z's got a point about the fact that we used to have a generalized agreement as a society of what is and is not socially acceptable behavior.

It really is disheartening to see advocacy for "healthy nudity" while at the same time a public Nativity display is considered "offensive"

H

Elmers Brother said...

I'm just curious how it would work?

I understand that their is responsibility that comes with our freedom.

Do we as conservatives appreciate the hate speech laws we have?

Are they an attempt to control what is said?

I'm just curious what did it look like when people knew what vulgar was?

Were people thrown in jail?

Elmers Brother said...

I hate homophones

there

I'm homophonic

Craig and Heather said...

Do we as conservatives appreciate the hate speech laws we have?

Are they an attempt to control what is said?


Interesting how the hate speech stuff never seems to work in favor of Christian/conservative thinking.

I'd say there's currently an attempt being made to control what's being said.

If you really have no solid foundation on which to rest your own system of "values",the best you can do is stick your fingers in your ears and yell "Shut up, shut up, shut up!"

H

Elmers Brother said...

The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.

The Courts have always agreed that not all speech was protected. The following list includes some of the most common types of speech that are not protected:

Defamation (meaning slander and libel)
Threatening or fighting words
Treason
Obscenity
Lying in court (perjury)
Profanity
Speech containing copyright infringements
Sedition
Trade secrets
Words that promote lawless activity
Words that cause contempt of court

The Supreme Court heard a few Freedom of Speech cases before the 1900's, but not many. During the 1800s and early 1900s, most Free Speech cases were pushed by labor union organizations who wanted to be heard. In many cases these groups were restricted by the government.

The Supreme Court generally though has considered Freedom of Expression to be included in the Freedom of Speech Clause. So it has ruled that Flag burning is protected, in spite of the protests of most Americans. The Court has generally ruled that speech combined with activities, such as picketing, can be regulated in some ways. The activities can be regulated, but the speech cannot. So the government could form a designated place for picketers at certain events. They would not be allowed to picket at other places and this would be permissible.

During the Vietnam era, the Court made a noticeable departure from this principle. Some people were burning draft cards in protest against the war. This was illegal and some people were prosecuted for it. The Court ruled that this was not protected speech because the government was not specifically trying to squash their dissent.

This was a very different decision than the one it made regarding flag burning in a 1989 case called Texas vs. Johnson. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that flag burning was protected speech and that the "government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

Elmers Brother said...

Interesting how the hate speech stuff never seems to work in favor of Christian/conservative thinking.

which is why I find it somewhat ironic that some would favor some sort of restriction on what Thomas said.

Faith said...

The Supreme Court of the 20th century is not the Supreme Court as originally envisioned, Elbro. They have utterly changed their concept of law and justice from the original intent of the founders, from a Christian-based understanding to something like a Darwin-based understanding under which law "evolves" rather than being rooted in the Law of God. They also now rule by precedent rather than by fixed law. This has been the reason for many of those rulings you document which have basically overthrown the original American concept and established a rotten relativistic and anti-Christian concept in its place.

Respect for the flag used to be enforced by law for instance. Now we "respect" low-life idiots who don't mind dissing the symbol of the best nation that ever existed on this earth or offending the patriotic feelings of an entire nation.

Craig and Heather said...

government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

All laws are based on someone's concept of what is right or wrong. In a democratically inclined society, there is a generalized societal consensus of what is moral.

h

Craig and Heather said...

which is why I find it somewhat ironic that some would favor some sort of restriction on what Thomas said.

I don't believe it is appropriate to gag everyone with whom I disagree.

But the pluralistic society in which we live today makes it VERY difficult to hold to a uniformly just standard of free speech unless any and every form of smut is equally considered to be expression of one's own ideas.

I wouldn't necessarily call the US a "Christian nation", but there was a time when the Biblical standard of morality was widely accepted a good "rule of thumb" for governing our nation.

H

Craig and Heather said...

For the record, I don't feel Helen Thomas's comments warrant censorship.

A good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth the good. And an evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart brings forth the evil. For out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks. Luke 6:45

According to Jesus, it's important to listen to what other's say as it reveals who they are.

JMHO

H

Elmers Brother said...

my guess is it's a backlash against those times when the government over restricted free speech e.g. Alien and Sedition Act,
Civil War and WWI

If you can point me to some examples Faith of your opinion concerning the Supreme Court, I'm interested.

Yet there was a surprising amount of freedom despite habeas corpus being suspended:

...“officials in both the Union and the Confederacy permitted a surprising degree of freedom of expression.” President Abraham Lincoln allowed his critics — including Northerners opposed to the war (“Copperheads”) — wide latitude in railing against his policies. Thus, the “Copperhead press” was routinely antagonistic and even vitriolic in its protests. Of course, sometimes Union soldiers and others sympathetic to Lincoln took matters into their own hands, as when Ambrose Kimball, editor of the Essex County Democrat, was tarred and feathered by a frenzied Massachusetts mob for printing anti-Union stories and editorials. Hence, Lincoln’s toleration co-existed with occasional flurries of intolerant mob rage.

