[NoBullZone]

My quarrel with Helen is not that she is ugly ... rather it is based on my opinion that a so-called "journalist" who has several times made her contempt of GWB obvious should be allowed press credentials ... if GWB's staff had any cujones, they would revoke her credentials and cite her various columns as proof she is unfit to report in an objective manner ...

And David Gregory would be next ...

PS - I find the line of attacks on Helen, Michael Moore, etc based on their physical appearance rather shallow ... I don't care what they look like, I care about what they say and whether it is truthful or not ..

NBZ

[Resolute]

What you said ... Ditto in all points.

These people have gotten used to being allowed -- generally without challenge -- to use one set of adjectives (mostly negative) for one side, and another set of adjectives (mostly positive) for the other. They like to pretend, perhaps for their own self image, to be "objective." This facade has been for the most part demolished and now they are in some cases impotent with rage. Impotent because they perhaps cannot be truly objective -- they are simply unable to do it. For to be truly objective requires a framework called reality, which approximately half of the post WWII populace has abandoned for one fantasy or another. Most modern "journalists" are essentially incapable of objectivity, because they are unable to abandon their own illusions.

[Turk82_1]

Of course the attacks based on physical appearance are shallow! We're just really having fun. We all know how biased these folks are, so we reserve our best intellectual arguments for the non-obvious causes, and delight in having Arafat and Helen doing "The Monster Mash".