Elmers Brother said...

But the pluralistic society in which we live today makes it VERY difficult to hold to a uniformly just standard of free speech unless any and every form of smut is equally considered to be expression of one's own ideas.

I agree there should be restrictions, there is a common form of decency, appropriateness etc and as I said earlier I don't like what Thomas said.

While I pray that God would one day cause a revival here I realize the longer we go without turning toward Him the more difficult it will be.

Just as I am not holding out for a Marxiat Utopia, I'm also not holding out for a Christian one either, at least not till I see heaven.

So until then I ask the questions about what we will look like if we don't. This is why I wondered what did we look like when there was a 'time' when there was an agreed upon definition of vulgar. What happened if a person expressed himself this way before 'the Supreme Court changed'? Was their freedom of speech/expression restricted? What are some examples? If there was a return to this period what do you think it looks like? How is it codified and what are the punishments?

Faith said...

I got this assessment of the change in the thinking of the Supreme Court from the DVD series The Truth Project and I failed to write down the quotes given there to support the claim. But I'll try to find them online somewhwere. Quotes from various Supreme Court justices mostly as I recall, before Darwin and after Darwin.

Z said...

For Pete's sake, Elbro....you're asking me what it was like when people all knew what vulgar was?
It was years ago and people went to church and lived lives that reflected that...and when someone flipped someone the middle finger salute, they were sorry later and everyone came down on him hard and he took it because they were right.

People censored THEMSELVES out of decency; friends censored friends, parents actually censored their children...people grew up knowing right from wrong. It wasn't THAT long ago! YOu remember none of that? :-)

Craig and Heather said...

If there was a return to this period what do you think it looks like? How is it codified and what are the punishments?


In our society, the laws and leadership simply reflect the current state of the culture.

Liberals seem to love the phrase "you can't legislate morality" and will hold up abortion as an example. They insist people who want to kill their babies will do it regardless of what the laws say.
In one respect, they are dead right. You cannot change a person's heart condition by simply slapping laws and penalties on them.


Until/unless individuals are revived on a spiritual level, it would be pretty disastrous to push for laws that hold everyone to a retro-form of moral speech code.

H

Faith said...

I think it's going to be MORE disastrous if we DON'T retro our laws to some extent. We're under God's judgment BECAUSE of our liberalized laws, not because women will find ways to murder their unborn babies no matter what, but because the murder is legally blessed by our government. That's what brings judgment against a nation, not individuals sinning as individuals always do, but a nation's leadership officially encouraging and approving of the sin. If gay marriage becomes a law of the land I think we can pretty much call it quits for the nation at that point. If not before.

Elmers Brother said...

People censored THEMSELVES out of decency; friends censored friends, parents actually censored their children...people grew up knowing right from wrong. It wasn't THAT long ago! YOu remember none of that? :-)

I guess maybe I'm just wondering if Thomas had said this during that time what would have happened?

would she have gone to jail?

I hope you know I'm not trying to be belligerent here, I'm just trying to understand what it was like when things were so different.

Until/unless individuals are revived on a spiritual level, it would be pretty disastrous to push for laws that hold everyone to a retro-form of moral speech code.

absolutely. I think you summarized what I've been thinking.

Elmers Brother said...

It's why I want a divorce Faith, like Sweden and Norway.

Elmers Brother said...

For Pete's sake, Elbro....you're asking me what it was like when people all knew what vulgar was?
It was years ago and people went to church and lived lives that reflected that...and when someone flipped someone the middle finger salute, they were sorry later and everyone came down on him hard and he took it because they were right.


So you think Thomas would have censored herself during this time?

I'm a child of the 80s Z and I don't think I paid much attention to politics etc until about the mid 90s.

Faith said...

Sorry, Elbro, didn't get your reference to divorce -- Sweden -- Norway. Please explain.

Craig and Heather said...

That's what brings judgment against a nation, not individuals sinning as individuals always do, but a nation's leadership officially encouraging and approving of the sin.

Faith, I would so love to agree with you on this. If it was up to me, I'd vote out abortion, gay marriage, public nudity and swearing. Abortion at least ought to be outlawed as murder has always been illegal in our country.

But as much as I hate to admit it, enacting laws which enforce dress codes and erect speech fences would eventually resemble Ducky's authoritarian force-everybody-to-share against their will form of govt. (He's really a closet Calvinist, as is evidenced by his unwitting acknowledgment of man's naturally depraved condition)

The Temperance Movement didn't fare so well, if I recall. It seems immoral activity actually increased above and beyond personal overindulgence in alcoholic beverages.

I think our best course of action for now is found in 2 Chronicles 7

If I shut up the heavens, and there is no rain, or if I command the locusts to devour the land, or if I send a plague among My people;
if My people, who are called by My name, shall humble themselves and pray, and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from Heaven and will forgive their sin and will heal their land.


If there's even a chance of visible change in our country, it needs to begin with God's people humbling ourselves first and repenting of our own idolatries.

H

Elmers Brother said...

Sorry, Elbro, didn't get your reference to divorce -- Sweden -- Norway. Please explain.

bloodless secession

I agree with you Heather, God at the point of a gun...now a good idea.

Elmers Brother said...

not a good idea

Faith said...

I totally agree, Heather, that we have to have revival or we're sunk, which is what I've been saying all along too. But that doesn't change the truth of my statement: The nation IS under judgment for legalized sin.

There's no way we could just change the laws against the tide of opinion anyway, but it's still true that if they don't change we're sunk. And if we don't have revival and there is no such change, I think Sharia law is where God's judgment will take us in the end. Bye bye America.

Faith said...

Good grief I am certainly NOT advocating "God at the point of a gun," Good GRIEF.

Ducky's here said...

How does this compare with Glenn Beck (admit it z, you're a fan) pushing the works of Elizabeth Dilling to his audience.

She was a raving anti-semite and Nazi sympathizer and Beck really had to back track on this one.

Z said...

Ducky, of course I"m a fan, I love America, he does, too....and he stands for what I stand for. Slam dunk (oops, sorry about those Celtics)

I don't know anything about who you're talking about ....you suggesting Beck's a NAZI LOVER, DUCKY!? you guys never quit, do you :-)

Z said...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/glenn-becks-nazi-loving-t_b_604021.html

You've all got to read that...it's a riot. Huffington pulls out ALL the stops with every stupid leftist dream about conservatives possible...By 3/4 of the way, I was laughing out loud.

BECK IS A NAZI and you should all be scared of him, did YOU KNOW THAT?...."his REAL problem is he's become a Conservative icon!" you can't make this stuff up!
I don't know why he touted this woman's book, but if anybody thinks Beck's a Nazi, you're not thinking! This was hilarious.
Ducky, get real. The left's been trying to kill beck for at least a year now...death threats, etc...

He does one stupid, uninformed thing and HELL TO PAY!? BIG SURPRISE~! :-)

beamish said...

I would think, given the thoroughly leftist pedigree that political anti-Semitism has, that Ducky would embrace Glenn Beck if he aligned himself with the ideas espoused by the left-wing labor activist Adolf Hitler, which were (understatedly) "progressive" in their national socialist pursuit of Karl Marx's "World Without Jews" wet dream.

Craig and Heather said...

How does this compare with Glenn Beck (admit it z, you're a fan) pushing the works of Elizabeth Dilling to his audience.

She was a raving anti-semite and Nazi sympathizer and Beck really had to back track on this one.


Interesting article, Z

I don't generally line up behind Mormons, regardless of how conservative.

Maybe Anita Dunn had it right with her glowing admiration of "philosopher" Mao?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEIi0NiBNdY&feature=related

(no, I'm not a Michael Savage fan--just happened across the clip)

The number of Chinese that simply starved to death under Mao's rule rivals the combined deaths of those under Stalin and Hitler.

At least he wasn't racially selective with his hatred.



H

Z said...

"I'm just trying to understand what it was like when things were so different."

better, decent, civilized....and nobody like Thomas would have ever have said anything like that in public. It's a very fine line, isn't it, Elbro...we should be able to say what we think with no retribution because of the First Amendment, but wishing Jews to go back to scenes of the holocaust should go unnoticed? We can't and mustn't punish her, but we can stand up to vile sentiment, right? And, let's face it, she lost her job. Not so much from indecency but from her sponsors and agents deciding the comment was too hot to be on her side anymore. So, it boiled down to MONEY.

Personally, I think it's a very sad end of a woman who'd worked hard all her life, but .....well, we're going 'round and 'round in circles here.

Do we just ignore what she said and move on? People would have stopped reading her, I'm guessing, for a while, then she'd have slowly been back in business had her sponsors/agents not dumped her, don't you think?

Elmers Brother said...

Yes I agree, it's about the money.

I just sometimes wonder about us as Christians too. In my own life I've thrown a lot of Christianieze and cliches at issues like this and hadn't thought them through well enough.

It's easy enough to say if we returned to some past value(s) without knowing what was different then. I'm speaking of myselft here. I try to think of the skeptic and non-Christian in these instances as well.

Z said...

"It's easy enough to say if we returned to some past value(s) without knowing what was different then. I'm speaking of myselft here. I try to think of the skeptic and non-Christian in these instances as well."

We won't return, we are unable by this point, Elbro....
And, even most of those skeptics and non-Christians were aware back then that one doesn't say things like this in public.
People over 50 are stunned at so many TV ads, etc, the expliciteness, the immorality...heck, we have a president who said "Kick ASS" on film...when I have a friend who called last night saying "I'm trying to teach my grandchildren to not say things like that and there's our president..."
presidents NEVER SAID THAT before.
but, I'm getting off subject, plus I have to get the foot up again!! DARN!
Ya, there were better times. Did people say things as hateful as Thomas' comment, SURE they did...but the whole world didn't hear about it via our new technologies.......

Whatever......I'd like to go back to decency, but it's a pipe dream.

Should we be fired for saying what she said? I think that's your point...and maybe it'll have to start happening, tho I'm against it....maybe we DO have to have laws now because people don't 'censor' themselves with politeness or sympathy for others.

Craig and Heather said...

But that doesn't change the truth of my statement: The nation IS under judgment for legalized sin.

Faith,

I hear you, sister. Although I still maintain that if "we the people" as individuals were not so self-centered and foolish, the passing of pro-sin laws would have never been tolerated.

All I'm trying to say is that "fixing" our laws before there is large-scale repentance of hearts is like trying to stop a massive heart-attack with a Band-aid. Death is still inevitable.



Paul said to the Corinthians "what have I to do with outsiders?"


And Peter wrote

For the time has come for the judgment to begin from the house of God. And if it first begins from us, what will be the end of those disobeying the gospel of God?
And if the righteous one is scarcely saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?


The American Church needs to drop to it's knees and put God back at the center. It is possible your fear of Sharia is exactly what God will use to bring this about.

Believers under heavy persecution don't tend to run each other to divorce court or use prayer meetings as an excuse to gossip or use their money to build bigger and more impressive church buildings or fight each other about which color to paint the sanctuary....They're clinging to Jesus with everything they've got.

Because He's ALL they've got.

Hopefully, we're not so far gone we can't be turned back to Him in a more gentle manner.

H

Craig and Heather said...

The Savage clip I linked makes an excellent point beyond what brand of communism is being pushed on the American public.


He is the only commentator I've heard who has said the ruling elites in BOTH major parties are playing a "shell game" which keeps the public off-balance while they maneuver behind the scenes to alter the landscape.

The Republicrats use hot button topics to keep citizens fighting each other.

Liberals vs Conservatives
Republicans vs Democrats
Right vs Left
Religious vs Secular
Pro-life vs Pro "choice"
Environmentalists vs anyone with common sense

It's classic divide and conquer.

By the time we're done tearing each other up, they'll be ready to
slide in and neatly sweep up the pieces.

And the thing is, even the highest echelons of evil human govt are being manipulated spiritually.

H

Faith said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Faith said...

I agree, it has to begin with the church. It's the church that got out of whack in the first place and it's the church that needs to repent if the nation can be saved. But I don't see it happening.

I never said anything different, but you implied I was advocating changing laws without changing hearts and I wasn't. Don't read things into what I write, please.

Craig and Heather said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Craig and Heather said...

Don't read things into what I write, please.

Not reading into your statements. Sorry to appear to be doing so.

I understand that you are not advocating for a law-only change.

Just was emphasizing my own point. I believe the order of reform is important.

H

Anonymous said...

Glenn Beck does not sit in the front row of the W.H. Briefing Room masquerading as a reporter, any more than Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, Thomas did. There's a difference. They are commentators, she claimed to be & postured as a journalist.

She had every right to spout her hateful opinions, but she paid the price.

Silvrlady

Elmers Brother said...

Glenn Beck does not sit in the front row of the W.H. Briefing Room masquerading as a reporter, any more than Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity, Thomas did. There's a difference. They are commentators, she claimed to be & postured as a journalist.

she stopped writing as a journalist some time ago and has been a commentatort, editorialist. So the same rules apply to her as they would to Beck.

Faith said...

Here's a page on how she's said such things many times before. Which is why I was surprised she's getting such a drubbing for it now. It's just standard leftist Israel-hatred.

Some quotes from the link:

Absolutely no one in the White House Press Corps was surprised.

Several, including one of my favorites Brit Hume, admitted that they had heard her express similar hateful statements throughout her career. . .

After one long and winding “question” from Thomas, the late Tony Snow thanked her and said it was always helpful to get the Hezbollah point of view.

How long do you think Ms. Thomas would have lasted if she had been anti-Muslim or pro-Christian? . . .

Z said...

Faith, TONY SNOW ROCKS! That is one of THE funniest lines I've heard...what a gentleman; a little slam there but nothing nasty. How I wish we had statesmen left like that young man who died so young.
Thanks for sharing that.

Faith said...

I loved that line too, Z. Got right to the point in the cleverest way.